|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,064 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,064 Likes: 31 |
Well, Wednesday, I see you've been making bitter personal assumptions about my person and character, in four lengthy posts while I was away from the boards.
Many of the issues you raise have been answered previously, in many prior topics where similar bitter attacks, and relentless assumptions about my alleged "anger" and "hate" of all liberals, despite how many times I've made clear as I did just a few posts ago on page 3 of this very topic, that there are many Democrats in the Senate and Congress that I respect as civil and respectfully offering constructive criticism of the Republican policies.
Ans as I've said also, many times, there are MANY liberals here on the boards ( Chant, JQ, Franta, etc. ) who I have no hostile interaction with, because they don't launch the snottiness and personal attacks on me that a certain 6 or 7 liberal assholes do here.
More specific to you, Wednesday, I would like to respond politely to your questions, but I'm not even sure I should bother responding to you, based on your comments to this and several other previous topics:
You solicit long intelligent well-thought-out answers, and then say you can't be bothered to read them.
And you'll notice in the Reagan topic, as in many other topics, that I was trying very hard to be polite, until I was baited and baited and baited until I finally responded to liberal snottiness.
If you go back to page 2 of this topic where I first posted...
And then read both yours and Animalman's initial responses, I see my initial post as, without rancor, offering a factual correction to a false notion you asserted about McCarthyism allegedly feuling the "In God We Trust" on paper currency, which I politely corrected.
And yours and Animalman's responses to my post were each a full-scale, thermonuclear, deeply personal and angry response to what I initially posted, that solicited an obligatory lengthy response from me. And then Steve T and Disco Steve chimed in.
And even so, I labored to stay on topic and not get personal except for responding to the personal attacks on me.
Far from my alleged "hate", it is clear in your responses that you guys HATE ME, and lash out every time I post to the DEEP THOUGHTS forum.
Quote:
Wednesday said:
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
As I've said many times and across many topics, I do respect alternative liberal views, when those liberal views are presented respectfully, and without deliberate and emotionally charged distortion of the facts.
I asked you to show me quotes where I've been condescending without provocation. Let me give you another challenge. Accept this as an additional challenge or a replacement, whichever you prefer:
You've been registered on these boards since Sep 12 2001, over three years. Show me a handful of instances, say... ten, where you've been respectful to alternative liberal views. Ten Deep Thoughts threads where someone has said something you don't agree with, you went back and forth, and you remained calm until the end. Ten in three years, that's all I ask.
Geez, what an insulting notion. I challenge you to find 10 of your own.
But as I said on page 2 of this topic, you are civil as often as you are snotty. Would that you held yourself to the same standard.
And I would add that I don't bait and bait with personal attacks to the point that I force them to respond, as you, Animalman and others do.
Here are 10. And there are certainly plenty more:
This next topic, as well as the Ronald Reagan Dies topic (already linked above), are examples where I did my level best to be polite while others made bitter personal insults toward me, and repeatedly tried to bait me into a flame war:
Coalition forces torture Iraqi prisoners 5-1 to 7-21
HERE
Needless to say, there are MANY topics which follow that pattern, where I try to keep it on-topic, or at least polite, but others repeatedly get in my face with personal attacks and compel me to respond at some point.
For similar solicited flame wars, see also:
"It's not about oil or Iraq..."
http://www.rkmbs.com/...;o=&fpart=1
Do liberals HATE the President?
HERE
Do liberals HATE America?
HERE
Islamic Ignorance(the first topic I exchanged posts with you Wednesday. You will note you got in my face with an unprovoked insult while I was simply addressing the topic)
HERE
Quote:
Wednesday said:
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
I believe I've been very clear in my many prior posts in stating exactly what annoys me, in distorted emotionally charged liberal statements.
Wait, you're annoyed by emotionally charged statements? I don't think there were any emotionally charged statements on this thread before your first post. I could be wrong about that, but I remember a sense of calm before this whole motto fiasco.
As I said, I voiced mild annoyance at liberal tactics, and mostly just offered a factual correction in my inital post here.
It was you and Animalman who went ballistic.
And then Steve T. and Disco Steve chimed in, and all of you demonstrate far more anger and outright hatred than I could ever hope to.
It is liberal tactics of name-calling, insults and strawman personal attacks that I dislike, not liberals themselves. If and when you guys ever stop, we'll get along fine.
Quote:
Wednesday said:
Distorted? You do realize, of course, that distortion is a personal point of view. Even if the things we say are based on facts, which sometimes they are and sometimes they're not, our posts--everyone's posts, including yours-- are generally still opinions. That includes every post you've made in this thread. It's not distortion, it's opinion that differs from yours.
I agree that we all have opinions. The level of rancor from the Left is what solicits a backlash from myself and others on the Right.
There are issues that can clearly be defined as right and wrong (terrorism, murder, genocide, drug use, the indisputable role of Christianity in founding American democracy). I notice liberals have a far greater tendency to rationalize evil away dismissively. Which partly explains my aversion to liberalism, which so often tries to think outside the box, that it asserts arguments and social programs that defy common sense.
But I don't mean to imply that liberalism as a whole is wrong. But I oppose virtually everything that is championed in the name of liberalism over the last 35 years.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 7,587
7500+ posts
|
|
7500+ posts
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 7,587 |
Gawd, Wonder Bread, nobody cares.
While I find you irritating, I am not acting out of hate. I simply made the connection that both you and G-Man are obsessed with homosexuality, and should go on a date. I'm trying to hook you up, dogg. Homie-G. Whatever.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
|
|
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618 |
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
Well, Wednesday, I see you've been making bitter personal assumptions about my person and character, in four lengthy posts while I was away from the boards.
Of course!
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
Many of the issues you raise have been answered in many other topics where similar bitter attacks, and assumptions about my alleged "anger" and "hate" of all liberals, despite how many times I've made clear as I did just a few posts ago on page 3 of this very topic, that there are many Democrats in the Senate and Congress that I respect as civil and respectfully offering constructive criticism of the Republican policies.
Ans as I've said also, many times, there are MANY liberals here on the boards ( Chant, JQ, Franta, etc. ) who I have no hostile interaction with, because they don't launch the snottiness and personal attacks on me that a certain 6 or 7 liberal assholes do here.
I've honestly looked on pages 2, 3, and 4 of this topic to find your comment about Democrats in Congress, but I can't. I must not be looking hard enough. Could you please quote it?
You have very limited dealings with both Chant and Franta. Also, Chant does not count himself as a liberal, and I don't remember Franta ever saying that he was either. JQ is another story. To my knowledge your interactions with JQ mirror your interactions with me, but I don't remember any specific ones so I'll give it to you.
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
More specific to you, Wednesday, I would like to respond politely, but I'm not even sure I should bother responding to you, based on your comments to this and several other topics:
Ronald Reagan Dies
http://www.rkmbs.com/...=16&fpart=6
You solicit long intelligent well-thought-out answers, and then say you can't be bothered to read them.
And you'll notice in the Reagan topic, as in many other topics, that I was trying very hard to be polite, until I was baited and baited and baited until I finally responded to liberal snottiness.
I'm amazed that you brought up that thread. Isn't that where you called me a raging troll asshole?
Also of note in that thread:
Quote:
Wednesday said:
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
I find that hard to believe, considering the relentless
antagonism you provide here in response to virtually every
topic I post to.
I'm a pretty forgiving guy, but I don't treat people who
constantly misrepresent me and constantly launch personal
atrtacks on me like they're my friends.
Please post examples of this relentless antagonism. If you mean that I disagree with you, then you're basically faulting me for posting my own opinions to the same topics to which you post your opinions. If I've posted relentless antagonisms toward you, specifically, then let me know.
And you responded:
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
Basically, I think you meant your post to be more mutually critical of sniping from both the Left and the Right here on the boards, and through either your writing or my perception, it came across more left-favoring than you wanted it to be.
And I think the further into it, the more balanced your criticism got. My apologies for remaining in defense mode while you were being conciliatory.
.
.
Just a general expression of unleashed emotion on a board where nothing can be deleted.
Which I think tends to happen more when two people discuss their opinionated opinions, instead of shared facts. Which is why I tend to post long. Effectively or not, I try to lay out the facts as I understand them. But again, I see your point about brevity, and I'll work on it.
I said we were both being misconstrued. Then you called my offer to buy you beer kind and said you appreciated it.
Those quotes are from page 6 of that thread.
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
If you go back to page 2 of this topic where I first posted...
And then read both yours and Animalman's initial responses, I see my initial post as, without rancor, offering a factual correction to a false notion you asserted about McCarthyism feuling the "In God We Trust" on paper currency, which I politely corrected.
And yours and Animalman's responses to my post were each a full-scale, thermonuclear, deeply personal and angry response to what I initially posted, that solicited an obligatory lengthy response from me. And then Steve T and Disco Steve chimed in.
And even so, I labored to stay on topic and not get personal except for responding to the personal attacks on me.
Far from my alleged "hate", it is clear in your responses that you guys HATE ME, and lash out every time I post to the DEEP THOUGHTS forum.
Your first sentence in this thread was the oft-quoted:
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
I get really sick of reading liberal rationalizations based on historical "facts" that are so buttfucking wrong !
Second, no false notion was ever asserted. You've assigned meaning to something that never had any.
The reason people chimed in was because you were ignoring the fact that I said paper money which is not all currency.
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
Geez, what an insulting notion. I challenge you to find 10 of your own. But as I said on page 2 of this topic, you are civil as often as you are snotty. Would that you held yourself to the same standard. And I would add that I don't bait and bait with personal attacks to the point that I force them to respond, as you, Animalman and others do.
Here are 10. And there are certainly plenty more:
Bush's Speech 9-3 (Democrat Bush bashing)
http://www.rkmbs.com/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/323821/page/6/fpart/1/vc/1
The Sex Txt Teacher 9-7 (teacher pedophilia, Mary kay Letorneau)
http://www.rkmbs.com/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/326069/page/6/fpart/2/vc/1
Dave the Wonder Boy LIED! 8-16
http://www.rkmbs.com/...e=9&fpart=1
Supreme Court Preserves 'God' in Pledge 6-13 to 8-22
http://www.rkmbs.com/...=11&fpart=2
Ronstadt Booed for Supporting Michael Moore 7-20-04
http://www.rkmbs.com/...=12&fpart=1
I'll wait for the full list of ten.
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
This one, as well as the Ronald Reagan Dies topic (above), are examples where examples where I did my level best to be polite while others made bitter personal insults toward me:
Coalition forces torture Iraqi prisoners 5-1 to 7-21
http://www.rkmbs.com/...=13&fpart=1
See my points above about that topic. I think anything else I say will be viewed as snotty.
Quote:
Wednesday said:
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
I believe I've been very clear in my many prior posts in stating exactly what annoys me, in distorted emotionally charged liberal statements.
Wait, you're annoyed by emotionally charged statements? I don't think there were any emotionally charged statements on this thread before your first post. I could be wrong about that, but I remember a sense of calm before this whole motto fiasco.
Distorted? You do realize, of course, that distortion is a personal point of view. Even if the things we say are based on facts, which sometimes they are and sometimes they're not, our posts--everyone's posts, including yours-- are generally still opinions. That includes every post you've made in this thread. It's not distortion, it's opinion that differs from yours.
Thanks for the quote  .
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
|
|
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618 |
Quote:
Disco Steve said:
Gawd, Wonder Bread, nobody cares.
While I find you irritating, I am not acting out of hate. I simply made the connection that both you and G-Man are obsessed with homosexuality, and should go on a date. I'm trying to hook you up, dogg. Homie-G. Whatever.
I care because I can't sleep.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 7,587
7500+ posts
|
|
7500+ posts
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 7,587 |
Good sir, are you implying that his posts are sleep-inducing?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
|
|
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618 |
Sir, I would never dream of implying such a thing.
*yawn*
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
|
|
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 7,587
7500+ posts
|
|
7500+ posts
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 7,587 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
|
|
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618 |
Thanks for the list. That makes this easier. By the way, when you use the list feature, you have to [ * ] each list item (without spaces). Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
Bush's Speech 9-3 (Democrat Bush bashing)
HERE
Well, when I said back and forth I meant more than one reply. A discourse, if you will. However, I'll give you this one. You had one response to DK and you were very civil.
