WTF is wrong with CGN and why can't it be fixed ?

[alaskascottr]

1-I have no clue what ‘“chivvying” means.

2-Yes I did.

3-which reinforces that while you spouted words, they meant nothing because you knew nothing. At least you were consistent in your spouting.

4-maybe Kestryll will find some peace and health.

5-maybe something can be done to fix CG.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

1-I have no clue what ‘“chivvying” means.

2-Yes I did.

3-which reinforces that while you spouted words, they meant nothing because you knew nothing. At least you were consistent in your spouting.

4-maybe Kestryll will find some peace and health.

5-maybe something can be done to fix CG.

1. Find a dictionary like grade schoolers used to.

3. If you go back and actually read what I posted, you'll find that I mentioned, several times, that friends of Kestryll posted what he did about his folks. Likewise, you'll note that I posted, numerous times, that he admitted things were beyond his technical expertise, something else he mentions in his post. So, the word isn't 'spouting,' but 'quoting' and/or 'paraphrasing.'

4. One hopes so.

5. You can't possibly mean that being patient was better than demands, temper tantrums, offers of buyouts, etc.? Gee. Who would have thunk it?

[C.G.]

If it's helpful I took multiple Wireshark packet captures while the site was working and when the site was down. I can send to someone that wants to crunch the captures but from my initial troughs is the issue is in between Nginx and the servers . Results of time outs varies between server replies are taking too long and it times out / encrypted handshake is established from my pc to server but still gets the Nginx error.

A helpful post, for a change, I hope that something good will come out of that.

[The Gleam]

1. Find a dictionary like grade schoolers used to.

3. If you go back and actually read what I posted, you'll find that I mentioned, several times, that friends of Kestryll posted what he did about his folks. Likewise, you'll note that I posted, numerous times, that he admitted things were beyond his technical expertise, something else he mentions in his post. So, the word isn't 'spouting,' but 'quoting' and/or 'paraphrasing.'

4. One hopes so.

5. You can't possibly mean that being patient was better than demands, temper tantrums, offers of buyouts, etc.? Gee. Who would have thunk it?

Shut up already, and quit trying to put yourself in the spotlight yet once again as if you and only you have some inside pulse on all things Calguns like some sort of substitute magistrate. You've got a real narcissistic personality disorder always on the grind.

You're a bore.

Kes did well to explain the situation succintly. Nobody needs you to translate or give longwinded interpretation.

Reminder; you're not a moderator, it's not your site. Kes can speak for himself.

And did.

Now go pound sand.

---

[TrappedinCalifornia]

Shut up already, and quit trying to put yourself in the spotlight yet once again as if you and only you have some inside pulse on all things Calguns like some sort of substitute magistrate. You've got a real narcissistic personality disorder always on the grind.

You're a bore.

Kes did well to explain the situation succintly. Nobody needs you to translate or give longwinded interpretation.

Reminder; you're not a moderator, it's not your site. Kes can speak for himself.

And did.

Now go pound sand.

---

I have a few choice words for you, but don't like the idea of being banned simply due to your provocation.

I give Kestryll all the credit in the world for posting. Just bear in mind that had people been paying attention, a goodly amount of what he did say is already out there on threads. That doesn't lessen the fact that he's now back and active.

I know I'm not a moderator and have said so a number of times. However, someone needed to 'balance' the nauseating crescendo of posts a number were making saying Kestryll had 'abandoned' us, that the site was... Well, we all know what was said. Now that he's back (receiving the predicted... "do this"... types of posts), he can fend for himself if he wishes. Just bear in mind that many will remember who said what.

So, no. I won't pound sand. Why? Because there's still too much fecal material too many were putting in the sand box.

BTW: If I'm a bore to you, there's always the option of simply not reading, let alone responding to my posts.

[The Gleam]

I have a few choice words for you, but don't like the idea of being banned simply due to your provocation.

