No problem. It was actually more amusing than your other efforts.
I don’t believe that tomndebb is my buddy, although I have no personal animosity towards him.
Although I do have a strong animosity towards you, my observations about tom remain, even in contrast to other posters less coarse and unforgiving than myself. He actually spent time considering your viewpoint as one which would merit any comsideration at all.
Uh, it actually was one of my other efforts. I originally started to tag you as Hector the Contrarian and subsequently changed it to Hector the Librarian.
All of which, (once again) has nothing to do with the issue. He came charging in a thread in which I’d commented that I was taking a wait-and-see attitude toward Obama, and aggressively declared that I continually posted that “tripe” and then proceeded to either mischaracterize or outright invent comments I’d allegedly made about Obama and his performance in office.
I proved him to be wrong on all counts.
He refused to recant and apologize.
End of story.
The only thing he’s guilty of doing there is nicely repeating what a bunch of posters before him said to you more coarsely. I don’t know why you’d single him out there. He wasn’t acting as a mod.
As to being wrong, you’ve chosen to take up the position in a wide variety of threads across a long period of time that liberals are at fault for everything that has gone wrong in America since the '50’s. You cannot, with a straight face, expect people to believe that you are taking a “wait and see” approach to Obama. I don’t buy it for a second, and I don’t blame anyone else for doubting your sincerity based on your track record.
No one but tomndebb has said anything about my wait-and-see attitude toward Obama, and virtually everything he did say was wrong and provably so. It has long been the practice on this board for posters to recant and apologize when wrong. He is using previous interactions between us as an excuse to avoid doing so even though the one has absolutely nothing to do with the other.
My “track record”, again, has nothing to do with it. He made aggressively false statements about my conduct regarding Obama. If you had been following my postings during the primaries and since the election you’d know that. And if you’d been arsed to do the same search I showed tomndebb, which was to put my name in the poster field and Obama in the keyword field, you’ll find that I’ve not only rarely been critical of Obama but in fact had some good things to say as well. prr has been hoist on his own petard in this regard as has tomndebb…and now you, apparently.
It has been my hope, and I’ve said as much in so many words, that Obama would be more of a centrist once in office and that he may indeed turn out to be a uniter and someone who could get this country off of dead center and get things moving in a positive direction. I’m beginning to have misgivings about this but these misgivings are recent and heretofore unspoken.
So now we get back to where we were to begin with: tomndebb made utterly false assertions about my posting behavior - even going so far as to characterize the nature of certain specific remarks which were remarks I’d never made.
He should retract and apologize and that’s all there is to it.
Well I say he doesn’t have to.
So there.
::: sigh :::
If Starving Artist is going to continue to repeat his odd view of the world over and over again, I suppose I should go ahead and post my side.
I first saw one of his tepid “benefit of the doubt” claims followed by a slam, here: I’m trying to keep a positive attitude about Obama and I’m hoping he’ll be the breath of fresh air that he seems to be and that he truly will bring about change we can all mostly be happy with, but what with his appointment of Rahm Emanuel as Chief of Staff and now the prospect of Hillary as SoS, I’m finding myself far less comfortable than I expected to be at this stage of the game.
Then, In the thread on how Obama dresses, SA made a point to claim that HIS leaders all dressed appropriately, (later demonstrated to be nonsense), and then went on to make a non sequitur about how the president should interact with other world leaders when the actual discussion focused on how Obama dressed in his private office with no world leaders in sight.) (And when I followed his post with a photo of GWB, in casual shirt and no jacket, standing at a podium with Putin, SA chose to ignore his own claim.)
In the midst of one more whiny bitch about Obama, (“Intransigence, ham-handedness and amateurishness are the vibes I’m getting so far”), including his mischaracterization of Obama’s “I won” comment, SA claims to have been “waiting.” (This would be the same “I won” remark that SA claims he never made in his initial response to me.)
Then he claimed Obama wanted his cabinet to sit quietly and not express their opposition and that Obama believed that being a rubber stamp was the way it should be. At this point I called bullshit, noting that he had a habit of saying that he was giving Obama the benefit of the doubt, followed by a nasty comment.
Now, it is probably true that my claim that he “continually” pulled this stunt was an exaggeration–although these posts were ones I had actually recalled seeing rather than the puffy ones that he appears to claim prove that he never posted what I have quoted, here. On the other hand, when he immediately declared that it was all false and that he had never engaged in such behavior, I figured that it was not worth the effort to get into a citation war–particularly as
he had already begun calling me names a few months earlier,
that he had three times claimed to be about to provide proof that his version of history was correct and mine was false, (or lies, as he said at least once), while failing to provide his evidence on any of those occasions,
and that I was pretty sure that he would simply drag the thread into a series of I never said it was dark red, I said it was crimson rebuttals.
Since it now appears that he is going to post his rants until the sun burns out, I have reluctantly decided to show that I did not invent the whole thing.
I welcome his apology. 
I’ve already addressed my comments regarding Hillary and Obama’s Oval Office dress upthread. It should come as no surprise to anyone who is familar with my postings since the primaries began that I would question the advisability of naming Hillary Clinton to be Secretary of State, if for no other reason than nobody, including foreign leaders, can believe a word she says.
