Why not? He responded to pompous boorishness with pompous boorishness.
I said it was an appropriate response to the OP’s comments (slamming his job). I did NOT say that it was the best netiquette in the world.
Are you simply unclear on my use of the word “However”? I didn’t even imply that YOU found ANYTHING appropriate.
Now you’re just playing the silly semantics game. Read the fourth sentence in the OP.
So it’s okay to launch a personal attack on someone because you disagree with them? Making fun of someone’s occupation for the sole purpose of getting a rise out of them (I see no reason why RTF would even NEED to bring up someone’s job… a person’s board behavior should suffice) is a personal attack, no matter how you slice it. And you know what the general attitude about personal attacks is, don’t you?
Oh, boy, now it’s MY turn to play the semantics game. There WAS no threat of physical assault. If you read his whole sentence, you will note that Milo was simply making reference to RTF’s “wussing out” in previous occasions.
“Threatening physical assault” indeed… ::snort::
By the way, Mr. Mundi, how much do you spend on oats a week?
Yes- i would like some proof that “Fowler Lumber” had to be sold to pay off the ESTATE TAX. Unless it was a very LARGE “small business”- i have just shown it was in no way laible for ESTATE TAXES. yes- there could very well have been circumstances associated with Pa Fowlers dath (like probate) that killed the business. But not ESTATE TAXES. OK? And that is what we are discussing- not unreasonably high probate expenses, ot property taxes, or capital gains taxes or any of that stuff- estate taxes.
Next- you go on a long babbling rant about Social security- however- that has nothing to do with “estate taxes”. Look- TC- I have no idea what started your strange vitrolic personal attack on me. I did nothing to you, and said nothing in any way which was a personal remark. I have nothing at all against you. It is my professional expertise that tells me that a business that a normal person would be able to justify as “small family owned”- cannot owe significant estate tax that would cause it to be 'sold off". If a Doctor tells you that smoking or eating fatty food is bad for you- do you go off on him? And it is not just me- it is every single tax professional who has posted so far. CPA’s- etc. My opinion as a US taxpayer is that the Estate tax is a fair & reasonable tax- which opinion is shared by MILLIONS of my fellow americans. Do you hate all of us?
Now look TC- before you go off on me again- i was posting here only to “fight ignorance”. I have nothing against you- or even agaist Milo (altho …naw, why bother?). Why all the meaness & personal attacks? Please count to ten before you tear up your keyboard again, OK?
Scylla:
[sub]you facist[/sub] I hope you [sub]reactionary cretin[/sub] aren’t talking about me [sub]the most intelligent of god’s creatures[/sub]. I personally would never sink so low [sub]unlike a fundie nutball like you[/sub] as to slap an opponent [sub]screwball is more like it[/sub] with a cheap shot [sub]the truth[/sub] in a political debate.
I respect the opinions of all [sub]even militia members like yourself[/sub].
Techchick, I’m afraid you missed my point entirely.
You justify your father’s wealth by saying he employed “Vietnamese immigrants” and “lost people.” Well, shit, there’s nothing wrong with that. I think the whole “sense of community” thing is hogwash - more like “ability to eat” - but that’s beside the point. So it’s great that your father gives back to the community. There’s no shame in that.
But when money from your inheritance, after his death, has to go to helping “lost people” and giving back to the community, then it’s all fucked up? How is that? Why it okay for some people to get his money, but “stealing” for others to recieve it? The only difference I can see between the two is that when it’s your father’s money, it’s great, but the second it comes from your pocket, then it’s all about those fucking welfare hos.
Coming into this one late. But my name certainly has been bandied about.
FTR. Milo and I have found ourselves to be on opposite ends of most issues (tho there was a freaky occurance where we were on the same side on a gun related topic.). But, that’s not the point. I’ve disagreeed with any number of people. especially in the election threads, which admittedly got rather heated.