I give Kestryll all the credit in the world for posting. Just bear in mind that had people been paying attention, a goodly amount of what he did say is already out there on threads. That doesn't lessen the fact that he's now back and active.

I know I'm not a moderator and have said so a number of times. However, someone needed to 'balance' the nauseating crescendo of posts a number were making. Now that he's back (receiving the predicted... "do this"... types of posts), he can fend for himself if he wishes.

So, no. I won't pound sand. Why? Because there's still too much fecal material too many were putting in the sand box.

BTW: If I'm a bore to you, there's always the option of simply not reading, let alone responding to my posts.

Like this - so daft and self-absorbed, lacking so much in self awareness, you can't comprehend or grasp the obvious.

Now piss off already.

---

[The Gleam]

You know what’s worse than the site being down?

Knowing without even checking that TIC will be telling us all that we’re at fault for even alluding to the shatshow that is now Calguns.

Oh, and of course that he’s far more knowledgeable than anyone else though he has no particular knowledge.

From your keyboard to God's monitor.

Nailed it.

---

[TrappedinCalifornia]

Like this - so daft and self-absorbed, lacking so much in self awareness, you can't comprehend or grasp the obvious.

Now piss off already.

---

Gee. Such language. Mmmm.

I grasp the obvious, you just don't care for it or, more realistically, want to rewrite it.

Now, how about we allow people to 'celebrate' Kestryll's return rather than continuing to snipe at each other. People can keep and some already have kept up with who has said what and why. If not, they can go back and read it for themselves.

[CALI-gula]

You know what’s worse than the site being down?

Knowing without even checking that TIC will be telling us all that we’re at fault for even alluding to the shatshow that is now Calguns.

Oh, and of course that he’s far more knowledgeable than anyone else though he has no particular knowledge.

Shut up already, and quit trying to put yourself in the spotlight yet once again as if you and only you have some inside pulse on all things Calguns like some sort of substitute magistrate. You've got a real narcissistic personality disorder always on the grind.

You're a bore.

Kes did well to explain the situation succintly. Nobody needs you to translate or give longwinded interpretation.

Reminder; you're not a moderator, it's not your site. Kes can speak for himself.

And did.

Now go pound sand.

---

You guys... new heights in the art of understatement. Hilarious.

.

[Imageview]

Now, how about we allow people to 'celebrate' Kestryll's return rather than continuing to snipe at each other. People can keep and some already have kept up with who has said what and why. If not, they can go back and read it for themselves.

Trapped, I don’t want to dogpile on you but you are the problem here. You’ve wrote essays defending your opinions and exactly why you think they are superior, even though those were badly misinformed. You argued with everyone, have continually objected to real suggestions for how to improve things and resolve the situation , and try to claim the moral high ground because your ideals were so more pure in your estimation. I don’t agree with people being rude to you, it won’t make any more difference than this post will, but please just stop.

if you want to reread past posts, go back a couple pages and reread your arguments about why when I suggested exactly what kes has confirmed turned out to be the problem I was of course just guessing and was clearly not right. Because you didn’t like that answer. Say your piece, move on, and stop insisting your ideas are better than others. They’re just the ones you like.

i’m happy kes is back, sorry that he’s had some real challenges, and glad to see work on the site continues. That being said the damage is done. The other site, which I do not enjoy, now receives something like 14x the traffic that this site does (independently measured visits for the month of may). Even if everything gets fixed technically tomorrow, and just because the problem is identified doesn’t mean we are close to a fix, the extremely low traffic and much more active competitor poses a much bigger problem that will need to be addressed. Claiming moral superiority won’t help with that at all.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

Trapped, I don’t want to dogpile on you but you are the problem here. You’ve wrote essays defending your opinions and exactly why you think they are superior, even though those were badly misinformed. You argued with everyone, have continually objected to real suggestions for how to improve things and resolve the situation , and try to claim the moral high ground because your ideals were so more pure in your estimation. I don’t agree with people being rude to you, it won’t make any more difference than this post will, but please just stop.

