How about this... let’s all stop and I mean actually stop and all means everyone. No comments about banners or my wife or the google group or what you all said and put it to rest. Now I know you say you have and I am no influence over anything any MOM does and I provoke the arguments myself well that's bull. Read back through the thread my activities and actions are mentioned quite often without provocation. Do I look here? Yep...not obsessively...some thing about the numerous lawsuits threats sent to me in pm gave me the feeling keeping a good about of ammo on hand will serve me well.

If my intention was to hurt you and your squad I would have notified the authorities in information privacy and given them the info day 1. Why wait? It would only serve to weaken the case against you they will wonder also why there was any hesitation.

So what was the goal...as I try and sum it up it was for you all to lives you would have if everyone knew how you really felt and for those in the dark shown how you really feel.

That’s it.

I have no plot no goal to inflict pain so much as I felt you should live who you are. I don’t care about sexual orientation at all, it looked like you did (I very well could be wrong) so after many weeks of still fighting I figured if you felt like making a larger issue out of things at a later date perhaps I would try that to keep the fighting to a minimum. Well that didn’t work very well did it.

So as I compiled the information I thought if the goal is resolution then this is not the correct action. So I ask, do you want the end? To be over with entirely? I do, and have for a while. The only way this will happen is we have to stop any fighting or derogotory remarks both sides and be done, everyone.

What do you say?

I have no clue whats happening in the dogfight world, but the stuff you said below i do want the end to come. I hear bits and pieces of this on world chat and forums.

What have I been lobbying for since day one of your first unprovoked attack? Which of us complied with Joaquin's request to minimize the melodrama and which of us stockpiled players' personal info for potential "use"?

I've never blindsided you, never pretended to ask for your help so I could violate your privacy, never did a thing to intrude upon your non-Dogfight life. I pretty much sat still for your slander campaign and the unfounded bullshit you spewed months ago only to be informed that you were still active, still making threats, still plotting.

Dogfight is a game and this forum is supposed to be fun. I'm sick of seeing myself say it here. Sicker of seeing you invert the facts, bend timing to favor your case when it was you who assaulted us, you who initiated conflict, you who were guilty of mini-cyber-terrorism and privacy rape. But you would've notified the authorities? You really don't get it and probably never will. The "dark" here is you.

You are not the watchdog of what people get to say to each other in emails that are clearly obviously unarguably not intended for public consumption nor are you a forum crusader with a right to inflict harm, although you've done your best to inflict as much as you can.

I've said "enough already" more than a few times. If you were ever to get near an apology for your lack of scruples and your destructive pettiness the shock might kill me, you should try it. Meanwhile, I'll say one more time; enough already. I don't speak for anyone else, not fellow M.O.M members, not off-forum email friends, not fellow (ex) Moderators, but I have not fired a first shot in any conflict with you and I don't intend to, but "enough already" also means if you push me hard enough long enough I will push back and it won't end pleasantly for you.

When you've stopped, I've stopped. We'll see how that goes.

Whiplash wrote: I have no plot no goal to inflict pain so much as I felt you should live who you are. I don’t care about sexual orientation at all, it looked like you did (I very well could be wrong) so after many weeks of still fighting I figured if you felt like making a larger issue out of things at a later date perhaps I would try that to keep the fighting to a minimum. Well that didn’t work very well did it.

No, not well at all.

Two things I can't leave unaddressed:

"...live who you are." suggests that you think you know who someone is by having invaded his banter with friends and cherry picked what fit your agenda (there was never a breath out of you about the thousands of Star Chamber references to the hundreds of people in Dogfight we respect, like, admire...only the tiny percentage that were negative and that served your pre-existing purpose.) and it suggests that you think you know something about a person's life by passing casual judgment on a photograph. And this is the point that needs stressing: looking at a photo and deciding that a person might be gay or bi or straight is no different than looking at a person and deciding that she might have "a drop of black blood". As if sexual orientation or racial makeup has the slightest bearing on who someone is insofar as it's your business to know. Subtle forms of bigotry are still bigotry and this isn't all that subtle. You were going to "use" what you guessed my sexuality to be against me if you deemed it necessary. There's no reason to assume that someone with that thinking wouldn't also seek to use a person's race or religion against them "to keep the fighting to a minimum." I'm not piling on here, I'm genuinely hoping you'll see this for what it is and consider some alternative thinking in future.

That you've taken so much action in service to, "...I felt you should live who you are." implies some sort of right to live who people are for them. You've said you have a gay member in your Dogfight squad. Does he/she have family or friends who don't know she/he is gay? Is that anyone else's concern? Is it your position that your squad mate needs you to out him/her?

A lot of attention is paid to who thinks what about how we choose to play this game. Do you dump your bomb or carry it? Do you drill up the middle or fly wide or high? Head-on sniper or dogfighter? Words like "disgraceful" can be bandied about or blown off without much harm either way. But when judgments of what constitutes suitable behavior extend to personal lives and privacy it's no longer a game, it's serious and insidious and demands to be challenged.

Wigbomb wrote: What have I been lobbying for since day one of your first unprovoked attack? Which of us complied with Joaquin's request to minimize the melodrama and which of us stockpiled players' personal info for potential "use"?

In my view the attacks were being made already in what was said in the group about the players etc. and I complied first as well as the whole rest of DD have either said nothing because the don't want to get involved or upon my request.

I've never blindsided you, never pretended to ask for your help so I could violate your privacy, never did a thing to intrude upon your non-Dogfight life.

You think that we fabricated my wife's issue to trick you into providing your personal email...how would I guess that exactly?

I pretty much sat still for your slander campaign and the unfounded bullshit you spewed months ago only to be informed that you were still active, still making threats, still plotting.

Was there any single post made relating to this made that was not replied to nearly 100% by you or a MOM and generally with added embellishment to insinuate even more wrong doing on my part. So I scoured the internet with the email address to find out information to hold and slowly dispense lies about you?? If I was going to lie why do I need more information, why not make it up? It's a lie? All the information that has ever been about you or what you said is from your groups posts so how is that slander?

Dogfight is a game and this forum is supposed to be fun. I'm sick of seeing myself say it here. Sicker of seeing you invert the facts, bend timing to favor your case when it was you who assaulted us, you who initiated conflict, you who were guilty of mini-cyber-terrorism and privacy rape.

Terrorism and Rape are what you use to describe me telling people what to search in google to find your group and read what was said.

But you would've notified the authorities? You really don't get it and probably never will. The "dark" here is you.

I agree I am dark and can be a very cold person but that has nothing to do with Law that is what I find in public I can share, what I find in private I must ask permission. The group was setup as public and the info you received was private information.

You are not the watchdog of what people get to say to each other in emails that are clearly obviously unarguably not intended for public consumption nor are you a forum crusader with a right to inflict harm, although you've done your best to inflict as much as you can.

As I said if I wanted to do the most harm I would have said as much as I could to as many as I could and tried to get privacy charges.

I've said "enough already" more than a few times. If you were ever to get near an apology for your lack of scruples and your destructive pettiness the shock might kill me, you should try it. Meanwhile, I'll say one more time; enough already. I don't speak for anyone else, not fellow M.O.M members, not off-forum email friends, not fellow (ex) Moderators, but I have not fired a first shot in any conflict with you and I don't intend to, but "enough already" also means if you push me hard enough long enough I will push back and it won't end pleasantly for you.

The enough already's always, just like this one, come with extra insults and outlandish claims so not exactly a fair claim to make.

When you've stopped, I've stopped. We'll see how that goes.

Look at your thread..constant off handed remarks about our banners, my art, me, my wife without provocation and almost always thanked by you.

Answers are in bold above and those seem to be the views we will never agree on or understand for the others view point. Maybe it's because I count the entire MOM collective not as you and each of them as individuals is why we seem to be so far apart in our views of events.

These are the fundamental points so I am finished saying anything more on these topics its been said.

.

Whiplash wrote: So what was the goal...as I try and sum it up it was for you all to lives you would have if everyone knew how you really felt and for those in the dark shown how you really feel.

Oh. So that was your job, to make sure that nobody was privately... er, publicly daring to have an opinion on another player.

We are all grateful that you're here to police our thoughts and off-forum activities. Anything that we don't care to encrypt and protect is.our bad, I guess.

I'll sleep much better tonight for knowing that you're here for us.

I feel lighter already!
Mac

Wigbomb wrote:

Whiplash wrote: I have no plot no goal to inflict pain so much as I felt you should live who you are. I don’t care about sexual orientation at all, it looked like you did (I very well could be wrong) so after many weeks of still fighting I figured if you felt like making a larger issue out of things at a later date perhaps I would try that to keep the fighting to a minimum. Well that didn’t work very well did it.

No, not well at all.

Two things I can't leave unaddressed:

"...live who you are." suggests that you think you know who someone is by having invaded his banter with friends and cherry picked what fit your agenda (there was never a breath out of you about the thousands of Star Chamber references to the hundreds of people in Dogfight we respect, like, admire...only the tiny percentage that were negative and that served your pre-existing purpose.)

That was not on the topic of recruitment? I didn't see any and to be fair I didn't search for that either, just things posted about me and people I know.

and it suggests that you think you know something about a person's life by passing casual judgment on a photograph. And this is the point that needs stressing: looking at a photo and deciding that a person might be gay or bi or straight is no different than looking at a person and deciding that she might have "a drop of black blood".

You are saying I can't look at a photo and think the person might be gay ore not.. why? I`ve lived long enough to know there are some things that make you feel someone may be gay or not and what`s wrong with that? It doesn't mean that I think any less or any more of that person just like I would if I was making a guess at their race. If I thought someone had a drop of black blood why would that be bad??

As if sexual orientation or racial makeup has the slightest bearing on who someone is insofar as it's your business to know. Subtle forms of bigotry are still bigotry and this isn't all that subtle. You were going to "use" what you guessed my sexuality to be against me if you deemed it necessary. There's no reason to assume that someone with that thinking wouldn't also seek to use a person's race or religion against them "to keep the fighting to a minimum."

If it appeared they were trying to hide it...yep since I was looking for something that you wouldn't like that's how you verbally fight?? That being said I don't know why anyone would hide those things, well where I live anyway.

I'm not piling on here, I'm genuinely hoping you'll see this for what it is and consider some alternative thinking in future.

That you've taken so much action in service to, "...I felt you should live who you are." implies some sort of right to live who people are for them. You've said you have a gay member in your Dogfight squad. Does he/she have family or friends who don't know she/he is gay? Is that anyone else's concern? Is it your position that your squad mate needs you to out him/her?

Wow and the person told who they wanted to know themselves and I don't know about friends and families knowledge but since I didn't say their name what does that even matter? Nope not anyone's concern I only mention it to somehow show that I obviously don't care if someone is gay or not, I think the person is fantastic and finding out didn't change a thing. My position is for people to give out as little personal details as possible, as anyone in my squad

A lot of attention is paid to who thinks what about how we choose to play this game. Do you dump your bomb or carry it? Do you drill up the middle or fly wide or high? Head-on sniper or dogfighter? Words like "disgraceful" can be bandied about or blown off without much harm either way. But when judgments of what constitutes suitable behavior extend to personal lives and privacy it's no longer a game, it's serious and insidious and demands to be challenged.

I'm not making any implications about what you are doing or if it is good or bad only if you want it shown or not and no one really knows or has seen it. As I said if I wanted to do the most damage why not use this? Or pretend if it isn't true? Remember you brought it up, not me, and that was information in a private 1 on 1 chat not group.

Good morning all, I really think that this should end. You can do that simple by no more posting or anything. Just keep all your posts either funny or positive and no longer react to each other in any way. Simple as that. Just play the game we all love.

[*M] MISFIT CROCKETT wrote: Good morning all, I really think that this should end. You can do that simple by no more posting or anything. Just keep all your posts either funny or positive and no longer react to each other in any way. Simple as that. Just play the game we all love.

Well said you sucky president! Now lets all go have some fun and shot each other!

Jasonmc wrote:

[*M] MISFIT CROCKETT wrote: Good morning all, I really think that this should end. You can do that simple by no more posting or anything. Just keep all your posts either funny or positive and no longer react to each other in any way. Simple as that. Just play the game we all love.

Well said you sucky president! Now lets all go have some fun and shot each other!

The duckman speaks true!

I love a good topic like this brethren!

Far be it from me to leave my friends wanting of my insight and humble opinion.

But just in time I remembered the great advice in the Good Book:

Proverbs 26:17 "As one grabbing hold of the ears of a dog is anyone passing by that is becoming furious at the quarrel that is not his."

So never mind this post......

Just wishing you all the wisdom needed to sort this all out.

I am the authorities, and I am duly notified. The official response of the LAWMAN is that this is something better left unsolved. If quoted directly please say, "It was something the authorities said was better left unsolved (in a bad Cockney accent)." The only other resolution I can offer is....

THUNDERDOME!!!!!

TX: are you saying that we should have a 1 on 1 Dog Fight (to multiple deaths..no others involved) or are you saying that you like WIG in "puffy sleeves"?

He likes being a pirate!!

Thanks.
Paul



2-2 friends:
How many thank you's to MS.FITCROCKETT's statement will it take before this is over?

That was rhetorical ........

I was originally thinking a true in person fight to the death or apathy, whichever happened first. But I like your style, Fly Magic! I propose a dogfight with Wig dressed in puffy sleeves like Capt. Hook, and Whip dressed in green tights like Peter Pan. Such public drama must have a consequence.

Holy jebus, look at all the 'thanks yous' lol can I get some of that love too?

WarEagle wrote: Holy jebus, look at all the 'thanks yous' lol can I get some of that love too?

