After all the crap he sent me in email, do you expect me to even consider letting him back. I PM'd him prior to his suspension and he couldn't give me a straight answer. I am not going to spend all my time and energy on Bumpy , I've wasted enough on someone that just wants to call me names. I can't believe that you are defending him after the emails he sent me, really can't believe it
After all the crap he sent me in email, do you expect me to even consider letting him back. I PM'd him prior to his suspension and he couldn't give me a straight answer. I am not going to spend all my time and energy on Bumpy , I've wasted enough on someone that just wants to call me names. I can't believe that you are defending him after the emails he sent me, really can't believe it
I may not have read them all ... mostly he attacked you on the issue of your "little banishment game", from what I saw ... he threw in a personal insult ... not exactly "nasty" ... but mostly he stuck to attacking you on the issues ... as I recall.
He complained to me and in a post about the very nasty pm from the rock star ... yet there is now the public claim he attacked her "out of the blue" .. would you like to review that?
But I am not so much defending him as "attacking" these false claims.
Like I said, I don't know all the discourse, but I know he did not privately make a threat as you publicly claimed. Unless there was another email than the one I assume we are talking about. So your one public comment that trashed him was false. The liar part does not seem clear to me either.
Then you banned him for ten years, and compare that to some bad things I guess he said about you ... I didn't even notice those, or when he called someone that name ... he didn't know why he was banned till the same day you told Jonny he knew, but you said he already knew and he was lying to Jonny ... the email he got did not say why ... he knew after he emailed you. Some things don't fit.
DWBH ... no rebuttal ... just saying I have poor eyesight? What did I miss? I still think I am spot on ... you listed posters as TWI apologists or was it just "apologists"? Your list was wrong, even WW agreed it was wrong. Why label anyone like that? And your definition was dead wrong ... to any objective person.
Instead of just saying I have bad eyesight ... why not offer an explanation of your labels? Belittling is easier I suppose. (and yes, something doesn't smell right)
I would suggest that unless you have seen every email exchange between Bumpy, Paw, and whoever else is involved in this, you may very well not have all of the facts.
I would suggest that unless you have seen every email exchange between Bumpy, Paw, and whoever else is involved in this, you may very well not have all of the facts.
I do appreciate your area of expertise (not being snide, really) and I think I said I may not have seen it all ... but I think I know the "threat" email was not a threat ... so that is a false allegation. It was an invitation to meet the accuser face to face on a certain date in NYC, since Bumpy has no chance of rebuttal here. If the person feels "threatened" he just doesn't accept the invitation.
I know most of the rest I think, but may have just skimmed some stuff cuz I didn't care that much. I'll review if I have to. And of course there could be more I didn't see.
Also the "liar" allegations are not at all established, yet made as absolutes.
Bumpy didn't do himself or the forums a favor with all of his out of band communications. It's obvious that he's one thing to his group of email and PM friends that apparently know his true identity, verses the person he choses to appear as on this forum. And it's a bit unfair for the people that know him to claim that he should be judged by what they know him to be when the rest of us can only see him as a troll and troublemaker.
I think that the very great majority of the people who post here are honest and straightforward with what they believe and what they want to discuss. Even the Wierwille fan club is at least consistent and out-front with their beliefs. I can't tell you what a rarity this is for an online community. Part of the thanks goes to Paw, part to the Allens for making a great start with Waydale, and much to all the honest and good members.
Bumpy, OTOH, only seemed to want to troll and to get a reaction. Attempts to carry on reasoned discussions with him were responded to with ridicule and scorn. I challenge any of Bumpy's supporters to show an instance where he gave useful or supportive advice to another member.
I don't miss him and I hope I'm done talking about him.
I suspended him and notified him on the 1st. I gave no more explanation because I have warned him Numerous times in the past in PM's and when he was suspended the last time. HE did the same thing to the same person he has done it DOZENS of times. If he couldn't figure it out, then that is HIS problem
I took his demand as a threat. Bill you sent me an email saying basically the same thing!! Now you are changing your story!!!
I don't regret suspending him, I would do it again. By the way, when he was suspended for 20 days in January, he thought it was permanent too!
