On 1/9/07, Parker Peters <onmywayoutster(a)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