RF wrote:
Quote:
RF wrote:
Quote:
Like many of your other submissions, this does not seem to have any relevance to this board does it? This would be a DISCUSSION...
Ah...I see you did consider my submission.
No it was not relevant to anything on this board.
How did you conclude that without considering it?
I saw it was from you, and therefore no reason to look any closer ...
Quote:
Quote:
Considering the source of this claim, I would not think anyone would take offense.
That wasn't the question. You should have tried addressing it instead of going on the attack.
There have been prior attempts to address this problem without success. It seems those who cause the problem cannot comprehend that they are being as difficult as others see them. Maybe you will show us how knowing about the problem causes a change in operations....or not.
Quote:
Quote:
Your credibility has taken quite a hit so such attempts would be expected in an attempt to try to make a case even if it were not true. It is a shame that so many of your posts have a question concerning the honesty of the material. Such credibility issues are hard to shake.
The questions of my credibility are in reality assertions supplied by you. Unsupported assertions. And you aren't important enough to worry about being a "hit" on my credibility.
You may say it, but unless you have been able to prove your prior claims it is clear you are not being truthful and thus have credibility problems. As for whether you think I am important enough to worry about your credibility being hurt when you are not truthful, that says enough about your credibility for anyone.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
No, it is not a whim. For example, one poster was banned for posting porn. There would not be a second chance for such an offense. I would have thought you could understand the difference between the levels of violations, but it appears I was mistaken.
So posting porn absolutely leads to the poster being banned. But there are no absolutes.
Seriously Wayne...are you that fond of wallowing in relativism?
See another case of less than honest presentation. Notice the context of the questions and the false claims you have made?
Quote:
I notice you don't point out the false claims...simply assert they are there.
So tell me....does posting porn NOT absolutely lead to the poster being banned? That would falsify my claim, if it is true. Do you want to make that statement in your capacity as moderator?
Can you take a remedial class on context or something. Maybe some high school tutor can come over to your house and explain it to you.
you:
Quote:
If time outs are a finite quantity greater than 1 ....is someone with 0 pretty safe?
You ask if someone with 0 is pretty safe ... no absolute there.
me:
Quote:
Relatively speaking, yes, but there is no absolute and the magnitude of the offense is considered.
I agree with your statement that they would be relatively safe and that the magnitude of the offense is considered.
You:
Quote:
So it isn't a rule...it's a whim. That's fine, but one should be accurate in describing it.
Now you try to misrepresent what has been said before by calling it a whim and that it is not accurate to call it a rule. You have ignored what was said and taken off on another Strawman Fallacy argument. To be clear this would have been called a misrepresentation earlier, but given the attempts to hide it with more and more misrepresentations it is moving into the clear Lie category. I hope this is clear enough for you to see now.
Me:
Quote:
No, it is not a whim. For example, one poster was banned for posting porn. There would not be a second chance for such an offense. I would have thought you could understand the difference between the levels of violations, but it appears I was mistaken.
I try to give you an explanation.
Me:
Quote:
Notice you asked specifically whether a poster with 0 time outs would be safe, and I explained that they would unless their first offense was a major one. You then misrepresent that as a whim, which is corrected and you then try to misrepresent the statement yet again. You indicate there was some reference to no absolutes when that was not the case. You seem to be doing more and more misrepresenting of what has been said. If you continue to do so you will have no credibility left at all.
And again I try, will no apparent success.
Quote:
Quote:
You indicate there was some reference to no absolutes when that was not the case.
Quote:
Relatively speaking, yes, but there is no absolute....
Are there absolutes or not?
There are no absolutes to someone being safe with 0 timeouts, which was the context of the discussion before you tried to misrepresent it. This too would be a misrepresentation that is quickly approaching the Lie category. Now you have two clear examples, have you been able to provide examples of your claims are they lies as well?
Login
Register
FAQ
