where can I find pick camping places ?

I showed up as the first,to offer the OP an answer to the OQ (Original Question).


What I seem, I cannot influence (well to some degree I can of course). But I do know what I mind, and most certainly that is not other opinions. After all, a good discussion cannot be held with all people agreeing.


Not true Gabrielle. Phil for one did admit it often, though he does state that he never starts it. And if you can give me an example of where I threw dirt, I would be surprised. One thing is sure, I could never beat Sling in this thread, again read back (if you did not yet) and tell me if the post I am referring to is normal in your view. The posting is number 251. Before that, we are sure not friendly toward each other,but I got called sad little money grubber, an awful gobshite and I even suck. Point me towards any postingwhere I went that low?


See the one above.


Correct. And may I remind you who derailed it in the first place by taking the opportunity to declare that picks camping is bad, dishonest and deceit/fraud? Totally uncalled for too.

I know exactly when you started posting, I was not referring to that, I was referring to when you arrived for this mornings bout of posting after I posted my first post.

I think you are labouring under the false impression that these are good discussions.

So here once again you are falling into the trap of stating something as if it is unassailable truth instead of opinion. Isn't that what you have just been complaining about from Sling?

It does not matter who started it, I never once said anything about who starting it, and I don't care who started it but I did say that that all were doing it.

I don't recall Phil even making the claim that he never started it in this thread though I know the disclaimers you are talking about. The ones where Phil says he was justified and right to do so because he is only retaliating. Sorry that is not admitting to throwing dirt. It is my opinion that Phil does instigate these things on more than one occasion and so do you, so it is my opinion that even the disclaimer of he/she started it is false some of the time at least.

Not going to get drawn into that trap, sorry. The evidence is there for all to see and I drew my own conclusions after reading the whole thread. I say let everyone make their own minds up instead of trying to respin what has been written.

I don't recall saying you derailed the thread.
There has been a lot of uncalled for behavior in this thread though and not all of it has been from Sling.

Not at all, in a good discussion people do not ignore more then half of what is being said because they have no counter arguments. And that is not meant towards you


But Gabrielle, this was most definitely not my opinion but the truth indeed. You said that "our camp" never admits of throwing dirt. And since (not in this thread by the way) I am very sure that Phil did agree that he posted insults (in retaliation), at least 1 person from "our camp" admitted it.


Fair enough. It does matter to me though, t makes a lot of difference for me whether someone gets nasty in retaliation or someone starts it. Again referring back to post 251, where a personal attack was posted without being called for.


True, was not in this thread.
But if someone admits of doing something, even when they say that they were entitled to doing that something, it is still admitting it.


Well Gabrielle, I do not ask you to respin what has been written. But accusing me to have thrown dirt without backing it up is a bit too easy.
But you are right, it is there for all to see, so I do not need you to admit you were wrong about that part.


We can go on like that for ever: I do not recall me saying that you said I derailed the thread.
The reason I mentioned who derailed the thread in the first place, was to show you something you already know. Not going there again.

To end my contributions in this thread, I am going to try and explain why these discussions end up like they do, in my opinion.

When I discuss with someone, I try to make a valid post. Sometimes a long one, sometimes a short one. What Sling does (and not only her, by the way) is taking 1 or 2 quotes to react to, and ignore all the rest. It will be of no surprise that the 1 or 2 quotes are the ones she can object against.

So let's say I bring up 5 arguments about the same topic, all valid from my point of view. Arguments I did put thought and effort in.
If someone chooses to counter only argument number 3 to show how wrong I am, ad totally ignores the other 4, that does show nothing less then contempt for me as a poster. Not if it happens once, but if it happens at about every time, irritation will get in the way.

Furthermore, as soon as you start trying to attack people, it is pretty clear that the postings will get less friendly. As soon as you have to call people names, you lost the argument, no matter what.

For this thread, I am done.

Maybe even with the entire forum in fact, because I am getting tired of it. Might be way smarter to use the classified forums only, and say goodbye to RA.

