Dorian Gray Part III

I truly fail to comprehend the reasoning behind this particular mode of conduct.
First, inquiries are met with silence, and subsequently, my response—which I requested be archived due to the sheer ignorance of Della17 and her attempt to diagnose someone as autistic, a fact which clearly Frank failed to grasp.
I find myself compelled to ask both of you whether Frank suffers from some form of dyslexia, given his inability to read even the post by Rose, who is likely a retired psychologist.
To be clear, this is an inquiry, not an assertion.

You work with individuals with special needs, which explains why you believe you understand Elizabeth so well, but since the term "special needs" is incredibly broad, that does not grant you the credentials to call the President vacuous; your expertise may lie in speech therapy, certainly not in clinical mental retardation.
From my perspective as a competent observer, I maintain that our President is a highly intelligent individual, unless you contend that a psychologist lacks sufficient expertise.

The following are excerpts from the offending post. Was it also archived, and if so, what was the point penalty, considering that based solely on the "opinion" of Frank, I received 45 points for absolutely nothing regarding Della17 ...

My question remains: why was my post deleted? It clearly highlights the new spectacles being performed through the ignorance of Della17, seeing as the wrapped package is exactly what she wishes to present at the inauguration; it matters little if the contents are garbage, so long as they are presented in cellophane. I trust you will not take offense at my prose, as I have a logical argument for every word... should you care to ask.

Do not tell me the reason was because you deleted mine.
That post sat in limbo for six days... is this a public message?
Not long ago, the clone demonstrated her difficulty in accepting the words of others...

Why do you behave this way? It does not anger me, but when I observe the protection of ignorance and falsehoods, I feel a need to understand the motive, as such knowledge serves me in my daily life where I sit before a keyboard without letter markings.

I have reported the post.

Jerry Robinson56, have you signed the petition?

And what will the thinker Frank conclude from this? Curiosity? My refusal to accept a hand extended in "reconciliation"? Or perhaps her eagerness to attach yet another post interpreting Della17 as someone who is mentally or physically impaired, just as Frank "concluded."

None of that is actually pertinent, however... why are you like this?

Must I shorten my inquiry? You have moderators who possess no grasp of basic terminology. These "new" ones...

Not long ago, Powerlock was systematically deleting my entries; it is almost comical how Edge was writing things nearly identical to what Powerlock was erasing... I suppose I am destined to remain outdated, not just in my own self-presentation 😁?

Furthermore, he took issue with me calling him Grabarka... which is perfectly fine in common parlance, but I shall now write Grabar K at the request of a fellow user.
I was even forbidden from using the term "Trumpoid," a derivation representing a community of organisms transitioning from 3D to 2D figures.
Let us say "trapezoids" instead, lest someone else finds themselves offended and surprised.

Why are you like this?

Jerry Robinson56, your vision of what constitutes "fair moderation" can be quite an exhausting read at times. Moderation isn't something triggered on demand; amidst a sea of endless posts, moderators have to exercise actual judgment to decide when someone has truly crossed the line and intervene accordingly. That doesn't mean they should jump down someone's throat over every minor provocation—if that were the case, we wouldn't need human moderators at all; we’d just use algorithms designed to flag specific patterns and react automatically.

You told a female user on this forum that she was "special needs," and you received a well-deserved warning. There is absolutely no debate there, so please, spare us the long-winded essays you use to try and justify it.
She provoked you with that petition, and she received a warning for that as well. When she called you somewhat autistic, she also got a warning for being insulting. Perhaps she deserved a second identical warning for repeating the same label within such a short window, but that falls under the discretionary judgment I mentioned earlier.

And now you're bringing up old grievances involving various other mods again... For heaven's sake, next time you feel someone deserved a warning, just use the report button. If nobody responds and you eventually decide to start a thread, just write a two-sentence explanation without resorting to those "everyone is out to get me" conspiracy theories.

Thanks for checking in. I’ll keep this brief where possible, though I find that some things simply require a proper explanation rather than a mere shrug of the shoulders and a dismissive "that's just how it is."
In my experience, failing to adhere to a schedule isn't merely an inconvenience; it is a systemic failure that breeds a cascade of compounding issues. It doesn't just cause minor setbacks—it generates a cumulative weight of dysfunction that eventually becomes impossible to manage.

Della17 was issued a penalty—though, for the record, I certainly didn’t report her, nor would I ever dream of doing so. It is my firm conviction that the disciplinary action taken against her was entirely unwarranted.

Jerry Robinson56 has been handed a yellow card... an entirely unjust decision, and frankly, Frankrsto is actually using this as his justification.

I feel compelled to offer you a word of caution, Dell17. My professional experience involves working closely with individuals with special needs, so I have developed a certain intuition for recognizing those traits when they manifest in others.

I have provided a technical clarification to demonstrate that this does not apply exclusively to individuals with mental or physical disabilities—which is how most people mistakenly interpret it. As Rose pointed out quite clearly in her post, we are dealing with a much broader concept here.

The second post remains. Della17
To which? FranKrsto It offers absolutely no reaction whatsoever. Honestly, what could possibly be more offensive than that, aside from a total, unchecked expansion of pure stupidity? Della17

I stand by my assertion that you possess an autistic temperament—you seem more preoccupied with the internal monologues playing out in your own head than with any actual reality.

