Unrestricted Participation and Worthwhile Discussion

[_Mister Scratch]

I re-post this only to point something out to you, Liz. You are complaining about a "verbal pissing contest," but how many times have you seen me complain about your "Come to my goddess suite!" derailments? And let's face it: your endless postings about "goddess suites," spanking, or whatever else, can get pretty tiresome, and they seem like much greater "derailments" (when have those posts EVER had anything to do with the topic?) than mine and Ray's back-and-forth here.

At base, I don't really care if you feel the need to get your jollies off with those flirty kinds of posts, or if you and your various "boys" derail the threads in the process. But, for heaven's sake, I don't appreciate lectures from someone who so frequently---and egregiously---derails threads with posts of that nature.

I think we're all guilty of occasional one-liners. That's not what I'm talking about, and you know it. CFR. Show me where I have derailed a thread with two pages worth of material the way you and Ray did.

As I've tried to point out, Liz, I *did* make an effort to return the discussion back towards the issue of "worthwhile discussion," as it were. Perhaps your beef is purely with Ray?

Very rarely have I posted anything regarding the "Goddess suite" on a serious thread. Most of the time, I have posted something like "party in the Goddess suite" when someone reaches God status. Those threads are usually just kind of "fun" threads, anyway.

Oh, okay. And those pertain to "worthwhile discussion" how?

Also, if I have participated in a few back and forths that were off-topic(and, by this, I don't mean two pages, I mean one or two posts), I have made an attempt to redirect back to the topic at hand.

All right. I'll take your word for it.

All I'm talking about is simply trying to use some common sense and respect for other posters, Scratch. And, when I see a case like yours and Ray's, like it or not, I will call you on it.

Okay. So does this mean I'm supposed to "call you on it" when I see you posting silly and/or "un-worthwhile" items? That really is my only point here, with you, Liz. I leave you alone (indeed, I seldom scold anyone else for "un-worthwhile" posts) concerning the posts of yours which I find to be "un-worthwhile," for lack of a better term. I think Harmony said it best: just scroll past the stuff you don't like. Simple as that.

[_Moniker]

'Cause I READ the OP! In which Ray was called a 'Pimp daddy' and the women that he hung about with were called deragotary names. There was a clear intent to call Ray out for behavior and in a nasty fashion. Listen, I don't like it -- but if I don't like it I'm going to say something about it.

Right. Precisely what I was trying to illustrate as being different between you and me. As I've noted, there are plenty of threads by plenty of people on this board which hold absolutely zero interest for me. The threads strike me as being stupid, pointless, or boring. But am I butting my head in to complain and ask that they be consigned to the "lower forums"? No, not really. I very rarely do that. I'm sure I could count the total number of times on one hand.

by the way: it seems that starting personalized posts directed at "attacking" people is something which is not totally foreign to you:

I Had A Dream About Mr. Scratch
So, I dreamt I logged on here and there was a thread with "Moniker -- the blink behind the froth" started by Mr. Scratch.

There were no replies. I didn't bother in my dream to see how many looks there were.

Apparently he had hunted down proof that I boycotted and picketed various cosmetic companies as a teen (animal testing) and I didn't stay true to my principles and am now a blatant hypocrite because I wear said products.

Something to do with me wearing fur and again I'm a hypocrite. I, for some reason, in my dream, thought I could let Scratch see a video of me, or a picture, and this would convince him that I wasn't a fur wearer. My logic is even sound in dreams! Apparently the fur issue dealt with Blixa and I'm not certain how or why.

Something about a male poster (not sure what it was... apparently me being a googly fool or something) -- this too pertained to Blixa.

I dreamt that I replied with an :eyeroll:

Then I woke.

What was interesting about the dream, for me, (other than the frightening fact that this is my 2nd MDB dream this week) is that I replied as such --> :eyeroll:

I would usually reply outside of dreams with *eyeroll*

I'm thrilled I've been dreaming lately. Lots of frantic passionate ones, aliens, a lover warding off a troll that was attacking (this one somehow became erotic in nature), a jot through a surreal jungle the other night with an ever changing plot line and guide. I'd rather, though, that Scratch stayed out of my dreams. It woke me and I had to come check that there were no threads.

In fact, as I recall, this isn't the only time you've singled me out for "derogatory" comments, such as calling me "scary," or saying that I wear "S&M gear", or whatever else. Perhaps I should have jumped down your throat over those remarks, eh, Moniker?

