To Max and Rishi

b_A wrote:Here is the VOWNASFNSW's own admission that he "referred" to Idefix's employer .

https://such.forumotion.com/t23045-some-interesting-food-items#154863

Do you condemn/support/remain "neutral" citing some technicality as you did last time ?
I am asking you because you two are the only supporters of VOWNASFNSW here apart from the doucheman.
As for doucheman , it is known that his actions are in direct contradiction to his real "true" name before he got converted , so I am not bothering to know his opinion

swapna wrote:

b_A wrote:Here is the VOWNASFNSW's own admission that he "referred" to Idefix's employer .

https://such.forumotion.com/t23045-some-interesting-food-items#154863

Do you condemn/support/remain "neutral" citing some technicality as you did last time ?
I am asking you because you two are the only supporters of VOWNASFNSW here apart from the doucheman.
As for doucheman , it is known that his actions are in direct contradiction to his real "true" name before he got converted , so I am not bothering to know his opinion

battered_arse, aka b_a, your whining style leaves much to be desired. In any case, it would be impossible to whine in style when you do so pathetically on behalf of someone else who is using your tribal loyalty.

b_A wrote:

swapna wrote:

b_A wrote:Here is the VOWNASFNSW's own admission that he "referred" to Idefix's employer .

https://such.forumotion.com/t23045-some-interesting-food-items#154863

Do you condemn/support/remain "neutral" citing some technicality as you did last time ?
I am asking you because you two are the only supporters of VOWNASFNSW here apart from the doucheman.
As for doucheman , it is known that his actions are in direct contradiction to his real "true" name before he got converted , so I am not bothering to know his opinion

battered_arse, aka b_a, your whining style leaves much to be desired. In any case, it would be impossible to whine in style when you do so pathetically on behalf of someone else who is using your tribal loyalty.

Spoken a like true petty-minded-loser that you are.

swapna wrote:

b_A wrote:

swapna wrote:

b_A wrote:Here is the VOWNASFNSW's own admission that he "referred" to Idefix's employer .

https://such.forumotion.com/t23045-some-interesting-food-items#154863

Do you condemn/support/remain "neutral" citing some technicality as you did last time ?
I am asking you because you two are the only supporters of VOWNASFNSW here apart from the doucheman.
As for doucheman , it is known that his actions are in direct contradiction to his real "true" name before he got converted , so I am not bothering to know his opinion

battered_arse, aka b_a, your whining style leaves much to be desired. In any case, it would be impossible to whine in style when you do so pathetically on behalf of someone else who is using your tribal loyalty.

Spoken a like true petty-minded-loser that you are.

How does it feel to be used? You may feel better if you immerse yourself in the creative tasks of byte-counting, title-centering, and report-formatting for the marketing analyst on the fourth floor.

b_A wrote:

swapna wrote:

b_A wrote:

swapna wrote:

b_A wrote:Here is the VOWNASFNSW's own admission that he "referred" to Idefix's employer .

https://such.forumotion.com/t23045-some-interesting-food-items#154863

Do you condemn/support/remain "neutral" citing some technicality as you did last time ?
I am asking you because you two are the only supporters of VOWNASFNSW here apart from the doucheman.
As for doucheman , it is known that his actions are in direct contradiction to his real "true" name before he got converted , so I am not bothering to know his opinion

battered_arse, aka b_a, your whining style leaves much to be desired. In any case, it would be impossible to whine in style when you do so pathetically on behalf of someone else who is using your tribal loyalty.

Spoken a like true petty-minded-loser that you are.

How does it feel to be used? You may feel better if you immerse yourself in the creative tasks of byte-counting, title-centering, and report-formatting for the marketing analyst on the fourth floor.

You can try your hand at mocking but the cold reality is that at the end of the day you are a loser who is a total failure in life. If mocking gives you respite from the sorry life that you lead , be my guest.
If this post makes you angry and upset, mock some more.

