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.
Clear enough to those on the outside ... referring to the continued discussion here about bumpy's character
... the couple emails to you that he copied to me indicated he was really not too interested in reconciling and being part of the community ... which is what I already told him.
and he did not take my suggested route earlier, either ...
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.
Proof? Who said it was "proof" of anything. It looked more like support for an inference. As such, it was as good as anything YOU contribute.
"Pushed him toward trollishness?" "Evil?" I don't think anyone called him evil. I did see plenty of narrative indicating people had read his posts and surmised that he is a pain in the ar$e. By suggesting "maybe pushed him toward trollishness" are you saying he is not responsible for his conduct as a troll?
Good grief. Can you say "curmudgeon"? Perhaps this MIRROR will help, rhino.
Oh good Rocky is here to help. And right to the name calling in the first Rocky post ... what a surprise. Are you here to demonstrate the proper way to attack people?
I'm saying he believed more that gsc tends toward a hate site ... so he acted accordingly. WW called him a basically worthless liar ... and sunesis piled on a little ... I've seen other aspects ... the cult subject seems to be like discussing politics or religion ... it can be divisive, when people would behave differently discussing sports or whatever.
(and this is what gets me about labeling ... if grumpy has this site labeled as full of twi haters ... he treats them differently ... and is less ready to compromise .. it is more like a war of good versus evil. The same tendency in labeling TWI apologists ... or way corps jerks, liberals versus conservatives ... etc.)
Oh this is flawless - I just posted on another thread (beef) about how you two (Rhino/Rocky) know how to vehemently disagree without hurting others. I was endeavoring to use it as an example of when it is OK and when it is not...kind of meant to be a compliment to both of you...now here ya both go raising hell on this forum. Should I go delete my other post? Damn it's 10:30 in San Diego - maybe I need a V/T.
Oh good Rocky is here to help. And right to the name calling in the first Rocky post ... what a surprise. Are you here to demonstrate the proper way to attack people?
I'm saying he believed more that gsc tends toward a hate site ... so he acted accordingly. WW called him a basically worthless liar ... and sunesis piled on a little ... I've seen other aspects ... the cult subject seems to be like discussing politics or religion ... it can be divisive, when people would behave differently discussing sports or whatever.
Paw, maybe before you suspend or ban someone you should post a poll so everyone here can debate to death whether the poster is worthy of the cafe or worthy of a flogging. OR you could simply find out who all said poster's friends are and discuss it with them and let them decide!
Paw, maybe before you suspend or ban someone you should post a poll so everyone here can debate to death whether the poster is worthy of the cafe or worthy of a flogging. OR you could simply find out who all said poster's friends are and discuss it with them and let them decide!
HA, yeah, lets do that next time.
Good point, though, sheesh, can't people just put on their big girl panties and deal?
I'm saying he believed more that gsc tends toward a hate site ... so he acted accordingly.
If he believed this site was contentious and hateful, he should have used the brains that God gave him
and go to another site rather than spew vitriol all over it.
(Which he's STILL doing- by sending nasty emails to Paw, and using posters here as his proxies.
WW called him a basically worthless liar
Actually, first I quoted the posts, and they mostly support the idea that he was using "untruths" with the 2 of you.
Then you felt the need to jump in and defend him-almost certainly part of that's due to him crying to you privately
over injustices. He's sold you and Jonny the same sob story.
So, through 2 posters, he's still posting here. Therefore, he can take his lumps for it.
If the evidence supports someone having been caught lying, I am free to say so- they are lying.
Therefore, I feel no guilt over calling Bumpy A LIAR.
Did I call him a liar? Yes- but I left it up to the individuals before he had you jump in. Once he ESCALATED matters,
I saw no reason to just let it go.
(That's why I didn't comment at all until he had someone else make a federal case and start a thread because
he reaped what his bad behavior sowed.)
Did I call him "basically worthless"?
Not yet I haven't.
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.
I have no way of knowing if he gives generously to support widows and orphans in his spare time,
or anything else. I can only judge the social behavior he's demonstrated here.
So I did.
To say the least, it added nothing to the discussions.
To say the most, each usage of his keyboard detracted from legitimate discussions.
... and sunesis piled on a little ... I've seen other aspects ... the cult subject seems to be like discussing politics or religion ... it can be divisive, when people would behave differently discussing sports or whatever.
(and this is what gets me about labeling ... if grumpy has this site labeled as full of twi haters ... he treats them differently ... and is less ready to compromise .. it is more like a war of good versus evil. The same tendency in labeling TWI apologists ... or way corps jerks, liberals versus conservatives ... etc.)
Actually, he arrived at this site and has been consistent in wasting everyone's time, interrupting serious
discussions, and otherwise behaving boorishly. When his behavior is already that poor, what difference
does a LATER LABEL make? You're making excuses for his poor behavior. He's a grown man, and can
take responsibility for what he posts- and the consequences of his actions.
Or is there going to be some spirited defense of his using a sock-puppet online, based on his labelling the site as "naughty" or something?
Good point, though, sheesh, can't people just put on their big girl panties and deal?
I think the discussion moved past why Bumpy was banned .. on to a more general discussion of rules and conduct and how it all works.
I suggested from the start, to Bumpy, that he talk with Pawtucket ... he said he didn't get the email .. etc. then he contacted Pawtucket ... blah blah ... and I never had a problem with the ban.
So I'm not sure which people need the big girl panties ... to me what Bumpy was actually banned for, seems less egregious than the way Bumpy has been personally attacked here by WW and others to some degree. Having experience with Bumpy's internet inexperience, I think he didn't figure that he could just reply to his notice of banishment. I could be wrong, but I'm not willing to say he is a worthless liar ... and I doubt WW knows him well enough to say that either ... though it is just an opinion.
But the staff has been fair ... so I guess this is Bumpy's farewell thread ... till 2018.
Listen, its really simple. The guy behaved like a jerk. Period.
I had no problem with him until recently when he went after me out of the blue. If you can't take it, don't dish it.
