And I’m his good friend Jesus!
Ok, I’m confused, which is a normal state for me. If you don’t like the posters, you don’t like the mods, and you don’t like the topics that are discussed, why do you care? Why not simply find somewhere else to play, and why type an extended post that is hard to get through, only restates what you’ve stated numerous times in your previous posts, and to put it bluntly, it’s boring.
Bottom line is: you don’t like us and we don’t like you, not personally, but as a poster on a message board. You may even be decent IRL, but since you stated that most Dopers don’t have a life and live through a message board, what are you doing? Why do you care? You’ve lost your credibility so there’s no point.
no, I am Spartacus.
I’m extremely confused by the response to this person’s posts in the original thread and here. It’s obvious that s/he was intensely angry, but I don’t see anything that goes beyond what has passed for heated argument in the Pit a thousand times without a moderator taking it upon herself to step in. In particular, I don’t see where s/he called Anth a liar; you may want to point that out to me - I’ve been known to miss things - but I do see where s/he apologized to Anth for coming down too hard on her.
Furthermore, s/he posts a long, but completely lucid OP, and we’re bitching because it’s too long?! I read it, and I have to go to school in an hour. I’ve written long posts before and people have seen fit to read them through and respond to the points therein made.
I think Sparticus just got off to a bad but also poorly-interpreted start, but it’s devolved from that to not even debating with him/her anymore. I find myself, as I say, puzzled. It’s not exactly breaking a butterfly on a wheel, but maybe a stoat or something.
Matt, did you actually read his posts in Anth’s thread?
He’s not only calling Anth a liar, he’s implying that she’s a liar without the courage of her convictions. I can’t imagine Anth ‘trying to back out of a position’. And that’s only his first post. It gets worse from there.
We have Anth saying that she wasn’t trying to get anyone in trouble. Who you gonna believe? Anth or Sparti? And can you picture Anth “abusing” the guy on the phone?
C’mon. Sparti is a psycho, a liar and an asshole.
Fenris
PS: What’s a stoat? Isn’t that a type of porridge?
Please insert a 
after the “stoat” comment
:throws her panties on the stage:
[sub]Sorry, Twisty, but it’ll make them open the link, won’t it?[/sub]
Well, he does demand at least once a full transcript of the complaint phone call, including details like the location the call was made from or she lacks credibility, and says in his first post that she was purposely trying to get the woman fired and calls her a racist by saying that the KKK sticker didn’t offend her but she knew it would have offended the “liberal” stewardess (not to mention the “selfish, ugly excuse for a human being” crack).
When called on any of these points he resorts to defenses consisting partially of “no, no, you clique members are just standing behind one of your own, and you were only inferring that about what I said, it’s not what I said”. I’m astonished that so many people could infer something incorrect from his statements when he goes into such great detail in the first place.
To sum it up, on his first post against Anth (and with perhaps 30 or less posts at the time, I’d hardly think he had a bad history with her) he describes her phone call as one of the despicable actions he’s seen on the net, calls her a racist or at least infers that she is one by saying a KKK-power sticker wouldn’t have offended her, and says she’s as low as a pile of shit and a despicable human being. Sure he apologized later for being “too harsh”, but damn, I wouldn’t just say “Oh? Cool, no harm done” in Anth’s position.
You is my honey!
hee hee hee
Anthracite I choo choo choose you!
To the OP, grow up.
:rolleyes:
I’ve seen Jello more stable than the OP.
Perhaps you missed the couple of veiled threats about them coming after me IRL. Which were later quasi-retracted, then more fully retracted. And yet, Matt, you just can’t un-ring that bell, you know?
You know I’ve had problems with people threatening this. And you also know I have the money and the legal means to stop violent, aggressive, and irrational cyberstalkers. I’ve already got two facing charges now; I’m happy to add a third to my repetoire of dangerous lunatics, should it come to that. :mad:
And perhaps you missed his non-stop diatribes of how vile, despicable, disgusting, filthy, cowardly, and low I am - or else found then irrelevant. They clearly bothered me, and clearly bothered a huge contingent of friends and contemporaries.
