You look, liar, when I am wrong I do admit it. And good Lord in Heaven, you apologized?? What a damn joke. Yeah, you did apologize, just like CBS did. After you got caught. (In your case, like mine, violating the decorum of GD.)
So, tell me, what previous threads did you engage me in? You claim:
AFAIK, that was the first time you and I communicated. I think you have slipped up and let the cat out of the bag, and accidently revealed that you may be posting under more than one name. Isn’t that another violation of forum rules?
Validation is a possibility. It’s the search for validation that can be so addicting. One doesn’t necessarily have to get it to keep searching.
Razorsharp says that it’s to gore liberal sacred cows. I can believe that. And given the intensity of feelings that you hold for liberals, I can sort of understand your wanting liberals to have negative feelings. But then why would you be upset if they express a negative opinion of you? (You said something about giving it right back to them even if it got you banned – which is what prompted my question to begin with.) I would think that you would be pleased if liberals held a negative opinion of you.
I don’t think this is limited to Razor, though. It’s a bit gratifying to have your opinion validated by observation, and this doesn’t have to be though people agreeing with you; but also when their reactions to you confirm your preconceptions. It’s really not that difficult to “prove” a premise along the lines of “liberals are oversensitive” if you start with a preposition (“gay marriage will destroy straight marriage”) and an insult (“and I suppose destroying straight marriage is the secret goal of the liberal media”). It generates a hostile response and reinforces the “oversensitive” preconception.
There are two responses that are better, though: ignoring the claim, or responding calmly. Either case causes frustration in the antagonist, because the preconception is not being supported. I’ll admit to a bit of weakness in this regard, becuase I’m not often able to follow the first option. Frankly, it annoys me to see ignorance presented as fact. I’m pretty sure I CAN respond calmly, because when antagonism is such an obvious goal, it amuses me to deflate the ego of the person who assumes I can be manipulated so easily. I find myself taking the same stance when someone tells a lame joke and then starts to insist that I show amusement or else be branded with the label: “he has no sense of humour”. Similarly, I see the accusation of “don’t be so literal” thrown around a lot, when inflammatory statements are analyzed and dissected rather than reacted to. I take it as a sign that a particular reaction was wanted and not received, and it makes me smile.
About Razor specifically, I gather that he is pleased if “liberals” have a negative opinion of him, but he has it backward. His behaviour practically guarantees that almost EVERYONE will have a negative opinion of him, but I guess as long as almost EVERYONE includes a few liberals here and there, it may be worthwhile. He could rationalize that the entire board (or at least the portion that dislikes him) is liberal, and his banning is a sign of our intolerance and not his.
If he is banned, though, it will be for the rather unheroic reason of his abrasive behaviour and not his politics. I fully expect the same thing to happen to Diogenes the Cynic sooner or later, and for the same reason.
Hmm, discussing Razor’s motives is much more interesting than discussing his opinions.
I sarcastically said to Razorsharp that I wanted to be like him, but your discourse above makes me, all sarcasm aside, really want to emulate you. I will endeavor to do so, not just in relation to his posts, but in relation to all posts that are inflamatory.
Oh, and I will also endeavor to not rise to Razor’s bait in future. He got my goat, and he knows it, and I find that extremely chafing to admit. Nothing to be done about it now but be better than he is. I don’t think this will be hard.
I expect liberals to have a negative opinion of me, being that I often attack the liberal ideology. What I find both irritating and amusing, is when a liberal directs a snide, thinly veiled personal insult towards me, and then starts schreeching about civil discourse and rudeness when I retaliate with equal measure. But, that’s liberals for ya. Here, let me show you how it works. Take Andros, for instance. Now, as far as I remember, I have never had dealing with this person before.
Well, from your accusation, that I am not bothered with facts, I can only assume that you are in agreement with Ekers, that CBS’s only motive regarding the forged documents, was ratings and profit? Is that what you believe too?
Or, do you believe that CBS was intentionally ressurecting a thirty-year old story on the eve of an election, showing President Bush in a less-than-flattering light, in hopes of costing him votes?
And how does your behaving in precisely the same manner improve the situation, exactly?
No, I’d say Bryan Ekers pretty well nailed it where you are concerned. I seriously doubt you actually believe in many of the propositions you advance. It’s all just baiting for the sake of baiting.
By the way, did you visit the thread I linked to? See anything that might fit your style of argumentation there?
I think that close to an election, dirt involving a major candidate equals money for the networks; if they had had what they thought was dirt on Kerry, they’d have put that out, too.
The thing is Razor, you don’t seem to attack liberal ideology so much as you attack liberals.
Take your exchange with Bryan in this thread. Your primary point seemed to be that Bryan was “drinking the Kool-Aid,” a veiled reference to his gullibility. Now there is yet to be proof of CBS either trying to influence the election or fatten wallets, but you pretty much refused to even address his points going instead for the cheap shot/quip approach.
That seems to be your style though. You bait anyone who will take it and then say that they can’t handle your “goring of liberal sacred cows” and pat yourself on the back and put another tally on the big board, never realizing that it’s not your politics that they hate. It’s you.
Simply stated, you’re a pointless twit. If and when you get banned, it won’t be because of your politics.
May I be the first to ask, cite? I have my apology, on record, to you, to the mod who rightly cautioned me, and to the GD board in general for violating the decorum of GD. Posts 51 and 52; direct responses to you, both civil, in response to which you called me a liar, after which our spat began. I apologized for stepping over the line in post 102, both to you and to the mod and by extension to the board as a whole.
Where exactly have you ever apologized, even after being caught? We all know you have been cautioned for being insulting at least three times in three different threads - can you provide a cite anywhere where you have apologized for this behaviour in violation of the rules of the forum you’ve posted in? Me thinks this makes you worse than CBS - even when caught, you refuse to admit wrongdoing.
See, if ratings and profit were the sole motivating factors that determine which stories get broadcast, CBS had the oportunity to boost their ratings and profit by hyping the Swiftboat Vets with the same enthusiasm as they gave the forged documents.
Well, to my way of thinking (which apparently is no damned good as it doesn’t correspond with your way of thinking), the Swiftboat Veterans stuff was all over the place; with the Bush stuff, they had an opportunity to corner something no one else had.
