So, which one of you contacted Dayton's principal?

This should be merged with the other thread.

If people go out and find things about him, that is there business, but that doesn't mean they have a blanket right to mention it here. Chad may have thought he had permission based on something Dayton said two years ago, but that's a fairly ridiculous notion, much like reporting a post from two years ago.

No merges!

No, no, we need to split off the OT posts!

Dayton mentions in and out of the Blue Room several aspects of his teaching abilities, and he flat out challenges people to find proof that he is not an adequate teacher, and has done so recently outside of the Blue Room. By issuing that challenge openly, outside of the Blue Room does give the right directly from Dayton to mention that here. Just as he did so in the thread where he challenged someone to post a link to Student Manual at the school he was teaching at.

IIRC, people here at Wordforge have often advised me to keep my personal information private. I was trying to do that over the last 6 months regarding this very issue.

How can I keep any personal information private if someone thinks permission given over a specific issue years ago extends indefinitely into the future.

Plus, there was no reason whatsoever for Chad to go digging it up at this time permission or not.

Nonsense. If this had been something like details of a personal event, his home address or whatever else I would agree. But two years does not change the permission he gave, and in addition he has revealed, outside the Blue Room,:-

1) The place where he works

2) The job he does

3) The fact that he was subject to these proceedings

4) His full name

5) Pictures of his time at the school

Everything is already out there. The new information only provides an update on the self-admitted proceedings. It does not reveal previously unknown personal details. This is a case of trying to close the barn door after the horse has bolted. If the mods didn't want this they shouldn't have allowed the original leak.

I've never revealed anything at wordforge about the events that Chad references from 7 months ago. Not in the slightest. I was following everyones advice and trying to not reveal personal things there.

Come on El Chup, this is just more of the "anyone could find it so don't complain when I start a trolling thread about him" stuff you used to use to justify your stuff about me.

It's legal public record, like a court order, so whether or not it's personal information is open to debate when you have provided the means to find it.

Nope, anything I bring up is done off the back of what you have revealed outside the Blue Room. I have never, for instance, revealed your home address, daughter's name, father's name, other photographs and so on, all of which were easy to obtain using the details you have given out.

You have openly discussed the proceedings regarding your competency as a teacher. What has happened now is the inevitable consequence of them restarting the 2013 proceedings against you and this time following procedure correctly.

I don't think this is revealing anything but

1) Neither the events of 2013 nor the ones of 2015 have anything whatsoever to do with "competency".

2) The events of 2015 are completely independent of those of 2013.

Yes they did. I have the latter document in front of me right now, and I remember the former from when we discussed it back then. Plus I'm not the only one here to have read both.

Nope, they cover the same issues.

If you're claiming it's not about competency, what is your explanation for this latest outcome?

The former is still available, that's the beauty about public info.

gul told us not to discuss details at this time.

You were willing to earlier today.

That doesn't mean it belongs here. Knock it off, is that clear?

I'm willing to if gul declares that nothing else is going to be done. Earlier I thought that I had already been given the final word.

And even then I will not discuss it if people here mischaracterize and misstate events.

Yes, I did, and yet you continue to take their bait. I just spent 20 minutes editing all the personal info out of that other thread, and now I find you've practically handed it out again in this one. If you want to discuss it, fine, but the more you reference the events in question, the less you can hide it from the board.

Why? You said not to post the info and so I have not. That doesn't mean we can't discuss the merits of whether or not he gave permission. That's not against the rules last time I looked.

Or is this an attempt to corner me so you can slap me with one of your tenuous bans?

[redacted by admin (personal information)]

[redacted by admin (personal information)]

Then people will make their own hypothesis, which may or may not be in error, allowing for a greater possibility of events to misstated or mischaracterized.

God damn it you fucks. I told you not to continue revealing personal information. Next one who does it is getting a vacation.

You can't blame me for that one.

Where is personal information revealed. Dinner made a suggestion from an assumption that could be beneficial, El Chup asked a question. Neither reveals personal information.

Can I reveal personal info about myself?

Me thinks that in the frustration of having to mop up the mess that Dayton has spent years creating Gul may be losing his objectivity.

What about John Castle?

Ok, so the fact that the first paragraph of my reply here has remained unedited, does this mean that we have permission to discuss the "F" word?

Why edit out what Dayton posted? No one forced him to, if he freely posted personal info that is his right and it should not be redacted.

I've merged this in with the original thread. Now, a few points for the imbeciles:

• Do not discuss the incident Chad linked unless Dayton brings it up further himself. If Dayton does so, then all bets are off.
• Dayton's grant of permission two years ago to post about an incident using off site information is not a blanket grant of permission to post about anything else in his off board life.
• Efforts to reveal the information will be subject to disciplinary action.
• This kind of thing should go without saying, you dumb fucks.