I’m pretty sure that Clothahump blocked me either immediately before or right after he was suspended… which means that he blocked me for asking him about his usage of ethnic slurs.
Just to give everyone an idea of what counts as being obnoxious enough to ignore for Mr. Clothy.
He takes in the SDMB much the same way he forms his worldview and political opinions: by listening to what supports his existing beliefs and ignoring anything that contradicts them. Anyone who doesn’t post like a Fox News commentator would is probably on his ignore list.
Since he isn’t going to find much information here that coincides with his existing belief he has resigned himself to being a pathetic troll - snatching what he thinks are small victories by pissing off the ‘libtards’ and ‘snowflakes.’ Sad.
So… that’s a “no”, then?
Hey, if he wasn’t doing this, he’d be picking at scabs until he was covered in a mass of sores.
I already acknowledged that of course you have a life away from the board (#45), although it doesn’t seem to stop you from dropping the occasional deuce in random threads.
Really? I must have missed that post.
No. I’m not interested in continuing this if you are backing out of the discussion. Except perhaps to respond to some of the other contributors who have at least tried to offer suggestions for your behavior or have presented pertinent queries and observation that you are apparently unwilling to address.
Also, since you insist on making your world as small as you can by blocking out opposing opinions while still feeling the need to vent your spleen on this board:
(SaneBill, I’m not actually sure he’s blocked you, and I honestly can’t see anything in your well-put posts that would merit blocking by any decent person, but just in case, allow me to repost your thought experiment. I’m pretty sure Budget Player Cadet is already on the list. I mean, if **iiandyiiii **can make the list, who can’t? . . . [Oh, right. The mods.:)])
You too.
Well, NC, I appreciate you including me in your list of people who actually tried to give an honest assessment of things.
I’m a nobody here. I didn’t think my posts were noticed enough to land me on an ignore list, nor to be considered a voice of reason. I’m humbled.
Well, not from the horse’s mouth, as it were. Although the horse doctors have presented some reasonable diagnoses.
I’m afraid I don’t have the same charm as the energizer bunny.
I’m probably more like this fella.
I’ve tried my level best to be civil and rational, so I’m guessing there’s a better than 50% chance he hasn’t blocked me yet.
I think you hit the nail on the head with post #55, and with a far greater economy of words than me. 
Two thoughts:
Thank you, I hair buy allow anyone to freely use this or any versions you may come up to with any person/persons you feel appropriate.
For appropriate compensation, I would be happy to quote selected posts so Precious Snowflake will be compelled to see them.
(While I doubt anyone will take me seriously, for the record this is a joke).
Oh no, I’d probably take you up on the that. It’s the Pit. We’re mean like that. Plus, you know, Precious Snowflake. 
This seems kind of sneaky.
In your question to C, you asked whether he agreed “that some of the comments posted before you stepped into the original Pit thread were actually quite rational”. But after he agreed to that statement, you repeatedly characterize that as agreement that “the posters before you were presenting rational comments”, and “that the posts preceding yours were logical and justified”. (all emphasis added)
Since your entire point is to accuse him of responding with hostility to rational posts, the difference between him agreeing that all the posts preceding his were rational and his agreeing that some of them were rational is highly significant.
So my question to you is: why did you make this switch in language?
I’m not sure it was intentional, F-P.
Oh, hi Fotheringay-Phipps.
Just to put things into perspective, the best I’ve been able to get out of Clothahump in this attempt at a discussion is "Yeah, but . . . " followed by “I don’t get what your trying to do here, and it’s waisting my time.”
And you’re asking me why, 4 pages and multiple tedioudly worded posts into this thread, I chose to write "the posters before you were presenting rational comments " instead of “*some of *the posters before you were presenting rational comments”?
But I’m not going to plead oversight here. It was a deliberste choice that I will own. I chose my words with intent, just as you have chosen to use the word “repeatedly” in your characterization of my words.
Anyway, as to the why:
My intent wasn’t to get Clothahump to acknowledge that he slipped up just this once by unjustifiably maligning some small handful of rational posters, but to get him to extrapolate this case to his general behavior on this board and why it earns him such disrespect. I chose to focus on that goal once Clothahump finally came around to acknowledging some degree of fault.
If you think I was being sneaky or dishonest by not using precise words, then please note that I also didnt say “all the posters before you were presenting rational comments”. Please also observe that the 1st part you take issue with is worded as part of a series of clauses . . .
. . . intended to direct Clothahump to addressing the purpose of the thread (which he has refused to do).
But if you really want to insinuate that I’ve been unfair in my efforts to debate Clothahump, you should have challenged me on the following choice of words.
Now, Clothahump never actually acknowledged that his post was “absolutely unjustifiable”. Those are my words, not his. But again, there is the clause “if”, for argument’s sake.
If Clothahump had objections to how I presented that argument, he could have responded with his own clarification: “I don’t acknowledge that, and here’s why . . .” But instead he chose to walk out of the room.
End result: I failed in my primary purpose.
Conclusion: Clothahump is not interested in honest and rational discourse.
To anyone just tuning in: this is the key takeaway from this thread. And any other thread where anyone has attempted anything similar.
Thank you, Superdude.
I think **Fotheringay-Phipps **suspects I’ve been hiding my true intent and setting traps for Clothahump, when I’ve tried to be clear in laying out my objectives from the start. So his insinuations are, frankly, annoying.
But I did in fact make a deliberate choice not to keep up with the constant qualification of “some posters” and “some posts” for the reasons explained above.
Makes perfect sense that F-P would take you to task for this. As often as not, F-P is a disingenuous jackass who takes his bat and ball home from an argument instead of admitting he’s wrong. So in a fundamental, but more rhetorically polished way,** F-P** is a kindred spirit of Clot.
They can both fuck off.
I see you’ve edited your post to remove the word “dubiously” (after “chosen”) that you wrote originally. But I don’t get your point here altogether. I wrote “repeatedly” because you had done it repeatedly, and I went on to quote the two instances that I noticed. I brought this up because your having done it repeatedly lessened the likelihood that it was an oversight.
You didn’t say “all” but that’s the implication of leaving out “some”. Again, the context here was that you were accusing C of overreacting and stirring things up, and he’s already acknowledged that his post was not appropriate in that context. So what’s relevant is how completely inappropriate it was, and there’s a big difference in scale between posting about liberals etc. if some of the prior posts were non-rational posts than doing the same if none of them were.
So getting him to agree with you by phrasing the question as being about whether some of the posts he responded to were rational and then characterizing his response as an agreement that “the posts” in general were rational is a very sneaky tactic.
What I think you’ve been doing is described in the final sentence of post #20 of this thread.
For some reason I don’t recall much of you or your posts. I may need to start paying more attention.
It’s always the quiet ones.
This is what F-P was referring to upthread.
How else could NC had done it? If he had put this thread in another forum, it still would have resulted in a pile-on and the mods would have moved it here. Clothy isn’t the most popular Doper, ya know.