Nice post Sal, and thanks for the support. :)

I really didn't intend my post to be a specific reference to a specific post or even to suggest that anyone had made a specific "diagnosis" of warrior. I meant that in general the attacks seemed to gravitate towards her mental state, and while I'll admit she brought a lot of it on herself by mentioning her particular afflictions, it seemed to me that when her weak spot was revealed, there were those who targeted that spot. For what it's worth, I may be a bit oversensitive to the subject of mental illness (my father was a paranoid schizophrenic), and I do tend to side with the underdog, both of which influenced my dealings with warrior.

Well truth be told perhaps I was a bit sensitive because part of me knew I may have stretched the limits a bit. That's why I didn't post much to her when she got nasty. If I let myself go, I can get pretty nasty also and that is not a part of me I care to indulge. I always regret it after and any satisfaction I had in the moment when I "got them" is never equal to how bad I feel after.

That's why usually in most situations where confrontation is involved I back off after a few posts. I also try to do that in real time. Sort of like drawing my own line in the sand and setting my own limits for my behaviour. It's also why if I feel someone genuinely has a disorder, I seldom confront. It's not good for either party.

No problem about how you dealt with warrior... you took the high ground and I can both appreciate and respect that.

As for warrior, were she/he to return and behave I think most would have no problem with that. It's a good community that way. It's too bad, because as a new poster, I felt the behaviour displayed was acceptable and the posts well thought out.

Enjoy your day Vile... and like Sparky, I will toast ya at dinner. Maybe several times in fact as it will be a great excuse to pour a tad more into the glass... :D:drinktoth

Nno, Overdose, you do whine and complain, about almost everything. If posters don't like Madonna you whine and complain. If posters say something nasty about Rosie O'Donnel you whine and complain. Face it, OD, you whine and complain about almost everything.
Uhhh, no, I don't. I don't "whine and complain" I argue for why Madonna, Rosie or whatever else I support is worth supporting.

I don't "complain" or "whine" that you guys don't like them. I just argue for why they are successful and smart ladies who you should love and support too. How is that complaining? :@@:

God, you sure do have a way of twisting things to the extreme.

But hey, at least I'm not known for posting mean and hurtful posts to people. I'd rather be falsey known for being a "whiner" then someone who is a complete jerk. Sorry to say.

Nice post Sal, and thanks for the support. :)

I really didn't intend my post to be a specific reference to a specific post or even to suggest that anyone had made a specific "diagnosis" of warrior. I meant that in general the attacks seemed to gravitate towards her mental state, and while I'll admit she brought a lot of it on herself by mentioning her particular afflictions, it seemed to me that when her weak spot was revealed, there were those who targeted that spot. For what it's worth, I may be a bit oversensitive to the subject of mental illness (my father was a paranoid schizophrenic), and I do tend to side with the underdog, both of which influenced my dealings with warrior.

Butt ! Underdog was a Cartoon Hero.
Of sorts,mind ya.
I'll have to Go Back and read Warrior's Posts.
They always Ran On.Waaaaaaaaaaaaay Too Longish.
BTW for what it's worth,I had a mini Nervous Breakdown at another
Huge Message Board.It was run by Very Bias Adminiatrators who favored
a Clique Mentality.They also pretty much Reviled anyone who mentioned
GOD,too often.I almost single-handidly made many posters eat their
lopsided and persnickety POV.It eventually wore me down and
I was Piled on,for being in an exclusive minority of thought.

foolsworth,

You are neither a minority of thought nor a minority when it comes to rights and privileges.

You are however a very unique individual, with an odd but strangely-engaging manner of diction and punctuation.

I think we are all on safe ground here at allforums, where there is an incredible amount of tolerance and diversity.
Tolerance for everything but rudeness and violence of course, and a diversity that is unmatched in all of the internet, I think.

I would like to get to know you someday, sir.
Either your style of communication is an eclectic affectation, or else you are one each Steven Hawking with a seriously damaged computer.

Either way, it's good to have you back.
:thumbs:

foolsworth,

You are neither a minority of thought nor a minority when it comes to rights and privileges.

You are however a very unique individual, with an odd but strangely-engaging manner of diction and punctuation.

I think we are all on safe ground here at allforums, where there is an incredible amount of tolerance and diversity.
Tolerance for everything but rudeness and violence of course, and a diversity that is unmatched in all of the internet, I think.

I would like to get to know you someday, sir.
Either your style of communication is an eclectic affectation, or else you are one each Steven Hawking with a seriously damaged computer.

