I want MY thread reopened

[WTF]

Thank you for a very informative post, I will pursue your suggestions.

Btw...i am posting on my phone, I do not remember the Mods name. If I would have gone back to look it up I would have then had to retype everything again. So your assumption that my explanation is implausible is incorrect. But I do see how you could have gotten mixed up. No big deal.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by Wakeup

...this forum generates on average 2.73 times more RTMs than any other forum on this board, just short of 14 per day...

Thank you for that interesting factoid. Now how about furnishing a list of posters by frequency of their RTMs? You know... like those "Top Posters" and "Top Reviewers" columns you already provide.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Thank you for that interesting factoid. Now how about furnishing a list of posters by frequency of their RTMs? You know... like those "Top Posters" and "Top Reviewers" columns you already provide.

Do you really think that is a reasonable request?

[Tsmokies]

Hell I can post those numbers lusty....GOP 99%. Libs with an actual life .005%. We do enjoy you GOP talking amongst your selfs though. Very funny zhit

[Wakeup]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Now how about furnishing a list of posters by frequency of their RTMs?

No. It was a bad idea previously, and it’s a worse one now. No one should ever be shamed for reporting what they see as a violation, regardless of whether or not Staff may end up deciding it is. The RTM process is very much needed, and to diminish it in any way is wrong.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Wakeup

Again, you’re incorrect in your assumptions, both in there being “only” one other assumption, and what is a “natural” assumption. You also demonstrate a lack of understanding about stacking points, which no Staff member is going to explain to you.

Not absolutely correct, only situationally correct.

It absolutely is an "either" "or" situation. The person was either warned and/or pointed for these infractions or he wasn't. That he didn't cease using the bastardized, derogatory handle until the other poster was banned is evidence that he was never warned or pointed for using the bastardized, derogatory handle when addressing the now banned poster.

[Wakeup]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

It absolutely is an "either" "or" situation.

Again, incorrect.

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

The person was either warned and/or pointed for these infractions or he wasn't.

Incorrect. It can absolutely be both.

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

That he didn't cease using the bastardized, derogatory handle until the other poster was banned is evidence that he was never warned or pointed for using the bastardized, derogatory handle when addressing the now banned poster.

Again, as I've said before, incorrect.

Your assumption of correlation is flawed. You do not know the timeline under which either one member was banned, or the other ceased using the altered handle, therefore drawing any connection between the two is only going to be based in assumption. Staff has access to that information, you do not.

Your use of the word "never" here will almost automatically defeat your premise. Absolutes here are almost always incorrect.

Your last assumption, that the alteration was derogatory is also just that, an unverified assumption. Again, Staff has access to that information, you do not.

Again, these are the facts, whether you choose to believe them or not is both irrelevant, and inconsequential. Either way, it will not be explained again.

[WTF]

What two posters are we talking about?

someone can p.m. me if it is top top secret

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by Wakeup

No. It was a bad idea previously, and it’s a worse one now. No one should ever be shamed for reporting what they see as a violation, regardless of whether or not Staff may end up deciding it is...

Who said anything about shaming people? Do you really think any posters in this forum are capable of feeling shame?

I was thinking more along the lines of encouraging a Top RTMer competition, sorta like what you see over in the Top Poster column.

Why be satisfied with a lousy 14 RTMs a day?

Was Babe Ruth satisfied with 14 home runs a season?

Would Jim Brown have been happy if he rushed 14 yards a game?

Would Michael Jordan have been content averaging 14 points a game?

Aim high!!!

[Wakeup]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Who said anything about shaming people? Do you really think any posters in this forum are capable of feeling shame?

Whether they are capable or not is irrelevant...that is the intent behind the request to reveal it.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by Wakeup

Whether they are capable or not is irrelevant...that is the intent behind the request to reveal it.

Wakeup, do you want to get rich? You should hire yourself out to Law Enforcement. Too many criminals get off because the prosecution can't prove intent. With you testifying as an expert witness, they would all be convicted!!

P.S. That was a joke! No disrespect intended (but you know that already).

[Austin Ellen]

I gotta admit that was hysterical. I got such a chuckle.

Originally Posted by lustylad

Who said anything about shaming people? Do you really think any posters in this forum are capable of feeling shame?

I was thinking more along the lines of encouraging a Top RTMer competition, sorta like what you see over in the Top Poster column.

Why be satisfied with a lousy 14 RTMs a day?

Was Babe Ruth satisfied with 14 home runs a season?

Would Jim Brown have been happy if he rushed 14 yards a game?

Would Michael Jordan have been content averaging 14 points a game?

Aim high!!!

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by Austin Ellen

I gotta admit that was hysterical. I got such a chuckle.

Good. This forum could use more humor.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Wakeup

Again, incorrect.



Incorrect. It can absolutely be both.



Again, as I've said before, incorrect.

Your assumption of correlation is flawed. You do not know the timeline under which either one member was banned, or the other ceased using the altered handle, therefore drawing any connection between the two is only going to be based in assumption. Staff has access to that information, you do not.

Your use of the word "never" here will almost automatically defeat your premise. Absolutes here are almost always incorrect.

Your last assumption, that the alteration was derogatory is also just that, an unverified assumption. Again, Staff has access to that information, you do not.

Again, these are the facts, whether you choose to believe them or not is both irrelevant, and inconsequential. Either way, it will not be explained again.

Just so everyone understands your position, you would have everyone in this forum believe that someone persisted in being derogatory -- TWELVE times -- in exactly the same manner -- over a three day period -- after you warned and pointed them. Got it.

Originally Posted by lustylad

Thank you for that interesting factoid. Now how about furnishing a list of posters by frequency of their RTMs? You know... like those "Top Posters" and "Top Reviewers" columns you already provide.

I'll admit that I RTM'd each and every one of the twelve instances I noted wherein one poster demeaned another poster with a derogatory bastardization of the second poster's handle.

[Wakeup]

I would have no one believe anything. As always y’all are free to believe anything y’all want to, simply because your belief is irrelevant. The reality of the situation is all that matters.

Have a good evening.