Has he reached some critical mass where he's violated so many rules so many times that he's "earned" his way back?

My understanding is that there is a confirmed parsnips account. Perhaps I'm wrong.

However if so, should I start posting towards him? Is he going to be deleted anytime soon? Should I start debunking claims by the biggest troll in board history.

Some guidance would be helpful.

Thanks.

I, for one, have NO CLUE as to what, or who, you are talking about. WHO did your "understanding" come from? And WHY THE HELL would you make such a public accusation without asking the mods privately FIRST? Do you have some sort of agenda?

Don't mealy-mouth like the conservatives do - TELL US who you think is a parsnips account. Don't make any damn "some say" accusations.

I KNOW FOR A FACT that as soon as the mods figure out a parsnips account, it's GONE. And whenever you find out how WRONG you are, you owe the mods and this board an apology.

GoU

Give the punk a break, the little one sure is entertaining.

Of course Gou, you would CERTAINLY apologize if you are found out to be wrong...

I'm not going to name anyone by name. If there is no parsnips here I'll certainly admit my error. As I said, I could be wrong.

Oh and I'm sure that your reaction here has nothing to do with our last conversation Gou...That has NOTHING to do with your forced and absurd attempt to compare this thread to a rightwing claim that "some say." I spoke for myself. What you are asserting is the opposite.

I have, MANY times. There's some egg on your face.

GoU

How's that?

Making yet ANOTHER untrue accusation against a fellow poster.

GoU

So you have proven that there are no active parsnips accounts?

What if you are wrong?

How many times are you going to apologize?

No, you accused me of never admitting a mistake. NOT TRUE.

And, once again, WHAT ACCOUNT DO YOU SAY IS A PARSNIPS ACCOUNT?

WHO tells you the mods know there's one, and are doing nothing about it?

What would a judge say if you brought crap like this in front of him?

GoU

Now THAT is a false claim..

WHERE did I accuse you of "never admitting a mistake." This thread is REALLL short. You should be able to find it real quick if i said it.

Here:

Of course Gou, you would CERTAINLY apologize if you are found out to be wrong...

Sarcasm. It's easy to see. Of course, now you will go into denial mode. I asked you direct questions, you attacked ME.

And my reaction here has nothing to do with another thread. You attack the moderation team with "some say" and innuendo. Shameful. It's a normal right wing tactic, and I don't think you should be using it.

If you have FACTS, BRING IT. Otherwise, apologize for a thread started using bad judgement, and move on.

GoU

Actually it doesn't matter if it was sarcasm or not. Because the sarcastic conclusion STILL wouldn't be that you have "never" admitted a mistake. That's false. You should apologize.

The best that you could take it to mean is that I didn't believe you would apologize this time.

I haven't attacked you once. Meanwhile you have repeatedly said that you know I am wrong. Oh and you compared my statements to the RWers mealie-mouthing. Didn't YOU take offense and claim you were attacked when I compared your behavior in a thread to the RWs? I'm sure you did. And unlike you, I can provide PROOF of my statement. You can't prove any of your claims against me.

And yes Gou. When you make false claims against me I WILL defend myself. That's what you call "defensive." However, perhaps I'm miss understanding. Is your "you attacked me" supposed to be a "defensive" argument for your attacks?

I'm waiting, BTW, for evidence of these alleged attacks.

You are smarter than to ask for a name. That would be a call out thread.

If you just imagined the possibility that I am right, and I have confirmed this, then why would discussing the re-admittance of him be wrong? The mods have asked us for help identifying parsy publicly. They have awarded parsy's publicly. Many of us have talked about parsy in the open. Why wouldn't his re-admittance be a public topic of discussion?

The conclusion - and accusation - is that I don't admit mistakes. Wrong. No apology.

THEN PROVIDE IT. PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

I'm making a point to you, jdogg, and it's a good one. You take umbrage to what you do being compared to what the right does on this board. Of course, it's fine for YOU to do it. There's a lesson there, if you stop and think about it for a moment.

gOu

"Don't admit mistakes" is STILL not the same thing as "have never admitted." So please apologize if that is all you have. Unless you want to refuse to apologize? Wouldn't that be something.

You are telling me to "put up or shut up." What would you like me to put up exactly?

I don't take umbridge at all to comparisons to the Right. I'm just going to respond to inaccurate claims. Do you see me getting upset about it? Nope. I calmly stated that it was not accurate.

I'll be waiting for you to "put up" or apologize for your false accusation.

YOUR WORDS GOU:
"No, you accused me of never admitting a mistake."

All you have shown is a statement by me that you deliberately overstated the meaning of. Again, even if I didn't think you would apologize here, and still don't for that matter, that still is COMPLETELY different than saying that you NEVER HAVE admitted a mistake. My statement doesn't even talk about admitting mistakes. It deals with apologizing. You can admitt mistakes and not apologize. And you could have apologized in the past, and I could STILL not believe that you would in this case.

OK. I withdraw my claim.

It had been confirmed to me weeks ago that a certain person was absolutely parsy. I was told that they had been aware of him for a while. I was thanked.

Since that time the person has been cleared of the charges. I was not informed of this. From my position the mods had known it was parsy and not deleted him, then not deleted him after I reported him. I should have sent another message, but I took them at their word. I HAVE in the past been party to conversations discussing the potential for a parsy re-admittance. So that's what lead me to the conclusion that they were allowing him to stay.

I apologize to the mods and the board for this thread however. I should have sent one more PM. After skipping over many of his posts for weeks, waiting for him to be deleted, I finally asked if there was a new procedure for dealing with him. I thought that the board should know if there was. I really didn't consider the possibility that the mods would have told me it was Parsy when it wasn't. I should have I suppose.

Mods, feel free to close, delete, trash this thread at your ledger.

Oh and Gou, I note that you still haven't withdrawn your accusation, apologized, OR provided proof of your accusation. I'm still waiting. You WERE right about the parsy. You weren't right about your accusation.

You should have PM'd your concerns to me directly. Sorry for not including you in the memo (didn't know I was required to).

The person you are suspecting is in fact NOT parsnips. When you reported him, Matt and I both thought it was, but further investigation revealed it wasn't.

JDogg, you should know better that we don't appreciate vigilante justice on the open board. If you felt we dropped the ball, you SHOULD HAVE contacted myself, AmtrakMatt, or Bernie Local 250.

Please don't use this approach again.

Regards,

-P

P.S. As this thread has no real value, I'll be dumping it this afternoon.

Thank you.

I replied before reading the entire thread.

-P

If you are willing to let me discuss the PMs involved, I'd be glad to set the record straight.

AM

I have no trouble with that. I just saw this. I don't know how I missed it.

It's kinda in the past now though.