I'll try to be nicer, If you try to be smarter - Not for liberal eyes.

[Pathros_1983]

BULL, iampunha. That “one trick pony” comment was supposed to do what then? Make me feel all warm and fuzzy inside? Smile and say “golly that guy sure is right about me!”

You made a DIRECT retort? Oh puh-LEASE! The first thing you mentioned was:

I love it when people pick and chose what they think I’m referring to. First, you said:

Pathros, now you gotta go in the corner with all the other one-trick ponies

Now, I haven’t been quite active a poster here, and earlier explained why. Last I DID post, you made quite arrogant and snide comments towards me and my religous beliefs. What you said then isn’t an issue, but your comment here about the one trick pony brought me to say this:

Oh, look! Another snide comment from someone who disagrees with my religous beliefs? Yeah, I’m not used to that at all, iampunha. You’re possibly one of the more arrogant dopers here. Well, we won’t start a fight over it now will we? After all this is MPSIMS, and that was what your intention was to begin with. Wasn’t it? Provoking someone into some morality issue because you know before hand how it’ll end and you think you can take some moral high ground because of it

Now, a slap on the wrist to me because I should have just ignored your first comment. Naturally, you probably don’t remember the last I posted here, but I did and when saw that comment (which IMHO had no relevant purpose in this thread to anything anyone said) prompted my response. I found it rather snide and as I’ve said several times, I got the distinct impression you were baiting me. I brought up my religion, and then explained why here:

BTW, I said religous beliefs because I’ve found that you try to bait posters you know disagree with your lifestyle in threads that have nothing to do with it whatsoever.

Perhaps I generalized here, but nonetheless the comment you made in THIS thread did prompt me to say what I did.

Now, you respond by saying this:

Pathros, show me one time in this thread (previous, of course, to this post of mine) where I mentioned anything about your religion, my “lifestyle”, or any of the other things you mentioned.

You might ask Monty, btw, just how often I take a moral highground with him or attack his religious beliefs or his stance on my “lifestyle”.

Now this is getting old, but I’m showing you my impression of how this thread developed. I responded here:

Read my last post. I stated why I said “religous beliefs,” and it was because you were baiting me plain and simple. I don’t need to ask Monty how many times your lifestyle is brought up because the answer will probably be “we both post on so many various issues, I would have a hard time saying exactly unless the topic at hand dealt directly with the subject matter you asked of.” Before last week I had not posted in about a year, and that was because I was quite involved with earning my degree, and for some reason I’m a naturally impatient with the internet and the straightdope was taking it’s time whenever I wanted to browse the forums. You can see the number of posts I have, see the debates I got involved in last I came here, and you decided to comment “Lookie here… it’s Pathros the one trick pony” and implied quite a bit with that. It wasn’t really necessary for this thread, and thus why I retorted the way I did.

Now I’m just plain repeating myself, but atleast you see I responded to you WHY I said “religous beliefs” and answered to your comment about Monty Then you said:

If I were going to bait you, I think I might be able to come up with something a touch more clever than calling you a one-trick pony

Regarding your religious beliefs, I don’t remember much more about them than you’re Mormon. Why that would be some reason for me to attack you is beyond me…

At this point I found this whole exchange silly. No sooner did I say why I responded to you in the way that I did, you comment “If I were to really bait you I would say something more clever.” You could have said WHY you called me a one trick pony, but instead try to defend why you said it and show how somewhat foolish and daring I am for accusing you of baiting me. Then, which blows me mind because you are quite perceptive, you asked why my religous beliefs would cause you to attack me. Read again what I said in an earlier post. I mentioned directly why I said “religous beliefs,” and addressed this comment before you even stated it. Now, because I do see you as being perceptive and intelligent, IMHO you are trying to provoke me into something more. So, let’s move on to your next comment, which so I don’t go off track was in response to this:

I don’t need to ask Monty how many times your lifestyle is brought up because the answer will probably be “we both post on so many various issues, I would have a hard time saying exactly unless the topic at hand dealt directly with the subject matter you asked of.”

You respond:

My “lifestyle”, by which I’m going to make the grand assumption that you’re talking about my sexuality, is not only none of your business but also probably far from what you think it might involve. And I don’t remember the last time Monty and I talked about my sex life, nor the last time we talked about his. Maybe it’s because it’s largely irrelevant to a whole lotta stuff?

