87 replies to this topic

[Crepulance]

With all do respect zoolander, you're not calling the shots, as we've recently seen. I don't care what your definition of a viral marketer is, he has ZERO evidence pointing to me as being a viral marketer aside from the fact that I say the word Longevin more on here than others do, because NO ONE says it on here. I don't care how "difficult" it is for you to spot viral marketers because of their "subtleties", that's not my concern. I have zero regard for your search. And by your "subtle hints" reasoning, shouldn't you be sending messages to EVERYONE who posts something positive about RevGen?!?!?! Why is it only when someone says the name Longevin your ears perk up??!?! Is Imminst home to RevGen and guardian and protector from all other brands?!?! If I went through any given board right now I would find twenty people whom you and Mind should be attacking for Viral Marketing RevGen instead of attacking me. And when people BLATANTLY say the actual words "Longevin sucks" there is ZERO warning bestowed up them. People bash Longevin on this site like pinatas and not a word is uttered. It is only when the name Longevin creeps in that people start removing threads, accusing people of being shills and viral marketers. To me it seem you doth protest too much. There would be no fuss if I wasn't kicked off for "malicious" attacks, when the Exe Director of imminst is slinging the most foul malicious attacks on me with no reprocutions. And when Anthony continuosly calls me a shill with no reprocusions, you can smell that something is wrong. If you're going to be fair, you have to punish everyone fairly. And you don't. Simple as that.


Crep

Mind, I and the readers can infer from your silence on the matter that you calling me a "viral marketer" was completely unfounded, innapropriate and wrong

The motivation of viral marketers is often to covertly insert a viral replicating message into a large social network with directly identifying their motive. It's very difficult to spot viral marketers because the effectiveness of their campaigns are often inversely related to their connection to a commercial interest i.e dissociation.

So...re. being unfounded.....in these situations it's sometimes more beneficial to go out on a limb and attempt to call out a viral marketer to protect the further dissemination of a viral message. Hey, maybe one or two people with be offended as a result, but the message with be plain and simple. We do not tolerate viral marketing. If you're not a viral marketer then what's the fuss? Re. being inappropriate and wrong, you're not calling the shots here Crep. Regardless of your view, which I am more than happy to listen to, I feel confident that the actions of those in positions of authority at the institute are geared towards moving the mission forward and to uphold the conditions as outline in the constitution to the best of their ability.

Edited by Crepulance, 09 January 2009 - 12:35 PM.

[thefirstimmortal]

With all do respect zoolander, you're not calling the shots, as we've recently seen. I don't care what your definition of a viral marketer is, he has ZERO evidence pointing to me as being a viral marketer aside from the fact that I say the word Longevin more on here than others do, because NO ONE says it on here. I don't care how "difficult" it is for you to spot viral marketers because of their "subtleties", that's not my concern. I have zero regard for your search. And by your "subtle hints" reasoning, shouldn't you be sending messages to EVERYONE who posts something positive about RevGen?!?!?! Why is it only when someone says the name Longevin your ears perk up??!?! Is Imminst home to RevGen and guardian and protector from all other brands?!?! If I went through any given board right now I would find twenty people whom you and Mind should be attacking for Viral Marketing RevGen instead of attacking me. And when people BLATANTLY say the actual words "Longevin sucks" there is ZERO warning bestowed up them. People bash Longevin on this site like pinatas and not a word is uttered. It is only when the name Longevin creeps in that people start removing threads, accusing people of being shills and viral marketers. To me it seem you doth protest too much. There would be no fuss if I wasn't kicked off for "malicious" attacks, when the Exe Director of imminst is slinging the most foul malicious attacks on me with no reprocutions. And when Anthony continuosly calls me a shill with no reprocusions, you can smell that something is wrong. If you're going to be fair, you have to punish everyone fairly. And you don't. Simple as that.


Crep

Crep, if I may offer some advice to you. If you are going to write as you have above, you really should have your thread moved to thr Freedom of Speech forum. Otherwise, Navigators (censors) may come in and censor your posts. While I don't see anything here that crosses the posts guidline yet, you may be butting up to it, as I'm quite sure that what I think crosses the line on posting guidlines and what the Navicators (censors) think crosses the line would be a different standard. Why not request your thread be moved and take away the power to censor, and save a potential round of fights. As long as their is a Free Speech area and it is fully funtiononing, I am not likely going to get invlved in protecting speech in any other Forum.