Excuse me, Gabrielle, but to the best of my knowledge, nobody on my side of the fence throws any dirt unless the ones or your side throw it first. So let's get it right.

Perhaps you haven't read through the whole of this thread, Gabriele, but it's been made very clear that it is not possible for picks to be "a choice that a group of peers thought deserved accolade" in any meaningful way at all. Even without anyone paying for picks, they only show a small minority of proper 'votes' for places. So you can't have that anyway.

Incidentally, it isn't a case of people thinking that they "should" be #1 (you said it twice already). It's that people want to be #1 or near it. In general, people don't improve their rankings because they think they belong up there - they do it because they want to be up there. Just thought I'd mention it, so we all know what we're talking about.

I'd leave Marcel out of it. He's one of nicest guys around here, and he doesn't resort to insults. It's ok to keep me in it, because I do, but only when people on your side throw them first. Sort your side out out and then we won't have any of it.

Now we can't have that - it loses all sense of reality. I freely admit to throwing mud, and I've always freely admitted it as I'm sure your memory will vouch for. I only do it when it is thrown at me, which is quite different to your side. The people on your side initiate it all too often, and they often get it returned from me - sometimes with interest. As I said, sort your side out and then there won't be any of it.

Rubbish. It's an unassailable truth that I freely state that I throw mud. It's unassailable because it's all over this forum - in the posts table.

Oh but it does matter who started it. If someone punches you and you punch back, who is the one who will be in court for assault?

Then your opinion is sadly mistaken - by a very long way. I suggest a little research before offering them.

When I use search to look for something I need, I go there.

When I see camping zombies or the proverbial "We Pay You For Picks" sign, I take my business elsewhere.

My money goes to worthy residents who merit it, not the greedy.

I know I am not alone in this view.

I cited the green dots because they are a very obvious in-your-face example of search gamers damaging SL.
Map is very intuitive. There are the sims, There are the people.
Well, that used to be the case until the bots arrived.
I noted that as an example, there was a current newbie 'where to find...' thread ongoing. One person’s advice was to use Map and look for dots. That would have been good advice were it not for the search gamers screwing up a useful feature.

You attempted to discount the effect by saying that you "did a little survey the other week and found that 76% of the green dots were real people."
Considering that we had a recent thread on this particular type of survey, with some people putting a huge amount of effort into it, and widely varying percentages being indicated, your little survey can hardly be definitive, and in any case misses the point.
The percentages are one thing but it’s the physical distribution of the zombies that create the main confusion for Map.

Does the presence of these zombies create a problem for users, and particularly new users - the ones that SL really needs to make sticky?
It seems clear from ongoing postings in forums and from people I meet on the ground that they do.
It's damage to SL. It's damage to people's perception of SL as a place to socialise. I know that when I started in SL, the effect of traffic gaming, both as dots on map and ranking in search was infuriating and disheartening. I see the same reaction in newbies I come across.

Who benefits? Is there some global advantage that balances this damage?
No. Only the search gamers benefit.


Your reaction seems to be one of either (1) it's not damage to SL or (2) it's only a little damage to SL.
If you agree that there is the slightest damage, then how can you escape the conclusion that the gamers are inflicting damage purely for their own gain?
Perhaps you will say that there is absolutely no damage?






There's your green dots above.

You keep attributing positions to me that I never took up. Mostly I ignore your messing, sometimes I respond.
One very recent major example is the task that you imagine that you set me to identify a "total crap" scenario that was not of my origination but of yours. It's really funny and blatantly obvious. I'll deal with that in a separate post later.



Ah but I will. I'll take some time from other stuff, and for this post go through all the points.

What it all comes back to is a very simple concept.
Damage to SL features that are helpful to users in the pursuit of profit. The misuse of features.




This is another example of you attributing an extreme position to another so that you can dismiss an issue. It’s a variety of the “straw man” argument.

On the question of the impact of zombies and campers on the sim that they are in, it is not a matter of filling the sim or not.
We don't go from nearly full with no problems to full and problems.

