It's quite possible that the original contribution was declined in error. The Screeners are only human after all & mistakes happen. I had one declined recently & after a thread here, Gerri kindly sorted it out.

As for doing one contribution at a time when you KNOW that you've got others, while it may not technically be against the rules, as others have said, it unnecessarily adds extra work for the Screeners, and can be seen as being quite childish. I am not saying that is the case but that it can be seen that way.

*****Post removed because quote contained profanity*********

Quoting bbbbb:

Quote:
**********Please refrain from profanity*********

wow! 

Moderator, you've won against the customer.

Quoting Forget_the_Rest:

Quote:
It's quite possible that the original contribution was declined in error. The Screeners are only human after all & mistakes happen. I had one declined recently & after a thread here, Gerri kindly sorted it out.

As for doing one contribution at a time when you KNOW that you've got others, while it may not technically be against the rules, as others have said, it unnecessarily adds extra work for the Screeners, and can be seen as being quite childish. I am not saying that is the case but that it can be seen that way.

Couldn't agree more.

Quoting Mallrat:

Quote:
IMO there should be some kind of sanction available for the kind of behaviour bbbbb brought to our attention. A simple "ignore it and block the user" isn't good enough.

Really? That's more than good enough for me.  I'd much rather Ken spend his time doing useful things than babysitting.  This is the internet and I expect behavior standards to fall well below the pre-school level.  Thus I'm not the least bit surprised when I see people acting that way.  I can't imagine why ignoring something like this isn't good enough.

Quoting Mark Harrison:

Quote:
Quoting Mallrat:

Quote:
IMO there should be some kind of sanction available for the kind of behaviour bbbbb brought to our attention. A simple "ignore it and block the user" isn't good enough.

Really? That's more than good enough for me.  I'd much rather Ken spend his time doing useful things than babysitting.  This is the internet and I expect behavior standards to fall well below the pre-school level.  Thus I'm not the least bit surprised when I see people acting that way.  I can't imagine why ignoring something like this isn't good enough.

To each his own. But who said anything about Ken getting involved? And again: I don't see any difference between defining unacceptable behaviour on the forum (and acting against it) and defining unacceptable behaviour in the PM's. If a moderator can act on a post here, he can act on a PM that's been forwarded to him. I doubt there would be a whole lot of stuff forwarded, we're talking about verbal abuse not differences of opinion. How many of us swear at eachother?

You may have resigned to the fact that abuse is common, to be expected and therefore is no big deal, but I have not (and won't).

This is not specifically directed at anyone in particlular but I have the strong feeling that the general attitude towards this subjectmatter is, in this thread, heavily influenced by the "who" instead of the actual topic. I'm pretty sure that if it was a well-liked, respected user who was verbally abused, the general opinion would have shifted in another direction.

@Unicus: couldn't disagree with your agreement more.

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
I don't think that is true.  I know, for a fact, that James and Rick...two people I really like and respect...have gotten these kinds of PMs.  My suggestion to them was the same as my suggestion to bbbbb, block that user.

I haven't received this sort of PM yet, so I must be doing something wrong.  Note, that was not a request!