Actually, there's a fail-proof two-step formula to gain Thank Yous.
Step 1) Go to the Misfits thread.
Step 2) Tell them how awesome they are and how much you love them.

You'll get three at the very least.

...actually, thank you BIGTEX for standing in for WIG.

MAY WE BBQ THE LOSER??? THE LOSER HAS BEEN SMOKED ALREADY!

I'm hungry for BBQ!

Hahaha mac ive actually done that once just to see how many I could get

And did someone say "bbq"? I think my brain just jizzed lol

TXLAWMAN wrote: I was originally thinking a true in person fight to the death or apathy, whichever happened first. But I like your style, Fly Magic! I propose a dogfight with Wig dressed in puffy sleeves like Capt. Hook, and Whip dressed in green tights like Peter Pan. Such public drama must have a consequence.

Oh someone is going in for the "KILL"

Anyone mind if I add my penny's worth here...no...good....well here it is



Oh hum
That's all.

And please clear up any mess from the BBQ....we like a nice clean lawn.

Wrong in so many ways!

YEMX wrote:

TXLAWMAN wrote: I was originally thinking a true in person fight to the death or apathy, whichever happened first. But I like your style, Fly Magic! I propose a dogfight with Wig dressed in puffy sleeves like Capt. Hook, and Whip dressed in green tights like Peter Pan. Such public drama must have a consequence.

Attachment not found

Oh someone is going in for the "KILL"

Mac wrote:

WarEagle wrote: Holy jebus, look at all the 'thanks yous' lol can I get some of that love too?

Actually, there's a fail-proof two-step formula to gain Thank Yous.
Step 1) Go to the Misfits thread.
Step 2) Tell them how awesome they are and how much you love them.

You'll get three at the very least.

Sorry, I can only press it once

And on he rants.

Whip, it's still a case of me offering you and your wife my email and you abusing my trust. It's still a case of your pretending that the law sides with "anyone who fails to lock down their security is fair game for trolls" rather than "everyone has a reasonable expectation of privacy". The laws on electronic communication violation respect the latter, not the former. Do not drag out the argument about Cricket having done what he did, you initiated the conflict months ago, unprovoked and without cause, you chose to persist with your privacy invasion after I'd elected to move on, you have the twisted agenda...or we wouldn't be having this discussion five or six months on.

And it's still and always will be a case of, "Why the fuck were you motivated to drill around in my personal info when I'd given you my email address in good faith?" To say nothing of, "Why the fuck are you still five months later trying to rationalize still gathering personal data with harmful intent?"

You can dislike what you found in Star Chamber emails until you're blue in the face, it doesn't alter the fact that you had no business prowling them, no business sharing access to them with people who would never have seen them otherwise (because it was a private group, obviously, regardless of my having let the security settings shift) had you not stuck your nose in and for whom our personal opinions were none of their business any more than they were yours.

And it's still a case of you keeping the conflict alive by continuing to troll, intrude, amass "ammo" to use against strangers in a video game forum.

I don't like Davy Crockett. Davy Crockett doesn't like me. We've had at each other on the forum, neither of us is shocked by the other's unflattering opinion. How is it, then, that we've managed to refrain from invading each other's privacy? What does Davy Crockett understand that you can't grasp? It's simple: what Davy says to his wife or his neighbor or his dog or even to his Dogfight friends about me is none of my business. Even what he says publicly is not mine to censor, he has a banner showing a guy swinging a club at a wig for christ's sake! What I say about Davy is none of his business, certainly not what I say in emails to friends whether you approve of my email security settings or don't.

It is not about the security settings of an email group you broke into. It is about your thinking you have a right to break in and to do what you choose with what you find and it's about your choice to use what you find to do harm. You went looking for something to use against me and found it and used it with zero compunction over the unethical nature of your actions and you're still defending those unethical actions.

All your yattering on about not seeking to do damage is insulting, nobody here is buying it.

I finished off your STD named WHIPPEDLASH! MOM you are free from that terrible disease.

I was about to say "last one who retorts loses" but I was too late.

If the defensive reaction is called a retort, is the first volley called... a tort? Hey, now I get that word! Who says you never learn anything useful on dogfoght forum!?

Manfred wrote: I was about to say "last one who retorts loses" but I was too late.

If the defensive reaction is called a retort, is the first volley called... a tort? Hey, now I get that word! Who says you never learn anything useful on dogfoght forum!?

Hey Manfred . I'm only being a smartass with this question... Here it is.
Is that the word tart? or is it tort? I don't have my glasses on.

I was not going to post on here. I think I will fade away from Dogfight again for awhile....

I think the rule is, "First one who torts off about someone else's torts and retorts when he wasn't the torter or retorter loses." There must be an acronym for that...