IAHM-COL wrote:I hope it does stand for "darling".
What you fill the blank with is up to you. (as in: What would better describe your behavior?)
For now your behavior don't grant you the "darling" adjective. I hope you are aware of that.
Lydiot wrote:Tell us what the "******" stand for!
Lydiot wrote:by simbambim » Mon Nov 16, 2015 2:39 pmOh great! Now the people who were providing you with information to clear up your confusion are getting insulted. I'll make sure moderators deal with you, Lydiot.
This was before I had told her to take a Valium. It is also before I said anything insulting at all. Not only that, but she made statements about my position that just weren't true (i.e. lying). There was absolutely no reason for the above post.
Mon Nov 16, 2015 4:21 pm was for her to take a Valium. I also said I'd put her on ignore because clearly we can't talk to each other.
Both of those took place on FG.org, not here. None of that had anything to do with this forum.
I was responding on-topic before then. I did not make any insulting comments, and did not intend to insult anyone.
It is clear who started going down this path.
Tue Nov 17, 2015 7:53 pm, on this forum, she begins to lobby against me, making numerous negative statements about me. It's a post containing misrepresentations of my positions, regardless of me having told her to take a Valium.
Wed Nov 18, 2015 9:03 am, on this forum, she writes another post again with the sole purpose of trying to exclude me from the decision making process. Her misrepresentation of what I have proposed can only mean one out of two things: a) she knowingly lies to the rest of you to get her way and get me excluded, or b) she really doesn't understand what people are saying in conversations.
THEN
Wed Nov 18, 2015 9:14 am, on this forum, after having been accused of being insulting without having been (on the 16th), and after having seen an issue which WOULD have been dead had she just ignored me taken to this forum, with posts lobbying for my exclusion, I indeed called her an idiot. But I also pointed out that her being on ignore was the simple solution to the issue. She could have done exactly the same to me: Just ignored my posts like ignored hers and none of this would be an issue, but instead she went on a campaign, a vendetta apparently.
Thu Nov 19, 2015 8:10 am, FG.org, I edit out the offending bit about Valium, because the moderator asked me nicely.
Thu Nov 19, 2015 12:37 pm, this forum, Skyboat starts complaining via PM about my “idiot” comment, completely ignoring her having launched a virtual campaign to have me excluded.
Fri Nov 20, 2015 4:31 pm, IAHM-COL starts complaining about it, also via PM.
Fri Nov 20, 2015 4:44 pm I respond that if she edits her “jerk” comment I'll edit my “idiot” comment.
Fri Nov 20, 2015 4:48 pm FOUR MINUTES LATER I EDIT THE POST.
That's right ******: I edited both posts after having been asked to!
So,
- She accused me being “insulting”
- She said she would report me to the mods for no good reason (go back and check)
- She brought the topic to this forum
- She started campaigning to get me excluded from the process of the festival
- She misrepresented my views in many posts, both there and here
- She did resort to name-calling
Despite all of that, and despite that I didn't start that chain of events, I edited my posts to conform with the view that the comments shouldn't be public, to conform with the rules, and to just generally try to meet half ways. As far as I can see she was allowed to do all of the above, and even though I had made reasonable effort to meet half ways she did just one thing, which worked wonderfully well: Played the martyr.
Now, I didn't go crying to the moderators about her behavior. I didn't complain to the FG people that she was accusing me of being insulting, or that she would report me, because quite frankly I think it's a bit childish and shows an unrealistic sense of entitlement. Besides, I am fairly confident that I can explain my position on any given issue, and that disagreements on it is fine as long as people can communicate to the point of understanding each other's positions.
We can actually see examples of that. Elgaton (I think) made a very clear post after a long time of back and forth, and his post made sense. I don't recall questioning that post. Because it was clear. IAHM-COL (I think) made a very good post about mandating the festival being in Europe would conversely also ensure one festival per year would NOT be in Europe. A very good argument. Did I not agree that it was a good point? It took a long-ass time before that argument was brought forth however, and ALL I was after was for the arguments to be made in public so that people could talk about it. We did. Your arguments were concise and intelligent. I was fine with the outcome. If you call me an ass in the process I don't really care, as long as we can discuss things on-topic and be understood.
But what does matter to me is her campaigning to get me excluded. I don't care if she calls me an asshole while making a logical argument for why I shouldn't be included, but it's different if the post is just filled with personal-attacks and inaccuracies. And I felt that I had the right to reply with as much "on-topicness" as she deserved. Hence my comment that she was an ******.
Now, let's think about this for a second;
- Essentially everything she did was virtually practically sanctioned, forgiven or ignored by you.
- On top of that you bring this shit back up, after weeks of us not talking about it.
- THEN you have the balls to accuse me of repeating myself. YOU are the ones bringing it up again, NOT me.
But that's not all, to top all of this off, as icing on the cake, to sweeten the deal, to [whatever] :
You start a whole thread dedicated to a personal-attack.
How incredibly hypocritical and small-minded of you.
I'm not sure if you're an ****** or just a big ******.
Though one doesn't exclude the other.
Return to “Club of the Banned”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests