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
The Sex Txt Teacher 9-7 (teacher pedophilia, Mary kay Letorneau)
HERE
You don't have a back and forth with a liberal here.
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
Dave the Wonder Boy LIED! 8-16
http://www.rkmbs.com/...e=9&fpart=1
Again I meant more than one reply. I will definitely give to you, however, that you responded with civility to JQ's assault.
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
Supreme Court Preserves 'God' in Pledge 6-13 to 8-22
http://www.rkmbs.com/...=11&fpart=2
Okay, maybe it's time for me to be a little more specific. I wanted you to show me that you could have a discussion with a liberal that didn't get messy. A string of calm replies is what I was looking for.
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
Ronstadt Booed for Supporting Michael Moore 7-20-04
http://www.rkmbs.com/...=12&fpart=1
Well, I guess I should get through the list. Again only one reply. This is probably my fault for not defining what I meant. Also, in this thread you don't really respond to anyone, just the general article itself.
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
Kerry Edwards 7-6 ( Dem V P ticket announced )
HERE
You were civil... to the G-man.
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
Viewing Modern American Politics With 1776 Eyes
HERE
That's a two-post thread, and yours was the first post.
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
Putin: Russia Gave Bush Iraq Intelligence 6-18-04
HERE
One response to whomod.
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
Nightline Tribute To Fallen US Troops 4-29-2004
HERE
One response to DK.
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
Damn Aussies Killed the Planet 5-13
HERE
There are no liberals on this thread.
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
"person of the century" 6-6-04 (Hitler, Roosevelt, Stalin, Churchill Reagan)
http://www.rkmbs.com/...=17&fpart=1
What liberal(s) were you replying to in this thread. Again it seems like you were talking to everyone, and you made only one post. Definitely not a back and forth, however you define it.
For many of these I think you can see why they can't be counted. For those that were civil, I again apologize for not defining what I meant when I said "back and forth." I just figured everyone knew what that meant.
Anyway, can you find threads where you were civil with a liberal in a string of posts?
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
This one, as well as the Ronald Reagan Dies topic (above), are examples where examples where I did my level best to be polite while others made bitter personal insults toward me:
Coalition forces torture Iraqi prisoners 5-1 to 7-21
HERE
See my above post.
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
I agree that we all have opinions. The level of rancor from the Left is what solicits a backlash from myself and others on the Right.
You're the only one who responds to me the way you do in this forum... actually, on this entire board. I'm not taking it personally, though. I'm just trying to show that this isn't the team effort you think it is.
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
There are issues that can clearly be defined as right and wrong (terrorism, murder, genocide, drug use, the indisputable role of Christianity in founding American democracy).
I like how you threw that last one in  . I'll leave that for your response to my other posts.
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
I notice liberals have a far greater tendency to rationalize evil away dismissively. Which partly explains my aversion to liberalism, which so often tries to thik outside the box, that it asserts arguments and social programs that defy common sense.
But I don't mean to imply that liberalism as a whole is wrong. But I oppose virtually everything that is championed in the name of liberalism over the last 35 years.
Well, you're a conservative. I'd expect you to feel that way.
Care to guess how I feel as a liberal?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,064 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,064 Likes: 31 |
Gee, what a surprise, I take the time to respond with polite answers, and you respond with more snide remarks, mockery and condescension:
Quote:
Wednesday said:
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
Well, Wednesday, I see you've been making bitter personal assumptions about my person and character, in four lengthy posts while I was away from the boards.
Of course!
A sample of that mockery I was talking about.
So much for the slightest appreciation for me giving you a thoughtful and serious answer.
Quote:
Wednesday said:
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
Many of the issues you raise have been answered in many other topics where similar bitter attacks, and assumptions about my alleged "anger" and "hate" of all liberals, despite how many times I've made clear as I did just a few posts ago on page 3 of this very topic, that there are many Democrats in the Senate and Congress that I respect as civil and respectfully offering constructive criticism of the Republican policies.
Ans as I've said also, many times, there are MANY liberals here on the boards ( Chant, JQ, Franta, etc. ) who I have no hostile interaction with, because they don't launch the snottiness and personal attacks on me that a certain 6 or 7 liberal assholes do here.
I've honestly looked on pages 2, 3, and 4 of this topic to find your comment about Democrats in Congress, but I can't. I must not be looking hard enough. Could you please quote it?
No. based on your wasting this much of my time, and being a jerk about it besides, look for it yourself.
Quote:
Wednesday said:
You have very limited dealings with both Chant and Franta. Also, Chant does not count himself as a liberal, and I don't remember Franta ever saying that he was either. JQ is another story. To my knowledge your interactions with JQ mirror your interactions with me, but I don't remember any specific ones so I'll give it to you.
You don't know as much as you think you do. I've exchanged at least 100 posts with Chant, across "It's not about oil or Iraq" and other topics.
While to some JQ might be virtually identical to Whomod, I see a lot more of a serious quest for answers in JQ, despite that I disagree with his views. Again, you're dead wrong about the interaction between JQ and me. The harshest post I've ever given JQ was in his Dave the Wonder Boy LIED! topic (linked above), where I come right out and say that despit his liberal views I generally respect his posts, and was disturbed by his recent trend toward more Whomod-like antagonistic posting.
Franta I don't deal as much with, maybe 30 or 40 posts in the recent past, but Franta has a good sense of humor, and I recognize his jokes toward me as jokes, rather than the usual veiled attacks cloaked as "humor" by several others here.
Quote:
Wednesday said:
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
More specific to you, Wednesday, I would like to respond politely, but I'm not even sure I should bother responding to you, based on your comments to this and several other topics:
Ronald Reagan Dies
http://www.rkmbs.com/...=16&fpart=6
You solicit long intelligent well-thought-out answers, and then say you can't be bothered to read them.
And you'll notice in the Reagan topic, as in many other topics, that I was trying very hard to be polite, until I was baited and baited and baited until I finally responded to liberal snottiness.
I'm amazed that you brought up that thread. Isn't that where you called me a raging troll asshole?
Yes I did, and appropriately so. As I noted toward the end, you later became more conciliatory, and I responded in kind when you did.
Quote:
Wednesday said:
Also of note:
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
I find that hard to believe, considering the relentless
antagonism you provide here in response to virtually every
topic I post to.
I'm a pretty forgiving guy, but I don't treat people who
constantly misrepresent me and constantly launch personal
atrtacks on me like they're my friends.
Please post examples of this relentless antagonism. If you mean that I disagree with you, then you're basically faulting me for posting my own opinions to the same topics to which you post your opinions. If I've posted relentless antagonisms toward you, specifically, then let me know.
.
And you responded:
.
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
Basically, I think you meant your post to be more mutually critical of sniping from both the Left and the Right here on the boards, and through either your writing or my perception, it came across more left-favoring than you wanted it to be.
And I think the further into it, the more balanced your criticism got. My apologies for remaining in defense mode while you were being conciliatory.
.
.
Just a general expression of unleashed emotion on a board where nothing can be deleted.
Which I think tends to happen more when two people discuss their opinionated opinions, instead of shared facts. Which is why I tend to post long. Effectively or not, I try to lay out the facts as I understand them. But again, I see your point about brevity, and I'll work on it.
I said we were both being misconstrued. Then you called my offer to buy you beer kind and said you appreciated it.
Those quotes are from page 6 of that thread.
As I said, I don't look for flame wars, and ignore as much as I can (about 50% of the time, I see the insults and snide remarks, and don't respond). When you flamed me, I felt obligated to respond. When your tone became conciliatory, I likewise welcomed the chance to do the same.
Quote:
Wednesday said:
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
If you go back to page 2 of this topic where I first posted...
And then read both yours and Animalman's initial responses, I see my initial post as, without rancor, offering a factual correction to a false notion you asserted about McCarthyism feuling the "In God We Trust" on paper currency, which I politely corrected.
And yours and Animalman's responses to my post were each a full-scale, thermonuclear, deeply personal and angry response to what I initially posted, that solicited an obligatory lengthy response from me. And then Steve T and Disco Steve chimed in.
And even so, I labored to stay on topic and not get personal except for responding to the personal attacks on me.
Far from my alleged "hate", it is clear in your responses that you guys HATE ME, and lash out every time I post to the DEEP THOUGHTS forum.
Your first sentence in this thread was the oft-quoted:
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
I get really sick of reading liberal rationalizations based on historical "facts" that are so buttfucking wrong !
I guess you're portraying "buttfucking wrong" as the ultimate insult to your mother or something. I already said, several times here that it was just a goofy-sounding phrase, as harmless a phrase as saying "that's WHACK!"
Quote:
Wednesday said:
Second, no false notion was ever asserted. You've assigned meaning to something that never had any.
The reason people chimed in was because you were ignoring the fact that I said paper money which is not all currency.
The reason they chimed in is because they're liberal partisans trying to harass me.
I already explained that "In God We Trust" was on coins for 89 years before it was added to paper currency in 1957, and that this was part of a larger trend toward more recognition of our Christian heritage that began with the end of the Civil War in 1866 (as I said, as my twice-repeated links said) and resulted in Christian heritage additions to government institutions over many decades, independent of McCarthyism.
Quote:
Wednesday said:
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
Geez, what an insulting notion. I challenge you to find 10 of your own. But as I said on page 2 of this topic, you are civil as often as you are snotty. Would that you held yourself to the same standard. And I would add that I don't bait and bait with personal attacks to the point that I force them to respond, as you, Animalman and others do.
Here are 10. And there are certainly plenty more:
Bush's Speech 9-3 (Democrat Bush bashing)
HERE
The Sex Txt Teacher 9-7 (teacher pedophilia, Mary kay Letorneau)
HERE
Dave the Wonder Boy LIED! 8-16
http://www.rkmbs.com/...e=9&fpart=1
Supreme Court Preserves 'God' in Pledge 6-13 to 8-22
http://www.rkmbs.com/...=11&fpart=2
Ronstadt Booed for Supporting Michael Moore 7-20-04
http://www.rkmbs.com/...=12&fpart=1
I'll wait for the full list of ten.
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
This one, as well as the Ronald Reagan Dies topic (above), are examples where examples where I did my level best to be polite while others made bitter personal insults toward me:
Coalition forces torture Iraqi prisoners 5-1 to 7-21
http://www.rkmbs.com/...=13&fpart=1
See my points above about that topic. I think anything else I say will be viewed as snotty.
An ambiguous remark, from which I can determine neither your sincerity or your sarcasm, whichever was intended.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
|
|
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618 |
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
Geez, what an insulting notion. I challenge you to find 10 of your own.
Ok...
And there are threads which are more like yours, where I only responded once to conservatives. I won't list them (unless you ask) but I'll give an example:
FOR MY LIBERAL FRIENDS
I know I didn't give page numbers, and I apologize. I didn't realize my blunder until I was almost done with the list. If you want to see that specific posts, however, it's quite easy. Just do what I did. Do a search for posts by me in Deep Thoughts over the last three weeks and go to every thread where I've had a discourse (back and forth) with a conservative.
Also, if you'd like you can use the pages in this thread before your first post.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
|
|
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618 |
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
A sample of that mockery I was talking about.
So much for the slightest appreciation for me giving you a thoughtful and serious answer.
Yep, I was mocking the first paragraph of your reply. After all this, I really don't think anyone is gonna fault me for that one.
That was a veiled liberal attempt at humor, btw, and so is this sentence.
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
No. based on your wasting this much of my time, and being a jerk about it besides, look for it yourself.
I was being a jerk about it?
Quote:
Wednesday said:
I've honestly looked on pages 2, 3, and 4 of this topic to find your comment about Democrats in Congress, but I can't. I must not be looking hard enough. Could you please quote it?
Hm. Okay.
Looked for it again. Still can't find it. Can anyone else point it out to me?
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
You don't know as much as you think you do. I've exchanged at least 100 posts with Chant, across "It's not about oil or Iraq" and other topics.
While to some JQ might be virtually identical to Whomod, I see a lot more of a serious quest for answers in JQ, despite that I disagree with his views. Again, you're dead wrong about the interaction between JQ and me. The harshest post I've ever given JQ was in his Dave the Wonder Boy LIED! topic (linked above), where I come right out and say that despit his liberal views I generally respect his posts, and was disturbed by his recent trend toward more Whomod-like antagonistic posting.
Franta I don't deal as much with, maybe 30 or 40 posts in the recent past, but Franta has a good sense of humor, and I recognize his jokes toward me as jokes, rather than the usual veiled attacks cloaked as "humor" by several others here.
Chant: The oil thread was a long time ago. And even if, it still remains that he isn't a liberal.
JQ: As I said I don't know anything specific about you and him. I gave you this one.
Franta: As I said, limited dealings. Also, he's never stated that he's a liberal, that I can remember.
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
Yes I did, and appropriately so. As I noted toward the end, you later became more conciliatory, and I responded in kind when you did.
I'll let the quotes I posted above and the Ronald Reagan thread itself (which you were nice enough to link to) stand for themselves here.
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
If you go back to page 2 of this topic where I first posted...
And then read both yours and Animalman's initial responses, I see my initial post as, without rancor, offering a factual correction to a false notion you asserted about McCarthyism feuling the "In God We Trust" on paper currency, which I politely corrected.
And yours and Animalman's responses to my post were each a full-scale, thermonuclear, deeply personal and angry response to what I initially posted, that solicited an obligatory lengthy response from me. And then Steve T and Disco Steve chimed in.
And even so, I labored to stay on topic and not get personal except for responding to the personal attacks on me.
Far from my alleged "hate", it is clear in your responses that you guys HATE ME, and lash out every time I post to the DEEP THOUGHTS forum.
Quote:
Wednesday said:
Your first sentence in this thread was the oft-quoted:
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
I get really sick of reading liberal rationalizations based on historical "facts" that are so buttfucking wrong !
I guess you're portraying "buttfucking wrong" as the ultimate insult to your mother or something. I already said, several times here that it was just a goofy-sounding phrase, as harmless a phrase as saying "that's WHACK!"
How kind of you to bring my mother into this. I'm actually glad you did. Now everyone can see.
I have never, ever brought ANYONE'S mother into any post I've ever made on this board in any sort of negative way. THAT is truly insulting.
And my point is not that buttfucking is any sort of phrase. Actually, I'm talking about the first part of the quote, where you call what I'm doing "liberal rationalizing based on historical 'facts'...."
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
Quote:
Wednesday said:
Second, no false notion was ever asserted. You've assigned meaning to something that never had any.
The reason people chimed in was because you were ignoring the fact that I said paper money which is not all currency.
The reason they chimed in is because they're your liberal partisan pals trying to harass me.
I already explained that "In God We Trust" was on coins for 89 years before it was added to paper currency in 1957, and that this was part of a larger trend toward more recognition of our Christian heritage that began with the end of the Civil War in 1866 (as I said, as my twice-repeated links said).
My liberal partisan pals were trying to harass you? Do you still believe that the liberals on this board have it out for you? Are you completely closed to the idea that the only reason they chimed in was because you were arguing against the obvious and assigning your own meaning to my post again and again?
This was not a liberal gang-up. We're just not that tightly knit.
And what you repeated about the "In God We Trust" motto has nothing to do with what we're discussing now.
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
An ambiguous remark, from which I can determine neither your sincerity or your sarcasm, whichever was intended.
Well, take from it whatever you like.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,949
2500+ posts
|
|
2500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,949 |
I'm probably going to regret getting in the middle of this, but I'm only going to make one suggestion, and then I'm gone. Take it or leave it, it's your call.
Dave TWB, Wednesday: since it seems like it's personal between you two, maybe you should talk to Rob about your problems with each other? I'm just thinking that instead of duking it out and making the problem worse, you might want/need a third party to step in? Considering Rob stepped in during the Chris Oakley thing back on the off-topic boards when things got really bad, maybe he can help settle this feud somehow if you think things between you two have gotten bad enough?
Again, just a random suggestion that popped into my mind. Take it or leave it. But this is all I'm gonna say about it.
(Other than the fact that you two probably have better things to do with your time than slug it out with each other.)
Last edited by Darknight613; 2004-11-07 5:26 PM.
"Well when I talk to people I don't have to worry about spelling." - wannabuyamonkey
"If Schumacher’s last effort was the final nail in the coffin then Year One would’ve been the crazy guy who stormed the graveyard, dug up the coffin and put a bullet through the franchise’s corpse just to make sure." -- From a review of Darren Aronofsky & Frank Miller's "Batman: Year One" script
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
|
|
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618 |
Mediation? You don't think this has gone that far, do you? This is just another exchange that has remained calm for the most part. I can't speak for DtWB but I'm not taking this personally. The only time where I really felt he crossed the line was when he brought my mom into this. I mean, that's just wrong.
I'll never cower to anyone who wants to make things personal, but if it seems that it's just gone too far, then I'm cool with dropping it right here. I think I've said enough on the matter anyways, and I have no problem letting things lie where they are.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,949
2500+ posts
|
|
2500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,949 |
Quote:
Wednesday said:
Mediation? You don't think this has gone that far, do you?
I dunno. This is about how you and Dave TWB feel, not the rest of us. If you don't think mediation is called for, then by all means ignore my suggestion.
Quote:
This is just another exchange that has remained calm for the most part.
 This is calm?
Quote:
I can't speak for DtWB but I'm not taking this personally. The only time where I really felt he crossed the line was when he brought my mom into this. I mean, that's just wrong.
Your call.
Quote:
I'll never cower to anyone who wants to make things personal, but if it seems that it's just gone too far, then I'm cool with dropping it right here. I think I've said enough on the matter anyways, and I have no problem letting things lie where they are.
Again, you and Dave TWB are the only ones who can judge whether this has gone too far. I was just making an observation and trying to make a helpful suggestion.