if you want to reread past posts, go back a couple pages and reread your arguments about why when I suggested exactly what kes has confirmed turned out to be the problem I was of course just guessing and was clearly not right. Because you didn’t like that answer. Say your piece, move on, and stop insisting your ideas are better than others. They’re just the ones you like.

i’m happy kes is back, sorry that he’s had some real challenges, and glad to see work on the site continues. That being said the damage is done. The other site, which I do not enjoy, now receives something like 14x the traffic that this site does (independently measured visits for the month of may). Even if everything gets fixed technically tomorrow, and just because the problem is identified doesn’t mean we are close to a fix, the extremely low traffic and much more active competitor poses a much bigger problem that will need to be addressed. Claiming moral superiority won’t help with that at all.

Did you also note the part where I acknowledge that you might also be proven correct, but that unless you could show 'behind the scenes' knowledge/access the rest of us didn't have, you were simply arguing from assumptions and not established fact.

I haven't argued with 'everyone.' Mainly, who I've argued with are those who stipulated that their 'suggestions' were 'the best and only' reasonable course, those who insisted we'd been abandoned and that Kestryll needed to turn the place over to someone else (many of whom had a different vision for the site and how it was run) despite the fact the actual proof did exist that he still 'kept touch,' and those who projected on to me what they were actually doing. You see, if you actually go back and read what I said, I never claimed my 'ideas' were better than others. Quite the contrary. I said that everyone had their opinions, but the vast majority of them were based on the assumptions one held. Far too many were insisting that TPTB on this site were incompetent, had abandoned us, didn't care, were 'stealing' the money, etc. Those assumptions were grossly incorrect, but they colored the conclusions being drawn.

In the mean time, I have been accused of being overly optimistic. Again, on the contrary, I made it clear that I was under no illusions that a 'fix' is in the cards or, at least, not in the immediate future. I've also been operating with a certain clarity that it's decidedly more complicated than the 'experts' (real and otherwise) have insisted it is and that's something also alluded to in Kestryll's post. The difference between what I've been posting and what others have been claiming is exactly what you touch upon. I've made my arguments based on known facts rather than ignored ones and 'feelz.' As I've stated, I give him all the credit in the world for his post, but much of it has already been shared by friends of his, Librarian, etc. for those who've actually kept tabs on what's been happening. Likewise, the solution(s) he now proposes have also been mentioned by a number. What we don't know is if, in fact, they will sort out the way that is hoped. We just pray they will and acknowledged, as I've also noted, that, ultimately, they may prove to be the only way forward.

You see, I'm only a 'problem' when it comes to those who couldn't really 'make their case' beyond "I am an expert." Okay. But, unless you can show access behind the curtain which we'd been told, specifically, had been denied, it was still only guesswork, as I told you. Perhaps more 'informed' guesswork based on experience, but still guesswork.

He's posted before that he wasn't all that happy with vBulletin, the program or the support. He's also posted, something 'confirmed' by others, that he'd tried other options and wasn't enthralled with them either. He's posted that the technical end was beyond his ken and his acknowledgement that it had been recommended that he find a database analyst/administrator is further admission of that fact. Actually, his post where he says he wants to find both a database analyst to sort out the database and someone to handle the conversion to a different site software speaks, in part, to what I've maintained; i.e., that we'd been warned, for years, that an upgrade would lead to the types of problems we've been experiencing and that it's not as 'clean and simple' as many would have you believe when doing so involves several iterations of software.

That's something else I've observed. We all have our theories and, to one degree or another, we're all correct and we're all wrong. Why? Because, as you've noted, we don't have access behind the curtain. The difference? I've acknowledged that my computer awareness is out-of-date from a technical perspective; but, that doesn't alter how computers operate in a general sense. What you're failing to acknowledge is that Kestryll didn't say that his proposed course of action was going to be definitive in terms of a 'fix.' What he said is that he sees it as a path forward and implied that he hopes it will lead to a fix, provided he can find someone to help out and that they can sort out the problems. Like it or not, agree with it or not, that's as much 'hope' talking as a definitive 'this is the solution.' It's simply the best course of action he now sees.