You've gotta be kidding! Me telling you that you freak me out (You do! You thought I was a spy and Jersey Girl! -- EEP!) is the same thing as creating a thread to lampoon and belittle someone. Are you now trying to tell me that you found that thread offensive? You didn't say so in the thread -- matter of fact you said you liked me in that thread and why would I be scared of you or something like that?

You're really equating the post I made about a silly dream with you attacking people on matters? by the way -- WAS MY THREAD IN THE CORRECT FORUM?????

I NEVER said that there shouldn't be attacks! Are you reading MY WORDS? If there are rules (There are -- sort of) and they say attacks happen in ONE FORUM -- then they need to be followed. Attack all you want and if I don't like it I'll say something (you know that -- right?) and expect for others to call me out on my behavior (which people do). My POINT AGAIN IS IF THERE ARE RULES THEY SHOULD BE ENFORCED -- WITH CONSISTENCY!

[_Mister Scratch]

You've gotta be kidding! Me telling you that you freak me out (You do! You thought I was a spy and Jersey Girl! -- EEP!) is the same thing as creating a thread to lampoon and belittle someone. Are you now trying to tell me that you found that thread offensive? You didn't say so in the thread -- matter of fact you said you liked me in that thread and why would I be scared of you or something like that?

That's my point: *should* I have said something? Or any other of the times you have "attacked" me?

Further, I fail to see how there is really much difference, in terms of "offensiveness" between saying, "You freak me out!" vs. "I find it odd that you sleep with prostitutes and yet defend the Book of Mormon."

You're really equating the post I made about a silly dream with you attacking people on matters? by the way -- WAS MY THREAD IN THE CORRECT FORUM?????

A red herring. (And moreover, I don't really think the thread would have been out of place in the Terrestrial Forum; heck, there have been half a dozen or so personalized threads on me there already.) As has been noted repeatedly, the thread dealt with both Ray's defense of the Book of Mormon, and his peculiar status as a Mopologist---in particular (in the OP) his hatred for Beastie.

Here's my second post from that thread, explaining why it deserved to stay in this forum:

No, I believe that this should stay here, and this is why:
---Subjects pertaining to sex almost always connect with Mormonism in some way
---You are one of the "power players," as it were, in online Mormonism, so discussion of you is somewhat of a bellwether as to the status of Mopologetics. (This is especially so since you seem to be an unwitting pawn in DCP's headgames---I.e., your very existence is reassuring to him, as it makes him think that his Mopologetic efforts have a practical impact.)
---You have, for some months now, been posturing as this kind of all-knowing "Gandhi" figure who is going to trailblaze the path to exmo/TBM peace. But do you set a good example?

Look, I'm sorry, Moniker. I know you were offended and had your feelings hurt by that thread. Sorry about that. But, I'm afraid that I cannot budge on this issue without you fully explaining how and why these three points, listed above, are not related to Mormonism, and/or Mopologetics in some way.

[_Yoda]

Okay. So does this mean I'm supposed to "call you on it" when I see you posting silly and/or "un-worthwhile" items? That really is my only point here, with you, Liz. I leave you alone (indeed, I seldom scold anyone else for "un-worthwhile" posts) concerning the posts of yours which I find to be "un-worthwhile," for lack of a better term. I think Harmony said it best: just scroll past the stuff you don't like. Simple as that.

Scratch, I'm not talking about nit picking individual posts. I don't think you can honestly say that I have done that to you.

I'm talking about addressing a significant pattern of Off Topic posts in a given thread. I think that two pages qualifies. Again, it comes back to common sense and respect of the poster who established the OP.

And, yes, if I had derailed a thread with two pages worth of nonsense, I would hope that you would say something to me about it.

Let me also add here that I am not singling you out. I also addressed Ray, who, frankly, took responsibility for his part of the derailment.

[_Moniker]

You've gotta be kidding! Me telling you that you freak me out (You do! You thought I was a spy and Jersey Girl! -- EEP!) is the same thing as creating a thread to lampoon and belittle someone. Are you now trying to tell me that you found that thread offensive? You didn't say so in the thread -- matter of fact you said you liked me in that thread and why would I be scared of you or something like that?

That's my point: *should* I have said something? Or any other of the times you have "attacked" me?

Further, I fail to see how there is really much difference, in terms of "offensiveness" between saying, "You freak me out!" vs. "I find it odd that you sleep with prostitutes and yet defend the Book of Mormon."

