Free Flight, Free Speech

Lydiot, did I talk to you? But well ... it seems every little pretense to start again is enough for you.

Listen, you mentioned me and then characterized me in a negative way. I just pointed that out.

So, do you want to continue the mud-slinging between us or do you not? It's your call.

Falcon wrote:Just keep digging Lydiot. Just keeeeeeep ooooonnnn digging.

What do you mean "digging"?

Why is it acceptable to you that admins/mods here get to call others names and to characterize them negatively, either directly or indirectly, yet it's not acceptable for those people to respond?

Lydiot wrote:Why is it acceptable to you that admins/mods here get to call others names and to characterize them negatively

Calling names is never a good idea. Did or did you not produce a load of nonsense when asked about a very nonsensical signature? The characterizing negatively may stem from there.

Kind regards, Vincent

KL-666 wrote:

Lydiot wrote:Why is it acceptable to you that admins/mods here get to call others names and to characterize them negatively

Calling names is never a good idea. Did or did you not produce a load of nonsense when asked about a very nonsensical signature? The characterizing negatively may stem from there.

Kind regards, Vincent

Vincent, you were the one (not the only one) that said that it didn't really matter who did what first. It's been stated here that just because one is "retaliating" that doesn't make it ok.

Now, that's either something you think is true or not. If it is, then what you're asking above is entirely irrelevant. I'm sure that if I characterized JWocky negatively in a thread tomorrow then he would be upset, and you and the other mods would jump to his defense. So, if I did it, it wouldn't matter who did what first, and it wouldn't matter if my characterization of him was accurate or not. Because we're being told here to not "call names".

So here we are, with JWocky for a second time name-calling or characterizing me negatively, and rather than respond to him and say that that wasn't cool, you respond to me and imply that the characterization was somehow accurate, which in turn implies it was also justified.

You guys really need to make up your minds:

- What kind of forum do you want to have here?
- Do you want the same rules to apply to all people?
- Do you want people to act a certain way regardless of the past, or does the past justify the present?

Just let us all know what you're looking for and then be consistent.

Lydiot wrote:

Falcon wrote:Just keep digging Lydiot. Just keeeeeeep ooooonnnn digging.

What do you mean "digging"?

Why is it acceptable to you that admins/mods here get to call others names and to characterize them negatively, either directly or indirectly, yet it's not acceptable for those people to respond?

When someone says "Just keep digging" they mean your basically digging your own grave. The more you show of your self or rebuttal against someone who holds anything over you, be it power or knowledge or both in Peter's case, both, the more likely you are to get punished. We are tolerating it right now, but who knows. Maybe one of these days Peter will snap and guess who's names will be on the hypothetical chopping block. Yours will, guaranteed, along with bomber, and oscar6662. Simply put, to summorize my last post: your walking on thin ice. Watch your step.

Lydiot,

Sorry, we do not have any forum rules yet. So everyone speaks for himself as a normal user for now.

Kind regards, Vincent

KL-666 wrote:Lydiot,

Sorry, we do not have any forum rules yet. So everyone speaks for himself as a normal user for now.

Kind regards, Vincent

Nice cop-out.

Enjoy it.

Kind regards, Vincent

N3266G wrote:

Lydiot wrote:

Falcon wrote:Just keep digging Lydiot. Just keeeeeeep ooooonnnn digging.

What do you mean "digging"?

Why is it acceptable to you that admins/mods here get to call others names and to characterize them negatively, either directly or indirectly, yet it's not acceptable for those people to respond?

When someone says "Just keep digging" they mean your basically digging your own grave. The more you show of your self or rebuttal against someone who holds anything over you, be it power or knowledge or both in Peter's case, both, the more likely you are to get punished. We are tolerating it right now, but who knows. Maybe one of these days Peter will snap and guess who's names will be on the hypothetical chopping block. Yours will, guaranteed, along with bomber, and oscar6662. Simply put, to summorize my last post: your walking on thin ice. Watch your step.

I'm walking on thin ice because I don't accept the bullshit and bullying that the moderators and admins here dish out? Ok. That's fairly pathetic I think, but I'm not at all surprised.

I could be wrong, but I'm guessing that you like some other people don't really want people to have the opportunity to act equally. I'm guessing that you, like some others here, want to allow some to throw insults at others, while you complain when the latter group replies the same way. But in case you actually give a shit you can read this post:

viewtopic.php?p=19519#p19519

Because it illustrates VERY well exactly what the problem is. It shows how a moderator/admin lies to the entire community, or, if you prefer to be nice he "embellishes" his accusations, and it shows how he chooses to re-ignite a fire that was put out long ago rather than leave things alone. It's really the fundamental problem here. Some people think it's ok to yell and attack others, but they whine about it when the shoe is on the other foot.

But like I said, I'm getting the feeling that you don't care one bit about that. I could be wrong of course.