Howdy y'all!

[sky dancer]

Here's an interesting note.
Just got an email.
Apparently what someone originally wanted to say here was this:



Now, please note that I have left this anonymous, for now.

But let me just say this to the anonymous poster who deleted said post.
You really wanna start things up with me over here?
Looser rules? Personal attacks allowed?
Seriously?
Bring it.

Consider the fact that the post was deleted by the author. And yes, the rules are looser here. This appears to be a no holds barred kind of place if you read the TOS.

That means we can say exactly what we think of each others comments and posts.

 

[tresha]

Consider the fact that the post was deleted by the author. And yes, the rules are looser here.

And might you have a point?
(I know the rules are looser here, by the way. I was indicating to said anonymous author that with the looser rules in play, did they truly want to engage)

 

[sky dancer]

What's on your mind? Get to the point. I edit my writing. That's my point.

 

[tresha]

What's on your mind? Get to the point. I edit my writing.

Just trying to figure out if you plan on continuing the same patterns over here.
Rearranging the facts, selective truth telling, harassment, stuff like that.
Early indications are that you do.
I suppose I'm just drawing my line in the sand and saying I'm not gonna be as "accommodating" over here as over yonder.
You wanna lie about things I say over here, be prepared to deal with me saying so.
That enough on point for you?

 

[sky dancer]

Are you saying that because I deleted the post that I 'rearranged the facts'? It may not have occurred to you that I re-read your post and mine and made that decision for a good reason.

 

[tresha]

Are you saying that because I deleted the post that I 'rearranged the facts'? It may not have occurred to you that I re-read your post and mine and made that decision for a good reason.

I am not saying that.
I am saying I have seen a pattern of behavior. I've seen it here again. In posts that have not been deleted, in this thread. And I am explaining to you that should you choose to misrepresent my words, as you have done in the past, I will call you on it.
And I will do so using whatever terminology I damn well please, whether it is "particularly offensive" to you or not.
I'm setting up boundaries early because based on what I've already seen, they're gonna be needed.

 

[sky dancer]

I am not saying that.
I am saying I have seen a pattern of behavior. I've seen it here again. In posts that have not been deleted, in this thread. And I am explaining to you that should you choose to misrepresent my words, as you have done in the past, I will call you on it.
And I will do so using whatever terminology I damn well please, whether it is "particularly offensive" to you or not.
I'm setting up boundaries early because based on what I've already seen, they're gonna be needed.

Take whatever post in this or any other thread on this forum and dispute my points. What I don't think you'll succeed in on this forum is getting a thread I have done a lot of research on deleted on a whim.

 

[tresha]

Political Forum has a definate political agenda.

If you post too strongly against the Mods pet issues, you will be banned.

If you talk back to the mods you'll be banned.

Take whatever post in this or any other thread on this forum and dispute my points. What I don't think you'll succeed in on this forum is getting a thread I have done a lot of research on deleted on a whim.

At the moment, let's look at the remark I put in bold up above.
You have a pattern of telling partial truths.
Was it really "talking back to the mods" that got you banned?
Or might it have had something to do with the numerous, numerous PMs sent back and forth?
Because others over there talk back to the mods all the time.

You ask for transparency in things and yet shade your version of events with half-truths.

Speaking of editing....lemme give it a try.
Nowhere did I say anything about this : "this forum is getting a thread I have done a lot of research on deleted on a whim." being a goal of mine.
That's another favorite trick of yours.
You create things out of thin air and then attempt to attribute them to whomever you are debating.
I never indicated that.

 

[tresha]

This is my last post of the night.
I'm exhausted, I've been up for about two days.
You were told why it was deleted. Apparently yes, to have told you the nature of the complaint would have revealed the complainant and no, it wasn't me.
You posted another thread and it stayed.
You look for fights.
Almost everyone can see this.
And then when you get one, you tell half truths about what happened.
Just like earlier in this thread.
It was not "talking back to the mods" that got you banned.
It just wasn't.
It possibly was harassing the Mods, repeatedly after not getting the answer you thought you deserved.

