24-02-2016, 04:33 AM
On the contrary, Mr. Scully, the request to lock this thread has nothing to do with your exercise of free speech, nada! The intent to lock this thread is requested with the best of intentions and the honorable thing to do, given a private matter between you and Mr. Hargrove shouldn't escalate in a thread that doesn't feature your private disagreement. I find it curious--timing wise--that after so many good faith attempts by him to ask you on multiple occasions to exercise your free speech and share with him how he and Mr. Armstrong had slighted you--that your right to free speech didn't seem to be so important. Just saying.
Now, Whether it's "Guest" viewing along and/or other researchers passing by, I don't believe it serves the research community in any way shape or form to allow members to openly engage in a combative private matter best relegated to PM mode. I hinted as much to you early on in this thread in hopes that you would set your focus upon engaging him directly in PM mode, rather than use this thread indirectly to attack him (I'm all for open, fair exchanges between researchers, but I cannot--in good conscience--allow him to be attacked behind his back). Again, this matter is a private concern between you and him, and as such should be handled via PM, not in a thread void of his input. The honorable thing to do is not hit or kick someone behind their back, thus my request to have moderation lock this thread down.
That said, please by all means exercise your right to free speech, PM him and resolve your conflict with him.
I don't like being privy to lopsided discussions, which seems to come much easier for the individual Mr. Hargrove simply made an effort to warn us about ( a sneaky edit here, a sneaky edit there, etc). I admire and respect Mr. Hargrove for alerting the research community to those deceptive practices. Moving forward, it's up to you guys to resolve your own conflict.
Now, as to such time the Moderators decide to shut this thread down or not, Mr. Scully, if you feel an urge to exercise your free speech here rather than directly engaging in PM mode the actual source of your compliant, go ahead....
Now, Whether it's "Guest" viewing along and/or other researchers passing by, I don't believe it serves the research community in any way shape or form to allow members to openly engage in a combative private matter best relegated to PM mode. I hinted as much to you early on in this thread in hopes that you would set your focus upon engaging him directly in PM mode, rather than use this thread indirectly to attack him (I'm all for open, fair exchanges between researchers, but I cannot--in good conscience--allow him to be attacked behind his back). Again, this matter is a private concern between you and him, and as such should be handled via PM, not in a thread void of his input. The honorable thing to do is not hit or kick someone behind their back, thus my request to have moderation lock this thread down.
That said, please by all means exercise your right to free speech, PM him and resolve your conflict with him.
I don't like being privy to lopsided discussions, which seems to come much easier for the individual Mr. Hargrove simply made an effort to warn us about ( a sneaky edit here, a sneaky edit there, etc). I admire and respect Mr. Hargrove for alerting the research community to those deceptive practices. Moving forward, it's up to you guys to resolve your own conflict.
Now, as to such time the Moderators decide to shut this thread down or not, Mr. Scully, if you feel an urge to exercise your free speech here rather than directly engaging in PM mode the actual source of your compliant, go ahead....