Either way, it's good to have you back.
:thumbs:

Back ... SchaLack !
I started a New movement of free style,uneven prose at IMDb.com
It drove most of them kinkos.
To a poster,they all were stickler for rigid grammatical prose.
My style,which is a combination of Kerouac/Ginsberg/Burroughs
Meet Hunter Thompson whilst attending a Peggy Guggenheim Art
exibit and in walks Dorothy Parker with Tallulah Bankhead.
If one could get past the Smoke and eccentricity,they mite discuss
Politics and also hurl polite insults in a Beat yet discriminating manner,
{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{ DaaaarhLiiiink }}}}}}}}}}}}}} !

My style,which is a combination of Kerouac/Ginsberg/Burroughs
Meet Hunter Thompson whilst attending a Peggy Guggenheim Art
exibit and in walks Dorothy Parker with Tallulah Bankhead.



Damn, boy.

I threw you a diplomatic bone and a vague compliment, and you got all huge on me.

I get it, you're a beat-poet.
But Jack Kerouac/Edgar Rice Burroughs/Bob Dylan you ain't.
You've got more Nell in you than Ginsberg, trust me.

This ain't a sprint, it's a marathon.
You in it for the long haul, Chicka-paeaa, chicka-paeaa?

http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/51ZYWBCW9QL._SS500_.jpg

Nell, hm. that was a good movie.

[QUOTE=Sparky2]Damn, boy.

I threw you a diplomatic bone and a vague compliment, and you got all huge on me.

I get it, you're a beat-poet.
But Jack Kerouac/Edgar Rice Burroughs/Bob Dylan you ain't.
You've got more Nell in you than Ginsberg, trust me.

Beat ! ... SchMeat !
If a Bone has any.

William Burroughs....William S. Burroughs !
Dagnabbit...anywho.

Nell, hm. that was a good movie.

Deftly Mute,on some level.

Beat ! ... SchMeat !
If a Bone has any.

William Burroughs....William S. Burroughs !
Dagnabbit...anywho.

Naked Lunch, naked ape, Tarzan.

All the same to me.
:rolleyes:

Naked Lunch, naked ape, Tarzan.

All the same to me.
:rolleyes:

Burroughs was just a Bag of Bones.Had no real ability to
write a story or even render a sustained thought that involved
characterization,setting or Plot.Was a Mess of a writer.
But he was instrumental in The Beat Generation.
Kerouac was pretty good.But was a Mommy's boy.
Hunter Thompson had a highfalutin way of tickin most everyone off.
That was the sig of Beatnik writing.Just be outrageously singular
and try to unravel some underpinning foible in Life.
I's like doin Cream Cheese Poetry.

Back to the earlier topic of my handing out unsolicited psychological advice.
Are there situations where it just might be ok to speculate about someone's mental state, and to further offer some advice regarding counseling?
:rolleyes:

http://www.allforums.net/showthread.php?t=6513&highlight=psychiatric

I'll be shocked if you get an answer.

He received an answer Vilepagan. He received it just as you did, in a PM.

I told you my reasons for feeling as I do about you and you are simply being dishonest in making it seem I didn't.

He received an answer Vilepagan. He received it just as you did, in a PM.

I told you my reasons for feeling as I do about you and you are simply being dishonest in making it seem I didn't.

I see. You publicly accuse me of being "biased" without giving any specifics, and you now claim you've given your reasons privately. Convenient.

Why don't you post the profanity-laden PM you sent me? :)

BTW, in future it would be good for you to remember that my inbox is not there for you to vent your spleen. If you have a genuine complaint, and can express yourself civilly, feel free to send me a PM. If you send me another one like that one, you'll get some time off.

I posted in open forum what I thought of you posting a private PM without attribution. You sloughed it off. According to you there is nothing wrong with anonymous accusations. You would have been popular in the Star Chamber.

Others may think you are a great moderator but in my opinion you are not. In my opinion you are unethical.

I posted in open forum what I thought of you posting a private PM without attribution. You sloughed it off.

No, I disagreed with you, and so did others.


According to you there is nothing wrong with anonymous accusations. You would have been popular in the Star Chamber.

The post in question was not an accusation despite your insistence on taking it as one. The others mentioned in that post have responded graciously. What's your problem?


Others may think you are a great moderator but in my opinion you are not. In my opinion you are unethical.

You are entitled to your opinion. You are not entitled to send nasty PM's.