Consider this:
When you started the thread about your celebration and a poster complained. It was dealt with; the Mods explained to him why that particular thread did qualify for that particular sub-forum.
He wasn't satisfied and kept complaining and kept belittling the point and kept trying to prove the Mods wrong.
In short, because he didn't get the answer he was looking for, he was convinced the Mods were wrong.
You're doing the same thing with the deleted thread.
Because you have not received the answer you are looking for does not mean the Mods are wrong. It simply means you have not received the answer you are looking for.
Much like GF.

 

[Agnapostate]

Hmmm...at least you get responses back. I don't. And then ABitchNamedSue locks the thread I start to point this out, telling me to send a message to the mods. Thanks...idiot.

 

[sky dancer]

At the moment, let's look at the remark I put in bold up above.
You have a pattern of telling partial truths.
Was it really "talking back to the mods" that got you banned?
Or might it have had something to do with the numerous, numerous PMs sent back and forth?
Because others over there talk back to the mods all the time.

You ask for transparency in things and yet shade your version of events with half-truths.

Speaking of editing....lemme give it a try.
Nowhere did I say anything about this : "this forum is getting a thread I have done a lot of research on deleted on a whim." being a goal of mine.
That's another favorite trick of yours.
You create things out of thin air and then attempt to attribute them to whomever you are debating.
I never indicated that.

The remark you bolded is my opinion. Here it is:

Originally Posted by sky dancer
"If you talk back to the mods you'll be banned".

It was in response to Sunni Man who expressed his opinion about the mods at PF. He expressed his opinion--I expressed mine.

Do you accuse Sunni Man of lying when he expresses his opinion which may be different from your own?

Is no one allowed to express an opinion unless vetted by Tresha as 'absolute truth'? As if there were some objective standard of truth? Are you the Almighty?

Someone got a thread I had researched deleted-- and I'm saying it was on a whim--on a scurulous complaint--since the mod wouldn't even say what the damn complaint was. The mod assured me that I did nothing in the thread violated TOS or broke any rules.

That raised questions. IMO the mod should have locked but not deleted the thread. I took my questions into pm and had a conversation with C.

When the C decided the conversation was over--I was banned for a week. That's the truth of what happened and it is also my opinion. It the the truth of my experience.

You take responsibility for your patterns and I'll take care of mine.

 

[Agnapostate]

Is no one allowed to express an opinion unless vetted by Tresha as 'absolute truth'? As it there is some objective standard? Are you the almighty?

That's pretty much the case.

 

[sky dancer]

Hmmm...at least you get responses back. I don't. And then ABitchNamedSue locks the thread I start to point this out, telling me to send a message to the mods. Thanks...idiot.

The response I got was, in essence, "Shut up, I can and will delete the thread without explanation even when it broke no rule and I don't owe you an explanation. Eff you for asking. You should be satisfied that it was a complaint that you can shake your head and wonder about."

I know who made the complaint. I don't know what the complaint was-although I can guess. I regret nothing.

 

[sky dancer]

That's pretty much the case.

It's all perception. I'm right--they're wrong, lol.

Isn't that what 99% of these arguments on forums are about? Here is opinion or argument. Here is the reason for the argument or opinion along with its context.

 

[sky dancer]

How about leaving whatever went down in PF at PF? Let's drop it.

 

[tresha]

Is no one allowed to express an opinion unless vetted by Tresha as 'absolute truth'? Are you the Almighty?

That's pretty much the case.

Well, I hadn't planned on revealing this until my appointed is actually inaugurated, so thanks for "outing" me. Damn, sure hope that doesn't mess up any future plans.

{please to note: since you've now decided to take this debate into the realms of the ridiculous, I just thought it time to join you there}

 

[sky dancer]

Well, I hadn't planned on revealing this until my appointed is actually inaugurated, so thanks for "outing" me. Damn, sure hope that doesn't mess up any future plans.

{please to note: since you've now decided to take this debate into the realms of the ridiculous, I just thought it time to join you there}

It's called humor.

 

[Dis]

That's enough.. This is an INTRODUCTION FORUM. It's not for airing dirty laundry.

Game over.