What I do recall is that I seem to recall having to use the phrase “Milo I’ve been polite to you, there’s no need to be rude to me” more than once. And that gets tiresome. I understand Scylla’s point, but allow me to point out to you Scylla, you will admit when you’re changing your position, and, as often as you and I have been on opposite ends, I don’t ever recall you resorting to name calling or rudeness. Curt, perhaps. Sarcastic fine. Rude -nope, and never the overt ‘let’s meet IRL and beat each other up’ nonsense.
I don’t have a similar recollection for any other poster, including those here who’ve lept to defend Milo, tho’ I recall having spirited debates with each of them. Now, does this mean that all the rest (including those I agree with, and myself personally as well) never loose their tempers, get rude, resort to personal attacks? no. However, it seems to be a frequent occurance with Milo, which, frankly limits the debate. You end up getting side tracked onto the issue of 'is Spiritus really partisan ’ ( Here) instead of the real one.
Seems that he’s decided that I, personally, am the standard carrying apologist for Democrats everywhere, never admitting a wrong. But, no, let’s let Milo himself explain it -in the already referenced Pit thread, he comes in stating to me "For somebody who claims to not be a Democrat, you seem awfully incapable of acknowledging, let alone denouncing, anything remotely negative that anyone from that party, particularly Clinton, did or does. "
Odd position to take since I started this thread, and this one or my comments in his own thread on the topic of the pardon here
Yeppers, that’s me, siding with Democrats and Clinton all the way. yea, and on all of the ballot counting threads where I said I didn’t think that ‘pregnant chads’ should be counted, yep, I pulled that directly from the Democratic party line at the time. And the times I suggested to Stoid to cut back the party rhetoric, "Inaccuracy on either side does nothing to advance debate. sarcasm on either side does nothing to advance debate. " Here, yes, absolutely, I do nothing but ‘high five’ people arguing ‘my side’.
Milo. A suggestion. If you feel your argument stands on it’s merits, I suggest that you let it do so, instead of resorting to personal attacks and insults.
No. And I probably shouldn’t have gotten this personal here anyway.
I have no problem with people arguing the conservative side of an issue, especially when they do it well. (And we have conservative GDers who can debate very well. At least three are in this thread. I enjoy debating them, because maybe they’ll poke holes in my bad ideas.) I have problems with people on both ends of the spectrum (and in the middle, for that matter) using sloganeering and ad hominem arguments and thinking that constitutes a riposte, with using arguments that have already been repeatedly dismantled in recent debate (one of my particular beefs with Milo), and so forth.
SPOOFE: You and I do not agree. Can we at least agree on that?
me
Milo’s implied threat of violence is antithetical to everything this board should stand for. When he initially stooped to this level (here) he was politely chastised by Gaudere. Frankly, I was amazed that after being told it was a no-no Milo would show the utter lack of class to bring it up again. Milo and I have disagreed before, and I have no great respect for the quality of his posts, but I have never before been forced to conclude he is an asshole. I do now.
Threatening violence over a bulletin board disagreement is rude, inane, and a sure sign of a boor. The first instance might be excusable, since it was provoked by an inappropriate direct insult in GD. Proudly calling attention to such boorishness at a later date, however, is a sure sign of an asshole.
you
Threats of violence are no different than personal insults.
Insulting someone’s job performance, or insulting them at all to “get a rise out of them” is equally offensive. (aside from me: read the guidelines for the PIT lately?)
Okay?
There is no reason we must agree. I simply objected to the idea that you could agree with me that a behavior was inexcusable while in the next breathe declaring it appropriate. I agree, however I will now contradict your point. That is not agreement.
Say that to my face and see what happens!
Yep – that is an implied threat of physical violence,just like it was back in 4[sup]th[/sup] grade. Little Timmy wasn’t confused about how to interpret it. Neither was RT. Neither am I.
Oh, and would you care to clarify your pithy postscript? It was entirely meaningless to me.
FTR, my comments to RT were in no way intended to be homophobic or even a reference to homosexuality. They were a wimpiness reference. A reference to his feeling pretty damn confident in himself to be insulting and personally attacking behind his safe little computer keyboard.
