Don't I have the right to open a thread once or twice in 5 years in this part of the forum? If someone in this case indirectly says that my posts are just filling in the signature quota it means nothing more than that I am a signature spammer - but as some others have noticed I have only responded to his false statements, so now I have become a spammer, and a liar who make fake claims.
I was responding to actmyname's comment on how you handled the situation in the other thread.
I was wondering when you would pull this case out, and it's entirely justified that this feedback should have been neutral - but I still refuse to change it even though they kicked me out of DT for it and none of the DT members will give me positive feedback because I am trust abuser. But how many such trust abuse is given by DT members in past and even today, and I do not see anyone kicked out from DT for doing that...
That's some seriously flawed logic. Two wrongs don't make it right.
In fact, I'm glad I found out what some members think of me, and that you completely agree with dkbit98 that I am posting in this forum only to fill my signature quota+that I am making fake claims+that I am just a kid.
There is a huge difference between saying that you should let it go and completely agreeing with your opponent. You need to allow the possibility that more than one side in a dispute might be acting irrationally.
I know that it is not ethical to forbid someone to defend themselves, but it is also more than clear what both users meant in their statements - I honestly do not want to communicate with such people at all now or in the future.
That's what ignore is for. But if you open a thread complaining about someone and don't want to allow the other side to state their case - that's quite pointless.