For the Record
Here, farmishtphoenix said:This is, very likely, unnecessary, as well over half of my F-List are also friends of the inimitable popfiend. Nevertheless, I implore you: please go here and vote for deyaniera's entry. I haven't read it, nor do I need or intend to. And I don't have a dog in this hunt; I don't even know deyaniera. I just know that she's being bullied by one of the judges, and I can't abide a bully.
Note the willfull ignorance.
zebrapix says, in a comment, "Oh, and yeah... bullies suck." Here, however, he appears to be backpedalling and pleading ignorance. So he made the first in ignorance of the supposed bullying to which the poster was referring?
farmishtphoenixHas a follow-up post:I was just made aware of this hilarious LJ post, made by one of the greatest Drama Queens this side of Bette Davis; for Real Comedy Nuggets, be sure to check out the comments section, and exactly which folks are referring to anyone else as "bullies" or "immature." Your Irony Meter will peg at 11.
For the record: this is yet another in an unbroken string of unlocked posts extending back two years. I never lock posts, because it's the cause of drama, not the cure. I wonder how many assholes who have wandered over to read this Journal in the last two days can say that?
Well, apparently his fellow suspects in the gossip-mongering can't.
Further, note the pride with which the lack of locked posts is mentioned. He may not lock posts, but he screens comments with which he disagrees and bans those who made them. This sort of closed-minded behavior is typical of his observed behavior. Fortunately, I have the e-mail notifications for reference.Farmisht Phoenix (farmishtphoenix) replied to your LiveJournal comment in which you said:
By all means, everybody do as he suggests and go look! That is a brilliant idea! You can follow the trail back for yourself, through the link farmishtphoenix provides, through the links you find there, and back, perhaps, to the origins of this discussion. You can see for yourself where the locked posts muddy the trail, where incitement is going on, and where everybody directly involved were apparently letting the discussion lie until others who were deliberately and willfully ignorant of the circumstances stirred it up again. Ultimately, you can trace it back to where the Queen of Melodrama was unable to take the criticism of her entry and complained - unjustly, and anyone who says otherwise is delusional or a liar - about being picked on. Go ahead! Do as he suggests! See for yourself!
Their reply was:
Try again; remove the name-calling and the sarcasm and maybe it gets unscreened... solely at my discretion.
You post whatever you want in your LJ, but here... you toe the line.
Don't push me on this, pal... my forebearance is reaching its limit.
His forebearance is the least of my concerns, of course. But compare the contents of my comment with the contents of his original post and you will see the hypocrisy of farmishtphoenix's reply. Also note the attempt to censor access and content even beyond the way in which friends-locking a post does so.
A follow-up exchange, also screened:Farmisht Phoenix (farmishtphoenix) replied to your LiveJournal comment in which you said:
Oooh, so comments are screened, now! That's a fairly solid sign of fear. You are acting foolish, and you don't want it seen. You stepped into something you didn't understand, you made it worse, and now you're hiding behind screening comments and threatening to ban people.
Tell you what - apologize publicly for stirring up something you didn't understand, which had, for all practical purposes, ended. Either in your own journal or on that post to which you link in this bit of drivel, I don't care. Then I'll say thank you and go away. I can't speak for others, though.
Their reply was:
No fear, pal. Just following through on what I promised: around here, you toe the line... or you're banned.
You're banned. And I have nothing to apologize for.
In other words, his "no locked posts" policy is a sham. While technically true, he was unable to handle responses to what he had started and continued. Apparently the only comments allowed are those agreeing with him.
I'm also pretty sure I saw another comment before he had a chance to screen it.
Which brings up the question of just how far his "no locked posts" policy is, for all practical purposes, a façade. How much more dishonest is hiding potential gossip behind screened comments than hiding it behind the relative honesty of a friends lock?