Hellsangel wrote:Ammachi, what is this obsession with the fourth floor? Marketing departments usually sit on a higher floor.

Rashmun wrote:

b_A wrote:

swapna wrote:

b_A wrote:

swapna wrote:

battered_arse, aka b_a, your whining style leaves much to be desired. In any case, it would be impossible to whine in style when you do so pathetically on behalf of someone else who is using your tribal loyalty.

Spoken a like true petty-minded-loser that you are.

How does it feel to be used? You may feel better if you immerse yourself in the creative tasks of byte-counting, title-centering, and report-formatting for the marketing analyst on the fourth floor.

You can try your hand at mocking but the cold reality is that at the end of the day you are a loser who is a total failure in life. If mocking gives you respite from the sorry life that you lead , be my guest.
If this post makes you angry and upset, mock some more.

He seems to be better in math and stat than you and he has also read PG Wodehouse which evidently you have not.I fail to see how is a failure and you are a success.

Propagandhi711 wrote:ever since phlegmy professed a love for sambhar and iyers, big titties has rolled over and showed his belly to phlegmy so he can be playfully tickled. you're asking him to critique such a character?

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:b_A no idea what you're talking about. i have never supported any poster making private info about others public on this forum or elsewhere. i believe i was one of the first to raise my voice against this on this forum. you have the wrong end of the stick. regardless of who did what first, a disclosure is a disclosure. i did not support mburuburu's personal information, accurate or not, becoming public, nor do i support admin's private info, accurate or not becoming public. regardless of whether he (admin) had previously used his real name, he has chosen to remove it from public view, has not used it on this forum and his wishes should be respected. i don't also agree with the view that he actively abets other posters to harass. i don't think this forum is sustainable if disclosure of personal information is persisted with.

Hellsangel wrote:Hmm. Such love for the byte counters! Are you upset, Ammachi, that the byte counters made a dinosaur of you?

b_A wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:b_A no idea what you're talking about. i have never supported any poster making private info about others public on this forum or elsewhere. i believe i was one of the first to raise my voice against this on this forum. you have the wrong end of the stick. regardless of who did what first, a disclosure is a disclosure. i did not support mburuburu's personal information, accurate or not, becoming public, nor do i support admin's private info, accurate or not becoming public. regardless of whether he (admin) had previously used his real name, he has chosen to remove it from public view, has not used it on this forum and his wishes should be respected. i don't also agree with the view that he actively abets other posters to harass.  i don't think this forum is sustainable if disclosure of personal information is persisted with.

Maxji ,
I specifically asked about Phlegmy's "referring" to Admin's employer.

Rishi wrote:Idefix did not have the decency to condemn when a member posted FF's personal information.  He has more education and intelligence than me. But what is the use?

Idéfix wrote:

Rishi wrote:Idefix did not have the decency to condemn when a member posted FF's personal information.  He has more education and intelligence than me. But what is the use?

I don't care about the rest of your views on this subject, but the above statement is simply false. In my capacity as a user, I clearly and frequently sought to stop people from revealing private information about other posters. FF is upset that I did not, in my admin capacity, proactively delete the posts where his information was revealed.

I made it clear several times that there was a privacy policy in place to request such deletions, and the rules I applied to FF were the same that I applied to every other user on this forum. I even encouraged FF to request such deletions, both by public post and private message. I did everything I could within the policies of Forumotion and this forum to protect his privacy. He did not want to take the one small step he needed, but preferred to complain loudly about me and, in his own words, to violate "violate criminal and civil laws, and well-known ethical standards." No wonder then that the majority of posters here think he is the most egregious violator of privacy on this forum.

swapna wrote:

Propagandhi711 wrote:ever since phlegmy professed a love for sambhar and iyers, big titties has rolled over and showed his belly to phlegmy so he can be playfully tickled. you're asking him to critique such a character?

good point, poopah711! Are you saying that battered_arse has a vacuum where his brain should be? I've heard that, over the years, byte-counting can gradually replace a brain, first with air, then with a vacuum.

