vpFREE2 Forums

barrings

> vpFREE Administrator wrote:

rgmustain 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?

As I've already told you, my private email to you wasn't
retaliatory (which FYI means "payback for a hurtful act"). There
wasn't any payback or penalty or sanction in my email. It was
intended as a friendly note that pointed out a rules violation
and requested that you observe the rules in the future.

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

Then why did it take two weeks?

I have already explained my delay in emailing you about your
rules violation, and the delay doesn't change the circumstances
of your violation in any way.

What exactly did you consider an "adversarial situation".

In your case, an example is most of your responses to Bob Dancer
posts.

Did you send notes to those who agreed with my post?

No.

> 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.

Whether or not they're synonymous is immaterial to my cause. But,
in the context of the posting guidelines these two terms are
interchangeable.

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.

You think whatever you like, but the posting guidelines state:
"Negative personal comments or personal attacks, as perceived by
the Administrator and regardless of circumstances, aren't
tolerated on vpFREE."

> 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.

That was one violation. The other two were the use of "idiotic"
and "ridiculous" in your post. You could have expressed your
disagreement just as effectively without using these negative
terms.

You still haven't explained why you took two weeks to send
the note.

Untrue.

> 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?

Apparently so, from reading your reaction to my private email.

Once again you are making your motivations perfectly clear.

Good. Then you understand that negative, personal comments aren't
tolerated on vpFREE.

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.

Whether you care or not is immaterial to me.

> 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.

It clearly does matter that you obey the ruers, if you want to remain a
member in good standing of vpFREE.

Dick

vpFREE Administrator

While Dick pretends not to "see" these, you can tell he reads them at
least twice by the way he boils over in responses to my other posts!

His demise here can be tied to two simple faults: A hatred of Bob
Dancer because he's a programmer who's "made it" whilst Dick hasn't;
and, a seething envy of me. Imagine living with him? How'd you like
to be the poor manipulated/controlled person in his home after
disagreeing with something he said?? Anyone wonder why he wants no
other family within a thousand miles?

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

> > vpFREE Administrator wrote:

>rgmustain 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?

As I've already told you, my private email to you wasn't
retaliatory (which FYI means "payback for a hurtful act"). There
wasn't any payback or penalty or sanction in my email. It was
intended as a friendly note that pointed out a rules violation
and requested that you observe the rules in the future.

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

> Then why did it take two weeks?

I have already explained my delay in emailing you about your
rules violation, and the delay doesn't change the circumstances
of your violation in any way.

> What exactly did you consider an "adversarial situation".

In your case, an example is most of your responses to Bob Dancer
posts.

> Did you send notes to those who agreed with my post?

No.

> > 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.

Whether or not they're synonymous is immaterial to my cause. But,
in the context of the posting guidelines these two terms are
interchangeable.

> 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.

You think whatever you like, but the posting guidelines state:
"Negative personal comments or personal attacks, as perceived by
the Administrator and regardless of circumstances, aren't
tolerated on vpFREE."

> > 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.

That was one violation. The other two were the use of "idiotic"
and "ridiculous" in your post. You could have expressed your
disagreement just as effectively without using these negative
terms.

> You still haven't explained why you took two weeks to send
> the note.

Untrue.

> > 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?

Apparently so, from reading your reaction to my private email.

> Once again you are making your motivations perfectly clear.

Good. Then you understand that negative, personal comments aren't
tolerated on vpFREE.

> 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.

Whether you care or not is immaterial to me.

> > 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.

It clearly does matter that you obey the ruers, if you want to

remain a

ยทยทยท

member in good standing of vpFREE.

> Dick

vpFREE Administrator

Sorry, I missed this post. Thanks for pointing it out.

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

> > vpFREE Administrator wrote:

>rgmustain 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?

As I've already told you, my private email to you wasn't
retaliatory (which FYI means "payback for a hurtful act"). There
wasn't any payback or penalty or sanction in my email. It was
intended as a friendly note that pointed out a rules violation
and requested that you observe the rules in the future.

Since there was NO rules infraction it could hardly be construed as
a "friendly" note.

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

> Then why did it take two weeks?

I have already explained my delay in emailing you about your
rules violation, and the delay doesn't change the circumstances
of your violation in any way.

No, you haven't explained the delay. If anyone buys the "it just
happened to occur" line I think I've got some oceanfront property in
Arizona I'd like to sell them.

> What exactly did you consider an "adversarial situation".

In your case, an example is most of your responses to Bob Dancer
posts.

Now this is pure nonsense. I guess you couldn't come up anything
concrete which futher proves there was NO VIOLATION.

> Did you send notes to those who agreed with my post?

No.

Good, since there was no violation to begin with.

> > 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.

Whether or not they're synonymous is immaterial to my cause. But,
in the context of the posting guidelines these two terms are
interchangeable.

Not if you understand the English language which I think is getting
pretty clear by now. My statement was completely factual in the
context of the post. Hence, it is not gratuitous. As far as necessary
goes, about 90% of the posts on vpfree are unnecessary. They provide
little information and are often just agreeing with others (I do it
myself). Being "necessary" is not a vpfree requirement. PERIOD! You
will need to do a lot better than this.

> 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.

You think whatever you like, but the posting guidelines state:
"Negative personal comments or personal attacks, as perceived by
the Administrator and regardless of circumstances, aren't
tolerated on vpFREE."

I realize your "perception" is a little clouded and I suspect this
may be the problem. This has just made it more obvious. If you had
done something about Bob's "gratuitous" and unnecessary post in the
first place, you might have avoided this kind of situation. But then,
I guess you don't consider a comparison of "big league" Bob to "high
school" Vpfree member to be gratuitous, and based on your statement
above, it must also have been "necessary".

> > 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.

That was one violation. The other two were the use of "idiotic"
and "ridiculous" in your post. You could have expressed your
disagreement just as effectively without using these negative
terms.

Idiotic referred SPECIFICALLY to the "last paragraph" of Bob's post.
Do you understand the English syntax at all? It is perfectly clear.
When a statement is made that a PARAGRAPH is "idiotic", please
explain how that is NOT commenting on the CONTEXT of the post?
Furthermore, please explain how the term "ridiculous" is a personal
comment in any way, shape or form. You really are waaaay out on a
limb here.

The vpfree rules clearly state one should comment on the content of
the POST which is exactly what I did. Clearly you chose to interpret
my post as you wanted to rather than what the rules state. Did I
mention retaliatory?

> You still haven't explained why you took two weeks to send
> the note.

Untrue.

All you've done is claim it just took you that long ... and it just
happened to occur after my posts here. Sorry, you'll have to do
better than that if you want to convince any reasonable person.

> > 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?

Apparently so, from reading your reaction to my private email.

> Once again you are making your motivations perfectly clear.

Good. Then you understand that negative, personal comments aren't
tolerated on vpFREE.

I understand that you will grasp at anything since no such comments
were made.

> > 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.

It clearly does matter that you obey the ruers, if you want to

remain a

member in good standing of vpFREE.

Like I said before, I don't really care if I'm in good standing by
your faulty interpretation of the rules. I know that I only respond
to the content of posts. If the content of a post is demeaning then I
will continue to point that out. What I find really interesting is
you don't seem to be able to understand your own rules. I also find
it interesting that, above, you took my words out of context instead
of the way they appeared in within my post. One more example of your
obvious retaliatary nature.