I make my cases on the forum not behind the scenes sending reports, emails to the mods or other posters with the same goal.
What we have since you can't supply the report is exactly as I presented a unsupported claim by you. Which means you used the terms after they were used by Jonny. As I presented probably as a means to tie Jonny's comments to the POSTER. Your attempt to deflect and spin away from this by mentioning a report you can't produce makes it clear.
Yes I knew who Deep 1 was referring but I wanted to make sure you read his entire post where he states Archaic did nothing wrong Here it is again.....
"I'm not posting as a Mod but as a regular poster.
> The image is disturbing, no doubt, but Archaic has
> not violated any policies in posting it. Sometimes
> people need to see a picture that is worth a
> thousand words. The active Mods have done the
> right thing by providing a warning for graphic
> content instead of the picture being automatically
You read this post and then completely ignored its contents. Why did you ignore its content and then post this?......"This is yet again another topic about a terrorist attack from a poster with a history of conflating and soapboxing on the issue of Radical Muslim terrorist attacks, immigration and the practice of Islam."
You point out in this statement the poster has a history of soap-boxing. Then point out this soap-boxing concerns the issue of "Radical Muslim terrorist attacks, immigration and the practice of Islam."
This is a clear attempt to tie the poster's topic to these issues. As I've established you used the term soap-boxing in this statement incorrectly. Deep even stated the poster DID NOT violate any policies. But you obviously ignored this comment.
You even provided the mod warning to....."Please be reasonable, and don't use tragedies as an opportunity to soapbox."
Obviously an attempt to present the picture as a usage of tragedy.
Then you close with this statement....."So given the history and the present conduct why the surprise that this is not the appropriate messenger for this topic."
Here your trying to tie the present conduct which is the thread to his history. What is his history ES? You state its soap-boxing and conflating. Pretty clear what this post is all about. You wanted some action taken against the POSTER.
So yeah, sorry, I don't buy into your denials,spin and such. All the facts go against this claim.
Also what is this about ES?....."Hope Pete appreciates the sacrifice you have made." Is this a threat ES?
Its hell isn't it when the truth comes out?