Moderator 2 needs Robs moderation.

[Patricia]

In what way am I "beating a dead horse?" I was curious about Kane's post, which I never read. I was curious about the tensions between those who supported Moderator 2's decisions and those who did not. I was curious about why Moderator's, since they are handing out judgement and "punishment" (if what they are doing can be considered censorship) are not required to use their true names. I was curious as to what some consider the difference between censorship and moderation.

In answer to my curiosity, Moderator 2 and Mr. O. not only brought up a past posting of mine (something I did not do) but then Mr. O and the Moderator continued to state "facts" regarding me and their behavior regarding me that were/are not true. Was I supposed to let that stand?

In addition, every time I attempted to return the commenting to Kane's post, Moderator 2, and a discussion regarding censorship and moderation, my requests were passed over.

As far as a nom de plume I feel, personally, that as long as you are not a person in "authority," on this forum, you should be able to use whatever name you want (within reason, of course). It appears that most of you have been on this forum for some time- so like I said, you actually know one another (whatever name you choose to use) and know what to expect from one another.

As for my status being hidden. Ask me what you want to know. I am an open book.

First, Patricia, you beat a dead horse by continually posting over and over and over despite the answer to your question(s) being answered over and over and over. Both in this thread as well as your HPP threads.

Secondly, you refuse to admit that you are wrong. You posted a document in your HPP thread that contained your personal information. Obie told you that. You retorted in agreement on your thread even though your retort stated you did not care. M2 deleted that document. And now in this thread, regardless of what has been presented to you as fact, reality and truth, it is deny, deny, deny, putting words in your mouth, deny, deny, deny. M2 quoted you and your reply was “don’t put words in my mouth.” M2 posted a screen shot of the same words. Just deny, deny, deny.

Additionally, you display an alarming inability to grasp what it is you have said and done prior on dozens of your posts.

The “You are right, everyone else is wrong” mantra, repeated over and over and over that you exhibit is astounding.

As for the Kane debate, M2 answered your question. (as well as Punatang’s) and I quote below:

M2: “The thread has been deleted.  It’s over.  The ref called offsides.  There’s no instant replay.”

But, no, more deny, deny, deny – or – as I stated, “beat the dead horse”

As for the “hidden” status, I only desire to know why? What value does it bring you? Other than it being a bit hypocritical – have at it as far as I am concerned. I even wonder why it’s an option here on PunaWeb.

At any event, want to prove my beat the dead horse analogy totally wrong? Don’t reply to me – or this thread.

But I doubt that will happen.

Oh, one more thing. I am a (retired) lawyer – admittedly my specialty is copyright law. (I’ve got thousands of interesting stories on how that industry works!) Other than in my junior day’s decades ago, I have not tried a case in court for a long long time.

But after reading your HPP threads and now this, I’d guarantee that any defense trial lawyer worth his/her salt would be like Arnold Horshack jumping up and down - arm flailing in the air - grunting ooh ooh ohh to have you on the stand during any form of direct/cross examination. I’m pretty sure their closing line after they have finished with your testimony would be “your honor, we move for immediate dismissal!”

You should read this article from Psychology Today:

Why Some People Will Never Admit They're Wrong

You're right about one thing, of course I will respond to your extremely uninformed comment. 

You do not know me and seem to be basing what you think you "know" on a few months worth of comments/posts and the opinion of a few, obviously biased, individuals. So, let me clear up a few misconceptions you seem to have. Firstly, I am not impressed with lawyers, on any level. I have known many, worked with many, even have lawyers in the family. We also have medical professionals in the family. And guess what? Both "groups" make mistakes. 

I never stated that I agreed with Moderator 2- at any time- what I stated was in actuality pretty flip (sarcasm). Because it was useless to argue the point (they do teach that in laws school- yes?) Moderatorc2 had already removed the image. So, I just REPOSTED the SAME image thar Moderator 2 had deleted (check it out and please tell me where you see my info). 

There is nothing wrong with making mistakes and I have absolutely no problem admitting to them when I do. But it is Obie and Moderator 2, who have made the mistakes, in this instance. 

As for your reference to Psychology Today, a low dig. Still, it is a tactic lawyers use, isn't it? (Especially when they feel pushed to the wall.) Try to intimidate and fluster the witness, portray them as inept, not a person to be believed. BTW we have psychiatrists/psychologists in our family too. 

Lastly, I have a post strictly for HPP "drama." So, how about if you, Obie, and Moderator 2 leave it there? I know Rob would prefer it.