David B. Is A Patronizing Weasel

I’m not sure who’ll read this, but if anyone cares, it’s a continuation of a fight set forth in the “You’re Not A Chrisian …” thread in Great Debates. I’m moving it here because that’s where it should have been in the first place. DAVID, in his last post to me in that thread said:

Yes, you managed to cut and paste your statement, didn’t you, but somehow missed my response which, to remind you, was:

In my line of work, selective quoting is a sanctionable act, but in this medium it only highlights your basic dishonesty in posting only half of an exchange. And, just to remind you, I also said, in the same thread:

NOW you say:

My complaint, since you don’t seem to get it, is that you decided to attack me in an entirely unrelated thread that had nothing whatsoever to do with your apparent problem with me, which arose in some other thread, since forgotten – by me at least, though not, apparently by you. Your rationale appears to be that if you have a problem with me in one thread, it’s perfectly okay to raise that problem in a different, unrelated thread some weeks later and when it is of no present relevance. Under your rationale, I can now wait weeks or months for an opportune time that you are discussing something completely unrelated and then post “Don’t bother talking to David! He’s a patronizing weasel without a shred of personal integrity!” That apparently would be okay, because I’ve brought my problem to your attention “before.” Well, bullshit; it’s not okay. If you have a problem with me, bring it to my attention when it arises and we’ll hash it out. If you choose not to do so, then deal with it, instead of irrelevantly insulting me in a totally unrelated debate weeks after the fact.

Yeah, I’ve noticed that you “get tired” of “being ignored” by me, but I also now notice that you apparently don’t “get tired” of dissing me in the middle of unrelated debates over points of style you were “too tired” to deal with when they actually were germaine.

Thank you ever so much. Would you like to try again, or shall I interpret that as a general admission that you are wrong to accuse me of ignoring you?

Just so we’re clear, this is what has me as pissed off as it has ever been my misforture to be in this forum:

  1. You post crap about me that has no relevance to the debate then in play, and that doesn’t even address the substance of my posts – specifically, you strongly imply that I willfully ignore arguments and do not proceed rationally “once my mind is made up” and you flat-out say that I am “without comprehension.”

  2. You do not have the personal integrity to address such comments to me, but address them to third parties, and you excuse that weaselly behavior by assuring me you knew I’d read it anyway.

  3. You attempt to excuse it as “not really a flame,” as if coming out of left-field to portray me as willfully blind and "without comprehension is not an insult.

  4. It ends up, in the final analysis, that what you’re really upset about is posts made in entirely different threads – weeks earlier – that raised a “problem” (in your eyes) that you were “too tired” to deal with then.

I repeat, you are a patronizing weasel and, as should be crystal-clear by now, I no longer have an iota of respect for you.

Just being advocatus diaboli here, but Jodi when you said:

Is is possible (again, not accusing you of anything) that you might be defining “telling point” differently than David (or Satan or whomever)?

That is, might it be possible that in some cases, you might be selectively ignoring points you don’t wish to address?


“Listen Children Eternal Father Eternally One!” Exceptions? None!
-Doc Bronner

Everyone please reamin calm. Before this topic gets out of hand, I want to infrom everyone I have hidden explosives throughout the thread. We are changing course and going to Cuba. No funny business here. When we land in Cuba, my international team of spies will take all valuables and let you proceed on your way to either the 7th ring of hell or the pearly gates, whichever you so desire. The right of first passage with all flight attendants shall be mine and mine alone. Now back to your inflight movie.

Yes, the weather is the same up here. Yes, I play basketball. No, never heard a tall joke before. Aaaargh.

I just can’t help but revel in the wonderful, wonderful irony. I mean, it would be funny if it wasn’t . . . hey, wait, it is funny.

“I love God! He’s so deliciously evil!” - Stewie Griffin, Family Guy

I think jodih needs some wild, unabashed, steaming-hot monkey sex. Ya know, j, if ya got yourself off every once in a while, it’d do wonders for your temperament!

But Mr. Mullinator, sir, we were already HEADING to Cuba . . .

Uhhh, did I say Cuba. Quick I need another desolate, out of the way island.
OK, we are now going to Rhode Island!!

Heeheehee, Dontcha just fuckin’ love lawyers?

In the dictionary, under Irony it says “See her.”

Stewardess, can I get some more peanuts and an extra pillow?


“Diplomacy is the art of saying “nice doggy” until you can find a rock.”

  • Will Rogers

ZOONY – Another gratuitous post from someone who has never, so far as I’m aware, said one word to me in any forum whatsoever. Bite me, total stranger.

ANDROS asks “That is, might it be possible that in some cases, you might be selectively ignoring points you don’t wish to address?”

