vpFREE2 Forums

barrings

My private email to you had nothing to do with our FREEvpFREE
exchanges. You and several others have recently been notified
that their posts were clear violations of the posting rules,
with a request to observe the rules in the future. You went on my
email notification list as soon as I read your post, and the
delay in getting around to emailing you doesn't change the
circumstances of your violation.

If I were vindictive, I would have revoked your posting
privileges, since you have a long history of making gratuitous,
negative personal comments (similar to the ones in post # 85793)
in your Bob Dancer posts. I didn't because since June 2006, until
recently, there has been less emphasis on enforcing isolated
rules violations, and posting privileges aren't normally revoked
without prior, private warnings.

I'm no longer willing to put up with habitual, unrepenant rules
violators and have been issuing private warnings to all
violators.

vpFREE Administrator

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

···

To: FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com
From: "rgmustain" <rgmustain@att.net>
Date sent: Sat, 15 Mar 2008 03:41:11 -0000
Subject: [FREEvpFREE] Re: barrings

I received this email today following my criticism of the
administrator. The referenced post is two weeks old and nothing had
been mentioned UNTIL I criticized our apparently vindictive
administrator. I'll let this action speak for itself.

-------------------------------------------------------------

In most respects you are a very valuable member of vpFREE. However,
you have a disruptive habit of getting too personal when making or
responding to negative posts.

A recent example is your vpFREE post # 85793 where you wrote:

"Bob, you were doing fine until this idiotic last paragraph. This
analogy is ridiculous at best. Just because .25 plays are more
prevalent does change the approach a good VP player takes. It makes
no difference what denom one is playing since the math is EXACTLY the
same. Not surprising people think you're ego is tad bit too large."

Your response violates vpFREE rules.

If you had removed the gratuitous personal comments, it would have
been fine:

"I disagree with this last paragraph. Just because .25 plays are more
prevalent does change the approach a good VP player takes. It makes
no difference what denom one is playing since the math is EXACTLY the
same."

I don't have a problem with your Bob Dancer posts, if you keep them
impersonal and objective. Disagree all you like, but in the future,
please do it within the rules:

"CONDUCT: Members are expected to observe the rules of "NETIQUETTE",
and to practice politeness and show good taste in their vpFREE posts.

Negative personal comments or personal attacks, as perceived by the
Administrator and regardless of circumstances, aren't tolerated on
vpFREE. When making or responding to a negative post, be objective,
factual, polite and impersonal. You can assert, deny, disagree,
correct or explain, but no name-calling and don't make belittling or
sarcastic remarks about the writer or their message."

vpFREE Administrator

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, vpFREE Administrator <vp_free@...>
wrote:

My private email to you had nothing to do with our FREEvpFREE
exchanges. You and several others have recently been notified
that their posts were clear violations of the posting rules,
with a request to observe the rules in the future. You went on my
email notification list as soon as I read your post, and the
delay in getting around to emailing you doesn't change the
circumstances of your violation.

If I were vindictive, I would have revoked your posting
privileges, since you have a long history of making gratuitous,
negative personal comments (similar to the ones in post # 85793)
in your Bob Dancer posts. I didn't because since June 2006, until
recently, there has been less emphasis on enforcing isolated
rules violations, and posting privileges aren't normally revoked
without prior, private warnings.

I'm no longer willing to put up with habitual, unrepenant rules
violators and have been issuing private warnings to all
violators.

You really expect anyone to believe this BS?

Now, please explain how telling someone they are eqotistical after
they just demeaned most VPFree posters is "gratuitous".

gratuitous

Main Entry: gra·tu·itous
Pronunciation: \gr&#601;-&#712;tü-&#601;-t&#601;s, -&#712;tyü-\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin gratuitus, from gratus
1 a: given unearned or without recompense b: not involving a return
benefit, compensation, or consideration c: costing nothing : free
2: not called for by the circumstances : unwarranted <gratuitous

<a gratuitous assumption>

— gra·tu·itous·ly adverb
— gra·tu·itous·ness noun

···

Date: 1656

1. I truthfully explained the circumstances of why you received a
rules violation notification. I don't care if you believe my
explanation, or not.

2. Any negative, personal comment is against the rules in
adversarial situations.

3. Disagreement can be expressed without getting personal, so it's
unnecessary (gratuitous) to get personal.

4. You made several unnecessary, negative, personal comments in
the single paragraph of the post that I cited.

5. If you continue making negative, personal comments your vpFREE
posting privileges will be revoked.

6. I hope that you decide to observe the rules because you are a
valuable member of vpFREE in most respects.

vpFREE Administrator

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

···

To: FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com
From: "rgmustain" <rgmustain@att.net>
Date sent: Sat, 15 Mar 2008 13:20:52 -0000
Subject: [FREEvpFREE] Re: barrings

You really expect anyone to believe this BS?

