The unassailable opinions of Gobear

[Waverly]

I’m not quite sure what to make of this individual. To be fair, I’ve seen him be thoughtful and intelligent – though never completely civil. More often, however, he comes across as exceedingly intolerant, and has an unfortunate predilection toward making sweeping generalizations about entire religions, nations, cultures, etc.

Does he give reason? Sure; but he is a philosophical horse-doctor. Every fault, every shortcoming a group of people has ever been associated with indicts that entire group for all eternity. And this, or course, grants license to paint every member of that group with the same brush, including fellow posters. Since well nigh any significant group has faults, Gobear has plenty of targets to fling his feces at.

Frankly, he has turned the corner and despite occasional bouts of lucidity, I consider him a full and three-quarters ignoramus. I’m appalled by it, and I’m surprised he doesn’t take more flack than he already does. Just a few examples:

Gobear on Hinduism:
Given that Hinduism embraces caste discrimination as virtue and its history of barbaric religious rituals like thuggee and suttee, not to mention the current abuses of power by fundamentalist Hindu political groups like Shiv Sena and the BJP, I'm not terribly impressed by Bright N' Shiny's protests.

As usual, there’s a kernel of truth in there. The caste system is a regrettable aspect of Hinduism. Unfortunately for BrightNshiny and many like him, the fact that he and his denomination don’t support discrimination doesn’t absolve him of any sins or grant him the ability to speak out about his beliefs.

3 non-blondes justify racial profiling:
On the other hand, it's stupid to pretend that the terrorists do not all look similar to one another.

Sugar, look at Khalidh Sheik Mohammed. Look at Mohammed Atta. Look at Osama bin Laden. Notice any blondes?

Ah yes, since recent terrorists tend to look alike, it’s acceptable to single out everyone who shares that ethnic heritage for scrutiny.

Most Christians are dumb:
A large segment of Christians tend to be uncritical thinkers who blindly swallow whatever bit of gossip or urban legend is fed them by their pastor or fellow congregants. Sure, there are many intelligent, thoughtful Christians, but they are a minority in the American Christian population. Who do you think has been keeping Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and the Crouches on the air all these years? Atheists?

Because there are fundamentalists, gullible people, and of course gullible fundamentalists, we know that that by the law of todus molens that intelligent Christians number less than half of the total group.

Liberals are unpatriotic bin Laden apologists:
But over the past three decades, a sea change has occurred and liberalism has come to stand for reflexive anti-patriotism (all the liberals who blamed 9/11 on American foreign policy and not on the hijackers or bin Laden and who find burning the American flag to be admirable), Luddite economic views (international trade is EEE-vul!), and social and personal irresponsiblity.

A couple bleeding hearts have obviously peed in the punch bowl for anyone with liberal leanings. In fact, liberals are now all anti-patriotic bin Laden apologists.

A select few, and Gobear, speak for all Iraqis:
Don't be naive. They do speak for Iraq—all Iraqis hate Israel and Jews and they're none too fond of the US either. Do you really think there's anyone in Iraq, or any Arab country for that matter, who has a favorable opinion of Israel?

Certainly there are scores of people in any country with prejudices. Iraq is unique in that they unanimously hate Isreal, Jews, and the US. I guess that’s how they managed the unanimous presidential vote some months back.

Gobear on Germans:
Germans are not Nazis today because they lost the war in 1945 and had their noses rubbed in the Holocaust. But in from 1933 to 1945, the vast majority of non-Communist, non-Jewish Germans were Nazis--read Daniel Goldhagen's Hitler's Willing Executioners.** The Germans, as a nation, were collectively responsible for gassing and incinerating millionsof innocent men, women, and children.
And don't give me "But Uncle Horst didn't know about the camps"--yes, he did. The Germans knew what was going on, what had happened to their neighbors, what "resettlement to the East" really meant.

**Please note that Goldenhagen’s work has been, let’s just say questioned.. I can’t believe no one took exception to the notion that the entire population was knowingly and directly culpable in the holocaust. Unless you believe in a unique German gene, this paints a pretty dark picture of all people.

Baseless accusations of a mother not being capable of unconditional love for her children:
Witch, I sincerely hope that all of your kids are straight; I don't think you could love a gay child.

Witch’s views were being debated, but nowhere did she make anti-gay statements that would warrant this attack.