Is that 'arguing with you' or is that simply tempering the claims others are making and/or deducing? Is that 'objecting to real suggestions' or is that pointing out that the 'suggestions' were just that and may or may not have been relevant to the actual issue and/or plan moving forward? Is that tempering and those observations a 'moral high ground' or a more 'realistic' take?

We all know that damage has been done insofar as the membership, the sponsors, the advertising, etc. However, it is not a morally superior or even morally justifiable position to keep pointing it out and using that as a rationale for insisting and chivvying Kestryll to turn over the keys to someone else. If people had paid attention, then it was known, from various posts, that he was going through a tough time in more ways than one. Should he have had a 'back up' in a managerial position to keep things running if something happened to him along the lines that it did? That's management 101 stuff, but it's clearly not how things were set up. You deal with things as they are, not how you think they should be and that's not what was happening with all the sturm und drang.

Likewise, if the 'other site' is truly the competitor many feel it to be, then we need Kestryll back in the saddle to be able to effectively deal with it. We need the site working properly to be able to deal with it. Anything else was going to involve the same 'lag time' we're going to go through while Kestryll sorts it out. As to your "14x the traffic," that involves more than .net being down. Remember, the 'other site' is drawing from a different audience and using different sources than this one has relied upon or even agrees with. In fact, many, maybe even the majority of the membership over there comes from somewhere other than here. Again, the draw from here was in the interest of credibility or the ability to sell such credibility. As many have discovered, including you, that sense of credibility only carries so far in terms of the timbre of how that site operates, especially compared to this one. It's not all about 'numbers.' But, we can't 'fight back' until Kestryll is back in the saddle and full function (or something close to it) is restored.

If a fully thought out and argued post is an 'essay,' so be it. As I've often said, if Kestryll wanted to limit things to a couple of sentences, all he'd have to do is plug a new number into the system and the limits would be there. You know, kind of like how the 'other site' has limits in terms of fixing posts, posting to threads, what is 'allowed' in terms of content, etc. As I've related, one of the primary reasons I finally joined the site was due to a number of members lamenting a lack of 'thought out' posts and an inundation of posts asserting things without argument or proof. If you'll go back, you'll note how I tend to 'document' things when I can and when I can't, I try for logical, reasoned argument. If that's wrong, then bear in mind that I'm not the 'only' one.

In short, what you are reacting to is the tempering. Does that make me the most 'fun guy' on the site? Absolutely not. Does that make me 'more right' or more 'idealistic' than many? In some ways, yes. In some ways, no. Does that mean I should just stop? That depends. As I've fully acknowledged, I'm not a moderator. All I've tried to do is present a more 'balanced' and 'tempered' presentation than others. That's not about being right or wrong. That's about making an actual argument and backing it up as opposed to assertions which, in many, maybe even in most, cases tend to be... well... let's just say... colorful and often skewed in favor of assumptions rather than established fact. So, if you wish me to stop, until there is no longer a need for 'balance,' it's unlikely.

[Sam Hainn]

Did you also note the part where I acknowledge that you might also be proven correct, but that unless you could show 'behind the scenes' knowledge/access the rest of us didn't have, you were simply arguing from assumptions and not established fact.

I haven't argued with 'everyone.' Mainly, who I've argued with are those who stipulated that their 'suggestions' were 'the best and only' reasonable course, those who insisted we'd been abandoned and that Kestryll needed to turn the place over to someone else (many of whom had a different vision for the site and how it was run) despite the fact the actual proof did exist that he still 'kept touch,' and those who projected on to me what they were actually doing. You see, if you actually go back and read what I said, I never claimed my 'ideas' were better than others. Quite the contrary. I said that everyone had their opinions, but the vast majority of them were based on the assumptions one held. Far too many were insisting that TPTB on this site were incompetent, had abandoned us, didn't care, were 'stealing' the money, etc. Those assumptions were grossly incorrect, but they colored the conclusions being drawn.