[suspire]

I believe this is the best way to resolve these issues. I thought that's how we set things up, but after reading the Constitution I am to find that this isn't the case. Perhaps that's something that should be made clearer.

hmmm, you're right. Its in bylaw A. Which can be modified by a authoritative directoral vote. Obviously leaders are intended to be able to move threads, but it is not clearly stated. Without this authority the forums would be a total disaster.

We're sure to find more errors in the constitution/bylaws as time goes on. The authors weren't gods, and since most of them are still here I'm sure they'll agree. There is a process in place to correct them.

I happen to agree. Threads like this take away from both the Institute as a whole and the time and energy of the Navigators and Directors who work for the Institute for free.

I think there is a huge difference between the Constitution of the United States and the bylaws/Constitution of the Institute. Some sort of mixing of the two is delusional at best. Private organizations, companies, etc are under no law forcing them to offer free speech areas or un-moderated zones, etc. The servers are paid for and run by the Institute--end of story as to how they are used. For all those so hip to protect the "freedom of speech" of the Institute, you are grand-standing: Your activism would be better served battling censorship with the United Stated government itself or any of its many, many violations of the Constitution. Sitting around here, protesting for freedom of speech on here just come off as childish and immature in comparison.

The only leg any of these advocates have is the actual wording of the bylaws of the Institute. Personally, I'd like to see the bylaws modified to reflect a more stringent set of policies for the forums. There is so much garbage on here these days, with so many nutjobs and crazies. Are we looking to advance the Institute out of the shadows? Are we looking to gain a modicum of respectability? To gain some sort of mainstream acceptance? Or do we just want to sit in the shadows, giving the finger to everyone and complaining how "the man" doesn't get us. Please.

It is time the Institute cleans up its act and imposes a stronger set of laws on the forums. Will the Navigators and Directors overreach sometimes? Sure. It happens. But when called on it, other Directors and Navigators tend to step in. It is a self-correcting system. But enough of our tolerance of the detritus of the internet. It is time the Institute moved past its infancy and act with a little more maturity. If you so desperately need some "freedom of speech area", host your own site, put a link to it in your profile and have at it.

And for the record, I've been subjected to edits of my posts and requests via PMs to change my tone more than once. Each and every time, such action was warranted and I did not mind. I think the only times I was annoyed was when my threads were moved/edited without notification via PM; even then I figured out what had happened and that was that (though I do think an uniform policy of informing via PM is important).

So in closing: The authors of the Institute's Constitution were not gods and flaws were part of the process. Time to correct it so half our staff, who work for free, aren't sucked into this nonsense.

[zoolander]

With all do respect zoolander, you're not calling the shots, as we've recently seen.

It's true. I'm not calling the shots. The institute is calling the shots and that is why your suspension was reinstated without a blink of my eye. I try my best to align myself with the mission and not with my ego. Is there any reason why you continue on about this Crep? What have you come out so strongly to defend your case? Will you ever get over this?

[suspire]

There would be no fuss if I wasn't kicked off for "malicious" attacks, when the Exe Director of imminst is slinging the most foul malicious attacks on me with no reprocutions.

There was no fuss, because most of us agree that your behavior is not consistent with what is expected of the Institute.

If you believe everyone from the Exe Director of ImmInst to the basic member is slinging foul, malicious attacks on you, why do you remain? And why do you continue to stir up trouble?

Oh. Wait. I know why.

Because you fit the definition of a troll.

(Can we just permanently ban him and move on? Please?)

[Crepulance]

Hi first, I know, but it's hard when someone launches an attack on your character on a specific thread, you want to clarify on that same thread so that there is a retort in the same place if others read it. Otherwise a non response is interpreted as defeatism. I won't initiate exchanges like this on non Freedom of speech threads, but I'll defend my character on them (without malicious attack) if a higher level employee is stating what I believe to be falsehoods. But I was very careful as to not cross the malicious line.