On religions it’s ok to mock and why:
Christians don't get harrassed--they do the harrassing

You can mock Judaism and Islam til you turn blue, and I don't care, but since Jews and Muslims are linked with race and ethnicity, mocking them is not the same thing as mocking the oppressive hegemonic control that Chrisitanity exerts in this country.

I’m not sure that claim one is correct, claim two of Christian hegemonic control I also doubt, but the real point to ponder is why it is acceptable to mock a group just because they are in the majority.

Gobear, professor of Indian studies:
Mind you, while I'm not indicting the whole country, I've been to India and the place really is a shithole, but one strewn with wonders, kinda like a latrine with diamonds scattered in its fetid depths.

Way to mock an entire nation because they are afflicted with widespread poverty.

Gobear does not suffer impudence from ‘the help’:
If a cashier dared say anything othe nature of the comment in the OP, I guarantee I'd ask for the manager and get her in trouble. Ditto for the C-word who gave attitude over the Randy Shilts book.

Criminy, stick up for yourselves, you doormats! One does not take crap from the help.

I wager I have as much or more familiarity with the service profession as anyone here.

I’m still waiting for proof of that last head-slapper. I suppose it is justification for the earlier comment about ‘the help’. Don't tell me I'm the only one picturing Leona Helmsley here.

[UrbanChic]

I'm not surprised to see this thread.

I dig gobear and we share the same viewpoint often. It's a very polarizing viewpoint, though.

After I read the Hindu post I knew the pitting wasn't far off.

[Hamlet]

Intriguing. To say the least.

[Palo Verde]

Oh yes. According to Gobear, it's OK to mock and stereotype any group.

Except for gays. Then it's terribly wrong.

Don't you see the difference???

[Waverly]

Originally posted by JuanitaTech
After I read the Hindu post I knew the pitting wasn't far off.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Clearly this isn't just about the [recent] Hindu comments. I'm pretty far removed from being a touchy-feely advocate of hyper political correctness - but gross generalizations designed to impugn individuals without thought to their own independent views is not benign, in my opinion. It's ignorance in one of its most dangerous forms.

I have 'dug' Gobear on occasion too, but I'm fairly Gobeared-out at this point.

[SPOOFE]

Ah yes, since recent terrorists tend to look alike, it’s acceptable to single out everyone who shares that ethnic heritage for scrutiny.

Who's being singled out?

[Binarydrone]

Originally posted by SPOOFE
Who's being singled out?

Deliberately obtuse posters?

[iampunha]

There's most-always some truth to be had in what gobear has to say ... the problem is that sometimes this truth is carried to an end that does not justify the means. I think that can be said for just about anyone who posts about as hot-button topics as are cited in this thread, though. With notable exceptions, of course. All in all, gobear is ahead of a lot of other people on my "People whose opinions I'm tired of because however much fact there is, you can't avoid the bullshit attached" list. He's said some regretable things here, to be sure, and I wouldn't say I agree with even half of his political views. But again, you can do a lot worse than this fellow.

[gobear]

Wow, I'm flattered that Waverly took the time to read my posts and Pit me. You love me, you really love me!!

So she (I don't know Waverly's gender, so I hope I'm using the correct pronoun) doesn't like my opinions? Pity. I have a dark view of human nature, a view borne of many years of experience and education, and it underlies many of my posts. Perhaps you don't like my POV, but I don't care. I post to express my opinions, not to curry the favor of the audience.

Anyway, I'm not sure why you have your panties in such a wad. You disagree that India is an extremely dirty place, but still filled with wonders? Hey, sister, I've been there, and I'd be happy to send you my photos. I'm not sure how stating the facts is mocking the nation. Am I supposed to say that India is not poor and not filthy?

As for the labor thing, I worked my way through college and spent several years afterward waiting tables, making beds, and doing hotel scut work in Yellowstone, the Tetons, Grand Canyon, and Death Valley. I worked my ass off and always did my best to make customers happy. Now that I'm on the other side, I expect to get service on the level I gave. If I'm paying for a service, I'd better get it.

Re: Iraq. Read a newspaper.
Re: Germany. Read a history book, or better yet, visit the Holocaust Museum here in DC.


