You fail to mention that the reason people said those things was because, after the admins granted your request, you went elsewhere and bitched that they had revoked your posting priviledges like you asked them to?
I’m sorry, Liberal, but you can be very hard to deal with-one never knows what will set you off, you have a habit of hijacking threads to death over nitpicks, semantics and your own pet causes.
It’s not that I hate you, or harbor you any ill will-rather, I hate dealing with you sometimes, because I never know how you’ll react.
For the record, I did not say it was a moral issue. Excalibre said that I said it was a moral issue. I said it was ethically equivalent to vultures, but I also said it was aesthetically equivalent to slinging boogers, and intellectually equivalent to burning witches. So why didn’t Excalibre say that I made it an aesthetic issue? Or an intellectual issue? The fact is that what I said this time in the closed thread is the exact same thing that I always say: It is unseemly to bash people who cannot defend themselves. For future reference, Excalibre does not speak for me.
That was what I meant by road robbers waiting for slow wagons. Men who have no qualm about bashing defenseless people will do things like pin reputations on their perveived enemies, start rumors, fuel speculation, make disingenuous apologies, misrepresent reality, and revise history. Soon, other cowardly and lazy men join him, and before long, there is a bandwagon of contrived baggage.
Notice that Guin has said that I have a “habit of hijacking threads to death over nitpicks, semantics and your own pet causes.” She is engaging in the same practice. The fact is that I am nitpicked far more than I nitpick. Cries of semantical trickery are launched by desperate debators who don’t want to own the words they have selected. And I do not advance my own pet causes any more than anyone else, including Guin. Note, for example, that propogating that sort of meme is her own pet cause, and she never ceases to do it.
I don’t hijack threads. I state my opinion, just like anyone else. I said that it is unseemly. Others have said other things. Why the road robbers do not pounce on the others in unclear. But it is idiotic to engage me in a discussion about what I posted, and then claim that I hijacked the thread. I suppose she feels that if she repeats it often enough, people will believe it.
I’ve heard people say that I won’t admit when I’m wrong. Excalibre did that just the other day. When I proved that, in fact, he is wrong, by listing literally scores of error admissions in the past few months alone, he then demanded that I produce a percentage ratio of posts to admissions. All the while, of course, he is himself guilty of his own accusation. And so it is often the case that people most hate in others what they hate in themselves.
I dont’ care whether you or anyone else agrees with me. I do not kick men who are administratively prohibited from kicking back. I kick the bastards who are here, and who can voice whatever they want to voice, including lies about me. The next road robber will say something about a “martyr complex” because of what I’ve posted here. It is easier to propogate lies than it is to analyze the complexities of truth.
In the next thread, when a former member is being called a “creepy piece of shit jerk”, I will again express my view that it is unseemly. If you and others want to make it into a battle over my view and then accuse me of hijacking, then knock yourselves out.
Actually, in the past, he decalred exactly what he wants to be called, and since that time I have called him exactly what he wants. Since you knew about my alleged ineffective judgment, you also knew that. Your snipe, therefore, is gratuitous, ill-conceived, and deliberately deceptive. The latter is also something Left Hand of Dorkness does not like. But then, I think you knew that also. Perhaps you can concoct an out of the blue apology that will lure him to your side. If you have no other expository skill, at least you have that.
I’m aware of that, but if it’s not a moral issue then there’s no hard and fast guideline. You may find it less than lovely, and I’d agree with you, but unless it’s immoral or jerkish there’s really not all that much to be done about it other than rant, or open counter-Pit threads.
Not to get off an a tangent… but burning witches? How would sniping at someone who can’t respond, and probably deserves it, be intellectually equivelant to murdering an innocent person?
No poster speaks for any other posters, but he did have a point. If it’s not an issue of morality, if it’s not wrong/jerkish to do it, then it’s a matter of personal aesthetics. As such there’s really no definitive ‘rational’ answer, some people like rock n’ roll, some like classical music.
Eh… that’s a slippery slope argument if I ever saw one. Those things are possible, yes, but not necessary consequences. I’d say that, rather, people who are dishonest will be dishonest, and that bashing someone who can’t respond is not in and of itself an act of dishonesty.
Irony so thick you could cut it with a knife.
What does that have to do with talking about banned posters? (In other words, it’s an off topic tangent that, if it continues, will soon spiral into olympic nit picking)
I’m not assigning blame, but, honestly I think everybody in this thread should just drop this line of discussion or open a new thread to hash it out.
What on earth are you talking about? I’ve been agreeing with you most of this thread and the other, and doing my best to be reasonable, rational, and explain exactly where I was coming from. This is just trippy.
Even if it were a moral issue, that would not mean that there’s a hard and fast guideline. Moral relativism is alive and well.
I meant in the sense of ganging up against unpopular people. A weak intellect tends to take cues from others before making decisions.
I think that’s a false dichotomy. It doesn’t have to be either ethics or aesthetics. It could be epistemic, or metaphysical, or systemic, or any number of other reifications.
For one thing, a slippery slope is not always fallacious. For another, there is a difference between a slippery slope and an avalanche. People jump on bandwagons all the time. That’s why Republican meme-makers are so successful.
Maybe. But a knife can cut both ways.
Well, you tell me. Or more precisely, you tell Guin to tell me, or Excalibre to tell me. They’re the ones who brought up these tangents. They make threads about me, and then scream, “Lib, you’re making this thread about you!”
You would think.
My inclusion of you was a mistake, for which I apologize.
