-.-...3

[FG4]

The topic is seeing Gertjaars. Period.

Why did you reverse this? I'm pretty sure it was discussing him as a person, not yelling at someone for saying something you don't approve of?

.....

My PM sent to Ben in response to that:
"In my view the topic was the picture in the first post. The title was Gertjaars and maybe the tipic could have been seeing him, calling him a no life, not noticing him for 10 minutes, etc. The topic was not clear and still isn't clear. My post is, however, on subject with a couple of those topics just listed."

Chase, it's referring to the sighting rather than the conversation.

reinstated.

Then I guess the other 6+ posts not directly talking about the pictures are off topic too? NO.


This is a bullshit infraction and I will not accept it.

 

[T R 1 B A L]

My PM sent to Ben in response to that:
"In my view the topic was the picture in the first post. The title was Gertjaars and maybe the tipic could have been seeing him, calling him a no life, not noticing him for 10 minutes, etc. The topic was not clear and still isn't clear. My post is, however, on subject with a couple of those topics just listed."

The part which reads "Thought it was pretty cool and funny. Didn't notice him till like 10 minutes after he showed up.." Infers that "him showing up" is the importance in the picture.

Then I guess the other 6+ posts not directly talking about the pictures are off topic too? NO.

Give my your definite proof that they haven't been infracted for their posts.

This is a bullshit infraction and I will not accept it.

I'm afraid it's not a case of you accepting it or not.

 

[FG4]

The part which reads "Thought it was pretty cool and funny. Didn't notice him till like 10 minutes after he showed up.." Infers that "him showing up" is the importance in the picture.

Maybe you inferred it being that way, but not me. That was below the picture. Therefore, to me the picture + what was in the picture is more likely to be the topic than anything else.

Give my your definite proof that they haven't been infracted for their posts.

I never said anything about the posts being infracted. I said they are not spam or off-topic and neither were my posts.

I'm afraid it's not a case of you accepting it or not.

I am not saying that is the case. I am saying the infraction is bullshit and I will not accept it. I have already been wrongly infracted once this month, and I won't tolerate it again.


edit: btw thanks for leaving this thead open.

 

[T R 1 B A L]

Maybe you inferred it being that way, but not me. That was below the picture. Therefore, to me the picture + what was in the picture is more likely to be the topic than anything else.



I never said anything about the posts being infracted. I said they are not spam or off-topic and neither were my posts.



I am not saying that is the case. I am saying the infraction is bullshit and I will not accept it. I have already been wrongly infracted once this month, and I won't tolerate it again.


edit: btw thanks for leaving this thead open.

It's not as much your subject as the attitude you said it in, which makes it sound particularly vulgar and accusative, when the OP is looking for a small laugh.

And no point, i'll reverse it, but try to stay on a calm attitude in the future.

 

[FG4]

It's not as much your subject as the attitude you said it in, which makes it sound particularly vulgar and accusative, when the OP is looking for a small laugh.

And no point, i'll reverse it, but try to stay on a calm attitude in the future.

To save from more arguing, I'll just take your advice and say thanks.

Thanks.