As for Autz's asinine post, there is a difference between stereotyping (bad) and generalization (not always accurate but often useful). I can just see your revison of history ttxts:

"On December 7, 1942, certain individuals not representing the Japanese as a whole in any way attacked Pearl Harbor, an action we do not wish to condemn because there are two sides to every story."

[Waverly]

Originally posted by SPOOFE
Who's being singled out?

From the linked thread:
So I'm looking for angry, political, young, male Muslims probably but not necessarily from the MidEast, since Collounsbury pointed out the collaboration of French converts.

I’m not sure how you pick out a male Muslim by sight if he isn’t of middle eastern origin, but the logic isn’t mine. You can interpret this any way you wish and draw your own conclusions.

[Aries28]

Whether I agree with him all the time or not Gobear is and will continue to be one of my favorite posters.

I find him to be well-read, well-educated, well-traveled and humorous.

He has always been polite to me and expressed his opinions very passionately.

I would rather disagree with him but walk away considering some of the points he makes than read other posts where people talk about subjects they have no knowledge of.

:shrug:

[gobear]

I also think Waverly is guilty of not reading my posts carefully. For example, she claims that I said "Most Christians are dumb," but she quotes me as saying,"

A large segment of Christians tend to be uncritical thinkers who blindly swallow whatever bit of gossip or urban legend is fed them by their pastor or fellow congregants. Sure, there are many intelligent, thoughtful Christians, but they are a minority in the American Christian population. Who do you think has been keeping Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and the Crouches on the air all these years? Atheists?

"A large segment" is not equivalent to "most Christians," and she ignores that I said "there are many intelligent, thoughtful Christians."

I’m not sure how you pick out a male Muslim by sight if he isn’t of middle eastern origin, but the logic isn’t mine. You can interpret this any way you wish and draw your own conclusions.

I thinkeverybody should be questioned, but I think it's ludicrous to treat all people as being equally likely to commit terrorism.

[SPOOFE]

I’m not sure how you pick out a male Muslim by sight if he isn’t of middle eastern origin, but the logic isn’t mine. You can interpret this any way you wish and draw your own conclusions.

I guess the definition of the word "single" has changed since I last checked. How does "keep an eye open for everyone matching certain characteristics" equal "singled out"? I guess I just don't get it... the means of investigating is to NARROW one's focus, not broaden it as much as possible.

Maybe that's why security at airports is such a joke.

[iampunha]

gobear, if I might (and feel free, either of you [Waverly or gobear] to tell me I mightn't):

1. Waverly's male.

2. I think the point he is trying to make is that sometimes you'll take facts 1 through 15 and go to point 25, when in his opinion (and sometimes I share this with him) point 20 is about as far as you can reasonably go.

3. Sometimes your manner of stating something tends to imply that any other viewpoint is ill-based. At least, that's the opinion I have. While you certainly shouldn't be currying your responses to what the general SDMB person will want to see, I think it beneficial to at least make sure you're saying what you think ... that your opinion is borne out of what you are saying to the best (or most reasonable, perhaps) of your abilities.

IMO. YMMV. Etc. And as I said there are any number of people on this MB who are as guilty of this as you are, and many moreso. A brief foray into GD would yield more than you could poke a stick at.

[GaWd]

Yes Gobear, you did say-

"there are many intelligent, thoughtful Christians"

But then you immediately followed up with-

"...but they are a minority..."

So in the very same paragraph you said the the unthinking Xtians are a "large segment", that there are many intelligent, thinking Xtians, but that they are a minority.

Sounds maybe a bit conflicting. Maybe it's just adjective abuse?

Sam

[Waverly]

Gobear, you’ve made a few more incorrect assumptions. I’m neither female nor do I like you. But hey, why fuck up your batting average now?

You can describe India any way you like, but I happen to feel it is demeaning to compare so many people’s country of origin as a latrine.

A have a couple cite requests, if cites exist as you claim:
Which newspaper and in which issue is there a report of all Iraqis hating Jews, Israel, and the US?

Where in the Holocaust Museum is the exhibit stating that the vast majority of Germans were members of the Nazi party who knowingly participated in the Holocaust?

I’m so glad to you included your resume as support for your reference to service professionals as ‘the help’. Does this make you the most knowledgeable [ex-] service professional on the board? I’m sill curious how you came up with that.

