Memo

GHOST HUNTER: TOS states don't tell personal information you continually do.

Originally posted by GHOST HUNTER
please read TOS, all personal information posted will be removed, nice or nasty there's no place for it here

What are some examples of me "continually" posting "personal information" in contravention of the TOS?

Originally posted by GHOST HUNTER
and i do you as well
just try and post your own thoughts for a change, not what you think FMF will approve of.

Again you seem to be drawing inferences from random pieces of information in order to support this view of me which you are building.
Everything I post is an extension of my own personal perspective of the thread topic or the post I am replying to. I don't seek FMF's approval any more than I seek your, robbie carrobie's, Suzianne's, Grampy Bobby's, Stratreader's or any other person's approval.

Originally posted by divegeester
Why do you think it was removed?

only the moderator will know for sure. but all personal information should be automatically removed, so i can't comment.
was it only GB posts removed? or all posts? if your posts were also removed, did you do something wrong.?
got to go now, got a vet coming to look at one of my sick horses, damn i hope GB does not make an aggressive post about "war horse" or something

Originally posted by GHOST HUNTER
only the moderator will know for sure. but all personal information should be automatically removed, so i can't comment.
was it only GB posts removed? or all posts? if your posts were also removed, did you do something wrong.?
got to go now, got a vet coming to look at one of my sick horses, damn i hope GB does not make an aggressive post about "war horse" or something

Surely you must realise that the moderator removes alerted posts because they have been deemed to break the sites ToS. It is only Grampy Bobby's posts that have been removed. In the last week at least 3 entire threads have had to be removed because of his constant trolling of me through the use of repeated reference to a dying family friend who's name he knows from a post I made a couple of years ago. The trolling is vicious, vindictive and a personal attack using sensitive personal information. The moderator removed it without hesitation. This thread topic is about why posters like myself often call out Grampy Bobby for this type of behaviour. His crony friends ignore is behaviour, or fail to see it for what it is; hence this discussion.

Originally posted by GHOST HUNTER
Again you make allegations without any proof to back it up.two reasons
1] you have some sort of amazing gift, only you can see the aggression in harmless copy and paste posts by GB.
2] you don't like GB because he's a popular well liked member on here.
the candle does attract moths does it not?
Again, GB originally posted he would not re-new his sub ...[text shortened]... ngue-in-cheek, but only the writer of the post knows for certain what they are actually meaning.

You are really a different kind of stupid aren't you?

Originally posted by divegeester
Surely you must realise that the moderator removes alerted posts because they have been deemed to break the sites ToS. It is only Grampy Bobby's posts that have been removed. In the last week at least 3 entire threads have had to be removed because of his constant trolling of me through the use of repeated reference to a dying family friend who's name he ...[text shortened]... His crony friends ignore is behaviour, or fail to see it for what it is; hence this discussion.

And yet you are apparently perfectly happy for your best friend FMF to quote your friend's name openly in this thread, and then to justify it by whining that FMF had done it first, which, as every teacher knows and every erstwhile schoolchild remembers is the cry of the pathetic and guilty. Passive aggression in action.

Originally posted by Startreader
And yet you are apparently perfectly happy for your best friend FMF to quote your friend's name openly in this thread, and then to justify it by whining that FMF had done it first, which, as every teacher knows and every erstwhile schoolchild remembers is the cry of the pathetic and guilty. Passive aggression in action.

The issue wasn't mentioning Peter Newmann's name, Startreader. The issue was Grampy Bobby - even according to one of his own definitions - "trolling" divegeester by using the fact that the man was a personal friend of divegeester's family and trying to score cheap points by leveraging what the dying man might have hypothetically thought about divegeester disagreeing with and criticizing Grampy Bobby in public.

Originally posted by Startreader to divegeester
Passive aggression in action.

You seem to be yet another poster who does not get what "passive aggression" is.

In your view (and according to your understanding of the term) was Grampy Bobby's leveraging of personal information about a relative of another poster [who does not post on this forum] and speculating that this relative would not approve of what divegeester had said to Grampy Bobby... [1] a form of "aggression"? [2] A form of "passive aggression"? [3] A decent and acceptable debating tactic?

Originally posted by FMF
The issue wasn't mentioning Peter Newmann's name, Startreader. The issue was Grampy Bobby - even according to one of his own definitions - "trolling" divegeester by using the fact that the man was a personal friend of divegeester's family and trying to score cheap points by leveraging what the dying man might have hypothetically thought about divegeester disagreeing with and criticizing Grampy Bobby in public.

On the contrary, actually using a person's name is explicitly against the site's TOS in respect of harassment and was part of the reason why one RHP member was and still is banned from posting in forums. Thus, your name-quoting post is certainly alertable but I shall not be alerting it, nor am I urging anybody else to do so. Anyone may, of course, do so of their own free will.

Originally posted by Startreader
On the contrary, actually using a person's name is explicitly against the site's TOS in respect of harassment....

Nope. You've got completely wrong end of the stick.

Originally posted by Startreader
Thus, your name-quoting post is certainly alertable...

Complete nonsense. You've simply not understood what the issue has been. If someone is by any chance PM-ing you and feeding you these 'defence dot points' then you are being manipulated at the expense of your own credibility on this matter. 😀

Originally posted by Startreader
On the contrary, actually using a person's name is explicitly against the site's TOS

I know divegeester's real name but I have not used it. "Peter Newmann" is not divegeester's real name. Come on, really, what are you on about?

Originally posted by FMF
I know divegeester's real name but I have not used it. "Peter Newmann" is not divegeester's real name. Come on, really, what are you on about?

Then what name was objectionable to divegeester?

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Then what name was objectionable to divegeester?

What was objectionable was you trying to leverage the unknown opinions of his family friend against divegeester because you were in dispute with him here. You have also asked people what their deceased relatives would think of their disagreements with you. And with me you have tried to leverage my wife and kids into a dispute by suggesting that I am not a fit father or husband because you didn't like how I'd criticized you. I also remember you suddenly mentioning the name of another poster's baby kid in a display of fake bonhomie when you were being criticized by that poster. Disgraceful stuff I'd say, and stuff you dish out deliberately.

Originally posted by FMF to Grampy Bobby
And with me you have tried to leverage my wife and kids into a dispute by suggesting that I am not a fit father or husband because you didn't like how I'd criticized you.

Say if I had mentioned my wife's name at some point in the past ~ would you have mentioned it repeatedly when you were questioning my ability to raise a family recently [Thread: "chess leads to gambling and is a waste of time"]? If you had, would it have been decent and acceptable, or indecent and unacceptable.