Just how dense is Diogenes the Cynic

The BBQ Pit
101

On reflection, I’d characterize it more as “the liberals are mad at me, therefore I’m doing something right!” and we’re getting more of it lately, or perhaps I’m just noticing it more. I guess it’s a backlash of some kind. Heck, the poster calling himself OMG a Black Conservative was well-poisoning from the moment he registered, I presume starting with the assumption that liberals would be outraged or shocked or otherwise upset by his mere existence, and that’s just lazy.

I can understand the tactic, though, since it can always be twisted into a claimed victory. If the “liberal” (who can really be just about anyone who disagrees, regardless of their actual politics) answers in short/curt phrases, accuse him of anger or simple-mindedness. If the liberal writes up longer, more detailed replies, accuse him of obsession. If the liberal refers to something the poster claimed earlier, accuse hm of stalking. Accuse him of anything to get the emotional response (or something that can be claimed to be an emotional response) to fall back on the original mantra “the liberals are mad at me, therefore I’m doing something right.”

magellan’s personal spin is that vaguely-defined bad stuff will happen in the future. Naturally enough, this is (currently, at least) an unfalsifiable claim. I suppose if I linked to this thread a year from now and asked what the consequences were supposed to be, I could get any of several replies:

[ul][li]They’re there, you’re just too blind to see them.[/li][li]They’re there, you’re just refusing to see them.[/li][li]They’re coming, you just wait.[/li][li]Are you still obsessed about this? I must have really got to you![/ul][/li]Anyway, now magellan is “the fallout guy” to me, and for quite some time I’m sure I’ll think “fallout” when I see him, out of simple memory association. Similarly, there’s a poster named ElvisL1ves (or some variation on that), who made a rather bold and factually incorrect statement some years back, and I remember him primarily for that (in large part because his incorrect claim was about my home city, which I guess makes it notable to me and to practically no-one else), and his determined efforts to support the error rather than admit it. There’s your fallout, I guess, having your name linked to a specific moment or attitude, though magellan and Elvis certainly have no need to concern themselves with what I think. The problem would be what happens when several people think it. For some, Dio has been linked to… I dunno, arrogance or intolerance or something, such that he gets pitted for minor displays (or even imagined displays) and his first reply in any thread can prompt replies of “Well, here comes the Dio Show!”, which ends up creating the very situation his critics supposedly dislike - making the thread about Dio, and it doesn’t take many critics to do so. Three or four can easily derail a thread.

Anyway, I gather by his “fallout” remarks that megallan assumes I might get a similar group of critics, who will link my name with something negative and future opinions I express will be dismissed on that basis alone. I admit it would be quite the ego boost if it happened, but I have no illusions. Or perhaps the fallout is the onset of worry and regret that will gradually undermine my psyche. The fallout is so vaguely defined that it could be anything, really, on any timescale and thus magellan is “right” in the sense that he can’t possibly be proven wrong.
Anyway, that got a bit rambly, but it’s an idea I’ve been mulling over. I suppose maybe I lost sleep over it, in the sense that I was thinking about it in bed, so even though it wasn’t about regret over my own negative actions but analysis of magellan’s (and others’) negative actions, I guess he can claim his victory, for what it’s worth: a “liberal” spent some time thinking about him, therefore he’s doing something right.

102

Heh heh - you were thinking about magellan in bed. :slight_smile:

Bryan, you’ll always be one of the few, the proud posters who don’t take much seriously around here. magellan is a name that I vaguely recognize (although you guys are making me think I should pay more attention).

103

:rolleyes: I can’t figure out if you’re really dumb or really dishonest. If anything, this thread has become about Bryan Ekers. Yes, I was the subject of his attack. But his actions (and lack of appropriate action) are what this thread about. But I understand your inclination to come to his defense. After all, you don’t like my opinions on SSM and how to handle the threat from Muslims within the U.S.

Hope you have that mouthguard in. You could knock a tooth out or wind up with one in your kneecap.

104

This thread can be about lots of stuff.

105

Of course none of that applies here. Here, YOU 1) made a mistake and 2) chose to go off on a rant directed at me while thinking I was a poster who was banned quite a while ago. and then when you 3) finally realize your mistake you 4) refuse to do the normal, right thing and 4) apologize.

That’s it. It’s that simple.

