Rocky

Well, Zix, sorry that you had such a bad weekend. :D--> You talkin to me?

Ya know what ya call two gay Bobs? Oral Roberts! :D--> You talkin to me?

:)--> :D--> You talkin to me?

Two blondes drove to California to visit Disneyland. When they came to the sign that said "Disneyland left", disappointed they turned around and went home. :D--> Telling the truth carries risk. I accept that risk.

again, if I engage in any rebuttals, I must be doing the same thing as the one who apparently is so obsessed about me. again, I get it. I have no right to complain about this person's harassment targeting me, but he has a right to say all the bad things about me he wants. it does appear that simple. Telling the truth carries risk. I accept that risk.

Of course we missed Ms. Jalapeno! Welcome back hot mama. And Excie... your joke was funny. I wasn't offended. Telling the truth carries risk. I accept that risk.

:D--> Telling the truth carries risk. I accept that risk.

yes, wacky dear... it was put in the decaf politics forum, and when I started this thread, Paw restored my access to that forum. Telling the truth carries risk. I accept that risk.

Oh you nasty girl! :D--> Telling the truth carries risk. I accept that risk.

Indeed, and Barry Goldwater was one who could handle such civility too. Telling the truth carries risk. I accept that risk.

God forbid! :D--> Bob, you came in on this when it was over. Telling the truth carries risk. I accept that risk.

Jonny, It was moved to a forum I didn't have access to, until after I started this thread. So, it's been found. Pawtucket and others, This one poster, who (in this post) will remain nameless, continues to stalk me. My discussion, the one about which this thread was first started, was moved to the political decaf forum, apparently at the behest of said poster. That poster has continued to make derogatory statements about me, on this thread, even after I indicated I understood this particular set of new rules -- AND in the thread he wanted moved to a non-open forum. His comments have been directed primarily at me, or on this thread to take over and commandeer the discussion so that he can choose what topic he wants to address. On the other thread, his comments have, thus far, had nothing to do with the point of discussion for which the thread was started. THIS is STALKING and HARASSMENT. I do not get involved in his discussions. I asked him to return the courtesy. He, in no uncertain terms, said he was refusing to do that. Now, since this poster and the other one who has been allowed to attack me willy nilly started based on their apparent hatred for my political point of view, and since this poster has specified he will not refrain from interrupting my discussion, as I have done with his, WHO is the one harassing? --------------- Telling the truth carries risk. I accept that risk.

ok, i get it... you guys can continue to pile it on and I can't say anything about it... i get it. Telling the truth carries risk. I accept that risk.

Well, BRAGGING to me about that isn't going to do you any good. :D--> Telling the truth carries risk. I accept that risk.

Really? I'm neither a "member" nor have any such association. Telling the truth carries risk. I accept that risk.

It was like 3.2 beer... watered down... :D--> Telling the truth carries risk. I accept that risk.

And in case no one has noticed, this has turned into a public ganging up on me. Not by Pawtucket, in this case. and btw, Simon -- next time, please wear your tie to church! :D--> Telling the truth carries risk. I accept that risk.

considering your demands that I stop telling the truth to be inviting me to tell you my concerns is completely disingenuous. There is no other fair way to describe it than that your two ganged up on me privately to tell me to stop. Telling the truth carries risk. I accept that risk.

And "airing this out privately" meant having a private topic with Pawtucket bringing his very articulate friend Pamsandiego in to try to convince me that what was going on wasn't what was going on. Ganging up on me privately is a more fair description of your attempt. And let's be candid (read HONEST): high maintenance means I refuse to be intimidated, at the same time as I don't get the same favored treatment given to QQ and Zixar. I'm done with this too, for now. But telling me that I am not being honest is far from the truth. I'm the one that's out in the open about this... and I did not ask anyone here to advocate for me. Telling the truth carries risk. I accept that risk.

At the time I posted the thread at question, I did NOT have access to any political forum here. At the time I posted THIS thread, I did not have access to any political forum here. THIS is the FIRST place I have read you stating what you have practiced: that you refuse to tolerate complaints... at least from me. Fair or not, that's the way it's going to be. At least NOW you have stated the rules. However, since it applies only to me, it is still ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS. I will check the profile, but if I have access to a political forum here, it is because someone with administrator rights changed it within the last hour. Telling the truth carries risk. I accept that risk.

Roy, Your kindness is so refreshing. Thank you. Of course, I also do not always agree with you. But I think your kindness is very valuable. As to my discussions, I also put my views out there and don't care if someone disagrees... As to being open minded, well I consider opposing view points. I don't always change my mind, but I consider them. Telling the truth carries risk. I accept that risk.

Mr. Strange, Your perspective on this makes absolutely no sense and misses the issues and the point. There is nothing "sneaky" about posting a legitimate topic for discussion where it's available for me to do so. There is EVERYTHING - ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS about what happened to my discussion. I'm not going to rehash any more of the detail of the history than I have, but Wacky and Excie have simply and in nonconfrontational ways stated what the real issue is. Banning me from political forums here because of someone else's refusal to follow rules, and the forum owner refusing to enforce compliance does not justify limiting me from talking about legitimate issues for discussion. Telling the truth carries risk. I accept that risk.

So Tom, are you privy to stated rules that everyone is is not? whether Pawtucket's actions or intents are evil is not relevant. In the realm of deciding on things like this (judicial type actions), Pawtucket's actions are correctly labeled ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS. That is because the actions are independent from the stated rules and done for reasons contrary to fairness. Telling the truth carries risk. I accept that risk.

Now the most telling thing here is that Zixar acknowledged "reporting" my thread. I have consistently stated my take on why I have been banned. The rationale I was given stemmed from my reporting posts that were "not attacks". Here we have an admission that one of those who gets favored treatment from Pawtucket does what Pawtucket told me pi$$ed him off, even though what I had done did not violate the forum rules in any way, so how will this be handled by Pawtucket? Well, I have my hunch, but will refrain for now from saying what that hunch is. Telling the truth carries risk. I accept that risk.

Does that mean everything teachers teach is correct? Telling the truth carries risk. I accept that risk.