Want to talk netiquette? Don’t say something on a message board you wouldn’t be prepared to say to someone’s face. My “threats” are inferred. RT’s attacks are rather blatant, I’d say. (Strangely, I was somehow able to sleep restfully last night, though. Huh.)
As the catalyst (or the straw that broke the liberal’s back, or whatever) for this would appear to be my posts in the estate tax thread, let’s talk about that.
I pointed out a scenario occurring where I live, in which people are losing their estates because of inability to pay taxes. Perhaps erroneously, I attributed that to estate taxes. Danielinthewolvesden, who apparently has some kind of a background that involves knowledge of taxes, pointed out that he doesn’t believe this could be the case.
While taking exception to his assertion that my anecdote was an urban legend, I deferred to him - twice - on the point about it likely not being from estate taxes. In later posts, we seemed to reach a consensus that what I was talking about was probably rising property taxes as a result of skyrocking taxable valuations on these lakefront family estates.
So, what do some people think goes on in a debate thread, then?
(Although I would note that from what I was able to find on the Internet, the $675,000 exemption Daniel referred to was enacted in 1997 or 1998. I imagine, therefore, that only a few years ago, what I was referring to was, indeed, a result of an inability to pay estate taxes as well as property taxes.
I would also point out that a little family-run tool-and-die factory or something similar with about a dozen employees could easily have a value over $1 million, without necessarily making the owner “rich” by the objective criteria we all associate with that term. Well, some of us, anyway.)
RT’s version of GD political debate is apparently something like this, or this. (Hint: Read until the liberal “we all agree and we’re all so smart and witty” party is busted up by an indignant Republican or conservative in each.)
VarlosZ
**
A. Read from the links I’ve provided in this post, and then let’s talk partisan and pointless. And hypocrisy.
B. Find a post where I use the phrase “fucking liberals/Democrats,” and I’ll send you $100.
There’s enough to criticize about the liberal political philosophy without attacking them “just cuz,” which you seem to be inferring I do. Bullshit.
Spiritus:
**
You are right. I apologize for not turning the other cheek on his repeated personal attacks of me. (I am being sincere.)
You do, understand, however, that those comments most assuredly have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO with the fact that he “disagrees with me.”
In fact, his personal insults and my very own Pit thread, stripped down, appear to be because I disagree with him. The Bricker thread where he “clobbered” me? He provided cites from the Supreme Court and elsewhere in defense of his opinion. I disagreed with his interpretation of them, or their worth independent of the larger goings-on. I provided cites from the Supreme Court and elsewhere in defense of my opinion, which he apparently rejected in similar fashion.
One of us then went on to be a faux intellectually superior, personally insulting asshole. Guess which one?
wring: I will probably always disagree with 90-plus percent of what comes off those typing fingertips of your’s. But I would like to say, I am sure I have at times crossed the “curt and sarcastic” line with you in the past and entered the realm of being personally insulting, and for that I apologize.
I wouldn’t, however, say I go out of my way to hurl “insults” at you (as distinguished from vigorously questioning your positions, worldview, etc.). Unless you consider being called a Democrat an insult. Which I can understand. (Kidding! A joke!)
Below is a sample of insults directed towards liberals or Democrats that had nothing to do with the topic at hand; Milo just felt like taking a free swipe at his political opponents. There were several instances of back-handed insults that were clearly implied but still not explicit, so they didn’t get in. There were also several insults that were either more or less on topic or a direct response to an unfounded insult directed towards conservatives; they don’t make the cut either. At least a couple of the quotes represented the first mention of general political ideology or affiliation in their respective threads. All quotes are since the new year.
All I’m saying is that maybe you should shy away from attacking “liberals” when attacking their opinion in any given post will do.
And Milo, what was your point about “hypocrisy”? If you mean to say that certain liberal posters do the same shit you do, I’m sure you’re correct. I don’t intend to defend them, and I’ll be sure to get on their asses when their respective pit thread are opened. Are you referring to my posts on this board? I don’t think you are, since the links you referenced contain no posts by me, but correct me if I’m wrong.
