Why Is Liberal Allowed To Use GD As A Personal Blog???

[ashman165]

@Marley23

I was asking “What’s the purpose of reading all five of the threads if you feel they are pointless.” I believe that’s clear in context.

I don’t think he’s been allowed to disregard the rules.

I’m not saying he is or isn’t. I’m pointing out what the point of it would be. You ask the question “what if he is breaking the rules” like it wouldn’t make a fucking big deal either way.

In the grand scheme of life, it isn’t a big fucking deal. But if there are rules, they should apply equally everywhere. Your question indicates you have a cavalier attitude about them: “so he’s breaking the rules? big fucking deal, move along, move along, nothing to see here.”

And that isn’t what you asked. You didn’t imply, ask, allude to or magic the meaning there’s no point in reading all five threads by asking what if there is a rules violation? For that matter, it wouldn’t be relevant if any particular person had read them at all: if it’s a rules violation and a moderator is aware of it, something should be done. To ask what the point would be implies a lack of understanding of the function of a moderator.

Or, if you were a cop, to use Tom’s analogy, you’re apparently the kind who doesn’t mind people breaking the law so long as the law is one you don’t care about. Jay walking? No prob. Littering? No prob!

Of course, you say you don’t think he broke a rule, which is perfectly legitimate. But that has nothing to do with what if he is? What’s the point? Who cares?! That’s my take on it anyway.

[akennett]

@Marley23

Good. You’re not going to tell me that there aren’t years-old grudges between some posters, are you? I specifically didn’t say anybody had been on Liberal’s case for years.

Yeah, now who’s weaseling?

[Marley23]

@ashman165

You ask the question “what if he is breaking the rules” like it wouldn’t make a fucking big deal either way.

As I already said, I asked why he read all the threads even though he felt they were pointless. It was not a comment on any rule, I was inquiring why he spent his time that way. I hadn’t read any of those threads before today because I had a feeling they were going to be pointless, or at least, wouldn’t interest me in the slightest.

@Fenris

You didn’t have to specifically have to say it given how strongly you implied it.

In other words, then, I didn’t say it. I confess the two sentences were near each other.

@akennett

Yeah, now who’s weaseling?

I do a funny thing in my posts sometimes that I like to call saying what I mean. If I think somebody’s been on someone else’s case for years, I’ll say so, and if that’s not what I mean to say, then I won’t say that. Crazy and confusing, I know, but it works for me. There are some long-time posters who have a lot of detractors, partly because of their posting habits and personalities and partly because familiarity breeds contempt. Liberal is absolutely one of those people. So when he gets pitted, it’s often not just about the issue at hand, but other people venting the irritation they’ve built up over the years. I was describing that phenomenon - and it leads to a type of pitting that I usually avoid, because I can’t be bothered to find out why two posters had a falling-out six years ago - and not specifically saying any of those posters have done it with Liberal.

[leander]

Like I said, “lalalalalalalalalalalalala”.

Seriously, don’t bother.

[Seven]

@Marley23

You’re the only person who has used the word stalking, and that’s twice. I didn’t suggest the concept. I said Seven has been a critic of Liberal in the past, which is inarguable. I also didn’t imply there was an issue going back “years.”

Let me take a moment to educate you on my history with Liberal. It starts here.
May 5 2009
Liberal, you dickwad hypocrite - Part 2

5 posts directed at Liberal. 1 post could be considered borderline.

I only started that thread because the dope deleted the first one.

May 13 2009
Liberal. Did they kick you out ?

12 posts directed at Liberal.

This is the thread where tomndebb states this.

@tomndebb

Which, of course, explains why you have more posts to this thread than anyone except Liberal or Guinastasia–who have each engaged in sidebar discussions with other posters…

When he made that post I had 11 posts directed at Liberal out of currently 208 posts in the thread - some of those 208 posts were Liberal and others coming after me.

Since May 5th 2009 I think you would be hard pressed to find more than 40 posts from me directed at Liberal. There may be one or two posts before May 5th 2009 directed at Liberal in a negative way - but I can’t recall any

I do know there are a handful in ATMB. One post, which I couldn’t find, had a mod accusing me of obsessing about Liberal. Yep, right. 40 or less posts contained in threads about Liberal is an obsession. If I stalked him around the board then maybe,. but I don’t

I joined in Aug 15, 2000 and currently have made 4086 posts.

