Waiting for an answer from Octavian

[jeffchristie]

Over at SI Octavian said:


"----I don't quite understand why she (Honey) won't post here now,
since she has gotten rid of her biggest critic."

Octavian was then ask:

"What evidence do you have that Honey had anything to do with getting
rid of her biggest critic? You Brinker supporters are good at stating
your opinions as facts. If I remember it right the person you are
talking about requested that his membership here be terminated."

Octavian responded by citing a post that could result in his being
banned at SI. No problem he has always prided himself on answering all
questions. So he can answer it here.

[honeybee]

I see you're still waiting, Jeff. I hope you aren't holding your
breath. 8)

.

[Pig]

Well, we know he gets ALL posts via email, so he must be taking his
time to "formulate" a balanced response, to cover up his agenda. :---)

[bigleagueblogger]

"...I see you're still waiting, Jeff. I hope you aren't holding your
breath. .."

I hope is is!

> > questions. So he can answer it here.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Pig]

On Feb 4, 4:17 pm, bigleagueblogger <bigleagueblog...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> I hope is is!

HUH? :---)

[honeybee]

I see that Octavian hasn't answerd Jeffchristie's question yet.

I don't understand. Octavian answers all questions.

[honeybee]

No answer yet? Maybe Octavian is sick. I know he would answer Jeff's
question otherwise.

> > HUH?   :---)- Hide quoted text -

[octavian]

<<"What evidence do you have that Honey had anything to do with
getting
rid of her biggest critic? You Brinker supporters are good at stating
your opinions as facts. If I remember it right the person you are
talking about requested that his membership here be terminated." >>

--Hello all, I have had company this week, and have not spent much
time on the internet.Here is my delayed answer to your question:

I "know" honey is responsible for EQ's banishment from the SI savant
board the same way I "know" that EQ is Mr. Smartee Pants, Mr. Pretend,
et al----overwhelming circumstantial evidence.

A few weeks ago, EQ blamed honey for having some of his posts deleted.
Honey eventually admitted that she HAD in fact complained to Dave
about those posts.

Honey has NO PROBLEM with censorship, as long as it isn't HER being
censored.This is a known FACT. She banned EQ from her own SI board for
no good reason. She banned some guy named Patrick because he had
explained to her that she had mis-read his post. She is DYING to ban
blb from this board for having the temerity to disagree with her. She
SUPPORTED KIRK in his decision to ban ME from his "free discussion"
board.

We know honey hates EQ.

We know that EQ was banned from the Savant board for writing about
honey, instead of the topic of the board. We know that EQ transferred
posts from THIS board to the Savant board for the purpose of talking
about honey. We know that honey disapproves of people transferring
posts from this board to the Savant board for ANY reason, so we know
that she would surely object strongly to posts being transferred FOR
THE PURPOSE OF TALKING ABOUT HER.

So, in summary, we know that honey has no problem with censorship, we
know that she has no problem with the concept of complaining to the
management of SI (something I, for one, would never do under ANY
circumstance), we know that she hates EQ, and we know that she
ESPECIALLY hates it when EQ transfers posts from the google site for
the express purpose of denigrating HER.

Why would anyone in his/her right mind NOT think that honey complained
to Dave about EQ's posts about her????

As far as EQ "requesting that his membership be terminated," that is
an obvious non-argument. EQ SAID he had requested his membership be
terminated. But EQ posted numerous times afterward, so his membership
obviously was NOT terminated at that time. I doubt if he even actually
requested it. In any event, he was back, and happily posting when he
was summarily terminated. He did not do it to himself. Either Dave did
it on his own, or Dave did it at the request of another poster. I
seriously doubt that Dave did it on his own, since he had been
ignoring our board for some time. If he did it at the request of
another poster, I have a bridge to sell you if you think it was
someone other than honey.

[Pig]

On Feb 5, 8:33 pm, octavian <miscrean...@webtv.net> wrote:

>>If he did it at the request of
>>another poster, I have a bridge to sell you if you think it was
>>someone other than honey.

Impeccable logic, Octavian, well presented and thought out, with only
one minor problem.

It's still a 100% incorrect conclusion, but I don't need the
bridge. :---)

[octavian]

Piglet said: " It's still a 100% incorrect conclusion, but I don't
need the
bridge. :---) >>

--Piglet, how do you KNOW that it's a 100% incorrect conclusion? Did
honey tell you she didn't do it?

[Pig]

On Feb 9, 8:51 pm, octavian <miscrean...@webtv.net> wrote:
> Piglet said: " It's still a  100% incorrect conclusion, but I don't
> need the
> bridge.  :---) >>
>
> --Piglet, how do you KNOW that it's a 100% incorrect conclusion? Did
> honey tell you she didn't do it?

Yes Sir!! Without any qualifications or hedging too.

BTW, the answer to your next question is "Yes, I do", but you will
have to subdue my bodyguards to find out any more! :---)

[honeybee]

Mr. Pig,

Why no reply from Octavian now that you have answered his question so
candidly?

What's up with that? Is he ashamed of himself? He should be -- always
jumping to conclusions about me and never giving me the benefit of the
doubt.

[Pig]

On Feb 10, 9:48 pm, honeybee <mshoneyr...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Mr. Pig,
>
> Why no reply from Octavian now that you have answered his question so
> candidly?
>

Probably because there was no question asked, Ms Honey. That
Octavian guy does not comment on all posts, unless it fits into his
agenda. :--)

One needs to ask a direct question, to get a direct answer.

[honeybee]

Okay, then I will ask Octavian a direct question:

When are you going to apologize to me?

[octavian]

Honeybee queried:

<< Mr. Pig,

> Why no reply from Octavian now that you have answered his question so
> candidly?

Piglet responded:

<< Probably because there was no question asked, Ms Honey. >>

--In this particular instance, you are correct, Piglet.

<< That
Octavian guy does not comment on all posts, unless it fits into his
agenda. :--) >>

--I'm glad you added a smiley face, because you know very well that I
have NO agenda!!!!!


Honeybee retorted:

<<Okay, then I will ask Octavian a direct question:

When are you going to apologize to me? >>

--Well, certainly not now, honeybee. Even if you weren't directly
responsible for EQ's banishment, you yourself ADMITTED that you had
complained to Dave about some of his earlier posts, which were
subsequently deleted. So at the very least you were indirectly
responsible for his banishment.

In my opinion, ANYONE who complains to management about another
poster, is a wimp and a jerk. And ANYONE who "moderates" a board and
banishes a poster for anything less than the most egregious, repeated
offenses, is a censor.

You qualify on both counts.