Where's Bumpy?

[RumRunner]

dedicated to jonny lingo............the eight cow poster............................peace.........................

#

HAHAHAHA - only a few people on this site that are gonna get it DWBH - but thanks for the post. And Paw!!!! Thanks for keeping GSC here regardless of the naysayers.... and oh sh(t - dare I say the word apologists? You're a champ - they're just spoiled cheese

[Rocky]

****POSTED BY ABIGAIL - - - I KNEW THERE WAS SOMETHING I FORGOT TO DO BEFORE I POSTED THIS***

Bumpy is a grown man. He doesn't need you to be his spokesperson. he is baiting you and you have swallowed the hook. Let him fight his own battle.

Abigail succeeded in doing what, as far as I could tell, NOBODY else did (though some have approached it) -- getting to THE BOTTOM LINE.

THIS (as highlighted) is the most succinct and on point description of what is going on with this thread.

Nothing more. Nothing less.

Good job, Abi...

It would be nice if Bumpy could defend himself here publicly, but he can't, he's been barred. For instance, a few posts back, Paw said that Bumpy had been suspended "numerous times" which according to Bumpy is completely untrue, non-factual, to him, a fabrication. It seems to him that he's been chucked out unfairly and spoken of disparagingly with out the ability to defend himself while others judge him. As a matter of fact, I remember him being suspended only one time, not numerous times. So what's up with that? And, I am not Bumpy's "champion". He is a grown man, and can defend himself quite well. I opened this subject up because he is a friend and I think the subject should have been aired and he can't do it himself. The reason he is in agreement that this has been aired publicly is because the "automated response" offered him no information as to why he was kicked out. Well, I'm tired of this too for nothing will change...

JL

This entire post, quoted from Jonny Lingo, is further evidence of what Abigail identified.

[Lizzy]

It would be nice if Bumpy could defend himself here publicly, but he can't, he's been barred. For instance, a few posts back, Paw said that Bumpy had been suspended "numerous times" which according to Bumpy is completely untrue, non-factual, to him, a fabrication. It seems to him that he's been chucked out unfairly and spoken of disparagingly with out the ability to defend himself while others judge him. As a matter of fact, I remember him being suspended only one time, not numerous times. So what's up with that? And, I am not Bumpy's "champion". He is a grown man, and can defend himself quite well. I opened this subject up because he is a friend and I think the subject should have been aired and he can't do it himself. The reason he is in agreement that this has been aired publicly is because the "automated response" offered him no information as to why he was kicked out. Well, I'm tired of this too for nothing will change...

JL

Bumpy/grumpy is your friend? He is real? You have talked to him? You really know him?

I thought he was a made up character. Really I did. I thought he was created by a Troll. A manipulative troll.

I hardly ever post here. I read a lot though I don't read everything. So I am sure it is me that should mind my own

business. I don't even know why I posted today. To me it seemed as though you are being used by a manipulative troll.

I don't even know why I cared about such things earlier today. I am going back to being just a reader.

[Mod Kirk]

It would be nice if Bumpy could defend himself here publicly, but he can't, he's been barred.

Suspensions and moderation are not done by vote. Never have been. You were an adult enough to accept your suspension with good grace, now you are enabling someone who can't or won't.

For instance, a few posts back, Paw said that Bumpy had been suspended "numerous times" which according to Bumpy is completely untrue, non-factual, to him, a fabrication.

I can recall several instances when Bumpy was suspended, once in the recent past. During this latest time he re-registered as "Grumpy". In addition to suspensions Bumpy has received several warnings from me in the recent past to stop the name calling and personal attacks.

As a matter of fact, I remember him being suspended only one time, not numerous times. So what's up with that?

What's up is that you are not aware of every action that is taken on this board.

[simonzelotes]

Does anybody else have anything they'd like to share before we do Roll Away??...

[Oakspear]

Roll away, roll away, roll awaaaaay...

[ChasUFarley]

Is there a full moon this weekend?

Good grief!

[Oakspear]

New moon actually

[Rocky]

Does anybody else have anything they'd like to share before we do Roll Away??...

[J0nny Ling0]

Yeah, one last thing to share I guess. Lizzy asked:

Bumpy/grumpy is your friend? He is real? You have talked to him? You really know him?

I thought he was a made up character. Really I did. I thought he was created by a Troll. A manipulative troll.

