“Anon forums”?
If you don’t know, you don’t wanna know.
Let me state for the record-- I do NOT want to see Lib banned. I don’t like to see anyone banned. december, Colluonsbury, Reeder, Wildest Bill, Brutus, Alderbaran. . .
Let them post! Let them post! Let them post!
Anon=anonymous
The first rule of Anon Forums is you don’y talk about anon forums…
Biggirl, that was my fault.
I posted that bloody stupid piece of shit from those pussy-anons. I shouldn’t have.
But I was angry.
Now that it’s too late, I realise Liberal may have been blissfully unaware of these pathetic kids.
Like I once was 
Anyway: I’m sorry I posted it, my apologies to anyone that I wrongfully accused and a hearty “fuck you” to the rest of those slimy insects. 
:smack: don’t
ps- Thanks Scott for being so informative, as usual…
But since we’re not on an anon forum, I’d say stick the anon forum rules in your left ear and try to get the snot out of your nose, right?
Settle down spunky, my comment was a spin off from the movie “Fight Club”.
I figured that much but was wondering how it applied.
I’m sorry, askeptic.
My apologies.
Again.
It’s were people go to say nasty things about dopers anonymously. It can be quite hilarious if you have a thick skin. But, if you take your internet life as seriously as Lib does, it is not the place for you.
Ah, a LiveJournal reference. Carry on.
I believe LJ deleted all of the anon journals. I happen to be lucky enough to get a link to the NEW anon forum-- an entry all about ME!
And it was all true!
One of these things is not like the others…
Brutus wasn’t banned; he didn’t renew.
Ah! Then he should Pay to post! Pay to post! Pay to post!
OMG God! Have I done the unthinkable? Have I hijacked Lib’s thread? The universe. . . it is collapsing. . .
hehehehehe Biggirl 
I think that this is where I disagree with one widely held view on the board.
I do not believe that he is deliberately acting to disrupt the board. I think his world view and his thought processes are sufficiently different from most folks’ that he does not even perceive where the problem lies.
I often note places where he posts in ways that others find offensive, but in which I suspect he truly did not understand their objections. In the ensuing exchange, it usually appears as though he and his opponents are posting excerpts from two separate arguments in the same thread.
I do not have a good answer to how to resolve the situation. I do note that there are many times when he posts things that people choose to not ignore and then blame him for the hijack.
In the great “Jon Stewart” in Cafe Sciety fiasco, I would say he made several errors:
If he thought that that sort of topic should not be in CS, he shuld have opened a thread in ATMB;
If he thought that thread should not have been posted in CS, he should have reported it;
and, once everyone was responding to him, his claim that he had not introduced politics because an earlier description of the actions of Carville actually used the word “right-wing” was just silly.
On the other hand, we cannot have a discussion (or even a question in GQ) that involves the translation or interpretation of the bible or regarding some point of religious doctrine without any one (or several) of one variety of poster dropping in to exclaim “This is a waste of time because it is all based on imaginary sky pixies” or “Every human evil in the world is the direct result of religion” or “All religion is intended as a scam for wealth and power.” We cannot have a discussion of any aspect of evolutionary theory without some poster dropping in to misstate that “It is only a theory” or that “Evolution is an attempt to lead people away from God.” The result of those deliberate hijacks is that they are usually universally ignored. When each of those posters originally showed up, there was a period of from two to six weeks in which their views were contested, after which the typical participants in those threads recognized that further discussion was rather fruitless and no one gets worked up about them any more.* Similarly, any discussion of the government will result in the usual suspects jumping in to make some silly comment that “all the guys I don’t like are at fault.” Sometimes these comments result in the thread being derailed, but that is often because the usual subjects are the only participants and they are only here to repeat the same mantras at each other, anyway. When a serious discussion accidentally emerges, the drive-by posts and the sniping are less likely to have attention paid to them–and we almost never see long harangues that “PosterQ keeps hijacking this thread” with a dozen or more other posters jumping in to blast the “offending” poster the way we do with Liberal.
I do not know why some of you can ignore posts by Sum Jerque, but cannot pass up an opportunity to blast Liberal. I do not see that his posts are any more compelling of response than any other posts. I suspect that over time, a number of posters have begun to invest so much of their own feelings in opposing Lib that they feel that they must take issue with him, regardless of the topic, despite the fact that it is their actions in constantly addressing him that overwhelms the thread, resulting in a hijack.
A decent (not great) example of good and bad responses occurred in the thread in GD regarding Hawaiian independence. Lib interposed one of his trademark ‘let “peaceful honest people” decide’ posts. A couple of people quietly responded that that solution was not germane to the discussion or that the solution was really no solution, but no one got worked up, the thread did not get derailed, and the side topic died. Later, Liberal and Monty got into a rather heated exchange regarding the meaning of a constitutional point. Given the overall topic, while a sidebar, the exchange was not really a hijack. However, that exchange prompted one poster to ask that Lib (but not Monty) be reprimanded for hijacking the thread.
Now, if we are to smack Lib down for voicing his “peaceful honest people” libertarian suggestions in a thread, we are definitely going to have to begin reprimanding any person of belief or unbelief who contributes an observation regarding the origins or values of religion when that is not the explicit topic. We will also need to smack down any poster in a political discussion who mentions any single thing not directly in support of a specific point regarding the OP. Humorous asides? Out! Ironic observations? Out!
I am not claiming that Lib has never posted off topic–I’ve already noted two occasions where I thought his comments were not really appropriate–but I see no way to distinguish between his “not appropriate” posts and the “not appropriate” posts of most of the posters on this board. The one specific difference that I can see is that other posters take the time to react to Lib in ways that they do not bother to react to other posters.
- (Yes, I am aware of the noticeable exception to that situation, but, in general, it holds true.)
Yes, but how do you feel about Brutus?
J C stopped liking him.
Gaius Julius Caesar
Nope. I looked before I posted.