[Saberist] Couldn't leave without rambling.

[Ozymandias]

Edi,

>>
In case you're wondering, I'm one of the moderators around here.
>>

No, really?

>>
It was brought to my attention by one of the users that he had tried to contact you in order to give you tips about posting and that you had flamed him back and essentially told him to sod off. You were entirely correct to do that and the user in question (Odin) has been reprimanded for overstepping his bounds. He's not going to bother you again.
>>

I'm sure you know this reads as "I sent my dog to entice a response by barking really loud where it will never be seen."

>>
However, since I was forwarded the contents of your exchange, I'm going to point out a few things that you have gotten completely backwards.
>>

No, you're going to dictate policy. How Imperialist of you, I thought I smelled a stench when I was brought onboard.

>>
You actually couldn't be more wrong here. Civility is not required on SDnet. It is not against the rules to flame someone to a cinder if they are dishonest or make stupid arguments. That's always been one of the cardinal rules. So this is a point where you have no grounds to complain at all.
>>

Except that I don't read forum rules anymore than I do EULAs. Must suck to realize you're less important to me than Microsoft.

>>
Several people actually tried that before your posts got sent to the Hall of Shame, but when it became clear that nothing coherent could be expected of you, the treatment changed to automatic decontamination. Your approach of flaming some people who gave you advice on how to improve your posts is just the clincher.
>>

No, you tried to shame me and /then/ put me in the docks. Of course having justified your behavior with theirs, you no longer feel the need to pretend to quote actual arguments, as written.

Because yours is a perfect case of the outcome justifying the act, not the reasoning.

>>
I strongly suggest you take a good look at the official board policies in the announcements forum. They are clear, concise and to the point. They are also remarkably different than the rules of most other forums, which is why new people should read them before they start posting on the basis of assumptions that the rules here are like the rules in most other places.
>>

And I told your dog where to go with this suggestion.

>>
If you can't be arsed to do that, I expect your stay here will be a very short one.
>>

And too long it was already.

>>
All you really need to do is just take a look at them and then post coherently, in other words shorter, more concise posts where you don't mash twenty unrelated things together all at once. Your current approach of posting one massive wall of incoherent, rambling text is the biggest problem. Coupled with the attitude you've given to some of the people who tried to help you, you're already in a fairly deep hole and getting out of it is going to take a while.
>>

Kowtow and bootlick shall I? When you won't speak to what offends you about my ideas, directly as quotable, defendable, challenge to the context and relevance of the thread.

>>
I will also say this in advance: I generally tend to give people friendly advice once and whether I do so again depends on the kind of response I get.
>>

No, you tend to wait for the accident before you chase the ambulance looking to issue a ticket. If you are 'too busy' to write privately before the attempted lynching, don't expect respect for agreeing with the mob when you have your designated victim tied to the tree.

You will never have my respect because nowhere have I written about topics that are not relevant to the original posting. I may _expand_ upon them to show why the assumption is wrong. But I don't spam. And your rush to isolate me proves you know this.

Being no better than every poster who has managed only to imply 'yabbering' with their own variation of "Why aren't you ashamed?"

To which my reply is simple: Because you don't own me or my time and thankfully, when I am gone from here. You never will.


KPl.

Remember folks, he expanded his posts, not spammed.

[Darth Wong]

So it's "imperialist" for a privately owned forum to set its own rules rather than letting visitors set rules for themselves?

Small wonder he rants and raves incessantly (no matter the original thread topic) about the evils of capitalism and our society in general, if his threshold for tyranny is set so low.