But you're threatening to and saying you require it as a precondition to allow a post to stand or risk deleting it. I'm saying I've seen plenty of claims from many sides here and never was there a threat that they provide proof or risk being removed. Granted, your statement threatening removal included compliance with the TOS, but you also required proof. Seems you should apply that requirement to those you agree with as well if you're going to throw that out there.

Edit: Perfect example--you're citing proof but you're not providing it. Where's your proof? I'm not doubting you; I'm just pointing out that you're not providing a link, or anything other than saying it was stated somewhere and the reader has only your word to go on. If you were providing proof you'd give us a link. So you're doing exactly what you're complaining Purple is guilty of. You're not providing proof.

 

No. My precondition is that he not violate the TOS, and it's actually not my precondition. It's what he agreed to when he registered as a user on APC. If your claim were true, every post of his since our discussion began would be deleted.

 

No, you also added he provide proof or his post would be deleted.

 

The Last 10 pages of L&G for those that don't have the time to read very post:

DALPA sucks.
DALPA rules.
DPA sucks.
DPA rules.
You suck.
We all suck?
Babe Ruth was the greatest Baseball player.
We need to get rid of profit sharing.
We need to keep profit sharing.
Lou Gehrig gave the greatest sports speech.
Tarantino sucks.
Tarantino rules.
Snatch was awesome (Guy Ritchie BTW, not Tarantino).
C-12 Was awesome - we are now hiring like gangbusters.
C-12 Was a sellout - imagine how much more we would be hiring without it.
Awesome movement with the new TA.
Imagine how much more movement we would have had without C-12.
And a fine picture of under-butt. Sorry you will have to use your imagination or memory here - I don't know how to re-post a picture in the middle of a post.
Finally some movement in the provinces (lands west of the Mississippi denoted by sea monsters on charts of old).

Please feel free to add to the list if I missed anything.

Oh Yeah - something about some guy getting "crappy" schedules every time he used the back-door.

Scoop

 

Why, yes! Of course it is!



Says Alan Shore.

 

I've been eagerly perusing the last ten pages, and seen much mention of the Backdoor, and the term butthead being paraphrased much, but alas, no fine under-butt.

 

I stated that if he provided proof, & didn't violate the TOS while doing so, his post would remain. You're simply misinterpreting my post, or choosing to twist it to serve your agenda.

If this is a grammar lesson from you, is it free? Can we start regular tutoring sessions?

 

I agree 100% with all of the above!!

 

Johnso, I know you take this moderating job very seriously, but come on, take a step back before you bloviate any more. It's a tad unbecoming.

 

To kick a dead horse, you're saying the part about needing to provide proof so as to not be deleted didn't apply because it was accompanied by the always required need to abide by the TOS. OK, that makes total sense.