As armchair psychology goes, that’s a pretty good stab at it. And if true, the worst thing we could do to him (from his perspective) is to all put him on Ignore the way he’s done to many of us.
I’m not nearly that interesting. 
Hello Princhester. Welcome to the thread.
The mineral water, rice crackers and avocado dip are over on the table there.
Feel free to pick out a Daryl Braithwaite LP.
If you’ve read my OP, I hope you realize that I’m not aiming for what you’ve described. It’s in the Pit because its a carryover from issues raised in a now closed Pit thread. But my hope is to engage **Clothahump **in some straight and honest discussion and get him to address the issues I layed out in the OP.
Fotheringay-Phipps has pointed out the problem of attempting this in the Pit, an I probably should have taken his advice and asked the mods to move it to GD before it was too late. Ah well. We’ll see how it goes.
Back to Clothahump:
Since you’ve acknowledged that at least some of the backlash you received in the “Helena330 is a feminazi” thread started by **CosmicManiac **(hereafter “the original Pit thread”) was to some measure justified in view of the context and content of your post, I’d like to move on (or rather, return) to addressing the points in my OP at the start of this thread.
Those points, roughly summarized:
**A: **Prior to your posting in the original thread, several posters had tried to point out to **CosmicManiac **the following:
[ol]
[li]A deranged comic-book villain who calls women gold-diggers is not sound counsel for someone seeking relationship advice. [/li][li]Using terms such as “bitch” and “broad” does not reflect well on someone proffering relationship advice. [/li][li]It was wrong to brand **Helena330 **an “anti-male, feminist zealot” for using the phrase “thinking with his dick”, because that is a commonly used phrase even among men.[/li][/ol]Can you agree with any or all of these suggestions?
**B: **Some of the comments posted either against **CosmicManiac **or in support of **Helena330 **before you stepped into the original Pit thread were, in my opinion, actually quite rational.
Do you agree?
**C: **After being called an “anti-male, feminist zealot” with daddy issues by CosmicManiac, **Helena330 **gave what I consider to be a very gracious response. (And that was even before her accuser apologized)
How would you characterize Helena’s response?
I realize this thread is beginning to turn into a bit of a pile on as **Fotheringgay-Phipps **predicted, so I probably should have tried this in another forum. But if you could stick with it a little longer and address the points above that’d be great.
It’s a lot, and I want to do this carefully, so perhaps we could start with A?
Look, it’s fun to be a conservative. You get to be macho, shoot guns, legally kill shit, let down your politeness guard, rev engines, enjoy comradery vs all enemies perceived and imagined, complain about wimpy liberals, go apeshit whenever the gummint considers restricting firearms, and be the one everyone turns to for protection when the End Times arrive. Why be the fucked when you can be the fucker?
But to conservatives, ideology comes first and facts come later, if absolutely necessary. Giving consideration to counter arguments weakens your resolve and risks making you different. It’s best not to question your rock solid values or waste your time looking for flaws. When liberals challenge your reasoning, it means they’re trying to dismantle the Christian and patriotic values that made this country great! Can’t have that.
It’s understandable, because facts are confusing. One crack in fundamental logic leads to more questions, and many of those are unanswerable. It’s better for your mental health to constrict your thinking to a microcosm that others of a like mind can share. You just won’t find them here.
Since you’ve been here for 17 years, you should know that by now. So why do you stick around? Maybe it’s because you actually enjoy the fighting.
Most of those posts probably can’t be seen, anyway. 
A lot of that sounds plausible, but unfortunately, it doesn’t explain the way he blocks so many of the “enemies” you describe.
(As an aside, I’ve never blocked anyone, now matter how repulsive. Seems kinda pathetic, to me.)
I don’t know what a post by a blocked poster looks alike so I couldn’t guess. There may be nothing to be seen, but if there’s a name with a blank space, he at least sees an attack ( and can imagine it as harsh and stupid as he likes ).
Here he can think himself as a lone hero who’s vastly outnumberer but is never budging an inch.
