Nope, it’s bringing it up out of context, in this thread, repeatedly. Look, lately when I give SA a hard time in some pit thread he PM’s me and threatens to bring up this issue “publicly”. To which I respond - go ahead. Now, I am disagreeing with him here and out of the blue you pop up with the same bullshit. Hmmm.
I am a graphic artist. I have a morgue file of hundreds of thousands images. Many have duplicate or similar names. The photo was submitted in error. There was no fiasco. It was brought to my attention via PM, I ask AW to remove it he did. The end. Your blowing this up into something it’s not to discredit my stance in this thread and the pit thread is ridiculous and petty.
I have never claimed to be young or beautiful. A search of my posts will reveal that I have stated my age here, probably several times. But to save you the trouble, I was born in 1963.
Not that I have any illusions that it will shut you up, but here you go.
Now, let’s see if can argue this case against me (supporting Miller) on it’s merits and not some childish shenanigans.
Wow, that’s some industrial-grade sanctimony, there. Anyway, thought this thread was supposed to be about how hard-done by is poor old Starving Artist. Could we not get back to wringing our hands about how his bold and daring opinions are being stifled by the board Gestapo?
Did you happen to see the caption that Jain submitted with the pic? The caption acknowledged the particular bogus pic that was submitted, in case you missed it. Were you there, Kabong? I was, saw the whole thing unfurl. It reeked.
Also, if it’s a mistake like you insist, Kabong, where’s the real pic? If that particular one was submitted by accident, then where is a real one?
I am not going to bother digging though the thread - esp since the evidence of her caption, as well as the pic is now gone.
I have questioned Jain’s sincerity in this thread, and have explained why. Until you can acknowledge the bogus caption, and also explain why a “real” pic was never submitted, I’ll just chalk you up as just another poster who does not like Starving Artist.
That must have been horrible. They say you’ll eventually get over a thing like that, time heals all wounds and whatnot, but I can see how you’d still be traumatized.
Did they offer counselors for the witnesses, like at school shootings? Don’t be a big brave he-man, I’m told it helps to talk about it. Good luck.
You seem to be mistaking me for someone who gives a rat’s ass about this teapot tempest you are banging on about. I haven’t insisted on anything at all except to suggest the quality of this thread might be improved somewhat if we stuck to the topic.
At least you more or less correctly surmise the blindingly obvious point that I sometimes take issue with SA’s posting habits.
I presume now you’ll come back with some more irrelevancies, since as we all know the last person to post on any given argument wins. An attitude you seem to share with SA, BTW.
I see that your dishonesty reaches further than posting TWO phony photos of yourself. First you post two illicit pictures of good-looking women as being yourself. Then you try passing it off as only posting one. Then you lie about our PM history. I didn’t “threaten” to bring it up publically, I said that I had decided not to. And IIRC we both made comments alluding to liking each other in the process. And it was the result of those PM’s along with your polite request that I back out of the Susanann thread that caused me to do so. A decision I now regret considering your subsequennt comments in the Susanann thread and this one.) So for you to claim that I threatened you is simply adding lie on top of lie on top of lie.
Now I want to address the issue of my allegedly having hijacked the thread:
ladyfoxfyre suggested that in her OP Susanann’s solution to the deficit by reducing spending was stupid. Unless it is expected to allow comments like that to go unanswered and apparently accepted as fact, a response detailing why reducing spending is not stupid is necessary.
The exchange with Bosstone was caused by him (her?) and each of my posts to Bosstone were in reply to comments he’d made to me, and were posted for the same reason - to fill in why I was disagreeing with him.
The exchange with gonzomax was to refute his allegation that people who oppose tax increases to deal with the deficit are “selfish”. My response to him was to cast the issue in a light which not only illustrated the way conservatives look at the issue, but to show him that in all likelihood he was just as “selfish” as anyone else.
Diogenes the Cynic gets criticized for posting one-line declarative statements as though they are fact, and now I’m being criticized for explaining myself.
So in my very honest opinion nothing I said in that thread constituted a hijack, and the notion that it was was made by a person (ladyfoxfyre) who was clearly in high dudgeon that I had called out her dishonesty in relating Susanann’s post, and by other posters who didn’t want to have their allegations about me or conservative solutions to the debt challenged.
There is not (or at least there never has been) a limit to the number of words a poster uses to get his point across on this board. I go into a lot of detail in my posts to try to make it clear what I’m saying and why I’m saying it, and yet as the thread regarding “Starving Artist’s good old days” illustrates, things still get grossly misunderstood. This in turn causes me to go to even greater lengths to try to make myself clear.