I took his demand as a threat. Bill you sent me an email saying basically the same thing!! Now you are changing your story!!!
No, I am not ... I told you
but I also had mentioned to him that would
sound like
a threat ... he doesn't really ask my advice ha ...
and I told him, before your reply about notifying the appropriate authorities
ha .. are you planning to box with WW in NYC? or just chat it out with him? Paw will take this as a threat I imagine...
It was not a threat, but an opportunity for you to take it as a threat ... that is how the game is played, right?
I don't regret suspending him, I would do it again. By the way, when he was suspended for 20 days in January, he thought it was permanent too!
I don't want to have to ever handle this stuff, and as I have said, I supported the ban ... BUT .. it seems to have gotten a little personal ... and the publicly trashing him after the fact seems wrong. Maybe it could have been passed to Jim or someone not directly involved. Still, if he was warned several times, fine, do what you need to do ... no need to fabricate stuff for public consumption ...
adding ... and you took his "demand" as a threat? His "demand" that you ask WW to meet him in NYC at a certain date? What kind of threat is that? More like a request for a direct confrontation ... since he is silenced here ... I still think worthless ...liar ... are close to slander ... throw some dirt on the little stuffed tiger ... ha ...
adding again .. I posted above before seeing Jim's reply ... I do think bumpy had another "mission" to disrupt what he saw as people too stuck in trashing these other groups ... I agreed in a sense that we do not know much about some ... but this is not a good approach ....
as I said .. I agreed with the ban ... maybe Bumpy saw some he knew trashed too much, I don't know. Still the after the fact "slander" is "unpresidential". Bumpy's more direct commentary with me and even paw lately would make better discussion than trying to be more subversive, if that's what it was.
He contributed in some threads ...
I think he went to bezerkly, so that may explain it ...
I DID keep it quiet. This thread was started by Jonny and very early on you were Bumpy's advocate. I said very early on that this should have been handled privately
Abi and Paw ... no ... more and more is becoming public which is OK ... I'm saying some things seem "fabricated" to me .. and that should not be public, so I replied with more detail. Trash talk has always been against my rules ... ask my volleyball league people ... :o
He did not make a threat. I don't think he is of tiny social worth or a liar.
Bumpy wanted me to defend him on several points since it became public ... I said it was public because you (bumpy) pushed jonny to make it public ... so that was no deal .. :)
I'm drinking beer now, so this is as good as it gets (ask my bar volleyball league people ... trash talkers suffered badly, we're supposed to have fun here)
oh, the public trashing after the fact ... not referring to paw ... till the "threat" post came up. Mostly referring to the non staff stuff. I think the nasty rock star pm proceeded the out of the blue thing. WW was just surmising. But the threat claim was just wrong. I think. So I made it public ... the facts ... just the facts maam ...
beers all around ... then we can talk some more ...
"DWBH ... no rebuttal ... just saying I have poor eyesight? What did I miss? I still think I am spot on ... you listed posters as TWI apologists or was it just "apologists"? Your list was wrong, even WW agreed it was wrong. Why label anyone like that? And your definition was dead wrong ... to any objective person.
Instead of just saying I have bad eyesight ... why not offer an explanation of your labels? Belittling is easier I suppose. (and yes, something doesn't smell right) "
rhino................your posts addressed to me on this thread have primarily been, imo, mean-spirited, hyperbolized, ad hominem attacks, based upon disinformation and misrepresentations of what i posted on a completely different thread!........i get absolutely no sense from your vitriol, that you want to discuss anything with civility!.......you want me to dignify your logical fallacy, (i.e., the aforementioned ad hominem "argument") with a "rebuttal"??..........i decline your "invitation" to engage in a foolish "....ing contest" over what you, by your own admission, "don't quite get"!...............besides, as you admit, you "still think" you're "spot on", so why would i want to convince you otherwise??