Now, please explain how telling someone they are eqotistical after
they just demeaned most VPFree posters is "gratuitous".

gratuitous

Main Entry: gra�tu�itous
Pronunciation: \gr&#601;-&#712;t�-&#601;-t&#601;s, -&#712;ty�-\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin gratuitus, from gratus
Date: 1656
1 a: given unearned or without recompense b: not involving a return
benefit, compensation, or consideration c: costing nothing : free
2: not called for by the circumstances : unwarranted <gratuitous

<a gratuitous assumption>

� gra�tu�itous�ly adverb
� gra�tu�itous�ness noun

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

To: FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com
From: vpFREE Administrator <vp_free@yahoo.com>
Date sent: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 21:53:22 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [FREEvpFREE] Re: barrings

My private email to you had nothing to do with our FREEvpFREE
exchanges. You and several others have recently been notified
that their posts were clear violations of the posting rules,
with a request to observe the rules in the future. You went on my
email notification list as soon as I read your post, and the
delay in getting around to emailing you doesn't change the
circumstances of your violation.

If I were vindictive, I would have revoked your posting
privileges, since you have a long history of making gratuitous,
negative personal comments (similar to the ones in post # 85793)
in your Bob Dancer posts. I didn't because since June 2006, until
recently, there has been less emphasis on enforcing isolated
rules violations, and posting privileges aren't normally revoked
without prior, private warnings.

I'm no longer willing to put up with habitual, unrepenant rules
violators and have been issuing private warnings to all
violators.

vpFREE Administrator

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, vpFREE Administrator <vp_free@...>
wrote:

1. I truthfully explained the circumstances of why you received a
rules violation notification. I don't care if you believe my
explanation, or not.

And, I don't care if you'll stoop to lying to cover up an obvious
retaliation. Do you really think people can't see your motivations?

2. Any negative, personal comment is against the rules in
adversarial situations.

Then why did it take two weeks? What exactly did you consider
an "adversarial situation". Did you send notes to those who agreed
with my post?

3. Disagreement can be expressed without getting personal, so it's
unnecessary (gratuitous) to get personal.

Those two terms are not synonymous. If you think redefining the
english language helps your cause, think again. When a post is made
that demeans most of the VPFree membership I think it perfectly
reasonable to comment on such a post in an honest fashion. If you
think I'll back off of responding to demeaning posts in this way then
you are dreaming. Maybe you should consider the source of those posts
is the problem.

4. You made several unnecessary, negative, personal comments in
the single paragraph of the post that I cited.

Only one potential "personal" comment was made. And that was tempered
by using "tad bit" instead of "immense" which was probably more
accurate. You still haven't explained why you took two weeks to send
the note.

5. If you continue making negative, personal comments your vpFREE
posting privileges will be revoked.

You've got to be kidding. Did you really need to throw in another
THREAT? Once again you are making your motivations perfectly clear.
If you think I care one iota then you are not too bright. I'm already
a member of several other VP and gambling forums that are vastly
superior to VPFree. The administrators are open and honest in their
efforts.

6. I hope that you decide to observe the rules because you are a
valuable member of vpFREE in most respects.

Your continued preferential treatment of some members of VPFree makes
it less and less likely I will continue to post. Besides, it clearly
doesn't matter if I obey the rules or not. You will interpret them
any way you want.

Dick

Dick, I'm sure the administrator already knows from your dealings
with me that he's dealing with a neurotic who just can't fathom
anyone slappinh him down and/or always having the upper hand. I enjoy
the fact that you continue to while like a sissy and keep on burying
yourself in front of others, but even Melly is probably choking right
about now.

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, vpFREE Administrator <vp_free@>
wrote:
>
> 1. I truthfully explained the circumstances of why you received a
> rules violation notification. I don't care if you believe my
> explanation, or not.

And, I don't care if you'll stoop to lying to cover up an obvious
retaliation. Do you really think people can't see your motivations?

>
> 2. Any negative, personal comment is against the rules in
> adversarial situations.

Then why did it take two weeks? What exactly did you consider
an "adversarial situation". Did you send notes to those who agreed
with my post?

>
> 3. Disagreement can be expressed without getting personal, so it's
> unnecessary (gratuitous) to get personal.

Those two terms are not synonymous. If you think redefining the
english language helps your cause, think again. When a post is made
that demeans most of the VPFree membership I think it perfectly
reasonable to comment on such a post in an honest fashion. If you
think I'll back off of responding to demeaning posts in this way

then

you are dreaming. Maybe you should consider the source of those

posts

is the problem.

>
> 4. You made several unnecessary, negative, personal comments in
> the single paragraph of the post that I cited.

Only one potential "personal" comment was made. And that was

tempered

by using "tad bit" instead of "immense" which was probably more
accurate. You still haven't explained why you took two weeks to

send

the note.

>
> 5. If you continue making negative, personal comments your vpFREE
> posting privileges will be revoked.

You've got to be kidding. Did you really need to throw in another
THREAT? Once again you are making your motivations perfectly clear.
If you think I care one iota then you are not too bright. I'm

already

a member of several other VP and gambling forums that are vastly
superior to VPFree. The administrators are open and honest in their
efforts.

>
> 6. I hope that you decide to observe the rules because you are a
> valuable member of vpFREE in most respects.

Your continued preferential treatment of some members of VPFree

makes

it less and less likely I will continue to post. Besides, it

clearly

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@...> wrote:

doesn't matter if I obey the rules or not. You will interpret them
any way you want.

Dick