If over the course of half a decade, you achieve the success of never saying something you regret, get back to me. I’ll shower you with praise. Meanwhile, you might do well to understand the context of something before you prosecute it. With respect to the Satan story, it happened at a time when I was on steroid medication for a pinched sciatic nerve. This was known to him. He had asked how he could help me when he found that, in his opinion, I was being mean. I told him to remind me that in speaking to others, I was speaking to God. In the midst of a heated and very irrational discussion, he suddenly popped in to fulfill the duty he had taken on. I responded with “Get behind me, Satan,” referencing the scriptural story of the devil spouting Bible verses at Jesus in the wilderness. Now, when I have a friend who suddenly submarines me with a surprise attack as I did him, I call upon my empathy to help me understand where he was coming from, particularly if he is sick and drugged. I do not make it my life’s mission to encounter him at every turn, call him a liar, and report him to the authorities whenever I’ve laid a successful trap. There is a five-year history of mutual respect and admiration between him and me. It vanished as fast as raindrop on a cactus. I’ve given apologies, made overtures, pleaded, and asked for forgiveness. The response? You’re on one of your cycles, and you’re lying anyway because you’re typing. He even asked me to stop calling him “Daniel” despite that I had always done so, and he signs his posts with that name. Even other posters thought that was weird. He is deliberately choosing this course of action, and there is nothing I can do about it or say to stop it. And finally, with respect to gang bang and orgasm, it was a perfect metaphor to convey a pile-on that he was enjoying, the whole purpose of which was nothing more than rapid-fire rejoinders designed to make response difficult if not impossible. Even the moderator seemed to notice this, pleading that we carefully read one another’s posts and allow for responses before firing off new ones. I’m not saying that I have no fault in our rift. I’m saying that I’m willing to cooperate in healing it. What more you expect from me, I cannot imagine.
Woman who writes erotica, midwesterner. Gang bang: non consensual sex with many men and one woman.
Er, if that was toward me, it’s true I was a midwesterner - for a while. Now I live is the much less repressive climes of Schwarzenegger-lanf.
Gang Bang is still a consensual event. Gang rape is not. Sorry if that’s confusing.
Inky
I’m shitface tired of this now, and it’s fucking bullshit. I was trying to talk to you, but apparently your ability to talk vanishes the moment there are more than two active posters in a thread.
You keep on and on about the “futility to keep up with two posters”, which is more bullshit. Everybody else can do it, why not you? We were two, not ten. Two. Two is nothing.
Were we sending in new posts every five minutes asking for responses? Were we badgering you to answer more quickly? No. We posted, we waited for a response, we responded when it came. Like everybody else in every other thread. No-one forced you to respond within a set time.
Once again, if this is such a problem for you, why insult us and dish out this bullshit instead of simply saying “I can’t handle this, so I’ll just respond to XXXX until he stops posting, then I’ll go on to YYYY”? And that is if being one against two is such an amazing chore for you.
You know what? Fuck this. If you want to be the disliked, perpetually misunderstood weirdo of this message board, go ahead. Apparently that’s the role you want to play.
As for my side of it:
There’s no history of mutual respect between the two of us. I’ve considered him a reprehensible liar since the first time I encountered him in Great Debates, dissembling about a logical proof; since then, he’s behaved erratically, but never in a consistently decent fashion. I’ve pitted him once (one of three pit threads I’ve started, I think, in five years). I’ve excoriated him repeatedly for being a mean person who lies a lot. He has never shown the slightest inclination to make real strides toward honesty or decency; the most he has done is offer empty platitudes, and to start debates off nicely until he gets confronted, at which points he plumbs the depths of verbal nastiness as a way of striking back against those who debate him.
He assigns the basest of motives toward people who debate him, not realizing that people can disagree in a civilized fashion.
I have never had much use for him, but I’ve got none now. He’s a pollution on these boards, about as immoral a person as one can be without actually being very effective, and I wish he were gone.
Daniel
You know, this is absolutely fucking right. Let’s take a look some of the bullshit assumptions Lib has dumped in this very thread.
This is what pissed Priceguy off, and understandably. First, there’s the stupid conceit that the gangbang was a “perfect metaphor” when, if it had been consensual and not rape, Lib should’ve been enjoying it just as much as Priceguy and Dorkness. Second, he assumes that “the whole purpose” of asking questions was to make responding to the questions difficult. Never does it occur to him that the purpose of asking questions is to find out Lib’s perspective.
Here it is again, an assumption that the purpose of asking questions was to “overwhelm” and he calls their words “babble,” as if there’s no substance in what they’re asking.
From the same post, here he becomes an armchair psychologist, giving us precious insights into Dorkness’s psyche that don’t actually fit reality.
Liberal actively tries to determine the motives of posters who question his unique worldview, and when he wants he creates, out of thin air, the idea that the posters are deliberately trying to trip him up and belittle him. This gives him the excuse to ignore their arguments. I find this process of assuming enmity when there is none to avoid discussing the topic at hand to be one of the most intellectually dishonest practices I’ve encountered, and on preview I see that Dorkness has already summed it better than I can with this:
There really isn’t any use in a debate for a person who can’t discuss issues without assuming the worst of the people he’s speaking with.