Rashmun wrote:

Idéfix wrote:

Rishi wrote:Idefix did not have the decency to condemn when a member posted FF's personal information.  He has more education and intelligence than me. But what is the use?

I don't care about the rest of your views on this subject, but the above statement is simply false. In my capacity as a user, I clearly and frequently sought to stop people from revealing private information about other posters. FF is upset that I did not, in my admin capacity, proactively delete the posts where his information was revealed.

I made it clear several times that there was a privacy policy in place to request such deletions, and the rules I applied to FF were the same that I applied to every other user on this forum. I even encouraged FF to request such deletions, both by public post and private message. I did everything I could within the policies of Forumotion and this forum to protect his privacy. He did not want to take the one small step he needed, but preferred to complain loudly about me and, in his own words, to violate "violate criminal and civil laws, and well-known ethical standards." No wonder then that the majority of posters here think he is the most egregious violator of privacy on this forum.

Who are you trying to fool? The privacy policy was put in place by you long after FF's private information was continuously posted by your buddies on this forum and on chat. The privacy policy was created by you because FF started posting your private information on the forum. Once that started to happen you had no option but to create a privacy policy.

Your hypocrisy and low level thinking was exposed when you failed to do anything for a long time prior to the framing of the privacy policy when your friends repeatedly revealed private information of FF on the forum and on chat.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

b_A wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:b_A no idea what you're talking about. i have never supported any poster making private info about others public on this forum or elsewhere. i believe i was one of the first to raise my voice against this on this forum. you have the wrong end of the stick. regardless of who did what first, a disclosure is a disclosure. i did not support mburuburu's personal information, accurate or not, becoming public, nor do i support admin's private info, accurate or not becoming public. regardless of whether he (admin) had previously used his real name, he has chosen to remove it from public view, has not used it on this forum and his wishes should be respected. i don't also agree with the view that he actively abets other posters to harass.  i don't think this forum is sustainable if disclosure of personal information is persisted with.

Maxji ,
I specifically asked about Phlegmy's "referring" to Admin's employer.

what of it? when did i say it was something i support?

b_A wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

b_A wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:b_A no idea what you're talking about. i have never supported any poster making private info about others public on this forum or elsewhere. i believe i was one of the first to raise my voice against this on this forum. you have the wrong end of the stick. regardless of who did what first, a disclosure is a disclosure. i did not support mburuburu's personal information, accurate or not, becoming public, nor do i support admin's private info, accurate or not becoming public. regardless of whether he (admin) had previously used his real name, he has chosen to remove it from public view, has not used it on this forum and his wishes should be respected. i don't also agree with the view that he actively abets other posters to harass.  i don't think this forum is sustainable if disclosure of personal information is persisted with.

Maxji ,
I specifically asked about Phlegmy's "referring" to Admin's employer.

what of it? when did i say it was something i support?

Read the original post again.
I asked if you condemn or support or remain neutral ? .Enough of beating around the bush. let me ask again.
Do you
A) Condemn
B) Support
C) Remain Neutral ( No opinion)
the action of Phlegmy "referring" to Idefix's Employer.

A or B or C or some hypothetical D ?

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

b_A wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

b_A wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:b_A no idea what you're talking about. i have never supported any poster making private info about others public on this forum or elsewhere. i believe i was one of the first to raise my voice against this on this forum. you have the wrong end of the stick. regardless of who did what first, a disclosure is a disclosure. i did not support mburuburu's personal information, accurate or not, becoming public, nor do i support admin's private info, accurate or not becoming public. regardless of whether he (admin) had previously used his real name, he has chosen to remove it from public view, has not used it on this forum and his wishes should be respected. i don't also agree with the view that he actively abets other posters to harass.  i don't think this forum is sustainable if disclosure of personal information is persisted with.

Maxji ,
I specifically asked about Phlegmy's "referring" to Admin's employer.

what of it? when did i say it was something i support?

