For Rajk

Originally posted by @romans1009
What a pity you don’t realize when you go too far

Originally posted by @fmf
Because dj2becker's speculation about events decades ago, deployed as forum banter, was completely lacking in common decency.

divegeester not being phased by the depths that a poster like dj2becker would go to, does not affect the indecency of dj2becker's post.

Originally posted by @divegeester
Such as when?

Originally posted by @romans1009
You being the arbiter of what constitutes common decency is quite indecent.

And your new avatar pic is a disaster.

Originally posted by @romans1009
I’ll tell you when you’re not slamming the sauce.

Originally posted by @romans1009
You being the arbiter of what constitutes common decency is quite indecent.

Originally posted by @fmf
Not at all. We are all independent personally responsible moral agents and if you and I disagree about the decency - or the lack thereof - of what dj2becker did, then that is par for the course on a debate and discussion forum like this one. If you find my objection "indecent" then it's fine for you to say that.

Originally posted by @romans1009
We disagree on the intent behind what he did. You said he had ill intent; I disagree. You obviously had ill intent in bringing all this up again.

Originally posted by @fmf
My intent is to set dj2becker straight and to confront you for your endorsement of an infamous poster who has only posted a couple a hundred times since you arrived. If you both raise the level of banter-decency even just a tad, my intent will have borne fruit.

Originally posted by @romans1009
I’m not endorsing anyone. I just said I don’t think he had ill intent in mentioning it but I also said it would have been better for him to pm me if he thought I needed to know that information.

Originally posted by @fmf
It's about as obvious a case of "trolling" ~ and way, way more serious than anything you have called "trolling" that's been aimed at you, by far ~ as one could possibly get.

Originally posted by @romans1009
It again goes to intent.

Originally posted by @romans1009
I think it was to give me a broader perspective on dive’s posting behavior and make me aware of an area I should avoid.

For the record, my intention was not to troll Dive but rather to encourage Romans to cut him some slack for his behavior in light of something that Dive himself had shared here prior to Romans arrival.

Originally posted by @fmf
My intent is to set dj2becker straight and to confront you for your endorsement of an infamous poster who has only posted a couple a hundred times since you arrived. If you both raise the level of banter-decency even just a tad, my intent will have borne fruit.