People who attentionwhore about their infractions,

[Sibboleth]

Which mods have been so foolish as to make such a claim?

[Proud Lieberal from Northeast]

Phil, if you don't want the message to be disclosed, why to bring the issue in first place?

I don't need it disclosed to further the argument that many subscribe to: the moderators don't give a damn about the complaints of members. They think running their little boards makes them a somebody and the "power" goes to their heads. A very sad bunch.

When I PMed moderators about infraction I've been always receiving answers and in some cases it resulted in removing an infraction. And I'm not mod community favorite either.

[Keystone Phil]

Phil, if you don't want the message to be disclosed, why to bring the issue in first place?

I don't need it disclosed to further the argument that many subscribe to: the moderators don't give a damn about the complaints of members. They think running their little boards makes them a somebody and the "power" goes to their heads. A very sad bunch.

When I PMed moderators about infraction I've been always receiving answers and in some cases it resulted in removing an infraction. And I'm not mod community favorite either.

Congrats

[Proud Lieberal from Northeast]

Phil, if you don't want the message to be disclosed, why to bring the issue in first place?

I don't need it disclosed to further the argument that many subscribe to: the moderators don't give a damn about the complaints of members. They think running their little boards makes them a somebody and the "power" goes to their heads. A very sad bunch.

When I PMed moderators about infraction I've been always receiving answers and in some cases it resulted in removing an infraction. And I'm not mod community favorite either.

Congrats

Winfield legacy lives on.

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

Phil, if you don't want the message to be disclosed, why to bring the issue in first place?

I don't need it disclosed to further the argument that many subscribe to: the moderators don't give a damn about the complaints of members. They think running their little boards makes them a somebody and the "power" goes to their heads. A very sad bunch.

We do care about legitimate complaints.  I merely pointed out that you often do more than complain.  In reference to the TinyPic situation, you were rude and threatening.  It's not like pysically threatened me, but the overall tone of your PM was rude and threatening.  I'm just giving you a reason of why some moderators may be dismissive of your complaints - because you're not actually interested in resolving the issue (again, like with the TinyPic situation, where you refused to contact TinyPic) and more interested in making a fuss.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Winfield legacy lives on.

What exactly is the Windfield legacy?  Did he post, "Congrats Phil" when the 2006 PA Senate results came in?

[Keystone Phil]

Phil, if you don't want the message to be disclosed, why to bring the issue in first place?

I don't need it disclosed to further the argument that many subscribe to: the moderators don't give a damn about the complaints of members. They think running their little boards makes them a somebody and the "power" goes to their heads. A very sad bunch.

We do care about legitimate complaints.  I merely pointed out that you often do more than complain.  In reference to the TinyPic situation, you were rude and threatening.  It's not like pysically threatened me, but the overall tone of your PM was rude and threatening.  I'm just giving you a reason of why some moderators may be dismissive of your complaints - because you're not actually interested in resolving the issue (again, like with the TinyPic situation, where you refused to contact TinyPic) and more interested in making a fuss.

I absolutely am interested in solving the problems. The Tinypic incident became a "fuss" because it involved a moderator with whom I was feuding (the same one that was terribly sarcastic with my complaints about another subject prior to the Tinypic incident).

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

Phil, if you don't want the message to be disclosed, why to bring the issue in first place?

I don't need it disclosed to further the argument that many subscribe to: the moderators don't give a damn about the complaints of members. They think running their little boards makes them a somebody and the "power" goes to their heads. A very sad bunch.

We do care about legitimate complaints.  I merely pointed out that you often do more than complain.  In reference to the TinyPic situation, you were rude and threatening.  It's not like pysically threatened me, but the overall tone of your PM was rude and threatening.  I'm just giving you a reason of why some moderators may be dismissive of your complaints - because you're not actually interested in resolving the issue (again, like with the TinyPic situation, where you refused to contact TinyPic) and more interested in making a fuss.

I absolutely am interested in solving the problems. The Tinypic incident became a "fuss" because it involved a moderator with whom I was feuding (the same one that was terribly sarcastic with my complaints about another subject prior to the Tinypic incident).

Yet you wanted the moderators to take action without ANY evidence, and refused to contact TinyPic to see if they would address the issue.  You instead started sending angry PMs without wanting to do anything to actually investigate the issue.

