Just to clarify.......

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Dillon Levenque wrote:

I cheat too.

---

And you're so darned cute when you do.

[Storm Clarence]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

Dillon Levenque wrote:

I cheat too.

---

And you're so darned cute when you do.

---

Yes, as a blonde, cross-draw, outlaw slayer, pedant she is kinda cute.  Isn't she.

 

 

[Aethelwine]

Trolling is kinda like throwing a grenade into a thread.

Reading through some of the posts on the thread I am reminded of the list of forum flame warrior personality types. People are often several types at once.

Regardless of the types what is most important is whether a post or forum warrior is trying to promote ill will or good will.

[Aethelwine]

---

Storm Clarence wrote:

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

Dillon Levenque wrote:

I cheat too.

---

And you're so darned cute when you do.

---

Yes, as a blonde, cross-draw, outlaw slayer, pedant she is kinda cute.  Isn't she.

 

 

---

The chip on your shoulder is so big, that whatever point you are trying to make is obscured.

[Storm Clarence]

---

Aethelwine wrote:

---

Storm Clarence wrote:

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

Dillon Levenque wrote:

I cheat too.

---

And you're so darned cute when you do.

---

Yes, as a blonde, cross-draw, outlaw slayer, pedant she is kinda cute.  Isn't she.

 

 

---

The chip on your shoulder is so big, that whatever point you are trying to make is obscured.

---

 

So get out of the gutter and try to stand tall.  Even an ant would look like Yeti from where you are posting.

 

[Aethelwine]

---

Storm Clarence wrote:

---

Aethelwine wrote:

---

Storm Clarence wrote:

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

Dillon Levenque wrote:

I cheat too.

---

And you're so darned cute when you do.

---

Yes, as a blonde, cross-draw, outlaw slayer, pedant she is kinda cute.  Isn't she.

 

 

---

The chip on your shoulder is so big, that whatever point you are trying to make is obscured.

---

 

So get out of the gutter and try to stand tall.  Even an ant would look like Yeti from where you are posting.

 

---

lol - whatever

[Celestiall Nightfire]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

 The thing is,

everyone else

understands X's flawed English but you say you don't. I can only assume that, if there is

a fault

that's causing you to not understand it, then it must be at your end.

---

---

Sure, Phil.

you

couldn't possility be wrong now, could you?  ; )

Not about the above, no.

 

---

---

Everyone else.  Those are words of absolute Phil.  That can't possibly be right. 

But, let's not focus on your obviously incorrect statement.  Let’s look at the rest of your comment. (Which pertains to one person's complaining that I didn't take someone to task on her behalf.  She then admits that she didn't expect, or need me to do that, but she still made an issue of it)

So, Phil, you're saying that when you assume that you understand another's post, and someone else doesn't understand the way you do (or claim you do), that the other person is at fault. 

*grins*  

That goes in direct opposition to what is taught in writing and communication courses Phil.  What writing and language courses teach, is that the burden of communicating an idea, falls on the sender.  Not on the receiver.

Your statement is also one that would lay direct blame at the feet of any ESLer, if they do not understand English, as we can then say, "Everyone else understands it, so the fault must be with you". 

 

 

[Phil Deakins]

---

Dresden Ceriano wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Dresden Ceriano wrote:

Jesus, Phil, Celestiall said she didn't understand what Trin was talking about, not that she didn't understand Trin's broken English.  I do think the misunderstanding was on Celestiall's part, but it wasn't purposeful nor ill-intentioned... it just was.  The whole misunderstanding has gotten way out of hand and could have easily been resolved with some level-headed back and forth... but, unfortunately, there's hardly anything level-headed being said in the thread.

...Dres

---

And that shows the problems that can occur when some people intentionally jab at Trinity's imperfect written English.. Only Celestaill was unable to understand Trinity's English, and said so. Couple that with the fact that some people jab at Trinity because of her imperfect English, out of pure nastiness, and it's easy to see it as being just another intentional jab, especially in a thread like this one's turned into.

---

Celestiall never jabbed at Trinity's use of the English language, she merely misunderstood the context of Trinity's statements and said so herself.  You, sir, are confusing Celestiall's interaction here with other people's, who wish to belittle non-English speakers, among others.  You're drawing erroneous conclusions and that's what goes wrong when people try to connect dots that aren't in any way connected.

