@ghost-of-a-duke saidPretend he didn't see what?
Dive of course will give you the green light, or pretend he didn't see it.
A "green light" for me to do what?
@fmf saidWhy edit out the answer to your own question? Here's my full post again.
Pretend he didn't see what?
A "green light" for me to do what?
You said you thought I actually did condone posts calling for someone to be harmed. I consider that a disturbed and obviously untrue statement. Where in my posting history would you find support for such a thing?
Dive of course will give you the green light, or pretend he didn't see it.
@ghost-of-a-duke saidI didn't edit anything out. You are mistaken. I addressed everything in your post.
Why edit out the answer to your own question? Here's my full post again.
@ghost-of-a-duke saidKevin Eleven left a club and then returned, all of his own volition.
He left a club and then returned, all of his own volition. What of it?
Are you saying that his presence in your club has nothing to do with your "volition"?
@ghost-of-a-duke saidSo, what exactly is the Ghost of a Duke Principle in effect here?
Are all silent people guilty of this, or only those you have an issue with?
You never call anyone out in public for supposedly being "toxic", is that it?
And you would cite Very Rusty as an example of this Principle ~ i.e. this being silent ~ in action?
@fmf saidI'll talk you through it:
Kevin Eleven left a club and then returned, all of his own volition.
Are you saying that his presence in your club has nothing to do with your "volition"?
1. Kevin made some unpleasant reference about Dive's family.
2. I challenged him on this publically. (I was under no compulsion to do so and on a different day might have just rolled my eyes and stayed out of it).
3. Kevin reacted as expected and left the Chamber. (Probably thinking he would be kicked out).
4. He was mistaken about this. I am not in the habit of kicking members from a club who I clash with in the GF. I made my views clear in the GF about not going after another posters family and that for me was the end of it.
5. Kevin later requested to re-join the Chamber.
6. As he had left of his own accord (not for the first time) and it had not been my intent to boot him, I let him back in. Leaving and returning was all him. I merely opened the door.
@ghost-of-a-duke saidI think you are much diminished by some of the posters in your current "circle".
I'll talk you through it:
1. Kevin made some unpleasant reference about Dive's family.
2. I challenged him on this publically. (I was under no compulsion to do so and on a different day might have just rolled my eyes and stayed out of it).
3. Kevin reacted as expected and left the Chamber. (Probably thinking he would be kicked out).
4. He was mistaken about this ...[text shortened]... intent to boot him, I let him back in. Leaving and returning was all him. I merely opened the door.
@fmf saidThe Ghost of a Duke Principle is that I reserve the right to post how I want to post and will not be directed to chastise on command.
So, what exactly is the Ghost of a Duke Principle in effect here?
You never call anyone out in public for supposedly being "toxic", is that it?
And you would cite Very Rusty as an example of this Principle ~ i.e. this being silent ~ in action?
I have (historically) challenged more posters publically than anybody, including comments that were directed at yourself or Dive (as in the example above). Doing so always has blow back and sometimes I (along with others) I might decide just to stay out of it and let the mods do their job. This doesn't mean I condone unpleasant comments a poster might have made, especially if they are hateful.
@ghost-of-a-duke saidYes, your choice of who to chastise and who not to chastise is interesting. Your choice about what to cover for, deflect from, and bury in threads is interesting. It isn't a question of whether you have been "commanded" to do so by anyone.
The Ghost of a Duke Principle is that I reserve the right to post how I want to post and will not be directed to chastise on command.