You quoted a post I wrote, and said I misunderstood you, but you failed to make explicit the real issue at hand. I complained that you wrote a lot but didn't spent much time explaining the nature of the misunderstanding.mojo wrote:what the hell are you talking about? what is the hostility about? did i somehow offend you when i said that you misunderstood? you stated that you thought i had dropped everything i had against mike. since i had not done that, it is quite clear that you misunderstood me. given that trinoya apparently misunderstood me as well, i DID INDEED simplify what i was saying. in fact, i went to some length to do that! it makes no sense to ask me to be more clear so that you can more easily understand me right after i spend half an hour trying to be more clear so that i can be more easily understood.Mr. Oragahn wrote:You do know that you don't make yourself clear enough?
If I didn't understand what the problem was, then why not explain it differently?
Why not show, succinctly if possible, why I'm wrong?
Your case is really becoming a mess. How can one agree with you that there was a sliver of dishonesty on someone's part if you don't even elaborate on it clearly?
Make an effort and be clear, otherwise you won't even get a chance to get proper attention.
Or is that some twisted game where you claim I understood nothing just to stretch its duration?
This is becoming as overly complicated as an argumentation of an argumentation of an argumentation. At some point the staff won't care enough about it.
Why do I bother in fact?
i did not claim that you understood nothing. i was just pointing out that if one single person showed that he did not understand me, as in trinoya stating that he thought i had dropped everything, i could simply assume the problem was not mine, but that since you AND trinoya misunderstood, i have to admit the possibility that i was unclear and try again. i was not playing a game or insulting you.
on the other hand, maybe i am more incomprehensible than i think, as you seem to have become upset with my claim that you misunderstood me because you misunderstood that claim itself.
And now it's even worse because you're saying I misunderstood you on something which represented a minuscule portion of the post you replied to. That is, my misunderstanding wasn't in regards to that request of clarification about the accounts between you and Mike, but in fact the idea that I (and Trinoya) thought you said you'd let it go as a whole, and somehow kept jumping back and forth.
While I clearly see now two different problems you had, the SWST moderation one which you clearly had claimed to leave behind, and the new one about Mike's requests for clarification, your posts seemed to blur both. It's only later that you that post:
http://www.starfleetjedi.net/forum/view ... 237#p43237
So yes, all in all, I think you do need to be clearer. And proper punctuation wouldn't really hurt in that case. Three dots hasn't the same meaning as ":"
Look, simply put, when I voiced my issues about the moderation going on at SBC, also as an example of what to expect so others could avoid the traps, I tried my best to formulate them in a clear, detailed and very sourced way.
Your posts in comparison produce lots of noise and come out messy lately.
I mean, check out this post on the bottom of the previous page:
http://www.starfleetjedi.net/forum/view ... 112#p43112
In the last paragraph, you're saying you're letting it go, then you want the affair to be sorted out, then you say that "at that point" (after the judgment I guess) you'll let it go (again), and when Trinoy speaks out, you return to it.mojo wrote: rain failed to understand that most of what he argued had already been debated into the dirt. i appreciate what he was trying to do, but it was clear that he had not (and how could you blame him, reallly) read the entire 38 pages of this thread over which these things have been argued. therefore, he was arguing at a disadvantage, and (i really do believe unintentionally) rebooting arguments i gave up on long ago. i think he was doing this mainly because he did not intend to jeopardize my presence on this board and saw mike dicenso as the main threat as it was mike who was investigating the possibility that he was a sockpuppet, and mike was forthright with his intention to punish me if possible. i have no motivation or plan to continue this argument. i still wish for some sort of conclusion from trinoya or explanation by mike of the clear dishonesty i have now posted twice. at that point, i will again be more than happy to let it go.
In the end, it seems Trinoya also saw some dishonesty coming from Mike regarding his request of a clarification on Airlocke's, RainKing777's and your accounts.
PS: I'm also doing that at the risk of getting a warning because I think you deserve an explanation, but I won't post anymore on this. I think I said all that had to be said. Frankly, this is just too bothersome and is beyond reasonable. It has completely dwarfed the usual activity of this board.