and so the messenger got shot?

[Mao]

[rant]

some of you might have noticed a pseudo-drama played out in State selective schools ,...

it goes like this:
i saw brendan's posts, read the article with *name censored* in it, and then linked *name censored* to these relevant posts, and much to my delight, brendan's rebuttal was forwarded to *name censored* and a *cannot be mentioned* was given to me by *name censored* which i was supposed to use to incoorporate into my own arguments against brendan, and that the name and position of *name censored* should not be revealed, and that before I posted a reply i should send my draft to *name censored*. however, i have already mentioned *name censored* and *name censored* in that post and saw no way of, and no point to, hiding *name censored*'s identity, hence *object cannot be mentioned* was posted citing the name of *name censored*.

it then happens that the above action was unacceptable, and *object cannot be mentioned* was removed by request from *name censored*, citing that *quote cannot be made* (basically there could be trouble). much to my surprise too, is that it was so contentious that removing *object cannot be mentioned* was not enough, but the reason for removing it also was removed. I had to have a talk with *name censored* regarding this issue, then later again on the topic that I was ignorant and showed no remorse for what I did.

so there's this thing which I thought existed in Australia, called freedom of expression.
and there's also this thing which I thought existed, if not in Australia, at least on the Internet, called freedom of expression.

so the messenger was to make an anonymous delivery, then the messenger was shot for an inability to do so, then the messenger was shot yet again because he was shot.

and at this point, I see absolutely no harm caused by posting *object cannot be mentioned*, and no ramification as a result of how little period of time it remained. I see little reason why it was so contentious, and even less why it is worth arguing about.
so to sort through this, I have apologized for posting *object cannot be mentioned* (which makes a little sense), yet the finger-pointing continues, and I have had to be continuously pointed out for being wrong as i disobeyed an imperative, then for assuming conspiracy, then for breaching privacy, etc...

so why the fuss? oh wait, i cant ask that question because that's assuming there's a conspiracy.

and it goes like that in circles over and over again.

[/rant]

dont try to decipher this, because it wont make sense

and please dont post your interpretations of what might have happened, because i'd hate for that to be used as a reason to shoot the messenger one more time.

is this mockery? Ha~! shapes: frustration you can see.

- written cryptically so no one actually understands it, it loses meaning, and then becomes politically correct.

[ed_saifa]

O__O ambiguity galore

[Toothpaste]

O__O ambiguity galore

extra supreme

[droodles]

its like he is talking chinese but in english

[tiancaiyimu]

dude, you are the man..

[jess3254]

and please dont post your interpretations of what might have happened, because i'd hate for that to be used as a reason to shoot the messenger one more time.

Damn.

[Collin Li]

It's because he (cannot be explicitly mentioned by name) knows that his arguments are extremely offensive.

[Mao]

It's because he (cannot be explicitly mentioned by name) knows that his arguments are extremely offensive.

well, its not that

its more *reason cannot be mentioned*

[bilgia]

i dont follow.

[aidansteele]

Talk about the world's most pointless thread. You started a thread and provided no details of what appears to be a juicy story, yet stipulate that we're not allowed to ruminate on what the truth might be? What do you expect the responses to be?

[midas_touch]

Talk about the world's most pointless thread.

Agreed. This is just attention seeking IMO.

[bucket]

Talk about the world's most pointless thread. You started a thread and provided no details of what appears to be a juicy story, yet stipulate that we're not allowed to ruminate on what the truth might be? What do you expect the responses to be?

lmao.

[excal]

lol, my -ve karma finger is itching.

Whoever's bloody pulling the censorship string, stop it already.

[Mao]

Talk about the world's most pointless thread. You started a thread and provided no details of what appears to be a juicy story, yet stipulate that we're not allowed to ruminate on what the truth might be? What do you expect the responses to be?

thats exactly the point: it was totally pointless, and even less so that i'm not allowed to talk about it, and even less so that i'm not allowed to even talk about the reason for why i'm not allowed to talk about it

that was attention seeking, i was having a rant on how pointless that non-issue was. people involved in that thread have a fair idea on what happened

[jess3254]

I think it’s ridiculous – he gave you his response knowingly, he should’ve considered the implications (if there were any) before handing it over to you. Did he ever say, ‘don’t post this up on the internet.’? If he didn’t, you cannot be blamed.