With regard to Obama’s shirtsleeves in the Oval Office, that comment hardly reflects on his performance in office as POTUS, and it is disingenuous to the point of dishonesty for you to try to pretend that that was what I meant when I said those things. (I also retracted my claim that Reagan had such respect for the Oval Office that he wouldn’t enter without coat and tie once someone posted photos showing that he indeed did. You might want to note that I did not waffle and hedge and refuse to do so because I didn’t like or had previously been offended by the posters who brought that to my attention.)
The rest of what you posted was in the very thread where you attacked my posting history prior to that time. I said in that very thread that it was the first time I had posted significant negative comments about Obama’s performance in office. You can hardly come into a thread where I am engaging in a certain behavior for the first time and claim that it represents my posting history up to that time.
Further, your statement just now that your previous claim regarding my "continually’ posting such tripe was a mere “exaggeration” is utter bullshit, as is your excuse for not checking out my cites for fear of never-ending argument and hair-splitting from me. Nor was it your only offense. To wit:
Your error in this regard is proven by the fact that, as right-wing and conservative as I am, the only things you can point to prior to the thread where all this started is that I was critical of Clinton’s appointment and his Oval Office dress.
2 & 3) You were wrong when you said I “continually post this tripe”, and in characterizing what I said as “tripe”.
You have not even begun to try to show a single instance of my posting a so-called sophomoric rejection of a position Obama has not really taken, let alone that I have done so consistently.
5 & 6) My comments were not “couched” in the language of Hannity and Beck. In the first place because I was not guilty of the comments you accused me of, and secondly because I don’t listen to Hannity and/or Beck.
7 & 8) I have not repeatedly condemned him, nor do the remarks you fictitiously attribute to me expose disingenuousness on my part.
So, you made the assertion that I hadn’t been taking a wait-and-see attitude. Where, prior to the thread that started all this, is your proof? Hillary and shirt sleeves? Pretty scant foundation if you ask me for your belligerent and aggressive claim that I was not.
Where is the tripe I continually post? Again, Hillary and shirtsleeves.
Where have I consistently posted sophomoric rejections of a position that Obama has not really taken, when this is demonstrably not so. Or hell, where have I done it at all?
Where is your proof that I made statements echoing Hannity and Beck? So far you’ve shown nothing (again, prior to that thread, and I think it’s obvious to anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty that you were characterizing my board behavior prior to that thread when you made your assertions). You merely extrapolated from their comments remarks that I’d never made, and then used these fictitous remarks to accuse me of parroting them! Pretty rich, that!
Where is your proof that I have repeatedly condemned him?
And where is the proof that remarks I’ve made expose disingenuousness on my part?
These are all allegations that you have made and they consist of a good deal more than one mere “exaggeration”. And now you’re trying to weasle out of the spot you put yourself in by including remarks I made in the thread that started all this as proof of my posting pattern since the election.
You show less and less honesty and integrity with virtually every post you make. And believe it or not, I’m actually kind of sad about this. Even though we’ve disagreed in the past and traded insults on numerous occasions, I had thought fairly highly of you up until the time you outed Shodan for his post reportings, and even then I was willing to give you somewhat the benefit of the doubt. But the longer this goes on, and the more I see the dishonest lengths you will go to in order to avoid owning up to your errors - lengths that include obfuscation, misdirection, omisison and lies - the more I see that you have very little in the way of the character I once thought defined you.
And that makes me sad. It really does.
And why?
Because it makes me doubt my own ability to read someone else’s character. 
Now, we can keep this up forever if you want. Or you can put up or shut up. Either show where I’ve engaged in each of the things you’ve accused me of (which we all know you can’t) or you can recant and apologize and that will be the end of it.
That was not crimson! It was dark red!
ad infinitum
ad nauseam
Ain’t gonna work, tom. You’re only making yourself look silly. You made specific allegations and I challenged them point by point. Back them up or recant and apologize.
WTF does this have to do with Ed and the board?
I personally think mods should accept that some people are always going to say bad things about them. Just treat those posts as you would a troll. Provide proof that they are wrong, then no longer respond, other than maybe pointing back to your previous post. Then, anyone having a beef with you will realize they aren’t going to get a response and shut up.
In fact, I think this is pretty much how all people should act at all times. Anyone who doesn’t get it, well, just doesn’t get it. It may be unfair, but then again, life rarely is.
@Ed: Sorry you’re having so many problems. I’ve been reading so many rants, that I didn’t realize you were going through real problems. I hope you can get this all straightened out.
But what about Option #3?
GITCHER 101st FIGHTING KEYBOARDISTS T-SHIRTS HERE!!
GETTUM WHILE THEY’RE HOT!!
I think the shark is probably dizzy from trying to jump at all this jumping.
If the measure of a man can be taken by who his enemies are, I’d suggest that tomndebb must be pretty darn good.
I would say a better measure of a man (or woman) is how he treats those over whom he (or she ) has power.
I’d have to say that in my experience, Tom comes out pretty well on that score too. I say this as someone who has had a few scoldings from Tom, mostly unwarranted in my opinion, and one that resulted in a few less than positive posts back and forth.
And in my experience, he comes out rather poorly.
In that case, Tom is my new hero.
Then I congratulate you on finding a new hero. From my point of view, I object to abuse of power, even if the recipient is someone I dislike or disagree with.