Hyphenated Christians

Originally posted by Agerg
I just don't get what "logic" Galveston is employing to arrive at the conclusion he can send you any uninvited PM as suits his fancy and you are sworn to an oath of silence upon receiving it. Indeed I don't think I could ever get my head around that one 😕

For all intents and purposes, galveston75 is just blanking out any questions about what he perceives to be his "rights" in a public forum [even as those "rights" seem to negate those of others], and he has certainly refused to explain his extraordinary claim that he somehow 'owns' the abusive content of the PM he sent me and that I would have to have "permission" to show it to anybody.

Originally posted by galveston75
Do you seriously think I don't know this is a public forum? The one that the public post their thoughts and questions on daily? Are you really serious?
And even more so do you really believe that just because it is open to the public or members of RHP, that all commen sense, being decent and being respective of others request can be ignored and even mo ...[text shortened]... n of you guys, PROVE IT NOW and move on and drop this issue and do this with maturity.

If you are unhappy with your lot here then you have as I see it a few options:

1) Leave (or threaten to leave as you did after your last hissy fit and then come back a few days later)

2) Moderate your posting style and content

3) Complain to the moderation team and site admin about your treatment - have done this? Have you had a response?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
this forum is not exclusively used for debate, that would be the debates forum, please
see the description for this forum, debate and general discussion, it therefore most
certainly is covered, despite your assertions to the contrary. Sending a single PM
requesting that a user desist from correspondence does not constitute harassment, it
fa ...[text shortened]... the definition provided, that being characterized by repetition, you fail fatboy,
suck it up.

So you are saying the only thing that stops it from being called harassment is that he did not repeat it.

Originally posted by deenny
So you are saying the only thing that stops it from being called harassment is that he did not repeat it.

No it was you who stated that a single private message asking a user to desist from
correspondence constituted harassment, clearly be definition, its not, harassment often being
characterized by repetition, now you can accept this fact, or you cannot. There may be
other reasons to conclude that an action constitutes harassment, as you have provided
nothing, except to assign values to my argument that i did not profess, arguments like
the above, may i suggest that you do so.

Originally posted by deenny
So you are saying the only thing that stops it from being called harassment is that he did not repeat it.

It's interesting you should raise this issue of "repeats". galveston75 has made all manner of offensive accusations, but when called to account for it or to explain he is now copy pasting the same message and repeating it over and over and over again. My posts disputing galveston75's claims about Proverbs 30:6 and Revelation 13:11-15 were varied, shifting, responsive and on-topic.

Originally posted by deenny
So you are saying the only thing that stops it from being called harassment is that he did not repeat it.

are you one of FMF's manifestations, like JW Booth, or a recruited flunkie?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
No it was you who stated that a single private message asking a user to desist from
correspondence constituted harassment, clearly be definition, its not, harassment being
characterized by repetition, now you can accept this fact, or you cannot. There may be
other reasons to conclude that an action constitutes harassment, as you have provided ...[text shortened]... to my argument that i did not profess, arguments like
the above, may i suggest that you do so.

Have the moderators concurred with your accusations of "stalking" and "harassment"?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
are you one of FMF's manifestations, like JW Booth, or a recruited flunkie?

Flunkie?

On your The FMF school for scoundrels thread, wasn't #2. attribute non existent values to your adversary and proceed to create an argument around those fictional values

Aren't you doing exactly this here with deenny?

Someone on that thread did say your 10 points seemed to be [i]more applicable to you than anyone other poster. 😵

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
No it was you who stated that a single private message asking a user to desist from
correspondence constituted harassment, clearly be definition, its not, harassment often being
characterized by repetition, now you can accept this fact, or you cannot. There may be
other reasons to conclude that an action constitutes harassment, as you have pro ...[text shortened]... to my argument that i did not profess, arguments like
the above, may i suggest that you do so.

