Peter Morris, why all the personal animosity? What have I ever done to you?
In the first place, that is a very weird interpretation. Even Ibn Warraq admitted that he doesn’t really think that. He made up that shit as a personal insult, not because it’s a reasonable interpretation.
In the second place, that is just one example of many insults. There are a lot of others. Including the implication that I’m lying, which is directly against GD rules.
And in the third place, and most importantly, this thread isn’t about Ibn Warraq, it’s about Tom. The fact that he threatened to give me a Warning, but refuses to identify any wrongdoing by me. Apparently, I’ve broken the secret rule, that Tom knows about, and won’t tell. And he makes this threat that breaking the rule again will result in a warning, while constantly refusing to identify what the rule is.
THAT is the really important issue for this thread, please stick to discussing that.
Okey dokey.
What you are saying has no basis in reality as the rest of the world understands it to be, therefore you are wrong.
I’m pretty sure that you are the only person who thinks that there is any really important issue in this thread.
At no time in this brouhaha have I threatened to give you a Warning.
But…you might, right? I mean, if suitable bribes and burnt offerings and tribute was given…it’s not out of the question, correct?
No, it is the direct interpretation of what you said. You admire true believers over people who sign up just to get paid. NAZIs who hunted down Jews were true believers, the IRA were true believers in their cause, Osama Bin Laden was a true believer. They took on their causes because they believed in their causes. If that is not what you meant, then you should reconsider what you said, not report a poster for “insulting you” when all he did was state the logical consequence of the words you used.
No, he did not make it up as a personal insult, he said that he doesn’t believe you actually support NAZIs or the IRA or, I’m assuming, Osama Bin Laden. He said this is the logical interpretation of the statement you made, but that he doesn’t believe you believe these things, so he believes you did not think through your position very well and made a poorly thought out statement. He was pointing out the flaw in your argument and providing you the opportunity to rethink your position, or clarify what you meant.
That you see what he said as a personal insult is a prime example of tomndebb’s point that you have a skewed perspective.
I do not see an accusation of lying, I see him pointing out that the direct consequences of your stated position is at odds with your apparent attitude and other opinions, so he suspects you have not clearly articulated your position or have not thought through your position very well.
Examining the claims about Ibn Warraq provide a clear example of how tomndebb is interpreting your complaints. This shows exactly the pattern that your quotes from Tom describe about you. If you are trying to accuse Tom of some inappropriate behavior towards you, you are doing a remarkable job of defending him through irony.
Where has he made a threat? If you mean that quote you cited at the top of the thread, that was not a threat, it was a statement that you are accusing others of bad behavior while engaging in exactly that kind of behavior yourself.
Both of these are accusing **YoDoc **of lying about who he is. They are also directed at the person, not the argument, and come close to being personal insults. Both of these posts are exactly the kind of thing that you accuse Ibn Warraq of doing against you, and you are incorrect about that as well.
You may be correct that those posts were made in IMHO and thus don’t violate the GD rules of behavior, but they are still close to violating the general board rules of behavior. So tomndebb’s statement
is a straightforward description of that exact point.
What a short memory you have. Try this:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14459752&postcount=108
In your email, you identified me as one of the three.
Your message is clear: that I WILL get a warning if I do THAT THING again. But you refuse to say what.
And, note, you failed to follow through on your instructions. Ibn Warraq insulted me multiple times and accused me of dishonesty and hypocrisy (that’s like lying), and did so AFTER your note.
Why didn’t you ding him for “failing to follow a moderator’s instructions”, then?
Because you dislike me, and ignore such things whern directed against me.
I have no doubt that if I’d said a fraction of what Ibn Warraq said, you’d have jumped right on me.
I noted that various posts would have received Warnings had they been posted in Great Debates.
I then said that everyone should refrain from that behavior.
If you wish to take that as a “threat,” then I can’t stop you, but I would not generally regard a broad instruction to all participants to refrain from bad behavior as a threat, directed at one poster in particular. (Your claim was that I threatened you.)
YMMV, and probably does. 
And that’s the major point. My posts weren’t in GD, but Ibn Warraq’s posts were.
I obeyed the rules of the forum I was in. Ibn Warraq didn’t.
Which you failed to enforce when Ibn Warraq broke your instructions.
You gonna go eat some worms?
I still don’t see where Ibn Warraq accused you of lying or insulted you.
Peter Morris,
Multiple different posters, many of whom have had no history with you or with the threads in question, have read your complaint. The overwhelming consensus is that Ibn Warraq neither lied or insulted you and also in no way misrepresented what you actually posted. He broke no rules and was not being a jerk, The overwhelming consensus is that tomndebb was extremely fair and, if anything, generous in his handling of your posting behaviors, which read as quite jerkish.
While it is indeed possible that very few on these boards have the intellectual capacity to understand your clearly expressed coherent posts and/or all have some hidden animosity to you, I would encourage you to be open to the alternative explanation - that your posting behavior was rude, Ibn’s was not, and that you actually do not rank as important enough to be on anyone’s animosity list, let alone anyone’s hidden animosity list. (If so then join the club. Few of us are.)
At this point what do hope to expect to accomplish by continuing here?
More attention?
Basically, his entire rant against me.
First of all, he accused me of not supporting the troops that fought against Hitler.
I pointed out that in fact I do support them.
He accused me of lying, claiming that I don’t really support them, but that I am only pretending to.
A few snippets from his various rants :
Would you agree, Irishman, that the phrase "immense hypocrisy " is both a personal insult, and the equivalent of saying that I’m lying?
Did you know that “lie” and “hypocrisy” have two different definitions according to the dictionary? If you wish, I could post them for you.
If anyone here thinks that Peter Morris is going to accept that he is wrong in any way at all, that those who disagree with him are not biased or in some other way disqualified from offering valid comment, that anything Peter has said is abrasive, intellectually insulting or jerkish, or that anything anyone else has said with negative implications about Peter or his views is being anything less than vile, you lack experience of Peter’s posting style when cornered.
I expect that Tomndebb does harbour certain empirically based views about Peter’s posting style and behaviour, as a consequence of long history.
What a load of woo woo
In case you hadn’t noticed, Ibn Warraq’s go-to play is the logical “gotcha,” and he snagged you in one because of the sloppy way you phrased your principle. Rather than extract yourself from the trap by retracting or clarifying your statement, you decided to go the “personal affront” route and ran crying to the playground monitor, whom you beseeched to restore your lost honor.
Needless to say, that plan isn’t going well.
In the first place, I DID clarify my statement, he just kept twisting it. Every time I pointed out that he had misstated my o0pinions, he just twisted them even more.
In the second place, the rules of the SDMB demand that I go running to the playground monitor. If I deal with the matter myself, the playground monitor comes after me.