Now, if you'll allow me a moment, I shall explain how one might prevent FranKrsto from drawing such definitive conclusions regarding the value of that particular post.
I’ve already filed that report... Consider it a conclusion, rather than some mere assertion found in a cheap comic book.
It took a full six days of my constant, weary complaining before they finally decided to pull that post down.
It isn't as though these occurrences are uniquely targeted at me. One has to wonder why such patterns exist at all.
If he had actually been deleted, he would have realized it. People would have been breathing down her neck, demanding she get back on track and address the actual topic at hand.
It remains the same: she continues to engage in nothing but baseless rambling.

Do you follow me?

It seems I have been told that it is so. FranKrsto It is quite frankly exhausting to witness such blatant intellectual arrogance. One individual continues to lecture and posture, completely disregarding the insights offered by Rose, who is undeniably an expert in her field and possesses a profound understanding of what special needs actually entail. To ignore someone with her level of professional authority is more than just rude; it is fundamentally irrational. Furthermore, this person remains suspiciously silent regarding the official report...
By what metric, then, are these cards categorized? Is it merely by some arbitrary whim of the designer? Or perhaps through a method of partial reading, much like calculating interest on a lagging balance?
It is quite apparent that Della17 isn't actually addressing the subject at hand. Instead, she is merely venting her own resentment, seemingly driven by a desire to see Elizabeth Gojan and the others penalized. It appears to be nothing more than a bitter reaction to her own inability to reach a certain peak of euphoria.
It is quite telling, really. This entire thread is devoid of a single sentence or even a solitary quote. It is a glaringly symptomatic void.

I am still pursuing the removal of that digital stain from my profile. It was entirely unearned, a complete error in judgment. Furthermore, I believe the post itself deserves to be stripped of its "junk" status; it has sat idling online for six days now without establishing any meaningful connection to the actual subject matter.

I find myself once again staring at the wreckage of modern discourse. It is truly exhausting how some people approach even the simplest discussions with such unbridled, mindless enthusiasm. They seem to believe that volume equates to validity, which is a fallacy that has plagued human interaction since we first crawled out of the mud. Jerry Robinson56 seems to be under the impression that his particular brand of optimism is somehow infectious or, heaven forbid, correct. It isn't. It’s merely noisy. There is a certain exhaustion that comes with watching individuals mistake their own loud opinions for objective truth. One would think that with the sheer amount of information available to us in this country, people might develop a modicum of discernment, yet here we are, wading through the same shallow pools of thought. It’s all quite predictable, really.

You can see him in his entirety within these confines, provided you have the patience to actually look.
If you insist that his intentions are benevolent, I shall recalibrate my own perceptions accordingly; I suppose I can afford to cite your judgment as a precedent.
He could have easily settled for anything under 45 points given that recognition warning... wouldn't you agree, if we're being honest for once?
I am more than willing to provide you with the psychological breakdown of Della17, if only to illustrate the specific needs I pointed out earlier. I offered that as a warning, really—an admonition to return to the actual topic at hand rather than indulging in those outbursts of passion that, frankly, fail to provide any intellectual satisfaction to the listener. If one examines her subsequent posts, it becomes painfully obvious that she is quite lonely and is simply desperate for attention. To put it mildly. My message was simple: stop biting your own chain and just communicate.

Here is my explanation, which I included in my previous post before FranKrsto decided to issue me a ban. It’s essentially a recipe:

Re/. — try focusing on the subject of Della17 rather than myself, regardless of the pleasure I might be providing you

do you understand now? ... one must possess the ability to read.

The moderators are performing their duties adequately; I recognize they serve as a filter, not as an arbiter of what we "intended," yet FranKrsto faces a dilemma because he failed to act even regarding the post by Della17, which undoubtedly warrants a warning. It is clear that Della17 lacks any understanding of autism, yet she is perfectly aware of the weight that word carries when used as a weapon.
It is akin to a child using profanity. An infantile level of discourse.
Your version of "fairness" is essentially saying—I killed two people, but the penalty will only apply to one.
Or perhaps I was merely venting over a corpse, but that doesn't count?
Or if I write something offensive in my first post, then repeat that offensiveness in a second... does that change nothing?
Quite flimsy, if not outright pathetic.

Furthermore, following my return from the ban, my recent post—which was entirely composed correctly and wasn't even posted immediately—was deleted as a response to her six-day "whining"... that significantly undermines your attempt to justify FranKrsto, does it not?
I am always writing online, you see... just look at him... why was that one deleted as well?
Only then was the controversial post by Della17 removed.

The argument is simple—what constitutes a person with special needs? I have provided the link, and any psychologist, psychiatrist, or behavioral specialist would be more than happy to explain the concept of special needs to you, as I have already noted.
Having special needs does not equate to being "handicapped" or having a "diagnosis" in the derogatory sense... individuals with kleptomania are people with special needs. To top it off, Rose herself wrote that it is a broad term.
That post still remains there.

And it all began like this

Thank you for your time, I truly mean that... now, do think about it... once more.

Re/. — try focusing on the subject of Della17 rather than myself, regardless of the pleasure I might be providing you

It is all written right there, is it not?

It seems you’ve chosen to ignore both the explicit explanation regarding the penalty and the very clear instructions on how to file an appeal, so I believe we have reached the end of this discussion.