Cheers
Crep

With all do respect zoolander, you're not calling the shots, as we've recently seen. I don't care what your definition of a viral marketer is, he has ZERO evidence pointing to me as being a viral marketer aside from the fact that I say the word Longevin more on here than others do, because NO ONE says it on here. I don't care how "difficult" it is for you to spot viral marketers because of their "subtleties", that's not my concern. I have zero regard for your search. And by your "subtle hints" reasoning, shouldn't you be sending messages to EVERYONE who posts something positive about RevGen?!?!?! Why is it only when someone says the name Longevin your ears perk up??!?! Is Imminst home to RevGen and guardian and protector from all other brands?!?! If I went through any given board right now I would find twenty people whom you and Mind should be attacking for Viral Marketing RevGen instead of attacking me. And when people BLATANTLY say the actual words "Longevin sucks" there is ZERO warning bestowed up them. People bash Longevin on this site like pinatas and not a word is uttered. It is only when the name Longevin creeps in that people start removing threads, accusing people of being shills and viral marketers. To me it seem you doth protest too much. There would be no fuss if I wasn't kicked off for "malicious" attacks, when the Exe Director of imminst is slinging the most foul malicious attacks on me with no reprocutions. And when Anthony continuosly calls me a shill with no reprocusions, you can smell that something is wrong. If you're going to be fair, you have to punish everyone fairly. And you don't. Simple as that.


Crep

Crep, if I may offer some advice to you. If you are going to write as you have above, you really should have your thread moved to thr Freedom of Speech forum. Otherwise, Navigators (censors) may come in and censor your posts. While I don't see anything here that crosses the posts guidline yet, you may be butting up to it, as I'm quite sure that what I think crosses the line on posting guidlines and what the Navicators (censors) think crosses the line would be a different standard. Why not request your thread be moved and take away the power to censor, and save a potential round of fights. As long as their is a Free Speech area and it is fully funtiononing, I am not likely going to get invlved in protecting speech in any other Forum.

[Crepulance]

I came out so strongly because what you did was wrong. My case is defended. Firstimmortal defended it perfectly, and as such I do not continue to go on about it unless others bring it up. As for me, it is currently dropped.


Crep

With all do respect zoolander, you're not calling the shots, as we've recently seen.

It's true. I'm not calling the shots. The institute is calling the shots and that is why your suspension was reinstated without a blink of my eye. I try my best to align myself with the mission and not with my ego. Is there any reason why you continue on about this Crep? What have you come out so strongly to defend your case? Will you ever get over this?

[Crepulance]

I expect the moderators to either delete her post or reprimand her, as she has called me a "troll". I believe this to be a malicious attack, and as per our past couple weeks of discussion, this has a zero tolerance policy and should be removed immediately. Suspire, your beliefs and opinions are irrelevant to me. Whether or not you want to allow yourself to hear it, calling someone a shill and calling someone a viral marketer unfoundedly is a malicious attack. I hope you are not under the false impression that I care or will ever care what you think on any matter in these forums.

Cheers

Crep

There would be no fuss if I wasn't kicked off for "malicious" attacks, when the Exe Director of imminst is slinging the most foul malicious attacks on me with no reprocutions.

There was no fuss, because most of us agree that your behavior is not consistent with what is expected of the Institute.

If you believe everyone from the Exe Director of ImmInst to the basic member is slinging foul, malicious attacks on you, why do you remain? And why do you continue to stir up trouble?

Oh. Wait. I know why.

Because you fit the definition of a troll.

(Can we just permanently ban him and move on? Please?)

[niner]

I expect the moderators to either delete her post or reprimand her, as she has called me a "troll". I believe this to be a malicious attack, and as per our past couple weeks of discussion, this has a zero tolerance policy and should be removed immediately. Suspire, your beliefs and opinions are irrelevant to me. Whether or not you want to allow yourself to hear it, calling someone a shill and calling someone a viral marketer unfoundedly is a malicious attack. I hope you are not under the false impression that I care or will ever care what you think on any matter in these forums.

Suspire said "you fit the definition of a troll". If your behavior here were not so troll-like, you might have a point. Likewise, if your behavior were not like that of a viral marketer, I don't think anyone here would be talking about viral marketing. Want it to stop? Change your behavior.

[Crepulance]

No, I'm good. Thank you for the suggestion though, I appreciate it. As my behavior is neither that of a troll nor that of a viral marketer. So what you're saying is, it is okay for a member to place a malicious attack on my character. You are saying right now, that you are going out of your way to spin her attack on me, the very thing many of the moderators and navigators have been putting on the front over the past couple weeks, as opposed to doing what has been so adamently promised, which is repremanding her. You are saying that if you believe someone to be worthy of a malicious attack, then it is okay to deliver the malicious attack. Am I getting all this right?


