24 Mar 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhy should I have kept galveston75's sexual slur/threatening PM confidential? Why should I protect him after he has sent something like that?
ouch a poisonous and deceitful poster yet able to keep a private confidence, interesting.
24 Mar 14
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFactually the lie is not solely based upon the accusation of voluminous posting, the lie is based upon the fact that it provided a motivation for your friend specifically targeting Jehovahs witnesses. Infact if voluminous posting was a motivation there should be evidence of your friend attacking others for the same 'crime', but there is not a single iota nor have you or anyone else managed to produce any leading us to the conclusion that his motivations were something else entirely. Something other than voluminous posting.
But saying 37,300+ texts is "voluminous posting" is simply not a lie, barefaced or otherwise.
24 Mar 14
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFCalling you out for harassment telling you that he was not gay and was not interested in you is a matter for others why? you could have settled the matter between yourselves quite easily, all you had to do was stop harassing him, but noooo, you choose to betray a confidence and forward private mail a crime equally if not more heinous than the one you charge against Galveston. You cannot be trusted FMF I am sorry to say.
Why should I have kept galveston75's sexual slur/threatening PM confidential? Why should I protect him after he has sent something like that?
24 Mar 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThere is no lie. If someone says they objected to a particular poster's voluminous posting then I just take them at their word. They say they don't like the amount, number, volume, content, whatever, then I believe that they don't like it. There is no "barefaced lie".
actually the lie is not solely based upon the accusation of voluminous posting, the lie is based upon the fact that it provided a motivation for your friend specifically targeting Jehovahs witnesses.
24 Mar 14
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFI say there is a barefaced lie and what is more there is not a shred of evidence of him also attacking others for the same crime, his motivations then were apparently something else.
There is no lie. If someone says they objected to a particular poster's voluminous posting then I just take them at their word. They say they don't like the amount, number, volume, content, whatever, then I believe that they don't like it. There is no "barefaced lie".
24 Mar 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieJust because a poster doesn't like the quantity/volume/number of posts of one particular poster, does not oblige him in any way to state a dislike for the quantity/volume/number of posts of any other particular poster.
I say there is a barefaced lie and what is more there is not a sherd of evidence of him also attacking others for the same crime, his motivations then were apparently something else.
24 Mar 14
3 edits
Originally posted by FMFNo but it provides evidence that voluminous posting is a catalyst for his personal attacks and denunciations, of which there is not a shred of evidence. His attacks therefore are motivated by some other consideration. What is more the charge of voluminous posting cannot stand in Galvestons case can it for even if we are to grant the concession of PKs erroneous model that number of posts equals actual volume of text (which we have established does not) he has a measly 700 pages.
Just because a poster doesn't like the quantity/volume/number of posts of one particular poster, does not oblige him in any way to state a dislike for the quantity/volume/number of posts of any other particular poster.
24 Mar 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI was surprised that galveston75 sent me a PM with sexual content at all. I had no reason to keep it a secret. If he thought I was guilty of some sort of sexual misconduct in the public forum, then surely he should have raised it in the public forum and let people decide. I have no obligation to keep galveston75's or anyone else's sexual messages secret.
Calling you out for harassment telling you that he was not gay and was not interested in you is a matter for others why? you could have settled the matter between yourselves quite easily, all you had to do was stop harassing him, but noooo, you choose to betray a confidence and forward private mail a crime equally if not more heinous than the one you charge against Galveston. You cannot be trusted FMF I am sorry to say.
24 Mar 14
2 edits
Originally posted by FMFStating that he is not gay FMF and asking if you fancy him because your pursuit of him in the forums would seem to indicate a rather amorous preoccupation with him personally is hardly sexual content. If he had sent you gay porn and asked if that was you in that picture then you may have recourse to call it sexual content. You are spinning out of control FMF and falling into fiction.
I was surprised that galveston75 sent me a PM with sexual content at all. I had no reason to keep it a secret. If he thought I was guilty of some sort of sexual misconduct in the public forum, then surely he should have raised it in the public forum and let people decide. I have no obligation to keep galveston75's or anyone else's sexual messages secret.
24 Mar 14
3 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIt is my personal opinion that galveston75 is not held in very high regard here among many of the regular posters, although there are people who think he's alright, no doubt.
No but it provides evidence that voluminous posting is a catalyst for his personal attacks and denunciations, of which there is not a shred of evidence. His attacks therefore are motivated by some other consideration.
Motivations/considerations for this opposition/flak he gets could include his lengthy unattributed copy pastes, doctrinal issues, controversial bible interpretations, perceived dreary pessimistic misanthropic assertions, reacting petulantly whenever called on contradictions or inconsistencies in what he has posted (up to and including some fibs here an there, to put it mildly), huge use of ad hominems ~ the deeper the corner he has backed into, the more the ad hominems, refusing to answer questions, claiming to have answered questions when he has not, comparing people to satan and evil and demons and mentioning The End Times when he doesn't like things some other posters say and so on and so on.
You've been here a long time. You surely must know why and how galveston75 rubs people up the wrong way with his demeanour and why people disagree with much of the stuff he says. You don't have to agree with his critics, but you must know why he earns criticism, surely?
24 Mar 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI was surprised that galveston75 sent me a PM with mention of sexual activity at all. There was absolutely no reason for me to keep his choice of words and topics "secret".
Stating that he is not gay FMF and asking if you fancy him because your pursuit of him in the forums would seem to indicate a rather amorous preoccupation with him personally is hardly sexual content. If he had sent you gay porn and asked if that was you in that picture then you may have recourse to call it sexual content. You are spinning out of control FMF and falling into fiction.
24 Mar 14
2 edits
Originally posted by FMFDifferent people appeal to different personalities FMF, why someone should consider being held in high regard by others as some kind of personal validation I cannot say, people should be happy within themselves.
It is my personal opinion that galveston75 is not held in very high regard here among many of the regular posters, although there are people who are sympathetic, no doubt.
Motivations/considerations for this opposition/flak he gets could include his lengthy unattributed copy pastes, doctrinal issues, controversial bible interpretations, perceived dreary pess ...[text shortened]... ays. You don't have to agree with his critics, but you must know why he earns criticism, surely?
His posts are no more lengthy than jaywills whose wall of texts have taken on a legendary status, posting unattributed text is simply an ignorance of forum etiquette and could be easily remedied. Strange I dont find him pessimistic at all, in fact I find your friend divesgeester to be much more negative in his approach, indeed his entire approach seems to be to negate the spirituality of others through targeted vilification.
I cannot say that I have any issues with the Gman. What other people think of him is of little to no concern.