Hold mods to same standard they inforce

Your weird interpretations...
After the fact commentary when the O.P. Article stated differently- I responded to what was said at that time.

You missed the links- didn't you? Claiming, still, that it wasn't about self defense after I showed you post number one and post number two Both Clearly Covering Self defense?
Seriously?
You can be shown and you're still in denial?!
Yep, We're Done Here, Too. Thanks JDawg, You helped me demonstrate what was actually said far better than I was doing on my own.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Troll Handbook, Pg. 15

In the event that a poster has not only made a thoughtful, reasoned case against one's position, but also linked to and/or quoted passages that demonstrate one's dishonesty, we here at the Handbook suggest that one simply claims that the quotes and/or links only demonstrate one's rightness. This dishonest tactic is certain to give the average person a terrible headache, and may even cause them to refer to one as a "Lying ignoramus," or "Stupendous Douche," perhaps bringing moderation upon themselves rather than oneself, thereby allowing one to claim victory in the matter.

For maximum effectiveness, include a :shrug:, though any cocky emoticon will work well enough. ​

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That was good, right? I'm actually thinking of writing a Troll's Handbook for real.

 

Eh, sometimes I wish we were on the same side.

 

Um, don't get me wrong, I'm not calling you a troll, but to even consider oneself apt to write a handbook to the proper execution of any activity, one would have to perceive themselves as skilled or experienced at said activity.

So is this a confession? I'm just asking, not accusing. I have seen many stranger things said and displayed in this thread.

 

now now children
lets not get carried away

 

I'm just so used to dealing with your--ahem, their--kind that I've become something of an expert in the field. Bullies never write books about bullying, people who get bullied write books about bullying. Well, trolls don't write books about trolling, people who get trolled write books about trolling.

 

Hey, I don't hold grudges. Clean up your act and I'm sure we'll get along fine.

 

You two getting along... Being qite friendly. ...That's going to take a long time..

 

Sidebar

Sidebar

So let me figure this out:

• In #14 above, you point to another post.

• In the indicated post, #2944731/111, you advise Billvon that, "You're quoting BELLS Words there."

• Checking Billvon's post, #2944552/100, the quote in question is attributed to you.

• Looking back through the thread, I find the words Billvon quoted appear to originate at #2943978/20, which has your name, Neverfly, as the author.​

What words of Bells' did Billvon quote in #2944552/100?

Perhaps it's beside the point, but when someone directs us to a post that "sums it up" and asserts that a person "creates the misunderstandings", and that post actually has the appearance of that someone misattributing a statement, things get a little sticky. Whatever your actual point was in #14 above, it's not immediately apparent to other people.

 

Mod Hat — Might as well use green ink for this

Mod Hat — Might as well use green ink for this ....

I'll accept that it's an error, or even some kind of astounding subtlety. In either case, though, I need someone to explain to me how it works, because otherwise, it appears that someone trying to point to the heart of the problem is indicting himself. And, you know, I might be naïve some days, but I'm pretty darn sure self-indictment wasn't the goal.

Well, unless it was ironic self-indictment, but like I said, someone needs to explain that route to me.

Naturally, my confusion is my own fault, stemming from an earlier attempt to figure out what this thread is about.

And, quite frankly, I still don't get it.

Reading through the thread in question, I still can't follow the narrative offered in response to my earlier inquiry.

So, then, following up on the de facto summary offered by Neverfly, I run into this little conundrum.

I have no idea what to make of it, because surely Neverfly and Seagypsy aren't simply wailing for us all to go on a snipe hunt because they're bored.

So right now I'm kind of stuck. You know, as in, "What is this effing thread about?"

If a tree falls in the forest, and nobody is around to hear, does it actually squash any angels on the head of a pin?

 

Since I am the creator of the thread, I am the one best to answer the question of what the thread is about. I did so in post number 13. Perhaps in the back and forth of argument you missed reading that. Please take the time to do that.

 

Mod Hat — Response

Mod Hat — Response

Just to reiterate, since I admit it probably wasn't clear in the prior post:

Reading through the thread in question, I still can't follow the narrative offered in response to my earlier inquiry.​

Next time I'll be careful to be more explicit.

 

Tissa, this is all about Bells acting like a crazy person. They warn and ban when they take personal offense and abuse their mod powers. She gave me a warning, she has banned people for no reason, it is as if she's a sexually frustrated 35 year old woman and she's just mad at life itself.

 

It's probably that I am an idiot because I don't know what getting rocks off means. But I didn't see much evidence of that here from my 2 posts. I still think my pithy analysis contains elements of truth.