Well, I did ask you to clarify what you meant but you didn't want to explain it
Just because we cant get along shouldnt stop you explaining to a wider audience
Thanks for the response and the clarificationmackintoshed wrote: ↑October 26th, 2020, 9:53 am I chose not to respond because past messages from you have been confrontational. My reasoning for the message is quite simple. I for one did not agree that we should have a gay only page on this site, but now that we have it, perhaps we should make good use of it. It's clear that so far it has been neglected. The term 'marginalised' was used in reference to a post made by a member who kind of suggested that gay stories should be shifted to another separate page. As if 'right thinking people' and the so called 'moral majority' should be protected from such outrage. And if memory serves you responded well to that point.
you took your chance to attack me again, under the pretence of an 'explanation'. Can I ask you, where in all this have I sought to ridicule you, in the manner you have chosen to ridicule me?mackintoshed wrote: ↑October 26th, 2020, 1:13 pm I used a conciliatory tone with you in my message, but as I suspected, you were not really interested in an explanation, you wanted to continue in your own aggressive way. Your final sentence alludes to a past "crossing of swards", as you put it, we had some time ago, in which you joined in on the bullying I was subjected to, for raising an inane issue on semantics. You published a private message I posted, in order to win favour with the invigilator, you then reported me, resulting in a 48 hour ban.
As I raised the issue of the gay page, in an attempt at getting some form of support, you took your chance to attack me again, under the pretence of an 'explanation'. Can I ask you, where in all this have I sought to ridicule you, in the manner you have chosen to ridicule me?