A question for a certain Frenchfryenjoyer
A question for a certain Frenchfryenjoyer
Let's say you make an association, and it aims to address errors in records that are supposed to detail wrongdoing. Naturally the same scrutiny extends to reports, right?
Let's say you have two sides that are at odds. However, they both recount things differently or interpret the same events differently. You would ask for proof, right?
My question for a certain @frenchfryenjoyer@lemmings.world is, do you have any smoking guns? All I see are arguments over pedantic details and claims where the so-called evidence is no more conclusive than the verdict at the beginning of 12 Angry Men (or My Cousin Vinny if you want to use a more fun example).
Some people have complained of others going around reporting everything they say in certain communities as a way to get them banned everywhere, often depending on the mods' carelessness over relevance or investigation.
Wow, this post and all its comments are just you and your alt accounts, @shinigamiookamiryuu@lemm.ee.
Log off and go do something with your life, before you’ve wasted it all on trolling social media platforms.
Speak for yourself and your own mentally documented behaviors (which I say partially literally, as that's what this place is for, unless you just came to mock). Nobody is denying the Jedikkeneus and ShinigamiOokamiRyuu names have a driving force in common, but several people can attest the other names involved have no such connection to one another, even if administrators in some places who are infamous for their unreliability (and confessed inability to verify themselves) claim otherwise. Funny how people avoid dumping others' personal information and fingerprints when it proves them wrong on something, eh?
Dare I point out that, based on the circumstances, their silence is proof that there is no case they can make aside from fallacious slight of hand. They are abusing the natural gullibilities typical of the kinds of socialists that frequent here, which would fall apart under two-sided analysis. @Blaze@feddit.org, @Blaze@lemmy.zip, and/or @Blaze@lemmy.cafe who have showed haste ought to take note.
Especially when retaliation (and backbiting) is involved that shows all this wasn't taken well (retaliation aimed at anyone who follows their criteria of who is who and which depends on the idea that their sources are always honest when they aren't), I arguably can't dissuade you from positing something there is definitively proof of, complete with a conversation attached (one that is disprovable) about who banned who or whether the motives given are always honest, as well as gossip attached about being "out of one's damn mind" (for what? Debating semantics?) and "having to be committing some kind of offense" based on "past behavior" (arguably spoken like anyone involved has committed any "offenses" or like they come ready to think the worse when they walk into the situation, which undermines conversations about bad faith).