Crep

I expect the moderators to either delete her post or reprimand her, as she has called me a "troll". I believe this to be a malicious attack, and as per our past couple weeks of discussion, this has a zero tolerance policy and should be removed immediately. Suspire, your beliefs and opinions are irrelevant to me. Whether or not you want to allow yourself to hear it, calling someone a shill and calling someone a viral marketer unfoundedly is a malicious attack. I hope you are not under the false impression that I care or will ever care what you think on any matter in these forums.

Suspire said "you fit the definition of a troll". If your behavior here were not so troll-like, you might have a point. Likewise, if your behavior were not like that of a viral marketer, I don't think anyone here would be talking about viral marketing. Want it to stop? Change your behavior.

Edited by Crepulance, 12 January 2009 - 10:10 AM.

[Brainbox]

I second the contribution of niner above. "troll-like".

My suggestion is to start communicating your personal issues by personal messages.

Edited by Brainbox, 12 January 2009 - 10:19 AM.

[Crepulance]

[quote name='suspire' post='290703' date='9-Jan 2009, 01:17 PM']
If you believe everyone from the Exe Director of ImmInst to the basic member is slinging foul, malicious attacks on you, why do you remain?

I suppose you just made it clear how you respond when people attack you. I however do not run when attacked. Especially when the ammunition is meek.


Cheers,
Crep

Edited by Crepulance, 12 January 2009 - 10:18 AM.

[Crepulance]

You are surely allowed to clearly state that you disregard your own rules you impose upon the members by saying malicious comments about other members without fear of reprucussion. You are allowing the users to see how you don't abide by your own rules. I for one believe you are degrading yourselves, and you are allowed to do what you will. Me posting a PM was already addressed, as I didn't know it was a rule. zoolander said it was fine, and not to do it again. The fact that you continue to bring it up as ammunition shows me you too are scraping. Now I'm afraid that if I say the word "the" or "and" I might get suspended for malicious attack, even though you continue to call me shill, viral marketer and troll without reprucussion, as the rules progressively seem more and more that they do not apply to navigators or suspire. And I'm accused of bias. Can't say there's no humor on this site. So if you truly want to speak, I'm taking firstimmortal's advice, feel free to bring up a thread in free speech. I believe there is fear and baiting involved by navigators launching attacks on me here, as they know I have to restrain my retorts, and are hoping I slip to give reason for suspension. Keep the malicious attacks coming. People seeing your behavior, is the only malicious attack I can freely launch here.


Cheers
Crep

I second the contribution of niner above. "troll-like". You also lost the benefit of the doubt after attacking navigator(s) by publicizing private communication in public.
Not civilized.

My suggestion is to start communicating your personal issues by personal messages.

Edited by Crepulance, 12 January 2009 - 10:29 AM.

[Brainbox]

Never mind. Post erased.

Edited by Brainbox, 12 January 2009 - 01:09 PM.

[Crepulance]

That is more of the restrained behavior I would expect out of a navigator. Again, a reason why, though he does not like me, I do indeed like and respect brainbox.


Crep

Never mind. Post erased.

[Brainbox]

That is more of the restrained behavior I would expect out of a navigator. Again, a reason why, though he does not like me, I do indeed like and respect brainbox.


Crep

Never mind. Post erased.

First, I do not dislike you as a person.
Secondly, I think you have a point regarding the restrained behaviour. We (navigators) are acting like an innate immune system. Your provoking contributions cause a lot of leukocytic navigators to become active, producing a lot of inflammation. Well, you're more of an allergic trigger, that is. Maybe we are in need of a histamine antagonist.
I will think about that. Maybe we should become more like an adaptive immune system. But if we develop into that, you might be even more surprised about our increased long-term efficiency.

Edited by Brainbox, 12 January 2009 - 04:33 PM.

[suspire]

This post, as some of the post before this one, are unnecessary.

Drawing an arbitrary line, which by chance ended up in this post, I ask all to stop the ad hominem and ad nauseum attacks.

If it continues, I have no choice but to close this thread.

Edited by Brainbox, 12 January 2009 - 05:34 PM.

[Brainbox]

...

 deegroller.gif   704bytes   7 downloads

[Crepulance]

I got lost somewhere in the metaphor, but enjoyed the tone of it nonetheless.


