Another genius who imagines that if I find his behavior objectionable then I must be defending his enemy. How surprising. :rolleyes:
Going out of your way to call liberal an asshole when he is not and cannot be a participant in this thread is the sign of a coward trying to feel strong, not to mention the mark of a man with nothing significant to say.
Oh, expressing my distaste for you and your sanctimony/pretentiousness double bill requires not at all a significant amount of stretching or effort. You simply haven’t shown the wherewithal to condescend to me (I comfortably and confidently consider myself rather intelligent) so any attempt to do so is simply a borderline-amusing waste. In fact, a casual read of your last few dozen posts to this thread show quite a number of attempts at condescension in lieu of actual argument or evidence that RedFury and/or Xploder have anything to feel ashamed about. Would it be fair to say that line of discussion has run its course and condescension is all that remains? The material you quoted in the original post was all originally written in the Pit, and I need not remind you that the Pit is effectively a free-fire zone. Liberal’s claim of terminal health problems was simply not believed by Red or Xploder (I’m indifferent to it myself - were it proven true, it wouldn’t change my opinion of Liberal) and they reacted in a hostile manner to what they perceived as a manipulative appeal to sympathy. I don’t find this particularly surprising or shameful. I’m clearly not alone. That you imply your intellectually superior position prevents you from fully understanding a position stemming from an intellectually inferior source (whence your use of “boggles”, among other expressions claiming honest confusion) may be taken as my effective definition of “jackass” for the purposes of this thread.
And such is my attempt at an overly-wordy and unnecessarily detailed response, since I’ve already done the one-sentence post thing and it was apparently insufficient.
The arguments came earlie, and have stood unrefuted for some time. Do you imagine that I have some duty to offer reasoned arguments into a vaccuum?
It would be fair to say that the targets of the OP have offered nothing more substantial than profanity, misreadings, and obfuscation in this thread. It is also fair to say that I have expressed my disdain for both their behavior and their manner of discourse.
Indeed. So is it your position that all written interactions are acceptable so long as they appear in that particular Internet forum? I find such an idea to be morally bereft. My obligations as a human being are not suspended because I am writing in a place where insults are a generally accepted method of discourse.
I have implied no such thing. The jackass of your ravings exists only within your own skull. Is it condescending to point out that such a failure in basic reading comprehension does little to support the superior intellect to which you pretend?
Yep. I guess I’ll have to live with the realization that I am not always nice to people who try to put words into my mouth and then call me jackass because they don’t like the sound.
For the record, I think I have used a “boggle” exactly once in this thread. The post in question neither stated nor implied anything about “intellectually inferior sources” (except possibly inside the corridors of Bryan Eckers imagination.
Glad you think so. Fantastic even. Now let him go write himself an extensive treatise on why his opinion on this matter is of no more worth than any of the others expressing the exact contrary view. While he’s at it, I suggest he acts as condesceding and pompous with himself as he has with anyone who’s ‘dared’ contradict his edicts. I sure as shit have no interested in reading it and let him know as much.
Point being twofold:
1-There’s absolutely nothing left to discuss here other than “you’re wrong” and “no, you are.” I think by now we are all well aware of which side we stand.
Repetition is not an argument. And I am not budging from my clearly stated position no matter how enamored of his own stand Spiritus, The Demi-God, might be.
2-I bow to no one. Much less to a self-impressed blowhard (and the fans he might have on board) who comes in here and declares himself above the rest from his lofty perch.
The End.
xeno, it appears your faith will have to sustain itself without evidence (but isn’t that always the way?)
I have never and don’t anticipate ever expecting anything of you.
Well, the profanity I’ll grant (and what lovely cursing it was). If by “misreadings, and obfuscation” though, you mean their expressions of disbelief of Liberal’s claim of ill-health, then the matter of Liberal’s credibility is not irrelevant simply because you say it is. They disbelieved him. They thought it was a shoddy tactic and called it as such. You disliked their response enough to start a Pit thread. Bully for you.
If the misreadings and obfuscation were elsewhere, please enlighten me.
All? Of course not (and thank you for the clumsy attempt at false dichotomy); there are limitations imposed by the moderators of the Pit and the administrators of the board. None of those limitations were violated by Red or Xploder, as far as I can tell except in the most general sense that the thread was closed (if you know of specific moderator warnings received by either poster, please provide links). If you find there should be more limitations (and that the current situation is “morally bereft”) then you should file the appropriate requests or avoid the Pit or be prepared to face counter-criticism when you accuse others of crossing lines that do not exist.
In any case, however you’ve chosen to define your obligations, clearly others define theirs differently.
