Soooo…yes.
The evidence doesn’t bear you out on that. This very thread, for instance, started out with several pages of people griping and quarreling in mostly comfortable give-and-take from a variety of ideological positions. That included you in posts #203 and #229, contributing for once in a reasonably non-attention-seeking and relevant way:
Both of which were followed by continuation of the relevant discussion, with no “derailers” or “attackers” going “off-topic” to pick on you in any way.
Another couple dozen posts followed in the same vein, and the thread was progressing fine until you apparently decided you weren’t getting enough attention. So in post #255 you linked (with a snarky aside at me that I ignored) to a news story on a knife massacre in China three years ago. This also was rebutted in a continuation of the on-topic discussion, without any personal insults to you.
You then taunted “you people” about “purposely avoiding the point”, and when that still didn’t get you any attention other than bobot shrugging you off as “dumb as shit”, started banging your worn-out old anti-liberal drum again in post #264:
iiandyiiii responded with a patient and on-topic answer to your all-purpose anti-liberal schtick, ending in post #268 with:
Knowed Out added:
And then the conversation continued for another few dozen posts with no reference to you whatsoever, much less any “attacks” on you.
So since your attention-seeking had been largely ineffective, you decided to bang your anti-liberal drum even louder in post #315:
And that gratuitous insult to the student survivors of the shooting finally got you the attention you were looking for, with several outraged and insulting responses. You doubled down on your anti-liberal hyperbole and basked in your illusion of being unfairly attacked. And that’s how it’s been going for the subsequent ten pages.
And now you want to try to pretend that it’s your “attackers” that have been gratuitously “derailing” the thread. Nonsense. The rest of the posters in this thread were exchanging occasional remarks with you in a reasonable and on-topic way, until you finally managed to bait them into real outrage by ratcheting up your usual tired anti-liberal schtick to mean-spirited disparagement of traumatized teenagers as the “parrots” of “leftie educators”.
This board has been incredibly patient with your constant Johnny-One-Note bleating about “liberals” and “counterculture” and “1960s” as the root of all modern ills. You constantly show up in threads waving around outrageous remarks to provoke people into fights about those favorite topics of yours, whether they’re actually relevant to the thread topic or not, and then whine that other people are spontaneously picking on you. :rolleyes:
Hahahah! Do you have even the vaguest idea what a stupid question this is? And why? And in how many ways?
This right here represents the fundamental problem. Sharting has some pathology that will allow him to reinterpret reality so that his position remains unchanged.
He really believes that he proved his points in defense of Sandusky and Paterno. He believes that the paper towel tube experiment proved it was physically impossible to engage in standing anal sex with a child. His delusion leads him to call someone with that exoerience in real life a liar.
Given these cognitive problems, it is no surprise that he has participated here for 15 years and his basic premise - that liberals of the 60s ruined America - remains entirely unchanged. How many people have provided him with evidence inconsistent with that premise? How many threads has he derailed in debate about this preposterous cultural explanation for everything? Yet if you ask him, he will tell you that he has bested everyone who has engaged with him on that hypothesis.
The paper towel tube is iconic because it’s both ludicrous and representative of how far he will go in defense of a proposition, with no self-awareness and with complete disconnection from reality.
He brings no value, and is instead disruptive and loathsome.
SA’s the Donnie Trump of the SDMB!
Ooh! He’s using the villain laugh! Boys, hide your anuses, SA’s about to get probing!
Lock up your buttholes!
Shots fired at Central Michigan University, two known shot, shooter still at large.
Forget it Jake, it’s SAtown…
Oh Jesus yes, EVERYTHING was about libertarianism and if you didn’t swallow it hook line and sinker then you merely had to be educated.
Trying to talk about dead kids here, if you would please stop with all of your trolling and lying (by which, I mean all of your posts), it would be appreciated, thank you.
Tucker Carlson Turns On Trump: ‘Imagine If Barack Obama Had Said That’
He still managed to get in a dig on Democrats, hinting that Trump is becoming more like a dictatorial Democrat.
Eh, only two dead, first reports saying it’s nonstudents (despite happening in a dorm), some sort of “domestic dispute” – nothing to see here, move along.
The two dead are just Crisis Actors working for Soros… Right guys?
Just like the 7th grader in Ohio, who was planning to kill a bunch of students with a semiautomatic rifle, but then just killed himself in the bathroom. Just a suicide - no big deal.
Has Thoughts & Prayers – The Game received adequate coverage?
Florida students say hero teacher was really a ‘coward’ who left them to die
You know, I really do not want this to be true.
I don’t really see a discrepancy in what he said and what they said, other than their implied claim of maliciousness and selfishness. And I find his explanation to be perfectly defensible. He brought back the kids, looked in the hall, didn’t see anyone, and closed the door. They didn’t arrive until after this had happened, and banged on the door for a bit. He, of course, did not open it, as he is not supposed to. Then, he got to the point where he was going to the door, but they had, by then, found someone else who took them in. Or they’d just stopped banging and went off to find someone else. I mean, they admit to freezing up. That allows plenty of time for everything he said to have happened, if they weren’t in his hallway when they froze.
The only thing that would make him look bad to me would be if the policy is that students will return to their previous classroom. Then I would argue he should let them in. And, even then, I’d allow for the explicit instructions of keeping the door locked to override the idea of maybe checking.
Finally, I have already said that I am fundamentally against treating people badly for being scared. Sorry, but the idea that being afraid is wrong is dangerous and unhealthy. So, even if he was a “coward,” I would think no worse of him.