Best hijack of the entire thread.
Now back to your regular “Did so” “Did not” “Did so” “Did not” “Did …” hijack in progress.
Stop being such a prude, kimera. Anaamika will be in shortly to give you a lecture on how you need to start tying up your sexual partners.
This illustrates something wrong with the way this place works - plenty of people were offering substantive explanations of why Evil Captor’s behavior bothers them, but Evil Captor and company felt free to make baseless accusations that we’re all just afraid of his (rather tame) sexual habits. Not only was it pure ad hominem, but it ignored the content of the argument that we’d been making. People felt free to ignore what we said when it wasn’t convenient and lay baseless charges about our unwillingness to tolerate others’ sexual passtimes. It apparently doesn’t matter if someone puts together an argument to make their case. If that argument is inconvenient to you just ignore it and make baseless charges against the person who made it. It’s pathetic.
To repeat myself, I *have *acknowledged that “explanation,” as dishonest backtracking. I’m not buying what you’re selling. There was no call for balance or subtlety in your cryptic response. First clue? Was the sarcastic hyperbole. How is equating my characterization of the widely agreed-upon consensus that EC’s behavior was the focus of the objections with trying to sell you the Brookly Bridge an appeal for subtlety and complexity? Dude, I’m just not buying that “Yeah, right, now try to sell me thr Brooklyn Bridge” equals “With all due respect, have you considered the possibility that the objection to EC’s posts is due to a complex constellation of factors?”
That’s just bullshit. Re-reading and re-parsing for a third time, I remain unsold, sweetheart. I read the score as:
Maureen: liar (and possible retard; we’ll wait for the test results)
**Lute: **kneejerk Maureen defender, dug in too deep to back out
Excalibre: sporadic peacemaker, hastily backed the wrong horse on this one
**lissener: **voice of sweet reason (and nice ass), still unsold on the bill of goods (talk about your Brooklyn Bridge!) that Maureen is hocking
Sorry, I’m still pretty sure I was right. I don’t see the point in your argument over what Maureen really meant, as she has already explained what she really meant. I read her post, it struck me as offensive, but I wasn’t sure because it was also pretty cryptic. I asked what she meant, and she explained.
I don’t see the pointi n what you’re doing, lissener. If you’re convinced she said something and then lied about what she meant, why are you bothering to argue about it? What will that get you? I generally take what people say they meant as pretty definitive on what they really meant, unless I have strong reason to doubt it. In this case, I don’t see any reason at all.
More like lissener: unable to see the forest for the trees. Dude, when everyone gets it but you, it’s time to consider that you have the short end of the stick.
Assinging ulterior motives no matter how much one protests that there aren’t any is also something of a habit with him.
[QUOTE=lissener]
To repeat myself, I *have *acknowledged that “explanation,” as dishonest backtracking. I’m not buying what you’re selling. There was no call for balance or subtlety in your cryptic response. First clue? Was the sarcastic hyperbole. How is equating my characterization of the widely agreed-upon consensus that EC’s behavior was the focus of the objections with trying to sell you the Brookly Bridge an appeal for subtlety and complexity? Dude, I’m just not buying that “Yeah, right, now try to sell me thr Brooklyn Bridge” equals “With all due respect, have you considered the possibility that the objection to EC’s posts is due to a complex constellation of factors?”
That’s just bullshit. Re-reading and re-parsing for a third time, I remain unsold, sweetheart.
[quote]
That’s nice, dear. I haven’t changed my position in the slightest. I was asked for clarification, I gave it. You don’t like it. Oh, well.
As well as shrill drama queen unable to leave thread as promised til it’s all about him. Have you tried community theater? Norma Desmond is slightly type casting, but I think you’d be terrific.
I don’t think that looking for people’s actual motives is necessarily wrong - there are plenty of cases when people attempt to sneak something into the discussion for their own reasons and lie about those reasons. In fact, I’m pretty thoroughly convinced that Evil Captor (remember him?) does so - because I don’t find the explanations he offers of his motivation to be plausible. A lot of people around here seem to be perfectly willing to question the motives of their opponents - as will all the folks who told me I was a prude because I’m not interested in hearing about Evil Captor’s fetish at every opportunity. Trying to figure out someone’s motives is a pretty basic part of the human condition, and this message board is no stranger to it.
In this case, lissener is plainly wrong, but I don’t see how he spends any more time “assigning ulterior motives” than anyone else.
Yeah, you’re right. Bangin my head.
But I just can’t buy dismissive, sarcastic hyperbole as an appeal for balance and subtlety. Just not buyin that bridge. Backtracking notwithstanding. Now, if she’d come back with, “Yeah, you’re right, maybe there’s more than one reason,” and acknowledged that her initial kneejerk was wrong, and not simply misunderstood, I’d buy it. But to say essentially “You’re crazy,” and then go “What I meant was, you’re not seeing the complexity of the situation,” nah. Bluntly, that’s bullshit. Less bluntly, it’s spin. Which is still bullshit.
When he does assign ulterior motives, he goes into full-on “LALALALA I’m not listening” mode whenever the Doper he assigned those motives to tries to explain.
Bingo. Change “his” to “her” and you have my position on this latest hijack.