"A large segment" is not equivalent to "most Christians," and she ignores that I said "there are many intelligent, thoughtful Christians."

Jebus, what thrilling masturbatory word play. You state: "there are many intelligent, thoughtful Christians, but they are a minority".

Minority: the state of having less than half (OED def. #3)
Most: the majority of (OED def. #2)

Since you are smart enough to know this, I can only conclude you are putting us on. So tell us, why say one thing and then claim to have said another with word contortion?

[Odesio]

Originally posted by iampunha

3. Sometimes your manner of stating something tends to imply that any other viewpoint is ill-based. At least, that's the opinion I have.

I like that about gobear and several other posters here. I find it highly annoying when people try to qualify their statements about right and wrong with "that's just my opinion." If gobear or anyone else holds to a particular viewpoint it seems reasonable to me that they'd believe themselves correct and everyone else incorrect.

Marc

[Mtgman]

Originally posted by gobear
I thinkeverybody should be questioned, but I think it's ludicrous to treat all people as being equally likely to commit terrorism.

There is an implied assumption here and I think the lack of an explicit statement of this assumption is part of the disconnect which sparked this thread. The implied assumption here is that given the current geopolitical situation and the distribution of wealth/power/etc therein, certain groups, mostly made up of individuals sharing ethnic traits, are more likely to commit terrorism than other groups, mostly made up of individuals sharing other ethnic traits. The statement without this assumption being clearly spelled out could also be read as a bigoted remark. An insinuation that it is a trait of the ethnicity as opposed to a offshoot of the geopolitical realities of the current time.

Enjoy,
Steven

[Waverly]

Originally posted by SPOOFE
I guess the definition of the word "single" has changed since I last checked. How does "keep an eye open for everyone matching certain characteristics" equal "singled out"? I guess I just don't get it... the means of investigating is to NARROW one's focus, not broaden it as much as possible.

Maybe that's why security at airports is such a joke.

I'll assume this is an innocent question. You are referring to the noun. As a verb, single means to "regard separately", and though on this rare occasion I don't think the OED gives the best definition, it implies in this context that people meeting the described criteria are treated differently than those that don't. Make sense?

[UrbanChic]

Now, see, I've got to disagree with you there, MGibson. My opinion is just that, my opinion. It is my take on a situation. Others are entitled to their take and I don't necessarily think their take is wrong. Ill-informed, asinine and laughable, perhaps, but not wrong.

[gobear]

1. Thanks for the correction.

2. I bring cites to my posts and while my opinions are forceful, I don't beleive they are unfounded.

3. Well, I try to see other people's perspectives because if I am wrong or or too forceful I will certainly admit my error, but some viewpoints are ill-based and it would be less than honest not to say so.

And 'punha, you can tell me anything because you know I'm going to listen to you. If you or Polycarp or any other poster with a strong track record that commands respect scolds me, I'm going to give you a serious listen.

[Gatopescado]

Originally posted by MGibson
I find it highly annoying when people try to qualify their statements about right and wrong with "that's just my opinion." If ... anyone ... holds to a particular viewpoint it seems reasonable to me that they'd believe themselves correct and everyone else incorrect.

Marc

This is the stupidest thing I have ever read on these boards. But that is just my opinion.

By the way, that attack by certain individuals on Pearl was the year before.

Waverly, you need a hobby.

______________
A Gay Bishop? Can't beat that!

[Odesio]

Originally posted by JuanitaTech
Now, see, I've got to disagree with you there, MGibson. My opinion is just that, my opinion. It is my take on a situation. Others are entitled to their take and I don't necessarily think their take is wrong. Ill-informed, asinine and laughable, perhaps, but not wrong.

How could you possibly call someone elses opinion ill informed, asinine, or laughable but at the same time think that it is correct? That's just silly.

Marc

[Blalron]

So in the very same paragraph you said the the unthinking Xtians are a "large segment", that there are many intelligent, thinking Xtians, but that they are a minority.

Sounds maybe a bit conflicting. Maybe it's just adjective abuse?

Presuming a billion christians in the world, even 10% (a hundred milllion) being critical thinkers would be "many" christians, and a large segment of them.

[Hamlet]

Originally posted by gobear
And 'punha, you can tell me anything because you know I'm going to listen to you. If you or Polycarp or any other poster with a strong track record that commands respect scolds me, I'm going to give you a serious listen.