You want to look at patterns? Okay. Look at all the exchanges we’ve had in both GD and the Pit. You know we’ve had quite a few, and as far as my recollection, while they might have gotten passionate from time to time they never really got personal. That’s one of the reasons I was surprised when you did it. Not only was that not part, or at least a memorable part, of our history, but I did or said nothing in this thread to merit it. In fact, when questioned on it, you admitted that you had confused me with a poster that you evidently had some ugliness with.

I will admit that based on the nature of our exchanges in the past that I was quite surprised that you would attack me the way you did. It made sense when you admitted you confused me with someone else. But prior to that discovery you had used what you thought was my previous ugliness towards you as justification for your attack. But when the justification was removed by you realizing your error, you didn’t do the very basically decent thing and apologize. Instead, you spin some nonsense that due to my stance on SSM (which makes me a homophobe and a bigot:rolleyes:) you were justified in your completely out of the blue attack. I know that to be bullshit, because, as I said, we have had exchanges in both GD and the Pit without you attacking me.

You say that it is easy to confuse me and mswas. Well, you did confuse us, but once you realized it you should have realized how absurd that was. While I do recall a couple of threads in which he and I were arguing against you, mswas is actually pro-SSM. You even acknowledge this by, in defense of your unhinged rant, accusing me (actually, him) of debating out of both sides of his mouth (Post #53). Another crucial difference that should be obvious to you now is that mswas was a poster who you apparently had some ugliness with via, as you offered as justification for your tone, his "ten or fifteen “I’m cumming in your mouth!” posts.

So, when you realized your error, you should have immediately apologized. It’s really quite amazing that you didn’t. This is the kind of thing a twelve year old might find tough. But you did that. And now you choose to dig your heels in about it. To be the champion of a position that is bereft of rightness and morally repugnant. But you’ll defend this indefensible position like Cleese’s Black Knight.

No need struggle through this, schmuck. As I explained already when you questioned what I meant:

[QUOTE=magellan01]

[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
Fallout? What fallout?
[/QUOTE]
The string of insults you hurled my way due to your error in thinking that it was I that said those things to you.
[/QUOTE]

Victory? Ha. There is no “victory” for me. When someone who has been wronged gets an apology you think him to be a “victor”. That at least helps explain your bizarre actions, I guess. But that’s asinine. I simply did not get the apology I was so obviously, so flagrantly, due. Vistor-wise, there is only the reality of you either having failings that you correct and learn from, or champion and wear as some contorted badge of honor. Either one you pick has no bearing on my life and the person I am. Your action will only define you. You’ve drawn your line in the sand here and now no doubt find it impossible to do what I think some small part of you know is the right thing to do. But maybe I’m giving you too much credit. It’s just that this is the kind of thing a twelve year old knows.

No, you’ve already put forth way to much bullshit justification and excuses, and did so with to much gusto. That, and you are loathe to admit that a person you hold to be so vile and morally repugnant is the person who reveals you to be the low person you are. and even now, given the choice of apologizing for your actions or not, you choose to turn this into a defining characteristic and raise a big bright flag that says: “I am a person that does not apologize when I mistakingly attack someone. No, not I…not Bryan Ekers. That’s the kind of person I am.”

Well, carry that flag proudly. As I know you will.

106

Shouldn’t “fallout” from my actions be something negative that affects me? Not to sound egotistical or anything, but I’m not feeling any such effects or have even noticed any such effects.

Just to clarify something, though, you’re an idiot. My mistake was accidentally attributing the actions of one idiot with another, easy enough since both idiots were pretty similar. Anyway, the error was acknowledged quickly enough and ever if it had never occurred, I stand by every other thing I’ve said to and about you in this thread. Even if mswas had never existed, I’d still have contempt for your foolishness in the various SSM threads. The “cumming in your mouth” episode hadn’t even occurred to me when I wrote the first post, though I have no reason to expect you to believe that.

Heck, accidental misattribution isn’t really that big a deal. It happens to me, too. I don’t expect apologies and you shouldn’t either because you’re not getting one. I simply don’t believe that you’re baffled or amazed or whatever by this. To you, it’s quite obviously a tiny bit of leverage you think you can exploit. Well, carry on if you must, but there will be no apologizing because:

  • I don’t have to.
  • I don’t want to.
    Frankly, if I were you, I wouldn’t be acting all butthurt and shocked-shocked! that such a thing occurred. I’d be ridiculing the person who made the mistake, saying something along the lines of him not knowing his 'swas from his elbow.

