Replies

“False. I posted the warning before seeing your post to me.”

I don’t think it’s false.

“I review posts by time posted, most recent and then backward regardless of threads.”

Okay. In this thread the following happened:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3205826/posts?page=46#46

An anti-Catholic violated the board rules at 9:45:58 PM.

You said nothing.

Then I posted in response to that Freeper but not to that same post at 9:52:51 PM. [7 minutes after the anti-Catholic Freeper posted]

For that post you said I shouldn’t make it personal at 9:58:48 PM. [13 minutes after the other FReeper posted; 6 minutes after I posted]

I then noted the fact that you ignored the other guy’s post at 10:03:33 PM. [18 minutes after the other guy’s post]

And you then warned that other person at 10:05:02 PM. [20 minutes after the other guy posted, but only 90 seconds after I noted the other guy wasn’t warned as well]

“I review posts by time posted, most recent and then backward regardless of threads.”

Okay, but how is it that you didn’t catch the other person when that person (and actually two different people in the last two days] had his post up essentially by itself for some minutes before I responded? In other words, why was it that my post was gigged by you in a mere 6 minutes, but you didn’t notice his post in the 7 minutes before I responded to it and not for a total of 20 minutes altogether and only after I said something? So my post was noticed, and his was not until after I mentioned it - which you deny had anything to do with you noticing it.

“So if misbehavior is happening, I’ll catch the last one first.”

Okiedokie, so for 7 minutes his post was up there without any response from me and you noticed nothing. Yet within 6 minutes you noticed mine. Thirteen minutes later you finally noticed the other guy’s post - after I mentioned it.

“The RF guideline is that if one has been warned on the thread, everyone in the sidebar should consider himself warned.”

I understand.