On 1/9/07, Parker Peters onmywayoutster@gmail.com wrote:
You might as well have just phrased this "sorry, you didn't genuflect deep enough for my taste, so you don't get any serious consideration."
Are you sure you're looking at the same contribs, Parker? Let's see some of these edit summaries:
"rv scientologist trying to whitewash his cult's crimes" "Replaced page with '{{unblock|lying scientologist ChrisO still tries to own the [Oxford Capacity Analysis] page and whitewash the crimes of his cult there.}}'" "rv dumbfuck; it's not a legitimate facebuster." "rv dumbfuck: a move which incorporates a headlock is a DDT, not a faceplant." "rv stop being a dumbfuck fanboi." "rv dumbfuck who abuses bots" "rv dumbfuck kneejerk asssucking moron who cant read the fucking change being made" "rv dumbfuck who doesn't know anything yet AGAIN."
I find it difficult to imagine any circumstance in which such behavior would ever be acceptable. You're free to disagree, but please do be aware that your doing so does not translate into me changing my mind unless you actually *convince* me to. I don't consider actions I take to be final; if other users disagree, they should be perfectly able to say so or even reverse my actions, provided they have a good explanation.
Feel free to look into this, if you like, but please do so on your own dime.
-Luna