Re^3: RFC: how to push the boundries without being annoying?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: RFC: how to push the boundries without being annoying? by jeffa (Bishop) on Feb 12, 2009 at 20:03 UTC
I noticed how you conveniently left out the part where my name was remove AFTER there were no objections. That's what we call shady and slimy politics, jdporter. But it's moot. I'm gone now. Take my node and shove it. :) jeffa L-LL-L--L-LL-L--L-LL-L-- -R--R-RR-R--R-RR-R--R-RR B--B--B--B--B--B--B--B-- H---H---H---H---H---H--- (the triplet paradiddle with high-hat)	[reply]
Re^5: RFC: how to push the boundries without being annoying? by Anonymous Monk on Feb 12, 2009 at 20:41 UTC
jdporter also waited until you were gone to post that. boo_radley has been gone for 32 weeks and hasn't posted anything in 3 years. I don't blame you for leaving. I would to if they did that to me.	[reply]
Re^6: RFC: how to push the boundries without being annoying? by jdporter (Paladin) on Feb 12, 2009 at 20:48 UTC
No; I did not wait. I posted that as soon as I knew about it. You know, if you had complained directly to SiteDocClan — especially considering that different people are active in it now than back then — we would have been happy to try to make things right. None of this was done to be slimy. Plagiarism was never the intent. But rather than take your complaint directly to us, you decided to get all bent. That is slimy. Besides which... jeffa isn't gone, obviously. :-)	[reply]