How about this -- you scare me 'cause you thought I was a spy of some sort and a sockpuppet trying to get information on people. I don't do that. And I GUARANTEEEE you I have more personal information from people on both boards then you'd ever dream of. I don't dig for dirt and I don't use it for personal gain. You were saying I did do this -- it startled me as I'd only been on this board for a short period of time and from that point on it made me slightly fretful about you!

You're really equating the post I made about a silly dream with you attacking people on matters? by the way -- WAS MY THREAD IN THE CORRECT FORUM?????

A red herring. (And moreover, I don't really think the thread would have been out of place in the Terrestrial Forum; heck, there have been half a dozen or so personalized threads on me there already.) As has been noted repeatedly, the thread dealt with both Ray's defense of the Book of Mormon, and his peculiar status as a Mopologist---in particular (in the OP) his hatred for Beastie.

IT IS NOT A RED HERRING! I have said repeatedly attacks CAN occur! The rules say attacks happen in ONE FORUM! Shades has personally told me that threads started to attack a poster MUST go in telestial. The "Liz is a Rat Fink" was NOT moved down -- I mentioned it (to highlight how rules are not enforced), and also mentioned the Ray A thread. Attack ALL YOU WANT! I do NOT care! I am attempting to understand the RULES and HOW they are enforced!

Look, I'm sorry, Moniker. I know you were offended and had your feelings hurt by that thread. Sorry about that. But, I'm afraid that I cannot budge on this issue without you fully explaining how and why these three points, listed above, are not related to Mormonism, and/or Mopologetics in some way.

There are personal attacks in telestial that DEAL WITH LDS! I am ATTEMPTING TO GET A CLEAR ANSWER ABOUT THIS! There is NO consistency! Are you reading what I'm writing?

by the way, you didn't hurt my feelings on that thread. That thread PISSED ME OFFFFFF!!!!!!! A bunch of sexual puritans blathering about what is going on in someone elses yard and unaware of the crap they're standing in their own irritated me slightly. :)

'Course I'm not going to out anyone on the board! :)

[_Mister Scratch]

Let me also add here that I am not singling you out. I also addressed Ray, who, frankly, took responsibility for his part of the derailment.

He did?

No, Liz, I didn't usurp this thread. Scratch wanted to make points that were raised in long-gone threads. He's a grudge waiting for any opportunity to leech on to.

Or were you referring to this:

It was not my intention to derail this thread. FYI, Scratch derailed it on page two, with off-topic comments (check the first post on page two), which should have been split off from this thread. I agree it's a pointless distraction, but I'm not going to let the comments just pass. If the mods want to split this into the Telestial, I'll carry on there.

I have to say, I'm not really sure where you think he "took responsibility."

Were there some insults tossed back and forth? Sure. But, nonetheless, I'd like to point out that we are indeed still discussing what does/doesn't constitute "worthwhile" posting, or, as you prefer to put it, "common sense" posting, which, apparently, includes posts about "goddess suites" and Sex and the City spanking porn.

[_Mister Scratch]

You've gotta be kidding! Me telling you that you freak me out (You do! You thought I was a spy and Jersey Girl! -- EEP!) is the same thing as creating a thread to lampoon and belittle someone. Are you now trying to tell me that you found that thread offensive? You didn't say so in the thread -- matter of fact you said you liked me in that thread and why would I be scared of you or something like that?

That's my point: *should* I have said something? Or any other of the times you have "attacked" me?

Further, I fail to see how there is really much difference, in terms of "offensiveness" between saying, "You freak me out!" vs. "I find it odd that you sleep with prostitutes and yet defend the Book of Mormon."

How about this -- you scare me 'cause you thought I was a spy of some sort and a sockpuppet trying to get information on people.

You mean when you went over to MAD and used the "Search" feature for Jersey Girl? I noted, via a PM to Tarski, that I thought it was awfully peculiar that you were pulling up all the information she was citing so quickly. Later, in chat, you said that you thought the whole episode was "funny." Are you changing your mind now? Nowhere (to my knowledge) did I ever say you were "trying to get information on people." Please feel free to refresh my memory if I'm wrong.

