Why was my topic deleted?.

[jameslofton29]

On the subject of credibility, I have to, again, point out the obvious.? You've done nothing, whatesoever, in this thread or any other, to show you're credible.? You've provided no examples.? You've given no proof.?

Sounds like a certain someone with a certain contact. Definitely an example of a pot calling a kettle black.

[pilferk]

On the subject of credibility, I have to, again, point out the obvious.? You've done nothing, whatesoever, in this thread or any other, to show you're credible.? You've provided no examples.? You've given no proof.?

Sounds like a certain someone with a certain contact. Definitely an example of a pot calling a kettle black.

Au contraire, mon frere.

I was not making an assertion that would need anyone to consider me credible.? Therefore your "pot calling a kettle black" accusation is innaccurate.

In addition, I have no "contacts".? I have? friend who works in PR and Marketing for a regional retail record chain, owned by a huge retail record chain.? I've even gone so far as to identify that chain for someone, via PM, in the past so they could verify a piece of information.

? And as for her credibility...well, in the past she called the GH press release about 2 weeks before we actually got it (though she didn't say/know it would be about GH), she "called" the original listing of GH prior to that, and has both confirmed, and "called" other things that have happened in regards to the retail side of things.? Yes, the most recent PR information never did pan out (thank Geffen for that bit, FYI).? But notice she was also not, by a long shot, the ONLY source of that information....

So....maybe you should revisit history before leveling false accusations, eh?

Oh, and WAY to resurrect a 3 week old discusion.   

[jameslofton29]

I wasn't necessarily trying to "resurrect a three week old conversation". You were insulting a fellow forum member, and your insult was basically you describing yourself. I strongly doubt you are interested in taking a Pilferk contact trip down memory lane. So dont start acting like a picture of integrity. There is a mile long list of bullshit where you were wrong.

[pilferk]

I wasn't necessarily trying to "resurrect a three week old conversation". You were insulting a fellow forum member, and your insult was basically you describing yourself. I strongly doubt you are interested in taking a Pilferk contact trip down memory lane. So dont start acting like a picture of integrity. There is a mile long list of bullshit where you were wrong.

No, please, by all means...lets take that trip.  I'll await your "mile long list of bullshit"....which, FYI, I don't think you'll find.

And I wasn't insulting a forum member.  I was saying I didn't necessarily believe his claims that "all his threads have been deleted".  And that he'd done nothing in this thread to bolster his claim being credible. 

Not to mention....I was hardly describing myself.  But if you can prove otherwise....have at it.  I'd be interested to see it.

I think james, it's time for YOU to revisit some history.  You seem to have painted a completely fabricated picture of me, and my post history, in your mind.  Not sure WHY that is, exactly....must be that pessimistic streak effecting your recall.

[MCT]

Please Jimmy, take us on a trip!

Impartial and obligatory second line. Similar in nature to the first.

[jameslofton29]

Wish granted. It will take at least a few days to compile. I haven't been online as much the past few days, but when I get home from work each day for the next week or so, this list is priority number one. Dont start deleting old posts from the various forums you post at. I will notice it. For quite awhile I have considered creating a thread where I expose various "insiders" and people with "contacts" as nothing more than a joke. I wanted to kick things off with someone else, but since you are so enthused about this, I guess it will start with you.


To Jarmo or a Mod: Like I said, I have considered doing this for quite some time. But what section should it go in? In my opinion, since these jokers always post in GNR sections at various forums and have fooled quite a few people, it should go in the GNR section where all those people post. But since it isn't actually concerning Axl or another member of GNR, it doesn't really belong there. Maybe The Jungle?

[pilferk]

Wish granted. It will take at least a few days to compile. I haven't been online as much the past few days, but when I get home from work each day for the next week or so, this list is priority number one. Dont start deleting old posts from the various forums you post at. I will notice it. For quite awhile I have considered creating a thread where I expose various "insiders" and people with "contacts" as nothing more than a joke. I wanted to kick things off with someone else, but since you are so enthused about this, I guess it will start with you.

Awesome.  You have fun.  138 pages of posts to go through here, and not much else anywhere else, and I won't delete a one (and you can get jarmo or whatever mod on whatever board to confirm it).