[Keystone Phil]

...after I was greeted with incredible hostility by the moderators. No use continuing this one, Inks. Go infract some people for saying poopyhead or whatever.

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

...after I was greeted with incredible hostility by the moderators. No use continuing this one, Inks. Go infract some people for saying poopyhead or whatever.

No... no... no... If you go back and re-read the PM thread between me and you (which I really do hope you let me post for the public to see), I was VERY helpful and not hostile at all.  You started out the hostility, and I simply said what you were describing wasn't possible (something that TinyPic later verified) and you started spouting conspiracy theories.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

too much inside baseball:  Who is TinyPic?!

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

too much inside baseball:  Who is TinyPic?!

http://tinypic.com/index.php

[Badger]

Now you're going to make libelous statements, Inks? Borderline threatening? No shame. None. Disgusting. But you'll unfortunately get your way around here.

Libelous? You mean like accusing another poster of expressing their opinions because they're on the payroll of a political candidate, without a scintilia of proof to back up such claims?

[Keystone Phil]

Now you're going to make libelous statements, Inks? Borderline threatening? No shame. None. Disgusting. But you'll unfortunately get your way around here.

Libelous? You mean like accusing another poster of expressing their opinions because they're on the payroll of a political candidate, without a scintilia of proof to back up such claims?

Where did I expressly say that, Badger? It helps to have your facts straight.

Oh, again, stop trolling me. You're a very obsessed person and I am seriously concerned.

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

Now you're going to make libelous statements, Inks? Borderline threatening? No shame. None. Disgusting. But you'll unfortunately get your way around here.

Libelous? You mean like accusing another poster of expressing their opinions because they're on the payroll of a political candidate, without a scintilia of proof to back up such claims?

Where did I expressly say that, Badger? It helps to have your facts straight.

Oh, again, stop trolling me. You're a very obsessed person and I am seriously concerned.

Then what did you mean with all your "money talks" and "Ink$" posts?

[Keystone Phil]

Now you're going to make libelous statements, Inks? Borderline threatening? No shame. None. Disgusting. But you'll unfortunately get your way around here.

Libelous? You mean like accusing another poster of expressing their opinions because they're on the payroll of a political candidate, without a scintilia of proof to back up such claims?

Where did I expressly say that, Badger? It helps to have your facts straight.

Oh, again, stop trolling me. You're a very obsessed person and I am seriously concerned.

Then what did you mean with all your "money talks" and "Ink$" posts?

Inks, you read a little too far into things. Please be careful and don't make accusations without having the facts to back up your accusations. You're sounding awfully conspiratorial...

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

Now you're going to make libelous statements, Inks? Borderline threatening? No shame. None. Disgusting. But you'll unfortunately get your way around here.

Libelous? You mean like accusing another poster of expressing their opinions because they're on the payroll of a political candidate, without a scintilia of proof to back up such claims?

Where did I expressly say that, Badger? It helps to have your facts straight.

Oh, again, stop trolling me. You're a very obsessed person and I am seriously concerned.

Then what did you mean with all your "money talks" and "Ink$" posts?

Inks, you read a little too far into things. Please be careful and don't make accusations without having the facts to back up your accusations. You're sounding awfully conspiratorial...

I knew that'd be your response, because I knew you wouldn't answer the question.

If I was truly conspiratorial, I'd be saying, "Phil only started his anti-Inks crusade after he PMed me asking who I was supporting for President.  I think Phil's trying to get rid of the Romney-supporting moderators so he can get a Santorum-supporter on the moderator board."  That would be conspiratorial.

So, again, I ask, what did you mean when you said those things.  If you cannot answer that question in a STRAIGHTFORWARD manner, I'm done wasting my time trying to discuss this issue any further.

[Keystone Phil]

You're being conspiratorial in suggesting that I'm making you out to be part of an elaborate plot by an extremely wealthy candidate for President to destroy any and all opposition he faces. That's just silly! We know Presidential candidates wouldn't do that anyway.

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

So, again, I ask, what did you mean when you said those things.  If you cannot answer that question in a STRAIGHTFORWARD manner, I'm done wasting my time trying to discuss this issue any further.

[Fuzzy]

He's lost it.  


[/thread]

[Proud Lieberal from Northeast]

So, again, I ask, what did you mean when you said those things.  If you cannot answer that question in a STRAIGHTFORWARD manner, I'm done wasting my time trying to discuss this issue any further.

Stop trolling, Inks!