He has been here for quite awhile. He has quite adequately proved his boorishness, his appalling frivolity on very serious threads, people had just shared about something that had hurt them deeply and he makes a joke.
Good, he's gone. I'm sure there are other pro-TWI sites that would love to have him.
If he had joined the discussion, whether pro or con, doesn't matter, and had been respectful, as most posters are, he would maybe have garnered some sympathy.
But, he couldn't and he wouldn't. Every single thread he went in, he dropped his little turd bombs in and walked away, and said, what, who me????
So, at this point, no one cares. He blew any respect or sympathy he may have garnered.
He brought this on himself. He thought he was being funny and cute after people had asked him to stop and be serious, contribute to the discussion.
Now, its not so funny and cute to him, is it? Its called unintended consequences, or blowback.
Having experience with Bumpy's internet inexperience, I think he didn't figure that he could just reply to his notice of banishment. I could be wrong, but I'm not willing to say he is a worthless liar
SNIP
Internet inexperience???? The man figured out how to register and post at Greasespot. He figured out how to send private messages as well as e-mails. He figured out how to add people to his friends list and how to post little messages in their profiles. He knows how to post pictures on the internet and send links to the pictures to other people.
Somehow, I am less than convinced that he is simply inexperienced with the internet - he seems to have figured it out quite well.
If he believed this site was contentious and hateful, he should have used the brains that God gave him
and go to another site rather than spew vitriol all over it.
(Which he's STILL doing- by sending nasty emails to Paw, and using posters here as his proxies.
Actually, first I quoted the posts, and they mostly support the idea that he was using "untruths" with the 2 of you.
Well some here seemed fairly supportive of Bumpy ... despite his conflicts in some areas. So there was some interaction that was not of this vitriolic nature ... I think.
Despite your "support of ideas", you are judging me and Jonny on emails and relationships that you know little about. We are his little pawns and my statements are only saying what he wants me to say ... according to you. Good grief ... I've disagreed with Bumpy on many things in my emails to him ... but since you must be getting revelation on what he is telling me, you must already know that.
Then you felt the need to jump in and defend him-almost certainly part of that's due to him crying to you privately over injustices. He's sold you and Jonny the same sob story. So, through 2 posters, he's still posting here. Therefore, he can take his lumps for it.
If the evidence supports someone having been caught lying, I am free to say so- they are lying.
Therefore, I feel no guilt over calling Bumpy A LIAR.
So now we are possessed with the spirit of hate, or deceiving spirit from Bumpy? Is that it WW ... you think there are devil spirits involved?
Did I call him a liar? Yes- but I left it up to the individuals beforehe had you jump in.
I went through several emails early on, getting Bumpy to see why he was banned, got copies of some things, and got him to respond to the one email directly to pawtucket so he could get more info ... so it doesn't seem to me he really knew he could just reply to what looked like an automated response. The email suggeted he didn't need to do anything, it was an automated process ... but that referred to the unbanning ... in 2018.
Now you claim he had me jump in, which I know is false. Have I ever had trouble commenting on my own in the past?
In any case, I've emailed him many times before on other matters and see no reason he would lie to me now. And I certainly know he did not have me jump in ... I "jumped in" because you were trying to prove him a liar on lame evidence, which seemed unfair ... still does.
Did I call him "basically worthless"?
Not yet I haven't.
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.
I have no way of knowing if he gives generously to support widows and orphans in his spare time,
or anything else. I can only judge the social behavior he's demonstrated here.
So I did.
Not basically worthless ... so his worth revolves around annoying people or getting sympathy ... and that is different than "basically worthless"?
To say the most, each usage of his keyboard detracted from legitimate discussions.
He started some discussions that people participated in ... and offered worthy opinions on markets ... other items ... you seem in attack mode.
You're making excuses for his poor behavior. He's a grown man, and can
take responsibility for what he posts- and the consequences of his actions.
Or is there going to be some spirited defense of his using a sock-puppet online, based on his labelling the site as "naughty" or something?
I'm not excusing his bad behavior ... as I said, the ban seemed fair, though long. And I don't pretend to know the whole story.
The sock puppet issue was already resolved .... his labeling the site naughty? I'm not sure why you are even suggesting these things ...
The issue is YOUR spirited attack on him, now that he is gone.
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'm not on staff, don't have moderator privileges, don't do tech support. Just a user.
If my attitude seems too authoritative at times, well I guess I come off that way because I don't usually speak unless I'm pretty sure of myself. I'll work on it.
OTOH, I've participated in TWI online communities going all the way back to Trancenet. I've also moderated and admin'ed a tech support forum and I've been involved with many online communities. I have a pretty good idea of what makes this a great online community and I also have a pretty good idea of the types of behaviors that are disruptive.
As to Bumpy, I've already stated my concern. Trolling and sockpuppetry. I PM'ed Paw telling him that. Whether my PM made any difference or not in the banning of Bumpy, I don't know. Paw never answered and I didn't expect him to. The only reason I'm talking about a private communication is because it might clarify my status.
I'm not on staff, don't have moderator privileges, don't do tech support. Just a user.
you user, you ;)
If my attitude seems too authoritative at times, well I guess I come off that way because I don't usually speak unless I'm pretty sure of myself. I'll work on it.
Well some here seemed fairly supportive of Bumpy ... despite his conflicts in some areas. So there was some interaction that was not of this vitriolic nature ... I think.
We disagree. I've noted that plenty of GSC'ers ONLY have experience at the GSC, which is why they are
unfamiliar with things like sockpuppeting and so on, and complain the policies here are draconian when they're
incredibly liberal. It's easy for someone with no experience with trolls- who are eager to always believe the best
of others-to honestly be unaware when someone is trying to make a fool of them.
Despite your "support of ideas", you are judging me and Jonny on emails and relationships that you know little about. We are his little pawns and my statements are only saying what he wants me to say ... according to you.
I'm extrapolating based on the posts in this thread. Based on not only what was said, but WHEN it was said,
I think it fits the evidence nicely. And I don't remember calling either of you "little pawns". That's belittling speech,
and I think you have the best of intentions and are being deceived anyway- or, more to the point,
BECAUSE you have the best of intentions.