But when you don't find much of anything...I'm going to expect a big, huge, butt kissing apology.

So be prepared to issue one.

[Jim]

... where I expose various "insiders" and people with "contacts" as nothing more than a joke.

Pitch it. You're guaranteed at least a couple of series! I'm sure Fox will pick it up. You'll have to make a decision on your costume pretty sharpish though. Also, is this going to be in conjunction with any crime fighting, or will exposure be the priority? Oh, and you'll need an arch villain.

I do think though that in singling out Pilferk, you're barking up the wrong insider..............

[Krispy Kreme]

People really need to check their own profile before saying a thread is deleted.? Yours has simply been merged with this one, which is essentially about the same thing :
http://www.heretodaygonetohell.com/board/index.php?topic=30544.0

the link leads  to nowhere. But thanks for thinking of me. 

[Krispy Kreme]

You keep seeing conspiracy where there? is none. I am not so presumptous as to believe anything I say here has any effect on anyone. And, as as both a private and public forum, nor should it (although your premise has been systematically debunked in the theoretical? literature, see Mancur Olsen). So I am not trying to rally anyone about anything. I 'got no need for the light.' I am just speaking my mind. So 'don't damn me.' Because you are, at least in your mind, so much more erudite than I, I will meekly bow before your brillant? insight into the human psyche and discontinue what I thought was an open forum.

On the contrary, I don't see conspiracy.? I just can't think of a logical reason why you'd continue to post if you feel so "injured" by the mods.? That's why I asked (buy you've yet to answer).? I presented the only logical reason I could see of continuing to do so.? If you'd like to provide another explanation, I'm all ears.

And, once again, you demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding of what this forum is.? It is not "an open forum".? It is a selective, private, moderated forum.? Want an open forum?? Go to unmoderated usenet forms.? It's as close as you'll get.? Have fun getting past the spam.

"The only logical reason"? It  must be nice to have a monoply on reason.

[Krispy Kreme]

The second thread was locked by me.

Without a reason? I gave you one right here:

http://www.heretodaygonetohell.com/board/index.php?topic=27372.msg504394#msg504394

You know. The thread you started on why your thread was locked. You even replied to it after I gave you my reason. If you thought that I read the whole situation all wrong. Well you said in the next post in the original thread that you're too drunk to find your profile. Now how the fuck am I supposed to know what the thread was about.

You wanna talk about things you hate??:


http://www.heretodaygonetohell.com/board/index.php?topic=10458.msg404062#msg404062

Not really sure what  you are saying, but the point of the thread, which was original, was not HATE per se, but rather, things that happen when I am drunk that I hate. There is a difference. Hence, the lock was unwarranted.

[Krispy Kreme]

You keep seeing conspiracy where there? is none. I am not so presumptous as to believe anything I say here has any effect on anyone. And, as as both a private and public forum, nor should it (although your premise has been systematically debunked in the theoretical? literature, see Mancur Olsen). So I am not trying to rally anyone about anything. I 'got no need for the light.' I am just speaking my mind. So 'don't damn me.' Because you are, at least in your mind, so much more erudite than I, I will meekly bow before your brillant? insight into the human psyche and discontinue what I thought was an open forum.

On the contrary, I don't see conspiracy.? I just can't think of a logical reason why you'd continue to post if you feel so "injured" by the mods.? That's why I asked (buy you've yet to answer).? I presented the only logical reason I could see of continuing to do so.? If you'd like to provide another explanation, I'm all ears.

And, once again, you demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding of what this forum is.? It is not "an open forum".? It is a selective, private, moderated forum.? Want an open forum?? Go to unmoderated usenet forms.? It's as close as you'll get.? Have fun getting past the spam.

You are dead wrong. It is on the internet. Anyone can join. No entry obstacles other than having an email address and knowing how to use a computer. No fees, no dues, no membership  requirements. No tests  to take, no income requirements, no selectivity  whatsoever. That makes it a public forum, not private. That is a pretty elementary fact and most people  would  know the difference.

[Skeba]

Not really sure what  you are saying, but the point of the thread, which was original, was not HATE per se, but rather, things that happen when I am drunk that I hate. There is a difference. Hence, the lock was unwarranted.

Okay then...

