Wonder how he feels about Flat Earth?

[dudeman17 341]

On 2/5/2025 at 12:03 AM, jakee said:

blah blah blah

That's pretty convoluted, son. Your goalposts move faster than the ones on the undersea football field. At this point it is apparent that you are too intentionally dishonest to converse with. Think what you wanna think because you're gonna anyhow.

Edited February 7 by dudeman17

[dudeman17 341]

Whoever took it upon themselves to anonymously edit my above post can take a flying flip at a rolling donut. Seriously, take your censorship and blow it out your hind side. Whoever put this site back up made no announcements, and the other used-to-be moderators don't even seem aware that it is here. So just because they did not change the settings does not give you the right to slanderously manipulate my post to your bias. What I said is not a personal attack, but an objective observation and my opinion. If yours differs, say so in your own words under your own name. Do not alter my post again.

Edited February 7 by dudeman17

[wmw999 2,475]

I’m a moderator, and no I wasn’t told about the site changing to the new name. It was a surprise, but I still have the green border. So I’ll say that personal attacks are still not allowed. I don’t see any evidence of your post being edited by anyone besides you. I sure didn’t edit it. Billvon isn't here yet, so it wasn’t him. And Meso, who is the administrator, hasn’t logged on since Sunday. 
So no calling people stupid. You can call their ideas stupid, but not the people. That’s still listed in the forum rules. Next one gets a warning.

Meso, feel free to tell me I’m wrong.

Wendy P. 

[billvon 3,028]

56 minutes ago, dudeman17 said:

Whoever took it upon themselves to anonymously edit my above post can take a flying flip at a rolling donut. 

That was me, with a kindler/gentler way of removing PA's.  Figured it was better than the warning/ban system, but if you prefer the old way, OK.

[dudeman17 341]

39 minutes ago, billvon said:

That was me, with a kindler/gentler way of removing PA's.

Well if you're still the moderators then so be it. But like I said, that's an objective opinion, not an attack. And he's grown boy, I'm sure he can handle it and will have an equally snarky reply.

If you disagree, then give me a warning or whatever you do. But to anonymously change a line in my post without noting it, which changes the meaning and tenor of my post and leaves it as though that is what I said, that is underhanded and you know it.

Rest assured, I am done with this topic and this thread.

(previous post edited)

There, better? And if you want to delete these last four posts (after #26), that's fine with me.

Edited February 7 by dudeman17

[jakee 1,528]

On 2/1/2025 at 12:55 AM, dudeman17 said:

The original post was worded as though this guy is some nut job coming up with this himself.

...

This led me to conclude that the original post was misleading, so I asked about it. That's it.

“I think there’s a cover-up... they won’t release full reports. Everything’s covered up,”

It's pretty obvious why you're accusing everyone else of being dishonest (including Bigun who also disgrees with you for the exact same reason as me), it's because you just don't want to admit that you flew off the handle without properly reading the article. The guy is very specifically telling you that he is saying he believes things that the military are not telling him about. This is in addition to the fact that his claim that he was told one specific thing in secret behind closed doors by an Admiral is not actually evidence that he did not make it all up.

I don't know why you're so determined to keep digging instead of admit you were too lazy to read the source.

[jakee 1,528]

3 hours ago, dudeman17 said:

Do not alter my post again.

What are you gonna do, send the aliens after after them?

[normiss 814]

8 hours ago, jakee said:

What are you gonna do, send the aliens after after them?

Well they do fly pretty damn fast underwater. Or so we're told ....

[billvon 3,028]

10 hours ago, dudeman17 said:

But like I said, that's an objective opinion, not an attack.

From the Read This First post:

It is important to realize that a personal attack is any attack (slurs, insults, denigrations, implications about their mothers, etc) or threat against another poster. Any such attack is not permitted here. This is true even if you are absolutely, 100% sure that the poster is stupid, or ignorant, or childish, or an ass. It doesn't matter if you think it is true or not, or even if you can prove they are an ass. You can't post such messages here. If you feel it is important to post such things, unmoderated forums like rec.skydiving do not have any such restrictions. 

Clever insults that attempt to get around the above (i.e. "I like rabbits" "anyone who likes rabbits and posts here is an idiot") will result in the same sort of bans/locks/thread deletions that a personal attack will. 

Quote

If you disagree, then give me a warning or whatever you do. But to anonymously change a line in my post without noting it, which changes the meaning and tenor of my post and leaves it as though that is what I said, that is underhanded and you know it.

There was a note that appeared under the post after the edit both stating why it was edited and who edited it.

That being said, the "edit instead of warn/ban" was an experiment intended to allow people to continue posting during the last days of the old DZ.com.  That's not an issue here, so I'll go back to the old system.

[dudeman17 341]

I know this is old, but I've been otherwise occupied for a while. And I could not care less about the original topic.