I have had direct experience of having land in a sim and another parcel setting up camping.
I’ve had Concierge reboot sims both to clear out a sim that was full and a sim that was obviously struggling even though at (only) 25 avatars. Note that a reboot of a sim is the best response you can you really hope for – and only if you are at Concierge level. Lord knows if ARs have an effect. I do know that I’ve stood outside a full sim in which I had 4096m, contacted Concierge and given the previous AR references only to be told that there was nothing they could do – apart from a reboot. We were looking at a 4096 with 30 sitting campers and 10 non-campers – and some of the non-campers appeared to be waiting for a camp spot. It may be that the full sim one was eventually warned, as they dropped the camper max to 20 from 30.
However, it’s very interesting to stand outside a sim and watch the reboot. The sim comes back, you step into it and for a moment you’re the only avatar. You get a feeling for the effect of whatever scripted items are in the sim. Then the camper bots start arriving back. The effect as their numbers build is palpable. It’s real.
So why is the sim being loaded up? Why are neighbours experiencing a lesser performance? Is it because there’s a bunch of their fellow residents socialising / shopping / enjoying SL – which would involve a measure of give and take on overall performance? Nope! It’s because someone who is solely interested in their own profit is trying to game search.

You only “suspect” that there isn’t really a problem and go on to wander from this uninformed position towards the cheeseboard. I speak from direct experience of the problem.

There is a problem. No matter if it’s a smallish problem, a medium problem or a large problem, it is due to the activity of the search gamers. An avoidable problem is damage. A problem imposed by self-interest is damage.
You can argue that you ‘suspect’ that it is mostly only a little bit of damage, but the fact remains that it is damage, and inflicted by the gamers.





That’s really hilarious, coming from you.

Back up this thread and we see a sequence of posts:





So first you complain that in a Picks thread that a main argument concerns Picks, and when I join you in discussing non-Pick topics in the thread, you complain that I’m not sticking to the thread topic.



I do believe you. You honestly don’t know what I’m talking about. You haven’t a clue about the effects of sharing a sim with a camping place. You “suspect” that it isn’t a problem but you don’t have the direct experience of seeing the lag increase as the camping bots return immediately after a reboot. See a bit above in this post. You don’t know what you’re talking about.

It’s clear the “use is excessive” is not some hard and fast measure. It doesn’t even seem to cover filling the sim. Others have reported the same issue in the forums. And again, the idea of measuring honesty and ethicalness by the yardstick of LL’s TOS is ridiculous.


Your little survey finding of 24% zombies might or might not reflect reality. You don’t know. Others have found different percentages. No matter if it were 10%, 20%, 30% zombies, those dots on the map are a problem for the intuitive use of the map in relation to avatars. The problem mainly exists because of the activity of the search gamers.
Why cut off an intuitive use of Map? Who benefits from that impairment of function?
Why should people be forced to use Events? Are all active places covered by Events postings? Are all Events postings actually genuine events?
Again, those zombies are damage to SL. *They reduce options for real people.* They do that solely to profit the search gamers.



Ok. Carry on…. Oh …. you did anyway.


I go back to my early experiences in SL, the experiences of the other people who were starting then and newbie people I meet on a continuing basis. The intuitive reaction to the effects of the zombies is to assume that they are the effects of other live people. Eventually they learn that the “high-traffic” places are usually best avoided.
Why should they have to learn this? Why should they suffer that disillusionment? Why must they have a less easy experience? Why must the utility of features be impacted negatively? Solely to benefit the search gamers


Yes. Just remember the series of posts related to On Topic above. Picks is as you have noted, a main argument for me in this thread.


