Moderator is Unfair

To the contrary, it was all supposed to be the other way around.

Read the postings to dozens of previous threads, here and elsewhere, the countless variations from water on the pathetic theme of the harm done to water, and not just by me, more so by jenyar and kotoko. How remarkably unfortunate, the way that the same story repeated itself over and over again, with each in turn accused of the same sort of cruelty. How horribly cruel it can be to tell the truth.

According to what, I wonder?

I would not have supposed so, but I should be glad in any case to have assisted in some way to achieve her sincerely stated intention. For some considerable time already she had promised herself to get on instead with school exams and a consequent thesis, matters more worthwhile, and if this is now the case, so much the better. Let us hope that she succeeds.

That advice might better be directed elsewhere.

I never posted a "Recovering after Relationships topic to a public forum.

If you'd rather not encourage attention to personal grief, then don't.
Please, by all means, shut up and mind your own business.

Nobody here called for you or anybody else to comment in this fashion on a personal issue.

--- Ron.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

man, you can be really hilarious you know that don't you?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

and seeing as this was Woody's thread complaining about the religion forum, nobody called for you to open up the drama of your life to public scrutiny. if you dont like it, dont post personal issues.
period.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You are not even bothering to follow the argument.

My point is exactly that the supposedly secret detail that I am accused of betraying was [POST=1002896] explicity not a secret,[/POST] but already revealed.

The person in question had already, long since, made a habit of initiating forum threads to invite other people to discuss her personal anxieties, her family affairs and her lack of a sex life, and well known for this, often accused of seeking attention.

The permission she thus gave was not even personal to me, but general. The name had been used, openly, by herself, and by others who posted here, by c7ityi_, and by sworn enemies such as kotoko and Jenyar, but with no objection.

I have referred to nothing at all during this thread that was not already to be seen on a public forum for anybody to review for themselves.

As I have also [POST=1085322]pointed out on a previous occasion, [/POST] the precedent for citing from personal messages was set not by me but by the complainant, not to mention a habit of betrayal of personal messages in subsequent personal messages.

Then when I eventually gave her back a bit of her own medicine, but in a more straighforward, less manipulative fashion, she lost her nerve and quit with stage fright.

Too bad.

She got what was coming to her.

Never mind the moaning about the moaning. Let the facts of the matter speak for themselves.

I had referred explicity to the moderation of the forum, to issues of general concern, to the declared subject of this thread.

It was then invert_nexus, not me, who deliberately interjected with [POST=1124694]post #1124694[/POST] to make a personal issue of it.

If they provoke in such a fashion I shall respond appropriately, and especially if their agenda is to misrepresent.

--- Ron.

 

So.Fucking.What.
That's Water's problem.
Not yours.
It doesn't matter what Water does or did.
What she's not doing is posting about you.
She's not going about the forums describing in detail (or in general or in any manner) the details of your pirvate liffe.
She's not saying a damn thing about you. She's not blaming you for her pain or misery.
She's not even posting at all.

So stick that up your pussy.

Oh no!
Look at what big bad Water did at some other forum.
She posted a thread on recovering from bad relationships.
That's something that dear, sweet Ron would never do.
I mean, it's not giving out any personal dirt or invading privacy or anything like that.

Let's all villify her now. She's a bad disgusting girl.

Ron.
Will you ever understand that this isn't about Water?
Is it possible for you to understand that?
Your defense of your actions is that Water is a piece of shit, apparently.

"Ron. You've been a despicable bastard in your pulbic airing of dirty laundry in the case of Water."
"But, Water is a bad girl who has lots of growing up to do. Here look at her dirty panties."

You continually act as though you expect to people to agree with you once you've shown more panties.

"Oh. You're right. Those panties smell bad. Carry on."

You.Are.Pathetic.

Personal grief? I thought it was all out in the public eye.
You know. That's where you like it, right? All out in the public where everyone can see that your name is Ron Harvey from the UK and that you're ashamed of nothing in your life. Your underwear isn't dirty because Water's panties are. It's all rather logical, yes?

Yes. Please do.

This, Ron, is a public forum.
Are you now aware of the difference between public and personal space?
You invite people to comment by the mere fact of you posting.
You are, in fact, on a soapbox in Speaker's Square (or whatever the hell that is), shouting at the top of your lungs.
You really expect people not to comment?

No, Ron. Try to pass blame all you like. But, the fact is that your entire argument is rooted in your situation with Water. Because James wouldn't let you go on and on and on and on about her. Flinging your mud. Trying to defend your actions (to people who don't care) by attacking her actions.