Well, I guess it’s mine by default, then. Thanks. And I have apologized for errors in the past, including once to the family of Dorie Miller, so yo’re wriong yet again. I guess that makes mistakes by you: four or five. By me: one, since retracted.

107

Holy crap, you two hate each other a lot. I don’t even know if I agree with either of you, because there’s no way in hell I’m putting in the time to wade through all this text to find out. I keep accidentally opening this thread because I was mildly interested in the first page, only to be reminded that it’s just you two snarling at each other. Don’t either of you have anything better to do with your time?

108

It should be obvious that we don’t.

109

If it’s true that you don’t, that just reinforces my point about your low character. You should feel the effects: remorse, shame. You attacked someone out of the blue, for no reason, other than you were in error. The fact that you don’t feel those effects I guess makes sense at this point.

You just don’t get it. Or don’t have the backbone to acknowledge it. Mistaking two posters is a simple error and no big deal. Heck, this thread sprouted because someone did that. And I made one of the first posts in the thread saying that it wasn’t a big deal.

But you went beyond that. You became unhinged and delivered vitriol out of nowhere. Now, if youand I had an ugly history filled with nothing but insults and venom (as evidently you did with mswas), that might be somewhat understandable. But while we disagree often, always(?), that has not been our pattern. Not in GD and not in the Pit. You don’t like my stance on SSM. Fine. I don’t like yours. You don’t like me. Fine. I don’t like you. I might even attack you at some point for something, but not for nothing. Not for your positions in a completely unrelated thread. In fact, even with all our passionate back and forth, I do not recall ever attacking you. Noir having reason to. But when I disagree with someone I just think they’re wrong. I don’t equate that with being bad people. I guess the only poster that give me pause in that regard is Der Trihs. But I think he’s not so much “bad” as broken. Someone who genuinely needs to log some serious time with a psychiatrist. Even Lobohan, who I trade insults with constantly, I don’t think is a bad person. Or even stupid, as I have stated. Just that he engages in the childish activity of calling everyone he encounters some version of “stupid”.

So, there are two different things for you you to examine. One is the case of mistaken identity you were guilty of. When it became evident to you, you acknowledged as much. Good for you. Though I don’t know what your option was at that point, especially since I told you that there was no record in search of me saying what you had accused me of. It’s almost as if you want some pat on the back for doing what anyone with a scintilla of character would do. and, amazingly, you even patted yourself on the back for doing so. But that all just goes to the case of mistaken identity, which I tried to not make a big deal of at all. If that was all you did, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

But you did more. You took an additonal step. based on your error, you attacked and insulted me. The only thing I had said to you before that in this thread was one word: “Cite?”, which was riffing off your comment about Dio. and you steadfastly refuse to own that and do what any normal person would do apologize. This is quite astounding. and reveals you to be the low person you are.

Let me offer an analogy. Let’s say you have a girlfriend. and let’s say she works with two males, Bob and Joe. You’ve heard their names quite a few times. Now let’s say that she told you that one time at an office party Joe groped her and tried to force himself on her. (Before you came into the picture, of course.) So her workmates all get together at a bar after work. She invites you, and you show up. And both Bob and Joe are there, and says that Joe has been making her feel uncomfortable, leering at her and making sexual comments. She’s very upset. Well, you see Joe going to the bathroom and you follow him in. You grab him, spin him around, pin him against the wall and bitch slap him, telling him to leave your girlfriend alone. Understandable I guess, even if unwise. But then you go back out and your girlfriend comes up to you and asks why you hit Bob. It finally gets revealed that you got Joe and Bob confused. and you hit the wrong guy. Bob, whether you like him or not did nothing to you or your girlfriend.

Question 1 for the morally challenged: do you owe Bob an apology?

Question 2 for the morally challenged: if you didn’t hit Bob, but just laced venom into him for five minutes, would you owe him an apology?

So, *would you *apologize to Bob?

Good for you, tough guy. The only reason to apologize is if you come to the realization that you did something wrong or treated someone unfairly. So, if your inner core is not telling you that you need to apologize, I guess you don’t need to. But if that’s true, apologizing to me is the least of your problems.

That’s you. But people make mistakes and confuse posters for each other. Maybe I’m shocked because I don’t usually encounter people who didn’t learn at an early age that they should take responsibility for their mistakes and their consequences. And know what to do when they screw up. I guess I tend to associate with a better class of people than you. Not that I had any reason to think about before.

