Originally posted by josephwIt's post like this and the one by Suzianne below it, that are examples yours and other's complete lack of perspective and reality.
All you're doing here is vilifying someone most of us know and respect and enjoy the friendship of in spite of our differences.
We all have faults. Is it your intention to crush Suzianne on a personal level, publicly?
You will fail if you are, and that's exactly what it looks like to the majority except divegeester.
Your's and his continuous belittling of Suzianne is going to be your downfall. Let's not let that happen for all our sakes.
It's an argument about a PM ffs.
Originally posted by FMFNope. The real reason you didn't "report it", is because it would have hurt your little feelings to be laughed at by the admins for claiming it was "abusive" and "threatening", and for claiming that I "abused" the messaging system.
Haven't you read the thread? All these points have been addressed already. [1] I had no obligation to keep such a message - or such behaviour - secret. [2] I didn't want to block her - I am happy to receive decent, non-abusive, non-threatening messages from her, and do not want to close that door. [3] I didn't want to report her to the web site because (a) that ...[text shortened]... d me another message like that when she now knows what will happen? And why would I want her to?
You are not moved to change your behavior in the slightest for fear that I would get banned. If you want to talk about what is ludicrous here, that is it.
Originally posted by FMFAnd under every public message people on this site post, they see a warning not to "misrepresent the original post". But you ignore this warning with nearly every post you make. Misrepresentation should be your middle name. As the commercial says, "It's what you do."
I don't think I did. Suzianne ignored this note from the web site: [b]"Please refrain from sending any messages that may be considered abusive by the recipient."
[Note that it stipulates what I as the recipient consider to be abusive and not what the sender considers to be abusive.]
Meanwhile, there is no note from the web site saying "messages sent ...[text shortened]... ntent."
If there is something somewhere on the web site that says that, tell me where it is.[/b]
But it has never been my job to censor my messages because I might "offend" some pansy's feelings. In fact, you've been quite clear that you have no feelings and so cannot be "offended".
I absolutely feel no compulsion to alter my messages so that you, of all people, can avoid feeling "abused". I highly doubt that you've EVER felt "abused" by ANY message you've received from anyone while on this site. Perhaps you should begin monitoring your own messages if you feel so strongly that no one should ever be made to feel "abused".
18 Dec 16
Originally posted by divegeesterI didn't. He was already blocked because I'm not especially interested in seeing anything he has to say to me.
Speaking of "thinned skinned", why did you block FMF from replying to your message immediately after sending it?
I see that you are as familiar as he is with the art of misrepresentation. Not surprising.
Originally posted by FMFOh, no!
I'd say the takeaway here for you is even if you never truly realize what a silly and unpleasant headless chicken you are, don't send for-the-birds messages like the one you sent to me to people who have been trying to tell you - for years - that you are ~ truly ~ a silly and unpleasant headless chicken.
More abuse! Whatever shall I do?
Originally posted by divegeesterYou can stop trying to show us what a "big man" you are.
Good grief. You talking about "social restraint" when it is your crazy PM, and it's you putting FMF on block straight afterwards so he can't reply to you. It's you using Trump as an insult at someone because of sharing a PM! Really...
What's next Nazis, Hitler, Pol Pot?
This ain't Twitter.
Originally posted by SuzianneI've probably received about 5,000 messages and sent about 5,000. And I've shared two. In ten years. Tell me what you extrapolate from this again?
So, again, if you receive a PM that you don't like, you feel free to completely abandon social convention and spread it around as some sort of bizarre and self-serving "payback"?
Originally posted by divegeesterIf you want to talk about a "complete lack of perspective and reality", why don't you tell us again how "abusive and threatening" my PM was?
It's post like this and the one by Suzianne below it, that are examples yours and other's complete lack of perspective and reality.
It's an argument about a PM ffs.
18 Dec 16
Originally posted by SuzianneHow have I "misrepresented" your daft message? It's been posted verbatim on this thread!
And under every public message people on this site post, they see a warning not to "misrepresent the original post". But you ignore this warning with nearly every post you make. Misrepresentation should be your middle name. As the commercial says, "It's what you do."
But it has never been my job to censor my messages because I might "offend" some pan ...[text shortened]... ring your own messages if you feel so strongly that no one should ever be made to feel "abused".
18 Dec 16
Originally posted by SuzianneWhether you consider it abusive is neither here nor there. You are told by the web site not send messages that might be considered abusive by the recipient.
If you want to talk about a "complete lack of perspective and reality", why don't you tell us again how "abusive and threatening" my PM was?