[QUOTE=Sparky2]Back to the earlier topic of my handing out unsolicited psychological advice.
Are there situations where it just might be ok to speculate about someone's mental state, and to further offer some advice regarding counseling?
:rolleyes:

Absolutely Positively NoT ! That was the huge problem at IMDb.com
Moderators didn't Post,from what I gather.But they did PM the users
to warn or give advice.I also detected a HUGE Bias from one
Moderator/Administrator.As if,they encouraged a bandwagon
mindset of Piling on and actuaslly advocated poking fun at any
User {Id} that dare challenge the overall Clique mindset.
In other words,being Right about an Issue meant absolutely Nothing.
The only thing that mattered was folloeing the Lead of a few
senior Posters who Loved to Laud and usurp the general populace
of posters with their exclusive brand of Harassing gossip.
The One Moderator in question,actually made the same rude/snide
and uncalled for psychological speculations that others found to work
to their advantage in shushing someone.
In other words,The quickest way to shush someone is make
fun of their Meds or debase their character,as if Looney.
If enough Posters say exactly the same things enough times,eventually human nature kicks in,and it becomes Fact.
Whether truly contrived Fiction or No.
Therefore a Moderator must always be above using psychological
gossip or poking fun,at another poster,in order to drive home a point.
A moderator has to set the example.
One wouldn't expect Miss Crabtree to pull little Jackie Cooper's
Pigtail,if he had one,to get the classes attention,now wood she.?
Or would she Not.??

The P in PMs stands for private, VILEpagan. That means they are to be held in private by the two people involved. While you are obeying the letter of that promise of privacy you are betraying its spirit by trying to reveal the gist of what was a private, personal message from me to you.

Yes, it was profanity laced. It was profanity laced because I feel strongly that what you did was wrong and unethical. When a person gives permission to release a private correspondence that person's name should be included. What you did was say you had a private correspondence from some unknown and unamed person making certain accusations. You used the private correspondence as a form of cartes blanche, or, lettres de cachet. That was wrong and unethical and you know it.

Guys, guys...

Frogger is too old to be pushed out of his ways. He is far too old to know everything. Don't disagree or you'll just make him more ardent in his ways. Kind of like when you give him suppositories but he doesn't want them. So you slip them in his applesauce, and then jam it up his behind during snack time. Surprise!

Moral of the story is, mashed fruit paves the way to victory.

That's why I love you, (reference to Evak's real name deleted). You're so respectful of your elders. Want to share some applesauce.

I may not know everything but I know that posting private correspondence to prove a point and not identifying the corresponder is simply wrong.

His name on this forum is Evak. don't reference his real name again. I guess you're the only one entitled to privacy eh frogger?

You don't like me. I don't like you. Let's leave it at that.

I like Bruce Campbell. Let's leave it at that.

The P in PMs stands for private, VILEpagan. That means they are to be held in private by the two people involved. While you are obeying the letter of that promise of privacy you are betraying its spirit by trying to reveal the gist of what was a private, personal message from me to you.

Yes, it was profanity laced. It was profanity laced because I feel strongly that what you did was wrong and unethical. When a person gives permission to release a private correspondence that person's name should be included. What you did was say you had a private correspondence from some unknown and unamed person making certain accusations. You used the private correspondence as a form of cartes blanche, or, lettres de cachet. That was wrong and unethical and you know it.

How many times have you brought this up.?
OK,so a part or gist of yer PrIvATe message was used By VileP to
make a point.If he said he was sorry and tried to make a goodfaith
effort to explain his intent,that's shorely {sorely} more Danny You have.
It seems you're using this slight infraction to embarass Vilepagan.
If not then what's yer point.?

Foolworthy,

VILE began this current series two days ago, not me. He is the one who initiated it.

He also did not apologize for anything. In fact, he is so unapologetic that he is once again revealing the contents of private messages.

Can I be cutting and sarcastic at times? Sure I can. So can more than half the posters here, including you. That does not mean contents of private messages should be revealed, even with the permission of the originator of the message without identifying who the person was.

All he had to do was say, "Yeah, I shouldn't have done it." Instead he is continuing to divulge the gist of private messages.

As I said, he doesn't like me and I don't like him. Let it stand at that and be done with it.

Foolworthy,

VILE began this current series two days ago, not me. He is the one who initiated it.

He also did not apologize for anything. In fact, he is so unapologetic that he is once again revealing the contents of private messages.

Can I be cutting and sarcastic at times? Sure I can. So can more than half the posters here, including you. That does not mean contents of private messages should be revealed, even with the permission of the originator of the message without identifying who the person was.

All he had to do was say, "Yeah, I shouldn't have done it." Instead he is continuing to divulge the gist of private messages.

As I said, he doesn't like me and I don't like him. Let it stand at that and be done with it.