But I had to laugh - In keeping with the thread theme of misleading and deceptive...

On 2/7/2025 at 8:18 AM, billvon said:

There was a note that appeared under the post after the edit both stating why it was edited and who edited it.

 

No, no there was not. But don't take my word for it...

 

On 2/6/2025 at 9:24 PM, wmw999 said:

I don’t see any evidence of your post being edited by anyone besides you. I sure didn’t edit it. Billvon isn't here yet, so it wasn’t him.

 

If there was a problematic statement in my post, I believe the normal action would have been for you to remove that part, and make just such a notation - "Edited by [moderator] for [reasons]", which would still be there. But that is not what you did. At a time when you had yet to show yourself, when it was unclear if you were even aware that the site was back, you anonymously entered my post and changed a sentence, the effect of which was to essentially make the same personal attack against me, and word it in such a way and leave it so as to appear that I had written it that way myself. That was underhanded. And when I called you on that, you lied about it and issued me a warning, whatever that means.

That's some honest and ethical moderating, mr.von. Who moderates you?

[jakee 1,528]

Or maybe there's a single line of code that wasn't working quite the same as it used to in this resurrected site and Bill didn't realise that at the time? 

Either that or the conspiracy against you goes just as deep as the one against your friend with the supersonic underwater alien bases.

[billvon 3,028]

10 hours ago, dudeman17 said:

IIf there was a problematic statement in my post, I believe the normal action would have been for you to remove that part, and make just such a notation - "Edited by [moderator] for [reasons]", which would still be there. But that is not what you did.

That is indeed what I did.  In fact, the system does that for you; you enter the reason and it adds the note.

I don't care much whether you believe me or not.

[dudeman17 341]

10 hours ago, billvon said:

That is indeed what I did.

 

No it is not.

If you had made a notation it would still be there and clearly it is not. And it never was, as evidenced by Wendy's observation. And you did not just edit out the problematic statement. You changed the statement and worded it and left it as I described. That's not what I 'believe', that is objective fact. And here you are lying about it again. If your credibility means nothing to you, I guess that's good to know. Thank you for sharing.

[billvon 3,028]

1 hour ago, dudeman17 said:

If your credibility means nothing to you, I guess that's good to know. Thank you for sharing.

And if you had any integrity, you would refuse to post on a forum where an evil dishonest mod has it in for you.

But if you have none, and you just want to bitch so you can play the victim - bitch away.

[jakee 1,528]

3 hours ago, dudeman17 said:

 

No it is not.

If you had made a notation it would still be there and clearly it is not. And it never was, as evidenced by Wendy's observation. And you did not just edit out the problematic statement. You changed the statement and worded it and left it as I described. That's not what I 'believe', that is objective fact. And here you are lying about it again. If your credibility means nothing to you, I guess that's good to know. Thank you for sharing.

Ironic that this thread started with you being incredibly angry that other people didn’t automatically believe every single word of what Burchett said happened behind closed doors. Now you’re incredibly angry because you refuse to believe any of what Bill said happened behind closed doors 

[normiss 814]

7 hours ago, jakee said:

Ironic that this thread started with you being incredibly angry that other people didn’t automatically believe every single word of what Burchett said happened behind closed doors. Now you’re incredibly angry because you refuse to believe any of what Bill said happened behind closed doors 

In summary, he's angry.

This is the Find Out stage.

Tariffs and prayers!

[BIGUN 1,338]

13 hours ago, dudeman17 said:

No it is not.

In post #30 - you said you were done with this thread. Here we are 11 posts later and . . . just be done with it.  

[JoeWeber 2,760]

29 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

In post #30 - you said you were done with this thread. Here we are 11 posts later and . . . just be done with it.  

Until we get Brent back he's the best we can do. Be patient.

[dudeman17 341]

Oh geez. pa deleted I'd hate to guess whether your eyes are red or brown. I am not 'incredibly angry' about anything. Nothing on this site is important enough to me to piss me off. It's more like opening the newspaper to the comics page. I am somewhat fascinated by the insistent dishonesty among many people these days, and it's sometimes amusing to give them guff about it and watch them double down and triple down on their lies. It's also amusing on a skydive forum site how many people have far more posts than jumps.

One of you knows what you did. The other, well sadly it seems you actually believe your own balderdash. Oh well, carry on.

 

Edited Wednesday at 11:37 AM by wmw999

[jakee 1,528]

6 hours ago, dudeman17 said:

I am somewhat fascinated by the insistent dishonesty among many people these days,

I certainly agree it is fascinating… so why are you still doing it? You know for an absolute fact that the source articles do not back up your position, so why do you keep insisting that it’s dishonest for people to disagree with you? Why are you so vehemently opposed to the idea that someone else can possess a different opinion to you about what may or may not have happened inside a secret meeting?

[billvon 3,028]

I guess we have our answer.