Read the original post again.
I asked if you condemn or support or remain neutral ? .Enough of beating around the bush. let me ask again.
Do you
A) Condemn
B) Support
C) Remain Neutral ( No opinion)
the action of Phlegmy "referring" to Idefix's Employer.

A or B or C or some hypothetical D ?

you really have a problem with people not answering questions on your terms, don't you? i have more than sufficiently answered the question you asked me. i condemn the disclosure of any private information and that includes disclosure of people's employers or place of work.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Idéfix wrote:

Rishi wrote:Idefix did not have the decency to condemn when a member posted FF's personal information.  He has more education and intelligence than me. But what is the use?

I don't care about the rest of your views on this subject, but the above statement is simply false. In my capacity as a user, I clearly and frequently sought to stop people from revealing private information about other posters. FF is upset that I did not, in my admin capacity, proactively delete the posts where his information was revealed.

I made it clear several times that there was a privacy policy in place to request such deletions, and the rules I applied to FF were the same that I applied to every other user on this forum. I even encouraged FF to request such deletions, both by public post and private message. I did everything I could within the policies of Forumotion and this forum to protect his privacy. He did not want to take the one small step he needed, but preferred to complain loudly about me and, in his own words, to violate "violate criminal and civil laws, and well-known ethical standards." No wonder then that the majority of posters here think he is the most egregious violator of privacy on this forum.

Who are you trying to fool? The privacy policy was put in place by you long after FF's private information was continuously posted by your buddies on this forum and on chat. The privacy policy was created by you because FF started posting your private information on the forum. Once that started to happen you had no option but to create a privacy policy.

Your hypocrisy and low level thinking was exposed when you failed to do anything for a long time prior to the framing of the privacy policy when your friends repeatedly revealed private information of FF on the forum and on chat.

may i ask you a few questions?

are you saying that the admin should have foreseen the potential for people disclosing others' private info? did you think of the potential for it before you landed here? if you did think of it before the disclosures, did you warn the admin that this was possible and that he should do something about it. i didn't think of it. i had naively assumed that people wouldn't stoop to that. my recollection is that once the disclosures were made and they were pointed out publicly or through PM he took care of it and instituted the privacy policy we now have. the most solid proof that you think that the steps the admin took are sufficient is that you are still here.

Rashmun wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Idéfix wrote:

Rishi wrote:Idefix did not have the decency to condemn when a member posted FF's personal information.  He has more education and intelligence than me. But what is the use?

I don't care about the rest of your views on this subject, but the above statement is simply false. In my capacity as a user, I clearly and frequently sought to stop people from revealing private information about other posters. FF is upset that I did not, in my admin capacity, proactively delete the posts where his information was revealed.

I made it clear several times that there was a privacy policy in place to request such deletions, and the rules I applied to FF were the same that I applied to every other user on this forum. I even encouraged FF to request such deletions, both by public post and private message. I did everything I could within the policies of Forumotion and this forum to protect his privacy. He did not want to take the one small step he needed, but preferred to complain loudly about me and, in his own words, to violate "violate criminal and civil laws, and well-known ethical standards." No wonder then that the majority of posters here think he is the most egregious violator of privacy on this forum.

Who are you trying to fool? The privacy policy was put in place by you long after FF's private information was continuously posted by your buddies on this forum and on chat. The privacy policy was created by you because FF started posting your private information on the forum. Once that started to happen you had no option but to create a privacy policy.

Your hypocrisy and low level thinking was exposed when you failed to do anything for a long time prior to the framing of the privacy policy when your friends repeatedly revealed private information of FF on the forum and on chat.

may i ask you a few questions?

are you saying that the admin should have foreseen the potential for people disclosing others' private info? did you think of the potential for it before you landed here? if you did think of it before the disclosures, did you warn the admin that this was possible and that he should do something about it. i didn't think of it. i had naively assumed that people wouldn't stoop to that. my recollection is that once the disclosures were made and they were pointed out publicly or through PM he took care of it and instituted the privacy policy we now have. the most solid proof that you think that the steps the admin took are sufficient is that you are still here.