Crep

That is more of the restrained behavior I would expect out of a navigator. Again, a reason why, though he does not like me, I do indeed like and respect brainbox.


Crep

Never mind. Post erased.

First, I do not dislike you as a person.
Secondly, I think you have a point regarding the restrained behaviour. We (navigators) are acting like an innate immune system. Your provoking contributions cause a lot of leukocytic navigators to become active, producing a lot of inflammation. Well, you're more of an allergic trigger, that is. Maybe we are in need of a histamine antagonist.
I will think about that. Maybe we should become more like an adaptive immune system. But if we develop into that, you might be even more surprised about our increased long-term efficiency.

[Crepulance]

I suppose you are under some false assumption you have some type of authority. Allow me to direct your glance to your screen name where it says "registered user". And please do not call the kettle black. Do not call someone a troll and then say "stop the ad hominem" in your very next post. In the land of the blind...everyone can see through your transparency.


Crep

This post, as some of the post before this one, are unnecessary.

Drawing an arbitrary line, which by chance ended up in this post, I ask all to stop the ad hominem and ad nauseum attacks.

If it continues, I have no choice but to close this thread.

[drmz]

My suggestion is to start communicating your personal issues by personal messages.

IMHO crepulance has brought up some important issues which bother me for a while as well.I do not have the time nor the english writing skills to get active in this discussion(=i'm probably just lazy).I also noticed that there is some sort of natural resistance against dicussions like this.
I have to say that the structure and the use of the topic is completely gone, that's why i agree with brainbox's statement.

Edited by drmz, 13 January 2009 - 09:48 AM.

[Crepulance]

Thanks drmz.

My suggestion is to start communicating your personal issues by personal messages.

IMHO crepulance has brought up some important issues which bother me for a while as well.I do not have the time nor the english writing skills to get active in this discussion(=i'm probably just lazy).I also noticed that there is some sort of natural resistance against dicussions like this.
I have to say that the structure and the use of the topic is completely gone, that's why i agree with brainbox's statement.

[suspire]

I suppose you are under some false assumption you have some type of authority. Allow me to direct your glance to your screen name where it says "registered user". And please do not call the kettle black. Do not call someone a troll and then say "stop the ad hominem" in your very next post. In the land of the blind...everyone can see through your transparency.


Crep

This post, as some of the post before this one, are unnecessary.

Drawing an arbitrary line, which by chance ended up in this post, I ask all to stop the ad hominem and ad nauseum attacks.

If it continues, I have no choice but to close this thread.

Unfortunately, that was Brainbox's doing: The edit of my post (look under the text and you'll see he edited my post). I had responded with what he thought was some sort of ad homimem. As point of fact, I was responding to this:

[quote name='suspire' post='290703' date='9-Jan 2009, 01:17 PM']
If you believe everyone from the Exe Director of ImmInst to the basic member is slinging foul, malicious attacks on you, why do you remain?

I suppose you just made it clear how you respond when people attack you. I however do not run when attacked. Especially when the ammunition is meek.


Cheers,
Crep

And my response was something akin to this:

Internet bravery. How compelling. I love it when we have on-screen tough guys.

Still, you miss the point. You remaining on ImmInst when you, yourself think everyone dislikes you here, is akin to coming to a fancy black-tie dinner dressed in sweats and having not bathed in a month. You are out of place and unwanted. In truth, leaving saves you further embarrassment and saves the rest of us an assault on our senses.

I've done my best to stay clear of direct ad hominem, so Brainbox you've got no cause to edit this post. Further, please Brainbox: When you edit my posts, PM me. And if you decide to change the entire text of my post, from top to bottom, um...well, please don't. Write your own post to make your point/decision known. Otherwise individuals may think those were my words. Just because I've stated in prior posts that I am supportive of Navigator editing and censoring does not mean I consent to be made an example of for the sake of some sense of "impartiality".

Edited by suspire, 13 January 2009 - 03:06 PM.

[suspire]

My suggestion is to start communicating your personal issues by personal messages.

IMHO crepulance has brought up some important issues which bother me for a while as well.I do not have the time nor the english writing skills to get active in this discussion(=i'm probably just lazy).I also noticed that there is some sort of natural resistance against dicussions like this.
I have to say that the structure and the use of the topic is completely gone, that's why i agree with brainbox's statement.

