I remember vaguely a year or two ago when elucidator and I were chastized for turning a Doper’s name into a verb. (Okay, maybe I shouldn’t have put it into my signature.) Don’t know if it was an official warning or not. I don’t remember who the moderator was. I just remember feeling like I was twelve years old and wearing ugly shoes!
BTW, I’m glad you’re back, Lib. It’s a good time to… be back.
Well, that settles that.
Don’t push it, though; that’s the definition of ingenuousness. None of these behaviors has been underlined as a bannable offense, so there’s no reason not to acknowledge them. To say that you are unaware of a propensity to hijack threads or to incite anger is to be, well, something close to (but definitely not, I suppose) disingenuous. To say that you are aware of these tendencies but think it unintentional is to denigrate the intelligence you attribute to the OP’s usage of words, which is, well, never mind. Personally, I do not credit him with either exceptional intelligence nor with innocent ignorance – but I don’t care, because the answer to the problem is the same either way, and I’m not calling for anybody’s exclusion from the board.
Nope. If your goal was simply peace on the board, you’d be doing pretty much what you are doing*: it’s not what you may think it is.
Please see post #251.
No. I specifically have noted, (not without challenge), that I believe his worldview is sufficiently different that he may not, indeed, perceive the results of his actions. It is not a matter of intelligence, whether brilliant or merely competent, but of socialization and perception. He is certainly aware that he evokes heated responses, but I suspect that he is genuinely puzzled as to why they are as heated or even why they are negative. He reminds me a lot of my son in that regard. Nice kid with no real malice in him who constantly brings out the worst in his peers in ways that astound him because he is constantly offending their sense of propriety in ways that he cannot understand. I make no claim to understand Lib, (I certainly do not understand my son), but I see a lot of parallels.
(looking at the forum we are in) General hostility is a crime in the Pit? I thought it was a prerequisite. 
(noting the emphasized part) Which, you will note, has not occurred in this thread.
Yeah, and my comments were a general response to Biggirl’s post. I was not involved in your exchange with Veb and I will not presume to speak for her. If you feel that she was in error, you’ll be more likely to get satisfaction (or a clear explanation) from her. I would really prefer to not attempt to speak for her.
I’m in enough trouble for either misunderstanding or misrepresenting the limits on abuse of usernames without stepping into a discussion that spun out beyond my initial comment.
I, for one, perceive a consistent (though evolving) worldview reflected in Lib’s posts.
I can’t say that I know a lot about Lib’s background. I can say that if, hypothetically, incidents such as The Trail of Tears were central to my perceptions of US history, then I might be left with a deep suspicion of government: heck, I could see the attraction of libertarianism.
Furthermore, if I had read substantial amounts of philosophy -yet was wholly self-taught in the subject matter- I certainly expect that some of my posts would have pronounced sophomoric aspects, given my character. Socialization occurs in the academe, particularly in philosophy. For one thing, one learns -or absorbs, rather- a deep skepticism regarding the potential of pure, nonempirical, reason.
Other practices are acquired during discussion, both among philosophers and among the nonphilosophers who find certain approaches to be highly aggravating.[sup]1[/sup] A certain verbal stance arises, one that reflects the surprising difficulty of certain simple questions.
Lib’s (former?) libertarianism isn’t that unusual. His idealism is actually refreshing in a way: Lib is the only living idealist I’ve ever encountered to my knowledge. Overlay those two tendancies with traditional (as opposed to fundamentalist) Christianity, and we have a consistent POV, at least as I perceive it.
I apologize in advance to Lib for any (inevitable) inaccuracies in the preceding. Again, call it a hypothetical.
[sup]1[/sup]Then again, the aggravation of nonphilosophers can be observed readily in Plato’s works.
**Shayna ** deserves big props for digging through the requisite searches to pull up that exchange and putting this ruling up for all to see.
Coldfire’s assessment: “I’d say lissener brought Veb’s ire onto himself when he openly stated that he deliberately would call you Libertarian in the Pit.” was on-target. Bad move, announcing your deliberate intent to vex. Yeesh.
Otherwise a “Pit only” ruling this would have made a decent compromise over the whole **Liberal ** née **Libertarian ** squabble.
Yet you appear to be the only one to be responding to prior queries – both taking up her cause and yours. On behalf of the Libertarian Liberal I might add.
Where is the op, anyway?
Yeah.
I forgot: Welcome back, Liberal 
waving a feminine one right back, girl!
Wow, there goes my month of enjoying debates in GD without them being hijacked for Libertarianism is great, nanana, thread killers, or pointless semantic arguments.
One post back, and this forum has been liberaled by Liberal.
TTFN.
In the OP, he said he wouldn’t return to this thread or to the Pit generally.
Heh. He’s said before he’d stay out of the Pit – during one of his previous “I’m going to be a better person” phases – but he caem back.
Actually, I am responding to two specific points: whether I overstepped in my initial interpretation of the name rules and whether Liberal deliberately (or knowingly) sets himself up for the abuse that comes his way. Since those topics have stayed current in the thread, I have continued to post. The staff does not have Borg-like instantaneous mutual knowledge and I am not going to interject myself into discussion calling for the thoughts or opinions of other staff members lest I say something in a way that prejudices either their responses or the reactions to their responses.
If you need a response from a Mod, your best bet would be to e-mail that person, either with the question or with a direct invitation to return to this thread.
I’d offer up some pearls of wisdom here, but they don’t make waders tall enough to wade through all this horseshit. I was lost on the OP.
So I’ll just say, “Welcome back, Lib. You certainly can stir up some shit.”
What a bunch of assholes.
Yes, and it’s all Lib’s fault.
Regards,
Shodan
Pfft. Sounds like aldeberan to me. Maybe he’ll come in and comment?
-Joe