I hardly ever post here. I read a lot though I don't read everything. So I am sure it is me that should mind my own

business. I don't even know why I posted today. To me it seemed as though you are being used by a manipulative troll.

I don't even know why I cared about such things earlier today. I am going back to being just a reader.

Yeah, Bumpy is my friend. He'll be here at my house in August with his wife. He's never been to Alaska, and I'll be his host and tour guide. He's real and a fine fellow. I just wanted to help out. I think he's been given a very bum rap here that's all.Sorry Lizzy or the rest of you who don't believe it, but, it's true...

Edited July 7, 2008 by Jonny Lingo

[Shellon]

I'm puzzled, really I am.

I fail to understand why in the world one or two posters feelings, opinions, whereabouts, etc., are more important than others.

To offer that someone does NOT know what they did to require some action here is just silly.

When we, humans, are in a pickle somewhere, we damn well KNOW what we've done to deserve it.

I mean, please, come on.

We're a dysfunctional family around here that somehow works. If someone doesn't want to be functionally dysfunctional enough to get along within some reason, that's really ok. Just do something else. Amen.

If you don't do your part in keeping the boat rowing in some kind of reasonable direction, don't be pi$$ed off about losing your oars. And don't waste time crying about why, who, what, when, how.

Of course s/he knows exactly what was done wrong. Cristamighty, I feel like I know and I wasn't even there, clearly didn't give any attention to it and honestly, don't care.

It's been done and said, deal with it.

Edited July 7, 2008 by Shellon

[WhiteDove]

I wonder how many other people have more than one log in here it seems to happen often to me. Now keeping up with one is more than I can do so I'm not interested, but are they all requested to pick one? I know of at least one that has two active log ins. So is that ok providing that you are not using it to circumvent a suspension.

[WordWolf]

I wonder how many other people have more than one log in here it seems to happen often to me. Now keeping up with one is more than I can do so I'm not interested, but are they all requested to pick one? I know of at least one that has two active log ins.

If you REALLY want to know what the policy is at the GSC, contact the staff.

If you want to pretend you want to know what the policy is at the GSC, but actually

just want to start trouble, post that you want to know, and pretend that there's

no convenient way to find out.

So is that ok providing that you are not using it to circumvent a suspension.

On all messageboards, ANY means to circumvent a suspension are strongly

discouraged-and generally earn a permanent ban for the poster under all

screen-names forever. Let me know if you need me to explain why-

but I think the reasons are obvious.

[WhiteDove]

If you REALLY want to know what the policy is at the GSC, contact the staff.

If you want to pretend you want to know what the policy is at the GSC, but actually

just want to start trouble, post that you want to know, and pretend that there's

no convenient way to find out.

I think I asked a question ,that would be the way to find out now would it not? I asked it here because the subject came up for discussion here.

On all messageboards, ANY means to circumvent a suspension are strongly

discouraged-and generally earn a permanent ban for the poster under all

screen-names forever. Let me know if you need me to explain why-

but I think the reasons are obvious.

That was not the question I asked,had you read what I asked. I never asked was it ok to circumvent a suspension ,I did ask if it was ok to have two logins if one was not attempting to circumvent a suspension.

[WordWolf]

Since I'm not staff, and you asked where the non-staff reply, you ended up with

me replying. (Which was my point.) If you want the answers that directly address

your question, you'll have to contact the staff. Otherwise, it's like posting in

the political forum and asking what your local congressman's thinking instead

of contacting your local congressman.

The subject "came up for discussion here" not because someone wanted an

answer-otherwise they'd just CONTACT THE STAFF- but obviously for a

different reason, since this is not a way to contact the staff. What was that

reason? You'd have to ask them-I just know what it WASN'T. Pretending

this IS how you contact the staff is not going to convince most of us that

you don't know better.

The one thing I CAN say, I spoke on-which is that ANY method to circumvent

a suspension becomes "wrong" AUTOMATICALLY, regardless of any other

policy, as messageboards go.

[WordWolf]

For those who missed it, I thought I'd do a recap. I think the main positions may have gotten a little obscured.

Hey, what happened to Bumpy? I got an e-mail from him telling me that he got the ax and has been cast into outer darkness of cyber purgatory! He is wanting to know why because there was no word from P-tuckett, but rather just a freeze up on his account here. Maybe youz guys can get his PM thing going?