No, it’s simply factually unsupported. I view it as a casually comfortable premise that you lack the means of establishing a condescending position relative to me because you have not done so and I don’t anticipate you doing so, if your idea of evidence is a claim of my “failure in basic reading comprehension”. Since I have excellent reading comprehension, the claim is preposterous on its face and can support no valid conclusions whatsoever.
Actually, in context, that use of “boggles” (and it was merely one example, anyway) illustrated my point quite nicely. Does it honestly “boggle” you that hostility toward someone fails to evaporate when that person is absent? Is it truly “boggling” that expressing antipathy for a person might continue in the presence of people who seek to defend that person?
I conclude that you boggle easily or you have found that claiming an opponent’s position is incomprehensible is easier than claiming it is wrong. After all, claiming it is wrong requires evidence. Claiming it is simply confusing and incomprehensible carries the implication (no proof, however) that the opponent is behaving irrationally.
Heh. I always thought it was kind of irrational (and certainly immature) the way some posters let Liberal infuriate them so. In this particular case, though, I disagree that the behaviour of Red and Xploder was shameful.
PS-I find delicious irony in the fact that Liberal, ultimately got his ass supended by following the illustrious advice – which went against what every other well-meaning poster (read: simpleton) on that thread was suggesting he’d try – of Spiritus The Infalible. Which pared down to it essense was simply: stay true to yourself, even if that means being a hijacking asshole.
Result: yet another Liberal thread-derailment into personal martyrdom. Good thing no one could see that coming. Oh wait! Some of us actually did and had the balls to call him on it! Why for the name of all that decent in the world! Have we no shame?! All those starving children in the world? All those that won’t live to see tomorrow? Hearts of stone I tell you, hearts of fucking stone! I mean If our ilk can’t take pity on arguably the most notorious Drama Queen on the SDMB, who else could we possibly feel pity and/or empathy for/with? Talk about a closed case. :rolleyes:
Then again, The Brotherhood Of Blowhards, must be think it a proud moment in their momentous history of enlighting the commoners.
Well, a more honest recap of our exchanges might be:
SM You did something wrong.
RF Your pompous and someone else called you smarter than me. Here’s all the stuff that happened in another thread that you didn’t PIT me for. So there.
SM Here, let me deconstruct your poor argument with the scorn and derision I feel it deserves. No extra charge for the lessons in basic grammar.
RF I don’t want to play anymore.
RF But I will still come back and call you names
To which I can only add: how utterly redFury. At least you are consistent.
**B
Talk about reading comprehesion. Phycisan heal thyself.
Might wanto start with “My Pet Goat” – wouldn’t want you to pull a mental muscle.
Now I may have missed something, but I have not seen a reply to the contention that your behavior was vicious, devoid of compassion, petty and shameful. However, I may have missed that particular post of yours.
Um, I haven’t seen any such declaration from Spiritus.
“I bow to no one”. Nor do I. In fact, royalty is so alien to my POV that I wouldn’t even make such a declaration. I guess if I knew a lot of people with living memory of dictatorship (Spain, c. 1970s and earlier), such a line might have more impact for me. I’m guessing that’s where you’re coming from. If I heard an American say this though, I would stiffle a giggle. FYI only.
Hm. I guess I might defer on the basis of merit. But that’s about it.
All the explanation for the actions leading to this pathetic pitting that I am willing to provide, were linked in the very post you’re reponding to.
Bryan Ekers
Lovely? It lacked both creativity and eloquence. Any third-grader in America could do better. Your standards are shoddy.
here and here Try reading. If you find points that you disagree with, try refuting them. Or simply continue to pretend that denial is the same as argument. If nothing else it freates an amusing picture of you in a sketch with John Cleese.
No false dichotomy. You raised the red herring of the PIT. Since my arguments are ethical in nature and I have never pretended that the posts violated the rules of this board, your statement could only be relevant if it argued that a posting in the PIT is somehow exempt from all ethical standards. Since that was not your point, it is now clear that you were simply raising a red herring
As I said, a red herring. Once again you prefer to wrangle with your own fantasies rather than addressing what I have actually posted. The distinctions between your style of “argument” and masturbation are becoming increasingly subtle. Here’s a hint: Read the OP. When you come to the place where I argue that Xploder or redFury violated the rules of this message board, quote it. When you come to the place where I argue that the administration should place more limitations upon what can be posted in the PIT, quote it.
Alternatively, you could try communicating with the real world for a while.
Yep. Is that supposed to be news to anybody? Or are you one of those folks who feels that we should not be allowed to express an ethical conviction because somebody else might not share it?