...Dres

---

You may be right, or you may be wrong. You and I can only go by what we read, and we both read some people mocking Trinity's written English with the intention of trying to hurt her. So it's very easy for me, or anyone, to think the same when someone is the only one who claims not to be able to understand it. Of course I can't insist that it's true because only Celestiall can know the truth of it.

[Phil Deakins]

---

Celestiall Nightfire wrote:

Everyone else.  Those are words of absolute Phil.  That can't possibly be right. 

Alright. I'll settle for everyone else who has said one way or the other.

But, let's not focus on your

obviously

incorrect statement.

 

Let’s look at the rest of your comment. (Which pertains to one person's complaining that I didn't take someone to task on her behalf.  She then admits that she didn't expect, or need me to do that, but she still made an issue of it)

That's nothing to do with me. With you, I'm only talking about you being the only one who says she didn't understand what Trinity wrote, plus your little insult about prattling on.

So, Phil, you're saying that when

you

assume that you understand another's post, and someone else doesn't understand the way you do (or claim you do), that the other person is at fault. 

Not quite. What I said was, if everyone else understands something and you're the only one who doesn't understand it, then the fault, if there is one, is at your end. And that's correct.

That goes in direct opposition to what is taught in writing and communication courses Phil.  What writing and language courses teach, is that the burden of communicating an idea, falls on the sender.  Not on the receiver.

I can't comment about courses. In this case, the burden of communicating the idea was fulfilled as far as everyone else (who has said one way or the other) was concerned. I can't imagine that those courses would teach that a writer has to fulfil that burden for absolutely every reader. As long as it is generally understood, I'm sure the course tutors would be happy.

Your statement is also one that would lay direct blame at the feet of any ESLer, if they do not understand English, as we can then say, "Everyone else understands it, so the fault must be with you". 

While I'm writing this reply, I can't see the post of mine that you refer to, and you have chosen to delete much of it, but I do remember very well that I wrote "

if there is a fault

" (I'll edit this post with more info about that after I've posted it and looked at my own post 

- edit below

).

So no, I did not say that blame can be attributed to anyone who doesn't understand it. On the other hand, I now say that blame can be attributed to anyone who says they can't understand it when they haven't actually tried to understand it. It's so easy to understand that I honestly cannot see how a native English-speaker can fail to understand it if they want to.

---

Here you are:-

"Remember that, if we all understand it, but you don't, then the fault, if there is a fault, must be on your side."

That's what I wrote to you, and that is perfectly true. I bolded the relevant bit to clearly show that you were wrong.

This thread is showing me more and more what some people are like in the forum. I can hardly believe that I hadn't noticed it before, but I hadn't. So Celestiall is another one. Before this thread, I wouldn't have believed it, but here it is, in plain sight.

[Laurin Sorbet]

Phil,since we can only go by what we read, as you stated, let me remind you of this.  I recall you very recently posting that  So and So herself explained the reason for 'the outbursts' so you were on safe ground in your reasoning.  You appeared to believe none of the other history, comments, posts, behavior or nuance was relevant.  She made a post explaining the reason for her comments and that should then be accepted as the final truth of the matter.  Then you didn't want to talk about it or hear about it anymore, right?

You should probably then extend Celestiall the same courtesy, should you not?  She has explained herself and as you say, "Only she can know the truth of it."  To continue to question her reasons or her honesty beyond that seems less than gallant.

To further clarify,  this thread does however have its merits!  I love a thread that is thoroughly derailed, makes very little sense and is full of false accusations and conspiracy theories, as well as the RA's own version of the Godwin, someone pointing a finger and shouting, "Clique!"  Arriving in under 30 minutes and still piping hot, you guys are delivering.

 

[Laurin Sorbet]

PS  Phil, maybe you did notice and you just forgot :-)

[Phil Deakins]

I remember writing what you said I wrote, but I don't remember what it was about (that's true) so I can't comment on it. I do know that what I write is always genuine.

And you're right. But it's not easy just to accept something at face value when the face value is so unbelievable - not totally unbelievable but quite unbelievable. There's certainly a good deal of 'negative stuff' (intentional jabs and such) gets posted by some people. Previously, through my failure to notice, I'd only been aware of the genuine troll, and that Trinity's English sometimes gets picked on by nasty people, one of whom is the troll, of course. I'd seen those things before, but I've become aware of much more of it because of this thread, and the other one.