However, yes, I think your posts are reflecting what he wants you to say. And-to belabor the point some more-
that is according to me.
Good grief ... I've disagreed with Bumpy on many things in my emails to him ... but since you must be getting revelation on what he is telling me, you must already know that.
To a manipulator, it doesn't matter how much you disagree with him-just so long as you eventually do what he wants.
Even if you disagreed with 95% percent of what he said, if, in the end, you posted what he wanted you to post,
he gets exactly what he wants.
And I'd like to note here that you're the one who's bringing up "revelation" here.
So now we are possessed with the spirit of hate, or deceiving spirit from Bumpy? Is that it WW ... you think there are devil spirits involved?
Where did "possession" or "devil spirits" enter into the discussion? Oh, that's right-you just brought them up-and put those words in my mouth.
If you're jumping that far to conclusions on what I posted-and can easily see what I did and didn't say-
how much might you be misjudging what Bumpy said?
I'd consider the possibility you MIGHT not be right in this-you have more to lose than I do, and I certainly
entertained the idea I'm reading all this wrong...
I went through several emails early on, getting Bumpy to see why he was banned, got copies of some things, and got him to respond to the one email directly to pawtucket so he could get more info ... so it doesn't seem to me he really knew he could just reply to what looked like an automated response. The email suggeted he didn't need to do anything, it was an automated process ... but that referred to the unbanning ... in 2018.
You're supposing that a guy who's had NO difficulties posting, linking, and emailing so far was telling you the unvarnished
truth when he suddenly lost the ability to do them. I'm supposing he's NOT telling you the unvarnished truth.
Now you claim he had me jump in, which I know is false. Have I ever had trouble commenting on my own in the past?
In any case, I've emailed him many times before on other matters and see no reason he would lie to me now. And I certainly know he did not have me jump in ... I "jumped in" because you were trying to prove him a liar on lame evidence, which seemed unfair ... still does.
And yet-if he played on your emotions, suddenly seemed HELPLESS and CLUELESS and a VICTIM-
which I'm getting on parts of this thread- then you volunteered to jump in....but it was his idea and you were
tricked into it. I interpret what happened differently than you. Intelligent people can be deceived- and are every day.
Dismissing the possibility that one CAN be deceived is usually the first step in BEING deceived.
And he's been demonstrated to my satisfaction to be dishonorable and rude CONSISTENTLY long before now.
Even considering he MIGHT be a liar fits right in to what I consider to be his well-established behavior to date.
And you'll notice that a number of people said the same thing- without me prompting them.
Not basically worthless ... so his worth revolves around annoying people or getting sympathy ... and that is different than "basically worthless"?
He started some discussions that people participated in ... and offered worthy opinions on markets ... other items ... you seem in attack mode.
I disagree that offering a few decent posts invalidates the vast majority of posts where he wasted everyone's time-
even though they can be used to try to claim he wasn't REALLY trying to waste everyone's time.
And if other people have an insightful discussion AROUND him, I no more give him the credit for that than I give
vpw credit that we had some quality people enter the corps and survive it remaining as quality people.
I'm not excusing his bad behavior ... as I said, the ban seemed fair, though long. And I don't pretend to know the whole story.
The sock puppet issue was already resolved .... his labeling the site naughty? I'm not sure why you are even suggesting these things ...
Actually, YOU suggested it, pg-6, post 105, 7/7, 1:09pm Eastern.[/b]
"I'm saying he believed more that gsc tends toward a hate site ... so he acted accordingly."
My reply to THAT was
"Or is there going to be some spirited defense of his using a sock-puppet online, based on his labelling the site as "naughty" or something?"
I replied to YOUR suggestion- "he believed more that gsc tends toward a hate site"-your words, not mine.
The issue is YOUR spirited attack on him, now that he is gone.
Actually, I quoted Jonny and the staff back and forth with each other, as a recap.
Jonny said (per Bumpy) that what Paw was saying was "completely untrue, non-factual, to him, a fabrication."
Paw replied "He is lying to you."
I quoted both in their contexts, and added very little.
THAT was what you replied to. It was HARDLY a "spirited attack".
It was in REPLYING TO YOU (which, supposedly was in reply to the "spirited attack" but was almost entirely a
recap of who said what and when) that I said anything that could REASONABLY be viewed as any kind of "attack"
or "shot."
(My recap post was at 4:26am,
your "reply to the spirited attack" was at 7:31am,
and my reply to YOU was at 10:11am- and that was the first spirited ANYTHING I posted.
If you replied to my 10:11am post's content at 7:31am, that is a very good trick.)
==========================
I also noticed you're insisting on converting something I DID say about Bumpy into something I DIDN'T say about him.
What I SAID:
"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."
What you HEARD:
"What is the point of calling him a worthless liar"
I freely admitted to calling him a liar-for I believe there's strong evidence to support that- but posted a correction
to the "worthless" comment. I spoke about his "social worth", and you said I addressed his "worth"-
as if his social interactions are the sum total of his life. You repeated it, too:
"WW called him a basically worthless liar"
So, I clarified.
First, I specified my grounds for calling him a liar.
Then I addressed the other part:
"Did I call him "basically worthless"? Not yet I haven't.
I have no way of knowing if he gives generously to support widows and orphans in his spare time,
or anything else. I can only judge the social behavior he's demonstrated here.
So I did.
To say the least, it added nothing to the discussions.
To say the most, each usage of his keyboard detracted from legitimate discussions."
Now, I can see someone disagreeing with me as to whether he's really added nothing to discussions-
that's a value judgement, and those are open to interpretation.
But I spoke about what I considered to be a lack of SOCIAL worth, and was told I said someone's
ENTIRETY was worthless. I said nothing of the kind, and I thought I made that crystal clear with
my followup.
After I did that, you replied:
"'m not willing to say he is a worthless liar ... and I doubt WW knows him well enough to say that either"
Well, I think we should wait until WW actually CALLS HIM THAT to address whether WW has said something wrong.
Taking something WW did NOT say- and REPUDIATED- and chastising him for saying it ANYWAY is silly.