In a sense you are correct.
Then again, when the mods put their collective foot down and say “This is wrong, don’t do it!” people get banned who cross the line. Not much wiggle room there although yes, there is some.
It’s possible that it’s a simple mindless circle jerk.
But it’s also possible that everybody has good reason and acts individualy. Enough individual snowflakes end up being a storm.
This is my point, there is nothing which states that, necessarily, bashing a banned poster is an act of weak intellects flocking to a popular meme. It can be, but doesn’t have to be
I don’t quite grok… reification is treating an abstraction as if it was a real, physical thing. If you’re saying all those are merely abstractions, then you’re pretty much saying that there isn’t a hard and fast guideline. That issue aside, I think it’s a perfectly valid dichotomy.
Either there is an objective standard which will be applied subjectively by mods, or there is simply a subjective interpretation of behavior which we as individual posters like or dislike, and the mods don’t have any real reason to step in and get involved. As a caveat, if the mods decide that this sort of behavior is wrong, wrong, wrong, then it will be in this place. Their party, their rules. My understanding was, however, that as long as a thread wasn’t solely devoted to bashing a banned poster that it could continue for a while.
But in the case of the argument you presented, it is. Someone who will bash a banned poster will not, as a necessity, do the things you say they will. They won’t necessarily make up things, or revise history, or what have you.
Look… I honestly don’t care who brought what up. You gave me a laundry list of complaints in a post that was addressed to me, so I responded to you. I already agreed with Harborwolf way back in post 24 in regard to other posters, anyways. I’m not even going to comment on whether or not I think you’re right, or they’re right, or nobody’s right. I’d just prefer to see everybody take such discussions to a seperate Pit thread if they really want to continue.
But of course, IANAMod, and this is just my personal aesthetic judgement
If they perceive me so incorrectly, then I might fume for a day or two, and then I’ll move on with my life. No big deal. I’ve had someone misinterpret my actions to that extreme a degree, and end up maneuvering me out of an organization I helped to found. I lost a friendship over it (she was married to a friend of mine), and I regretted that–but I had no desire to go back to the organization and defend my reputation. I figured the folks whom I cared about would seek me out for my side of the story; and those whom I didn’t care about could believe whatever they pleased.
So that’s my answer if it’s me and I’m being misinterpreted. As for my answer if I’m milroy: in that case, I’m a dick, and it doesn’t matter what I want.
And yet you feel some need to elaborate with your own personal opinion. Hmm…I think I’m beginning to understand something about messageboards.
Good grief. Don’t turn me into a proxy in the fight between y’all, please. I’ll fight my own battles–and the fact that I’ve not objected to Excalibre’s “Lefty” is a good sign that that’s not a battle I’m choosing to fight. (In this case, it’s because it doesn’t bother me).
You must have misinterpreted something I wrote. I just pointed out that a sheer list of times that you said “I stand corrected” doesn’t prove anything beyond “Liberal has in the past admitted that he was wrong.” I didn’t claim otherwise (or if I did, it was obvious hyperbole), just that you tend to be stubborn and unwilling to admit that you are wrong.
I most certainly did not demand such a percentage. I also didn’t take the time to examine the context of the links; I don’t know what they actually referenced.
If that’s true, then it adds a certain pathos to the anger ringing through your posts.
I’ve started one thread about you - specifically, asking you to justify your constant, moronic hijackings to whine about how the word “fundie” is oppressing you. I most certainly said nothing resembling your quote in that thread.
In other words, you’re lying yet again.
Look, Liberal, not only is it not your business to correct what I call another poster, but if you saw that as a snipe, I can only conclude that I so thoroughly fill you with rage that it’s useless to try to reason with you. Perhaps that’s why you so often seem immune to reason - maybe you’re different when I’m not around. If you wish to get into an argument about someone else’s name, then I can see you’re too upset to continue. If you’re throwing this big of a tantrum over that line we’d better stop talking. I don’t want to be responsible for you having a heart attack.
:: sings, while cradling Liberal’s head ::
Hush little baby, don’t say a word
Papa’s gonna buy you a mockingbird
If that mockingbird don’t sing
Papa’s gonna buy you a diamond ring . . .
Hate to jump in the middle here…ah who am I kidding. I’m a middle child. It’s practically a reflex. :smack:
Liberal and Excalibre, I never know how these fights of yours start. Both of you start off reasonable and both of you are intelligent, and things always devolve into snarkiness. Can’t we all just get along here. I just hate it so much when you two fight.
Do you think it’s possible that your own personal experiences are tainting your view a little? I’m not asking that to be an ass. I’m just looking for a way to break this deadlock a bit. Do you think that you may be assigning motives because of the pit thread?
I’m not concerned about the motives of the bashers, but the experiences of the bashed. Being unable to respond to attacks read by thousands is like trying to suck in air when asthma prevents it. However, for the record, I had been expressing my present sentiment long before my own hiatus. And TubaDiva had been enforcing this simple decency since my earliest days here. She just never allowed it.
Actually, I’ve been in the unique position of being forbidden to speak about another poster who was banned, and then being attacked by yet another poster about the same topic and being warned not to respond to them.
It’s quite frustrating, especially when you see a person has quite the wrong idea about you and yet you can’t explain or justify yourself or even apologize. I had to take a nearly month-long break and have not quite felt as home on the boards since. You sort of feel like a ghost.
But every family has times when you happen to be the one on the outside looking in, and generally I like it here a lot. C’est la vie!