If so, we have found another point upon which we disagree. If not, then I truly am boggled that you think this statement in any way assists your argument. Here, I’ll show you: 
Except of course for the fact that you infer meanings in my posts that are not supported by the text. If only we had an example to check . . .
Ah – how convenient. Here we can notice that the original claim was the quite specific: "you imply your intellectually superior position prevents you from fully understanding a position stemming from an intellectually inferior source"
Hmmm, how strange. The quoted post contains no statements about either my own intellect or that of those who disagree with me on this question. Bryan ekers response above also makes no mention of intellectual superiority on my part or of the inferior intellect of those espousing the position that “boggles”. Wow, this might be worse than I thought. Not only are you incapable of reading my posts with comprehension, you apparently cannot even comprehend your own statements from one post to the next. Here, I’ll break it down into little tiny concepts so that you can digest it better.
I said: [ol]
[li]Is there really? [/li][li]You mean people seriously argue that it is acceptable to hurl insults at a person for 30 days while they cannot answer because after the fact said person could conceivably spend the effort to dredge up all of those past insults and give answer? [/li][li]WTF :smack: [/li][li]That’s like saying it’s okay to beat on a child because after he grows up he can come back and give you a fair fight. [/li][li]Why in the world would anyone want to keep slinging filth at someone who isn’t in the room, anyway? [/li][li]The mind boggles? [/ol]/li is an inquiry. Specifically, I am asking Measure for Measure whether there really is a controversy about this subject.
(2) is a restatement of the position that I have been surprised to hear is being supported by some posters.
(3) conveys an emotional reaction. It expresses amazement that the position stated has actually found support. It implies, clearly, a disdain for the argument.
(4) is an anology used to illustrate the ethical flaws of the position stated in (2)
(5) is a rhetorical question about the motives of people who wish to sling insults at a defenseless target. rhetorical questions are not attempts to seek an answer. They are designed to convey certain moods or imply certain conclusions to the listener/reader. In this case, the implication is that whatever reason one might have for such behavior, it probably is not a “good” one.
(6) is a sardonic commentary, acompanied by a “boggle”. The implication of (5) and (6) in combination conveys a clear sense of dismissiveness to the position stated in (2) and (by extension) to the values of people supporting that position.
It does not imply that I am incapable of understanding the argument. It implies nothing about intellectual superiority or inferiority. This is becuase It is a statement about ethical judg,ment and personal values. Somehow, Bryan Ekers managed to understand it as a statement about intellectual capacities (which, somewhat amusingly, makes a statement about intellectual capacities – just not the one he intended).
LOL. Enough already. We don’t need anymore examples of you failure to read with comprehension. Really, now, even for someone as blinded by fantasy as yourself it strains credibility to pretend that I have not claimed in this thread that my opponents positions were wrong. The really pathetic part is that I am certain you believed the words to be true as you typed them. So much for critiques of your reading comprehension being “preposterous on their face”. :eek:
that’s okay. At least your posts give us something else to fit that description.
Red: What I read were variants of, “I bow to no man”. Not especially relevant. Then some insults to Lib. Then, something topical, which I admit that I missed about 3 times: “Doesn’t mean I wish Lib any harm, never said so either. Quite the contrary, may he live an extended lifetime (or two in his case), but again, both the circumstances of his announcement and his well-known propensity to climb on the cross every time he is taken to task, more than justifies, in my view, the response given.”
Red.
1a) It would have been so easy to ignore 17 almost parenthetical words out of a 350 word post. Alternatively, you could have pressed the attack as follows, “Sorry to hear about your medical situation. However, I must take issue with your refusal to reform your behavior. No man is an island and in any case I do not bow, etc. etc…”
1b) C’mon. Did anybody really have their argument pre-empted by this so-called revelation? I think not.
Logic problem: just because somebody is a drama queen doesn’t mean they’re not old!!!. Personally, I was unsurprised by Lib’s remarks.
You don’t steal candy from babies. You don’t kick a guy in the balls. And you don’t get bent out of shape – like, I daresay, a Drama Queen, Mr. Fury – when an old man alludes to his mortality. As I’ve written, it happens allll … the … time.
Just because behavior is permitted doesn’t imply that it’s moral, appropriate, in good taste or reflective of human decency. It’s not that hard. Really.
Well . . . I guess that just about finishes off the argument for petty. (Not that there was much doubt left at this point, anyway.
FYI only:
Lib’s posting style shifted over the past year or two. I noticed, since I was away for an extended spell. Spiritus is likely to have missed it entirely. Some regular posters may have not have noticed either.
Measure,
Rather late, so I’ll try to keep it brief. In no particular order.
Yes, I agree, there were a number of ways I could have adressed Lib’s revelation (as it were) yet I chose to go with my own brand of sarcasm and added a pinch of scorn.