Going to take me to task for condeming the Bible, too? It makes as much sense....
I noticed you're determined to claim I said it, though....
"Not basically worthless ... so his worth revolves around annoying people or getting sympathy ... and that is different than "basically worthless"?
I never said his "worth" revolved around anything. I didn't address a whole person-just their conduct in the
social category. You're determined to transform that into a statement I neither made, nor endorsed-
in fact, I said I have no way of knowing his TOTAL worth and what he does offline, which, for all I know,
could be quite philanthropic. (I wouldn't put money on it, but I have no way of knowing he does NOT.)
I was straightforward about that. But, according to you, I said the OPPOSITE.
You're misreading me-is it POSSIBLE I'm not the ONLY one you're misreading? After all, I'm not trying to trick you
in any way. If someone IS, you may misread them further than you're rewriting my comments.
================
Meanwhile, Bumpy-who you claim is acting at least PARTIALLY reasonable and NOT being a troll-
is also sending nasty emails to Paw. (Unless you're ALSO calling Paw a liar.)
I honestly think you're trying to do the right thing and treat everyone fairly. I honestly think you've been fooled-
and refuse to entertain the notion that someone can fool an intelligent adult like that.
From what I see, you honestly think you're defending a semi-innocent person from unwarranted allegations,
implications and attacks, and think I should just refrain from comment if I see him doing what I consider is
negative- or I should come around to your way of thinking because mine is flawed in some way.
It seems we're at an impasse.
Can we agree that further exchanges on this would be a waste of time? Can we "agree to disagree" and move along?
I say we can. What do you say? Can we drop it here, or need this continue for reasons unclear to me?
to honestly be unaware when someone is trying to make a fool of them.
I'm extrapolating .
And I don't remember calling either of you "little pawns". That's belittling speech,
However, yes, I think your posts are reflecting what he wants you to say. And-to belabor the point some more-that is according to me.
I've had a lot of contact with Bumpy over many months that you know nothing of ... so now you say (sure I put what you seem to imply in shorter phrases ... still it is there) he may be making a fool of me, and you had said he was deceiving me ... that is belittling.
The revelation and devil spirit thing came up, because that seemed your tone ... you KNEW he had me write these things ... now you know he manipulated me ... now that you have marked him as possessed with a deceiving spirit a troll, you have all the attributes that you want to make fit, and you seem to project them into communication I've had with him that you know nothing of.
Is it possible he really did know ... sure I considered that from the start ... and then I walked him through the process ... so then he contacted pawtucket. My work was done, till you decided (in my opinion) that the decision to ban him had to be backed up with your investigative analysis, which seemed quite faulty to me.
Bumpy told me several posts back that it didn't seem it was worth the effort.
I disagree that offering a few decent posts invalidates the vast majority of posts where he wasted everyone's time-
you said every time he touched the keyboard, it was ... blah blah blah ...
... based on his labelling the site as "naughty" or something?"
I replied to YOUR suggestion- "he believed more that gsc tends toward a hate site"-your words, not mine.
My word was "hate" .. your was "naughty", so I didn't link those. np ... I thought maybe you were talking sexual stuff, which seemed another wrong implication from someone else.
at 10:11am- and that was the first spirited ANYTHING I posted.
If you replied to my 10:11am post's content at 7:31am, that is a very good trick.)
That you bothered to do the whole recap is somewhat "spirited" ... and I was just reusing "spirited" from your claim that I was going to make a "spirited" defense. I don't actually feel all that spirited about any of this ... it just seems that now that Bumpy is gone, some feel the need to throw some dirt on him, to confirm that the ban was correct.
"WW called him a basically worthless liar"
So, I clarified.
yes ... I know ... ad infinitum ... you spoke of his social worth ... not just here, you have no idea of his social worth, just his actions about people he feels are stuck in cult trauma from 20 years ago.
... in any case ... my two word summary was adequate I thought, if not precise. You are so wordy that some consolidation is in order.
Meanwhile, Bumpy-who you claim is acting at least PARTIALLY reasonable and NOT being a troll-is also sending nasty emails to Paw. (Unless you're ALSO calling Paw a liar.)
Did I say he was not acting like a troll ? I don't think my forum discussions with him, he was being a troll ... like the DOW 14,000 thread, where we both commented on the apparent down trend ahead ... and here we are ...
I don't recall paw calling the emails nasty ... I read them, have you? He said a couple things not helpful, but mostly he was angry and took the fight to paw ... another reason I think perhaps he really didn't have the email address figured out. Once he did, he seemed to have no problem expressing himself to pawtucket.
I'm more inclined to think a troll would have ingratiated himself, and tried to worm his way back in ... Bumpy took a little bolder stance ... except for a personal insult (on info he did not get from me) .... I don't think nasty is the right term.
I honestly think you've been fooled- and refuse to entertain the notion that someone can fool an intelligent adult like that.
And I think you honestly believe that ... :)
Sure it is possible he was just pushing buttons to get a thread started, which jonny obliged him with. And I'm not really defending him, except from some of the non staff attacks that seem to be going way beyond what the ban was about.
And since he has taken a hard line on some of his positions, it seems he is unlikely to be welcomed back any time soon. But I think the name calling is not the real issue, nor the sock puppet ... it is the aggressive attitude toward some like rascal.
... and think I should just refrain from comment if I see him doing what I consider is
negative- or I should come around to your way of thinking because mine is flawed in some way.
no ... I think this after the fact stuff is pointless ... and yes, mostly wrong. Pawtucket didn't want to embarass Bumpy by revealing his sin ... but now you have attempted this whole exegesis of your perceptions, making much worse accusations than what Bumpy was actually suspended for ...
What do you say? Can we drop it here, or need this continue for reasons unclear to me?
I gave Bumpy a ten year suspension as a joke since he was so keen on busting my cubes on a regular basis. But based on his correspondence with me, including a threat to one of the posters here, I think the suspension is adequate.
Well ... Bump didn't take it as a joke but as permanent banishment, I would say ...
