Originally posted by josephwWhy is it you think you stating this opinion is relevant? What does the message have to do with you? It wasn't sent to you and I didn't show it to you. Why do you think your admiration for or inclination to defend Suzianne's behaviour has any bearing on how I chose to deal with what she did?
...the PM just simply isn't threatening or abusive in any legitimate way.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhere is it you think I am saying any such thing? You are making stuff up again. Copy paste the sentence or sentences you are referring to verbatim and then ask me an honest question.
The entire basis for you revealing the text was that it contained what you termed abusive material and now you are saying that its irrelevant simply because someone else has a different perspective..
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThis is a facile parody argument. There was no "obligation" to keep the message secret. There was no "obligation" to report it to the mods. There was no "obligation" to show it to people. There was no "obligation" to reply to her message. There was no "obligation" for her to send it. There was no "obligation" for either of us to send any messages to each other saying that if we were ever to meet we would hurt each other.
If you have any argument as to why a message like that would incur an obligation on the part of its recipient to reveal its contents, that would be relevant.
Originally posted by HandyAndyAndy,
I haven't got a guilty conscience, Rusty. And I have no idea why I waste time trying to reason with fools like you.
Now you have stooped to name calling. Think that will help with your argument?
I wish you a Merry Christmas and you call me a fool. What character you show.
-VR
-Removed-Dive,
IF as you say there are many who think FMF was justified in sharing the P.M. then why are they not posting? I can tell you why, they don't agree with it! IF they did they would be throwing in their 5 cents worth! Hell, he claims to have sent messages to 20 then changed it to 24, think some of them would speak up on his behalf, if they agreed.
-VR
-Removed-Dive,
It has nothing to do with people disliking FMF, it has to do with disliking what he did. He himself said he found the idle threat to be ludicrous and Laughable. Does that sound like someone who is in fear of what a woman said?
As I told you before if suzianne has all these cronies you keep mentioning then why are people who have had disagreements with her backing her on this? Why are you the only one backing up FMF. Guess since you like using the word CRONIES that would make you one of his cronies?
Kindest Regards,
You Clan Brother, for now,
-VR
Originally posted by FMFOriginally posted by josephw
Why is it you think you stating this opinion is relevant? What does the message have to do with you? It wasn't sent to you and I didn't show it to you. Why do you think your admiration for or inclination to defend Suzianne's behaviour has any bearing on how I chose to deal with what she did?
...the PM just simply isn't threatening or abusive in any legitimate way.
"Why is it you think you stating this opinion is relevant?"
It's not just an opinion. It's the truth. The PM isn't "threatening and abusive". And I don't think "stating this opinion" is irrelevant because your premise for sharing the PM is based on YOUR opinion that it is "threatening and abusive".
What does the message have to do with you?"
Nothing, but you shared the PM, and so I'm involved in the debate about that.
" It wasn't sent to you and I didn't show it to you."
"The PM" was indeed sent to me, and I'm not going to share with you or any other by whom. It is after all private.
"Why do you think your admiration for or inclination to defend Suzianne's behaviour has any bearing on how I chose to deal with what she did?"
My "admiration for or inclination to defend Suzianne's behavior" is irrelevant to this discussion. What you chose to do with a private message is relevant to the topic of this thread.
That you should frame the question in such a way, or even pose it at all, is indicative of either whether you are cognizant of what one means by what they say, or you are deliberately trying to obfuscate the discussion. Or both.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieTunnel vision is necessary when conversing with a weasel.
Actually its you that is way off base, infact you are wired to da moon. I was referring to his time on the forum boards, not to his illness. Please try to make room for other possibilities and you can avoid this type of tunnel vision.