Remember this:
"In the mean time James R is the great protector of the whiners, the hard done by minorities, the cry-baby juvenile manipulators of authority, the too senstive to take it types, the bad losers, the lame ducks, the furtive cripples and cretins of the World, or those at least who affect to be so. Press the report button; whine enough to James; play possum and call it stalking and he may yet try to prevent me from posting to reply to you."

That's you, Ronnie. And the target of that attack is quite clear although not clearly stated in this particular instance. You'll note that I also didn't bring her name up specifically, I called her your cybergirlfriend. You always escalate the situation. Because you find it necessary to bring in more dirty panties from your stockpile to try to wipe the mud off your brow.

It doesn't work.


You also said this:
"James R denied the responsibility. When I answered, on a previous occasion, he deleted the post. He deliberately denies the right to reply."

James has already stated and you have not denied that the 'previous occasion' you speak of is back when you were doing your stalking.

YOU brought it up.


More?

"I have set up internet sites before, for different issues on previous occasions, the greatest problem with which is to reach the intended target. there as here.
In the instance I refer to it would miss the target, to aim elsewhere.
It is all about targets and how to shoot."

Look at the language used. Very indicative.
Good old Ron. Shooting at targets. He must, you see, aim elsewhere for he is incapable of targetting himself despite his claims in some other thread about spending so much of his life observing 'himself'. (I still chuckle at that.)

Now. You're talking about James here. But I also think that you're speaking of Water. There's a bit of a double meaning to this. Your ire against Water was raising increasingly in the series of posts prior to this.
That's why you continue to post here? To reach her target?


I find this one just damned funny:
"...yet another needless attempt to educate me."

Look at you. So pissy about James trying to 'educate' you. But you have made it your life's defense that Water was so in need of an education. One which you were more than prepared to give. And even now continue to try to give. So much so that she ran away from the forum to get away from you... and you congratulate that as a successful act of your education of her.
Good old Ron. Him's a swell teacher. Him should be a moderator so he can teach all of us.

Your issue is the moderation of the forum (at large, no longer just the religious forum. (Remember. Those posts you mentioned deleted were NOT in the religious forum, aye?)) does not allow you to seek your interests. Your interest being stalking.

And more condescension from the high and mighty educator.
Thank you, teacher.
Please. Go back to teaching James why he should let you get back to the important business of showing everyone Water's skid marks.
I won't bother you anymore.

It's not the name that is the big problem, bud. It's just the first sign.

Aye. That bitch.
Show us some more panties.

As has been pointed out ad nauseum. Two wrongs don't make a right.
As has also been pointed out, did you report it? No. So shutup.

You're useless.

 

you forgot whiney.....but perhaps the novel you wrote above is indicative of your thoughts about that?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

You put the question; you got the answer.

I refer to previous postings to forums, relevant evidence with regard to the subject, fairness and moderation. In that respect I submit that personal bias is a valid consideration.

You refer to panties; your trip, not mine.

I refer to the facts in order to show that she has behaved dishonestly, and at my expense.
Her complaint to James R was malicious, vexatious, and disingenuous.
With her disposition clear and consistent to begin with there would have been no need for it, none whatsoever.
That is the trouble with the inconsistency, the sheer hypocrisy of it all: Mixed messages beget mixed messages.

I have never reported to complain of stalking, not on any forum.

The reason that James R gave me for the deleted post was was explicitly that

Ergo he censored me for linking to previous postings to sciforums, postings already available for anybody with a search engine to see for themselves.

To set the record straight, for as long as you attempt to misrepresent.

That is a remarkably odd contradiction, that is.
Which is true, that or this?

------------

Do you really think so?

There is no sport in chasing a lame rat.

Promises, promises.

That is more your style, nexus, the panty thing.
Do you ever review your own previous postings, to think through your own propensities?
With your persistent panty obsession you come across like an insecure 12 year old with an audience of the same age.

--- Ron.

 

Both.
She's not posting. Because of you.
Since she's not posting. She can't be posting about you in any way, shape, or form.
Anything she does or says in private is her own business and has nothing to do with you. But, since you're dying to know, she rarely if ever speaks of you. A little bit back when you guys were squaring off in the forums, but she's gone past you.

You should try it sometime.


No, Ron, my judgement of you is based on your public actions. Not her private remarks. Do you really think I'd trust her to be unbiased?
Hence, if you view discussions such as this as 'harm' then you have to accept the fact that you hold the whip. Not her.



And. As to my 'panty obsession', I'm going to assume that you're being disingenuous rather than actually failing to see the clear metaphor involved.

A juvenile metaphor, you say? Perhaps. But it is a clear and simple one.

 

Of course she could, and has, much the same as when she privately disseminated her malicious propaganda against Jenyar and others, for months on end, before I got to know more about the truth of it all on that account.
When you turn up here to disseminate a horribly warped version of it all what else do you think the effect is?
Of course it hurts, and it is not just me who is hurt;
my wife went out of her way to be kind and had it all thrown back in her face, called a liar in such a sickeningly rude fashion.

