*Shakes head in dismay, here we go:
TellTale wrote on 01/14/12 at 23:32:37:I take the time to make posts with very valid well thought out premises
You should be more careful about tooting your own horn, you seem to do that a lot. A self-proclaimed very well thought out premise, does not make it a very well thought out premise.
To demonstrate this, I invite everyone to review
Exhibit A:TellTale wrote on 12/22/11 at 14:35:07:...and another victory for racism.
TellTale wrote on 12/22/11 at 14:42:48:Reading some of the posts in the past made by Mario86 and KVD just ooze with racism.
But go ahead, keep trying to ignore it and pretending like racism doesn't exist anymore.
Let’s follow the strand of logic that your mind had in store for us here:
-Person X wants person B from the site. Person B is black. Therefore, logically, person X has got to be racist.
TellTale wrote on 01/14/12 at 23:32:37:I take the time to make posts with very valid well thought out premises
And what a well thought out premise that was, indeed. *cue for applause
TellTale wrote on 01/14/12 at 23:32:37:You ignore fact based arguments and jump around points people make using completely faulty logic to back up your ideas.
You're trying to tell us that you're in a position to judge what
is faulty logic and what
is not? Well, I hate to break it to you kid, but based on the above exhibit, you haven't exactly been a shining beacon when it comes to the use of logic. I invite you to just review the above again; Im afraid we can't even hold a candle next to you as far as faulty logic is concerned.
TellTale wrote on 01/14/12 at 23:32:37:99% of all the stuff I've posted has never been rebutted
In regards to the feeling you have that you’re being continuously ignored...that's simply not true. I for one have tried to reply and refute your reasoning for as much as I humanly could. Of course in the MVT frame of logic, my replies might not have constituted sensible ones at all (if so, I’d be starting to get real worried right now), but at the very least you should realize that that means you weren't ignored.
Let's indeed use the blackmailing example to demonstrate:
TellTale wrote on 01/14/12 at 23:32:37:...trying to embarrassingly sidestep definitions of words (like you saying the definition of blackmailer that I got directly quoted from a dictionary wasn't real).
You should have read what I actually wrote in reply to this. I never said that the definition of blackmail that you presented was not real. I merely stated that that definition
was not applicable to what we were doing. Allow me to look up the discussion and present it again:
Your statement4A7B72[/b]724A7F727B1E0 wrote on 12/23/11 at 12:43:43:According to dictionary.com the verb tense of blackmail is "to force or coerce into a particular action, statement, etc."
So pulling your times from the page and demanding that the best player in the world be removed, unwilling to come back until he is gone...that isn't blackmailing?
No in fact, it is not. Our PR's are our property and we can choose to do with them whatever we want to at any given point. We never demanded the removal of Terrence. We merely stated that as long as he is reinstated on the MKSC Players' Site, while not yet trusted*, we no longer wished to be part of the same rankings. There was no demand/ultimatum attached to it at all. Logically however, we did express that if Terrence would be removed, our continued withdrawal would no longer make sense.
If you maintain that pulling our profiles from a site can be viewed as blackmailing, let me draw you an analogy. Say you’re a member of a church and you’ve got your kids baptized and everything, so you and your family are inscribed in the organisation of this church. Now say this church openly starts to advocate racism* . You don’t wish to be associated with these type of sentiments and go up to the pastor (or whoever is at the head of the church) and tell him that if the church does not refrain from advocating racism, you wish your membership to be cancelled. Now by
your definition, this would be blackmail, but I can tell you right now that no legal organisation would label it as such.
Because in blackmail you exert direct negative pressure, and this pressure comes in the form of threathening to engage in a negative action of some kind. If we would have said: “if Fenner is not removed, we will hack the database and take down the site”, that would be blackmail.
Us cancelling our memberships of the site however, cannot possibly be qualified as blackmail, as you are always free to have yourself removed from the website whenever you want to. Lack of further contribution is not positive, but also not negative. I would understand it if you labeled our actions as manipulative, but blackmailing is definitely an incorrect description.
*It's crucial to realize that I don't draw a parallel between advocating racism as a church and Fenner being allowed back onto the MKSC site here...the analogy is used to illustrate that threathening to leave organisations, due to a sudden difference in viewpoints, cannot be perceived as blackmailing.
Pages: 
