NationStates Jolt Archive

The_pantsless_hero having made quite a direct attempt at making it quite clear he has placed me on ignore, has still made a repeated effort at either commenting about things I wrote, or taking things I said that were quoted by other people, and directing comments at me.

To my understanding, this is in violation of forum rules, and if an individual is placed "on ignore" the ignoring poster is not supposed to respond to, argue with, or comment upon, the ignored poster. He was already warned about this in the past (I will try and find the thread) and continues to do so here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=13469448#post13469448) and here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=13469527#post13469527)

Mods only please.

Neo Art, I'm at work right now. While you're waiting for a mod with time to check it, two points: 1, in the thread a couple of weeks ago in which I queried whether he had put you on Ignore, he never actually confirmed that he had, though I had interpreted his comments that way. 2. He may have changed his mind since then and not announced it.

Neo Art, I'm at work right now. While you're waiting for a mod with time to check it, two points: 1, in the thread a couple of weeks ago in which I queried whether he had put you on Ignore, he never actually confirmed that he had, though I had interpreted his comments that way. 2. He may have changed his mind since then and not announced it.

He had stated at some point that he had placed me on ignore ealrier, and I agree, I think interpreting the comments he made at that time in that way is a fair interpretation.

As per your second comment, you're quite right it is possible. However, as you note, he certainly hasn't said otherwise, and if you note the second link he quotes me word for word, but his quote box does not contain the usual italic text, name of the quoted poster, or link to the quoted post, which is typical if he had just hit "quote". Like this:

Neo Art

Rather his quote of mine appears

like this

To which I interpret, he didn't simply use the "quote" function on my post becuase he couldn't, since he couldn't see the post to quote it. Rather he quoted me by taking the words from an earlier post of mine that another poster quoted, and simplye copy/pasted.

In other words, had he actually taken me off ignore, he could have just quoted me, instead of copying my words when another poster quoted me.

Okay, I'm now home from work. And damn'd be he who first cries, 'Hold! Enough!'

First, let me applaud the bit about the quotes. It's a most ingenious piece of what I believe, on the basis of my five intensive minutes of legal education via Wikipedia, is called circumstantial evidence.

I'd find it even more convincing were I not the sort of klutz who frequently forgets to hit "Quote" and then is reduced to copy-and-paste in mid-reply.

Next, the question of whether The_pantless_hero has put you on Ignore. I've been through his last 100 posts and haven't found anything relevant to that. I also haven't found any recent posts in which he goes head-to-head with you. So I'd say that, whether he has or hasn't, something is having a good effect.

Finally, the posts you link. The one where TPH quotes you, but not by name, is simply argument. The one in which he comments on your legalistic interpretation of "entrapment" is ungracious, in that it harks back to old scores, but not unduly so.

In short, however it's come about, the two of you seem to have reached a modus vivendi. I'd advise against upsetting it, at this stage, by insisting on the letter of the law.

Which may seem like doing nothing; but, if you can both operate like adults who can at least put up with each other, there'll be nothing to do.

A consummation devoutly to be wished.

Okay, I'm now home from work. And damn'd be he who first cries, 'Hold! Enough!'

First, let me applaud the bit about the quotes. It's a most ingenious piece of what I believe, on the basis of my five intensive minutes of legal education via Wikipedia, is called circumstantial evidence.

I'd find it even more convincing were I not the sort of klutz who frequently forgets to hit "Quote" and then is reduced to copy-and-paste in mid-reply.

Next, the question of whether The_pantless_hero has put you on Ignore. I've been through his last 100 posts and haven't found anything relevant to that. I also haven't found any recent posts in which he goes head-to-head with you. So I'd say that, whether he has or hasn't, something is having a good effect.

Finally, the posts you link. The one where TPH quotes you, but not by name, is simply argument. The one in which he comments on your legalistic interpretation of "entrapment" is ungracious, in that it harks back to old scores, but not unduly so.

In short, however it's come about, the two of you seem to have reached a modus vivendi. I'd advise against upsetting it, at this stage, by insisting on the letter of the law.

Which may seem like doing nothing; but, if you can both operate like adults who can at least put up with each other, there'll be nothing to do.

A consummation devoutly to be wished.

Both Macbeth and Hamlet in the same post... I knew I liked you for a reason!

Awww. *blush*

My head being full of other people's words, I reply with the voice of d'Artagnan: "I have not the uniform, but I have the spirit. My heart is that of a Musketeer."

Except, of course, for "Musketeer" read "English teacher".:D

Awww. *blush*

My head being full of other people's words, I reply with the voice of d'Artagnan: "I have not the uniform, but I have the spirit. My heart is that of a Musketeer."

Except, of course, for "Musketeer" read "English teacher".:D

Who? Is that french for the guy who sells body spray (this stretches references to the absolute limits of silly, so I'll be offended if anyone understands it)?

Who? Is that french for the guy who sells body spray (this stretches references to the absolute limits of silly, so I'll be offended if anyone understands it)?

Please don't be offended, but I have a hunch that one might have been Aramis. D'Artagnan never got the good merchandise deals.

Please don't be offended, but I have a hunch that one might have been Aramis. D'Artagnan never got the good merchandise deals.

/me facepalms

Of course! My dad loves that cologne.

/me facepalms

Of course! My dad loves that cologne.

And now I'm offended.

http://www.shof.msrcsites.co.uk/tent.jpg
I just want to play along...I'll go now...

And now I'm offended.

Then name your seconds, monsieur. Behind the convent of the Carmelites at 1pm, d'accord?

(Closed so that the Cardinal's Guards don't get wind of the rencontre.)