In the mean time, I have been accused of being overly optimistic. Again, on the contrary, I made it clear that I was under no illusions that a 'fix' is in the cards or, at least, not in the immediate future. I've also been operating with a certain clarity that it's decidedly more complicated than the 'experts' (real and otherwise) have insisted it is and that's something also alluded to in Kestryll's post. The difference between what I've been posting and what others have been claiming is exactly what you touch upon. I've made my arguments based on known facts rather than ignored ones and 'feelz.' As I've stated, I give him all the credit in the world for his post, but much of it has already been shared by friends of his, Librarian, etc. for those who've actually kept tabs on what's been happening. Likewise, the solution(s) he now proposes have also been mentioned by a number. What we don't know is if, in fact, they will sort out the way that is hoped. We just pray they will and acknowledged, as I've also noted, that, ultimately, they may prove to be the only way forward.

You see, I'm only a 'problem' when it comes to those who couldn't really 'make their case' beyond "I am an expert." Okay. But, unless you can show access behind the curtain which we'd been told, specifically, had been denied, it was still only guesswork, as I told you. Perhaps more 'informed' guesswork based on experience, but still guesswork.

He's posted before that he wasn't all that happy with vBulletin, the program or the support. He's also posted, something 'confirmed' by others, that he'd tried other options and wasn't enthralled with them either. He's posted that the technical end was beyond his ken and his acknowledgement that it had been recommended that he find a database analyst/administrator is further admission of that fact. Actually, his post where he says he wants to find both a database analyst to sort out the database and someone to handle the conversion to a different site software speaks, in part, to what I've maintained; i.e., that we'd been warned, for years, that an upgrade would lead to the types of problems we've been experiencing and that it's not as 'clean and simple' as many would have you believe when doing so involves several iterations of software.

That's something else I've observed. We all have our theories and, to one degree or another, we're all correct and we're all wrong. Why? Because, as you've noted, we don't have access behind the curtain. The difference? I've acknowledged that my computer awareness is out-of-date from a technical perspective; but, that doesn't alter how computers operate in a general sense. What you're failing to acknowledge is that Kestryll didn't say that his proposed course of action was going to be definitive in terms of a 'fix.' What he said is that he sees it as a path forward and implied that he hopes it will lead to a fix, provided he can find someone to help out and that they can sort out the problems. Like it or not, agree with it or not, that's as much 'hope' talking as a definitive 'this is the solution.' It's simply the best course of action he now sees.

Is that 'arguing with you' or is that simply tempering the claims others are making and/or deducing? Is that 'objecting to real suggestions' or is that pointing out that the 'suggestions' were just that and may or may not have been relevant to the actual issue and/or plan moving forward? Is that tempering and those observations a 'moral high ground' or a more 'realistic' take?

We all know that damage has been done insofar as the membership, the sponsors, the advertising, etc. However, it is not a morally superior or even morally justifiable position to keep pointing it out and using that as a rationale for insisting and chivvying Kestryll to turn over the keys to someone else. If people had paid attention, then it was known, from various posts, that he was going through a tough time in more ways than one. Should he have had a 'back up' in a managerial position to keep things running if something happened to him along the lines that it did? That's management 101 stuff, but it's clearly not how things were set up. You deal with things as they are, not how you think they should be and that's not what was happening with all the sturm und drang.

