@SQ @Zemeliko @EarlThePearls @StevenDouglas

Saul has rules. If you don't like the rules, you can leave.

You can have any opinion or comment you wish as long as it doesn't go against the rules.

I don't see how that is any 1st amendment violation (not that it would be because it doesn't apply here).

I didn't know that any of these gentlemen had any problems though.


Yes, most people don't have problems, until at some point they unexpectedly do.

Can you explain the logic behind this, and the following toots, to me? Or what rules did I break?


And @SQ - Thank you, you're a true friend, simply the best!

@EarlThePearls @StevenDouglas

@Zemeliko @SQ @EarlThePearls @StevenDouglas

SQ claimed you were censored. I assumed if you were “censored” you broke a rule.

If this isn't the case then I’ll assume someone is trying to start trouble because their feelings were hurt.


I sent you, in my previous toot, the link to the toot on which the whole discussion is based.

I had some private conversations with several people, including @SQ, all stemming from this, and this led her to write this message of support, to which I'm very grateful.

But you can go see the entire correspondence there yourself. There are no diversions, all is there.

Checking it out will let you KNOW, and spare you the need of making assumptions.

@EarlThePearls @StevenDouglas

@Zemeliko @SQ @EarlThePearls @StevenDouglas

Yes. What I see is that Saul said called into question your observation powers. Instead of shrugging it off, you got butt hurt instead. A few people contacted you to massage your wounded ego. And for some reason, SQ is talking censorship where none occurred.

Do I have that right?


You are very partially right.

He brought a weird and unclear criticism out of the blue, in a way that's not pleasant or constructive to the conversation.

I'm not ``butthurt'', but surprised, and obtained some friends' opinions about it. Not ego massage.

I'm not censored, but considering my further discussions to avoid unpleasant situations.

To you though, it seems that some people are above criticism, and any such comes from being ``butthurt''.

@SQ @EarlThePearls @StevenDouglas

@Zemeliko @SQ @EarlThePearls @StevenDouglas

I don't think anyone is above criticism and I don't always agree with Saul. My problem here is not whether I agree or disagree with anyone. The problem here is, SQ started yelling about free speech and censorship when the problem is, you had a disagreement with Saul over a comment he made.

It was unnecessary drama and makes everyone look, as I said, 'butthurt'.


As I said, I'm not censored by anybody else here.

@SQ has good intentions, but she chose a wrong word. I hope she retracts or corrects herself, since I like her and don't want to see her gone.

I will handle myself in ways that will make my stay here better, avoiding possible unpleasant incidents.

And the ``butthurt'' is your interpretation, which I (and I'm sure other too) do not share.

@EarlThePearls @StevenDouglas


@Zemeliko @umad80 @SQ @EarlThePearls @StevenDouglas

Should, if two grown ups can not disagree without being disagreeable, they have a lot to learn.

Yes. I do disagree with your take on the lard boys and their acolytes. So be it.

As for SQ, I see it succeeded in casting you on the wrong light. There is no room for conspiracy peddlers and troublemakers in this forum. Not since the very first day, and not for as long as I have a say in this.

I have no beef with you. On the contrary.


Okay, thanks, I appreciate you saying that.

And I believe all sides have something to learn from that unfortunate, and really unnecessary, incident.

A thick skin is a good idea, here and for life in general.

Mine becomes thicker with time, but there's still work to be done.

I can handle ``This is the stupidest argument I've ever heard'' now (better than before), and much better that ``YOU are a moron''. And I think most people do as well.

@umad80 @EarlThePearls @StevenDouglas

@Zemeliko @Debradelai @umad80 @EarlThePearls @StevenDouglas

Ok, wheww! Glad to see the issue resolved and everyone good now. Thought I was going to have to call in the doxi troops to get ya smiling 😂 🤣 😂 ❤️


Thank you, dear.

I know that you were aware of everything that was going on, and it's evident from your toot here that you really cared and wanted it to end well.

I really appreciate that.

And your dog is a cutie 🙂

@Debradelai @umad80 @EarlThePearls @StevenDouglas

@Zemeliko @Dawnz @Debradelai @EarlThePearls @StevenDouglas

More than enough times Saul has said something that wounded my ego. Usually, he’s right. 😂

And thank you! Bear’s my baby boy. We’re pretty sure he was abused so I love it when he snuggles like that. 🥰


Oh, is that your dog?

I assumed that it was @Dawnz's, since she posted the photo...

I agree that @Debradelai is right about many of the political statements.

My assessment of certain people has, however, deviated from his multiple times.

I am, in fact, in contact with some of those people, I know them better now, and my assessment was correct.

On that front it's easy for him to be inaccurate, especially since abrasive responses affect many people...

@EarlThePearls @StevenDouglas

@Zemeliko @Dawnz @Debradelai @EarlThePearls @StevenDouglas

I didn't see @Dawnz’s post when I replied and thought you were talking about the pic of Bear I posted a few days back. 😂

@Zemeliko @umad80 @Dawnz @EarlThePearls @StevenDouglas

You make two mistakes.
1. I hardly form any opinion on anyone I have not had the pleasure or displeasure to meet and treat in person.

2. Only people who repeatedly break our rules get the boot.

Including my good friend from Barcelona, whose penchant for bigoted comments was too much.

On that front, there are many who risk their uninformed, yeah, even ignorant opinions without the benefit of knowledge or the burden of responsibility.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
QuodVerum Forum

Those who label words as violence do so with the sole purpose of justifying violence against words.