Please detail how the post is a derailment from the intial post? we honestly do not at all get your meaning.
Insults, ad-hominem attacks. Let's do away with that, first and foremost.You need to understand we believe that not all readers view all threads. A reader should be furnished with the full and optimal information in order to reach the optimal level of understanding and form the optimal opinion?
True. But a reader doesn't need to see the same kind of reply four times.Each thread needs to stand on its own.
And each thread is catered to a specific discussion, which does not need to be bloated with excess information. A simple link suffices, if you have to.To even suggest this is related to trolling seems very strange.
I'm not saying you're trolling. I'm merely suggesting that your behavior is what causes others to dismiss you as a troll.Point 1 = true but after a period of abuse at the hands of proven scammers it has a cathartic property that is hard to resist. Some times although unpleasant calling a proven scammer a scamming piece of shit is so much more satisfying. Agreed though it reduces a persons credibility even if it should not. Although once we enjoyed a thread you made in the political section where you were advocating not mincing words or ....hhhmm it escapes me now but it was that using tactful non aggressive sounding words to deliver aggressive messages was kind of a form of dishonesty. Excuse me if I just butchered what you were saying there previously.
Point 2 = only true if you can be sure they read all 4 threads though so kind of untrue
Point 3 = we do our best not to bloat but our style of writing is
not concise ??Point 4 = That is their excuse to avoid tackling the content of the post. We ask them to present the example of trolling no person has ever presented anything. Demonstrating they KNOW it is not trolling.
So you agree it is not derailing? or you still say the permitted flow should follow the last post not the initial post? we feel permitted flow should have a strict guide so there can be a sensible format that ensure optimal information is presented to the reader. We have come to agree it should be related at least in part to the initial post even if you are responding to a direct false accusation.
Anyway to bring this post on topic and relevant we believe our post is in the readers best interest because it furnished the reader with additional information regarding laudas previous lying and scamming that on its own should be enough to ensure he is blacklisted. No person that has been proven a scammer has a place on any trust system. That is without all the other dirt one can observe and is verifiable.
The blacklisting should have been the simple way forward. No nice gradual exclusion next month. Just boom -- scammer out now. Scammer saying to theymos fuck off I make my own rules here --- of course out now. That is our opinion.