Declaring one is going to ignore the authority figure, of course, adds up to far more than simply talking back to the authority figure. And it has nothing to do with the Yahoo Guidelines per se; it has to do with the authority figures themselves. If they want to maintain their authority, they need to sanction those who openly defy it.
But you're well aware of this. Thanks for confirming my suspicions about your "dead pool" implication. Unfortunately you've screwed up again. I came "out of lurkerdom" on May 31, a week before Rick decided to appoint a moderator, a week before any of us knew he was even considering it. Doug is not now and never has been either my friend or my enemy. But what's fascinating about your absurd remark is that you can't seem to envision defending someone who isn't a friend who is being treated unfairly and dishonestly just because it's the right thing to do. There has to be an ulterior, self-interested motive as far as you're concerned. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <authfriend@...> wrote : Curtis deliberately misrepresents what I said in an effort to switch the context his way. Again, standard. My conclusion about why Turq got bounced was that he declared he was going to ignore anything Doug posted. Kind of like a football player announcing publicly that he was going to ignore anything the umpire said. How much longer do you think he'd stay in the game--or on the team, for that matter--after that? Just a *wee* bit different from "talking back" to the umpire. And Turq wasn't even addressing Doug when he said what he did. Me: It all adds up to talking back to the authority figure and this is not an actionable offense in the Yahoo guidelines. You are making Judy distinctions between things that do not matter. Judy: The implication of your "dead pool" remark was, of course, that I was sucking up to Doug to ensure I wouldn't get bounced, rather than just doing the right thing by defending him from the unfair and dishonest treatment he's been getting. Me: You are making up your "implication" so you can enjoy your favorite emotional outrage buzz Judy. That was neither intended nor implied in what I wrote. I hadn't even conspired that as an angle when I wrote that. I was stating the obvious and as usual you got bent about it. Your choice. I don't believe that you act in that calculated a way here, so from my POV I would not accuse you of this directly or in implication. But seeing how reactive you got makes me think that perhaps a bit of the ol' enemy of my enemy is my friend at work here that brought you out of lurkdom, which has been replayed so many times in your years of posing here I hope you make a comical attempt to deny it. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <authfriend@...> wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote : (snip) But your support for him has eliminated you from the FFL dead pool so in the end your choice my be the wise one here if you still care to post. I resent the implication. Standard Curtis. As it happens, I don't intend to stay around much longer. Me: Nothing was implied Judy, it was all stated clearly. Even by your own analysis that opposing Doug/Buck may lead to being banned. It was your conclusion about why he bounced Barry for talking back to him. Being offended by the most obvious comment was your MO here so this is standard Judy. Judy: The only reason I've stayed as long as I have is to try to keep you guys more honest than you would be otherwise. Me: Always nice to end with a note of condescension and self aggrandizement so we know it is really you.
