Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe idea that I was "compelled" to do anything at all or that you are "compelled" to behave in the way you are behaving on this thread, or that Suzianne was "compelled" to make her ludicrous threats, is sheer nonsense, robbie.
its a simple question were or were you not compelled to reveal the text because it contained abuse, why you seem to be having great difficulty answering it I cannot say.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieTry to take this apart piece by piece:
I would say that rather than being clumsy you seem to have been taken apart piece by piece.
The outcomes that my approach has had:
[1] No deceit. [2] All out in the open. [3] Nobody's shabby secrets being kept. [4] No curtailment of free speech. [5] Principled stand (threats unacceptable, "trust" abrogated]. [6] Suzianne gets no ban. [7] She's learnt a lesson. [8] Other abusive posters like yourself are vowing not to send any abusive messages for fear of being exposed. [9] No cover up. [10] No block on messages. [11] Channel of communication still open. [12] Decent messaging still possible. [13] Door to reconciliation not closed.
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFSure anytime, suck this up
Try to take this apart piece by piece:
The outcomes that my approach has had:
[1] No deceit. [2] All out in the open. [3] Nobody's shabby secrets being kept. [4] No curtailment of free speech. [5] Principled stand (threats unacceptable, "trust" abrogated]. [6] Suzianne gets no ban. [7] She's learnt a lesson. [8] Other abusive posters like yourself are vow ...[text shortened]... cation still open. [12] Decent messaging still possible. [13] Door to reconciliation not closed.
[1] No deceit except that you betrayed a confidence
[2] All out in the open to your cronies and acolytes
[3] Nobody's shabby secrets being kept by those trusted with a confidential text
[4] No curtailment of free speech which was never curtailed anyway.
[5] Unprincipled stand intended to humiliate the sender
[6] Suzianne gets no ban although FMF should
[7] She's learnt a lesson not to trust an untrustworthy cad like FMF
[8] Other abusive posters like FMF cannot send any abusive messages because they hav been blocked.
[9] No cover up just a shameful witch hunt.
11] Channel of communication still open although Suzzianne doesn't seem to be saying much to FMF and who can blame her
[12] Decent messaging still possible but enter at the risk of being betrayed.
[13] Door to reconciliation not closed although it would be good to cast off such a disreputable and untrustworthy cad like FMF
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFExcellent! So you were not compelled to reveal the text because it contained abuse, is this now your position? Why then did you do it?
The idea that I was "compelled" to do anything at all or that you are "compelled" to behave in the way you are behaving on this thread, or that Suzianne was "compelled" to make her ludicrous threats, is sheer nonsense, robbie.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieRobbie,
Aint that the truth, he had options open to him. To simply block the sender, to appeal to the site administration and yet he choose the most loathsome of all, to share the private correspondence with his cronies in order to humiliate the sender. Why else would he choose to do so? This action speaks volumes about the kind of untrustworthy, forked tongued, two faced character that he self evidently purports to be. Trust him at your peril.
This is something we both agree on for a change. We have both been sent mail which could be taken as abusive. We didn't share it with anyone publicly like big baby's looking for people to feel sorry for us. We dealt with it in our own way.
Regards,
-VR
2 edits
Originally posted by Very RustyFMF is in a quandary, his position is that he shared the text because it contained abuse, in essence his argument is that the abusive text in a way compelled him to reveal its contents otherwise he would not have done so, which is complete nonsense. This is why he will not nor cannot answer despite being asked several times. If he states that its not the case, he was not compelled to act because of the abuse then his entire testimony is bogus. He's in zugzwang!!!
Robbie,
This is something we both agree on for a change. We have both been sent mail which could be taken as abusive. We didn't share it with anyone publicly like big baby's looking for people to feel sorry for us. We dealt with it in our own way.
Regards,
-VR
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobie[1] Nope, no confidence was betrayed, as explained, though you've dodged discussing it.
Sure anytime, suck this up
[1] No deceit except that you betrayed a confidence
[2] All out in the open to your cronies and acolytes
[3] Nobody's shabby secrets being kept by those trusted with a confidential text
[4] No curtailment of free speech which was never curtailed anyway.
[5] Unprincipled stand intended to humiliate the sender
[6] Suz ...[text shortened]... closed although it would be good to cast off such a disreputable and untrustworthy cad like FMF
[2] I told Suzianne exac tly what I had done.
[3] Suzianne's use of the message facility to make threats and be abusive was not covered up
[4] her free speech would have been curtailed if she'd copped a ban.
[5] Threats crossed the line, trust abrogated
[6] neither of us got banned
[7] She's learnt a lesson about making unhinged threats in a message
[8] I have never sent any abuse or threats to anyone in 10 years..
[9] A witch hunt suggests concerted action; nothing of the sort has happened; her true colours have simply been exposed
11] Channel of communication still open - can't be a bad thing. I've never blocked anyone.
[12] Decent messaging still possible ... abusive posters know what happens
[13] Door to reconciliation not closed and people are free to cast off wheover they want
Originally posted by robbie carrobie"Compelled"?
FMF is in a quandary, his position is that he shared the text because it contained abuse, in essence his argument is that the abusive text in a way compelled him to reveal its contents otherwise he would not have done so, which is complete nonsense. This is why he will not nor cannot answer despite being asked several times. If he states that its no ...[text shortened]... t compelled to act because of the abuse then his entire testimony is bogus. He's in zugzwang!!!
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAbuse on its own, I don't think would have been much interest to anyone. What triggered the passing on of the message were the specific threats she made. The combination of unhinged abuse and specific threats was what the key. I thought some of the regular posters might be interested and I wasn't bound by any obligation of confidentiality.
FMF is in a quandary, his position is that he shared the text because it contained abuse...
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFYou hurt her FMF and although she is extremely abrasive towards me and esteems me lower than a snake I would not have dreamed of hurting her in this way. Perhaps you were being cruel to be kind in a way, I dunno, but its a shady business. Anyway I have wasted enough time here.
Abuse on its own, I don't think would have been much interest to anyone. What triggered the passing on of the message were the specific threats she made. The combination of unhinged abuse and specific threats was what the key. I thought some of the regular posters might be interested and I wasn't bound by any obligation of confidentiality.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIt's a pity you never found a way to be "funny" whilst showing some backbone. You always resort to a noxious blend of verbal diarrhea, ostentatious and calculated lack of principle, bizarre repetition. It's a pity you never found a way to be "funny" and yet behave in a grown up way at the same time. You seem content to sell yourself short, robbie. 😉
meh I'm done with you, you're busted, nothing but malice compelled you to act by revealing the text, not the abuse, nothing. Good game - Robbie and his Eagles 1 FMF and his acolytes 0, gg.