So, you can stop naming me in your posts about people who go after Liberal or “have a history” with him.

I’m sure if you did a little work (instead of just going by the thread in the mod forum) you’ll find many posters which fit the bill better than I.

[Marley23]

@Seven

Let me take a moment to educate you on my history with Liberal.

I told you you knew your own posts.

[ashman165]

@Marley23

As I already said, I asked why he read all the threads even though he felt they were pointless. It was not a comment on any rule, I was inquiring why he spent his time that way. I hadn’t read any of those threads before today because I had a feeling they were going to be pointless, or at least, wouldn’t interest me in the slightest.

It’s strange how the words you actually used have nothing to do with what you claim they do.

I do a funny thing in my posts sometimes that I like to call saying what I mean. If I think somebody’s been on someone else’s case for years, I’ll say so, and if that’s not what I mean to say, then I won’t say that. Crazy and confusing,

And yet despite what you did say, you’re claiming that it meant something which couldn’t even reasonably pretend to be anywhere near a topic kind of nearly sort of related to what you’re claiming. You said something to effect of: so what if he’s breaking any rules, what’s the point? That is the point being made.

[Tenebras]

@Marley23

I made a general comment about bad blood on the boards: posters sometimes have grudges going back a long time, and I find that stuff a snooze. I did not accuse anybody of having a years-old issue with Liberal. You’ll notice I didn’t say “you guys have been criticising him for years.”

See, this is all just a big misunderstanding. If we just consolidate the exchange into one post it will all be clear and we can have a big laugh together.

Anaamika at 44
This isn’t right, that everyone who thinks those threads do indicate favoritism for Liberal suddenly become Liberal haters.

Marley23 at 47
In a couple of cases here it’s completely accurate.

Fenris at 51
Really? Name names. Or do you have a secret list?

Marley23 at 57
(Seriously, do you see yourself, leander, Seven as co-presidents of the Liberal fanclub? I’m not interested in stepping into the middle of people’s idiotic grudges, some of which predate my time on this board. But let’s not bullshit here: Liberal does a lot of crap to draw flack from other posters, and on the other side of things, there are people who jump his shit with any provocation. He’s been pitted four times already this year that I can find, one of those by Stink Fish Pot, who’s also posted in this thread.)

Seven at 99
I don’t consider myself part of the Liberal fan club, nor do I consider myself part of the Liberal hate club.

Just because I think someone is an idiot, liar, drama queen, douche, or any number of things does not equal hate. I don’t follow nutbags around and hijack their threads. (ok, there was the one time in the pit where I called people “Liberal” as an insult)

Marley23 at 100
Your emotional state doesn’t interest me, my point was about your history with Liberal.
Now, someone who didn’t have my l33t reading skillz would probably misinterpret this last comment as implying that Marley was actually making a point about Seven’s history with Liberal. Perhaps he might even be referring to that one time Seven called people “Liberal” as an insult. However, that someone would be wrong.

As he made quite clear (“my point was about your history with Liberal”), Marley was just making a general statement about the existence of people who hold grudges. It would be foolish for Marley to provide any proof that Seven had a history with Liberal, because
[ol]
[li]Seven knows perfectly well what he has posted, and[/li][li]his point was merely that there exist people who have grudges, as any idiot can see by reading the words on the screen: “my point was about your history with Liberal.”[/li][/ol]

[Marley23]

@ashman165

You said something to effect of: so what if he’s breaking any rules, what’s the point?

No, I didn’t. (I think it becomes true if you say it two more times, though.)

[Seven]

@Marley23

I told you you knew your own posts.

Don’t you EVEN wink at me.

shakes finger

[ashman165]

@Marley23

No, I didn’t. (I think it becomes true if you say it two more times, though.)

You’re right, of course, “Even if you’re correct about it being a rules violation, what’s the point?” naturally implies that it’s important to enforce rules, and that not reading the posts is what is really at issue. What was I thinking?

