>>>>Do you know any facts about this that we don't? You must if you can claim that so assuredly with conviction.
>>>
>>>Huh????? I said that JVP remains as childish as he ever was. What other facts than those available do I need to come to that conclusion?... see him have his diaper changed?
>>
>>I think it's ironic that you call somebody childish with some of the statements you make.
>
>That's fine. I can take it.
>Feel free to throw them back in my face.
>
>Were you using UT when JVP was previously banned?

Yes, I was, and I do agree that he seemed to thrive off conflict and knew how to press buttons. However, to give the impression that he was evil incarnate and everybody on the other side was totally innocent is wrong.

>>>>>>The problem I have with your statement is that it implies that anyone who is ever guilty of anything in the past is automatically guilty now of whatever they are being accused of. I'm not saying one way or the other in this case (not even who was guilty back then or now), I'm only saying that the principle is wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>>No. I said JVP heard about a new magazine and decided to send a note that he would seek injunctive relief... In other words, he repeated a former trait of childishness.
>>>>>
>>>>>He is guilty. Not "anyone".
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>The issue has spilled over to Lisa Slater-Nichols blog. Read the comments there by both JVP and Rainer. http://spacefold.com/lisa/post/The-Foxx%2c-the-Voxx%2c-and-the-Phoenixx.aspx#comment
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>JVP hasn't changed a bit. Still as childish as ever.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>And you somehow know the entire story?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Frankly, the "entire" story doesn't matter. That JVP would hear about the new 'magazine' and decide to intrude with a warning of "injunctive relief" is enough for me. Plenty in fact.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The "entire" story... Mr. Becker offered what appeared to be missing parts and prefaced it with a 'let's get everything out' statement. Mr. Becker revealed that it was not himself that made the temporary amendment on the FoxWiki.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>John has been a child for years, at least when it comes to comportment ONLINE. It was disappointing to see that he remains at the same place.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I do not need a "entire story" to come to that conclusion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Were you even on UT when JVP earned his double banning? If not, you are missing the history that you need to see what I mean.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Thanks John. I don't think anyone is under the assumption that JVP's entire motives were altruistic, but I felt that (since the information was posted publicly to begin with) the information to the public on the situation (which I don't think should have been publicized anyway - it would have been better to just state which authors materials were available and which would not be available) should be as accurate as possible. If the information goes out, at least put the information out there without intentionally slamming anyone in the process. If you tell a story, tell the whole story. That is given my limited information as well.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Looking back on it all, I agree with John R though now. I don't think it should have been brought out at all and definitely not here on the UT. That was a BIG mistake (on my part).