"Well when I talk to people I don't have to worry about spelling." - wannabuyamonkey
"If Schumacher’s last effort was the final nail in the coffin then Year One would’ve been the crazy guy who stormed the graveyard, dug up the coffin and put a bullet through the franchise’s corpse just to make sure." -- From a review of Darren Aronofsky & Frank Miller's "Batman: Year One" script
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
|
|
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618 |
Quote:
Darknight613 said:
Quote:
This is just another exchange that has remained calm for the most part.
This is calm?
For the most part. The posts have become noticeably long, true, but it's all been shrug-and-type for me. My blood pressure hasn't changed.
I wouldn't call this a flame war but I realize I'm looking at it from the inside.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,064 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,064 Likes: 31 |
Quote:
Darknight613 said:
Dave TWB, Wednesday: since it seems like it's personal between you two, maybe you should talk to Rob about your problems with each other? I'm just thinking that instead of duking it out and making the problem worse, you might want/need a third party to step in? Considering Rob stepped in during the Chris Oakley thing back on the off-topic boards when things got really bad, maybe he can help settle this feud somehow if you think things between you two have gotten bad enough?
DK, I appreciate your sincere, non-partisan, non-inflammatory suggestion to find a way actually resolve this ongoing conflict between me and Wednesday.
As I believe is no secret to anyone here, you and I, we've previously had our differences. And now we don't clash anymore, so it's an example of what's possible, in these boards hopefully becoming more civil.
While I appreciate the suggestion, I don't think our disagreement (me and Wednesday) quite rises to the level of needing moderation. I'm pretty close to walking away from this topic.
I initially believed that Wednesday was sincere in wanting to resolve this, and that is the ONLY reason I've given three topic pages of lengthy responses here to this topic.
But...
I'm frankly a little fed up with Wednesday's condescending smart-assed remarks here, false allegations toward me, and red-herring bullshit issues (particularly the "mother" thing, which I think pretty clearly to anyone not trying to start some crap, was an innocent remark on my part, and clearly not directed at his mother. )
I made a similar remark in the Ronald Reagan Dies topic (page 6). I feel increasingly like Wednesday is trying to pin some crap on me, to "gotcha" me out of context.
And in that atmosphere, forget it, we're done here.
Wednesday,
If you want to begin a period of mutually respectful posting between yourself and me, do it, and I'll respond in kind.
But if you continue with this attitude that even my sincere efforts to resolve things is a springboard for mockery of me and jokes at my expense, by you and other liberal trolls here, and that you can label me an angry partisan for merely responding, minimally at that to the bullshit you and other liberals toss at me, then you unquestionably are a malicious troll asshole, and I won't give you a free pass while you go on with your attacks, I'll fire back.
I hasten to add that this post excerpt from last night by Wednesday...
Quote:
Wednesday said:
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
Well, Wednesday, I see you've been making bitter personal assumptions about my person and character, in four lengthy posts while I was away from the boards.
Of course!
...has been, quite spinelessly, edited, removing an incriminating part where you said that you and several other liberal (troll asshole) posters had a bet (over e-mail or private message, I forget) prior to my responding to these four posts, that I would respond saying you made bitter personal assumptions about me in your four-post salvo.
When I saw that last night, I stopped posting. Sincerity went out the window when you posted that.
First, you were contemptuously mocking me while I was trying to give you sincere answers toward a resolution of our ongoing disagreement.
Second, that's just plain mean-spirited, sending me on a fool's errand to look up topics where I posted previously (topics where political issues were discussed, topics where despite polar disagreement, I didn't pull the conversation down into flame-wars of angry disagreement, as you allege I constantly do), and you did so, apparently, just to mock me, and have a laugh at my expense behind my back with other liberal troll assholes on these boards.
Third, you lay down four posts HEAVY with all kinds of personal attacks on me, and then voice amusement and contempt for the fact that I responded precisely the way your asshole liberal troll allegations obligated me to.
And there are plenty of other asshole troll statements of yours in this topic I haven't responded to, that really warrant no further response.
No matter how much civility I try to demonstrate in minimally responding to a tiny fraction of the shit you throw at me, you and Animalman and others characterize my minimal responses as equal or worse than the far more bitter and angry vitriol you guys relentlessly toss at me, that provokes my response in the first place.
I really would like to put an end to the lack of civility in the DEEP THOUGHTS section, certainly an end to the venom directed at me personally.
And ideally, where ALL of us can post respectful disagreement, without all this anger.
As usual, this is another topic that where my political views have been eclipsed by the attacks on me personally, and even at this length I've responded to maybe 25% of the allegations you've raised.
And even my accepting your fool's errand, finding ten topics you requested (I actually posted 11 or 12), topics where I engaged in political debate with people who I disagreed with, several in which topics I was flamed and didn't respond) you quickly dismissed them (predictably).
Nice. So glad I wasted literally a couple of hours looking them up.
Even if I only responded with one or two posts in those 11 or so topics, if I'd been the angry/eager flame warrior you accuse me of being, I still would have jumped in flaming from the first post, flames blazing, from the moment I disagreed with anyone. Which DIDN'T happen.
I also listed many other topics where I did post a lot of back-and-forth, as you call it. Probably the topics I posted the most to were...
the Canada Allows Same-sex Marriage topic,
It's not about oil or Iraq topic
Do Liberals HATE the President topic,
and Do Liberals HATE America topic,
(all of which I gave links for above, I think, along with many others, which you didn't acknowledge)
...in which I often posted with great civility and lengthy back-and-forth, interrupted only when liberal troll assholes went for my jugular, and I responded defensively in kind, often only after lengthy attempts at polite response yielded no fruit.
So... you might consider holding yourself and other liberals to the same standard that you hold me. You might then see that my responses are incredibly restrained and polite, under the circumstances, and that the times I get genuinely angry in RKMB/DEEP THOUGHTS topics are remarkably rare, relative to the relentless antagonism of yourself and others.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,064 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,064 Likes: 31 |
From one of the 10 topics you listed, Wednesday, supposedly demonstrating a sustained "civil/respectful" back-and-forth in your responses to conservative RKMB posters:
Al-Quaeda urges people not to vote for Bush. , page 4
HERE
Quote:
Animalman said: Tue Nov 02 2004 01:31 AM
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
You're not much of a student of the history of war, are you?