I would definitely put Waverly on any list of posters with strong track records that commands respect. And perhaps, you should give a serious listen to the ideas rather than who is raising them.

[Odesio]

Originally posted by gatopescado
This is the stupidest thing I have ever read on these boards. But that is just my opinion.

Just so long as it isn't incorrect.

Marc

[Guinastasia]

Though I often disagree with him, and sometimes I think he gets a little too bitter, I like gobear. He's pretty cool.

[Palo Verde]

Originally posted by gobear
As for Autz's asinine post, there is a difference between stereotyping (bad) and generalization (not always accurate but often useful).

OK, let take one of your quotes, "all Iraqis hate Israel and Jews"

Is this a stereotype or a generalization?

Stereotype: to categorize individuals or groups according to an oversimplified standardized image or idea. (cite).

Generalization: a statement presented as a general truth but based on limited or incomplete evidence (cite).


Looks like it is both.

Tell me again why one is bad and the other is good.

[gobear]

Gobear, you’ve made a few more incorrect assumptions. I’m neither female nor do I like you. But hey, why fuck up your batting average now?

The "you love me, you really love me" line is a quote from Sally Fields's Oscar speech in 1984 and was meant as irony, but I'm not surprised you didn't understand that. You should have watched last Sunday's Futurama.

As for the rest of your nonsense, <shrug>.

Here, I can do it again

<shrug>

And yeah, "minority"/"large segment" and so what? I have a low opinion of religion and I feel no compunction to honey my words to avoid offending the credulous.

One more time. . .

<shrug>

[Debaser]

I must say I find gobear to be a bit grating. I am a conservative type who voted for more libertarians than any other political pary in the last election. You would think we would get along fine.

*shrug*

[UrbanChic]

I'll give you a prime example, MGibson. I hated the movie Braveheart. My husband not only liked it, he thinks it's a great movie. He's not wrong.

His opinion is ill-informed, asinine and laughable, but not incorrect.

When gobear relays his opinions in a way that seems deliberately insulting at worst and apathetic to people's sensitivities at best, it's a little off-putting. I think it's because I expect people of a minority group to be a little more sensitive to others' feelings. I'd even go so far as to say it's one of the side affects of being a member of a statistical minority. As I live and learn, though, I'm beginning to realize that's an unrealistic expectation and that some are immune to this side affect.

[Waverly]

Originally posted by gatopescado
Waverly, you need a hobby.

I really don’t need another hobby, thanks. If you are implying it took me a long time to find examples, it didn’t. Most of this was cut and paste from a single search. But really now, do you have any factual objections to what I’ve said, or is this just a drive by?

Gobear:
<shrug>

I'll assume you don't have the cites I asked for then?

And yeah, "minority"/"large segment" and so what? I have a low opinion of religion and I feel no compunction to honey my words to avoid offending the credulous.

So you were incorrect, but it's ok because you have a low opinion of believers... nice.

I'm not a big fan of religion either, but I try to respect people and their beliefs. Actually, it's tough to respect the people without a modicum of respect for what they hold dear.

'punha and Hamlet: you both make good points, and more diplomatically than I would have.

[gobear]

By the way, that attack by certain individuals on Pearl was the year before

You're right, of course. D'oh!
[quote]

Hey, Autz. The MENA region in general, including Iraq, opposes Israel and hates Jews. There are a ton of cites in GD, look 'em up. Interestingly, the Iraqis don't like the Palestinians much--they resented the largesse Saddam bestowed on the Palestinians in Iraq-- and have been chasing them from their homes across the country.

[Lord Ashtar]

gobear and I haven't crossed paths much (except for that SBC pit thread a while back), but I don't find him to be all that bad.

On the other hand, I do think it's kind of shitty to respond to a request for cites with a "go look 'em up yourself."

[Palo Verde]

So, you're not even going to attempt to explain why it's ok for you to 'generalize,' but not for others to 'stereotype,' even though they are essentially the same thing?

[Munch]

In general != all.

[gobear]

On the other hand, I do think it's kind of shitty to respond to a request for cites with a "go look 'em up yourself."

In general circumstances, you'd be right, but when a handful of old posts are dredged up and I am challenged to find cites to defend them, I see no reason why I should. I'm not interested in defending my posts. I am not interested in persuading you, Waverly, or anybody else. I'm not going to play. I stand by everything I've said, and I retract not one thing.