An invitation to meet someone is not really a threat ... and that person trash talked him and possibly slandered him while Bumpy was muted ... and that person never had a bad word to say about poor bumpy while he was active here ...
publicly claiming Bumpy made a "threat" does not seem fair or correct. He offered to have a face to face discussion of publicly made slander ...
And while we're at it .. in regards to jonny mooning dwbh ... I don't quite get dwbh listing here earlier, the people and thread numbers that gave adequate responses ... and that any more commentary was just beating a dead horse. Can people read for themselves? Why the label of those who go against the official party line?
Is this the new MOG for GSC?
On another thread he listed for us the Wierwille apologists by name ... so are we to mark and avoid them, since the new MOG has listed them for GSC?
And in case anyone was upset by the apologist term, we have cover from the dwbh archaic revised standard version of "apologist". The real meaning is "pejorative", but to dwbh it is a positive ... at least if you are "any objective reader", as dwbh put it. Go ahead and disagree, but that marks you as not objective.
I think I fairly well trounced his notion that "Wierwille apologist" is a positive or neutral term, but the tone of listing the dwbh approved posts, or listing those sanctioned as wierwille apologists ... seems strange ...almost cult like.
And is it really his "humble opinion" when he says that those that disagree are "beating a dead horse", or those on his mark and avoid list are wierwille apologists? Or those that disagree with his old and wrong "apologist" definition are "not objective".
and I still think those long paragraphs without punctuation are hard to discern ...
Of course you can disagree with me, but not if you are objective ... and you'll just be beating a dead horse ...
For a guy that loved dishing it out, he didn't take it very well.
I don't know what warnings he got, or how clear they were ...
you did mention he got on you, so this was you getting on him ... fine I guess ... but you didn't exactly respond with a comparable response ... you used the ban button. Being silenced and banned is rather different ... he took plenty of criticism on the boards and handled it just fine.
As he said to me, he knows people in prison in Africa, he was there sometimes with protection and sometimes not ... this silly little internet world is rather trivial by comparison ...
I think his posts tried to be more light instead of acting like we are carrying the world on our shoulders here, as TWI used to think ... or that all this is somehow bigger than it really is ... how many are in TWI or other little splinters ... do some people really just carry on delusions of grandeur here?
I saw a little different perspective from Bumpy .. and I think despite some weird style he had, he had something to offer .. still does.
In any case, WW trash talked him pretty bad, and he did not threaten him, as you claimed. So saying that seems very wrong to me ... and it bothers me a little that so many seem to feel they need to fall in line behind their leader ... I think you do just fine without resorting to this stuff ... IMNSHO
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
15
8
11
20
Popular Days
Jul 6
38
Jul 4
31
Jul 7
29
Jul 9
19
Top Posters In This Topic
pawtucket 15 posts
WordWolf 8 posts
J0nny Ling0 11 posts
rhino 20 posts
Popular Days
Jul 6 2008
38 posts
Jul 4 2008
31 posts
Jul 7 2008
29 posts
Jul 9 2008
19 posts
rhino
Clear enough to those on the outside ... referring to the continued discussion here about bumpy's character
... the couple emails to you that he copied to me indicated he was really not too interested in reconciling and being part of the community ... which is what I already told him.
and he did not take my suggested route earlier, either ...
Edited by rhinoLink to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Exactly!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Shellon
ROFL, cracks me up what we waste our valuable time on
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
Oh good Rocky is here to help. And right to the name calling in the first Rocky post ... what a surprise. Are you here to demonstrate the proper way to attack people?
I'm saying he believed more that gsc tends toward a hate site ... so he acted accordingly. WW called him a basically worthless liar ... and sunesis piled on a little ... I've seen other aspects ... the cult subject seems to be like discussing politics or religion ... it can be divisive, when people would behave differently discussing sports or whatever.
(and this is what gets me about labeling ... if grumpy has this site labeled as full of twi haters ... he treats them differently ... and is less ready to compromise .. it is more like a war of good versus evil. The same tendency in labeling TWI apologists ... or way corps jerks, liberals versus conservatives ... etc.)
Edited by rhinoLink to comment
Share on other sites
RumRunner
Oh this is flawless - I just posted on another thread (beef) about how you two (Rhino/Rocky) know how to vehemently disagree without hurting others. I was endeavoring to use it as an example of when it is OK and when it is not...kind of meant to be a compliment to both of you...now here ya both go raising hell on this forum. Should I go delete my other post? Damn it's 10:30 in San Diego - maybe I need a V/T.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Paw, maybe before you suspend or ban someone you should post a poll so everyone here can debate to death whether the poster is worthy of the cafe or worthy of a flogging. OR you could simply find out who all said poster's friends are and discuss it with them and let them decide!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
I have proof that Bumpy is in France. He's watching all this from his perch next to the gargoyles of Notre Dame:
Edited by doojableLink to comment
Share on other sites
Shellon
HA, yeah, lets do that next time.
Good point, though, sheesh, can't people just put on their big girl panties and deal?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
If he believed this site was contentious and hateful, he should have used the brains that God gave him
and go to another site rather than spew vitriol all over it.
(Which he's STILL doing- by sending nasty emails to Paw, and using posters here as his proxies.
Actually, first I quoted the posts, and they mostly support the idea that he was using "untruths" with the 2 of you.Then you felt the need to jump in and defend him-almost certainly part of that's due to him crying to you privately
over injustices. He's sold you and Jonny the same sob story.
So, through 2 posters, he's still posting here. Therefore, he can take his lumps for it.
If the evidence supports someone having been caught lying, I am free to say so- they are lying.
Therefore, I feel no guilt over calling Bumpy A LIAR.
Did I call him a liar? Yes- but I left it up to the individuals before he had you jump in. Once he ESCALATED matters,
I saw no reason to just let it go.
(That's why I didn't comment at all until he had someone else make a federal case and start a thread because
he reaped what his bad behavior sowed.)
Did I call him "basically worthless"?
Not yet I haven't.
I have no way of knowing if he gives generously to support widows and orphans in his spare time,
or anything else. I can only judge the social behavior he's demonstrated here.
So I did.