Damn, I guess I've just lost the bet with Wednesday that I could have a conversation with you without being patronized. There's five bucks I won't get back.
Given the huge death totals, I'm not sure I'd consider the campaign to this point to be an overwhelming success. In any event, what I was getting at(not very effectively, judging by your response), is that "stabilizing the region" does not sound like a reasonable justification to me for aforementioned death totals, which climb higher with each passing day.
Quote:
You're clearly not following me
No, I was following you. I realize you didn't mention Kerry. I just didn't want to risk going down that avenue, an avenue that nearly all topics on this board seem to eventually go down, regardless of how irrevelant the comparison is to the original topic. Just look at the last few pages. Consider it a preemptive move(in a way, you could say that's one those war terms I'm blissfully unaware of, not being a "student of the history of war").
Quote:
Wednesday said: Tue Nov 02 2004 06:52 AM
Quote:
Animalman said:
Damn, I guess I've just lost the bet with Wednesday that I could have a conversation with you without being patronized. There's five bucks I won't get back.
I want my five dollars!
So... as evidenced here, you've made mocking bets against other conservative posters.
And it isn't, as you previously alleged, only me you treat this way because I'm supposedly so much more extreme. This treatment extends to WBAM, and as I've seen on other topics (not necessarily by you, but certainly by other liberals here on RKMB) similar vitriol and mean-spiritedness directed at G-man, BSAMS, Pariah, Mister JLA and other conservative posters.
I'll respond to your 10 listed topics in a later post.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
|
|
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618 |
Well, I wasn't going to post to this thread any more, but I can't resist asking:
Yeah, so? Is that what you would call an example of me being uncivil or disrespectful to an RKMB conservative?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 6,236
The Swizzler.... 6000+ posts
|
|
The Swizzler.... 6000+ posts
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 6,236 |
What difference does it make Dave? It's not like this is fox news network. It's robbies board ;P
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 129
100+ posts
|
|
100+ posts
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 129 |
These are the people who hijack the word patriot and liken compassion to child-molesting. And they are unknowingly bin Laden's chief recruiting officers.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,064 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,064 Likes: 31 |
Quote:
Wednesday said:
Well, I wasn't going to post to this thread any more, but I can't resist asking:
Yeah, so? Is that what you would call an example of me being uncivil or disrespectful to an RKMB conservative?
So, by your own words, you're absolutely full of shit when you say you strive for civility.
And also absolutely full of shit when you say you don't treat other conservative posters here with the same antagonistic crap you give me.
As I began to say before about the ten topics you gave, that allegedly demonstrate your civility, I see them as more incriminating of your posting style than as proof of your tact and civility.
And as critical as you are of my examples, there are only maybe two of the topics you list that demonstrate a sustained back-and-forth political discussion. And more often with zingers from you of 10 words or less, where it's more of a humorous one-liner or snide remark than a serious political discussion on your part.
These topics show mostly just random comments by you in response to others' posts, rather than a serious and prolonged back-and-forth by you on a single controversial issue.
Quote:
Wednesday said:
Same sex marriages banned in 11 states with Pariah
The first page is all one-liners by you, like I described.
Around page 6, you made a long post about several U.S. founding fathers, that I found interesting and insightful (although I think you make the point well that some of the founding fathers had limited respect for Christianity, or even open contempt for Christianity, I think this post of yours and its source gloss over the extensive writings of the various signers of the Declaration and Constitution who did value Christianity, and who considered Christian teachings as essential to good government and preservation of democracy, some of which I've quoted elsewhere).
You make your point about opposition to Christianity, but with quoted material that ignores the widespread support of the founding fathers for Christianity in U.S. government institutions, short of a single state-imposed religion such as the Anglican Church of England, or the Roman Catholic church they scorned, from which many of them fled Europe in order to practice freedom of religion in colonial Americs in the first place.
But back on point, this I thought was interesting, and some mostly friendly back-and-forth exchange after, then the focus of the topic drifted in many other directions over the remaining topic pages. Some sustained back-and-forth in spots, but also a lot of smart remarks and non-political levity, rather than sustained discussion.
Quote:
Did the election reveal a religious division in US? with you and with wbam. Perhaps the snarkiest I've been, but, in my defense, I felt provoked by being called a "pro-abortionist." Still, I was civil with you both.
No argument there. But again, a lot of brief posts and smart remarks, rather than a sustained in-depth discussion. A total of five posts by you, most less than 10 words.
Quote:
Winners & Losers In The 2004 Election with the G-man
Again, not a lot of detail or sustained back-and-forth through many posts.
You made a total of four posts. All were 10 words or less.
Quote:
Post Presidential Debate Questions Here! with Pariah
This isn't even a political topic, it's a light humor topic, using Warner Bros cartoon characters as presidential candidates.
Your four posts to this topic on page 3 are about selecting an RKMB board moderator, and not a political discussion where there was any potential heated difference of opinion.
Again, very brief remarks, no sustained in-depth back-and-forth discussion of politics.
Quote:
THE REAL DEBATE THREAD with wbam (and several replies to others)
Again, despite that you were there in the auditorium for the Bush/Kerry debate, no deep exploration of a single issue, beyond smart remarks, and how you think Kerry "wiped the floor" with Bush.
Just a lot of remarks of 10 words or less.
Quote:
Edwards' Wife Has Breast Cancer with wbam.
Let me point out here that I made one of the most antagonistic post towards anyone in a long time (if you don't include my replies to you DtWB) to PrincessElisa here. As I said in that post, however, I was holding back (and please believe me, I was). Also, that didn't carry over to wbam, the conservative who jumped in to calm things down. I was cordial with him and even posted a dancing banana.
You had three posts total to the topic, two of them less than 5 words, hardly a sustained political discussion.
In any case, it wasn't a model of civility. But it does have the redeeming quality that you lightened the mood of the topic when you posted the dancing banana. I actually enjoyed that quite a bit, and thought it was very funny. The comedy relief was very well received.
I like it a lot when you and others lighten things up like this, and while I do post humor myself (for which I'm never given credit by those who like to rip on me as "humorless") I would like in the future to do so more often.
Unrelated to your posts, I was especially annoyed that I said something very nice about Edwards' wife (a moment of non-partisanship on my part) and for my trouble, I was partisanly harassed by Steve T.
