Quote from: inblue on April 17, 2019, 09:11:55 AM

Quote from: bible_pay on April 16, 2019, 07:55:48 PM

The same happened a long time ago when inblue posted something that I was hiding proposals. We all know now that this rule only affected pool.biblepay.org's display characteristics for a replacement poll. It was never for the core wallet (core wallet has never pulled any proposals from an API ever). And it was a feature for a replacement proposal so that vendors can ask a proposal be reentered when we see we are going overbudget at the end of the month. Then I saw some kind of "proof" in the post with txid's showing that I hid the first proposal. Yes, it was proof that two proposals were in the system and both were able to be seen in the core wallet. The latter one was valid for voting.

So as an example, if inblue said "Hey Rob, could you please explain why I see this first instance and this instance"? I would have never deleted the post. It was written like "you bast***, you have now been Proven to be a Liar!". Btw, I have already forgiven him for that as can be seen in the QT thread.

Ah, here we go again... You really shouldn't have used this as an example, now bringing attention to that event again. This sentence of yours is all what is needed to be done with this conflict:

Quote from: bible_pay on April 16, 2019, 07:55:48 PM

It was a feature for a replacement proposal so that vendors can ask a proposal be reentered when we see we are going overbudget at the end of the month.

So clearly you didn't use the feature as intended, since we were not going overbudget that month. Even if you argue that we were going overbudget, the proposal was immediately reentered for the same month, instead of waiting for the next one. But even if you argue that it could now fit the budget after a tiny BBP reduction, the proposal was evidently rejected and could not win, so it shouldn't be reentered. You misused that feature because the proposal received a lot of negative votes, but you really wanted it to succeed because you already paid from your pocket. It's very simple.

And saying you "forgave" me for my undeniable blockchain proof, what a joke, you are a master of manipulation, because the situation is the other way around - it's only others who can forgive you for your misconduct. You know, you would look like a bigger man if you admitted your mistake and moved on, instead of raging.

It seems like Rob sees himself as a saint with no evil coming from his sinful human mind. Ultimately, this is the frustration that all will face. If Rob is never wrong, then it automatically means that you are always wrong. That's the definition of a toxic relationship.