I don't do that. And I GUARANTEEEE you I have more personal information from people on both boards then you'd ever dream of. I don't dig for dirt and I don't use it for personal gain. You were saying I did do this

Again: when/where? I don't recall having ever said what you are accusing me of saying. I wondered if you were doing the search for Jersey Girl in an "errand girl" capacity, and/or if you maybe *WERE* actually Jersey Girl, but that's it.

You're really equating the post I made about a silly dream with you attacking people on matters? by the way -- WAS MY THREAD IN THE CORRECT FORUM?????

A red herring.(And moreover, I don't really think the thread would have been out of place in the Terrestrial Forum; heck, there have been half a dozen or so personalized threads on me there already.) As has been noted repeatedly, the thread dealt with both Ray's defense of the Book of Mormon, and his peculiar status as a Mopologist---in particular (in the OP) his hatred for Beastie.

IT IS NOT A RED HERRING!

It is a red herring, since my remark had nothing to do with the so-called "CORRECT FORUM". I specifically asked you about the relative "offensiveness" of the Ray post vs. your personal comments on me. (I note that you *still* haven't addressed this. Oh, well.)

I have said repeatedly attacks CAN occur! The rules say attacks happen in ONE FORUM! Shades has personally told me that threads started to attack a poster MUST go in telestial. The "Liz is a Rat Fink" was NOT moved down -- I mentioned it (to highlight how rules are not enforced), and also mentioned the Ray A thread. Attack ALL YOU WANT! I do NOT care! I am attempting to understand the RULES and HOW they are enforced!

Why? So that you can then insist that posts you don't like get consigned to the "lesser" forums? I think I am with Keene on all of this: no rules should be necessary; use common sense, etc. Of course, some people define "common sense" differently than others.

Look, I'm sorry, Moniker. I know you were offended and had your feelings hurt by that thread. Sorry about that. But, I'm afraid that I cannot budge on this issue without you fully explaining how and why these three points, listed above, are not related to Mormonism, and/or Mopologetics in some way.

There are personal attacks in telestial that DEAL WITH LDS! I am ATTEMPTING TO GET A CLEAR ANSWER ABOUT THIS! There is NO consistency! Are you reading what I'm writing?

Yes, I'm reading it. Doing my best to understand what you are getting at, etc.

[_Moniker]

You've gotta be kidding! Me telling you that you freak me out (You do! You thought I was a spy and Jersey Girl! -- EEP!) is the same thing as creating a thread to lampoon and belittle someone. Are you now trying to tell me that you found that thread offensive? You didn't say so in the thread -- matter of fact you said you liked me in that thread and why would I be scared of you or something like that?

That's my point: *should* I have said something? Or any other of the times you have "attacked" me?

Further, I fail to see how there is really much difference, in terms of "offensiveness" between saying, "You freak me out!" vs. "I find it odd that you sleep with prostitutes and yet defend the Book of Mormon."

How about this -- you scare me 'cause you thought I was a spy of some sort and a sockpuppet trying to get information on people.

You mean when you went over to MAD and used the "Search" feature for Jersey Girl? I noted, via a PM to Tarski, that I thought it was awfully peculiar that you were pulling up all the information she was citing so quickly. Later, in chat, you said that you thought the whole episode was "funny." Are you changing your mind now? Nowhere (to my knowledge) did I ever say you were "trying to get information on people." Please feel free to refresh my memory if I'm wrong.

That's precisely what happened. You said I was "spying" and was a sockpuppet of Jersey Girl. It was strange. How is her asking me to look at a few posts and "words" on those posts correlate to me being a "spy" and a sockpuppet? It struck me as highly paranoid! It was a funny moment -- the whole fiasco was as a matter of fact. Yet, the incident made me feel a bit *off*!

I don't do that. And I GUARANTEEEE you I have more personal information from people on both boards then you'd ever dream of. I don't dig for dirt and I don't use it for personal gain. You were saying I did do this

Again: when/where? I don't recall having ever said what you are accusing me of saying. I wondered if you were doing the search for Jersey Girl in an "errand girl" capacity, and/or if you maybe *WERE* actually Jersey Girl, but that's it.

Oh! My understanding is you thought I was a sockpuppet? Maybe not? Did you think I was her sockpuppet?? I thought you did! I vaguely recall that night -- you and Jersey Girl were fussing over something that I had NO interest in and she asked me to do some searches -- I did them quickly for her and told her what was on the board and that was all! It was blown WAAAAAY out of proportion.