What you are talking about there is more business/money than social. There is a limited scope of social element to it.
I’ve made it clear that my concern is the social damage due to the subversion of Picks. The Picks in a person’s profile used to be informative about the person. A paid pick tells us nothing about the person.
The pick is there simply because they have been paid to put it there and in no way represents an indication of a perceived worth of the parcel.
There is no indication that the Pick is a paid Pick. It is no longer possible to assume that a Pick represents a perception of worth. While those parcels that have natural picks to their credit will now gain some benefit in All Search, that benefit is very likely to be overshadowed by the benefits for the pick buyers. In addition, when someone looks at the profile of a natural picker, the existence of the pick is devalued as there is no way of telling if it a bought pick or a natural pick.
There you have two aspects in which the pick buyers have diminished the indication of worth of another parcel – not by competing for that perception of worth, but by reducing that indication of worth to a bought commodity and by buying their way into a ranking area that from its placing as separate to paid placement very clearly suggest that the rankings are *not* due to direct payments to achieve the ranking.
There may be people who get a double whammy. They like the place for what it sells and they also get paid to say so. In an environment where Pick buying becomes as institutionalised as camping, these are probably a minority.
Something interesting and fun has been lost. It’s been lost so as to benefit the search gamers.




It’s very simple.

Without the zombies and the campers, Traffic would actually be an indication of where avatars spent their time. It wouldn’t be a magical measure of quality/worth but it indicates that something is there to draw avatars.
Search gamers destroyed that factor.

All search could use IBLs to improve ranking. (Natural) picks seemed like an intuitive form of IBL that indicated authority for what they pointed at. Once the pick buying started, that concept was lost.

Attempts to justify pick buying on technical grounds are simply self-serving smoke and mirrors.
‘The Google appliance needs IBLS to work properly’ ? as if a parcel that had no picks could not be ranked at all. ‘Buying picks is actually helpful as it creates more picks to intensify the relevancy’ ??
There is a half-truth to those sorts of propositions. They don’t actually help search at all. They only help to rank a parcel due to the number of picks.
What’s in a pick? Text taken from the parcel text. That’s what.
The appliance actually needs IBLs that parrot what they are pointing to – for the good of the appliance?
Sure!! But taking that at face value - Simple solution = Automatically generate a base of ‘picks’ pointing to every parcel. You need a 1 per parcel? Np. You need 100 or 1000 per parcel to ‘really really intensify the relevancy? Np. It’s text and the server space required to store it is miniscule in the overall storeage. No need for anyone to selflessly spend their own money buying picks purely in order to help SL by making Search better for everyone.

Any factor that is controlled by an avatar is immediately gamed by those who put their own interests before all else. The meaning and purpose of that factor is thereby damaged. SL is damaged.
Any attempt to improve search by reference to the activities and interests of the majority is stymied by the activity of a minority.



So there you have it. Just this once I go through the points of a wide-ranging post. It’s all been said before, you just chose to ignore it or misrepresent it.

I think that everyone accepts that any form of debate here is not going to fix the world. The forums and threads on search gaming are not mission-critical. I’ll give them as much time or attention as I see fit. If you wish to assert that a point not responded to is a point won, then feel free to indulge yourself in that fantasy.
As I’ve said before, seeing you come here to try and justify search gaming is a sort of fascination for me. You debate exactly like a politician. It’s like debating with a swamp.
I’ll continue to pick off points as I feel like.

Yes I agree, once you start doing that you have lost. I wonder why therefore you engage in it if you don't like it.

That is your choice, Marcel. Personally I would prefer it if you just really did clean up your postings instead of just saying you will.

I have no innate problem with you Marcel but when I see the same behavior on both sides and yet all is being blamed on one party regardless of their ideological stance then I am going to call it out as I see it.

lol classic Phil, you never disappoint. Did you really think that I expect you to agree with me? People reading this thread will either come to the same conclusions I did or not. It is not going to change because you take issue with me pointing out what I find to be obviously the case. If you have nothing that concerns you then don't even worry about responding to me on it, if the contrary is true then railing at me is not going to change anything is it?

I am not going to respond to every post you have made since last visited, there is no point as I am not trying to convince you (or Marcel) of anything - it would be useless to try it.
You do seem to be concerned still with changing my opinion or trying to make me see the error of my ways though. Are you actually really seriously trying to make me feel chastised? lol What on earth makes you think you are going to achieve that?
If I had doubts over what I have said I would not have posted. The posts are there and as I have said each can make up their own mind. I have said what I felt needed to be said and no more. This is just dealing with the inevitable fall out and I never expected you would just agree without giving me a dose of the expected Phil treatment.

