>Neocon, the most abusive person here is JLA. Second to JLA used to be Pilch but to his credit he has cleaned up his act a little.<
A little? Michelle, I used to call people awful things, directly and with remarkable force. I have done nothing of the sort recently. Merely because I think a certain politician depraved, or liberal womens groups political harlots (even feminists have used this imagery) is nothing like calling you a whore, or a maggot or filthy, etc. etc., all terms I at one time unfortunately would have applied to you with glee.
If you go back to the early posts, those where Daniel first began posting on this thread, you will see it appears he began personally attacking individuals here almost immediately. Perhaps they assaulted him elsewhere, but it certainly seems he began the personal badgering. Here is an example:
5423 (From Dan to Bill Vaughn)
As for stooges, right now it looks like most people think Ken Starr is a stooge or worse. Oh, I got that definition wrong, "stooges", like "stupid" and "hateful", exclusively apply to people who disagree with you. You got "facts" on your side, though. I hope you and Ken enjoy your pompous moral superiority good in the weeks to come.
To which Bill, with arguable appropriateness, called Dan an idiot. Then Dan responded with
5464
Thank you for the compliment. War is peace, Ignorance is strength, and Ken Starr is non-partisan and objective in his quest for justice. Not a hint of hatred there either. You're making me feel stronger all the time.
Then Bill, giving us a classic response, said
<<Ignorance is strength...>>
Thank you for that insight Arnold Scwartzenaegger.
---------
Early on Dan badgered people here with personal insults. These insults were constant and certainly fueled the bad blood between he and very many other people. Dan was no angel, and he was not merely irritable. He was flagrantly offensive. Even if he did not begin the personal assaults he certainly began to engage in them immediately, instead of rising above them. The point is, he still has no recourse to complain.
Now I assaulted Dan with force that was certainly too great, since I once operated under the assumption that I was free to fire upon him with a bazooka after he merely raised his hand against me. So I am certainly not defending my actions. What I am trying to say to you is that Daniel was no innocent person here who strolled along to suddenly find himself being assaulted. Where he personally is concerned, he seems to have began the assault of others.
Go back to the posts. You will find JLA giving his opinion on general morality, and denouncing the President. Then you will eventually come to Daniel directly badgering JLA with claims that JLA is a member of the religious right. Then you will find JLA showing remarkable restraint with Daniel, informing Daniel he is not of the RR, even as Daniel continued his sarcasm. Then you will see Daniel make the fatal mistake of calling JLA a pompous moralizer. In what seemed to be shock, JLA responded "Sir, you are a boob!" (or something of the sort). No doubt JLA thought "Uhm gon kill dis guy, now."
I am not attempting to justify the drubbing Daniel has received here. I am simply saying Daniel appears to have no justification to claim others assaulted him without reason. They assaulted him because he was worthy of assault. |