The debate over rsv and suppliers is a valid one. The way Crepulance went about it was not--he came off as a shill for Sardi and seemed to be unable to process the responses of those who answered his questions or to question Sardi himself in any real and meaningful way. The fact that I, myself, have exchanged at least a half dozen emails with Sardi that struck me as being written by someone mentally unstable--Sardi ranted and raved against RevGenetics, Dr. Sinclair and the world at large for their perceived slights against him--which is to say, the gist of what I got out of Sardi was that since he introduced the first rsv pill, he deserved a monopoly on it and no one should buy the competition's and that even Sinclair had slighted him by coming out with a rsv-like pill. He went on beyond that, somewhat rabidly, and I politely pointed out that if he wanted to retain customers, he should be able to intelligently respond to their questions without going mad. I believe Crepulance emailed him a month after I did, which is why Sardi might have been more polite. I think he realized he would lose customers if he continued to respond the way he did.

I am all for honest and open debate and discussion of various suppliers. The way Crepulance handled it was poor at best and his often specious claims and seemingly biased stances, while ignoring many points of other posters and his inability to digest other points from posters made many of us believe he was a shill. I thought so initially, but now I just think he has a need for grand-standing and self-importance; a common malady on the internet. I do still think he fits many of the definitions of a troll.

[thefirstimmortal]

I believe this is the best way to resolve these issues. I thought that's how we set things up, but after reading the Constitution I am to find that this isn't the case. Perhaps that's something that should be made clearer.

hmmm, you're right. Its in bylaw A. Which can be modified by a authoritative directoral vote. Obviously leaders are intended to be able to move threads, but it is not clearly stated. Without this authority the forums would be a total disaster.

We're sure to find more errors in the constitution/bylaws as time goes on. The authors weren't gods, and since most of them are still here I'm sure they'll agree. There is a process in place to correct them.

I happen to agree. Threads like this take away from both the Institute as a whole and the time and energy of the Navigators and Directors who work for the Institute for free.

I think there is a huge difference between the Constitution of the United States and the bylaws/Constitution of the Institute. Some sort of mixing of the two is delusional at best. Private organizations, companies, etc are under no law forcing them to offer free speech areas or un-moderated zones, etc. The servers are paid for and run by the Institute--end of story as to how they are used. For all those so hip to protect the "freedom of speech" of the Institute, you are grand-standing: Your activism would be better served battling censorship with the United Stated government itself or any of its many, many violations of the Constitution. Sitting around here, protesting for freedom of speech on here just come off as childish and immature in comparison.

The only leg any of these advocates have is the actual wording of the bylaws of the Institute. Personally, I'd like to see the bylaws modified to reflect a more stringent set of policies for the forums. There is so much garbage on here these days, with so many nutjobs and crazies. Are we looking to advance the Institute out of the shadows? Are we looking to gain a modicum of respectability? To gain some sort of mainstream acceptance? Or do we just want to sit in the shadows, giving the finger to everyone and complaining how "the man" doesn't get us. Please.

It is time the Institute cleans up its act and imposes a stronger set of laws on the forums. Will the Navigators and Directors overreach sometimes? Sure. It happens. But when called on it, other Directors and Navigators tend to step in. It is a self-correcting system. But enough of our tolerance of the detritus of the internet. It is time the Institute moved past its infancy and act with a little more maturity. If you so desperately need some "freedom of speech area", host your own site, put a link to it in your profile and have at it.

And for the record, I've been subjected to edits of my posts and requests via PMs to change my tone more than once. Each and every time, such action was warranted and I did not mind. I think the only times I was annoyed was when my threads were moved/edited without notification via PM; even then I figured out what had happened and that was that (though I do think an uniform policy of informing via PM is important).

So in closing: The authors of the Institute's Constitution were not gods and flaws were part of the process. Time to correct it so half our staff, who work for free, aren't sucked into this nonsense.