[Hamlet]

Given gobear's response, "Unassailable" was a very apropos choice of words for the title. Not that you care, but I lost some respect for you gobear.

*shrug*

[wring]

Originally posted by gobear
In general circumstances, you'd be right, but when a handful of old posts are dredged up and I am challenged to find cites to defend them, I see no reason why I should. I'm not interested in defending my posts. I am not interested in persuading you, Waverly, or anybody else. I'm not going to play. I stand by everything I've said, and I retract not one thing.

sheesh. You use hyperbolic language ("All blank do/feel/are blank), get called on it, first say "the cites are over there, look 'em up" then when called on it again do the MB equivalent of "I'm taking my bat and ball and going home", but then toss in "I stand by everything I've said and retract not one thing"?

sorry - doesn't play. If you stand by it, you prove it once asked. Or admit that you engaged in a rhetorical device. But this last post really lowers my opinion of you. Yea, I know, that'll devestate you. You wouldn't allow an opponent get away w/that bullshit attitude, I'd suggest you not attempt it here.

[Sauron]

I like gobear. Don't always agree with him, and sometimes I've banged my head on the keyboard in frustration with him. But he's a cool guy, and one of the few posters I'll almost always read when I see his name on a thread title or in the "last post" notation.

I have seen him change his opinion on some matters, or at least alter it after some thought. Which, frankly, other posters on this board would do well to attempt (myself included; I can be extremely bullheaded about stuff). But he doesn't do it easily.

I dunno. Storm in a teapot, and all that.

[gobear]

Given gobear's response, "Unassailable" was a very apropos choice of words for the title. Not that you care, but I lost some respect for you gobear.

Cool by me. If you're the sort of person who thinks Waverly's petty, sniping complaints have merit, fthen your respect wasn't worth much to begin with.

If Waverly wanted to get me to reconsider my posts, he could have tried a more constructiive approach. Instead, from his very first post, he went on the offensive, replete with personal insults. I'll listen to constructive criticism, but I'm damned if I''m going to back down in the face of Waverly's posts.

[gobear]

sorry - doesn't play. If you stand by it, you prove it once asked. Or admit that you engaged in a rhetorical device. But this last post really lowers my opinion of you. Yea, I know, that'll devestate you. You wouldn't allow an opponent get away w/that bullshit attitude, I'd suggest you not attempt it here.

And shall I pull up a handful of your old posts and demand that you defend them, Wring?

[Hamlet]

Originally posted by gobear
Cool by me. If you're the sort of person who thinks Waverly's petty, sniping complaints have merit, fthen your respect wasn't worth much to begin with.

If Waverly wanted to get me to reconsider my posts, he could have tried a more constructiive approach. Instead, from his very first post, he went on the offensive, replete with personal insults. I'll listen to constructive criticism, but I'm damned if I''m going to back down in the face of Waverly's posts.

You've pretty much helped prove the veracity of Waverly's concerns right in the this thread, what with the backhanded swipe at the worth of my respect, and the unsubstantiated dismissal of Waverly's OP. Thanks, you've done more to clear up the issue for me than Waverly ever could have.

[Palo Verde]

Still no attempt to explain why it's ok for you to 'generalize,' but not for others to 'stereotype,' even though they are essentially the same thing?

[wring]

If I made a statement like "All blank are/do/feel blank" feel free.

you used a rhetorical device. I don't believe for a minute that you believe that:

1. Absolutely every single solitary soul in Iraq feels the way you stated

and

2. that a reliable method exists to prove it.

it was a rhetorical device. But, you got called on it. and instead of admitting that you were exaggerating for the sake of the point, you got all huffy.

I won't guarentee that I've never gotten huffy, or screwed up (I believe that Izzy has a list of my screw ups), but fuck, when you get called on it, own up to it.

this kind of response is really childish (IMHO), and once again(IMHO), serves to lower folks opinions of you.

[Waverly]

What childish drek, Gobear. First off, you were being called on your attitude and habit weaving a single thread of fact into a tapestry of insulting generalizations – this isn’t a critique of random postings. You are the one who choose to attempt to wheedle out of individual statements first with verbal knot-making, then with claims of having support, and now with a statement that you stand by what you said but don’t wish to offer support.