No. At least, I’d hope not. I wouldn’t intentionally do that because I personally think it’s lame – “I can’t hear you – lalalala!” I’d hope that I would acknowledge a relevant point made regardless of who made it, especially since I’m not usually adverse to changing my mind if someone can persuade me that their position is the better one. In any case, if I were to do that, the proper response (in my mind) would be for the other poster to post “Jodi, I asked you X. I didn’t see an answer in your last post. Please address it.” Not to say “you ignore my points,” and then, when I say “do not – repost them and I’ll answer promptly” to say “No – too tired” and THEN (and this is the part that bugs me) weeks later say “don’t bother talking to her! she’ll just ignore you!” See, even if I do do avoid particular points (which I honestly don’t think I do), there’s no reason anyone should let me (or anyone) get away with it. Re-post. Demand a response. But he didn’t – he was “too tired.” But not too tired, as I pointed out, to jump on me without provocation in an unrelated debate. That’s what ticked me off.

Get used to it, that is exactly how he treats everyone.

Oh and Chiefscott…just because a woman vents does NOT mean she need an orgasm! And wasnt it talk like that that got you into hot water with the boss?

kellibelli wrote:

No, but it couldn’t hoit. (Unless she convulses really hard and hits her head on something.)

::::chewing thoughtfully::::

Just checking through the user agreement…doesn’t seem to be anything in here about being invited to make comment…no, can’t see a thing…Hmmph. I did find this, however:

I just wanted to let you know, jodih, that I care. Really, I do.


“Diplomacy is the art of saying “nice doggy” until you can find a rock.”

  • Will Rogers

Tracer…you smartass. :wink:

Zoony - quite the humanitarian. Unfortunately, Jodih doesn’t seem to appreciate your caring. I think you should now just post out of spite.

jodih, just because you’ve never heard of a person, that doesn’t mean they’ve never heard of you.

All discussions here are public. It’s very easy for people to read them all without posting; they can easily form an opinion of the participants, without having to participate themselves. That’s what lurking is all about.

Laugh hard; it’s a long way to the bank.

Auraseer, I am afraid since I saw your picture I get all flustered when you post…
Post more.

I like it.

I agree with whatever you said.

Can I have your baby?

Does anybody else familiar with the thread in which this started find it amazingly hypocritical that Jodi whined that I was talking about her, not to her, and that’s why she was upset – but now she posts a message in a completely different area of the MB, one I don’t even normally read (I’m only here because I was told about this thread), at a time when I have said I may be so busy that I won’t be able to reply? (I have about 15 minutes and, again, only even checked the MB now because I was told of this thread) But then, hypocrisy is what we expect from Jodi.

Oh, and on that quoting stuff – more hypocrisy. She claims I didn’t quote properly because I didn’t quote what she had said. Big fcking deal – I wasn’t talking about what she had said, I was pointing out that I had, to her “face,” told her previously what I thought of her debating tactics. So why should I quote the whole fcking thread? No reason, but Jodi wanted to take this < ahem > discussion to a different area where people hadn’t seen her previous rantings, so she did so and changed the subject. In fact, she now changed her claim as to the reason she was upset. Earlier, she had said it was because I didn’t direct my opinions TO her first. But when I showed that I HAD directed my opinions to her months ago, POOF! she changes the reason she’s mad. What an amazing magician! Now if she could only make herself disappear…

Huh huh…DavidB said f*ck…

Before Jodi shoots back and points out a flaw in my post above, allow me.

As I mentioned, I was short on time today. Thus, I had not yet even looked in on Great Debates since earlier this morning. During that time, Jodi posted a message in the original thread noting that she was coming over to the Pit. I had not seen it when I got here (as I mentioned, I was informed by somebody else about this thread, and came straight here). Therefore, the part of my post accusing her of taking this behind my back should be considered null and void.

The rest of it is still 100% in effect, though.

Not that Jodih can’t take care of herself, here, but I thought I’d give a bystander’s opinion based on her posts. David said:

I don’t think this is accurate, David. Based on the posts I read in the GD thread, I got the distinct impression that Jodih was mad, or peeved, or that she lost respect for you, or whatever, because you didn’t direct your opinions to her, as you mention above. When you showed her that you had directed your opinions to her previously, that didn’t change why she was upset with you, it simply added to it. The statement that you made, and then your justification for it. . . I dunno, doesn’t seem quite up to your standards. And that’s coming from someone who’s never before bought into any of the whining about your “selective enforcement” of the rules in your role of moderator, or your contributions as a poster. I thought you were a good moderator before, and I respected your point of view, and I still do despite Jodih’s comments, but this time I think you dropped the ball.

(If that’s too mild for the Pit, you can change it to, “this time you were an asshole.”)