There are people on this forum who I have known long before I knew Charvaka. These are people I have known for ten years or more. I am here because of them and because of some other posters and not because of Charvaka. I had to take the trouble to create another forum ( Sulekha.forumotion.com ) and give the link to that forum in each of my posts as a footnote as a signal to PP that if my privacy is violated on this forum, then his privacy would surely be violated on my forum. All I have to do is stop posting completely and many people who read my posts here would check Sulekha.forumotion.com to see what I am upto. Additionally PP's real name and name of his company together with his handle name(s) on this forum would start showing up in a google search of his name. Of course this is extreme behavior and it would only be necessitated if he failed to protect my privacy or violated my privacy on this forum.

I maintain that PP created the privacy policy perhaps one year or 18 months after private details of Luke Warmus were repeatedly leaked on this forum and on chat by PP's buddies. The privacy policy was created after Luke started posting private details of PP on this forum.

I realize that you know and are friends with PP in real life and feel obliged to defend him from time to time and I completely understand your predicament.

b_A wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

b_A wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

b_A wrote:

Maxji ,
I specifically asked about Phlegmy's "referring" to Admin's employer.

what of it? when did i say it was something i support?

Read the original post again.
I asked if you condemn or support or remain neutral ? .Enough of beating around the bush. let me ask again.
Do you
A) Condemn
B) Support
C) Remain Neutral ( No opinion)
the action of Phlegmy "referring" to Idefix's Employer.

A or B or C or some hypothetical D ?

you really have a problem with people not answering questions on your terms, don't you? i have more than sufficiently answered the question you asked me. i condemn the disclosure of any private information and that includes disclosure of people's employers or place of work.

you still didn't get it and obviously you didn't click on the link that I provided in the first post. I am not talking about the disclosure.
Phlegmy proudly says that he complained to the employer of Idefix . That is what he means by "referring".
Do you Condemn , Support or Ignore that action - That of contacting a poster's employer and complaining about him ?

b_A wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Idéfix wrote:
I don't care about the rest of your views on this subject, but the above statement is simply false. In my capacity as a user, I clearly and frequently sought to stop people from revealing private information about other posters. FF is upset that I did not, in my admin capacity, proactively delete the posts where his information was revealed.

I made it clear several times that there was a privacy policy in place to request such deletions, and the rules I applied to FF were the same that I applied to every other user on this forum. I even encouraged FF to request such deletions, both by public post and private message. I did everything I could within the policies of Forumotion and this forum to protect his privacy. He did not want to take the one small step he needed, but preferred to complain loudly about me and, in his own words, to violate "violate criminal and civil laws, and well-known ethical standards." No wonder then that the majority of posters here think he is the most egregious violator of privacy on this forum.

Who are you trying to fool? The privacy policy was put in place by you long after FF's private information was continuously posted by your buddies on this forum and on chat. The privacy policy was created by you because FF started posting your private information on the forum. Once that started to happen you had no option but to create a privacy policy.

Your hypocrisy and low level thinking was exposed when you failed to do anything for a long time prior to the framing of the privacy policy when your friends repeatedly revealed private information of FF on the forum and on chat.

may i ask you a few questions?

are you saying that the admin should have foreseen the potential for people disclosing others' private info? did you think of the potential for it before you landed here? if you did think of it before the disclosures, did you warn the admin that this was possible and that he should do something about it. i didn't think of it. i had naively assumed that people wouldn't stoop to that. my recollection is that once the disclosures were made and they were pointed out publicly or through PM he took care of it and instituted the privacy policy we now have. the most solid proof that you think that the steps the admin took are sufficient is that you are still here.