Obviously, you find plausibility where I don’t. Doesn’t make either of us wrong; ultimately it’s how each of us reads Maureen’s posts. Everyone should take swig of YMMV.
I read Maureen’s posts, and on balance, I find them highly implausible. Whatever. Hopefully I can refrain from banging my head on this any further; I think I’ve made my position sufficiently clear.
This whole hijack was simply in response to Lute’s non sequitur that he’s too cowardly to back off of now. I’d read Maureen’s post, chalked her down as a liar, and was ready to move on. When Lute dropped in and started tossing nonsensical “straw” around, I should have done the same with him, only sometimes the master baiters draw me out by making the discussion about me–making the straw mine when it was atually Maureen’s. Someday maybe I’ll learn that just because someone can type doesn’t mean they’re worthy of response.
Ye-eah, I think you’ve called lissener a “shrill drama queen” more than once now. Why do you keep doing that? I mean, here you are, in the drama with him. This is the Pit. We’re all drama queens here. Except Jersey Jim. I don’t know, it kind of sounds like, even if you don’t mean it, you’re calling him a fag. Maybe it’s just me. It’s a little weird. How is he “shrill”?
And you got in your dig about him not leaving after he said he would, which is hardly an enormous fucking character flaw when people are still coming at him. If he leaves he looks like, well, duffer, and if he stays he looks like lissener, so the devil you know, and all that. 
I’ve got no dog in this fight, but I hate to see a pile-on, and lissener’s got punches coming at him from all sides right now.
See?
I like the one eyed blonde women wearing eye patches in TV and cinema.
Hey! It’s another hole.
I think it’s clear that Maureen was not saying that those who don’t like Evil Captor’s posts are prudes. I think that in part because I’ve seen her around before, and she strikes me as both intelligent and far more fair-minded than most people. Which makes it seem unlikely she would suddenly descend into idiocy. And when she says that the specific content of Evil Captor’s hijacks is part of the reason it’s a problem, she’s right. He’d be annoying as fuck if his obsession was tracing the influence of Vermeer on the modern media, but his behavior is particularly bad because it constitutes trying to expose his sexual fantasies to unwilling people and getting whatever gleeful little thrill he can out of it. The fact that it’s sexual is very relevant - as someone much cleverer than me characterized Evil Captor’s pals’ argument, “Hey, lady, stop being such a prude! He’s only rubbing on you a little bit!”
She’s certainly right that the content of his fantasies is upsetting to you, as is pretty clear in reading Ensign Edison’s six-page pit thread a couple weeks back. I don’t share your views on consensual bondage, but I can respect that you’ve come to them through thought and knowledge. But since you are specifically bothered by that sort of thing, it seems obvious that your own views of it are playing a role in the discussion. I personally view Evil Captor’s practices to be pretty tame, but I resent the fact that he constantly hijacks threads to talk about it anyway, partially because I don’t need discussion of actresses’ tits - something I find excruciatingly dull - to permeate every thread in Café Society (and I characterized his hijacking to be bondage-related, but the plain old irrelevant sex-talk is annoying as well.) No arguing that I’m partially objecting to the content. If he was bringing historical linguistics up in irrelevant places, I’d probably enjoy it - the content does matter - but hopefully I’d recognize that it’s not to everyone’s interest.
That’s the funniest thing I’ve heard all day!
Coming out of the woodwork, eh?
Here’s a bit of counter friendly advice, friend.
You can’t just put words together and hope that they’ll somehow make sense. I know, I know. kraaaaazyyyyy! Try again sugar dumplings.
And, you’d also notice if you weren’t too busy using that vast intellect of yours to put together nonsense phrases, everything I said was true and it stopped a pissing match that didn’t need to continue.
See you later, schnookums.
Dude, I was addressing one specific point of your argument–the bit about you accusing her of wanting to martyr EC as the SDMB’s SMDB messiah, in case you’ve forgotten. If that’s not a strawman then what? Hyperbole?
The question for all of us is why FinnAgain thinks he’s so clever, what with the overwhelming mountain of evidence to the contrary . . . shall I dig up that pit thread where I (among others) tried hard to persuade him not to melt down into a ball of furious stupidity?
Jim is entirely too damn calm. If he weren’t so likeable it would be annoying. I’m calling lissener a shrill drama queen because after most of us got beyond the basic communication disconnect the thread moved on in a different direction for a good page or so. Then, Lo and behold, returns our dear lissener, holding aloft the shining sword of justice to smite down those who dare besmirch his name. Frankly, it’s crying out to be mocked. I read that post and thought “my god, what a Cassandra.”
Yes, well, easier still to say “oh, I didn’t see your post, if that’s what you meant, then fine.” and move on. But no. There MUST be something more! :rolleyes:
Plus, I’m a bit pissy about being called a liar. He’s thoroughly entitled to dislike my reasoning and disagree with my opinion, but the fact that it’s different than his doesn’t make me a liar. And of course, I could explain til I’m blue in the face about what I meant, but it’s been covered. I didn’t lie. How am I supposed to prove what was going on in my head other than to say “this is what I meant by that.”? I have no hidden agenda. I feel like Horton the fuckin’ Elephant.
As have we all from time to time. The nature of the Pit, and so on.