Quote:
Al-Quaeda urges people not to vote for Bush. with wbam.
A total of 11 posts by you, spread out over a 5-page topic.
PAGE 1 and 2: a smart-assed comment by you about Bin Ladin not being captured, and it took several inquiries by others and nearly an entire topic page for you to give like 5 words more of clarification of what you meant.
PAGE 2: a condescending shot at batwoman, comparing her to Whomod
PAGE 3: four posts about how Kennedy supposedly apologized for the failed Bay of Pigs invasion, presumably implying Bush should apologize for Iraq, or for not yet capturing Bin Ladin, or something.
PAGE 4: two posts by you, where you made a mocking bet with Animalman about WBAM's predicted response to a post (which I posted above, in my last post).
PAGE 5: no posts
Again, more very brief responses, from which your political views can barely be discerned, except when you voice condescending disapproval for what conservatives have posted. I didn't see this topic as a model of your civility either, let alone your sustained friendly back-and-forth discussion of a single issue.
Quote:
Kerry's response to BinLaden: A POLL?!?!? with wbam.
Six posts by you to a 20-post topic.
Many of your posts are similarly brief, but in this topic you do make more of an effort to clarify what the issue is, what Kerry's political alternatives may have been, and are at the same time more friendly and respectful than in other topics where you normally express vague annoyance with conservatives, without really detailing a position.
In contrast, I felt you clarified your position more in this topic, and were friendly about it while politely disagreeing with others.
So I'll give you this one, a friendly back-and-forth.
Quote:
I VOTED TODAY! with wbam.
Seven posts to a two-page topic. This is hardly a political discussion. This is more a collection of random comments to several posters who mention different things, and your saying "yeah" or "no".
No in-depth back-and forth of a single issue. Friendly, yes, to WBAM and others, but there was nothing in the topic to disagree about. And again, not an example of an impassioned but friendly back-and forth discussion of a single theme through your posts, just random stuff.
Quote:
But it doesn't look a day over 5000... with wbam.
A topic you began, where you made three total posts to an 11-post topic.
There is no back-and-forth here on your part, you posted an article, WBAM made a sarcastic remark, you asked "what do you mean by that?" in your second post. he clarified, and you said "oh, OK" in your last post.
To your credit, you were courteous and politely asked for clarification, instead of getting hostile. But it's not a back-and-forth, as you yourself describe the standard of one to be.
Quote:
And there are threads which are more like yours, where I only responded once to conservatives. I won't list them (unless you ask) but I'll give an example:
FOR MY LIBERAL FRIENDS
?!?
You actually have 5 posts here, spread across pages 1, 2, 5, and 7, of this 7-page topic.
Perhaps you see it as the same, when you make a single post and when I make a single post to a topic.
But I think it's pretty clear that even in a single one of my posts, I lay out in at least a paragraph or two, usually, the background for my perspective of the issue, often a link, and precisely why I beleive what I believe. In most of these topics, I lay down more details of my position in a brief editorial, and as often as not, move on after that. Although I prefer sustained topics where there is more interaction.
Brevity can be both good and bad.
Posting at length and editorializing can be both good and bad.
Two different approaches.
Captain Sammitch said in one topic that he posts less in DEEP THOUGHTS now, because rather than a friendly discussion when he posts, his posts to this section either start a flame-war, or are completely ignored.
As civil (or as impassioned) as any of our responses are, there's no guarantee that any of us will get the reaction we want, or any reaction at all.
That's why I've posted less as well. Sometimes a spirited debate is invigorating, but often I find it exhausting when it become bitter and overly personal, to the point where I'm just fielding someone's opinion of me, rather than being able to respectfully debate the topic issue at hand.
I've gone on at length in my response here for several reasons.
First, in reaction to the 10 topics I posted that you "graded", Wednesday, I wanted to similarly "grade" and give feedback to the ones you gave of your own "friendly back-and-forth topics. I frankly was annoyed at how dismissive you were of the topics I dug up for you. But even if the topics display just one or a few of my posts, they were examples where I laid out my position in detail, others disagreed, and I didn't spark it up into a flame war when I didn't agree.
I just wanted to point out that many of your own examples also don't demonstate a polite back-and-forth discussion of an issue when you've disagreed with them, that in fact you often make antagonistic remarks, and that you can't condescend to me, because neither your posting, or your example topics, are any closer to the standard you condescendingly hold me up to.
As I said, I think about 50% of the time you are polite, and I daresay, you more often ask for clarification before reacting than I do.
But you just as often immediately cut in with an inflammatory digging condescending remark.
We both offend in our own way and style, often perhaps not even meaning to. But people with divergent approaches inevitably rub each other the wrong way once in a while.
I think many of us here have gotten into a pattern, an expectation, of annoyance with the views of certain posters we consistently disagree with. That cumulative memory of disagreements and small annoyances influences the way we react to each other now. And it's difficult to re-set the brain and just flush away that past experience, and give someone you've clashed with so many times the same benefit of the doubt you did when you first encountered them online and exchanged posts.
Many here on the liberal side (yourself included, Wednesday) the first time I ever saw them online was when they jumped in and started flaming me. That doesn't exactly engender trust and goodwill !
But as I said earlier, before a certain mocking bet threw a wrench in the machine (two bets, now !) my first impulse is to be conciliatory and desire to extend mutual courtesy, if the other side will do the same.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 13,392
[insert non-dated reference here] 10000+ posts
|
|
[insert non-dated reference here] 10000+ posts
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 13,392 |
For the good of this board, Wednesday and Dave the Wonder Boy, could both of you please drop this now? This is a pointless argument and seems to be more about semantics than any actual issue. Neither of you are going to be able to come to any kind of agreement.
Just walk away.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Quote:
The Time Trust said:
For the good of this board, Wednesday and Dave the Wonder Boy, could both of you please drop this now? This is a pointless argument and seems to be more about semantics than any actual issue. Neither of you are going to be able to come to any kind of agreement.
Just walk away.
Agreed
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
|
|
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618 |
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmkay. (and just when things were getting interesting  )
|
|
|
|
|