There are people on this forum who I have known long before I knew Charvaka. These are people I have known for ten years or more. I am here because of them and because of some other posters and not because of Charvaka. I had to take the trouble to create another forum ( Sulekha.forumotion.com ) and give the link to that forum in each of my posts as a footnote as a signal to PP that if my privacy is violated on this forum, then his privacy would surely be violated on my forum. All I have to do is stop posting completely and many people who read my posts here would check Sulekha.forumotion.com to see what I am upto. Additionally PP's real name and name of his company together with his handle name(s) on this forum would start showing up in a google search of his name. Of course this is extreme behavior and it would only be necessitated if he failed to protect my privacy or violated my privacy on this forum.

I maintain that PP created the privacy policy perhaps one year or 18 months after private details of Luke Warmus were repeatedly leaked on this forum and on chat by PP's buddies. The privacy policy was created after Luke started posting private details of PP on this forum.

I realize that you know and are friends with PP in real life and feel obliged to defend him from time to time and I completely understand your predicament.

Rashji ,
So you support using initials of posters who posted with full real names in Sulekha days. I know this poster , who most people think of as an idiotic douchebag", who used to post with his real name in Sulekha. Will it be Ok , if I refer to that poster with his real name initials ?
And there are lot of google experts here. What if one of them , posts a link to one of his posts where he used his real name and say " That ..... ........ is a real douchebag" and post it in such a way here that it turns up in the first result whenever that person's name is googled ? I am guessing that you will be OK with that too. Thanks for the clarification.

Rashmun wrote:

b_A wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Who are you trying to fool? The privacy policy was put in place by you long after FF's private information was continuously posted by your buddies on this forum and on chat. The privacy policy was created by you because FF started posting your private information on the forum. Once that started to happen you had no option but to create a privacy policy.

Your hypocrisy and low level thinking was exposed when you failed to do anything for a long time prior to the framing of the privacy policy when your friends repeatedly revealed private information of FF on the forum and on chat.

may i ask you a few questions?

are you saying that the admin should have foreseen the potential for people disclosing others' private info? did you think of the potential for it before you landed here? if you did think of it before the disclosures, did you warn the admin that this was possible and that he should do something about it. i didn't think of it. i had naively assumed that people wouldn't stoop to that. my recollection is that once the disclosures were made and they were pointed out publicly or through PM he took care of it and instituted the privacy policy we now have. the most solid proof that you think that the steps the admin took are sufficient is that you are still here.

There are people on this forum who I have known long before I knew Charvaka. These are people I have known for ten years or more. I am here because of them and because of some other posters and not because of Charvaka. I had to take the trouble to create another forum ( Sulekha.forumotion.com ) and give the link to that forum in each of my posts as a footnote as a signal to PP that if my privacy is violated on this forum, then his privacy would surely be violated on my forum. All I have to do is stop posting completely and many people who read my posts here would check Sulekha.forumotion.com to see what I am upto. Additionally PP's real name and name of his company together with his handle name(s) on this forum would start showing up in a google search of his name. Of course this is extreme behavior and it would only be necessitated if he failed to protect my privacy or violated my privacy on this forum.

I maintain that PP created the privacy policy perhaps one year or 18 months after private details of Luke Warmus were repeatedly leaked on this forum and on chat by PP's buddies. The privacy policy was created after Luke started posting private details of PP on this forum.

I realize that you know and are friends with PP in real life and feel obliged to defend him from time to time and I completely understand your predicament.

Rashji ,
So you support using initials of posters who posted with full real names in Sulekha days. I know this poster , who most people think of as an idiotic douchebag", who used to post with his real name in Sulekha. Will it be Ok , if I refer to that poster with his real name initials ?
And there are lot of google experts here. What if one of them , posts a link to one of his posts where he used his real name and say " That ..... ........ is a real douchebag" and post it in such a way here that it turns up in the first result whenever that person's name is googled ? I am guessing that you will be OK with that too. Thanks for the clarification.

When I say PP I am referring to the poster Panini Press, also known as Charvaka. It's easier to type PP than Charvaka. Not my fault that he keeps changing his handles.