Your bias is the issue here.

I tend to judge bias acording to the willingness to admit evidence and to see it for what it is.

Your language spoils a valid observation, and your control analysis is fundamentally flawed, perverse.
My interest in people was always exactly the opposite, the curiosity to discover what would happen with the control removed, with the human spirit free from control.

That is what the freak out is about, now and before, because of a loss of control, for want of it, the fear of the unknown. That attracts me to this forum, the freedom of it, not the restraint.
People who genuinely wish to escape from control do not initiate topics as if to advertise an inability to look after themselves; they get on instead with controlling themselves.
Wllingly controlled people are boring above all else. I see no interest in pulling the strings of a puppet, to see nothing more than that which was ordered. The disposition rather bewilders me.

--- Ron.

 

Ok Ron. You are just a whining bitch.


Case closed.

 

Please.. give up.

kthxbye.

 

If in my half century or so of experiment with this life, I have learned one thing above all else, that the long term pain, the big regret comes not from the disapproval of others, not from their ignorant abuse nor from any battle lost. From those events we build our strength.

What really hurts, in the long run, are the occasions we shy away from, where we never really gave ourselves the chance.

--- Ron.

 

bullshit, you can save yourself pain from simply walking away from an argument without losing any dignity

 

Dignity is not the issue, not at all.

Peace of mind is most important, to eliminate the eventual "if only....".

That is what gets to people in the end, because it persists indefinitely, so I fear for others who attempt the same.

No matter how many burnt bridges you try to leave behind you, those within the mind are not so flammable.

The recovery is not so easy.
This is rather the effect:

"
I have tried out various psychological advice, but in my mind, it all gets tainted with their interpretations and twists. I can't even read a psychological self-help book or article anymore without their counterarguments popping in.
"


--- Ron.

 

Perplexity you had remarked earlier that "James R may well be authorised to mind the business of the forum, but he was never, to the best of my knowledge, authorised to mind my education for me, nor was anybody else here."

I had replied that is was a shame someone wasn't responsible for it. You clearly failed to see that this was a direct insult aimed at you and only at you. I was stating that it was a shame someone had not minded, i.e. been responsible for, your education. In short, that it appeared you had no education, or that it was massively flawed.

Perhaps it will be simpler for you if you just assume that any posts I direct to you in future consitute personal insults, then we can both save ourselves a great deal of time.

Wishing you twice of everything you wish for me,
regards
Ophiolite

 

I surmise therefore that you have a lot to learn, so I hope you do.

--- Ron.

 

Bah.
Just erased my response to you, Ron.

I'm done with all this.

Trying to get you to understand that you're doing this all to yourself is like bashing my head against a brick fucking wall.


Just know that I only intervened in this thread because of those quotes I provided where you clearly displayed why you're upset with James. Those quotes clearly showed that this is a mere continuation of all that had gone before. If you hadn't indicated this, I would have deduced that your problem is merely one of question authority and one which I would thoroughly approve of. (Although I think that Woody's reaction to his thread being locked is asinine as he only got what he wanted anyway. Controversy.)

The fact of the matter is that this forum is one of the laxest forums on the net regarding rules and regulations.

Sometimes this is a boon. Sometimes it is not.

And sometimes the moderators get wild hairs up their asses to go on a mad moderating spree. This is their prerogative.
Freedom, aye?

I'm done with this shit.

Please, Ron, I ask you to just drop the Water thing. Drop it and let it go.

I ask you this not for her.
Somewhat for me (as it annoys the shit out of me for purely personal reasons that have nothing do with you or water.)
Partially for you (because, although I don't give a shit about you, I do empathize with your situation and can clearly see what you cannot in your bias. You are lost, Ron. Lost in blame and hurt.)


So.

Bye.

 

Ron, I have learned that my earlier perception of you as an interesting, compassionate, thoughtful poster were flawed. I have learned that your bizarre attack on me in another thread was a reflection of your peculiarities, not mine. I have learned that you are not too popular around here. I am not certain any of this knowledge will be of much use to me, but one never knows for sure.

 

As I had explained on the other thread, I did not mean to attack you. My concern was general, with what you represent, my mistake being to expect you to take it as such, to expect that a person who elects to present himself as a non person would behave as such.

You would otherwise be welcome to introduce yourself.

To learn from other people good faith is required, which has much to do in turn with respecting other people's accounts of their own intentions, instead of insisting as if to know their motivations better than they do themselves.

--- Ron.

 

Perhaps that is because IMHO you deserve to have your head bashed against a brick fucking wall, for calling my wife a liar.

--- Ron.