To say the least, it added nothing to the discussions.
To say the most, each usage of his keyboard detracted from legitimate discussions.
Actually, he arrived at this site and has been consistent in wasting everyone's time, interrupting serious
discussions, and otherwise behaving boorishly. When his behavior is already that poor, what difference
does a LATER LABEL make? You're making excuses for his poor behavior. He's a grown man, and can
take responsibility for what he posts- and the consequences of his actions.
Or is there going to be some spirited defense of his using a sock-puppet online, based on his labelling the site as "naughty" or something?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
I hope nobody's going to get in trouble for commenting while on the boss's dime! :)
(I'm not accusing anyone... just wondering out loud, rhetorically that is)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
I think the discussion moved past why Bumpy was banned .. on to a more general discussion of rules and conduct and how it all works.
I suggested from the start, to Bumpy, that he talk with Pawtucket ... he said he didn't get the email .. etc. then he contacted Pawtucket ... blah blah ... and I never had a problem with the ban.
So I'm not sure which people need the big girl panties ... to me what Bumpy was actually banned for, seems less egregious than the way Bumpy has been personally attacked here by WW and others to some degree. Having experience with Bumpy's internet inexperience, I think he didn't figure that he could just reply to his notice of banishment. I could be wrong, but I'm not willing to say he is a worthless liar ... and I doubt WW knows him well enough to say that either ... though it is just an opinion.
But the staff has been fair ... so I guess this is Bumpy's farewell thread ... till 2018.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sunesis
Listen, its really simple. The guy behaved like a jerk. Period.
I had no problem with him until recently when he went after me out of the blue. If you can't take it, don't dish it.
He has been here for quite awhile. He has quite adequately proved his boorishness, his appalling frivolity on very serious threads, people had just shared about something that had hurt them deeply and he makes a joke.
Good, he's gone. I'm sure there are other pro-TWI sites that would love to have him.
If he had joined the discussion, whether pro or con, doesn't matter, and had been respectful, as most posters are, he would maybe have garnered some sympathy.
But, he couldn't and he wouldn't. Every single thread he went in, he dropped his little turd bombs in and walked away, and said, what, who me????
So, at this point, no one cares. He blew any respect or sympathy he may have garnered.
He brought this on himself. He thought he was being funny and cute after people had asked him to stop and be serious, contribute to the discussion.
Now, its not so funny and cute to him, is it? Its called unintended consequences, or blowback.
Edited by SunesisLink to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Internet inexperience???? The man figured out how to register and post at Greasespot. He figured out how to send private messages as well as e-mails. He figured out how to add people to his friends list and how to post little messages in their profiles. He knows how to post pictures on the internet and send links to the pictures to other people.
Somehow, I am less than convinced that he is simply inexperienced with the internet - he seems to have figured it out quite well.
Edited by AbigailLink to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
Well some here seemed fairly supportive of Bumpy ... despite his conflicts in some areas. So there was some interaction that was not of this vitriolic nature ... I think.
Despite your "support of ideas", you are judging me and Jonny on emails and relationships that you know little about. We are his little pawns and my statements are only saying what he wants me to say ... according to you. Good grief ... I've disagreed with Bumpy on many things in my emails to him ... but since you must be getting revelation on what he is telling me, you must already know that.
So now we are possessed with the spirit of hate, or deceiving spirit from Bumpy? Is that it WW ... you think there are devil spirits involved?
I went through several emails early on, getting Bumpy to see why he was banned, got copies of some things, and got him to respond to the one email directly to pawtucket so he could get more info ... so it doesn't seem to me he really knew he could just reply to what looked like an automated response. The email suggeted he didn't need to do anything, it was an automated process ... but that referred to the unbanning ... in 2018.
Now you claim he had me jump in, which I know is false. Have I ever had trouble commenting on my own in the past?
In any case, I've emailed him many times before on other matters and see no reason he would lie to me now. And I certainly know he did not have me jump in ... I "jumped in" because you were trying to prove him a liar on lame evidence, which seemed unfair ... still does.
Not basically worthless ... so his worth revolves around annoying people or getting sympathy ... and that is different than "basically worthless"?
He started some discussions that people participated in ... and offered worthy opinions on markets ... other items ... you seem in attack mode.
I'm not excusing his bad behavior ... as I said, the ban seemed fair, though long. And I don't pretend to know the whole story.
The sock puppet issue was already resolved .... his labeling the site naughty? I'm not sure why you are even suggesting these things ...
The issue is YOUR spirited attack on him, now that he is gone.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jim
I'm not on staff, don't have moderator privileges, don't do tech support. Just a user.
If my attitude seems too authoritative at times, well I guess I come off that way because I don't usually speak unless I'm pretty sure of myself. I'll work on it.
OTOH, I've participated in TWI online communities going all the way back to Trancenet. I've also moderated and admin'ed a tech support forum and I've been involved with many online communities. I have a pretty good idea of what makes this a great online community and I also have a pretty good idea of the types of behaviors that are disruptive.
As to Bumpy, I've already stated my concern. Trolling and sockpuppetry. I PM'ed Paw telling him that. Whether my PM made any difference or not in the banning of Bumpy, I don't know. Paw never answered and I didn't expect him to. The only reason I'm talking about a private communication is because it might clarify my status.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Thank You ...........
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
We disagree. I've noted that plenty of GSC'ers ONLY have experience at the GSC, which is why they are
unfamiliar with things like sockpuppeting and so on, and complain the policies here are draconian when they're
incredibly liberal. It's easy for someone with no experience with trolls- who are eager to always believe the best
of others-to honestly be unaware when someone is trying to make a fool of them.
I'm extrapolating based on the posts in this thread. Based on not only what was said, but WHEN it was said,I think it fits the evidence nicely. And I don't remember calling either of you "little pawns". That's belittling speech,
and I think you have the best of intentions and are being deceived anyway- or, more to the point,
BECAUSE you have the best of intentions.
However, yes, I think your posts are reflecting what he wants you to say. And-to belabor the point some more-
that is according to me.
To a manipulator, it doesn't matter how much you disagree with him-just so long as you eventually do what he wants.