I watch a lot of porn. 
Female/23/orginally from Ohio, now living in California.
Gang-bang : one person having consensual sex with multiple partners. Doesn’t have to be a woman on the receiving end either.
Gang-rape : one person having non-consensual sex with multiple partners.
What else do you call one person having consensual multiple sex partners in a row?
Don’t be stupid. I have quite a lot of practice with pile-ons. Like the current one, for instance.
Two became three when Treis joined you. And I’m just lucky I don’t read Dewey’s posts. And I can do it. I did do it.
Here are the time-stamps.
02-17-2005, 04:21 PM #101 Left Hand of Dorkness
02-17-2005, 04:23 PM #102 Priceguy
02-17-2005, 04:25 PM #103 Liberal
02-17-2005, 04:27 PM #104 Liberal
02-17-2005, 04:28 PM #105 Priceguy
02-17-2005, 04:30 PM #106 Priceguy
02-17-2005, 04:32 PM #107 Liberal
02-17-2005, 04:32 PM #108 Left Hand of Dorkness
02-17-2005, 04:35 PM #109 Liberal
02-17-2005, 04:37 PM #110 Liberal
02-17-2005, 04:38 PM #111 Left Hand of Dorkness
02-17-2005, 04:40 PM #112 Priceguy
02-17-2005, 04:43 PM #113 Liberal
02-17-2005, 04:45 PM #114 Liberal
02-17-2005, 04:45 PM #115 Left Hand of Dorkness
02-17-2005, 04:47 PM #116 Liberal
02-17-2005, 04:52 PM #117 Liberal
02-17-2005, 04:54 PM #118 Left Hand of Dorkness
02-17-2005, 04:56 PM #119 Left Hand of Dorkness
02-17-2005, 04:56 PM #120 Priceguy
02-17-2005, 04:57 PM #121 Left Hand of Dorkness
02-17-2005, 05:08 PM #122 Liberal
02-17-2005, 05:10 PM #123 Liberal
02-17-2005, 05:15 PM #124 Priceguy
02-17-2005, 05:17 PM #125 Left Hand of Dorkness
02-17-2005, 05:21 PM #126 Liberal
02-17-2005, 05:21 PM #127 treis
02-17-2005, 05:23 PM #128 Liberal
02-17-2005, 05:36 PM #129 Liberal
02-17-2005, 05:42 PM #130 Priceguy
02-17-2005, 05:56 PM (Post number unknown) Dewey Cheatem Undhow
02-17-2005, 06:00 PM (Post number unknown) Dewey Cheatem Undhow
02-17-2005, 06:05 PM #133 treis
02-17-2005, 06:20 PM #134 tomndebb
The last post advised, “instead of firing off questions as soon as one sees a reply, think about the context and frame the question in context, making sure that you are using terms to which both sides have agreed”. There was possibly more activity in that thread in two hours than was in some of the other forums all day.
You’re a jackass.
Fuck you.
After treis’s first post I posted once more and clearly stated that it was my last post and Lefty didn’t post at all, as is clearly visible from your own list, posted in the same post where you posted this bullshit. And you whined about the “pile-on” long before treis joined.
What you’re grasping at can’t even be described as straws.
Why whine about it then? If you can do it, do it. If you can’t, don’t. Not exactly rocket science.
Which are completely irrelevant. So the three of us (you, me and Left Hand of Dorkness) write quickly. So what? Did anyone force you to respond within a set time? Did we complain if you responded too slowly? Did we say anything to make you think that you had to respond really, really quickly or we’d come over to your house and burn it down?
I hold that I did.
So? My username has eight letters, that’s about as relevant.
Great comeback. This is where you really show how much smarter than the rest of us you are.
So, why didn’t you say something like what I wrote? It couldn’t possible be because it wasn’t the two-on-one “pile-on” that was the problem, could it?
Yeah, fuck me. I tried to understand you, I tried to listen to you, I tried to see things from your point of view, and I liked you. Then I committed the horrible crime of not ceasing to post the moment someone with roughly the same opinions as mine posted in the same thread. A couple of days later, you’ve alienated me too like you have most of the message board. But fuck me. It was all my fault, right? Everyone else you’ve fought with - it was probably their faults too, right? All the other times you ended up in the Pit - their fault. Just because you’re the common denominator doesn’t mean it has anything to do with you.
Yeah, you’re right. Fuck me.
I’m 32 as well, and I grew up believing a ‘gang-bang’ to be a form of group sex as well. I think the newer meaning of the word started in the 1980s, and I remember feeling embarassed when cop shows started talking about ‘gang-bangers’ and my Mom would say ‘That’s not what it used to mean!’.
I don’t think I’ve heard ‘gang-bang’ as a term for a group rape much, though. ‘Gang-banger’ seemed to mean young black gang members who did drive-by shootings and such. If someone called me a ‘gang-banger’, I would assume they either meant I participated in consensual sex where several men took turns on one woman, or that they were even more confused and were calling me some kind of violent gangster. I never would have assumed that I was being called a rapist, though.