go back and read what was written and try again to see if you can "get it" this time!..........my "list" was'nt "right" or "wrong".......it was just a list, which i posted "for review" by those interested in doing so!........the definition of "apologist" was not "mine"!........i cited the sources.......they're still there!..........read them again..........you don't like them?......aim your horns at merriam-webster and wikipedia!............whatever prompted your "need" to "think (you) fairly well trounced" my "notion" about anything indicates you're holding some grudge against me personally, for posting publically available information from what are generally accepted, reputable sources!.......you like your sources better, because they agree with your personal opinions?.........bully for you!
the post to which you refer speaks for itself........there is no reason i need to "offer any explanations" for "labels" i never placed on anyone!........nor did i "belittle" any one.........those are YOUR presumptions, not mine!...............AFAIK, you live and work on a farm, right?.........maybe that "something" that "doesn't smell right" is right under your own nose??.........or maybe above it???...........either way, maybe another beer will help you moderate your mood swings?...........................peace.
"DWBH ... no rebuttal ... just saying I have poor eyesight? What did I miss? I still think I am spot on ... you listed posters as TWI apologists or was it just "apologists"? Your list was wrong, even WW agreed it was wrong. Why label anyone like that? And your definition was dead wrong ... to any objective person.
Instead of just saying I have bad eyesight ... why not offer an explanation of your labels? Belittling is easier I suppose. (and yes, something doesn't smell right) "
rhino................your posts addressed to me on this thread have primarily been, imo, mean-spirited, hyperbolized, ad hominem attacks, based upon disinformation and misrepresentations of what i posted on a completely different thread!........i get absolutely no sense from your vitriol, that you want to discuss anything with civility!.......you want me to dignify your logical fallacy, (i.e., the aforementioned ad hominem "argument") with a "rebuttal"??..........i decline your "invitation" to engage in a foolish "....ing contest" over what you, by your own admission, "don't quite get"!...............besides, as you admit, you "still think" you're "spot on", so why would i want to convince you otherwise??
go back and read what was written and try again to see if you can "get it" this time!..........my "list" was'nt "right" or "wrong".......it was just a list, which i posted "for review" by those interested in doing so!........the definition of "apologist" was not "mine"!........i cited the sources.......they're still there!..........read them again..........you don't like them?......aim your horns at merriam-webster and wikipedia!............whatever prompted your "need" to "think (you) fairly well trounced" my "notion" about anything indicates you're holding some grudge against me personally, for posting publically available information from what are generally accepted, reputable sources!.......you like your sources better, because they agree with your personal opinions?.........bully for you!
the post to which you refer speaks for itself........there is no reason i need to "offer any explanations" for "labels" i never placed on anyone!........nor did i "belittle" any one.........those are YOUR presumptions, not mine!...............AFAIK, you live and work on a farm, right?.........maybe that "something" that "doesn't smell right" is right under your own nose??.........or maybe above it???...........either way, maybe another beer will help you moderate your mood swings?...........................peace.
I guess the thread is closing ... you have not addressed one of my points .. you have made more ad hominem attacks
The "I don't get it" means I think I do get it, but I'm open for a better explanation .. which you have not offered.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
15
8
11
20
Popular Days
Jul 6
38
Jul 4
31
Jul 7
29
Jul 9
19
Top Posters In This Topic
pawtucket 15 posts
Rocky 8 posts
J0nny Ling0 11 posts
rhino 20 posts
Popular Days
Jul 6 2008
38 posts
Jul 4 2008
31 posts
Jul 7 2008
29 posts
Jul 9 2008
19 posts
pawtucket
Bill,
After all the crap he sent me in email, do you expect me to even consider letting him back. I PM'd him prior to his suspension and he couldn't give me a straight answer. I am not going to spend all my time and energy on Bumpy , I've wasted enough on someone that just wants to call me names. I can't believe that you are defending him after the emails he sent me, really can't believe it
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
I may not have read them all ... mostly he attacked you on the issue of your "little banishment game", from what I saw ... he threw in a personal insult ... not exactly "nasty" ... but mostly he stuck to attacking you on the issues ... as I recall.
He complained to me and in a post about the very nasty pm from the rock star ... yet there is now the public claim he attacked her "out of the blue" .. would you like to review that?
