19 Dec 16
Originally posted by josephwWhy is it you think you stating this opinion is relevant? What does the message have to do with you? It wasn't sent to you and I didn't show it to you. Why do you think your admiration for or inclination to defend Suzianne's behaviour has any bearing on how I chose to deal with what she did?
...the PM just simply isn't threatening or abusive in any legitimate way.
19 Dec 16
Originally posted by josephwYou really need to broaden your perspective.
As I have already said, if a PM contained a viable threat of abuse, then sharing it would be justified, but why then are there virtually only two persons who see the PM as "threatening and abusive" and everyone else doesn't?
Firstly: there are many more than two people who think FMF was justified in sharing the message, they are just not all posting.
Secondly: the "everybody else" you are refering to is just they few people from your little in-group of cronies, all of whom disliked FMF before this episode, and who just happen to be posting in here.
Thirdly: the wider and entire RHP forum community is a minuscule representation of this site's membership. That you consider, yourself and your tiny little group of 4 or 5 of the most unprincipled posters on the forum to somehow be representative of "everyone here" is indicative of your pin-hole perspective in this matter.
19 Dec 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhere is it you think I am saying any such thing? You are making stuff up again. Copy paste the sentence or sentences you are referring to verbatim and then ask me an honest question.
The entire basis for you revealing the text was that it contained what you termed abusive material and now you are saying that its irrelevant simply because someone else has a different perspective..
Originally posted by josephwNo it isn't the "consensus of the majority" - it's you and your tiny little band of cronies.
The consensus of the majority is that you abused the confidentiality and trust rule implied in the Private Message facility by sharing an otherwise innocuous PM with those you thought would be sympathetic to your reasons for sharing it.
Furthermore there is no "trust rule" implied or otherwise in the messaging facility. Perhaps you would like to post the text you have seen which gives you this impression?
furthermore if you feel some "trust rule" has been "abused" you should immediately report the matter to the site administration who will no doubt deal with FMF.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThis is a facile parody argument. There was no "obligation" to keep the message secret. There was no "obligation" to report it to the mods. There was no "obligation" to show it to people. There was no "obligation" to reply to her message. There was no "obligation" for her to send it. There was no "obligation" for either of us to send any messages to each other saying that if we were ever to meet we would hurt each other.
If you have any argument as to why a message like that would incur an obligation on the part of its recipient to reveal its contents, that would be relevant.
Originally posted by divegeesterDisagreeing with you = "unprincipled"
You really need to broaden your perspective.
Firstly: there are many more than two people who think FMF was justified in sharing the message, they are just not all posting.
Secondly: the "everybody else" you are refering to is just they few people from your little in-group of cronies, all of whom disliked FMF before this episode, and who just happe ...[text shortened]... be representative of "everyone here" is indicative of your pin-hole perspective in this matter.
Yeah, yeah, we get it. We just don't agree with that misrepresentation.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieOh really? So when you posted this:
...I was referring to his time on the forum boards, not to his illness....
Originally posted by robbie carrobie
You keep lashing out Jeester, its not our fault you have made yourself a forum pariah. Perhaps its karma for all the hurt you have caused others, like GB by way of example.
What "hurt" have I caused Grampy Bobby and others that you are referring to?
Please been specific robbie; there are serious offenses you are accusing me of and if you cannot back your bullshlt claims up then I WILL report you.
I'm listening...
Originally posted by HandyAndyAndy,
I haven't got a guilty conscience, Rusty. And I have no idea why I waste time trying to reason with fools like you.
Now you have stooped to name calling. Think that will help with your argument?
I wish you a Merry Christmas and you call me a fool. What character you show.
-VR
Originally posted by divegeesterDive,
You really need to broaden your perspective.
Firstly: there are many more than two people who think FMF was justified in sharing the message, they are just not all posting.
.
IF as you say there are many who think FMF was justified in sharing the P.M. then why are they not posting? I can tell you why, they don't agree with it! IF they did they would be throwing in their 5 cents worth! Hell, he claims to have sent messages to 20 then changed it to 24, think some of them would speak up on his behalf, if they agreed.
-VR
Originally posted by divegeesterDive,
[b
Secondly: the "everybody else" you are refering to is just they few people from your little in-group of cronies, all of whom disliked FMF before this episode, and who just happen to be posting in here.
.[/b]
It has nothing to do with people disliking FMF, it has to do with disliking what he did. He himself said he found the idle threat to be ludicrous and Laughable. Does that sound like someone who is in fear of what a woman said?
As I told you before if suzianne has all these cronies you keep mentioning then why are people who have had disagreements with her backing her on this? Why are you the only one backing up FMF. Guess since you like using the word CRONIES that would make you one of his cronies?
Kindest Regards,
You Clan Brother, for now,
-VR
19 Dec 16
Originally posted by FMFOriginally posted by josephw
Why is it you think you stating this opinion is relevant? What does the message have to do with you? It wasn't sent to you and I didn't show it to you. Why do you think your admiration for or inclination to defend Suzianne's behaviour has any bearing on how I chose to deal with what she did?
...the PM just simply isn't threatening or abusive in any legitimate way.
"Why is it you think you stating this opinion is relevant?"
It's not just an opinion. It's the truth. The PM isn't "threatening and abusive". And I don't think "stating this opinion" is irrelevant because your premise for sharing the PM is based on YOUR opinion that it is "threatening and abusive".
What does the message have to do with you?"
Nothing, but you shared the PM, and so I'm involved in the debate about that.
" It wasn't sent to you and I didn't show it to you."
"The PM" was indeed sent to me, and I'm not going to share with you or any other by whom. It is after all private.
"Why do you think your admiration for or inclination to defend Suzianne's behaviour has any bearing on how I chose to deal with what she did?"
My "admiration for or inclination to defend Suzianne's behavior" is irrelevant to this discussion. What you chose to do with a private message is relevant to the topic of this thread.
That you should frame the question in such a way, or even pose it at all, is indicative of either whether you are cognizant of what one means by what they say, or you are deliberately trying to obfuscate the discussion. Or both.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieTunnel vision is necessary when conversing with a weasel.
Actually its you that is way off base, infact you are wired to da moon. I was referring to his time on the forum boards, not to his illness. Please try to make room for other possibilities and you can avoid this type of tunnel vision.