And after all he’s Texan, and who knows, may have daydreams about Alamo and how differently it would’ve turned out if he’d been there… 
OK, another try. I think he sees the names of blocked posters because otherwise the post count on a page would not match. So:
He needs to see fallen enemies.
Every once in a while somebody gets so frustrated on C:s rants that he goes on knee-jerk-insult-mode long enough that C can claim victory. ‘‘His armour was hard but I finally pierced it and his true dirty colours show as he no more even tries to pretend that it was about real issues. This guy is so beaten down that he’s no worth of one more hit.’’ And the he proceed a coup-de-grace with hitting ignore.
And all this to hide the truth that deep down he is still just that insecure kid with a ‘security blanket’ ( that he has named himself after; Cloth-a-hump ).
I blocked a poster once or twice, because they were vapid, incendiary trolls, but it amounted to not much because they were gone in relatively short order. When you block someone, on this board, you can still see a thing that says that they posted, you can expand their post, and any time they are quoted, you can see what they wrote in the quote box. I was on another site, using newer software, that completely removed any blocked poster’s text from your sight, including indication that a post had been made, and all quotes, which was kind of problematic if you were reading a response and had no way to see what the response was to, it was just a poster making comments that had no backing text.
I can just scroll past annoying content, though it would be handy to have a sort of collapse/expand function for some posters.
Good for him it’s virtually impossible for us *not *to.
So don’t think about it. Stick with the berating and mocking.
[Slaps knee, falls about laughing] Good one. Hilarious.
Wait, please tell me you aren’t serious?
Even better, he’s named after a senile turtle. True story.
He’s a self described troll, just back from a recent suspension for trolling in the Pit (which isn’t easy to do) All you’re doing is keeping his trolly attention-seeking name on the list of current threads where he likes it to be and providing him a venue to keep trolling.
If he had started his own thread to say he likes to engage in hate speech like calling Mexicans wetbacks and any precious snowflakes who don’t like it can fuck off he would probably be suspended again. But with you lobbing him softballs you’re just giving him the attention he wants and the ability to troll you without much fear of being penalized for it since he’s just engaging in the rough and tumble of the thread you’re asking him to participate in.
Read my OP and then you decide.
My intent was to call Clothahump out to account for his comments in another Pit thread, with an invitation to civil and/or reasoned discourse.
I wouldn’t say it’s going swimmingly, but in some respects it’s going a little better than I expected.
It’s taken several pages, and has been a frustrating process, but Clothahump has at least come to admit some responsibility for the backlash his comments generated, and I think my view of him also is evolving. (Cracks in his wall and cracks in my head perhaps? Who knows.)
So, not bad I’d say.
Did you enjoy the avocado dip?
@Crazyhorse:
SaneBill has positted that it’s actually the insults and scorn that Clothahump craves.
If that’s the case, then I wouldn’t consider this thread to be a softball, even if it does turn out to be ultimately futile.
I understand your point about the questionability of giving him more attention.
I haven’t laughed so hard at a post in a long time. SaneBill, you are so incredibly wrong that I’m not even going to say you ain’t in the same zip code with right. You’re not even on the same planet with right.
I love it when people are arrogant and stupid enough to appoint themselves as experts on my life. So, since you are such an expert on me, perhaps you can explain to us all exactly how " things haven’t gone as (I) expected". Please provide full details: dates, places, people, whatever it takes to make the explanation. I’ll go make some popcorn, because this is gonna turn out highly amusing.
I think you’re an inherently good person who is angry because he believes RW media nonsense. That anger makes you lash out. You’re a victim. If you were just less gullible, you’d be a happier person because you’d realize the horrors around you that make you feel like there is no justice just are to a large extent not true.
I think SaneBill’s theory is a quite decent example of armchair psychology based on your posting profile.
I’d say that it’s actually a charitably humanizing explanation for your behavior on this board.
Rather than scoffing an making ridiculous demands for clairvoyant insights into your private life, why not attempt to vindicate yourself by addressing the points I put to you at the start of the thread, and which I put to you way back in the original Pit thread?
I summarized them for you in post #144
Here they are again.
Will never happen. Been done before, by me in particular, as well as by others. Clothy doesn’t want to explain anything.