In this thread I've seen Celest keep on saying that she doesn't understand something that everyone else who stated one way or the other does understand. I've also seen her attempt to twist my words for gain in the discussion..It doesn't encourage a belief in her innocence, and it does encourage a belief that she's doing it intentionally. As I said, only Celest can know for certain. The rest of us can only draw our own conclusions.

 

I remember the 'clique' idea from the RA forum but I wasn't a subscriber to that belief. What I've seen in the two threads here, though, does suggest the possibility of a clique-like thing, although I prefer the word "nest". I.e. a number of people whose enjoyment is to pick on others, and who indulge in mutual back-slapping over it. That's just how I imagine it. I don't see it as a clique as such. Cliques are like closed shops, whereas what it looks like is going on here is an open shop where anyone can join in and be welcomed.

[jujmental]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

I remember writing what you said I wrote, but I don't remember what it was about - that's true

And you're right. But it's not easy just to accept something at face value when the face value is so unbelievable

---

On the charge of rendering any communication with him absolutely pointless, as not only does he fail to remember why he wrote anything, he also refuses to accept what is written if it doesn't accord with his "beliefs": GUILTY

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

I've seen Celest say that she doesn't understand something that everyone else who stated one way or he other does understand.

---

On the charge of rewriting history, or perhaps being cognitively unable to retain a memory of earlier posts which confirm that others had also confirmed that they did not understand: GUILTY

 

 

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

I remember the 'clique' idea from the RA forum but I wasn't a subscriber to that belief. What I've seen in the two threads here, though, does suggest the possibility of a clique-like thing, although I prefer the word "nest".

---

On the charge of  attempting to impersonate Humpty Dumpty ("When I use a word,' Phil Deakins said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.") GUILTY

 

 

The Judge

[Phil Deakins]

---

Venus Petrov wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Dresden Ceriano wrote:

I read the exchange between you and Malanya earlier in this very thread and it was only after she started spewing her ridiculous conspiracy theories that you magically developed your own... all I'm saying is don't fall for it.

There is no clique targeting Malanya, which was the point of my post to you... she planted that seed in your mind and now you're seeing demons everywhere.  Honestly, I thought you were better than to fall for such underhanded tactics... apparently I was wrong.

...Dres

---

To be perfectly honest, the seed was planted long before Malanya came into it. It was in the other thread - before this thread was even started.

Someone (not Malanya) PMed me to inform me that he was trying to drum up support in his feed and, lo and behold, a couple of people suddenly appeared out of the blue - one of whom hadn't been seen in the forum for a very long time. That's when I first realised that something went on amongst some people behind the scenes.

There's nothing wrong with using feeds in that way, of course, but if it's the method by which a group of people come to post against someone, then it does sound somewhat cliquish. It was during this thread that I began to think of it as a nest. So it wasn't Malanya who planted it.

Before this thread, I was totally unaware of the animosities, if that's the right word, between some of the people in the forum. I've had my eyes opened by this thread, and I'll notice things in the future that I wouldn't have noticed before.

 

---

Drama much?  I do not understand the 'drum up' bit because anyone on their friend list can already see this drummer's feed (following tab).  Perhaps they would be better off IM'ing a few friends to collect some loves.

---

During another very recent thread, which you may not have seen, I got a number of PMs of support, because some people thought that I'd be affected by the negative posts against me. I was actually enjoying it, mainly because I was winning, but they didn't know that so they PMed me. One of those PMs was to tell me that the troll was trying to drum up support in his feed. Then a couple of people suddenly turned up in the thread, out of the blue. He may have also done as you suggested and IMed a few people. Either way, he managed to get some support that wouldn't have been there except for some behind the scenes activity. The support was shot down anyway, so it was wasted effort.

[Venus Petrov]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Venus Petrov wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

To be perfectly honest, the seed was planted long before Malanya came into it. It was in the other thread - before this thread was even started.

Someone (not Malanya) PMed me to inform me that he was trying to drum up support in his feed and, lo and behold, a couple of people suddenly appeared out of the blue - one of whom hadn't been seen in the forum for a very long time. That's when I first realised that something went on amongst some people behind the scenes.

There's nothing wrong with using feeds in that way, of course, but if it's the method by which a group of people come to post against someone, then it does sound somewhat cliquish. It was during this thread that I began to think of it as a nest. So it wasn't Malanya who planted it.

Before this thread, I was totally unaware of the animosities, if that's the right word, between some of the people in the forum. I've had my eyes opened by this thread, and I'll notice things in the future that I wouldn't have noticed before.