But I am not so much defending him as "attacking" these false claims.
Like I said, I don't know all the discourse, but I know he did not privately make a threat as you publicly claimed. Unless there was another email than the one I assume we are talking about. So your one public comment that trashed him was false. The liar part does not seem clear to me either.
Then you banned him for ten years, and compare that to some bad things I guess he said about you ... I didn't even notice those, or when he called someone that name ... he didn't know why he was banned till the same day you told Jonny he knew, but you said he already knew and he was lying to Jonny ... the email he got did not say why ... he knew after he emailed you. Some things don't fit.
DWBH ... no rebuttal ... just saying I have poor eyesight? What did I miss? I still think I am spot on ... you listed posters as TWI apologists or was it just "apologists"? Your list was wrong, even WW agreed it was wrong. Why label anyone like that? And your definition was dead wrong ... to any objective person.
Instead of just saying I have bad eyesight ... why not offer an explanation of your labels? Belittling is easier I suppose. (and yes, something doesn't smell right)
Edited by rhinoLink to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Rhino,
I would suggest that unless you have seen every email exchange between Bumpy, Paw, and whoever else is involved in this, you may very well not have all of the facts.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
I do appreciate your area of expertise (not being snide, really) and I think I said I may not have seen it all ... but I think I know the "threat" email was not a threat ... so that is a false allegation. It was an invitation to meet the accuser face to face on a certain date in NYC, since Bumpy has no chance of rebuttal here. If the person feels "threatened" he just doesn't accept the invitation.
I know most of the rest I think, but may have just skimmed some stuff cuz I didn't care that much. I'll review if I have to. And of course there could be more I didn't see.
Also the "liar" allegations are not at all established, yet made as absolutes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jim
Bumpy didn't do himself or the forums a favor with all of his out of band communications. It's obvious that he's one thing to his group of email and PM friends that apparently know his true identity, verses the person he choses to appear as on this forum. And it's a bit unfair for the people that know him to claim that he should be judged by what they know him to be when the rest of us can only see him as a troll and troublemaker.
I think that the very great majority of the people who post here are honest and straightforward with what they believe and what they want to discuss. Even the Wierwille fan club is at least consistent and out-front with their beliefs. I can't tell you what a rarity this is for an online community. Part of the thanks goes to Paw, part to the Allens for making a great start with Waydale, and much to all the honest and good members.
Bumpy, OTOH, only seemed to want to troll and to get a reaction. Attempts to carry on reasoned discussions with him were responded to with ridicule and scorn. I challenge any of Bumpy's supporters to show an instance where he gave useful or supportive advice to another member.
I don't miss him and I hope I'm done talking about him.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pawtucket
I suspended him and notified him on the 1st. I gave no more explanation because I have warned him Numerous times in the past in PM's and when he was suspended the last time. HE did the same thing to the same person he has done it DOZENS of times. If he couldn't figure it out, then that is HIS problem
I took his demand as a threat. Bill you sent me an email saying basically the same thing!! Now you are changing your story!!!
I don't regret suspending him, I would do it again. By the way, when he was suspended for 20 days in January, he thought it was permanent too!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
No, I am not ... I told you
and I told him, before your reply about notifying the appropriate authorities
It was not a threat, but an opportunity for you to take it as a threat ... that is how the game is played, right?
I don't want to have to ever handle this stuff, and as I have said, I supported the ban ... BUT .. it seems to have gotten a little personal ... and the publicly trashing him after the fact seems wrong. Maybe it could have been passed to Jim or someone not directly involved. Still, if he was warned several times, fine, do what you need to do ... no need to fabricate stuff for public consumption ...
adding ... and you took his "demand" as a threat? His "demand" that you ask WW to meet him in NYC at a certain date? What kind of threat is that? More like a request for a direct confrontation ... since he is silenced here ... I still think worthless ...liar ... are close to slander ... throw some dirt on the little stuffed tiger ... ha ...
adding again .. I posted above before seeing Jim's reply ... I do think bumpy had another "mission" to disrupt what he saw as people too stuck in trashing these other groups ... I agreed in a sense that we do not know much about some ... but this is not a good approach ....
as I said .. I agreed with the ban ... maybe Bumpy saw some he knew trashed too much, I don't know. Still the after the fact "slander" is "unpresidential". Bumpy's more direct commentary with me and even paw lately would make better discussion than trying to be more subversive, if that's what it was.