The funny thing is, I rather liked the end-result. Still do for that matter. IOW, it’s my personal posting style --love or leave, it part of who I am.
Note as well that that was precisely the same advice Spiritus was dispensing to Lib in that thread. Major difference being, that not only is that the first time I get pitted for mine but that overall the concensus appears to be that A-I was both well within my rights to post as I did and B- a plurarity of the people in this thread actually back the feelings I expressed and more importantly, the reasons why I did so.
Drama Queen =/= not old. Agreed 110%. I’ll be 49 in days and although and old fart by most standards, I have very little of the Drama Queen gene in me. In fact, I doubt I register a peep amongst the majority of the SDMB members. Which is just fine by me. Doesn’t mean I don’t have my own stories of woe to tell – just that I don’t chose a public internet forum to garner sympathy for my online persona. Don’t want or need any. Deal with what I write. Period.
I think that within this context --specially due to the fact that I mostly limit my posts to GD and The Pit – my personal life is rather irrelevant. For consistencies sake, I mostly holdothers to the same standard. Doesn’t mean I won’t express grief, well wishes, etc. when I think the situation deserves it. Clearly – and again, for reqasons extated by myself and others, extensively – I didn’t feel this one did. Still don’t.
As for taking a scornful post of mine and extrapollating into it into my overall sense of morality and the way I act in life in general…well, I think that says more about you than it does about me. There are many sides and moments to a human being – both on and off a MB.
That said, if on-line psychoanalysis is your thing, please read the follwing post of mine from barely six days ago and let me know what you think of me as “a human being.”
Much Ado About Nothing.
PS-Trust I won’t be judged as “childish” for apologizing for the many typos/sps above. Typing in bed from my cranky laptop keyboard and my poor eyesight is no help.
he already was warned by a mod (Giraffe?) for the accusation. Is this a second warning for his apology?
I don’t see the alleged misreadings and obfuscation, though. There is a disagreement about what is relevant to this discussion and while you maintain Liberal’s behaviour is not relevant to this thread, they maintain it is. I tend to side with them, since Liberal’s claim that he was dying was rather extreme and unusual. Just because you started this thread gives you no particular control over its content, so your claims of obfuscation are pointless.
For the specific claims of shameful behaviour, they claim Liberal’s statement and past behaviour provided adequate provocation. You claim otherwise. It’s not obfuscation on their part if they simply disagree with you. Claiming intellectual superiority because of it is, I daresay, the mark of a jackass.
Red herring? This is the Pit, isn’t it? The forum where vitriolic comments are permitted? I’ve gone over this thread and find there are some ethical standards in place (don’t post hate speech, the addresses and contact information of real-life people, etc.) and while gratuitous profanity is frowned upon, allegedly “shameful” behaviour is not. If you want to argue that the rules should be tightened, you should have taken it up with the moderators. You started this thread instead. The responses have not been inappropriate.
The original post is actually quite useless. Your original content consisted of three sentences and a fragment, incorporating a flat declaration that Red and Xploder should be ashamed of themselves, as though this was self-evident. Well, it’s not self-evident. If you’re not angling for a tightening of Pit ethics rules, then why have I been accused (twice!) of believing that the Pit is devoid of all ethics rules?
On the assumption that you’re truly not trying for a change in Pit rules or claiming Red and Xploder violating existing rules, then isn’t it the case that you’re merely expressing your opinion on the behaviour of Red and Xploder? Well, from the responses in this thread, it clear that some posters disagree with you and are happy to to express their opinions of your behaviour. Let freedom reign.
There’s another of those ridiculous false dichotomies. What are you talking about? Of course you’re free to express an ethical conviction. Knock yourself out. And we’re free to express our opinions of your ethical convictions and (in the Pit) of you personally.
What follows is a remarkable amount of effort dissecting the word “boggles”, none of which I find convincing. Well, as I said, it’s only one example, so I guess the onus is on me to cite others. From recent posts:
None of these were directed at me, incidentally. Your basis to talk down to me is not established and until it is, such attempts are simply comical.
Interestingly, in your original post and other early posts, you described the behaviour the prompted this thread as “petty, vicious, and utterly devoid of compassion”. The condescension toward people who disagreed with you started around post #12, when Uvula Donor’s schoolmarms had “failed in their duties” and you’ve run with it ever since. What’s the greater intellectual failing in this situation: bashing Liberal or disagreeing with you? Had it simply been the former, I might have lent some mild support, since I find the antipathy toward Liberal to often be out of proportion. The latter, though, prompted and continues to validate my “jackass” assessment.
In my opinion, of course.