You're really equating the post I made about a silly dream with you attacking people on matters? by the way -- WAS MY THREAD IN THE CORRECT FORUM?????

A red herring.(And moreover, I don't really think the thread would have been out of place in the Terrestrial Forum; heck, there have been half a dozen or so personalized threads on me there already.) As has been noted repeatedly, the thread dealt with both Ray's defense of the Book of Mormon, and his peculiar status as a Mopologist---in particular (in the OP) his hatred for Beastie.

IT IS NOT A RED HERRING!

It is a red herring, since my remark had nothing to do with the so-called "CORRECT FORUM". I specifically asked you about the relative "offensiveness" of the Ray post vs. your personal comments on me. (I note that you *still* haven't addressed this. Oh, well.)

Yet, ALLLLL of my remarks had to do with correct forums! We're talking past each other. I NEVER created a thread that attacked you! You are saying a "dream" thread (which you replied in and was sillllllllllllly) is equivalent to what is seen in this forum? Are you saying NOW you were offended? You were not THEN! by the way, the bondage gear remark was in telestial (within a Liz thread on concubines) where I said you needed to be in bondage gear 'cause you scared me. I was being sillllllllllllllllly. Sorry! I know my silliness irritates the hell out of a lot of people -- didn't recognize you were one of them! Are those the two "offensive" attacks that I've done on you -- outside of this forum -- and neither started as a thread with the intent to attack.

Why? So that you can then insist that posts you don't like get consigned to the "lesser" forums? I think I am with Keene on all of this: no rules should be necessary; use common sense, etc. Of course, some people define "common sense" differently than others.

NNNNOOOO! You don't read my posts! I said if the rules are NOT enforced they need to be scrapped! There is NO consistency!

[_Mister Scratch]

That's precisely what happened. You said I was "spying" and was a sockpuppet of Jersey Girl.

I did? Do you have a link / citation? Sockpuppet---yes. "Spying"? I don't think so.

It is a red herring, since my remark had nothing to do with the so-called "CORRECT FORUM". I specifically asked you about the relative "offensiveness" of the Ray post vs. your personal comments on me. (I note that you *still* haven't addressed this. Oh, well.)

Yet, ALLLLL of my remarks had to do with correct forums!

No, they didn't. Observe:

You've gotta be kidding! Me telling you that you freak me out (You do! You thought I was a spy and Jersey Girl! -- EEP!) is the same thing as creating a thread to lampoon and belittle someone. Are you now trying to tell me that you found that thread offensive? You didn't say so in the thread -- matter of fact you said you liked me in that thread and why would I be scared of you or something like that? You're really equating the post I made about a silly dream with you attacking people on matters?

No, I'm afraid I don't see any mention of "proper forums" or "lack of consistency" in the "rules" or whatever else. Instead, I see you trying to dictate how my own thread-starting intentions should be interpreted.

We're talking past each other. I NEVER created a thread that attacked you! You are saying a "dream" thread (which you replied in and was sillllllllllllly) is equivalent to what is seen in this forum?

No, I'm not "saying" it "is equivalent." I'm asking you if it is/was, or if it's reasonable for someone to take issue with it in the same way that you took issue with the Ray thread, which, as I've repeatedly pointed out, had a clear bearing on LDS themes and issues (a point which you have repeatedly ignored.) You can claim your thread was "silllllllly," just as I can argue that the Ray thread has a clear connection with LDS themes and issues. See what I mean? You have been saying all along that you wish my Ray thread had been booted down to the Telestial, or the Off-Topic forum. And yet, now that some of your threads and comments have been put under the microscope, you are squirming about, claiming they were just "sillllllly," etc. You and Liz are both guilty of this. But it's pretty simple: if you don't want to be put in the position of having to defend your dumb / stupid / "sillllllllly" posts, then don't go about picking on other people's posts, especially after those posts have been explained / defended ad nauseum without any real counter. (Still waiting for you to tell me how/and why those three points explaining the LDS-ness of the Ray thread are invalid, by the way.)

Are you saying NOW you were offended?

No, I'm not. I'm just trying to give you a sense of what your groundless and unsubstantiated criticism of my Ray thread is like.

You were not THEN! by the way, the bondage gear remark was in telestial (within a Liz thread on concubines) where I said you needed to be in bondage gear 'cause you scared me. I was being sillllllllllllllllly. Sorry! I know my silliness irritates the hell out of a lot of people -- didn't recognize you were one of them! Are those the two "offensive" attacks that I've done on you -- outside of this forum -- and neither started as a thread with the intent to attack.

