But now I have a beef with you. As a matter of fact, Priceguy, I gave you everything — every single thing — you asked for, item by item:
You: “Was it a mistake?” …
Me: “It was a mistake, an overreaction on my part.” …
You: “Were you agitated?” …
Me: “I was agitated,” …
You: “Do you regret saying all those things?” …
Me: “…and I do regret the things I said to you.” …
You: “Then be a man and apologize.”
Me: “For those, I apologize.”
And then you have the nerve to give an itemized list of questions on top of that, and I’m supposed to think now that if I answer them, everything will be hunky-dory? How about YOU be a man. Accept the apology. Move on.
Well, I was going to jump in and defend you, because I completely agree with post #53, and I think Daniel has turned his vitriol into a personal, hysterical vendetta against you. He’s become an increasingly angry poster, and that’s a tragedy.
But since I’m apparently one of the meanest, cruelest people on the board since I’ve suffered from your personal attacks, I have to question your attempts to simultaneously rationalize and fling poo. Are you an honest debater or not?
And Priceguy, he’s apologizing for overreacting when he was annoyed. Did you lose your brain?
I believe that I am. It seemed like a pile-on to me at the time. It certainly felt like one. I’ve posted all the timestamps. You can see that it was bang bang bang. Looking at the posts themselves, you can see that he wasn’t waiting for responses before shooting off more posts. He wasn’t even completing his own posts before hitting submit. (Again, see the post with four hypothetical characters, but questions about only two of them.) This post-mortem beat-down is rather excruciating. I don’t know how Priceguy imagines that it is benefiting him, but it’s killing me. But just so he gets his questions answered, I reckon all will be well. I’ve done all a man should have to do here. I’m out.
I’m not your old friend. And you have too many times pretended to be willing to wipe the slate clean for me to believe you this time.
Facta, non verba. If you want to wipe the slate clean, then spend the next month posting without dishonesty or vitriol, and I’ll consider it clean. But I’m likelier to meet a talking frog.
As I said, I don’t believe I can resolve this with you: I believe you’re an habitual liar with no intention of speaking honestly or behaving decently, based on long experience with you on this board. Your dishonesty is something I find contemptible; your explanations for your behavior in this thread are laughably false, the kind of lies a four-year-old tells. If you can grow up and spend a long time not acting like a shit, then the slate is clean.
Priceguy, Stricker, I appreciate y’all: you seem to have a handle on what’s getting under my skin here. I was posting looking for honest answers, because I find a great deal about libertarianism to be very appealing. There’s only three major problems I have with it:
Its treatment of property;
Its treatment of moral subjects; and
The assholes who seem to advocate it most vociferously.
(The last point, of course, is one I’d be willing to ignore if the first two points were resolved).
I posted my concerns about points numbers one and two, because I feel that, though majoritarianism doesn’t meet these concerns very well, at least it meets them better than any other system I know of. I was not expecting an attack such as the one I received, although by now I should have; Lib’s very good at suckering people into a debate and getting nasty on them once they’ve committed to it. Even though he’s been nasty to me in the past, I occasionally think that this time he’ll behave himself, and that if I debate him respectfully, he’ll return the favor.
I’m really going to try not to make that mistake again.
I just wanted to know if he found his behaviour in the Great Debates thread to be acceptable, that’s all. I know he regrets his behaviour in this thread and I appreciate that.
You’re right. I’d prefer, of course, that he be gone from the boards entirely; I think he does no credit to them. Failing that, I’ll do my best to ignore him.
Oh, grow up, Liberal. Anybody with two eyes to read and at least one brain cell to process is perfectly aware that you frequently make unprovoked personal attacks, just as in the thread at issue. You are not a nice guy. Fortunately, you don’t hurt my feelings, because I don’t allow assholes to affect me.
I’m doing this for the same reason as always: I find you tremendously interesting and would like to be able to talk to you without having you blow up in my face the moment we disagree, or the moment someone else is in the thread. When you feel cornered, I would like you to handle it in a polite and mature manner instead of screaming “pile-on”. I probably chose the wrong method to achieve this, and I too acted in anger.
But above all, I believe that I have shown in the past that I am ready to listen to other views than my own. In the future, therefore, I’d like you to trust me to do so again. When we disagree it’s either because I haven’t understood you (in which case I’ll ask questions politely until I do understand you) or because I do understand you and still honestly disagree. Unfortunately, I believe the debate that created this mess was a case of the former.
And you continue to things up. No, Lib, I don’t consider myself “a master of interpreting words.” You’re making, yet again, an unfounded assumption, this time assuming that I believe myself to be all high and mighty and shit. Either that, or you’re just being snarky. This seems to be your standard response to conflict.
And, yes, I know what “contemptible” means. That he considers you contemptible is not some magical key to understanding the inner workings of his psyche. He also said this, in case you missed it:
You can choose to disbelieve that, and I won’t blame you. But I do blame you for assigning your own interpretation to his motivations and then ignoring what he has to say, which you have done.
I was a participant in two of those threads, and things did not transpire as you try to relate them here. From the foodie thread:
And you accused Dorkness of defending Dio. Utterly and completely false, and yet you have no compunctions at all to rip a quote from Dio in your effort to smear Dorkness. This is just unconscionable, and I’m having a hard time believing it was an accident.
Taking a look at your second hotlink, it doesn’t involve the “meaning” of what you said, it involves the actual wording. Lib, you did in fact call MissTake a “a gnat on a camel’s ass.” You claim you were making a biblical reference and that you meant no offense. Fine. I don’t know what’s in your head, so I’ll take you at your word. But Starving Artist was categorically denying that you said that, as your own hotlink shows. It wasn’t about the “meaning” of what you said. And as for your third cite, it is not taken from the same thread as the second. Again I’m tempted to believe you did that intentionally, but maybe you made an accident. I hope you can see, though, how tiring it becomes when these accidents start piling up. This seems to happen a lot with you. Too damn much.
You said that you weren’t orgasming, Lib. That’s what you said. If the sex had been consensual, would you not have been orgasming?
This is first-grade simple, Lib, it truly is, and yet you have not once addressed this. You’re defending yourself, and I’m not blaming you for that. The mod saw no problems, and I’m cool with that, but don’t tell me that you can’t see the connection that Dorkness, myself, and several other posters have made. Don’t tell me that Dorkness’s “one and only reason” for assuming that you were talking about rape is that he’s pissed at you, when the connection to rape is so obvious to so many of us.
This is what I’ve been requesting of you. Stop trying to make connections that aren’t there. Stop ignoring what we’re saying.
Thanks, Stricker. When I dismissed the rest of his post as dishonest, it was pretty much for the reasons you gave. I didn’t have the energy to go into detail, but I’m glad you did–I sort of worry that folks think it’s a baseless charge I’m making.
It was my pleasure. Well, okay, it’s not exactly a pleasure to correspond with our resident brickwall, but what he was ignoring here was just so basic, so elementary, that his every post was a horrid reminder that he was missing, or perhaps deliberately moving attention away from, your simple point. This thread is yet another well-documented example of an obvious pattern of misrepresentation, and any poster with any sense will recognize that. After a while, this stupid shit really adds up, and it no longer matters whether he’s doing it intentionally or not.