Now, why did I even say what I did to cause you to comment like this?

You might ask Monty, btw, just how often I take a moral highground with him or attack his religious beliefs or his stance on my “lifestyle”.

Ladies and gentlemen we have a WINNER! No sooner do I hint at your lifestyle you come in charging “my lifestyle is mine and no one elses business so why even bring it up?” You mentioned Monty and yourself have many discussions and whether or not your lifestyle comes into play regarding those discussions. I addressed your comment, and naturally you had to come insinuating that I am taking this exchange into a particular direction at which you never even brought your lifestyle into this discussion. First, you are right about one thing: Your lifestyle has nothing to do with this thread, however you mentioned it and I addressed your comment. My position about you baiting me seems even more valid because I made a direct response to something you said, and you ran with it completely ignoring why I said what I did in the first place.

Now, moving on, you later said this:

I remember one debate thread in which you even posted. For all I know you could have posted in 25 of them at once. I have a few more important things in my life to do than go searching for posts of yours from a year ago or longer, I assure you

Fair enough, and I’ll take your word on it. However, Based on what you said in this thread, the relevance it had, and the insuing comments I felt my position was adequately supported. Now, I can’t BEGIN to assume your motivations, but atleast you can see why I say what I did, n’est pas?

Now, is it clear when I said “direct retort?” Is it clear that I KNOW you did not bring up my religous beliefs and why I even mentioned it? Is it clear to you why I viewed your comment as baiting me and why I reacted the way I did? Why I continued to think along those lines and found nothing to either directly say or imply otherwise?

I don’t understand all this anger you have toward me

Hahahahahaha… Yeah. I could have easily said the same thing, and you’re response would have been “what anger? show me where I directly said I hate you or I made an insult towards you.” Of course, I could have already addressed said insult, you would have just as well repeated the same thing because you’re trying to provoke me. Then again this IS all in my head, right? If you were really baiting me you would have been more clever about it, right? :rolleyes:

[Pathros_1983]

Now, is it clear when I said “direct retort?” Is it clear that I KNOW you did not bring up my religous beliefs and why I even mentioned it? Is it clear to you why I viewed your comment as baiting me and why I reacted the way I did? Why I continued to think along those lines and found nothing to either directly say or imply otherwise?

More or less, “do you understand my point of view.” I found all I said in the paragraph rather wordy, so I apologize.

[iampunha]

Do yourself a favor, child.

Last I DID post, you made quite arrogant and snide comments towards me and my religous beliefs.

Statement one, with no supporting evidence whatsoever. But wait, there’s more:

What you said then isn’t an issue

Which, of course, is why you brought it up, right?

Your case for yourself is made stronger if you manage not to contradict yourself in consecutive statements.

Unless you fancy taking this to the Pit or email (and I know I have more important things to do), I see no reason to continue this here or at all, as it’s starting to take on a distinctly non-SIMS air.

[Blackeyes]

*Originally posted by Pathros_1983 *
Oh, look! Another snide comment from someone who disagrees with my religous beliefs?

WTF? “Religious beliefs”?! When the hell did that come in?

Yeah, I’m not used to that at all, iampunha. You’re possibly one of the more arrogant dopers here. Well, we won’t start a fight over it now will we? After all this is MPSIMS, and that was what your intention was to begin with. Wasn’t it? Provoking someone into some morality issue because you know before hand how it’ll end and you think you can take some moral high ground because of it.

You should hold the cross with it resting on your neck. That’s the pose for martyrs, you know. :rolleyes:

It’s a conservative soap box, silly. That, and it’s not a web based site, (in that it was created with the intention of people who are solely internet minded) but rather a radio based website to support what this guy said on the air. I would have expected the actual radio show to be “Well, well, well… I heard this on the news about Saddaam and it doesn’t suprise me one bit!” It’s also pretty obviously biased and one sided, hence why I said “not for liberal eyes.” Yes, I know the news lately has been quite sensational about the war; I was just explaining my interpretation of the radioshow/website.

Coulda done a better job at that. You were very vague and open-ended.