He contributed in some threads ...
I think he went to bezerkly, so that may explain it ...
Edited by rhinoLink to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Rhino, you think Paw shouldn't make it public.? Jonny wants it public? and behind the scene Bumpy is emailing pieces of information to both of you?
hmmmmm
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pawtucket
Bill,
I DID keep it quiet. This thread was started by Jonny and very early on you were Bumpy's advocate. I said very early on that this should have been handled privately
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
Abi and Paw ... no ... more and more is becoming public which is OK ... I'm saying some things seem "fabricated" to me .. and that should not be public, so I replied with more detail. Trash talk has always been against my rules ... ask my volleyball league people ... :o
He did not make a threat. I don't think he is of tiny social worth or a liar.
Bumpy wanted me to defend him on several points since it became public ... I said it was public because you (bumpy) pushed jonny to make it public ... so that was no deal .. :)
I'm drinking beer now, so this is as good as it gets (ask my bar volleyball league people ... trash talkers suffered badly, we're supposed to have fun here)
oh, the public trashing after the fact ... not referring to paw ... till the "threat" post came up. Mostly referring to the non staff stuff. I think the nasty rock star pm proceeded the out of the blue thing. WW was just surmising. But the threat claim was just wrong. I think. So I made it public ... the facts ... just the facts maam ...
beers all around ... then we can talk some more ...
Edited by rhinoLink to comment
Share on other sites
DontWorryBeHappy
"DWBH ... no rebuttal ... just saying I have poor eyesight? What did I miss? I still think I am spot on ... you listed posters as TWI apologists or was it just "apologists"? Your list was wrong, even WW agreed it was wrong. Why label anyone like that? And your definition was dead wrong ... to any objective person.
Instead of just saying I have bad eyesight ... why not offer an explanation of your labels? Belittling is easier I suppose. (and yes, something doesn't smell right) "
rhino................your posts addressed to me on this thread have primarily been, imo, mean-spirited, hyperbolized, ad hominem attacks, based upon disinformation and misrepresentations of what i posted on a completely different thread!........i get absolutely no sense from your vitriol, that you want to discuss anything with civility!.......you want me to dignify your logical fallacy, (i.e., the aforementioned ad hominem "argument") with a "rebuttal"??..........i decline your "invitation" to engage in a foolish "....ing contest" over what you, by your own admission, "don't quite get"!...............besides, as you admit, you "still think" you're "spot on", so why would i want to convince you otherwise??
go back and read what was written and try again to see if you can "get it" this time!..........my "list" was'nt "right" or "wrong".......it was just a list, which i posted "for review" by those interested in doing so!........the definition of "apologist" was not "mine"!........i cited the sources.......they're still there!..........read them again..........you don't like them?......aim your horns at merriam-webster and wikipedia!............whatever prompted your "need" to "think (you) fairly well trounced" my "notion" about anything indicates you're holding some grudge against me personally, for posting publically available information from what are generally accepted, reputable sources!.......you like your sources better, because they agree with your personal opinions?.........bully for you!
the post to which you refer speaks for itself........there is no reason i need to "offer any explanations" for "labels" i never placed on anyone!........nor did i "belittle" any one.........those are YOUR presumptions, not mine!...............AFAIK, you live and work on a farm, right?.........maybe that "something" that "doesn't smell right" is right under your own nose??.........or maybe above it???...........either way, maybe another beer will help you moderate your mood swings?...........................peace.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
I guess the thread is closing ... you have not addressed one of my points .. you have made more ad hominem attacks
The "I don't get it" means I think I do get it, but I'm open for a better explanation .. which you have not offered.
Please learn how to quote people ...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DontWorryBeHappy
whatever you say rhino!..................glad you're enjoying your beer!.........................peace.
Link to comment
Share on other sites