Remove EvidenceVsFaith

[Eilonnwy]

Sometimes issues fester until it reaches a boiling point, it happens. Little annoyances can build up until finally someone has to say something, or until they realize "Hey, this is a problem". My natural reaction to things I don't like is to ignore them unless I feel it necessary to address. That's just the way I am and doesn't make me perfect.

The point is you know now. It's being addressed now. Issues are not always going to be addressed immediately when they become known. In fact, in my experience, they almost never are.

[Edwardo Piet]

So it's all been a massive secret you think? Lol that's funny (sorry for the lack of a point there)

For the point, in response the Luke's 'fluff' response to him quoting my 'fluffs': I ask the same quesiton....when I am yet to get an answer!

Now I finally have, but if it's true - if it's an issue that no one has actually mentioned to me. I find that funny because even if it was about me leaving the forums or simply stepping down for mod it would only take Adrian to ask and I'd obey. All I'd probably want myself is to know "Why?" - but I'd still oblige either way - I'm not in charge here.

I'd rather be told things, earlier, that is all. I'd much rather even be told to "fuck off" for instance (actually that wouldn't bother me at all) than people to pretend that they like me only later to tell me after wasting my time and effort on them (and others who share their opinion) for so long.

It's what I think of as the 'grumbling under your breath attitude' - if anyone has a problem, I say - speak out! It would be much appreciated by me!

If indeed it has been an issue for ages but no one's mentioned it, then to be honest I'm quite glad Bef has pointed it out because it's exposed some honesty ( as I said specifically if it's indeed true that this has been an unmentioned issue for ages).

Honesty is what I admire the most - I don't give a crap if it's negative or not ( at least if it's towards/against me I mean). It's more constructive and resourceful and less of a waste of my time and others, to tell me sooner rather than earlier. If you can. If you can't....I still find it bizarre it has taken 9 months to be honest if this really wasn't hibernating at all.

EvF

[Kyuuketsuki]

I think people seem to have gotten past the 'oh look another troll' feeling we all got when Bef first showed up and are starting to act more reasonably. Including Leo's post that I totally missed which was a good show.

I haven't ... I think he alreadxy knows what I think of him.

I think it was mooted that threads should perhaps be locked by mods when they are deemed to be done ... personally I don't agree with locking threads until specific conditions have been met one of which would have to be a period of time (say a week) of no posting.

Kyu

[LukeMC]

For the point, in response the Luke's 'fluff' response to him quoting my 'fluffs': I ask the same quesiton....when I am yet to get an answer!

I'd love to enlighten you, but as I said, I was only quoting for the lols/fluffs. I'm just too lazy to read your longer posts, I have no criticism to make.

[Dotard]

[Eilonnwy]

I think people seem to have gotten past the 'oh look another troll' feeling we all got when Bef first showed up and are starting to act more reasonably. Including Leo's post that I totally missed which was a good show.

I haven't ... I think he alreadxy knows what I think of him.

I think it was mooted that threads should perhaps be locked by mods when they are deemed to be done ... personally I don't agree with locking threads until specific conditions have been met one of which would have to be a period of time (say a week) of no posting.

Kyu

If you think a thread should be locked and you are a moderator....why not lock it?!

[Kyuuketsuki]

If you think a thread should be locked and you are a moderator....why not lock it?!

I just said, "I don't agree with locking threads until specific conditions have been met one of which would have to be a period of time (say a week) of no posting" ... would you like me to explain it in simpler words?

Kyu

[Edwardo Piet]

For the point, in response the Luke's 'fluff' response to him quoting my 'fluffs': I ask the same quesiton....when I am yet to get an answer!

I'd love to enlighten you, but as I said, I was only quoting for the lols/fluffs. I'm just too lazy to read your longer posts, I have no criticism to make.

That's ok I'm aware of that ':p'

Oh damn - was that a 'fluff'? What was the alternative? Ignoring what LukeMC said to me? Perhaps I should have done that instead. What an awful, awful, terrible 'fluff' how unproductive to respond when 'unnecessary' to clarify that I hadn't misunderstood Luke - and the smiley! Now that was just totally 'unnecessary'! - Lots of things are 'unnecessary'. Swearing is unnecessary for example. But unless it's an Ad Hom - what the fuck's wrong with it?

EvF

[Samson]

I think people seem to have gotten past the 'oh look another troll' feeling we all got when Bef first showed up and are starting to act more reasonably. Including Leo's post that I totally missed which was a good show.

I haven't ... I think he alreadxy knows what I think of him.

I think it was mooted that threads should perhaps be locked by mods when they are deemed to be done ... personally I don't agree with locking threads until specific conditions have been met one of which would have to be a period of time (say a week) of no posting.

Kyu

If you think a thread should be locked and you are a moderator....why not lock it?!

Eilonnwy, I was the one to suggest locking or removing this thread, not KYU....And I'll state it again, I suggested it be locked or removed three or so pages ago, because it was more than obvious that this thread was going from constructive criticism to a pissing contest...

Even if I was a mod or S.M. the decision to do what I stated should be left up to the Owner/Admin...Especially considering his involvement in the first place.

[Eilonnwy]

I'm sorry, I completely misread Kyu's comment.