What in the World could be Sooooooooooo all-fired important
and delicately precious,about a PM.? You act like yer Will was
Rewritten and a smarmy codicil was added and we NOW know yer
true net worth,and how many shawls you have in yer closet
and who'll inherit them.

Wow.

What in the World could be Sooooooooooo all-fired important
and delicately precious,about a PM.? You act like yer Will was
Rewritten and a smarmy codicil was added and we NOW know yer
true net worth,and how many shawls you have in yer closet
and who'll inherit them.

Principle, Foolworthy, principle. If you don't stick to your principles you are nothing.

Foolworthy,

VILE began this current series two days ago, not me. He is the one who initiated it.

He also did not apologize for anything. In fact, he is so unapologetic that he is once again revealing the contents of private messages.

Can I be cutting and sarcastic at times? Sure I can. So can more than half the posters here, including you. That does not mean contents of private messages should be revealed, even with the permission of the originator of the message without identifying who the person was.

All he had to do was say, "Yeah, I shouldn't have done it." Instead he is continuing to divulge the gist of private messages.

As I said, he doesn't like me and I don't like him. Let it stand at that and be done with it.
The writer of the private message can do whatever the fuck they want with it. Unethical would be releasing their name along with the message if that was not what they wanted. You have no right to know the author of the message. You have no right to demand to know the author of the message. You merely want the name so you can lambast the author whenever you possibly can. It wouldn't be the first time you've brought problems to where they shouldn't be. Perhaps it's because you realize you're part of the problem that that PM mentioned.

I would have no problem with the poster who sent the PM. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. What I do have a problem with is posting a PM under the cloak of anonymity. If it was you who posted it, so what. You are entitled to your opinion. If it was SMW or Overdose, so what, they are entitled to their opinions. PMs should not be posted without the person being identified. Hell, I could make up a PM saying anything about anyone and say it was sent to me by a poster I wouldn't name. If you care enough about a topic to say a PM can be posted in open forum you should care enough about it to put your name on it.

Well, let it be known anyone can post any of my PM's.

*except for Sparky*

The P in PMs stands for private, VILEpagan. That means they are to be held in private by the two people involved. While you are obeying the letter of that promise of privacy you are betraying its spirit by trying to reveal the gist of what was a private, personal message from me to you.

I take it then that the main thrust of your message was to be profane, since that's the extent of the details I've revealed.


Yes, it was profanity laced. It was profanity laced because I feel strongly that what you did was wrong and unethical.

I see. You thought I was wrong, so you decided to act wrongly. Brilliant.


When a person gives permission to release a private correspondence that person's name should be included.

Why?


What you did was say you had a private correspondence from some unknown and unamed person making certain accusations.

You are the only one who took it as an accusation. I specifically stated in my original post, and subsequently, that it was not intended as such.


You used the private correspondence as a form of cartes blanche, or, lettres de cachet.

Your references make no sense in this context. I was not trying to exert authority of any kind when I posted that PM, I was merely trying to get everyone to look at the problem from a personal perspective.


That was wrong and unethical and you know it.

I know nothing of the kind. You are the only person who had a negative reaction to that PM being posted, even though two other people were mentioned by name in it. I posted my reasons for sharing the PM and despite twice apologizing for any offense you might have taken, you continue to object vociferously, and label that post as an "accusation". It wasn't. Get over it.

If you posted an apology I never saw it. If it is there I will drop the matter as if it had never happened.

If you posted an apology I never saw it. If it is there I will drop the matter as if it had never happened.

Don't fret Frogger, I'm sure I didn't apologize enough. :)

I like Bruce Campbell. Let's leave it at that.
i like grilled swiss on whole wheat...and could i get a side of onion rings with that?

Deftly Mute,on some level.

Pardon?

Don't fret Frogger, I'm sure I didn't apologize enough. :)

All it would have taken was a simple, I shouldn't have posted it without an attribution.

All it would have taken was a simple, I shouldn't have posted it without an attribution.

No doubt, but I disagree with your assessment of the ethics of posting a PM I received anonymously. The only permission I need is that of the author. As I've stated before, if you were offended, I'm sorry, but I'm not sorry for witholding the name of the author of the PM.

BTW, you posted earlier that I don't like you. You're mistaken about that too.

Don't fret Frogger, I'm sure I didn't apologize enough. :)

I dunno.Maybe this sounds silly.Butt,I'd have far more compassion
for _ Frogger _ if his Id was - Froggy -.
Frogger just sounds so Bait fish.
After all,I'm a Kiddie member.