"He is wanting to know why because there was no word"

Stated reason. Bumpy claimed he was given no reason for his suspension.

Jonny chose to make a thread about it instead of just asking the staff with a pm

or email or other method.

Staff reply:

PAWTUCKET:

Has he considered emailing me? I don't see how emailing you would rectify anything. In fact, why would you start a thread instead of sending me a PM?

How can he e-mail you if he doesn't have your e-mail address?

Why assume that his e-mailing me was his attempt to rectify anything? He is a friend and simply told me what had happened and now wonders why.

" if he doesn't have your e-mail address?"

"Why assume that his e-mailing me was his attempt to rectify anything?"

" He is a friend"

Staff reply:

PAWTUCKET:

And why are you making it a public thread instead of PMing me?

Bumpy has emailed me numerous times, he knows my email address.

========

Bumpy told Jonny that he doesn't have Paw's email address.

Paw told Johnny that Bumpy has emailed him plenty of times and knows his email address.

Either one of them is lying (or Johnny's lying about Bumpy), or both (or all 3) are lying.

All of them CAN'T be correct because the 2 positions contradict directly.

Umm, why shouldn't I? I wasn't asking specifically YOU why he got kicked off, I was asking those who had witnessed whatever "untoward behavior" in some particular thread he may have been involved in, including you as well as others. I was soliciting their/your OPINIONS on the matter.

(snip)

Why has the Grease Spot Cafe become a place of intense "moderation" which amounts to nothing more than severe CENSORSHIP? It used to be a place where one could speak one's mind without fear of being CONTROLLED by SOMEONE HIGHER UP, but nay, no more it seems!

(snip)

Why make it a public thread? Because I wanted to. But that's against some new rule? Well now, I find this very enlightening.

(snip)

Oh, and I responded publicly like this "because I wanted to....."

Staff reply:

PAWTUCKET:

Linda, are you asking me to publicly state what someone did to get suspended? I will not publicly embarrass someone like that. And that is where Lingo was headed in my opinion. I wouldn't do it to Jonny when he got suspended. I sent an email to Bumpy which he could have responded to, but hasn't. In public, a simple question gets blown out of proportion. And suddenly, with this thread, I have volumes to answer based on assumptions. Nothing has changed philosophically with GS, but someone like Bumpy is putting those thoughts in threads and people start believing them. I'll do another post to cover that.

PAWTUCKET:

Opinions have not been suppressed.

(snip)

We are not suppressing or controlling anyone, that is in your mind.

PAWTUCKET:

Rhino,

I'm not going to try to track down Bumpy. But I used the email in his profile, if that isn't correct not much I can do.

he may remember calling someone something that exterminators search for. Not the first time he's done it

Staff response:

If you go back and re-read the thread, you'll see that Bumpy started the thread. So what? If he started the thread, then he wasn't banned or suspended at the time he started it. As I stated near the end of that thread, Bumpy, who also posted as "Grumpy", in an attempt to get around an earlier suspension, was asked to choose one handle and that the other would be deleted. His thread gives the impression that he was being kicked off Grease Spot, which was a lie.

I'm the one who locked the thread, and I locked it because Bumpy was promulgating a lie about actions taken on this website. The final post came after my remarks but before I locked down the thread. rather than delete the thread, I chose to lock it down and post an explanation, hoping to eliminate the need to start yet another discussion on why an action by a moderator was taken.

Now you know.

Pawtucket's decision to finally suspend him had nothing to do with my decision to lock down the thread, as far as I know.

Staff response:

Regardless of anything else, Bumpy was guilty of sockpuppetry and trolling. Both are considered disruptive behaviors on most forums. I don't believe his opinions were ever the issue. More so was his divisive style of stating them as a troll and then refusing to enter an honest debate about them.

Here is the message Bumpy eventually got from the owner of the site. I've been given permission to post it:

(snip)

And second of all, there is absolutely no explanation at all as to WHY he got suspended. One would think that if one broke the rules, the suspended one should at least be afforded the courtesy as to WHY he had been relegated to the suspension heap, ya know? But no. And ya know, even though we are all "cyber people" here, in reality, we are all actually real people here, and if Bumpy was supposedly discourteous, at least he has the right to be told just how he was, in the eyes of the moderators, being discourteous.

(snip)

And so, maybe Bumpy's "offending post" should be displayed here for all to see and judge. How bout it? Post it. He has expressed his desire to have his offending post displayed, so go ahead and do it so we can see if it is way worse than the offending post that earned me a one month suspension...