Was this last sentence meant to be a question? In any case, who are you to decide whether or not your remarks constituted an "attack", or whether they were "offensive"? I've explained to you, repeatedly, ad nauseum, even, that I intended my Ray thread as an examination of hypocrisy (and not an "attack"), which you continue to ignore.

The bottom line is: Do you see how annoyed you are getting at having to defend your posts?

[_Moniker]

That's precisely what happened. You said I was "spying" and was a sockpuppet of Jersey Girl.

I did? Do you have a link / citation? Sockpuppet---yes. "Spying"? I don't think so.

We've never discussed this on the board. My understanding is you thought I was "spying" or trying to get dirt on someone and was actually Jersey Girl. That was my understanding. I could be wrong? We talked about this before and I told you I thought it was ridiculous and I wanted to assure you I am NOT her sockpuppet! But, the reaction (sending a PM to another poster about it) struck me as a bit odd.

It is a red herring, since my remark had nothing to do with the so-called "CORRECT FORUM". I specifically asked you about the relative "offensiveness" of the Ray post vs. your personal comments on me. (I note that you *still* haven't addressed this. Oh, well.)

You've gotta be kidding! Me telling you that you freak me out (You do! You thought I was a spy and Jersey Girl! -- EEP!) is the same thing as creating a thread to lampoon and belittle someone. Are you now trying to tell me that you found that thread offensive? You didn't say so in the thread -- matter of fact you said you liked me in that thread and why would I be scared of you or something like that? You're really equating the post I made about a silly dream with you attacking people on matters?

No, I'm afraid I don't see any mention of "proper forums" or "lack of consistency" in the "rules" or whatever else. Instead, I see you trying to dictate how my own thread-starting intentions should be interpreted.

Oh, man. The RULES say threads that are started with an intent to attack should be in the telestial forum. I was pointing out to you that neither of my instances (that you are NOW saying are "attacks" and "offensive" -- and if I did offend you I'm sorry -- sincerely as it wasn't my intent) were threads started in this forum with the intent to attack a certain poster.

I was asking a MODERATOR that was participating in the thread (and replying to Shades) as to how there is consistency. Apparently they don't want to answer -- of they haven't read it yet. Shades has told me via PM (and also on this thread) that all threads started with the intent to attack are moved telestial. I pointed out that there are some that are not (Liz Rat Fink Thread -- for one!) and wanted to understand this!

We're talking past each other. I NEVER created a thread that attacked you! You are saying a "dream" thread (which you replied in and was sillllllllllllly) is equivalent to what is seen in this forum?

No, I'm not "saying" it "is equivalent." I'm asking you if it is/was, or if it's reasonable for someone to take issue with it in the same way that you took issue with the Ray thread, which, as I've repeatedly pointed out, had a clear bearing on LDS themes and issues (a point which you have repeatedly ignored.) You can claim your thread was "silllllllly," just as I can argue that the Ray thread has a clear connection with LDS themes and issues. See what I mean? You have been saying all along that you wish my Ray thread had been booted down to the Telestial, or the Off-Topic forum. And yet, now that some of your threads and comments have been put under the microscope, you are squirming about, claiming they were just "sillllllly," etc. You and Liz are both guilty of this. But it's pretty simple: if you don't want to be put in the position of having to defend your dumb / stupid / "sillllllllly" posts, then don't go about picking on other people's posts, especially after those posts have been explained / defended ad nauseum without any real counter. (Still waiting for you to tell me how/and why those three points explaining the LDS-ness of the Ray thread are invalid, by the way.)

Oh my goodness. Just read my above reply. If you have issues with what I've said about you then tell me. I am pointing out that Shades says there are rules and they are not followed. If they're not followed they need to be scrapped! I've said that repeatedly in this thread. There are threads in Telestial that deal with attacking a poster on LDS issues -- why are some put in telestial and some allowed in terrestrial? I am trying to understand why some are left to stay here and some not.

NONE of my comments that you found offensive were started as a thread about YOU and in THIS forum. Do you understand that Shades on this thread said that these attacks are moved? I did not just make this up! I was replying to SHADES -- his board -- I want to understand!

The bottom line is: Do you see how annoyed you are getting at having to defend your posts?

I'm not annoyed? Are you annoyed?? I'm good!