Now I know you have issue with me glossing over things BUT....
Gestalt - 3:02am = 2nd ever post - Ambiguous humour at the expense of Zach in Zach's intro thread.
Want to quote the post here and see how "ambiguous it is and how a reasonable, rational, unbiased person NOT looking for a troll in his territory might view it?
It was your timing, Sir_Les not the words which were as deliberately ambiguous as you were careful not to greet Zach - though the idea of Sophist bathing Zach like a dog didn't seem appropriate in his welcome thread by somebody who had just admitted to me in PM that he didn't like Zach - why the heck was your next post in Zach's welcome thread then! I've seen this sort of thing often before. In my PM I made it clear that you should not be giving Zach exclusive attention, I did not criticise the words you used at all in my PM... but the timing and that you seemed fixated on Zach.
I'm not glossing over things in that map of events... the timing is the point.
I printed this here in the hope that it will help you to understand my perspective in the matter. You might think my understanding faulty, but perhaps you can get an inkling of how it all looked to me, and still looks.
I already explained that to you but....
You asked me to go and do an intro. I did not know what to say and I normally don't do intros. I did not here or at well any of the forums I've been at. I did here after a week or two and someone else (Renaeden?) set it up for me. So how to find out what to say? Look what other's have put. Who is the last intro post.....C'mon Nocti you know who the last member before me was who wanted to introduce themselves. Starts with "The" and ends with "Zach". Was his intro helpful? No I think off memory he said fuck all, which was no help. Now YOU think I ought to have welcomed to Gestalt a guy who I don't like. That is a little bit hypocritical and dishonest and I think stupid. I am not like that.
Though there was a little bit of gentle banter there that I did participate in. The punchline was very silly and though I had not read the post explaining The Zach's dealings with Sophist, I saw that he had also causes some angst there too . I thought it was a way of lightening the mood. See she was asking whether he was pissed off with her, he said something like "No but my dogs are pissed off at me because I bathed them". She asked whether she would be OK...what was my ambiguous words here Nocti....go on what was the nasty context? I think I said something ambiguous and nasty and poor timed like.............""Unless you give him a bath". That was about it wasn't it Nocti. Not word for word but that was it.
So ought I have been pissed off with your response? Yup! Ought I have told you where to go? Yup. In the context of what I had done was it over-reaction and were you (and have you been) looking for a projecting, bullying, troll to hang your misdirected assumptions on? Yup. Did you get it right? Nope. Were you looking really hard for me to be "that guy"? Yup. Why? Because you were biased, over-reactive and for"all the best intentions, saw only what you wanted to see and acted untoward on the basis of that.
Your reaction had a flow on effect. You think I had a problem with you? Yup. You were obviously not wanting to discuss it and said "You got a problem about what I said go see Sophist. I did. You have some issue with it? Wonder why that is?
I was starting trouble.? No mate. You were instrumental in each step of the proceedings. Oh the Retrospective decisions. I did not (of course) know it was retrospective or whether or how you voted but I would always react to the third such judgement on the same iissue the way I did. Why? I did not like the way you were conducting yourself. I had no problem with anyone else so........................(a) I dislike you, (b) I have no "particular" issue with the other Admins, (c) I am pissed off about being group judged over the post after being told twice it was not on (I thought it a bit much) (d) I see the group consult over problems is how things are decided on, (e) I have a problem - What am I going to do?
It was not whining and I was not expecting anything less than the decision that was handed down. I was always going to say that it was a stupid position.
YOU volunteered that if you were found to be biased and untoward that you would quit. I never for a moment thought it was likely the decision would come back saying you were. (Between you and me though mate. If they had have said that - I would have asked you to fulfill your promise. Do you know why? Because amoung other things, I am petty like that
)
Hope this "fills in a few more blanks".