If one can’t use posts to demonstrate you have an annoying habit, than what should we do, say so without offering support – oh, wait, I guess that would be ok with you.

If you want things explained to you calmly and with more care, consider entering threads the same way.

[Mtgman]

Can I have my pearl back please?

Thanks,
Steven

[yosemite]

Sauron wrote:

I like gobear. Don't always agree with him, and sometimes I've banged my head on the keyboard in frustration with him. But he's a cool guy, and one of the few posters I'll almost always read when I see his name on a thread title or in the "last post" notation.

I agree with this. I like gobear, even though I suspect that he (when he wastes a millisecond to think of me ) doesn't necessarily think I do.

The reason for this is when I get fed up with some of his "sweeping generalizations" and call him on it (this has almost always been in regard to his low opinion of religion) he almost immediately starts in with lines such as, "Go ahead and feel free to hate me, yosemitebabe, I know you already do." or, "I know you hate me anyway, look how hateful you are being to me" (just general paraphrases here).

I never have understood why he does that. I don't hate him, I never did, I think he's a cool guy most of the time and he's made many well-reasoned posts that have won my heart. But he can be so quick to get ultra-melodramatic with the "go ahead and HATE ME" bulllshit. It's a puzzle why he does this.

I think it's way over the top and does not reflect anything I've actually written in my posts. My gosh--one can disagree strongly with someone without hating them with a white-hot intensity of a thousand suns! Come on!

So that's all I had to say about this. Yes, gobear can be abrasive, and yes, like others here, I do find it incredulous that he won't even attempt to find cites to back up his statements. But more than that, I wanted to state that I LIKE HIM. I am stating this in a relatively cool and collected manner; I am not currently engaging on any debate with him and haven't for a long time. But I want to remind him that that the next time (if there is a next time) that I (or anyone else) butts heads with him, (especially about religion) it does not automatically mean that we hate him. So please, dear gobear, don't trot that old melodramatic device so quickly next time, because I'll simply link you to this post and gently remind you that that dog won't hunt.

[gobear]

it was a rhetorical device. But, you got called on it. and instead of admitting that you were exaggerating for the sake of the point, you got all huffy.

Of course, it's a rhetorical device, and nobody but a fool like Waverly would take it for gospel truth. But here's the thing, I'll admit it to you because you posted in a respectful, albeit chiding, manner. Sure, I need to get spanked sometimes and I'll even admit I'm wrong when I'm busted, but here's the thing. . .

I'll be chided, scolded, shamed, and corrected, but what I will never do is give in to bullying and personal attacks. Ever.

Frankly, I think I owe Bright N'Shiny an apology for my comments because I did go overboard in that thread, but I'm not going to do it now because that would be giving in to this fucking asshole. (Ah, it feels sooo goood to swear now that I'm away from work.)

If Waverly had said, "Hate to Pit you Gobear, but hey, you went way overboard and here's why. . " I'd have hung my head and apologized. But when this clueless fuck decides to launch a thread filled not with facts but with personal insult, he gets the back of my hand and rightly so.

And YosemiteBabe, I do apologize for thinking you didn't like me. I'm sorry for any hurt I may have caused, and I will remember this thread.

Waverly and Hamlet, on the other hand, can eat cat shit.

[Waverly]

Gobear:
Frankly, I think I owe Bright N'Shiny an apology for my comments because I did go overboard in that thread, but I'm not going to do it now because that would be giving in to this fucking asshole. (Ah, it feels sooo goood to swear now that I'm away from work.)

So you owe a 3rd party an apology, but won’t offer it in order to spite me? How very adult of you.

If Waverly had said, "Hate to Pit you Gobear, but hey, you went way overboard and here's why. . " I'd have hung my head and apologized. But when this clueless fuck decides to launch a thread filled not with facts but with personal insult, he gets the back of my hand and rightly so.

*snort* Back of your hand? Better take a longer back swing next time, bruiser.

So you’re wrong, but because I didn’t kiss your ring when telling you so, you won’t admit it. I think I just lost the remaining respect I had for you. Again, if you want to be approached differently, try not coming across as a jackass. My job isn't to coddle you and stroke your sense of self worth; however is someone comes accross as pleasant, I do hope they find I'm pleasant in return.