QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Mon 19th January 2009, 11:31am)
![*](style_images/brack/post_snapback.gif)
QUOTE(FT2 @ Mon 19th January 2009, 2:54pm)
![*](style_images/brack/post_snapback.gif)
[*] You claimed you "never" alleged participation. Quick test, you
called Radiant! "
another" dog lover. If he was "another" practitioner, whom did you believe/claim was the
first?
I have said many times I bitterly regretted that remark, made in a moment of anger, and a number of other remarks made between Dec 5-6.
I'm sure you do, but your personal regrets aren't what I'm asking.
Did you 1) make claims
at any time of criminal sexual abuse, and then 2) spend most of 2008 explicitly lying by claiming you had never done so? Is it also not true that far from having any "regret", bitter or otherwise, you were busy continuing to imply this to other people as late as 16-17 September 2008 when you wrote Jimbo "I have not speculated about his private life" and Jimbo replied
"You just did, in this very email thread".
(This referred to your email of Sept 16, "I don't care what he gets up to in his own time", I believe -- if you were not still implying, why would you need to "not care"?)
QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Mon 19th January 2009, 11:31am)
![*](style_images/brack/post_snapback.gif)
QUOTE(FT2 @ Mon 19th January 2009, 2:54pm)
![*](style_images/brack/post_snapback.gif)
You claimed you were blocked by admins who subjected you to a "hate" campaign", but the truth is all you were asked to do was to stop acting up. You were unblocked on giving your word you would do so. Even your final block of December 2007 was to be unblocked on
reasonable conditions. Would you categorize that as a "hate campaign"?
Poisonous messages were being left on a group IP containing my real name. As I've said many times, and as you should know. The final block conditions were not made public, but were in an email from Scribe.
That's also not an answer. The "poisonous messages" can be seen in your
block log. They were
this and
this. Evidence of a "hate campaign"? Laughable. Not that you would ever know what a "very nasty hate campaign" was, right? Do you still want to claim this was accurate? You haven't shown a solitary word to that effect.
You'll need more than "someone at work might have seen my block log" to support this complete fabrication of a "very nasty hate campaign". There was - but you were the one doing it, weren't you?
QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Mon 19th January 2009, 11:31am)
![*](style_images/brack/post_snapback.gif)
QUOTE(FT2 @ Mon 19th January 2009, 2:54pm)
![*](style_images/brack/post_snapback.gif)
[*] You claimed the edit was being used as evidence, and was deleted to prevent its use, but omitted to mention it was also being used in a blog post to "activist sites" and "organizations" (
plural) where you were "spreading the word" as a means to identify a target. You then tried to claim it was removed to hide evidence, rather than the reality which was to prevent defamation. So... did you not think that other copies of your blog post might still be circulating...? Or is defamation and harassment just a game to you?
I have explained the chronology many times, to you, to Arbcom and many others. The blog was quickly deleted (evening of the 6th Dec, from memory, I can verify exactly, later, and I notified Scribe who can confirm).
Not an answer. Did you at least tell people that you were
also using that same edit to identify your defamation target to multiple "activist sites" and "organizations", or at the least, that you had openly told multiple people you had done so? Like hell you did. Don't you think if you had made that clear instead of trying to avoid acknowledging it, some people might have had a rather different view of it? Of course they would.
But you didn't want that, did you? You continued claiming the edit was removed to hide evidence, or to bias the election. You spun conspiracy theories about how it was removed, all the time knowing it had in fact been used to create serious defamation and that (rather than anything else) was probably the reason.
QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Mon 19th January 2009, 11:31am)
![*](style_images/brack/post_snapback.gif)
QUOTE(FT2 @ Mon 19th January 2009, 2:54pm)
![*](style_images/brack/post_snapback.gif)
Can you reconcile your current claim ("only one outside site"), with your
prior claim to have
already contacted "organizations" plural? You were asked where you had posted it to (by WJB,
same post) and preferred to stay blocked than to answer and withdraw the matter. You broke your word repeatedly. Anyone reading your words is quite entitled to assume anything from SPCA to ALF, and multiple sites and groups... and probably did. Do you think they were wrong to do so?
I said, if you read my post properly, that I had made contact with only one site. I.e. sent a message and received a reply. ASAIRS is defunct, as I am sure you know.
"I have contacted the relevant organisations". You do recognize a plural when you write one, don't you? And past tense? Are you saying this post was a deliberate lie to the community, then? Was
this one supposed to be a lie, too? Intended to cause others to take you more seriously, or to over-react? You succeeded, didn't you. You indirectly caused many people to take it "seriously", all right. Like a WMF oversighter, me, Giano, people who read your posts, most of the admins you spoke to, and Jimbo himself.
You know what they do here if you shout "Bomb!" in an airport? Even if you claim it wasn't
that serious later or you didn't really have one? They rip your
balls off, Damian, if you have any, and lock you up anyway. Either way you're guilty - you meant it, or you're a fool.
QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Mon 19th January 2009, 11:31am)
![*](style_images/brack/post_snapback.gif)
QUOTE(FT2 @ Mon 19th January 2009, 2:54pm)
![*](style_images/brack/post_snapback.gif)
And so on, and so on. You're mendacious, Peter. You fabricate and lie like some people fart - obnoxiously, habitually, loudly, and badly. Name one reason your halo-polishing claim that you "only" contacted one site, should be trusted in the slightest.
And you have not answered my question about User:TBP. What is your view on the ethics of confronting poor Seus Hawkins by a sockpuppet like that?
"Poor Suess". My heart is dripping pathos right now. Do you really think anyone here wears their heart on their sleeve? You probably knew the background on TBP and Suess (just looked up to check I have the right incidents) and knew she was an SPA canvasser all along, but still try to push a case here because it suits you to portray her that way; you also apparently find it easier to focus on accounts involved and ignore the content. This is Emotional Cliches #101, Peter, "Make A Martyr Of Them". You lied (
according to Thatcher's assessment) about Phdarts too which was rather transparent (
"Later, he admitted knowing").
Do you really want to be flagellated for sin, like your fanatic namesake? And a mistress to "punish" you for being naughty? Do you like making sordid libels like this? Have you got issues around sex like your namesake? He liked a touch of the whip and punishment too, didn't he? You're a crap liar Peter, and that's been your approach right up to date - do it, then deny it while still doing it.
You offer no real response, no compunction, and you sought to mislead others to back your campaign. A token crocodile tear of "bitter regret" that's as likely maudlin self-pity for doing it so badly, and zero regret for the deeds you did. You lied - badly and loudly. Isn't that true? Do you
yet have even one reason why your claim that you "only" contacted one site, should be trusted in the slightest?
This post has been edited by FT2: