1 edit
Originally posted by Very RustyI asked him politely not to PM me, in part, because he himself has boasted that he has never used the ignore function. One would have thought, bearing this in mind, that he would have stopped sending PMs when requested to do so, rather than suggesting instead that I use the ignore function.
When all it takes is to use the ignore function, you seem to be just looking to instigate, IMHO.
Originally posted by FMFBS-O-Meter
I asked him politely not to PM me, in part, because he himself has boasted that he has never used the ignore function. One would have thought, bearing this in mind, that he would have stopped sending PMs when requested to do so, rather than suggesting instead that I use the ignore function.
..................................................l.
NOTE: It is getting longer! 😛
Originally posted by FMFi think the solution is evident
Well, "others" have described having similar problems and some have made suggestions or told me how they have handled it. As for your take on it, I do "get it".
Grampy Bobby should PM you hourly with assurances that you will not be receiving unsolicited PMs and that only if you request one or more PMs, and then, certainly, only for specifically defined and appropriately cited purposes would you receive a PM from him; however, he should also specify, possibly in alternate PMs, most propitiously sent, presumably, on the 30 minutes past the hour mark, that you would not be receiving PMs from a surrogate either; last, and this one might be doubful, but, it seems best that Gampy Bobby send you hourly PMs providing assurances that he has not sent you any unsolicited PMs.
oh wait, one more PM must be sent, and that would be one that details the appropriate modality for appealing any perceived transgressions.
yes, that should do it fine.
Originally posted by coquetteThe PMs have stopped. My question was about whether others had experienced something similar.
i think the solution is evident
Grampy Bobby should PM you hourly with assurances that you will not be receiving unsolicited PMs and that only if you request one or more PMs, and then, certainly, only for specifically defined and appropriately cited purposes would you receive a PM from him; however, he should also specify, possibly in alternate PMs, most ...[text shortened]... appropriate modality for appealing any perceived transgressions.
yes, that should do it fine.
Originally posted by ChessPraxisdiffusion might be the solution
I have, some googly eyed guy keeps whining about the sending of PMs.
we could all, for the sake of community service,
send FMF a PM to let him know that we will not be sending him any PMs under any circumstances
that should put his mind at ease
Originally posted by coquetteHave you had any problems like the one described in the OP?
diffusion might be the solution
we could all, for the sake of community service,
send FMF a PM to let him know that we will not be sending him any PMs under any circumstances
that should put his mind at ease
Originally posted by coquetteRather like Grampy Bobby, I do not like to use the ignore function. I would have thought a simple request not to send PMs would suffice. He's stopped now anyway, so it was either the repeated requests that achieved that, or it may have been me asking others if polite requests had worked for them in the past.
i use the ignore option for that purpose
Grampy Bobby has not sent me unwanted, unwelcome or unsolicited PMs, nor have i had the occasion or impulse to request that he refrain from sending any PMs
however, i do have a fairly extensive ignore list
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFI've never really had any bad experiences with messages at this site that I remember. Not all my correspondences were pleasant. But I've never felt disrespected, treated unfairly or insulted by anyone at this site.
Have you had any problems like the one described in the OP?