A pitting of Liberal and the Mods that let it happen.

Dude, you have one serious problem. No less an individual than PRR himself asked you to butt out. I cannot be bothered combing through that whole thing to find the cite but I know I saw it. So, given that the person you insist on defending specifically asked you to not, how, exactly do you justify going against his wishes in the guise of ‘defending’ him?

All I’m seeing at this point is that you have a hardon for Liberal and are enjoying this excuse to continue lunging at him. What part of ‘PRR could have stood down if he wanted to’ are you not getting?

What’s worse, I wonder?

An intellectual whore, or an intellectual John?

The whore, at least, has money to show for his efforts.

I can’t really respect a man who will back out of an argument for money, if only because he’s not here for me to respect. I certainly can’t respect the man who paid him.

Both posters sold out their respectability. One of them lost $500 in the process. Liberal, the guy who once paid another poster $500 to shut up, is worth nothing but mockery from this point forward.

It’s also a nasty precedent, but I’m satisfied that the mods will keep a lid of repeat attempts.

This sounds ‘way too icky for me. Couldn’t you fellas just have one o’ them wrestling-type battles Borat-style? Somebody could maybe scratch somebody and that would take care of the whole blood issue.

Pussy.

Thank you for the appraisal. I am not defending **PRR ** with this thread. I do not know how you have managed to miss this despite you reading the entire thread. I have a complaint against Liberal’s action. The mods and admins were kind enough to address it. I am not enjoying the excuse. In fact at this point I am raising no further complaints but just responding to direct questions. I have had ample opportunity to give Liberal a hard time, I am keeping it to one thread. I will not bother him elsewhere. I not calling for his banning. In the original thread I actually made a point of saying I do not wish do see either poster leave. If you think this is a major grudge, you have not read enough pit threads yet.

In fact for someone defending PRR, isn’t strange I agreed that Noone Special was correct that the Admins were left without a sound reason to stop insults against PRR?

Jim

An unfair roll-eyes. First of all, prr has got $500 to defray the pain of all those potshots. Second of all, it wasn’t exactly unexpected that people would be taking potshots at him; he should have (and probably did) take that into account in his decision. Third of all, there are plenty of posters who don’t, or claim not to, post in the Pit. Their choice. Should this policy of potshot protection be extended to them?

I understand the policy of placing posters who cannot post (due to being banned, for example) off-limits. However, I don’t think that policy should be extended to posters who will not post. Just because prr’s circumstances are rather extraordinary shouldn’t give him extra protection.

I wouldn’t characterize this a ‘complaint’. I’d characterize it a full-on meltdown, totally disproportionate to the event in question. Ok, the guy left. Another guy facilitated it. My point to you all along is how do you think it fair or just to blame Liberal when PRR could have as easily backed down and PRR asked you to step away?

At this point, I’m wondering what other issue could get you infuriated to this degree and/or why this one is SO egregious to you when there’s many worse things going on in the world that you could pit.

If you are proud of your behavior in that thread, you are one fucked up individual. And if you’re proud of it, does this mean you’ll refrain from calling anyone who throws it in your face a “bottom-feeding cunt”?

You have managed to make one of my least favorite and now departed posters look like a model of good sense and honorable behavior. Well done, asshole.

Since I may have been misunderstood, I’d like to go on record as saying I do **not **think people **should **be taking potshots at PRR. I merely think that the Board Administration should **not **regulate anything going his/her way differently from what would be done were (s)he a posting Member.
Again, for the record, I have no dog in this fight – and I’d be more than pleased to see neither **Liberal **nor **PRR **getting any more heat for what has transpired. I don’t even have very strong emotions for or against their little business transaction… I just don’t think the Admins should be regulating this.

Yes, I’m sure we can come up with all kinds of red herring scenarios in which failing to comply with something you’ve promised to do is acceptable. “What if I suffer amnesia and can’t remember what I promised? What if I discover the money is counterfeit? What if I’m abducted by aliens?”

What Der Trihs said, however, is that he might voluntarily accept money in exchange for a promise to leave the board (not to lie, not to kill someone, not to do anything illegal or unethical), and keep the money, but not leave. In other words he would first lie, then intentionally fail to do something he agreed to do. If Der Trihs, or anyone else, can explain how that specific act wouldn’t be dishonest (without resorting to “what if?” scenarios, or implying the greater good would be served somehow by teaching the payer a “lesson” about bribery) I’d really like to hear it.

Sorry, have we met? I usually like to exchange a few pleasantries before jumping right into the scat.