Boohoo, Marcel and you should look carefully at your own behavior if you don't like getting called out for it. Everyone else has to or deal with it, you two are no different.
Sling seems to be one of the nicest people around too, so have many who have crossed words with both of you and yet there has been little consideration shown anyone in the past who has not been ideologically aligned with your point of view. Strange that.
I have already said that people on the same side of the fence as me are as guilty for the most part as anyone when the muck throwing starts but you obviously still think your side is different or you would not have posted your long posts in order to "educate me".

It is funny because all I really said when you boil down the essence of what I was saying to Rha is that don't only criticize the behaviors of one when there are more engaging in them.
Not really anything extremely damning to anyone there except to those who refuse to acknowledge they engage in those behaviors too.

Gabriele. Wake up for goodness sakes. Marcel does *NOT* throw insults at people. Period. Why are you trying to stir up something that doesn't even exist? Are you trying to provoke something?

If you think that then why worry? If it is true then the posts will back it up for all to see, or they will not. It almost sounds like you are trying to bargain with me. Why is that?

You are blinded by your emotional response to what I write.

A few posts back you took me to task.."There you go again....."
What you apparently did not recognise that the post you were picking me up on was a direct clone of Phils' post.
There it was. Phil's words and manner of putting them, but under my name. Right below Phil saying it and saying it in that way.

After you posted, I posted to point that out to you clearly and slowly.
You are still unable to see it.




Ah! You meant that's only sort of like a little white lie, not a big porky pie. So it's OK.
Can you say "matter of principle"?




This position has been misrepresented her as one of me become abusive in response to someone countering what I wrote.

As I have already posted :

1. It is difficult to write about dishonest and unethical behaviour without using terms like "dishonest" and "unethical".
2. That description of the behaviour is my opening position. It is not something that I came up with following an exchange of views.
3. I ally the description to search gamer. I explain clearly why I consider them to be dishonest and unethical.



I will admit that in one post, I went further than was helpful to describe my distaste for search gamers.
I will go back to that post and edit in a change from those very colourful terms back to the more descriptive term "dishonest and unethical".

For some people the name of the game is to get seen at all costs.
For some people the name of the game is to get seen but without using methods that abuse the environment in which they operate.

You really are trying to provoke something, aren't you?

Precisiely, and they'll come to the conclusion that if I throw anything, it was thrown at me first by someone on your side. As a matter fact (not opinion), this thread has been incredibly quiet in terms of insults. You can read me saying that Sling is as unethical cheater who spreads falsehoods, but there is very little of it, and if you go back further you'll see she was saying that at me. So get some semblance of reality into your posts, Gabriele, and stop trying to stir it up.

It won;t change anything in you - that's for sure - but it will show up what you're trying to do should anyone care to read it.

This thread has been amazingly quiet in terms of insults, but you come in and write as though there are loads of them in it. Not only that but you falsely accuse Marcel of it, and you make false statements that nobody on this side admits it.

I couldn't give a shit about your opinions concerning what your side calls gaming search. Hell, everyone know that. It's not exactly hidden, is it?

Is that the way your inventive brain sees it? I should try taing a nap if I were you. Maybe some reality will enter in when you wake up again.

And there's your problem. You have no doubts about the existance of things that don;t exist in reailty.

Bu "expected Phil treatment", do you mean me cerrecting you with the truth? That's what I've done. You've posted things that aren't true, and I've corrected them.

That just makes you look stupid. I don;t think you'll find anyone in the forum, on whichever side, to agree with you about Marcel's posts. I also don;t think you'll find anyone in the forum, on whichever side, that will agree with you that I don't admit to throwing insults. It looks very much like you are just trolling - making false statements about people, just for the purpose of provoking reactions. Everyone can see it. You are the worst I've ever seen in this forum for insults.