You're not sure what I was trying to say? I was trying to say that the exact point of the topic itself wasn't a very decriptive one, and neither was the post... Or the the one you posted after that.. It gave no clarification on what the thread was all about. It could've basically been about anything from "these are the things that I hate" to "comment on Krispy's inability to find his threads when he's drunk". That is what I'm trying to say here.

Am I getting through to you at all? Then I continued my reply to you with a link where you can tell people what are the things that you hate. And yes, you could've posted your "things that happen when I'm drunk that I hate" post there as well, although, I must admit the point of the thread, as you said was _very_ original. Also unique and amazing are words that I myself assosiate with it.. Not really, no. I was just being sarcastic.

You say that there's a difference with how I saw the thread and how you meant it to be. Now go find the original thread and tell me how I was supposed to decrypt what your drunk ass mind was thinking when you originally posted. On second thought, don't tell me. I don't care really.

You complain about 2 threads being locked with no reason. One of those, as displayed by Jim's links, is still open. When I give you the link to a thread where the locking of the original thread is discussed you say you don't understand what I was trying to say. This bitching btw, about 2 months later that I replied to your question on why it was locked.

You seem to just go around looking for fights based on these 'injustices' that you've suffered. Just shut up about it, get over it, and find something real to concern yourself with.

In the original complaint thread "We need rules and transparency for moderators of the Jungle", you said "Grow up and be tolerant". Grow up and be tolerant to threads like "things that happen when I am drunk that I hate"?

I say fuck that.

[pilferk]

"The only logical reason"? It? must be nice to have a monoply on reason.

Might be nice to actually quote what I said:

"The only logical reason I could see"

because it sure changes the meaning of the quote,eh?

But as an acedemic, you'd know that, wouldn't you?

I don't claim to be infailable.? Never have.? So if there IS another reason, go ahead and present it.? You've avoided the question in each and every post so far.....One might wonder why that is.

[pilferk]

You are dead wrong. It is on the internet. Anyone can join. No entry obstacles other than having an email address and knowing how to use a computer. No fees, no dues, no membership? requirements. No tests? to take, no income requirements, no selectivity? whatsoever. That makes it a public forum, not private. That is a pretty elementary fact and most people? would? know the difference.

A PUBLIC forum is one run by, and for, the PUBLIC.

A PRIVATE forum is one owned and operated by a PRIVATE ENTITY.

And one would think an acedemic would know the difference.

It's private because jarmo controls the "membership requirements", the contents, and the membership itself.? He could ban everyone and change the membership requirements fromm being lenient to being more constrained at a whim.  The software itself is very easily configured to require moderator approval.

The only true PUBLIC forum, really, is usenet.

[Krispy Kreme]

"The only logical reason"? It? must be nice to have a monoply on reason.

Might be nice to actually quote what I said:

"The only logical reason I could see"

because it sure changes the meaning of the quote,eh?

But as an acedemic, you'd know that, wouldn't you?

I don't claim to be infailable.? Never have.? So if there IS another reason, go ahead and present it.? You've avoided the question in each and every post so far.....One might wonder why that is.

Wrong again. I have addressed every one of your "credible" issues. I am bored with you. Please go away, and leave me alone. I don't know what your problem is, but really, you are annoying.

[Krispy Kreme]

Not really sure what? you are saying, but the point of the thread, which was original, was not HATE per se, but rather, things that happen when I am drunk that I hate. There is a difference. Hence, the lock was unwarranted.

Okay then...

You're not sure what I was trying to say? I was trying to say that the exact point of the topic itself wasn't a very decriptive one, and neither was the post... Or the the one you posted after that.. It gave no clarification on what the thread was all about. It could've basically been about anything from "these are the things that I hate" to "comment on Krispy's inability to find his threads when he's drunk". That is what I'm trying to say here.

Am I getting through to you at all? Then I continued my reply to you with a link where you can tell people what are the things that you hate. And yes, you could've posted your "things that happen when I'm drunk that I hate" post there as well, although, I must admit the point of the thread, as you said was _very_ original. Also unique and amazing are words that I myself assosiate with it.. Not really, no. I was just being sarcastic.

