Of course not, but in order to respond to what you really said, they would have to take seriously some point of view other than their own.
Most of the Usual Suspects don’t read anything very closely. They check who posted it, come up with a standardized response, and then skim the post for something to apply that response to. If they can’t find anything, they give the response anyway.
SOP.
Regards,
Shodan
I am so dumb…I can never tell who is included in these generalizations, and who isn’t. I need some sort of broad brush decoder device.
It’s just so bizarre, because I never made any claims as to any “vast, left-wing conspiracy.” I gave one small example of what one student, back in the '80s, experienced. That’s all. And I also reported that another student, enrolled in a different college at the same university at the same time, self-reports having a different experience. I said that in my FIRST POST. Where the “backing-off” and “dodging” came in when I later said I didn’t think there was a conspiracy, I am at a loss to see.
Were you even remotely close to being sober when you posted this? I don’t want to muzzle anyone. I pefer, though, that a person’s comments be grounded–even tangentially–in reality. And I have the freedom to express that sentiment, to call him on his inanity.
Ah…how quickly they turn. 
I’m afraid I won’t be attempting to answer this post, Quiddity, as I’ve decided to take a sabatical from posting in the Pit and GD for a while. This place tends to get me just too cranked up it seems, and every year to year-and-a-half or so I have to apologize and give myself an attitude adjustment. This is one of those times, as I attempt to explain here.
Regards,
SA
You’re letting them get to you, Starving Artist. Don’t let it happen - Sarahfeena gave a good description of the process as it works hereabouts.
But enjoy the time off, waste some time in CS and the other fora, and check back when the elections heat up - some good liberal head-explosions are pending. 
That was just shorthand for “I tried to mischaracterize her post into something I could argue against, and it didn’t work.” You were “backing off” from a position they were trying to assign to you, and “dodging” the attempt to distort your posts into what they wanted you to have said.
Regards,
Shodan
True. But whereas she gives a good description of the process as it (so maddeningly) works around here, lately I’ve simply been giving forth with $#%@&%* !!! So it’s time to back off for a while. I’ll be back once I feel I can maintain at least a modicum of civility.
Thanks.
And oh, yeah…
Regards, Shodan. 
That’s shabby, dude. You made a bunch of claims in an earlier post in this particular Pit thread so the least you could do would be to stick around and back them up. Because otherwise it looks like you’re fleeing because you know you’ve got nothing to support what you said.
Why do people always assume that a response made subsequent to a post is entirely intended for the previous poster and nobody else? Did I say ‘Monty, why do you, personally, want to muzzle people’? No. Yeesh.
51 minutes. Is that the record?
I think what we have here is a set of semantical differences. I’m taking your statements much more literally than you seem to intend them. I understood a couple of your statements to be supportive of the ‘indoctrination’ theory. You say I’ve got that wrong - ok then.
mhendo I have more things to do today than go hunt up the references, but ‘brainwashed’ and other similar pejorative remarks are made about religious people and liberals very often on SDMB. And they are rarely qualified; too often they are the broad-brush generalizations you accuse me of. Me, I unwarily left off the usual caveats in a post in the Pit. So shoot me. :rolleyes:
I don’t think anyone around here who knows my posting history believes I’m running from anything. I decided, in the midst of several simultaneous squabbles, that I was behaving like a jerk and that it was time to back off. It would be difficult to back off while still arguing the posts I made while in an exceedingly argumentative and belligerent frame of mind. So I decided to back off until I can post in a manner respectful at least to those attempting to argue their points honestly.
Make of this decision what you will.
Fair enough.
Please feel free to quote SPECIFIC statements that you think supported the indoctrination theory, so I can see where I have gone wrong in explaining myself.
Honest mistake, then! If you would, then, please point out which posters “claim to loves freedom” while also advocating “muzzling” Der Trihs. Should be easy enough, right? One or two names, at least, but if you want to name them all I’m sure that’d be fine too. Attach extra sheets if required.
Because otherwise, gosh. It might look almost as though you were making shit up, then backpedaling when called on it!
My suspicion is that your “freedom-lovers who want to muzzle Der Trihs” group will prove, when examined closely, to be as filled with mysterious, nameless phantoms as your “atheists opposed to facts and truth” group.
I alreadt did and you already did and so we’re cool.
Another straight line fastidiously ignored. I’m on a roll, today…
Little hint: the thread title. Guess you missed that when you dropped by to spread sunshine and light. As for the other, if you insist continuing to misquote me after I already corrected you, that’s your little hobby - have fun with it.
Not as far as I’m concerned, but whatever.
I hate to have to repeat myself, but when I said this:
My point was that what it says in the thread title…a request to give it a rest…is NOT the same thing as “muzzling,” and I doubt the vast majority of the people here would consider it such.