Odeon certainly clarified what is a bannable offence. It's great you said that. You are correct, black and white, and the line they make between them. It's how I roll, and can't see beyond it; not sure I would want to. Though realize I view myself by the same standards. As a teenager, I created piece of art for my mother; It's the only thing I've ever created that the perfectionist in me considered worth keeping. It's a self-portrait, the only one I've ever done; if you knew me better, you'd know why that's funny. It's interesting to look at it now because I was so young when creating it. I knew who I was then as concretely as I know now. It's extreme forces of black and white.
Even without Odeon clarifying, I had shown by the very things underpinning the rules that i had not erred. That the accusations that I had and that the expressed accusations that I was knowingly breaking them fell by the wayside. But then I did not wait for Odeon. I actively researched to see where my positions were in respect to the rules before he commented. I would have fallen on my sword had i have (which was kinda completely invalidating yet another accusation).
In all these things there is a provability. It did not require Odeon giving a nod one way or another to make an accurate judgement.
In the same way saying I exactly said that "Alfonso fucks dogs" is exactly provable as a credible and more importantly valid claim or it is exactly provable as an invalid claim.
With these things it is not rational or honest to hold onto these things as vaguely ambiguous. It is only one thing or another. Not subject to interpretation. I did not get lucky that on this time and in these particular instances the claims proved false but under different scrutiny or for different reasons they may have been valid. They simply failed because they were not credible, correct or honest representations, and could not stand up to investigation.
There is no blurring of the lines or grey areas in your accusations. Approximately 10 pages of denouncing your accusations to me and I believe invalidating them. They were never right or never kind of right or nearly right. They were wrong and did not withstand scrutiny.
When too it is proved what I did or did not say then dishonest quote-cropping tactics aside, saying "I know what you said" or building a line of discourse of the "ifs", "whats" or whatever based on a claim of something I did not say is Fox News dishonest.
So no your story, about two unknown members here is not relevant for this reason. It is having to say "Yes but IF we pretend that you actually did say that Alfonso fucks dogs then...." I am not willing to pretend and it would be not only dishonest to nod my head along with this story, looking to draw paralleled that don't exist, but it would be absurd.
I don't know that the above quote actually addresses anything - you are a perfectionist and like black and white?
Again the accusations were provable and always were they proved in my favour not yours. They all did. Every single one. So being that you were making them against me (yes you say they were not specific....look at what you said then reassess) and so vehemently, I am going to ask again, why?