(snip)

PAWTUCKET:

I'm not going to display it. Bumpy seems to enjoy having fun making digs at me -- I did the same thing for him with that notice. And he has been suspended numerous times for the exact same thing. We are not going to hold a public trial.

And the fact that he has been in contact with me, this thread is now moot.

And that email was sent days ago, by the way, Jonny. Bumpy really has you at his disposal.

It would be nice if Bumpy could defend himself here publicly, but he can't, he's been barred. For instance, a few posts back, Paw said that Bumpy had been suspended "numerous times" which according to Bumpy is completely untrue, non-factual, to him, a fabrication. It seems to him that he's been chucked out unfairly and spoken of disparagingly with out the ability to defend himself while others judge him. As a matter of fact, I remember him being suspended only one time, not numerous times. So what's up with that? And, I am not Bumpy's "champion". He is a grown man, and can defend himself quite well. I opened this subject up because he is a friend and I think the subject should have been aired and he can't do it himself. The reason he is in agreement that this has been aired publicly is because the "automated response" offered him no information as to why he was kicked out. Well, I'm tired of this too for nothing will change...

JL

"Paw said that Bumpy had been suspended "numerous times" which according to Bumpy is completely untrue, non-factual, to him, a fabrication."

"offered him no information as to why he was kicked out."

PAWTUCKET:

Jonny,

Bumpy DOES know why. He is lying to you. He is doing very typical trollish things. Add confusion to the whole thing and you are buying into it. If you are so irritated with the management here, then leave. I can't please everyone.

Suspensions and moderation are not done by vote. Never have been. You were an adult enough to accept your suspension with good grace, now you are enabling someone who can't or won't.

I can recall several instances when Bumpy was suspended, once in the recent past. During this latest time he re-registered as "Grumpy". In addition to suspensions Bumpy has received several warnings from me in the recent past to stop the name calling and personal attacks.

What's up is that you are not aware of every action that is taken on this board.

Is there a reason that Jonny, lacking access to all the information necessary

to make an informed decision, is calling multiple staffers liars?

Yeah, Bumpy is my friend. He'll be here at my house in August with his wife. He's never been to Alaska, and I'll be his host and tour guide. He's real and a fine fellow. I just wanted to help out. I think he's been given a very bum rap here that's all.Sorry Lizzy or the rest of you who don't believe it, but, it's true...

So, there's what Jonny said that Bumpy said.

I, for one, believe Bumpy said each of those to Jonny.

There's what the staff replied-which refuted what Bumpy told Jonny.

There's Jonny calling the staff liars.

There's the reason Jonny's willing to believe Bumpy but not the staffers,

despite knowing Paw much longer than he's known Bumpy.

=======

Please excuse me putting Paw's quotes out of quotation marks.

To include ALL the quotes, I had to drop some, and I dropped the ones around

Paw's replies.

[pawtucket]

I did ask if it was ok to have two logins if one was not attempting to circumvent a suspension.

WD, the answer is no

[rhino]

Staff reply:

PAWTUCKET:

Has he considered emailing me? I don't see how emailing you would rectify anything. In fact, why would you start a thread instead of sending me a PM?

" if he doesn't have your e-mail address?"

"Why assume that his e-mailing me was his attempt to rectify anything?"

" He is a friend"

Staff reply:

PAWTUCKET:

And why are you making it a public thread instead of PMing me?

Bumpy has emailed me numerous times, he knows my email address.

========

Bumpy told Jonny that he doesn't have Paw's email address.

Paw told Johnny that Bumpy has emailed him plenty of times and knows his email address.

Either one of them is lying (or Johnny's lying about Bumpy), or both (or all 3) are lying.

All of them CAN'T be correct because the 2 positions contradict directly.

I don't think you are being as precise as you say ... there are implications at best. You have no times down for these events ... and there are other possibilities.

If Bumpy emailed Pawtucket (or PM'ed?) in the past, it is no guarantee he had the email or was able to PM Pawtucket now. So you made a false assumption.

But assuming Bumpy hadn't checked the email address on his profile ... he did after Pawtucket brought that up in the forum. That is the one that gave no reason ... but Pawtucket hinted at the reason before Bumpy emailed him to ask ... though also later stated that Bumpy had made digs at him, so now Pawtucket was doing the same for him with that notice. It was also noted that he had been warned.