Don't be so silly, Gabriele. I wouldn't bargain with you for any reason. That's just wishful thinking on your part.

It does concern me when you falsely accuse Marcel of it though. He isn't like you - he's a very nice person.

The OP was looking for places that would buy her picks.

The criterion for placing the pick is the money paid for it.

Any suggestion that such a pick should in any way influence ranking of the picked parcel is completely insane.

Why are you so worried if all I am saying is false?

Surely I am entitled to my view? Isn't that what you and Marcel believe in - that you respect the views of others? Strange how you are getting so worked up just because I said what I see in your posts and that they will stand for themselves. If you consider that provoking then you obviously have forgotten what being provoked is really like, especially by me *laughs*.

My opinion though is that your post previous to the quoted one here epitomizes why your forum behavior is as bad as I claim.

Well done, Sling! A complete response to a post

But the green dots don't damage SL.The large majority of them are real people avs, and anyone can find real people by using the green dots on the map if that's the way they want to find people. There are much better ways though, and the advice should be to use them, especially if it's a social gathering that's being looked for. People who have been in SL a short while learn how to find social gatherings. People who are new ask where the people are, because we tend to imagine that SL has some sort of center where people gather.

See above.

See above. I too wanted to know where the people were when I first arrived, because my previous online multi-user experiences had centers where people tended to gather. But SL isn't like that, and new people soon learn how to find what they want.

Au contraire. I've already shown how everyone benefits.

I don't recall admitting that there is any damage to SL. I do recall explaining the occasional benefits to SL though.

I asked you to do something - I didn't assign a task to you. I actually asked you to provide evidence of what you claimed. So far you haven't done it.

Sorry Sling. You asked me a question and I gave you the correct answer. I can't help it if you reject reality.

We certainly do go from nearly full, where people can get in the sim, to full where people *suddenly* can't get in the sim. You talked about filling the sim, not me.

Bully for you. And the effect was??? You failed to mention whether or not there was a noticeable effect on sim performance, but I'll help you out. Avatars within range do have an impact on sim perfoemance if there are enough of them.

Jolly good. We all agree that it's wrong to fill a sim with bots and campers. The 25 avs probably didn't cause the need for a reboot though, unless they were real people all wearing stacks of active attachments and all spewing fountains of particles - or something like that. But those 25 have nothing to do with this discussion.

There are 16 bots in the sim where my store is and they have no noticeable effect on the sim's performance. And there are 6 models in the store, which no doubt do have a slight effect since they are in range of people. But then it's a huge store with lots of textures to download, so their effect is just a small part. and they are functional. The store is about 200m up and on the ground everything runs smoothly.

So it's back to what we said before. Bots and campers certainly can have detrimental effects on the sim's performance if used badly, but it's not intrinsic in them.

You speak from direct experience of a couple of things you found, inckuding a 25 av experience that doesn't really say anything one way or the other. I speak from the experience of having 22 avs in the sim 24/7, plus whatever other avs may be there, such as customers, and what I find is quite different to what you saw, or think you saw, a couple of times.

The reason I said "or think you saw" is because you are one of those who, if something isn't right, and bots or campers are around, you'll put it down to them rather than question why it isn't right.

I argue that there is no damage. Period.

You've completely lost me, Sling. I can't for the life of me see in those quotes where I moved the topic to something other that paying for picks. I do know that you've kept throwing other things in through the thread, such as bots. You bring bots into it and I reply, and then ask if we can get back to paying for picks. I don't see what you're getting at.


I would have liked you to explain what you wrote because it wasn't worded well and I didn't understand it. It was about there being a problem before the sim is full, so it looks like you meant camping.

No I don;t have the experience of sharing a sim with campers, but i do have many experiences of encountering them, and I've never knowingly been affected by them in terms of lag. I don't say that it doesn't happen, of course. Still, that's nothing to do with paying for picks, so I'll skip it now that you've explained what you meant.

