...."Beat up ideas, not people."
Said the sin free stone caster.
And please don't try to sell me on the false assertion that
you no longer beat people up. You see, I don't buy your
nuanced, doublespeak, wordsmithing that let's you indulge in
personal attacks yet falsely claim you are only attacking
"ideas". It may fool your peers, but most others can see
right through the subterfuge.
And since when are factually accurate descriptions of those
who engage in hypocrisy, sneer & smear slander & malicious,
unfounded personal attacks, considered "attacking people"?
...."Attacking people is just...mean and a real turn off for people who are not exactly like you."
Gag me with a spoon. You just described one of the favorite
pastimes of the "feelies" thread.
Funny how you can perceive these alleged attacks over there
from any number of conservative POV's, but when a liberal
attacks people (often via false assertions & unsubstantiated
opinion), you are silent.
I wonder why you have never chided Grannie, coug, Junior
Balloon, redfish or yourself for repeatedly employing this
tactic? I mean it obviously bothers you so much you feel
compelled to come here to squash it. And you seem to be able
to divine it in any number of posts from conservatives on
the "feelies" thread.
I think Webster would say hypocrisy is the proper word to
apply in this instance, don't you?
...."It obviously bugs you that you are banned places, but you are banned because of unpleasant behavior."
Hmmmmm.... If I apply your standard for what constitutes a
personal attack, there goes your assertion that you never
attack others, 'eh?
Please link me to those threads, including the "feelies"
thread where I have been banned for credibly violating
established thread rules that prohibit "unpleasant behavior".
Please point the specific thread rule & link me to my post
that clearly violates this alleged rule or any other
established rule.
And when have I opined that I am bugged about being banned?
If you had bothered to read what I post, you'd know I'm
bugged when anyone is banned inappropriately & more so when
hypocrisy is involved - you know like when libs employ double
standards &/or when they simply ban opposing/dissenting
political POV's.
I believe Webster would agree that the words false, baseless,
revisionist & spurious would be accurate descriptions of
your assertion, don't you? Perhaps alternate reality would be
apropos too.
...."If you stopped acting the way you do, more people would want to talk to you."
Hmmmm, another personal attack. You clearly are beating me up
with your "unpleasant" personal attacks about my alleged
behavior. Shame on you!
I believe Webster also would consider this blatant hypocrisy,
don't you?
...."You post interesting things, sometimes, on your thread- when you take a pause from being so aggressive."
There you go getting all personal & beating me up again.
Webster spells it h-y-p-o-c-r-i-t-e.
...."If you keep acting the way you do here, I don't see people ever relaxing their bans, and why should they?"
Mommy, X keeps beating me up! Make her stop!!!!!!
Ahem.
Can we return to reality for a minute?
I was banned without warning from the "feelies" thread
(clearly in violation of established thread rules). What's
worse, I did not violate any thread rules. That is a cold
hard fact. Here is the offending post....
Message 21104365
Note that my post is absolute proof that Grannie was in clear
violation of thread rules. I did not violate a single thread
rule. My post was factual & informational. No more, no less.
I'll note that you did not admonish Grannie for that horrific
breech of multiple thread protocols. She attacked Carolyn
long after she had been banned. Carolyn couldn't even defend
herself from Grannie & others who openly talked about Carolyn
that day.
Instead she summarily banned me also in violation of
established thread rules.
How rude, malicious & personal is that?
I will also note that you did not come to my defense since
I was summarily banned from a thread that purports to embrace
diversity of thought, inclusiveness & fairness.
And don't expect me to hope that Grannie will ever lift my
ban no matter what I post on SI. She is on record multiple
times saying that my ban as well as most others are
permanent. She has said this even though she has been asked
repeatedly to substantiate the reasons for our bans & has
been completely unable to provide a factual or credible
reasons for them.
So even though I have gone for extremely long periods where I
did not mention Grannie or the "feelies" thread, the point is
moot. And when I do mention her or the thread, my posts are
factually accurate, reality based assessments. That would be
unlike the numerous unsubstantiated assertions & attacks that
are frequently posted on the "feelies" thread.
...."It's not your politics, or your issues, it's the way your posts attack people, and how very unpleasant your posts are."
There you go again. Another personal attack. And it's your
unsubstantiated personal opinion to boot.
Would you care to link me to a few of what you consider prime
examples of "the way your posts attack people, and how
very unpleasant your posts are"?
I'll gladly discuss them with you & compare them to a few of
your posts that qualify as "attacks" & "unpleasant" "posts".
...."But this really isn't about me."
LOL! I beg to differ. After all, I do read a lot of your
posts, including this one. Let's look at what you say next....
...."My ignores aren't equal or exceeding my bookmarks, and I'm not banned anywhere except the You Are Banned thread"
I think Webster would call this innuendo &/or sanctimonious,
don't you?
And you just said, "this really isn't about me". Go figure.
And as for bans & ignores, it is well established on SI that
liberal threads ban conservatives far quicker & do it for the
flimsiest of reasons. Like "feelies", they want singleness of
thought - liberal of course. And they do not want any
dissenting POVs PERIOD. They shout it down, ignore it & ban
it to accomplish their groupthink collective. On the other
hand conservatives are much slower to ban even the most vile,
ignorant & intentionally disruptive libs.
FYI, 7 of the 8 threads I'm banned from involve ZERO thread
rule violations including no personal attacks. I can prove
that if you like (replete with links). 5 of the 8 threads are
long dead & 1 thread is nearly dead. It's not like I'm
racking up bans based on my current posting. And & it's
unlikely the dead threads will ever release folks from their
ban list.
So what was your point anyway?
Oh, I see what it is. More of that same meme "you're mean,
rude & unworthy" unsubstantiated opinion of yours...
...." I like the way threads are run on SI. I'm glad conservatives can talk amongst themselves, and I'm glad liberals can do that, and I'm glad other moderators choose to boot people off for rudeness. It's a marketplace of threads here, and I like that, but I do think they should be about ideas and not bashing other folks posting on SI. If you want to be able to shop more broadly in the market of threads, change the way you act- the currency on SI is your ability to get along with people"
That may be your perception (read revisionist history), but
it's not reality based.
You perceive that I personally attack because I am mean &
rude.
You perceive that is why I was banned & why folks ignore me.
You perceive that you do no such thing.
You perceive that getting along is the main currency of SI.
You are wrong on all counts.
And your version of libs & conservatives talking amongst
themselves is most often close minded inflexible ideologues
protecting a groupthink environment ("getting along"). That is
no marketplace of ideas. And it is by no means open,
inclusive or tolerant. It's about protecting one inflexible
set of non-reality based ideas to the exclusion of all others.
...."I used to act kind of like you do now, and I didn't find it made for great communication."
Gee, I thought it wasn't about you?
....."But we all learn our own lessons at our own pace."
Amazing! You rip me a big one for my alleged personal attacks
& all you do is attack me over & over.
Perhaps your learning process is much slower than you think
it is. Sometimes folks who fancy themselves to be
intellectual elites who also have huge egos tend to be quite
blind to reality. |