Even if you disagreed with 95% percent of what he said, if, in the end, you posted what he wanted you to post,
he gets exactly what he wants.
And I'd like to note here that you're the one who's bringing up "revelation" here.
Where did "possession" or "devil spirits" enter into the discussion? Oh, that's right-you just brought them up-and put those words in my mouth.If you're jumping that far to conclusions on what I posted-and can easily see what I did and didn't say-
how much might you be misjudging what Bumpy said?
I'd consider the possibility you MIGHT not be right in this-you have more to lose than I do, and I certainly
entertained the idea I'm reading all this wrong...
You're supposing that a guy who's had NO difficulties posting, linking, and emailing so far was telling you the unvarnished
truth when he suddenly lost the ability to do them. I'm supposing he's NOT telling you the unvarnished truth.
And yet-if he played on your emotions, suddenly seemed HELPLESS and CLUELESS and a VICTIM-which I'm getting on parts of this thread- then you volunteered to jump in....but it was his idea and you were
tricked into it. I interpret what happened differently than you. Intelligent people can be deceived- and are every day.
Dismissing the possibility that one CAN be deceived is usually the first step in BEING deceived.
And he's been demonstrated to my satisfaction to be dishonorable and rude CONSISTENTLY long before now.
Even considering he MIGHT be a liar fits right in to what I consider to be his well-established behavior to date.
And you'll notice that a number of people said the same thing- without me prompting them.
I disagree that offering a few decent posts invalidates the vast majority of posts where he wasted everyone's time-
even though they can be used to try to claim he wasn't REALLY trying to waste everyone's time.
And if other people have an insightful discussion AROUND him, I no more give him the credit for that than I give
vpw credit that we had some quality people enter the corps and survive it remaining as quality people.
Actually, YOU suggested it, pg-6, post 105, 7/7, 1:09pm Eastern.[/b]"I'm saying he believed more that gsc tends toward a hate site ... so he acted accordingly."
My reply to THAT was
"Or is there going to be some spirited defense of his using a sock-puppet online, based on his labelling the site as "naughty" or something?"
I replied to YOUR suggestion- "he believed more that gsc tends toward a hate site"-your words, not mine.
Actually, I quoted Jonny and the staff back and forth with each other, as a recap.
Jonny said (per Bumpy) that what Paw was saying was "completely untrue, non-factual, to him, a fabrication."
Paw replied "He is lying to you."
I quoted both in their contexts, and added very little.
THAT was what you replied to. It was HARDLY a "spirited attack".
It was in REPLYING TO YOU (which, supposedly was in reply to the "spirited attack" but was almost entirely a
recap of who said what and when) that I said anything that could REASONABLY be viewed as any kind of "attack"
or "shot."
(My recap post was at 4:26am,
your "reply to the spirited attack" was at 7:31am,
and my reply to YOU was at 10:11am- and that was the first spirited ANYTHING I posted.
If you replied to my 10:11am post's content at 7:31am, that is a very good trick.)
==========================
I also noticed you're insisting on converting something I DID say about Bumpy into something I DIDN'T say about him.
What I SAID:
"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."
What you HEARD:
"What is the point of calling him a worthless liar"
I freely admitted to calling him a liar-for I believe there's strong evidence to support that- but posted a correction
to the "worthless" comment. I spoke about his "social worth", and you said I addressed his "worth"-
as if his social interactions are the sum total of his life. You repeated it, too:
"WW called him a basically worthless liar"
So, I clarified.
First, I specified my grounds for calling him a liar.
Then I addressed the other part:
"Did I call him "basically worthless"? Not yet I haven't.
I have no way of knowing if he gives generously to support widows and orphans in his spare time,
or anything else. I can only judge the social behavior he's demonstrated here.
So I did.
To say the least, it added nothing to the discussions.
To say the most, each usage of his keyboard detracted from legitimate discussions."
Now, I can see someone disagreeing with me as to whether he's really added nothing to discussions-
that's a value judgement, and those are open to interpretation.
But I spoke about what I considered to be a lack of SOCIAL worth, and was told I said someone's
ENTIRETY was worthless. I said nothing of the kind, and I thought I made that crystal clear with
my followup.
After I did that, you replied:
"'m not willing to say he is a worthless liar ... and I doubt WW knows him well enough to say that either"
Well, I think we should wait until WW actually CALLS HIM THAT to address whether WW has said something wrong.
Taking something WW did NOT say- and REPUDIATED- and chastising him for saying it ANYWAY is silly.
Going to take me to task for condeming the Bible, too? It makes as much sense....
I noticed you're determined to claim I said it, though....
"Not basically worthless ... so his worth revolves around annoying people or getting sympathy ... and that is different than "basically worthless"?
I never said his "worth" revolved around anything. I didn't address a whole person-just their conduct in the
social category. You're determined to transform that into a statement I neither made, nor endorsed-
in fact, I said I have no way of knowing his TOTAL worth and what he does offline, which, for all I know,
could be quite philanthropic. (I wouldn't put money on it, but I have no way of knowing he does NOT.)
I was straightforward about that. But, according to you, I said the OPPOSITE.
You're misreading me-is it POSSIBLE I'm not the ONLY one you're misreading? After all, I'm not trying to trick you
in any way. If someone IS, you may misread them further than you're rewriting my comments.
================
Meanwhile, Bumpy-who you claim is acting at least PARTIALLY reasonable and NOT being a troll-
is also sending nasty emails to Paw. (Unless you're ALSO calling Paw a liar.)
I honestly think you're trying to do the right thing and treat everyone fairly. I honestly think you've been fooled-
and refuse to entertain the notion that someone can fool an intelligent adult like that.
From what I see, you honestly think you're defending a semi-innocent person from unwarranted allegations,
implications and attacks, and think I should just refrain from comment if I see him doing what I consider is
negative- or I should come around to your way of thinking because mine is flawed in some way.
It seems we're at an impasse.
Can we agree that further exchanges on this would be a waste of time? Can we "agree to disagree" and move along?