Alright, I won't skip it them. Camping can be used excessively enough to cause problems in a sim. This thread isn't about that, and I don't use camping, but I will say what I;ve said many times before. Camping and bots can be used in ways that are bad for other people. But it doesn't mean that camping or bots are bad for other people. It just means that they can be used in such a way.

Of course my little survey wasn't definitive but, judging by the dots on the map, the whole of the old north continent would turn up the same sort of figure if it were all surveyed. The point is that the large majority of green dots are people avs.

Why shouldn't they have to learn it? Why shouldn't new people have to learn they way the system is? We have to learn everything else about the system, so what's wrong with learning that bit as well?

Basically, picks have traditionally served a multi-purpose. They have served for people to pick places they really like, and they have served for people to put people they really like into them. Some people now also use them to payment. So what?

We've been through this before. Picks were never an indication of the popular votes for places. Paying for picks didn't change that.

As a matter of fact, a parcel with no IBLs cannot be ranked at all, regardless of whether or not it's set to show in search. It *has* to be found by the crawler which can only find pages through links.

They may only be half-truths to you, Sling, but that's because you don;t know anything about the system, so you just guess.

As I said, you don't understand the system, so you just guess. It's senseless doing that unless your statements are in the form of questions so that you can learn how it works.

In your opinjion, but not in mine.

That's odd - you're the one who ignores much of what is written in posts and just replies to the bits that you think you have answers for.

That's also odd, since I'm here whether or not there's a thread like this going on.

I tried that... and ended up right back here

why?

because I like to help people, and sometimes a good debate is fun

I try to avoid the "fun" threads and the "off topic" ones as I tend to like to help folks and discuss things rather than poke fun at someone or something...

but that is just me, others may feel differently

good luck with whatever you decide

I'm concerned by your attacks on Marcel - not worried. Do you know the difference? In terms of 'nice people', Marcel is light years ahead of you, so it concerns me that he's come under your unprovoked and unmerited attack.

Of course you are entitled to your view but, like everyone else, you are not entitled to post lies in this particular forum, and what you posted about Marcel is a lie. There was also another lie that I won't go into again.

I do respect the views of others, but I have no respect at all for lies.

I'm not worked up at all. Do you imagine that, when someone posts something opposing what you write, they are worked up? Are you that vain? You did manage to get me worked up once, by using such an incedibly low method that even Colette said you'd gone too far, and soon afterwards, you said the same yourself.

I haven't forgotten (I just mentioned it), but I'm staggered that you'd gloat about it now, when you should be utterly ashamed of it. I guess people just can't change their natures.

For anyone who doesn't know what we're talking about, Gabriele is the worst person for attacking others that has ever been seen in the forum, by an incredibly long way - at least while I've been using the forum. Most people do it in ways that she's mentioned, but not Gabriele. She attacks, or pokes fun at, people's recently deceased RL relatives as a means of provoking anger. In these posts she's admitted to insulting others (when she's not getting her own way), but she didn't mention just how far she is willing to go.

I never said I did not see phil making the same comment, my reply (if it is the one I think you mean) was to show you what it feels like to have someone demand that you back up your comments with facts (if it is not that particular comment then I am lost)

As for emotional WOW are you ever off base
first, one has to care about what the other is saying, in order for it to incite an emotional response or blindness as you put it
I don't care about what you are saying, I just want you to admit that you have nothing factual to back up your claims (and admit once and for all that everything you say is only your opinion and that everyone has a right to their opinion, EVEN when it is not the same as yours.



it is your opinion that paid picks are abusing the environment...
it is my opinion that they do not

however you do not see me resorting to insults because you do not agree with my point of view

nor do you see me making my statements as though they are fact, which by the way, you do a lot

*shrug*

is that what she was gloating about when she said this?



if so, then that is just wrong, low down dirty wrong

I am sorry to hear that phil, I dunno how recent this happened, but I am sorry about your loss too

I recently lost an aunt, and if someone used that death as a way of provoking me and poking etc, I would be royally pissed and never have any respect for that person, their point of views, nor their opinions ever again...