How would they know he got someone else's results just via one phone call?
Musk's lawyers claim he has never used a computer (actually sounds accurate when you think about it)
Alright. Sorry about that.
Speak for yourself and your own mentally documented behaviors (which I say partially literally, as that's what this place is for, unless you just came to mock). Nobody is denying the Jedikkeneus and ShinigamiOokamiRyuu names have a driving force in common, but several people can attest the other names involved have no such connection to one another, even if administrators in some places who are infamous for their unreliability (and confessed inability to verify themselves) claim otherwise. Funny how people avoid dumping others' personal information and fingerprints when it proves them wrong on something, eh?
Why are you asking?
And how would you know what the OP is talking about? Especially considering you are wrong about the supposed alts (with one exception) and the viewpoints and intents of the people you claim to speak for.
I wasn't baiting anyone. It was an honest inquiry and could've at least been answered from afar if anyone was afraid of stepping up to do so. And I have a seven-day-old name, so what? Whatever number of days old it was, the complaint would just adapt to that number to fit the needs of the complainer.
You don't think we can see that based on the writings?
Especially when retaliation (and backbiting) is involved that shows all this wasn't taken well (retaliation aimed at anyone who follows their criteria of who is who and which depends on the idea that their sources are always honest when they aren't), I arguably can't dissuade you from positing something there is definitively proof of, complete with a conversation attached (one that is disprovable) about who banned who or whether the motives given are always honest, as well as gossip attached about being "out of one's damn mind" (for what? Debating semantics?) and "having to be committing some kind of offense" based on "past behavior" (arguably spoken like anyone involved has committed any "offenses" or like they come ready to think the worse when they walk into the situation, which undermines conversations about bad faith).
Let's say you make an association, and it aims to address errors in records that are supposed to detail wrongdoing. Naturally the same scrutiny extends to reports, right?
Let's say you have two sides that are at odds. However, they both recount things differently or interpret the same events differently. You would ask for proof, right?
My question for a certain @[email protected] is, do you have any smoking guns? All I see are arguments over pedantic details and claims where the so-called evidence is no more conclusive than the verdict at the beginning of 12 Angry Men (or My Cousin Vinny if you want to use a more fun example).
Some people have complained of others going around reporting everything they say in certain communities as a way to get them banned everywhere, often depending on the mods' carelessness over relevance or investigation.
Has he not heard of Ocarina of Time?