1. I waited 29 minutes for you to respond to my post. I once waited 24 hours for a response. With certain individuals I have a policy of giving them as much time as they need to respond because I know they are *busy*. So he waited 17 minutes and then posted 22 times in 32 minutes as an answer to having his harrassment deleted by the board moderator.
cOUSIN SHORTY did not have to wait long. His answer was apparently delivered with his post being deleted.
His first post was Off Topic and probably should have been sent in PM if his intention was to resolve the issue between he and she.
It certainly appears to be on topic to me, based on the one line offered by Matt.
All subsequent posts were repeats (spam) and in violation of the TOU.
No, they seemed to be legitimate requests for an answer. First, to the question, second, to why the post was deleted. As I said earlier, I think he got carried away with the additional requests, before referring the matter to Matt.
2. Your response merely repeated the theme stated in your first attempt at an argument. Repetition seems to be a recurring theme here (pun intented). In light of that I'll refer you to point number one for the answer to your question.
Sigh. I have raised a number of kids through the years, and I find that repetition is the only thing that works, with children and frequently with adults.
3. OK, let me rephrase. The desired response was not expected to be delivered, the sole purpose was to disrupt the thread, and that *is* in the TOU. Hey, this repeating stuff is kind of fun!
Sigh. One more time. Mr. Shorty *did* wait for a response. He waited 17 minutes. He therefore expected a response, and a response other than having the post deleted. That is logic, and I shall repeat every time you offer that flawed argument.
4. I doubt you'll get a different answer. The rules are clear, harrassment is a no no. Except on the Parking Lot.
That is another bit of silliness. Harassment on iHub is bad. Of course, you can freely harass on "the Parking Lot", which is a pretty wide audience -- it's in 16th place on the hot list, after all. Permitting harassment there, but not elsewhere is just illogical -- and wrong.
5. If your last statement is true, then *your* sole purpose here is to support the disruption of threads here at IH, or to effect that disruption yourself. Why you want to do this is unknown.
My last statement is true. For the record, my last statement was: As for posting elsewhere, most of the specific stock posting activity that actually interests me *is* elsewhere. There's probably a good reason for that, I suppose.
Now, how do you translate that into my sole purpose here is to cause disruption? That is a quantum leap. In fact, I tried to help Poet and marcos fire up a resource thread here, but with little success. Active posters elsewhere have offered reasons why. C'est la vie.
The rules are clear, harrassment is not acceptable at IH.
Uhh, except, as you said, on the Parking Lot, apparently.
Harrassment is defined by the moderators and either verified or rejected by Matt.
I thought harassment was defined by the User Agreement, and enforced by Matt. This difference of opinion is precisely what I asked Matt to clarify.
Matt also decides when someone needs a little time in the *cooler* to understand this concept.
As is his right.
thank you for playing
Shrug.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