Likewise, if the 'other site' is truly the competitor many feel it to be, then we need Kestryll back in the saddle to be able to effectively deal with it. We need the site working properly to be able to deal with it. Anything else was going to involve the same 'lag time' we're going to go through while Kestryll sorts it out. As to your "14x the traffic," that involves more than .net being down. Remember, the 'other site' is drawing from a different audience and using different sources than this one has relied upon or even agrees with. In fact, many, maybe even the majority of the membership over there comes from somewhere other than here. Again, the draw from here was in the interest of credibility or the ability to sell such credibility. As many have discovered, including you, that sense of credibility only carries so far in terms of the timbre of how that site operates, especially compared to this one. It's not all about 'numbers.' But, we can't 'fight back' until Kestryll is back in the saddle and full function (or something close to it) is restored.

If a fully thought out and argued post is an 'essay,' so be it. As I've often said, if Kestryll wanted to limit things to a couple of sentences, all he'd have to do is plug a new number into the system and the limits would be there. You know, kind of like how the 'other site' has limits in terms of fixing posts, posting to threads, what is 'allowed' in terms of content, etc. As I've related, one of the primary reasons I finally joined the site was due to a number of members lamenting a lack of 'thought out' posts and an inundation of posts asserting things without argument or proof. If you'll go back, you'll note how I tend to 'document' things when I can and when I can't, I try for logical, reasoned argument. If that's wrong, then bear in mind that I'm not the 'only' one.

In short, what you are reacting to is the tempering. Does that make me the most 'fun guy' on the site? Absolutely not. Does that make me 'more right' or more 'idealistic' than many? In some ways, yes. In some ways, no. Does that mean I should just stop? That depends. As I've fully acknowledged, I'm not a moderator. All I've tried to do is present a more 'balanced' and 'tempered' presentation than others. That's not about being right or wrong. That's about making an actual argument and backing it up as opposed to assertions which, in many, maybe even in most, cases tend to be... well... let's just say... colorful and often skewed in favor of assumptions rather than established fact. So, if you wish me to stop, until there is no longer a need for 'balance,' it's unlikely.

Ridiculous. If forum posts were selfies that one would be a Kardashian making duck lips to the camera with her fake tits.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

Ridiculous. If forum posts were selfies that one would be a Kardashian making duck lips to the camera with her fake tits.

I don't do selfies. It used to be one of Mom's complaints that I was rarely in photos and, even when I was, I was even more rarely 'smiling.'

I think of this thread more along the lines of The Twilight Zone episode "The Masks," where I'm the dying, old man who is more interested in conveying a sense of reality than projecting a caricature of what has actually been said to fit a personal agenda or interest.

[The Gleam]

Ridiculous. If forum posts were selfies that one would be a Kardashian making duck lips to the camera with her fake tits.

======

I don't do selfies. It used to be one of Mom's complaints that I was rarely in photos and, even when I was, I was even more rarely 'smiling.'

I think of this thread more along the lines of The Twilight Zone episode "The Masks," where I'm the dying, old man who is more interested in conveying a sense of reality than projecting a caricature of what has actually been said to fit a personal agenda or interest.

Ridiculous - is right. And then you double down on it.

Just what is quoted above reveals you to be a case study in how prolonged impotence has led you to adopt sociopathic leanings and distorted dogmatic overtures to cover for your shortcomings. You explore the need to fantasize your being as something superior, a sort of Walter Mitty with verbose ramblings to counter your ineffective and 'incel' existence whenever its revelation ignites your anxieties.

The DSM could add a whole section citing your Calguns diatribes and novellas as neurosis of egotistical self-inflation and narcissistic personality disorder.

Just by fashioning yourself to be the caviling character (Foster) as depicted in fictitious TV theater, it reveals how off the mark you are, with the reality being you don THAT mask to hide your anemia of personality, social awkwardness, your self-loathing.

You're shrivelling smaller and smaller with each and every new reply seeking to refute otherwise but your perverted sense of self-importance and delusions of grandeur obstruct your ability to realize it.

Numerous others here have tried to enlighten you to your truth, some discreet, some as a confidant, some dismissive thinking you might get the hint, and others candidly telling you to piss off - because you should - but your Über-Ich is obviously so corrupted the Ich can't help but chuck any attempt to counter the former's broken construct and just decides to make things even messier.