 

---

Drama much?  I do not understand the 'drum up' bit because anyone on their friend list can already see this drummer's feed (following tab).  Perhaps they would be better off IM'ing a few friends to collect some loves.

---

During another very recent thread, which you may not have seen, I got a number of PMs of support, because some people thought that I'd be affected by the negative posts against me. I was actually enjoying it,

mainly because I was winning

, but they didn't know that.

One of those PMs was to tell me that the troll was trying to drum up support in his feed. Then a couple of people suddenly turned up in the thread, out of the blue.

He may have also done as you suggested and IMed a few people.

Either way, he managed to get some support that wouldn't have been there except for some behind the scenes activity.

The support was shot down anyway, so it was wasted effort.

---

Thank you for confirming the behind the scenes drama in which you revel.  How you can assume motivations of people 'suddenly turning up' in a thread..you must be psychic.  I guess I have 'suddenly turned up' in this thread yet no one has PM'ed me and asked me to do so.

[Phil Deakins]

And thank you for clearly showing your colours, Venus. I appreciate it

You are another one who I wouldn't have believed it of, but here you are making it perfectly clear.

Incidentally, my behind the scenes stuff wasn't solicited by me. I didn't write anything anywhere, except in the posts - not in PMs, IMs, feeds, or anywhere else - so it wasn't encouraged by me. People did it of their own volition and kindness, and, to the best of my knowledge, there was no discussion going on behind the scenes on my side. On the other hand, the troll did write stuff about it behind the scenes. It was being discussed in a ridiculing way, and it did cause useless support to arrive. One of them hadn't been seen in the forum for years, and yet there she was, right out of the blue. And then she went away again. You can add it up however you like, and call it a hell of a coincidence if that's what you want, but 2 + 2 always equals 4 in my book. Being psychic isn't necessary

You haven't suddenly turned up at all. You're always in the forum. What you have done is shown a huge bias in favour of nasty people. You are perfectly free to like what they do, of course, but defending it doesn't speak very highly of the person who defends it.

ETA: Incidentally the PMs to me have been known about for some time now. Maybe you missed that. I didn't reveal (confirm) anything new in my post to you.

[Ceka Cianci]

---

Aislin Ceawlin wrote:

 

1.

 trolling

Being a jerk on the 

internet

 because you can. Typically unleashing one or more cynical or sarcastic remarks on an innocent by-stander, because it's the internet and, hey, you can.

Guy: "I just found the coolest ninja pencil in existence." 

Other Guy: "I just found the most retarded thread in existence."

Source: Urban Dictionary

 

ETA Source

 

 

 

---

in the end it's just the internet..not the really real..:smileywink:

 

 

[Laurin Sorbet]

Phil, I'm not going to waste my day going back and forth with you over a subject about which you had two threads closed down.  On that matter, suffice to say I don't believe you 'won' anything. I continue to disagree with you. I remember not only the event in question quite clearly, but also the events surrounding it.  You keep assuming I didn't see what was going on but you are mistaken on that point as I was extremely active at that time.  Apparently, you believe the same to be true of Love, who also remembers things the way I do. And if any part of your memory is at all intact, you ought to remember that Love was not a fan of Pep or myself.  She has no reason to agree with either of us other than it being the truth.

Supportive behind the scenes PMs aside, no one turned up who remembered things the way you said.  Closing the threads silenced the dissent but the dissent remains.

You're spot on about the nest.  It is located in Area 52.  Take a right at the wormhole, follow Alice past the technicolor mushrooms, and go through Stargate Coordinates 1 6 9 7 6 5.  That will deposit you over the rainbow and directly into the heart of the nest.  If you can learn the secret panty salute, you are in.

I couldn't give a hoot about Trinity and who does or doesn't understand her.   I don't mind ESLers in the forums and can usually get the gist of what they are saying, although some do ramble and their posts are difficult to understand.  That is no different than some of the EFLers.  What a total non-issue.

[Phil Deakins]

Laurin.

I didn't have 2 threads closed. I asked for my own to be closed because some nasty people invaded it. I don't know who got the other closed.

I already said that my memory of the events you speak of may be wrong, and, in case it is wrong, I even apologised. So please stop trying to make hay out of something that's over and done with.