The SDMB Staff has been very supportive and helpful to me off-Board, as usual, which is one reason I tried not to escalate the situation by attacking the OP back in the prior thread. Also, I have found from sad experience that when a person exhibits an irrational, violent, creepy hatred of you online, the best thing to do is not give them any more reason to come after you. Even the violent and disgusting stalker-creeps that I am dealing with now would, and have, agreed with that judgement.
If you question why the SDMB Staff felt it necessary to warn the OP here, you should mail them. There obviously was a reason behind-the-scenes for taking it seriously, which I am not going to post about here.
He accused me of lying numerous times by attributing motives to me that were false, while offering no proof or backing to his claims. And we can also look at his words to see what else I have ‘been up to’:
Yeah, I can’t see why this would bother anyone.
But thanks for the…support?, Matt. 
If you want to know if it hurts, well, it does. 
I see an insincere-sounding attempt to slightly modify his vitriol, possibly based on a realization that he either already had or was about to cross the line well into libel and threats. And on that basis, I see no apology whatsoever.
Or I guess apologies aren’t what they used to be.
Two things:
[ol][li]The OP has an invalid assumption in the first post in this thread: that the OP thinks.[/li]An Ark’s comment to the OP has, I certainly hope, the word “behind” used as a noun.[/ol]
I know sparticus, sparticus was a friend of mine and your no sparticus.
Matt, any chance you had your happy-happy-joy-joy filter on when you read Sparticus’ posts, and didn’t notice what a total ass-bag he was being?
Jerkish, seems like a mild way to describe his behaviour.
I have a real problem with a number of moderator’s on these boards but I have always found Lynn to be the most level-headed and fair. A few others remind me of the Comic Bookstore Guy. For the life of me I don’t know what your rant is about.
This is me. I don’t want to rehash my arguments in the other thread, though I stand by them. I’ll also note that I’m apparently a jerk for arguing the First Amendment when I was merely responding to others but I guess he’s not a jerk for arguing it and continuing to argue it in this thread.
What I really want to do is point out that I never called him an idiot or any other name. I actually took pains to argue the issues, rather than call names because I did think he was getting a pretty bad reception. However, it seemed to me he was doing a couple of things that annoy me: telling everybody how smart he was and how stupid they were, and using the “that’s not what I really said” backpedal. The bottom line is that if you want to proclaim your intelligence, I’m going to hold you to a higher standard.
I responded to other posters First Amendment arguments. That’s not jerkish. I am Sparticus if you want to continue the First Amendment debate I’m perfectly willing. But I’ll give you a hint: Strict and loose constructionists don’t differ on whether the NLRA is as broad as the First Amendment. If you want to argue it intelligently, I’m game. But if you want to argue it then whine when you lose, then this probably isn’t the place for you. Showing that you’re wrong on the facts and the law isn’t being a jerk by any stretch of the imagination.
I don’t mean to contribute to a pile-on, but I honestly tried to debate the issues and yet I get accused of being a jerk for it.
I applaud any Cool Hand Luke reference. There are far too few of those on this board. Ya heathens.
Do you think Sparticus can eat 50 eggs?
Thanks for the clarification, folks. I guess I might have had the joy filters on.
I still don’t think he was threatening Anthracite - if I say, I don’t know, “how would you like it if people beat the shit out of you all the time,” it doesn’t mean “I am gonna beat the shit out of you all the time” - but I see how you could interpret it that way.
I did miss the liar part. I can certainly see how that would colour even the most legitimate complaint, and that to the extent that s/he had a debatable point, s/he spoiled it by going overboard.
I’m distressed to hear you thought I was attacking you, Anth. I hope you can believe that that certainly wasn’t my intent. I just wanted to figure out what the big deal with Sparticus was.
I didn’t mean to hurt you and I’m sorry for having done so anyway.