---

[TrappedinCalifornia]

======



Ridiculous - is right. And then you double down on it.

Just what is quoted above reveals you to be a case study in how prolonged impotence has led you to adopt sociopathic leanings and distorted dogmatic overtures to cover for your shortcomings. You explore the need to fantasize your being as something superior, a sort of Walter Mitty with verbose ramblings to counter your ineffective and 'incel' existence whenever its revelation ignites your anxieties.

The DSM could add a whole section citing your Calguns diatribes and novellas as neurosis of egotistical self-inflation and narcissistic personality disorder.

Just by fashioning yourself to be the caviling character (Foster) as depicted in fictitious TV theater, it reveals how off the mark you are, with the reality being you don THAT mask to hide your anemia of personality, social awkwardness, your self-loathing.

You're shrivelling smaller and smaller with each and every new reply seeking to refute otherwise but your perverted sense of self-importance and delusions of grandeur obstruct your ability to realize it.

Numerous others here have tried to enlighten you to your truth, some discreet, some as a confidant, some dismissive thinking you might get the hint, and others candidly telling you to piss off - because you should - but your Über-Ich is obviously so corrupted the Ich can't help but chuck any attempt to counter the former's broken construct and just decides to make things even messier.

---

Since my first thread, SOME have told me to... get lost. That's the key, however... SOME. They don't all go on diatribes and use language the way you do, partly because it used to be against the rules and, I assume, still is.

Yet, 7 1/2 years later, I'm still here. Why? Oh... You never ask yourself that since the intent among a few is simply to see me vanish. The 'secret' you've never picked up on, despite my numerous hints, is that I may have very well done just that at any point had it not been for those who insist on continuing to express their 'feelz' (undocumented assertions) as the only 'opinions' which matter or held any 'true' meaning. (I quit going to gun ranges and gave up my gun club memberships long ago due to getting tired of that all too common trend.)

You see, one of the things some have never picked up on is that I don't express myself as if my take is the only one which matters, despite accusations to the contrary. I don't 'shout down' those I disagree with. Instead, my (ahem) 'long' posts support my position and/or take apart theirs. I don't 'name call' and/or cast aspersions. Instead, I tend to support my assertions with facts and logical, reasoned argument.

Trust me, I grew up with former Navy and Marine servicemen. I can hold my own when it comes to 'colorful' language. Yet, you don't see me use it. Likewise, I could spin things into mix mashes which would leave readers truly dizzy and confused. Yet, despite claims by 'some' that I already do, others have noted that I'm a different 'animal' in that I can write and/or express myself properly. A few have even said they don't agree with everything, but they do respect that I can express my opinion and support it. Further, a few have even openly posted that I shouldn't leave on account of these mission intent on 'destroying' me and/or my credibility. (Which, I note, takes some guts given the likely reaction from the 'some.')

That's the key. Quite a few of the 'some' claim to champion 1st Amendment rights, yet are quick in their attempts to stifle anyone they 'disagree' with. If they can't 'stifle,' then they attempt to intimidate; often declaring themselves 'experts' and, not being truly aware of my background, proceed as though I have no such 'expertise.' Failing that, they launch a 'campaign' to run that someone off. You know, exactly what we've been seeing in this thread.

I'll give you another example. One I haven't talked about publicly to this point, though I did inform a couple of key individuals at the time. One of my early threads had to do with Trump not attending a memorial service in France. The same thing happened. I was met with all of the above, told I didn't know what I was talking about, cursed at, etc. and the thread was ultimately shut down without my being able to continue to defend myself despite the near constant insults, unsupported assertions, etc. What wasn't posted? That Trump came out and said exactly the same thing I had been, that he should have gone, despite the supposed/claimed 'obstacles.' Now, I don't hold everything Trump says as the Word of God, but I did find it interesting that the very person ostensibly being defended from me by the 'some,' was in agreement with... me.