Who said it’s your fault? Why must you even look for fault? Shit happens. People get pissed off. Friends understand and shrug it off. Whether you choose to alienate yourself from me is your choice alone. That’s not your fault; it’s your decision.
Personally, if someone ever mistakenly thinks I’m calling them a rapist on this messageboard, I’ll correct their misapprehension in their next post, along with an explanation of what I meant.
I won’t use my next post to confirm their misapprehension by using a nonconsensual sex metaphor.
I won’t then use a follow-up post to make an absurd insinuation that I was referring to something I obviously wasn’t referring to.
I won’t then come up with two different explanations for what I meant in a follow-up thread.
That’s because I’m honest.
Daniel
If you were honest, you wouldn’t be claiming to believe that I called you a rapist. There are many reasons why it makes no sense to call you a rapist: (1) it would be completely irrelevant to the debate, (2) it would be against the rules of Great Debates, (3) it would poison the well of my own argument, (4) it would give you an excuse to cry foul, (5) it would be apropos of nothing. There is one and only one reason for you to claim that I called you a rapist, and that’s because you have engineered this enmity between us and believe that it fuels your campaign. Your pathetic claim of honesty rings like a claim of humility, and frankly makes me feel sorry for you. You just hate me, and this is the flimsy vehicle by which you have decided to subject the board to your expression of it. If you’re honest, my ass smells like lilacs.
Yeah, if you’d come back the next day and said “I’m sorry about that, I was tired; let’s get back to discussing sensibly”, then I would have understood and shrugged it off. No big deal. When you come back the next day, still pissed, still rambling because we kept posting when you thought we should have quit, misrepresenting the facts, vigorously missing points right left and center, refusing to answer simple questions or meet simple arguments… that’s way past the shrugging-off zone.
Fact remains: all we did was try and talk with you. I cannot speak for Lefty, but every single post of mine was sincere and I have seen no reason to believe otherwise of his.
You then got nasty because there were two of us, and (apparently; you’re seldom clear) because we respond quickly. You have refused to tell us what’s so difficult about responding to two posters instead of one, what’s so evil about typing quickly and why you didn’t simply say something sincerely and honestly about it instead of implying, accusing and insulting. You also went on to calling me stupid and a jackass, and suggesting I should fuck myself.
Was it a mistake? Were you agitated? Do you regret saying all those things? Then be a man and apologize. If you still stand by them, why should I bother shrugging it off?
Ironic, coming from someone who loudly ignores my posts due to some long-ago perceived slight.
Bullshit.
-
Irrelevance is something you take to the level of performance art, as amply demonstrated in this thread.
-
So what?
-
Yeah, that would be new.
-
Like you haven’t done that enough already.
-
See point 1.
I find it really interesting that someone with an average of 10.97 posts per day is claiming that two people engaging in debate rises to the level of “gang bang” in any sense.
I find it even more interesting that someone who claims five years of friendship and asks for forgiveness to benefit the forgiver is someone who is completely unwilling to apologize for a perceived slight.
Liberal, when you are being good, you are an asset. Unfortunately, you’re rarely an asset at this point.
It was a mistake, an overreaction on my part. I was agitated, and I do regret the things I said to you. For those, I apologize.
What? Do you mean the post sandwiched between TwistOfFate and Furt arguing over whether Manhattan is ever wrong? The fourth post in a thread where the OP took two posts to make his point, used my username in some irrelevant reference for his title? The post in a BBQ Pit thread where there was (as yet) no debate over which something could BE irrelevant? That post?
So, we are bound by our user agreement to accept the rules. What do you mean, so what?
Let me guess — after this whirlwind of sarcasm and vitriol, you’re going to acccuse me of not being nice. Right?
Like what? This is the only thread he has opened about my alleged, nonexistent, and formally ruled bogus infraction in Great Debates.
Five is not relevant to one. Your argument is lazy.
What does posts per day have to do with whether there is a pile-on. I documented the thing. Care to deal with the facts?
What are you talking about? I did apologize to Left Hand of Dorkness. I even agreed to his incredibly snitty request not to call him Daniel.
You’re not either. So there. :rolleyes:
You aren’t stopping. If you have a poster who’s confronting you, you continue to make up motivations for that poster.
No, Lib, there is not “one and only reason” for that comment. Can you understand that? People have a whole range of motives for what they say, and you of all people should not assume that you understand why they’re saying the stuff they’re saying. You used a sexual metaphor, yes? You said that you weren’t orgasming, yes? If you weren’t orgasming, then the metaphorical sex was nonconsensual, yes?
Please stop assuming that you know what’s going through everyone else’s head.
He didn’t confront me. He quietly reported me to a moderator, who ruled that his complaint had no basis. I don’t have to guess what he is thinking because he has TOLD me what he thinks. You, on the other hand — I have no idea what you’re on about, or even who you are. All I know is that you have the remarkable compunction to read my mind and tell me that I am making assumptions about other peoples’ thoughts.