First, I never claimed you never apologized for anything. That means that mistakes by me in this thread remain at 0. So, shove that straw up your ass with your splintered shillelagh.

Now, reread this thread and you tell me if you feel like a “winner”.

110

I’d say that right now the clear “winner” is Diogenes the Cynic.

111

How convenient. But I actually have numerous reasons to dislike you and you not being mswas doesn’t invalidate any of them.

Well, that its not that big a deal that I did it, either.

“Unhinged” is unproven, despite repetition. The vitriol (though I prefer “contempt”) has a fairly good basis behind it, though in GD threads I was naturally respectful of forum rules even as I demolished various vapid arguments of yours. Here, though, I can pretty much insult you at will, and I choose to do so, because I don’t like you and because it amuses me.

Well, if you did choose to attack me in the Pit, even for nothing, I’m confident I will not be such a whiny little bitch about it. In any case, what I’m doing is not for nothing, in the sense that I just picked some random poster to heap scorn on.

This thread has nothing to do with Der Trihs. I’m shocked - shocked! - that you would take this opportunity to call him mentally ill out of nowhere like that!

Well, not that shocked. If you want to call Der Trihs broken, or anything else, nobody will stop you. You won’t be able to control the reaction it gets, though, just as I don’t control (nor seek to control) the reactions my posts get. I’ll take whatever “fallout” comes my way.

Well, no-one else was going to do it for me. [pat, pat]

Ah, you just won’t see it, will you? You’re an idiot and an asshole and a homophobe for reasons completely independent of mswas. As it is, what’s keeping this round going is that you behaving as though the misattribution was my entire reason for disliking you. I have several such reasons.

To who? To you? Fine, I’ll live with that. Besides, what does the trigger matter? I’m not criticizing you for saying “cite?”, but for numerous past posts of yours. And here in this forum, I can be insulting about it. Bonus.

Analogy fail - by your own posts in various SSM threads you’re not the innocent “Bob” in this story. More accurately, Bob and Bill are both jerks, but Bill has since been fired. While bitchslapping Bob, I accidentally include in my reasons something that Bill did (not too surprising, really - Bill and Bob’s names start with the same letter, and Bill hasn’t been around for a while, causing specific memories of him to start to fade). Nevertheless, Bob deserves his bitchslapping.

Not apologizing to you isn’t a problem at all, really. But let’s assume I did apologize for the misattribution and still called you a homophobe and an idiot, which you are. What then?

Bring on the consequences, I say. C’mon, bring 'em. Let me see 'em. Whip out them consequences. I can take it.

You’re too delicate for the Pit. You should leave it.

Ah, you’re such a bald-faced liar. What you said was:

So based on this one incident, I have a “flag” saying that “I am a person that does not apologize when I mistakenly attack someone.” This is easily disproved by citing past examples where I did apologize for mistaken attacks. That I decline to apologize to you proves nothing, let alone a “defining characteristic” of my personality.

You’re of course free to include that in your definition of “Bryan Ekers”, i.e. “he’s that guy with that flag”. I’ll take my chances that these ill-defined “consequences” include it becoming part of my general reputation, such as it is.

I was a winner over you long before this. I just hadn’t previously taken the opportunity to celebrate it.

112

Well, someone’ll re-Pit him sooner or later and life will get back to normal.

113

Should I say something about cats or fat people?

114

Christ puked. I come back to the Pit after being gone so long, pour a fresh mug of joe when I see Dio’s name and get ready for some fun. And this is what I get?!? I could pit him better than that and I like the guy! I give it a negative eleventeen. Not only couldn’t I dance to it, I couldn’t even finish reading it.

115

How about something about how babies aren’t special, just immature humans? That might do the trick.

116

Yep, you’re the victim here and I’m just a mindless drone attacking you.

It really is quite astonishing how every time you respond to one of my posts you prove my point.

117

OK, I’m now on your side by default, but I want to make it clear that I still have no idea why you two are arguing, what you’re arguing about, or what positions either of you hold on any issue. Nor do I care.

118

I think you should try to say something that gets Bryan and Magellan to both attack you and ignore their hatred for one another. I don’t know if it’s possible, but it’s worth a shot.

eta: I was going to comment that this had to be one of your favorite pittings ever, but then I saw you had chimed in and felt obliged to repsond.

119

This Dio pitting occasionally approaches being interesting. I hope tomorrow’s Dio pitting is better.

120

Yeah, this wasn’t Dio’s best Pitting.