No, I stated that in my opionion the sending of the PM was harassment. This is what I believe. You are free to disagree with that. But I repeat my question (here we go again) Is the fact that he did not repeat it the only reason you would not call it harassment

Originally posted by deenny
No, I stated that in my opionion the sending of the PM was harassment. This is what I believe. You are free to disagree with that. But I repeat my question (here we go again) Is the fact that he did not repeat it the only reason you would not call it harassment

Why should i or anyone else agree with it, you have provided no empirical evidence
with which to substantiate your assertion, I on the other hand at least provided a
definition of why i thought that it may not constitute harassment, not exhaustive as you
have erroneously assumed, but something, the onus is therefore not on me to
substantiate my claim but on you, it was after all you who stated that it was
harassment, so either pony up your reasons or refrain from making unsubstantiated
claims. That you believe it to be the case is ludicrous, you may after all, also believe
that you were a world war two submarine commander and we are supposed to accept it
on the sole basis that you say its true, so is the only reason why it constitutes
harassment because you say it does?

your questions appears to me to be remarkably similar to FMF, he rarely if ever
produces empirical evidence either and instead, attempts to focus attention on the
individual, rather than the arguments they are making, oddly enough, just like you.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
the onus is therefore not on me to substantiate my claim but on you, it was after all you who stated that it was harassment, so either pony up your reasons or refrain from making unsubstantiated claims.

The onus was presumably on you to make your case to the moderators - you said you alerted them - and it would seem they did not agree with you and did not find you claims to be substantiated. deenny may believe that galveston75's PM was "harassment" because deenny has read its content.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
your questions appears to me to be remarkably similar to FMF, he rarely if ever
produces empirical evidence either and instead, attempts to focus attention on the
individual, rather than the arguments they are making, oddly enough, just like you.

The "empirical evidence" in this case is there for all to see if they want to: [1] the threads where my contributions have been characterized as "harassment" and "stalking", and [2] the PM that galveston75 sent me. Both of these bits of "empirical evidence" are in the public domain ([2] is available from me to anyone who is curious, quite a few have requested to see it).

Originally posted by divegeester
3) Complain to the moderation team and site admin about your treatment - have done this? Have you had a response?

galveston75 is blanking out this question and so is robbie. I've heard nothing, so either they lied about reporting me to the moderators or the moderators didn't agree with them.

Originally posted by FMF
galveston75 is blanking out this question and so is robbie. I've heard nothing, so either they lied about reporting me to the moderators or the moderators didn't agree with them.

I don't doubt for a moment that either of Galveston75, or Robbie Carrobie have sent an alert to the moderators; the thing is, much to their embarrassment and annoyance, they have most likely been ignored. Furthermore, I do doubt Galveston75 has shown the moderators the actual PM he sent you (he is feeble, but not *that* feeble!).
Galveston now finds himself in the situation that his attempt to administer onto you a sneak attack shafting has backfired; and now he childishly demandsReveal Hidden Contentthat we all just forget about his actions and move on since he doesn't like the well deserved consequences he's having to face right now.

He doesn't have the right to expect any of us should let it go at his beckoning...it is for us, individually, to decide when and if we let it go.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Why should i or anyone else agree with it, you have provided no empirical evidence
with which to substantiate your assertion, I on the other hand at least provided a
definition of why i thought that it may not constitute harassment, not exhaustive as you
have erroneously assumed, but something, the onus is therefore not on me to
substantiate ...[text shortened]... ion on the
individual, rather than the arguments they are making, oddly enough, just like you.

The original claim of harassment was made by Gal 75 and backed by yourself. This should have dealt with by contacting the moderators. They would have been the proper people to deal with this. My own opinion is that questions asked in a public forum about something a poster had written would not be harassment when repeated when not answered. Instead, An abusive PM was sent in a coward way out. I have seen this PM and FMF was correct to call him out on it. The original accusion of harassment not to be backed up was made by Gal 75.