This hypothetical sounds like nothing but BS. You admitted to creating a second handle with the intent of gaining PA. Your hypothetical is something completely different. Originally Posted by rodeomann22Seriously? The person in the hypothetical created a second handle. Against the guideline. How is that any different? And since you're trying to fall back on arguing "it's completely different", i can only read from that that you can't sit there and suggest the person in the hypothetical should be banned.
So thank you for making my point. Don't worry, you'll figure it out.
How bout cough up the dough for pa...to get it.I did. Pay attention already.
Either way move the fuck on this is getting old!!!Oh please. As if you've never went on and on about something that was "getting old!!!".
And you still can't get your email copy/paste straight, and its still not in full.No, i didn't put that in there because you'd have banned me if i did. Because that's what you do. Or haven't you been paying attention?
Conveniently forgot to catch this one and list it. Originally Posted by Chica Chaser
Nevertheless, what you added in was nothing more than your rescinding the offer. I conceded that long ago, so i'm not sure why you think it's somehow relevant to your case that i didn't include your quote in doing so.
Your response to that was the "Ain't looking for any favors." as listed. I did have the wording slightly different in my head. You are correct about that one part.I'm correct about more than just that. You made the offer. Contrary to what you said occurred, I, frankly, ignored it...didn't address it one way or the other and only responded to the other parts of your message. You got pissed at what i said about your banning me and so you rescinded the offer. To which, i responded by saying the PA wasn't really what was important to me anyways.
You're trying to make it sound as if i told you the equivalent of "take your offer and shove it". I didn't. I just commented that it wasn't particularly important to me. As evidenced by the fact that i didn't even comment on it when you offered it.
So get outta here with all that shit.....it is exactly what it is.And what it is is, you're a liar. You lied about Camouflage, you lied about our conversation, apparently you lied about having looked into the archives and re-reading it, and heck, i'm now convinced you even lied to me about cheerios. Because lying is what you do.
Far as i'm concerned, nobody should ever believe what you say again.
So, is this a "no" to my offer to pay your PA access for two weeks? Just want to clarify before I rescind it... Originally Posted by Wakeup;1056364I know it sounds like i got a bug up my ass about the PA. I don't. I got a bug up my ass about the application of the rules. By a moderator who has to lie in order to defend himself. The PA is nothing but a tangential issue in the whole thing. Though to be honest, the role that PA plays in all this does make it seem that much worse to me.
111
You wanna tell me i committed an infraction, have at it. I won't argue. But i'll be telling you that as far as infractions go, when taking the details into account mine was pretty freakin' minor. There's posting a comment saying i've never used such-n-such, and then there's posting a comment claiming a provider uses such-n-such. There's setting up a second handle to bypass a ban, and there's setting up a second handle because you forgot your password. All infractions based solely on "the letter of the law". But there's a huge gap in the level of harm intended in each case. I challenge you to tell me differently.
My infraction harmed absolutely nobody. I was banned. And yeah, it cost me $20. Yet, if i accused a provider of being an addict - whether she was or not - i'd get pointed.
Go ahead, justify that to me.
In fact, i'd bet a week's pay that in the last 500 infractions pointed on all of ECCIE, every single one was a worse infraction than mine, when accounting for the details.
Feel free to try to convince me i'm wrong. Good luck.