I do remember that Love was dead against Pep for what he did. Actually, I didn't remember but I read it when he scored an own goal by linking to it But that discussion is gone. This discussion is about something else. If you think that it's still about that old discussion, you are mistaken, and perhaps you ought to read this thread. Read the first page to get an idea of what this thread has been about. When you've done that, read on and you'll find that it's morphed into something else again. None of it has been about the other threads you mentioned. When you've gone through it, or even when you've read the most recent pages, you'll be well equipped to contribute to it.

[Storm Clarence]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

 

I didn't have 2 threads closed.

I asked for my own to be closed because some nasty people invaded it

. I don't know who got the other closed.. This discussion is about something else. If you think

that it's still about that old discussion

, you are mistaken, and perhaps you ought to read this thread.

Read the first page to get an idea of what this thread has been about

. When you've done that, read on and you'll find that it's morphed into something else again. None of it has been about the other threads you mentioned. When you've gone through it,

or even when you've read the most recent pages, you'll be well equipped to contribute to it.

---

"Invaded" your OP on the "GD" forum is an oxymoron.  If you didn't want contributions from EFL'ers, then perhaps you should not have crafted the OP >>> only to request it be closed when you didn't like the responses. 

The rest of your posts remind me of this:

 

I selected an asian infant, because I knew you would understand the language... 

 

[Phil Deakins]

I requested it be locked because it's purpose had been fully satisfied in the first few replies. It was a simple question and it got the answers very quickly. After that it got invaded by people with a negative agenda.

 

ETA: This may surprise you. I actually RICed one of my own posts in this thread. Nothing came of it but I did RIC it

[Laurin Sorbet]

HEY PHIL!  Maybe you should go allllll the way back to page 24 and see what I wrote.  Maybe that is too much effort.  I'll help you.  I wrote this:

"You should probably then extend Celestiall the same courtesy, should you not?  She has explained herself and as you say, "Only she can know the truth of it."  To continue to question her reasons or her honesty beyond that seems less than gallant.

To further clarify,  this thread does however have its merits!  I love a thread that is thoroughly derailed, makes very little sense and is full of false accusations and conspiracy theories, as well as the RA's own version of the Godwin, someone pointing a finger and shouting, "Clique!"  Arriving in under 30 minutes and still piping hot, you guys are delivering."

In the future try to remember this so you won't need to continue to tell me what I understand or am equipped to respond to when you can't even keep track of what is being said from one page to another let alone one year to another.  Also, since the OP mentioned trolling and I am specifically dealing with you, then I am certainly on topic.  Your senility routine seems to be an attempt to troll and since I wrote it and strongly feel it to be true, according to your logic it must be.

 

ETA Oh yes, you got the threads closed because you were telling lies and people who actually knew what happened didn't agree with you.

[Phil Deakins]

Yes, I read and replied to that post. My mistake. I'd forgotten you'd posted already - probably because you suddenly took us all the way back to a different discussion on a different topic in a different thread, which was completely out of the blue and unnecessary.

---

Laurin Sorbet wrote:

ETA Oh yes, you got the threads closed because you were telling lies and people who actually knew what happened didn't agree with you.

---

I don't lie - ever. I was also there back then. I'm not going back into that different topic, so you can forget it.

[Laurin Sorbet]

Are you suggesting I'm prattling?  Or rambling?  I thought such accusations were considered gauche in the new and improved GD forum?  I am sure I'm on topic as I read an exchange about the very thing a few pages back.

Phil, if you aren't lying (even to yourself), then you might want to consider the concept of Occam's razor.  If several people have stated they recall things differently than as implausible as it may seem to you, that is the most likely truth.  And I don't lie, either.  I have a wild imagination as has been exhibited many times in the old RA and on the current feeds, but I see no reason to lie about something that could be so easily contradicted with a quick search through the archives.

You're right about one thing, the discussion is finished since you refuse to educate yourself and prefer to rely upon misguided instincts.   My last suggestion is you recognize that aspect of yourself and try to take something from this when moving forward as unfortunately you are exhibiting precisely the same behavior in regards to Celestiall.

[Phil Deakins]

I assume that your post was to me and that you merely clicked the wrong button.

I told you, I am not going back to an old discussion from another thread.

I never lie - ever. If I ever say something that isn't true, and I want it to be believed, then I believe it to be true. Lying is when the one who says it knows it to be false AND intends it to be believed. I don't lie.

You can harp on about whatever you like but I am not going to participate in what appears to be your current agenda - getting back into the old discussion. 

You can even invent things if you like, such as me suggesting that you are prattling or rambling, but you're on your own with it - unless you friends want to join you of course lol