[Marley23]

@Tenebras

Now, someone who didn’t have my l33t reading skillz would probably misinterpret this last comment as implying that Marley was actually making a point about Seven’s history with Liberal.

One might think that if one assumed the subject of the thread had not changed over 100 posts, yes. When I said “posters sometimes carry grudges,” I was making a general point. When I said later that Seven was not in the Liberal fanclub, I was speaking about specific posters. It does not follow that earlier generalizations were coded references to Seven.

[Marley23]

@ashman165

What was I thinking?

‘If I ignore the sentences before this one, it looks like it means something else?’

[Seven]

@Marley23

When I said later that Seven was not in the Liberal fanclub, I was speaking about specific posters.

Huh?

[Seven]

@Marley23

(clip) I ignore the sentences (clip)

Hey look. That does work well.

[Tenebras]

@Marley23

One might think that if one assumed the subject of the thread had not changed over 100 posts, yes. When I said “posters sometimes carry grudges,” I was making a general point. When I said later that Seven was not in the Liberal fanclub, I was speaking about specific posters. It does not follow that earlier generalizations were coded references to Seven.

Actually, every single one of the posts that I linked to was a direct response to the one before. In fact, each one is quoted in the subsequent post. If you don’t believe me, I included links to the posts so you can follow the thread of the conversation yourself.

You are also misrepresenting your post, which has been quoted several times now. You were talking about Seven, leander and Fenris specifically, and then changed subjects, apparently, to talk in completely general terms about some other posters not named, but certainly wholly distinct from the aforementioned non-presidential trio of knaves. I think you will find that “later” and “immediately before” are distinguished in the common usage, if not in your own personal patois. You might find that you enjoy the Aesthetical Jesus threads more than you thought you would.

[ashman165]

@Tenebras

Actually, every single one of the posts that I linked to was a direct response to the one before. In fact, each one is quoted in the subsequent post. If you don’t believe me, I included links to the posts so you can follow the thread of the conversation yourself.

You are also misrepresenting your post, which has been quoted several times now. You were talking about Seven, leander and Fenris specifically, and then changed subjects, apparently, to talk in completely general terms about some other posters not named, but certainly wholly distinct from the aforementioned non-presidential trio of knaves. I think you will find that “later” and “immediately before” are distinguished in the common usage, if not in your own personal patois. You might find that you enjoy the Aesthetical Jesus threads more than you thought you would.

A+

[Marley23]

@Tenebras

You are also misrepresenting your post, which has been quoted several times now. You were talking about Seven, leander and Fenris specifically, and then changed subjects, apparently, to talk in completely general terms about some other posters not named, but certainly wholly distinct from the aforementioned non-presidential trio of knaves.

I raised the topic first in general terms (post 47), and mentioned names only after Fenris asked me to.

[Modding]
I’ve had as much fun with this as you guys have, but I’m going to gently try to guide the thread back to its initial board-policy subject here: does anyone have a question about blogging vs. posting, or the ‘no debate’ issue?
[/Modding]

[pseudotriton_ruber_ruber]

@Seven

Don’t play dumb.

See? He isn’t playing.

[Fenris]

Getting back to the main point that I have in this thread (besides defending against Tom’s accusations again)

Why can some people get away with posting in a thread where the OP is obviously a believer in God post "“Believing in God is the opposite of “intellectual vitality”; it’s more intellectual brain death.” and “Atheism is not faith; it’s the denial of faith. Pretending otherwise is a lie of the beleivers; an attempt to pretend that their beliefs are of equal worth.”?

I am asking for mod clarification. If I go into a, say AGW thread where the OP says “I believe in AGW” and I post a response, quoting the OP and say “Believing in God is the opposite of “intellectual vitality”; it’s more intellectual brain death.” and “AGW is not science; it’s the denial of science. Pretending otherwise is a lie of the beleivers; an attempt to pretend that their beliefs are of equal worth.”* would I get warned or mod-noted. Der Trihs didn’t and doesn’t despite the fact that he does this regularly. I want to be sure that this protection extends to everyone.

Are those phrases are specifically ok and that others like them probably ok? “Yes or no” please.

*Note, I don’t believe those particular statements, but it was the hot-button issue that came to mind. Substitute whatever cause you’d like.