Most of what you shared or opined has nothing to do with whether or not she's an unreliable seller or modder.
Most of what
YOU shared or opined has
NOTHING to do with whether or not she's an unreliable seller or modder. Another hypocrisy, inconsistency and selectivity count on your part. This should've been in your first and ONLY post (
you have many) if it was a mere matter of fidelity to the topic (
that's IF your premise that my posts were so so far off is valid) AND there should be cases elsewhere in this forum where threads have wandered off and you, the heckling hero, tried to steer them back. I've been here a year and I can't recall in your case. I can't recall *many* things in your case. So, to be clear:
* I didn't come into this thread to talk about Michael Jackson.
* I didn't come into this thread to talk about Barack Hussein Obama.
* I didn't come into this thread to talk about Fox News, MSLSD, CNN, etc.
* I didn't come into this thread to talk about Guns or whatever else.
* Neither did I come into this thread initially to talk about spenoza the hypocritical, heckling hack...
No no no, *I* came into this thread to talk about Rachel as well because it turns out that it is the *SAME* Rachel that I worked with on Ys fan translation projects years ago! YOU, on the other hand, came into this thread mainly to talk about NightWolve in order to assault my character by calling me a creepy, misogynistic, sexist pig along with going as far as accusing me of being responsible for potentially chasing female members away, all for merely expressing trivial sexual interest in one individual who I happened to know and was the same Rachel that the topic revolved around... Since you don't know Rachel, since you've never dealt with her or worked with her, you're far more out of place in here than I am if we're gonna take your point seriously.
To more prove the hypocrisy/inconsistency counts, if we go back in time a little bit, we can demonstrate that in raising this demand for rigid adherence to the topic exactly, you flip-flopped selectively in my case here. Quote:
I don't think mods are necessary to keep threads on topic. I think there needs to be a natural conversation flow. Enforcing rigid discussion can be really restricting and is no fun.
My my... Quite the difference now in 2013, eh, you condescending cunt? I like the "no fun" part... Heh. Funny, we USED to partly agree on something... I kind of like what Zeta said as well:
If the mods get trigger happy, I'll simply leave. I'm only interested in natural, organic conversation. This isn't 5th grade, or corporate radio, or some such shit. If I have to think about the idea of some prick deleting my post, and structure everything I say to someone else's idea of "on topic", I'll just waste my time elsewhere.
Of course, you have now flip-flopped back to your 2008 position for everybody else, obviously. Professor, Zeta, etc. Don't feel like lecturing them too? No more monitoring of this thread for people not talking about Rachel AND her modding services... Curious. So in just talking about Rachel and another type of experience with her, why, that'd be TOTALLY off topic and a technical forum rule violation... Everybody get his point? For *me*, things have gotta be EXACTLY on topic since he represents the thread creator's assumed default wishes as well as these imaginary angry girl gamers... If you've had another kind of experience with the same Rachel, you shouldn't have mentioned it in this topic! That would NOT qualify under a "natural conversation flow..." So by the look of things, he selectively and temporarily decried lack of rigid discussion flow on the account of little ole me for a few posts, but then seemingly went back to his 2008 position because, well, he's been MIA since and I don't think he has a history of having done this elsewhere either... Gotta love it!
Ultimately, what this shows is that when your central arguments fall apart which are built on a house of cards (in your case), you move the goal post around to get some technical heckling points across that are, well, worthless, hypocritical, contradictory, etc. at the end of the day. This is what happens when you don't stay honest to yourself and the adversary, just deal with what you oppose as you did in your early posts (validity aside!), posts which show what an insulated, 1950's prudish throwback that you really are despite your later attempt to deny the charge by balancing your reasons for this protest around others such as this off-topic point here. A point that, yeah, fails miserably, both because of your past positions and inconsistency as far as no other activism to speak of in steering any other thread back on topic around here...
The final reason why this heckling point of yours is an epic fail is because, hey, I could've just as easily made another thread myself, added a link to THIS one, and titled it say, "
Hey, that terrible seller/modder Rachel/retro-accessories recently mentioned is my Ys IV translator!!" But then you'd know what that would mean, right, cunt? My post about the Ys IV history between Rachel and I, with her eBayID photo, the horrifying expression of sexual interest that you so oppose (
you know, since it's 2013 and not 1950, which occurs everyday in many other forums, daily pop culture, music, entertainment, etc.), ALL that, would be on the FIRST post of the first page, right at the top and I would wager that'd bother you A LOT more than my posts being on the 2nd page of this here existing thread... Just a hunch, I *could* be wrong, but just a hunch. You see my point, right sir? Your desire to censor it here would give it more visibility as its own thread... What good would your hypocritical point have been then? (An annoying, heckling point, right back at ya obviously.) Of course, yeah, we know, you want it just censored period...
I understood you loud and clear on that from the first post.
(Don't worry, more posts to come for the rest...)