But, that's another key. Many of the exchanges I find myself embroiled in come down to arguments, not with me, but with the very thing/people they are ostensibly 'defending' from me. Just like now. There's very little I've posted which hasn't already been asserted by Kestryll, Librarian, et al. as to what's happening. Instead of 'spin' (as some seem prone to do to support their arguments), I've simply pointed out that, just like now, there have been very few with access behind the curtain, but many with claims that the fix is and should be 'instant.' Yet, if you'll note what Kestryll is saying, it's gonna take awhile. It kinda makes one suspicious that there are ulterior motives and intentions behind some of the claims; e.g., that they want to argue against what they CLAIM to have been said rather than what actually was. In some cases, there is a desire to apply personal definitions to what was said, without regard to how who said it actually meant it.

One of the things I've been noted for is my allowance that everyone has a right to contribute, as long as they stay on topic and support what they say beyond "I am an expert, how dare you question me." Others have amply demonstrated that they don't believe anyone they disagree with has any rights, except to leave. As I've said, Kestryll (and others) isn't (aren't) my #1 fan(s) either. Yet, here I still am and, surprise, surprise, I have been defending him in his hour of need. I wonder why that could be? Perhaps a more 'accommodating' attitude/behavior for various opinions and takes, not to mention, at least in my case, an appreciation for it being (mostly) allowed as opposed to, say, what certain 'furry critters' do in administering their site. (Yes. I am aware that many who scream the loudest are also, or have been, active on the other site and many others seem to simply 'parrot' the 'furry critter' in terms of what they desire as a course of action. Yet, the only one I have quoted by name from the other site is the 'furry critter' himself; with the exception of Librarian and DrJonesUSA vis a vis announcements/posts there which, by all rights, should have also been made here as they were in relation to this site. Likewise, I've never even openly questioned why those who hold membership here and there never posted a thing in that regard. I don't necessarily relish the role of facilitating communication.)

The bottom line is that I'm glad to see Kestryll getting back in the saddle I appreciate the communication, despite the dearth of 'new' information, there was some in terms of how he intends to proceed. I'm more into the actions, not words, end of the spectrum when it comes to actually fixing things. Failing any ability to do that as my computer knowledge, as I've said, is out-of-date in terms of software specifics, I've felt the best path, as I've said, was to 'balance' all the claims, assertions, demands, chivvying, etc. which have been emanating, including from among the 'some' since this whole thing began. (If not on this site, then on the 'other site.') Many, many, many claims and assertions have been made, across a spectrum, as to what NEEDS to happen, what is 'broken,' et al. I've allowed, despite the claims, that some of those claims and assertions may ultimately prove correct, in part or in whole. But, I've also acknowledged that we may and likely won't ever know fully one way or another, particularly as access behind the curtain is severely limited. But, that's another key. Without that access, it's simply 'guesswork,' which even some of my assertions have been. The difference? I cite it as just that, guesswork, based on my actual, real world experiences with computers and programming.

That's the crux of it. I'm not simply saying "I'm an expert, therefore..." I'm not simply quoting something I've heard or asserting something I think as 'true.' I'm pointing out what I think is the case based on... then citing why. That's precisely the type of thing which caused me to join; i.e., a running series of posts by members lamenting too much 'unsupported opinionating,' too much of 'you're not in the club, now get lost,' too much of the name-calling, too much of the accusations, etc. What do we see in this thread? Exactly that. What have I been attempting to provide, a 'balance' and a 'tempering?' I don't go back and claim never to have seen what has always been there. I often link to it, quote it, et al. What do I often get from the 'some?' Argument and something those individuals never seem to comprehend, that they aren't actually arguing with me.

That's why I identify with the character in the video I shared. By adopting the role I have, I've had a tendency to 'draw out' various members of the 'some' and in their efforts, they've exposed themselves for who and what they are. Whether others see that or not isn't up to me. But, it's crystal clear to those who look.