So I told Bumpy to just reply to that email, it would probably go to Pawtucket. And then ... (this sounds like four crucified ) then ... time ... lol ... he emailed him ... as Pawtucket noted. And THEN Pawtucket told him what he had done, in line with what was hinted at.

As far as I can tell, Bumpy then emailed Pawtucket on the 4th or 5th, but Pawtucket said that email was sent days ago ... but it was after Pawtuckets statement that Bumpy could just email him, and after his comment to me. Anyway ... Bumpy doesn't strike me as a computer whiz, and it is feasible to me that he didn't currently have Pawtucket's email address.

I didn't know Jim was on staff (another issue maybe ... some staff having secret moderator (double) identities, is WW also staff?) ... but I think Jim stated Bumpy's bigger/real "crime" more accurately. The sock puppetry (showing up as Grumpy I guess ... but that was immediately noted and accepted by Pawtucket, then ModCow asked him to be just one identity) and the troll activity. I'm not sure it was exactly trolling ... but he was edgy, obtuse and tangential I might say ... but I didn't read all he wrote ...

Anyway, the events as Bumpy emailed to me, lined up with what was happening in the forum ... Paw' hadn't heard from him, then he did hear from him ... lined up with the play by play I heard. The email to paw was not exactly the tone I suggested, but it is Bumpy, and I'd guess he was honest with his feelings.

Bumpy had stated he felt this was more of a twi hate site ... I disagree with that, though some here may have some of that ... though Groucho stated it was an anti TWI site. With a somewhat more straight forward approach to discussing his views, Bumpy would probably be welcome and offer another perspective that might add balance or perspective... or at least allow his view to be heard. I agree I got lost in Bumpy speak several times.

I don't see Bumpy (or Jonny) as TWI apologists ... in fact Bumpy's complaint about GSC is that they are like TWI ... another cult where a few rule the roost and kick out dissenters without a trial or vote. But there are standard internet rules, and I don't think staff get enough women or money from this gig to qualify as a cult ...

[ChasUFarley]

Did someone not get enough fireworks on July 4th that they had to go out and make there own HERE?

As I read through this thread I feel like I'm hearing the neighbors having an argument - it's something that shouldn't be aired in my house or where others can hear it. Seems to me like it's between Paw and Bump - and really should stay that way.

The high drama is getting old and seems to follow certain posters everywhere they go (post). Bumpy likes pushing buttons and having two identities just reeks of trollness. I don't ever appreciate anyone trying to cause confusion - that's just not right - and two identities (handles) for one poster here would cause that. Perhaps that's something that can be mentioned in the rules of conduct for this forum, no? Just a thought. As I recollect, Bump was asked to pick a name and stick with it (ONE name) a couple of weeks ago. Why is this a problem? We all have to follow the same rule or are there special rules for special people?

Maybe I'll get a couple more names.... I've been here a while now and think I deserve them. I'd like to register "Chuck U", "Charlie Farley" and "FUBB", while I'm thinking of it. Maybe handles should be handed out to everyone like candy? Wouldn't it be sweet!

(Don't go any more grey Paw, I'm kidding, k?)

Is this a TWI hate site? I think not. It's not a TWI love fest site but I associate "hate" with hate crimes. I don't see us planning on doing anything to TWI other than sharing information about our experiences and our lives post-TWI. There's a broad spectrum of opinions - just like with anything in life - but a "hate" site.... uh, nope.

Anywho, this is the biggest "non-real issue turned into an issue" thread I've seen.

Follow the rules... no one gets hurt. Easy enough.

[Sunesis]

Ha! Bumpy complaining this site is like TWI - that's a laugh. Anytime anything not nice is said about TWI, he changes the subject by making stupid jokes and tries his hardest to derail threads. Bumpy, from reading his threads, is more like a TWI person. Nothing bad to be said about TWI if he can help it.

He has never added to a discussion, just distraction, "jokes" (if you can call them that) - he's a troll and a good one.

He has nothing to add. If he was ever serious and joined in the conversation, that would be one thing, but he is incapable of doing that.

Who cares where he is.

[WordWolf]

I don't think you are being as precise as you say ... there are implications at best. You have no times down for these events ... and there are other possibilities.