I can honestly say that I have never given a moment’s thought to bringing attention to myself by “taking over” a thread, or in any other way. I have never sought intentionally to derail a thread. The claim that I have is nothing but accusations made by people who want to be free to spout their opinions or engage in their hatefests without anyone calling them on it, as was the case in the Susanann thread.
I’m amazed at how thin-skinned some of this board’s posters are. This place is a HUGE anti-conservative gabfest, filled with every sort of lie, distortion and deliberate mischaracterization of conservatives and they way they think. And yet my posts, challenging their impassioned conservative hatefest in no uncertain way and which don’t amount to 1% of the political postings that go on around here, have apparently become intolerable and are negatively affecting the tone of the entire board. :rolleyes:
If I am to edit my posts in the future to a certain length, or keep them to a certain number of responses, or forbidden to challenge what I view as erroneous or hatefull comments aimed at conservatives, it would be a good idea to have a formal rule on that too so that I don’t find myself scolded from out of the blue again at some point in the future.
Now if we can just get the hijack of this thread to turn into a pitting of Susanann we’ll have a perfect M. C. Esher example of threads turning back upon themselves.
I just read the thread in question and realized, ah-ha, that must be what that ATMB thread is about. (I’d seen the title, hadn’t read it.)
Yeah, SA was hijacking the shit out of that Pit thread. I was to the point where I was just scrolling past his posts because all they were was a bunch of self-aggrandizing hijacky goodness.
Miller’s post was great moderation, totally on point and appropriate.
I read the thread under discussion in the Pit (thanks for exposing me to a new poster!), and I have to say that there is some merit to SA’s opinion here. However, I can’t **completely **agree.
**SA’s **first post was fine. It pointed out a factual error by the OP of the thread. Quite frankly, if he didn’t point it out, life would have been just fine, but pointing it out shouldn’t have brought the responses out of the woodwork, either. **Bosstone **in particular plays a good game of “I know you are but what am I?” with SA. What was the point of all that? Of course, **SA **decides he wants to take the time to defend himself, but in doing so he 1) continually repeats himself and the points he’s made, trying to convince others (Bosstone et. al.) who will never acknowledge being wrong anyway, and 2) he begins to spend more time than he should trying to explain himself.
Of course, **SA **has a history on the board, and apparently he’s conservative. That brings out more of the crazy talk as people begin taking pot-shots at his politics. **SA **then begins to reply to *those *comments, giving the impression of a thread hi-jack.
I’ve seen worse in threads. So from a hijack POV, it’s not that exciting. However, **Miller’s ** comment to **SA ** certainly seemed a bit strange. Why did he have to put /moderating around the “Shut up” remark? If he put anything, he should have indicated it was coming from him as a poster, not as a mod.
At least that’s how I see it. I have no idea if **Miller **has a problem with SA, however sticking it to **SA **and not to at least one of the others causing **SA **to reply was a bit short-sighted.
It’s amazing what you miss when you don’t read for comprehension!
No, it was a very stupid remark, and not for the factual inaccuracy. I won’t rehash it here, as I already said as much in the thread.
For fun. I don’t believe there’s anything to be gained by attempting to engage with SA in good faith, as I believe him incapable of working on that level, so I mocked him instead.
So have we reached consensus - if you defend another poster (an unpopular one) in a Pit thread, and then the thread shifts to attacks on you or your positions, that is a hijack and won’t be allowed?
Whether or not it was stupid is immaterial. What was stupid was engaging him in a debate about it. Because, as I read it (and I’m not the only one here), the OP was wrong. That said, I skimmed right by it because it’s a one word mistake, I doubt it was on purpose (susanann’s posts linked to in that thread seem to stand on their own, so the pit thread should have rolled along just fine).
You seem to have an issue with SA’s politics, and that’s fine. But he pointed out something that was factually inaccurate. Important to him, but not to me, and certainly not to the majority of folks on the board, regardless of what side of the political spectrum you find yourself on. Your remark was pointless, and created a side bar hijack. Even with that small hijack, the thread wasn’t hard to follow. The hijack could have stayed and I wouldn’t have been upset.
Your second statement proves my point. If you don’t think you can gain anything by engaging him, why bother in the first place? If you two have locked horns before and have a history, I’m not aware of it. But mocking him? Refusing to engage him in good faith? What’s the point of that, really? To me, it’s like teasing a dog by pretending to throw a ball and keeping it in your hand… The dog reacts… takes a few steps in the opposite direction and then comes back, confused. Big joke! So now that you’ve done that, why keep doing it? You were as vital as **SA **in keeping that hijack going. I don’t get the thrill. But if you do, by all means knock yourself out. But Miller should have admonished a few folks for that hijack, not just SA.
FTR, I don’t have a problem with Miller’s post as a normal poster. As a mod, it seemed a bit strange to me, that’s all.
