Thread:173.203.164.58/@comment-5278765-20140814233303/@comment-162.213.150.226-20140821230826

No I actually have a life so I can't be bothered to drop everything and respond as soon as you post something, but awesome for you to assume.

Let's address things now you got your gang in place to blindly support you. I just love how you no one on your team botherd to address my comment regarding the fake badge of Arizona, but anyway...

I didn't set up the titles on the show. The creators did. And like I said before, EVERY OPPORTUNITY that the show had to write down the attendings titles, it was ALWAYS 'chief of'. Now you can go ahead and argue that "well the show's dialogue" goes back and forth, and I can say that you can't justify consistency based on dialogue alone when the show doesn't have consistency in dialogue. From seasons 4 and onward, it's been Chief of Cardio, Chiefs of Trauma and Cardio, Chief of Peds Surgery as dialogue mingled in with "Head of". But the only consistency the show HAS shown is any time it's written down, it's always been Chief of. You can reference that deleted OBGYN chief because his badge clearly shows Chief. The reality show episode where they show Chief of Neurosurgery and Chief of Plastic Surgery for Shepherd and Sloan, respectively, and even the show's santionced character twitter account for Robbins has Chief of Pediatric Surgery. The badge you showed doesn't count because A) it's never been aired B) it's obviously a fake. And I really can't take A-f-s002 when that kind of blind support renders lies, because the show has NEVER once showed Derek to have a lab coat of "Head of Neurosurgery". His lab coat has NEVER once showed his department, so whatever alternative universe this editor has supposedly seen is a complete fabrication, much like your badge, but hey, as long as you get the support that you're "right", who cares about actual truth right?

Who cares that the actual titles are Chief of and the show itself has shown them to be actual titles? Right? As long as your previous made-up rules are followed. It seemed another editor had my same thinking and it was changed, but as soon as you two apparently ran that out, you changed it right back.

And FYI when you post on an admin's wall, there's an implied conversation going on. Because I looked it and never once was there a sentence, 'well what does the community think? let's open it up to let them speak. Any input from them?' No. It was pretty much a closed conversation that was implemented the second the conversation was over.

So I repeat, you're just butt-hurt or whatever the fact that you're being called out on your internet bullying and blanant abuse of admin powers by banning those that voice against you, when right and evidence is on their side, and all you have on your side is your made-up rules and your bandwagon editors and admins who "back you up" because when they're shown evidene and logical reasoning as well, they too turn a blind eye.