22 Jan 16
Originally posted by divegeesterWow I seem to be recieving counsel by a serial ad hominem user on the relative morality of ad hominems, thanks man, its always refreshing to be counseled by an expert.😵
Using a person's chess rating as a means to discredit them and their argument is the most pathetic ad hominem you ever come out with.
Originally posted by divegeesteryou are the only one harping on about a dying friend. the vast majority on here will all be in the same boat, but do you want the monopoly in sympathy?
I entered that thread quite late on and found that there were at least 6 lengthy posts made by Grampy Bobby about a dying friend of our family with links to old posts where I had talked about him and about which I had previously requested several times of GB that he did not mention in public.
I have had to ask the site administration to go and remove ...[text shortened]... like this and you say nothing, so I'm afraid you have abdicated the right of posthumous redress.
try "growing a pair"
Originally posted by GHOST HUNTERThe issue is why was Grampy Bobby trying to leverage the unknown opinions of this dying family friend against divegeester in order to try to win an argument ~ and deflect criticism of his own behaviour ~ in a forum discussion.
you are the only one harping on about a dying friend. the vast majority on here will all be in the same boat, but do you want the monopoly in sympathy?
try "growing a pair"
Originally posted by FMFi could not see any posts by GB talking about dying friends, the point i am making, dive told GB to stop, but dive is the one that keeps mentioning it, which ,to me, makes his behaviour, well not the best i would say.
The issue is why was Grampy Bobby trying to leverage the unknown opinions of this dying family friend against divegeester in order to try to win an argument ~ and deflect criticism of his own behaviour ~ in a forum discussion.
Originally posted by GHOST HUNTERBut Grampy Bobby didn't stop, nor did he admit to doing it. Now the moderators have deleted Grampy Bobby's posts, the thread from which he took the personal bit of information which he was trying to use to leverage divegeester (just as he's been trying to leverage people's families and children, and dead relatives' opinions, in his efforts to score cheap forum points), and the entire recent thread where a lot of this raised its ugly head and which presumably ~ judging from how little you seem to know of what the issue was ~ you didn't read.
i could not see any posts by GB talking about dying friends, the point i am making, dive told GB to stop, but dive is the one that keeps mentioning it, which ,to me, makes his behaviour, well not the best i would say.
Originally posted by GHOST HUNTERIts the type of petty griping which we have come to associate with their posts. Its a great pity that they cannot see themselves the way other people see them. Basically they will attempt to find any pretext no matter how small with which to attempt to bludgeon other contributors. If they cannot find it, they will fabricate it.
i could not see any posts by GB talking about dying friends, the point i am making, dive told GB to stop, but dive is the one that keeps mentioning it, which ,to me, makes his behaviour, well not the best i would say.
Originally posted by FMFno i did not read it, but if dive felt so strongly about it, strongly enough to get the moderators involved to get the thread or posts removed.
But Grampy Bobby didn't stop, nor did he admit to doing it. Now the moderators have deleted Grampy Bobby's posts, the thread from which he took the personal bit of information which he was trying to use to leverage divegeester (just as he's been trying to leverage people's families and children, and dead relatives' opinions, in his efforts to score cheap forum p ...[text shortened]... h presumably ~ judging from how little you seem to know of what the issue was ~ you didn't read.
then why is dive still mentioning it?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe moderators clearly thought Grampy Bobby's behaviour was unacceptable.
Its the type of petty griping which we have come to associate with their posts. Its a great pity that they cannot see themselves the way other people see them. Basically they will attempt to find any pretext no matter how small with which to attempt to bludgeon other contributors. If they cannot find it, they will fabricate it.
Originally posted by GHOST HUNTERWell, divegeester quite magnanimously said "There is a time for forum gloating and this isn't it. My issue was genuine and I had a case", and Grampy Bobby responded with one of his hide-behind-a-copy-pasted quotation moments of passive aggression, despite the fact that the moderators had found his attacks on divegeester to be against the TOS, so I think divegeester was entitled to set the record straight with a single post in reply and one other post in reply to a question/comment from someone else. Come to think of it, why are you still mentioning it?
no i did not read it, but if dive felt so strongly about it, strongly enough to get the moderators involved to get the thread or posts removed.
then why is dive still mentioning it?
Originally posted by FMFsurely, posts removed= case closed, dive "won" if you think about it.
Well, divegeester quite magnanimously said "There is a time for forum gloating and this isn't it. My issue was genuine and I had a case", and Grampy Bobby responded with one of his hide-behind-a-copy-pasted quotation moments of passive aggression, despite the fact that the moderators had found his attacks on divegeester to be against the TOS, so I think divegees ...[text shortened]... question/comment from someone else. Come to think of it, why are [b]you still mentioning it?[/b]
BG posting the TOS can hardly be aggressive?
Dive attacks GB non stop,
i only mentioned it because dive keeps mentioning it, i don't see the connection to the current thread, unless it's just malice
Originally posted by GHOST HUNTERWhat you mean divegeester "keeps mentioning it"? He replied to a post by Grampy Bobby which was an undignified retort to a conciliatory post by divegeeseter. Why do you "keep mentioning it"?
surely, posts removed= case closed, dive "won" if you think about it.
BG posting the TOS can hardly be aggressive?
Dive attacks GB non stop,
i only mentioned it because dive keeps mentioning it, i don't see the connection to the current thread, unless it's just malice
Well, going back to the main issue of this thread, it seems that the
first decision could have been a way of begging someone to bankroll
Roberta's sub. Or maybe not. Only the Lard (and a possible sugar
daddy) knows.
On the second, it has been positive, on one side, as the 1st page of
the GF is more diverse due to the neurotic thread creating of His
Majesty Attention Horse II. On the other hand, though, he continues
to push his pathological passive aggressiveness by taking a smelly
dump in other threads, here and there, from time to time. Some
threads are even deleted altogether due to his sociopathic reactions!
In retrospective, I can say that I am not surprised that he used the
memory of divegeester's dead friend to try to manipulate divegeester
into submission (on an internet forum from all places!) and that he
tried to use my medical diagnosis, shared on a private clam forum,
to try to smear and knock me off balance. Not even his opinion that
people who commit suicide are cowards and offed god surprise me
in hindsight. What to say about his questioning of FMF's parenting
suitability? First I felt anger for all these things, then indignation...
now? Now I just feel sorry for him.
All in all, there is not so much damage done, though. This is
an internet forum and the Lard, despite his lack of cojones and his
evident emotional issues, is just an old, bitter nobody with an internet
connection. It's not like he has the means to roll the tanks over
Poland, right? The Almighty doesn't give wings to neither scorpions
nor cows.
Originally posted by SeitsePerhaps we may do better to attempt to understand his perspective on suicide and why he expressed those sentiments that he did, or we could take the intellectually easy way out and simply condemn him without attempting to understand why he held those views.
Well, going back to the main issue of this thread, it seems that the
first decision could have been a way of begging someone to bankroll
Roberta's sub. Or maybe not. Only the Lard (and a possible sugar
daddy) knows.
On the second, it has been positive, on one side, as the 1st page of
the GF is more diverse due to the neurotic thread creating of His
M ...[text shortened]... the tanks over
Poland, right? The Almighty doesn't give wings to neither scorpions
nor cows.
It appears to me that there are several people offering counsel to others on their behavior and forum etiquette when infact they are the worst perpetrators of an ill willed self assuming pomposity and who take little time to understand anything beyond that which they seek to condemn.