Interesting definition of “full-on meltdown”.
a) I am pretty calm for a meltdown.
b) I have dropped no F-bombs or demanded anyone do anything.
c) Liberal initiate the transaction, **PRR ** accepted. It is done. The offer should not have been made and I would have preferred if the mods had made them at least take it of the board. I am not crushed by the fact the mods disagree with me. I believe **Samclem ** was complaining (jokingly) that he cannot get many mod points for this pitting.
d) If you really want to know another issue that really boils me up, just look for my real and stupid meltdown over Global Warming and leveled against **Intention ** in a thread where I was loudly on Liberal’s side of the argument concerning Andrew Jackson. This is somewhere in the pit from a few weeks back. That was a true melt-down. You will noticed I revealed my secret hard-on for Liberal in that thread my being his loudest supporter. Damn me and my vendettas. :wink:

Jim

Yes, that’s it exactly.

Look, we have a nice community here. Like your buddies down at the local bar or something. If one of those buddies loses a bet and has to shave his head, do you really expect him not to catch flak for it?

You guys didn’t play mommy when prr put the metaphorical clippers to his head, which I approve of. He’s a big boy. Now you’re saying that we can’t call him “Kojak.” Well, which is it? Were you wrong then or now?

Nice enough answer. I’m still missing the bit where if both parties agreed and both asked you to not bother, how it is that you’re blaming only one of the two. I’m looking for logic here, and so far not finding any.

No, it isn’t.

Unless you’re working with the cops on some sort of sting operation, yes, you are wrong to take the money. You didn’t earn it, you received it deceitfully (by saying you’d do something and then not doing), and the illegality of the bargain you made does not allow you to take or keep the money out of some half-baked theory that through your own dishonesty you are “punishing” the person who made the deal. If you agree to do something that is “inherently wrong,” then there are actually two wrong act: The “inherently wrong act” you’ve agreed to do, and your own act of agreeing to do an “inherently wrong act” and then welching. Neither is defensible.

I don’t really see how this is a win for Lib. Sure, ppr may be gone (and I’m really going to miss him), but there *will *be other atheist advocates who take exactly the same rhetorical tack with him. Especially now that they see it works so well. It’ll be like some sort of godless Hydra.

It may not be Lib’s stated motive, but it will be seen by some as Lib indirectly admitting to not being able to out-debate ppr fair-and-square. With that “show of weakness”, there’ll be lots of other young gunfighters eager to finish the job. The atheist-theist debates here are about to get nastier in tone - instead of just badchad or, later, ppr, you’ll have dozens. And some of the existing vocal atheists like Der are certainly not going to hold back either. Why should they?

Oh, it’s going to be a fun few months. 2007 is looking up.

It is a fine point but here is the deal.

As far as blaming someone for why PRR is gone, that has more to do with **PRR ** than Liberal. PRR could have rejected the offer at any time. He had his reasons for taking the offer. Though I still think they both got into a bullheaded position from which neither backed down and they both got something they wanted out of the deal in the end. So, I agree with you on this part of your question.

I am complaining about the making of the offer in the first place, not the specific poster who left. There is a small handful of posters I would not be too sad to see go. If the same offer were made to them, I would have notified the mods and tried to stop it. If PRR had made the same offer to Liberal, I would have notified the mods a tried to stop it.

Am I overreacting, well probably, but this is also typical behavior for the pit.

I actually enjoy many of liberal’s posts and I end up in Roll-eye situations with his many hi-jacks and others eccentric actions. The fact that posters like **Polycarp ** genuinely like him, speaks volume to the worth of Liberal. I think this particular action stinks to high heaven. I notice a few other posters agree with me, even if they do not feel as strongly. Posters that really dislike PRR, are still not comfortable with the method of his departure. This is probably a fundamental variance in the way in which some people view life and good conduct that will not be overcome by a pit thread. As of this point I am happy enough with the answers I received from the Mods and Admins and I am just trying to answer questions put to me. Maybe I can even get a few people to understand why I care.

Jim

Technically, aren’t all Hydra Godless? It’s not as if they go to heaven, or even have a soul.
There’s nothing in this whole ‘God concept’ for the lowly hydra.

Nor should they. Like I said, Der Trihs and Badchad make actual arguments, however weak they may be.

**JVinyl Turnip **- Tone back the snark there, I meant it as a straightforward rhetorical question, not a defense of DT.

Jodi, I agree - fallacy of two wrongs and all that.

Having said all that, I think I see where DT is coming from, though. As unloved as DT is by those he opposes (just read the recent “attitude towards military” thread), he loses nothing if he takes the money and continues to post, since the Mods have said in this thread they wouldn’t intervene in such a scenario. Lying is the logical choice, in my very simple understanding of game theory. Sure, it may not be the most ethical choice, but from a practical viewpoint, it’s a double win - get some cash and make the other guy look like a rube. And what do you lose? Some nebulous “respect” you clearly never had anyway? That and a buck can get you a coffee.