[iampunha]

Re: your last post:

It is still unclear to me why you feel past grievances aired a long time ago were meant to be re-hashed. I do not understand how you feel I brought them to surface again with my comment, as you were the one to bring them up in the first place. My “one-trick pony” comment had absolutely nothing to do with religion. Nothing whatsoever. Nothing to do with your religiosu beliefs, your favorite football team, what color socks you’re wearing, nothing like that at all:)

My guess is that you remember me as someone who was confrontational to you in another forum a year ago and assumed I was coming back for more of the same. While I can quite enjoy a good debate/argument, right now as I’m suffering from a rather nasty cold which tends to leave for a minute and then stay for an hour, I’m not especially up to thorough debate of any sort (as I think you will gather if you were to take a look at my posts, with one or two noted thread exceptions, from the past week or so).

I tend to like to leave debating where it belongs: GD, and to a certain extent IMHO and the Pit where appropriate. it is also my personal preference to keep all matters political and suchlike out of any forum other than GD unless the question is purely factual, in which case we have a forum provided for questions with nonpartisan factual answers, such as “who was president of the USA in 1943?”

Anyway. As I said in my last post, unless you fancy taking this somewhere else I have a cold to get over:)

[Zoe]

Bob55 said:

It would be more ironic if the original poster had said both comments. But the 2nd quote was from me - and I in no way implied (nor do I believe) that Liberals are stupid. I was merely stating the obvious - if you disagree with something, logically disprove it, don’t just throw insults at it.

Sorry, Bob, that I confused you with the writer of the OP. Cancel the irony.

I also agree with you that if you disagree with something, you should not throw insults at it. (I don’t think that I have.) If this post had been started in GD, then I would make the effort to present my views and back them up with facts and cites where requested. Meanwhile, I will simply disagree.

Pathros, although you misunderstood the point that I was making, it doesn’t matter since the two quotes were from two separate people.

I figured if I posted something obviously pro conservative I would get a reaction similar to what francesca said.

You might want to refresh your memory about some of the rules for SDMB.

[japatlgt]

Boortz has been around for ages and literally worked his way up through the ranks. He’s an attorney (go figure) by training and has been in talk radio in Atlanta forever. He’s actually a pretty smart fellow although a little clumsy at times.

[Pathros_1983]

Blackeyes I really see no necessity for your comment about martyrs, and read a little more to understand why I even brought up religion, when this thread has nothing to do with it. I also was not vague about this site. I simply said it’s a site I found and decided to share it in MPSIMS. I simply saw it evovle into something not for the MPSIMS forum so went more in depth with it.

You might want to refresh your memory about some of the rules for SDMB.

Yes, but it was not my intention to provoke someone into making a negative comment. I thought perhaps I would get a response like that, but my intention was to share the site. It was also a more “after the fact” sort of conclusion, in that after I saw what Francesca said I thought “gee, I should have guessed that would have happened.” I had no direct intention to throw the site in and have someone say “boy that sure was ridiculously ignorant website,” but when I saw something of the like I decided to liven it up. If it came across as otherwise, my apologies. Yes, I could have done well to just not have said that at all, but in the end offered a more in depth explaination as to why I shared the site. I did it to difuse this from turning into a debate.

Iampunha You’re just continuing what I had already addressed. What I was saying is what the debate was about earlier has nothing to do with this thread, but is still fresh in my memory and I question why you did what you did. I already said that if I could be mistaken correct my misinterpretations. I honestly feel as if you didn’t read my posts because if you did you would not have responded the way you died. Okay, so why did you even call me a one trick pony, then? Why was your comment about my thread being here and not in GD then? I told you why I reacted the way I did and why I continued it. Let’s just let it die now, because it’s all rather silly. I made this thread because I came across the site I did, and thought “Hey heres a site some people may enjoy.”

[Coldfire]

First off, Pathros_1983, allow me to direct you to the announcement regarding Gulf War Threads in MPSIMS, easily found at the top of this very forum. Your OP, as it is phrased now, should have been in the Pit. It sure as hell doesn’t qualify as a Great Debate, or even a Small One. The sole purpose seems to be to take a stab at “liberals”, in this case -judging by the current content of the website you linked to- of the anti-war variety.

Rather than showing you the curtousy of moving this to the Pit, though, I’m just going to close it. Your behaviour in this thread is below par for an SDMB poster. Your snide remarks towards mainly Francesca and iampunha are out of line for this forum. Be advised that a future episode along those lines could mean the revocation of your posting privileges, if it is carried out outside the Pit.

Should you wish to continue “debating” this particular topic in this fashion, I suggest you do so in the Pit. If you want to complain how the liberal moderators are trying to censor you, the same forum would apply.

Other than that, have a nice day.