You will find your response to this in the Freedom Forum, link provided below.
http://www.imminst.o...&...st&p=293643

[Crepulance]

Hi suspire, have been out of town for a while. Hope it gave you enough time to delude yourself into thinking your responses had any validity, creativity, tact or intellectual capacity. For they did not. Please do not project your insecurities on me and tell me I'm not wanted. I suppose when you hear that phrase over and over in your life, it's inevitable that you'll feel the need to type it to someone else. Once again, I'll have to reiterate. Your words have no meaning nor value. A pestulant and pleasantly ignorable buzz at my ear. I'm not sure why wearing sweats to a black tie event would make you uncomfortable, and I'm glad you have the experience to draw on for your analogy. I have never been to a black tie event in sweats having not bathed for a month, but since you've chronicled it so personally yourself in order to utilize it as an example here, I'll apologize that you felt so out of place at the event. I'll apologize that you felt embarassed and wanted to run away. Me personally, I would have showered and changed, but again, you are allowed to run as seems to be your innate nature. Brainbox, I hope you will evidently see that her remarks to me were both antagonistic and malicious and yet still were not removed. I hope you afford me the same luxury here so her unclever rant does not go unresponded to. She says she did her best to stay away from ad hominem, and you know she failed remarkably at the task. Saying you tried isn't a result, and I believe she needs reprimanding as this is now her third time she's gone against the wishes of the navigators on this very post, posting malicious attacks. According to past actions, I believe a three day suspension is in order here, correct?

Crep

I suppose you are under some false assumption you have some type of authority. Allow me to direct your glance to your screen name where it says "registered user". And please do not call the kettle black. Do not call someone a troll and then say "stop the ad hominem" in your very next post. In the land of the blind...everyone can see through your transparency.


Crep

This post, as some of the post before this one, are unnecessary.

Drawing an arbitrary line, which by chance ended up in this post, I ask all to stop the ad hominem and ad nauseum attacks.

If it continues, I have no choice but to close this thread.

Unfortunately, that was Brainbox's doing: The edit of my post (look under the text and you'll see he edited my post). I had responded with what he thought was some sort of ad homimem. As point of fact, I was responding to this:

[quote name='suspire' post='290703' date='9-Jan 2009, 01:17 PM']
If you believe everyone from the Exe Director of ImmInst to the basic member is slinging foul, malicious attacks on you, why do you remain?

I suppose you just made it clear how you respond when people attack you. I however do not run when attacked. Especially when the ammunition is meek.


Cheers,
Crep

And my response was something akin to this:

Internet bravery. How compelling. I love it when we have on-screen tough guys.

Still, you miss the point. You remaining on ImmInst when you, yourself think everyone dislikes you here, is akin to coming to a fancy black-tie dinner dressed in sweats and having not bathed in a month. You are out of place and unwanted. In truth, leaving saves you further embarrassment and saves the rest of us an assault on our senses.

I've done my best to stay clear of direct ad hominem, so Brainbox you've got no cause to edit this post. Further, please Brainbox: When you edit my posts, PM me. And if you decide to change the entire text of my post, from top to bottom, um...well, please don't. Write your own post to make your point/decision known. Otherwise individuals may think those were my words. Just because I've stated in prior posts that I am supportive of Navigator editing and censoring does not mean I consent to be made an example of for the sake of some sense of "impartiality".

[Crepulance]

Suspire, again, your thoughts are irrelevant to me. I handled the thread well, no one asked me any questions to give to Bill, so I had none. When they did comprise questions, the thread was removed. It is okay that you are manipulating the truth, as you have no credibility. Again calling me a shill is a malicious attack. Just because you think it is appropriate does not mean you are allowed to call me it. I have a LOT of words that I believe are appropriate for you, but I refrain, as are the rules. So you may continue with your (and thank you for the perfect verbage to mirror you here) grand-standing and self-importance, for indeed, it is a common malady on the internet. I hope you are receiving the much needed attention you lack.


Crep

My suggestion is to start communicating your personal issues by personal messages.

IMHO crepulance has brought up some important issues which bother me for a while as well.I do not have the time nor the english writing skills to get active in this discussion(=i'm probably just lazy).I also noticed that there is some sort of natural resistance against dicussions like this.
I have to say that the structure and the use of the topic is completely gone, that's why i agree with brainbox's statement.

I am all for honest and open debate and discussion of various suppliers. The way Crepulance handled it was poor at best and his often specious claims and seemingly biased stances, while ignoring many points of other posters and his inability to digest other points from posters made many of us believe he was a shill. I thought so initially, but now I just think he has a need for grand-standing and self-importance; a common malady on the internet. I do still think he fits many of the definitions of a troll.