If Bumpy emailed Pawtucket (or PM'ed?) in the past, it is no guarantee he had the email or was able to PM Pawtucket now. So you made a false assumption.

Paw's email address is public, unlike mine. It's stayed the same the entire time Bumpy's been here, and hasn't changed

this week (that I know of.)

If Bumpy somehow lost the address, was somehow unable to find it again, and WANTED it, it would be simple

for him to say "please find me Paw's email address" instead of

"I'VE BEEN BANNED WITHOUT WARNING OR EXPLANATION FROM GREASESPOT!!!1111!!!!"

(which, BTW, I don't believe for a moment.)

Furthermore, I don't see Bumpy actually saying OUTRIGHT "I don't have Paw's email address".

I see an EQUIVOCATION- Jonny IMPLYING Bumpy doesn't have it

("How can he email you if he doesn't have your email address?"),

and in my experience, people who make a point of equivocation (I'm not thinking of Jonny here, I'm

thinking of Bumpy) are people who are deliberately attempting to deceive- to get people to think they're

saying one thing, but provide "plausible deniability" later that they said it, since they only IMPLIED it

and later will pretend they never meant it at all.

So, I think Bumpy lied outright to Jonny (and probably to you), and also lied by IMPLICATION (using technically

true words to lead the listener to a false conclusion.) This is of course my opinion.

But assuming Bumpy hadn't checked the email address on his profile ... he did after Pawtucket brought that up in the forum. That is the one that gave no reason ... but Pawtucket hinted at the reason before Bumpy emailed him to ask ... though also later stated that Bumpy had made digs at him, so now Pawtucket was doing the same for him with that notice. It was also noted that he had been warned.

So I told Bumpy to just reply to that email, it would probably go to Pawtucket. And then ... (this sounds like four crucified ) then ... time ... lol ... he emailed him ... as Pawtucket noted. And THEN Pawtucket told him what he had done, in line with what was hinted at.

As far as I can tell, Bumpy then emailed Pawtucket on the 4th or 5th, but Pawtucket said that email was sent days ago ... but it was after Pawtuckets statement that Bumpy could just email him, and after his comment to me. Anyway ... Bumpy doesn't strike me as a computer whiz, and it is feasible to me that he didn't currently have Pawtucket's email address.

From what I'm getting, Bumpy's emailed Paw in the past, and didn't email him NOW until he was

recommended to-almost as if he forgot he could, or forgot to send one. Forgive me for concluding

Bumpy played both of you, and knew d* well how to contact Paw the entire time.

(I hate it when people "cry wolf.")

I didn't know Jim was on staff (another issue maybe ... some staff having secret moderator (double) identities, is WW also staff?)

I thought it was obvious Jim was on staff-his posts that I've seen usually speak as staff, and often as

the website's technician.

I am not staff. A number of years ago, I told Paw outright that if he ever considered me for staff, I'd make a lousy

choice, and gave the reasons. I was heading off any future consideration of that, since I felt being on staff would compromise

my own ability to post my conscience unfettered. I have been staff on a number of OTHER boards, both as a moderator

and as an admin, so I can empathize with the staff here, even when I don't agree with them (which isn't often.)

I do think some people lack either experience on other messageboards, or experience STAFFING other messageboards,

and thus are unable to contextualize the GSC experience properly. In other words, if they tried other boards enough,

they'd be amazed we posters get away with so much on the GSC, and that the staff tolerates MUCH more than the staff

of other boards.

On the other hand, so long as I had no moderator or admin duties, I could technically be staff for the WEBSITE,

but that's not what we're addressing-we're talking about the MESSAGEBOARD.

... but I think Jim stated Bumpy's bigger/real "crime" more accurately. The sock puppetry (showing up as Grumpy I guess ... but that was immediately noted and accepted by Pawtucket, then ModCow asked him to be just one identity) and the troll activity. I'm not sure it was exactly trolling ... but he was edgy, obtuse and tangential I might say ... but I didn't read all he wrote ...

Anyway, the events as Bumpy emailed to me, lined up with what was happening in the forum ... Paw' hadn't heard from him, then he did hear from him ... lined up with the play by play I heard. The email to paw was not exactly the tone I suggested, but it is Bumpy, and I'd guess he was honest with his feelings.