I say we can. What do you say? Can we drop it here, or need this continue for reasons unclear to me?
Edited by WordWolfLink to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
I've had a lot of contact with Bumpy over many months that you know nothing of ... so now you say (sure I put what you seem to imply in shorter phrases ... still it is there) he may be making a fool of me, and you had said he was deceiving me ... that is belittling.
The revelation and devil spirit thing came up, because that seemed your tone ... you KNEW he had me write these things ... now you know he manipulated me ... now that you have marked him as possessed with a deceiving spirit a troll, you have all the attributes that you want to make fit, and you seem to project them into communication I've had with him that you know nothing of.
Is it possible he really did know ... sure I considered that from the start ... and then I walked him through the process ... so then he contacted pawtucket. My work was done, till you decided (in my opinion) that the decision to ban him had to be backed up with your investigative analysis, which seemed quite faulty to me.
Bumpy told me several posts back that it didn't seem it was worth the effort.
you said every time he touched the keyboard, it was ... blah blah blah ...My word was "hate" .. your was "naughty", so I didn't link those. np ... I thought maybe you were talking sexual stuff, which seemed another wrong implication from someone else.
That you bothered to do the whole recap is somewhat "spirited" ... and I was just reusing "spirited" from your claim that I was going to make a "spirited" defense. I don't actually feel all that spirited about any of this ... it just seems that now that Bumpy is gone, some feel the need to throw some dirt on him, to confirm that the ban was correct.
yes ... I know ... ad infinitum ... you spoke of his social worth ... not just here, you have no idea of his social worth, just his actions about people he feels are stuck in cult trauma from 20 years ago.... in any case ... my two word summary was adequate I thought, if not precise. You are so wordy that some consolidation is in order.
Did I say he was not acting like a troll ? I don't think my forum discussions with him, he was being a troll ... like the DOW 14,000 thread, where we both commented on the apparent down trend ahead ... and here we are ...
I don't recall paw calling the emails nasty ... I read them, have you? He said a couple things not helpful, but mostly he was angry and took the fight to paw ... another reason I think perhaps he really didn't have the email address figured out. Once he did, he seemed to have no problem expressing himself to pawtucket.
I'm more inclined to think a troll would have ingratiated himself, and tried to worm his way back in ... Bumpy took a little bolder stance ... except for a personal insult (on info he did not get from me) .... I don't think nasty is the right term.
And I think you honestly believe that ... :)
Sure it is possible he was just pushing buttons to get a thread started, which jonny obliged him with. And I'm not really defending him, except from some of the non staff attacks that seem to be going way beyond what the ban was about.
And since he has taken a hard line on some of his positions, it seems he is unlikely to be welcomed back any time soon. But I think the name calling is not the real issue, nor the sock puppet ... it is the aggressive attitude toward some like rascal.
no ... I think this after the fact stuff is pointless ... and yes, mostly wrong. Pawtucket didn't want to embarass Bumpy by revealing his sin ... but now you have attempted this whole exegesis of your perceptions, making much worse accusations than what Bumpy was actually suspended for ...
Sure ... good idea.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
J0nny Ling0
I second the motion...
And DWBH:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pawtucket
I gave Bumpy a ten year suspension as a joke since he was so keen on busting my cubes on a regular basis. But based on his correspondence with me, including a threat to one of the posters here, I think the suspension is adequate.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
Well ... Bump didn't take it as a joke but as permanent banishment, I would say ...
An invitation to meet someone is not really a threat ... and that person trash talked him and possibly slandered him while Bumpy was muted ... and that person never had a bad word to say about poor bumpy while he was active here ...
publicly claiming Bumpy made a "threat" does not seem fair or correct. He offered to have a face to face discussion of publicly made slander ...
And while we're at it .. in regards to jonny mooning dwbh ... I don't quite get dwbh listing here earlier, the people and thread numbers that gave adequate responses ... and that any more commentary was just beating a dead horse. Can people read for themselves? Why the label of those who go against the official party line?
Is this the new MOG for GSC?
On another thread he listed for us the Wierwille apologists by name ... so are we to mark and avoid them, since the new MOG has listed them for GSC?
And in case anyone was upset by the apologist term, we have cover from the dwbh archaic revised standard version of "apologist". The real meaning is "pejorative", but to dwbh it is a positive ... at least if you are "any objective reader", as dwbh put it. Go ahead and disagree, but that marks you as not objective.
I think I fairly well trounced his notion that "Wierwille apologist" is a positive or neutral term, but the tone of listing the dwbh approved posts, or listing those sanctioned as wierwille apologists ... seems strange ...almost cult like.
And is it really his "humble opinion" when he says that those that disagree are "beating a dead horse", or those on his mark and avoid list are wierwille apologists? Or those that disagree with his old and wrong "apologist" definition are "not objective".
and I still think those long paragraphs without punctuation are hard to discern ...
Of course you can disagree with me, but not if you are objective ... and you'll just be beating a dead horse ...
I'm just trying to make friends here ...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pawtucket
Rhino,
For a guy that loved dishing it out, he didn't take it very well.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
I don't know what warnings he got, or how clear they were ...
you did mention he got on you, so this was you getting on him ... fine I guess ... but you didn't exactly respond with a comparable response ... you used the ban button. Being silenced and banned is rather different ... he took plenty of criticism on the boards and handled it just fine.
As he said to me, he knows people in prison in Africa, he was there sometimes with protection and sometimes not ... this silly little internet world is rather trivial by comparison ...
I think his posts tried to be more light instead of acting like we are carrying the world on our shoulders here, as TWI used to think ... or that all this is somehow bigger than it really is ... how many are in TWI or other little splinters ... do some people really just carry on delusions of grandeur here?
I saw a little different perspective from Bumpy .. and I think despite some weird style he had, he had something to offer .. still does.
In any case, WW trash talked him pretty bad, and he did not threaten him, as you claimed. So saying that seems very wrong to me ... and it bothers me a little that so many seem to feel they need to fall in line behind their leader ... I think you do just fine without resorting to this stuff ... IMNSHO
Nuff said ... for now ...
Link to comment
Share on other sites