But what, exactly, was your exercise in cutting quotes out of their complete context supposed to prove?
By your own qualifications before your little cut-and-paste bonanza, I count one post of mine that you then attach that meets your criteria (of not going on to be specific-issue oriented). Of course, in the manner in which you provide them, it doesn’t appear that way. But that wouldn’t help you make your point, now would it?
I’m flattered that you think I’m worth all that effort, though. ::bats eyes::
Oh, your posts do tend address the issue at hand; I never meant to imply that all you ever did was pop into a thread, say “fuck you, liberals!” and leave. However, there is no need to include the above insults in the process of addressing your opponents’ arguments. (My criteria wasn’t: “not going on to be specific-issue related.” My criteria was not being specific-issue related in and of themselves, which none of the above quotes were.) Most of us have been guilty of it at one time or another; I just want you to see that maybe you shouldn’t do it so frequently.
Well, it did take a little over an hour . . . an hour for which I expect to be paid in sexual favors.
As the provider of many of those cites, I’d just like to point out that Milo still doesn’t appear to understand the difference between a majority opinion and a concurring opinion.
BTW, Milo, kindly refrain from painting me with your “liberal” paintbrush from now on. I am all over the political map, whether you choose to recognize it or not.
I am an Enrolled Agent. And you did, to some degree, admit you were wrong, which shows uncommon maturity here.
The Exclusion changed amounts UP to $675K in 1997 or so- it was smaller before that- in a couple of years it will be bigger- it is being adjusted for inflation, more or less.
After the $675 basic exclusion, and the 675K “family business exclusion”- and perhaps 50% going to the wife tax free-it would have to be more like 3 million before substantial estate taxes cut in. Some might consider a 3Meg business being “small” or “not rich”. Well, it certainly is not middle class. And if you said that you defined a “small family business” as, say some 10 Meg- then by that definition of “small”- yes, there very well could be serious estate taxes.
I really did not see why you deserved a PIT thread for this one. But, hey…
Milo thanks for the apology, I take it as being sincere. FTR, I don’t think that you single me out for insults, do, naturally, tend to remember the ones shot at me more than ones at others.
However, you passed right by: Originally posted by Milo
**
Then, I linked to two threads I’d started, one where I was critical of Democratic actions, one in which I was critical of a biased news report against Republican Bush. In addition, I linked to a specific comment I made to another, Democratic poster, naming her and suggesting that her tone was less than useful. I did not link to the many, many other posts where I urged all to “tone down the rhetoric on both sides” and reminded folks that “once this is over and done, we all have to work cooperatively with one another”.
Re: Clinton, save for the pardon threads (where I state my opinion that he made mistakes etc.), I’ve not commented here on him to the best of my recollection, so your charge that I’m not ‘remotely critical of any Democrat’, nor ‘complimentary of a Republican’ have been refuted. Not retracted, I note, but refuted.
Yet you continue to brush me off as ‘Democratic high fiver’, and fail to acknowledge repeated times that I’ve decried poor behavior on either side, admonished rhetoric whereever it came from, and attempted to use same standards across the board.
Perhaps if you linked a specific comment or thread where you felt I was rude/insulting/partisan, perhaps I would understand your continued charges (and don’t just say ‘all of em’, like you did in the Spiritus thread already linked - you’re making a specific charge. I would like to know what exactly I say that leads you to that - certainly my position has been more often on the democratic side, but position does not equal partisan)
You know, it’s a sad commentary that it only took Valos an hour to compile that impressive list of slurs and insults that come out of your nimble fingers. While I can’t say that I’ve never made sarcastic comments (I even used “Dubya” at least once), but it certainly isn’t my* modus operendi*.
That’s the point. It is tiresome to wade through the venom first, and it tends to water down any legitimate point you’re attempting to make. You’re not the only person who does this. And certainly there’s examples of this on both sides of any debate. My advice stands to all. If you are confident of the content of your position, you should have no need for the venom.