Bumpy had stated he felt this was more of a twi hate site ... I disagree with that, though some here may have some of that ... though Groucho stated it was an anti TWI site. With a somewhat more straight forward approach to discussing his views, Bumpy would probably be welcome and offer another perspective that might add balance or perspective... or at least allow his view to be heard. I agree I got lost in Bumpy speak several times.

I for one question whether there's any substance at all. Bumpy's posts reflect a distinct lack of substance,

and I think all the Bumpy-speak is meant to HIDE that, allowing him to interrupt actual discussions and

get some people to think he may actually have something to offer the site other than a negative

example.

I don't see Bumpy (or Jonny) as TWI apologists ... in fact Bumpy's complaint about GSC is that they are like TWI ... another cult where a few rule the roost and kick out dissenters without a trial or vote. But there are standard internet rules, and I don't think staff get enough women or money from this gig to qualify as a cult ...

I don't see either of them that way, as well.

I see Jonny, in this instance, as being tricked by a deceiving person, and being used by them.

I see Bumpy as a person whose social worth is so minor that his sole means of garnering attention revolves

around either annoying people, or getting sympathy and pretending he didn't mean to go around taking

shots at people, and pretending to be surprised when it blows up in his face.

STANDARD internet rules would have turfed Bumpy on his behind long ago.

The GSC is AMAZINGLY lenient and tolerant towards posters.

Ha! Bumpy complaining this site is like TWI - that's a laugh. Anytime anything not nice is said about TWI, he changes the subject by making stupid jokes and tries his hardest to derail threads. Bumpy, from reading his threads, is more like a TWI person. Nothing bad to be said about TWI if he can help it.

He has never added to a discussion, just distraction, "jokes" (if you can call them that) - he's a troll and a good one.

He has nothing to add. If he was ever serious and joined in the conversation, that would be one thing, but he is incapable of doing that.

Who cares where he is.

That about sums it up.

[Shellon]

I have a huge pin I wear when I give of my free time in the community that says "Don't yell at me, I'm a volunteer"

Since the staff word has been deposited, remember Paw and the moderators volunteer their time to this mess, not a dime is exchanged.

Frankly, the issue should be a closed one.

Bumpy is diggin the attention, but bullies do.

Lingo is diggin the attention, but every bully has a special pal, one who is scared of them and feeds their frenzy to avoid their wrath.

Personally, to be laughed at like that should be only embarassing to them.

[doojable]

Deleted ... just 'cuz

Edited July 7, 2008 by doojable

[rhino]

So, I think Bumpy lied outright to Jonny (and probably to you), and also lied by IMPLICATION (using technically true words to lead the listener to a false conclusion.) This is of course my opinion.

From what I'm getting, Bumpy's emailed Paw in the past, and didn't email him NOW until he was

recommended to-almost as if he forgot he could, or forgot to send one. Forgive me for concluding

Bumpy played both of you, and knew d* well how to contact Paw the entire time.

(I hate it when people "cry wolf.")

....

I see Jonny, in this instance, as being tricked by a deceiving person, and being used by them.

I see Bumpy as a person whose social worth is so minor that his sole means of garnering attention revolves around either annoying people, or getting sympathy and pretending he didn't mean to go around taking shots at people, and pretending to be surprised when it blows up in his face.

STANDARD internet rules would have turfed Bumpy on his behind long ago.

The GSC is AMAZINGLY lenient and tolerant towards posters.

Well I was just pointing out that your "proof" that Bumpy was lying did not quite add up, and since he is not here, it seems a little late to pile on, as many are doing. What is the point of calling him a worthless liar now that he is banned?

I've emailed Bumpy quite a bit on other things previous to all this ... it may be he had some other "mission" here, which maybe pushed him toward trollishness .... but I don't think he is so internet savy to be so evil as some seem to think. I see other aspects of Bumpy, despite his actions here in ex cult world, so I don't see the point in trashing him as a person.

but Jonny made it more public than it needed to be (at bumpy's request) .. perhaps ... so there is a lot of confronting Bumpy as a liar or bully ... now that he is dead and gone. Many seemed to express some support though, so I'm not sure he was totally worthless. I continue to comment only because the late piling on seems unfair. (and I see the staff has not done that ...)

Jim and Pawtucket made the problem clear enough, and yes GSC seems pretty lenient ...

Edited July 7, 2008 by rhino

[pawtucket]

Rhino,

I made the problem clear enough?

You can tell your Bumpy little friend that the emails he's sending to me make me lean more and more toward him being a troll.