You say that there's a difference with how I saw the thread and how you meant it to be. Now go find the original thread and tell me how I was supposed to decrypt what your drunk ass mind was thinking when you originally posted. On second thought, don't tell me. I don't care really.

You complain about 2 threads being locked with no reason. One of those, as displayed by Jim's links, is still open. When I give you the link to a thread where the locking of the original thread is discussed you say you don't understand what I was trying to say. This bitching btw, about 2 months later that I replied to your question on why it was locked.

You seem to just go around looking for fights based on these 'injustices' that you've suffered. Just shut up about it, get over it, and find something real to concern yourself with.

In the original complaint thread "We need rules and transparency for moderators of the Jungle", you said "Grow up and be tolerant". Grow up and be tolerant to threads like "things that happen when I am drunk that I hate"?

I say fuck that.

Ok. whatever. I will endeavor to reach your level of maturity. With God's help, maybe I will, if not, then you'll just have to deal with me the way I am. 

[Krispy Kreme]

You are dead wrong. It is on the internet. Anyone can join. No entry obstacles other than having an email address and knowing how to use a computer. No fees, no dues, no membership? requirements. No tests? to take, no income requirements, no selectivity? whatsoever. That makes it a public forum, not private. That is a pretty elementary fact and most people? would? know the difference.

A PUBLIC forum is one run by, and for, the PUBLIC.

A PRIVATE forum is one owned and operated by a PRIVATE ENTITY.

And one would think an acedemic would know the difference.

It's private because jarmo controls the "membership requirements", the contents, and the membership itself.? He could ban everyone and change the membership requirements fromm being lenient to being more constrained at a whim.? The software itself is very easily configured to require moderator approval.

The only true PUBLIC forum, really, is usenet.

You are wrong, but obviously nothing I can say will dissuade you from your opinion. And clearly, to take on an "acedemic" [sic] feeds your ego. So I am done with you. When you publish your  first  book with Harvard Univeristy Press or have your book win an award for the best book in the field, feel free to talk to me, otherwise, well, you know the rest.

[Jim]

... When you publish your  first  book with Harvard Univeristy Press or have your book win an award for the best book in the field, feel free to talk to me, otherwise, well, you know the rest.

Nobody that would ever write a book that would ever hold any interest of mine would ever come out with something like that. 

(I guess that was rather definitive......... Maybe you can substitute "I doubt that anybody..." for "Nobody," at the beggining of the sentance.)

Simply saying "No, no, you're wrong... I give up," sounds more like a submission than anything else, to me at least. 

I would be interested to know how you differentiate, in the terms of an "open" forum, between public and private; the only reason that "anybody" can join is because Jarmo lets anybody join. On signing up you agreed to a number of rules (You read the rules, yeah..........) and, as is the case with anything involving human operation, you would surely have accepted that any moderation would be carried out at the discression of the moderator. Jarmo could charge you to join, Jarmo could make this board elitist, he could ban you because of your opinion. He could stop allowing people to sign up, to preseve our humble community... This board could become invitation only and people such as yourself could just as easily be outlawed......

But it isn't, it won't be and you're not.

So when does a "public" board become "private?" If you are going to argue that it's nature is subjective then, well, surely you should have had the sense to bail on this pointless endeavor some time ago. Reading your argument as it now stands, I fail to see how a private forum could even exist on the internet. But hey!, maybe it can't.

[pilferk]

You are wrong, but obviously nothing I can say will dissuade you from your opinion. And clearly, to take on an "acedemic" [sic] feeds your ego. So I am done with you. When you publish your? first? book with Harvard Univeristy Press or have your book win an award for the best book in the field, feel free to talk to me, otherwise, well, you know the rest.

No, I'm right.? And have provided demonstrable proof as such.? But, given you have no reasonable response......

And now you fall back onto "well, my resume is....".? That's like comparing dick sizes...not very meaningful to the conversation at hand.

Oh, and I work with acedemics (yes, SIC...I never, ever claimed to be a Spelling Bee champ..but I get my point across) every day.? Real ones.? At, ya know, an Ivy League institution.? Strangely, they're no where near as pompous or arrogant in throwing around their credentials...they tend to let their actual thoughts, opinons, and insight support their points, rather than spouting a resume every time they enter into a discussion.