There might be a problem with the software, friend! http://dasher.wustl.edu/tinker/
On Aug 11, 9:49 pm, Tinker <[email protected]> wrote: > 1. “You are on moderation again Tinker”. > There was no reason given till long after the fact. “again” was the > first time since ‘newcomer moderation’. > The charge that was given about three weeks after the fact was ‘ad > hominem’. > It was not a true charge. > The explanation sent to the moderators (below) showed them to be men > of honor, as the moderation was removed. > > Mod Gods vs Tinker > From: Tinker tinker ([email protected]) > > Sent: Sun 8/02/09 3:57 AM > > Dear Sirs, > It is understood how and why some ideas upset people, so that they > manufacture excuses to persecute the presenter of said ideas. No > fault, it is what it is. > There is hope that those in power can rise to correct the incorrect > action, of moderation imposed, with the truth of the situation > presented to them. > To begin, in “Nomo Gitmo”, on June 19, post #151, gruff did ad > hominem Tinker in support of Chris’s and other failed attempts to > charge Tinker with wrong doing; > “Why do you and Vam and the other few rational intelligent minds here > bother? If you simply ignore the annoying tick it will soon go away. > A tick needs fresh blood to live.” – gruff > A few days later Tinker engaged gruff in discussion on two different > threads, “Apology Smology” and “Absolute moral precepts (Abortion)”. > If rules of debate were in effect, it would be said that gruff was > defeated by Tinker’s arguments, by default {re. “Apology Smology” #60 > and “Absolute moral precepts (Abortion)” #16, (both) on June 5}. > On June 6, gruff jumped to “What is Evil” #223, a discussion he had no > part in, for ad hominem against the one who had defeated his ideas in > fair debate. > Tinker replied to the attack disguised as ‘helpful > advice’ (hahahahohohohehehe), with an ‘honest’ (ruthless?... deserved, > yes!) discussion of the ad hominem (re. #227). > “What is Evil” #228 Orn did arbitrarily and capriciously place Tinker > on moderation without any explanation of a violation of the posting > guidelines. (supported by facts; 1. the time Orn came onto the forum > and the time he imposed the moderation did not allow sufficient > interval for the discussion and voting as directed by the guidelines > 2. Ian refused to substantiate that the proper procedure had been > followed in personal communication with Tinker after the fact) > > Please take me off moderation. > > peace & Love > Tinker > > That was to get myself off moderation, I’d like to present a slightly > different view, hopefully to share some understanding. (yea, I know, > wish in one hand and shit in the other:-)) > > Anyhow, the post in question; > “You call me a liar with your claim that I am arrogant. > Your ignorance rules, as you refuse to make an effort to show any > error in that which I present, to substantiate your slander. > peace & Love” > > To begin, I was responding to the ‘idea’ gruff presented of me being > arrogant. I attacked the ‘idea’ presented by him, not the person. > The ‘idea’ of arrogance is based in ignorance of what it is that I’m > trying to do, he presented the ‘idea’ so it was simply stating the > source of the ‘idea’, not ad hominem. > Again, the slander was done by the ‘idea’ presented, and he was the > presenter, it was not an attack against him. > > 2. I am accused repeatedly of wrong doing on the forum. There is no > substance to the charges, any time I ask to be shown where the charge > is supported, they fade away. They’ve made their slur, back in the > cyber hidey hole till they see an opening to pop out and do it again. > > There is no fault, only the reason Why. I harbor absolutely no > animosity against anybody. > > Why are they picking on poor little tink? hahahahohohohehehe :-) > Because I’ve kicked their butt when they tried to refute the idea of > establishing Unity with a common point of understanding. I’ve shown > their other world/Life ideas to have no substance when put up against > Life, here and now. The plan presented is based on empirical > knowledge. The elements of the plan are known powers of the human mind > and cannot be refuted. Kill the messenger? > > SO, here we go with the answer to the big Why. > “The Fear of the Unknown, Stirred to a Frenzy”. (see the thread, for > an explanation of the answer) > > Is there a man, woman or mouse in the house that can get over it? > > peace & Love --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
