Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff
stickdog99 wrote:If someone can post mounds of copy pasta, someone else should be able to criticize this practice in good faith, and someone should either defend this practice or simply let the criticism stand.
However, the personalization of all of this is bizarre in my opinion.
Nobody should feel compelled to "take sides" in a neverending battle of over who is more victimized.
It's even more annoying than scrolling by the cut & pasted stuff, and is also part of the reason that this place just ain't what it used to be.
JackRiddler » 05 Oct 2019 21:39 wrote:.
Re: Jerky. Funny how that one came out of the hole soon as the shit started. You told us you'd had enough, officer. Still doing the daily scope around, finding the right points for intervention?
You don't get to do the banning, however. That will be a decision of Elvis and 82_28, possibly with Jeff deciding. So get off back to your hidey-hole, lightweight.stickdog99 wrote:If someone can post mounds of copy pasta, someone else should be able to criticize this practice in good faith, and someone should either defend this practice or simply let the criticism stand.
Indeed.However, the personalization of all of this is bizarre in my opinion.
But not at all, really. It's tactical. Since the flooding posters intend to continue with the flooding and thread proliferation of the same State Department and corporate media talking points ad infinitum, and since they cannot defend that, they pretend that criticism of this practice is somehow "personally hurtful" or "targeted" at a "fellow board member." Oh noes!
It's utter bullshit.Nobody should feel compelled to "take sides" in a neverending battle of over who is more victimized.
Agreed. One might, perhaps should, but need not take sides in the substantive matter of the flooding, the intentional thread proliferation, and the insistent dispensation of State Department talking points and corporate media disinfo. As you seem to have done: you say you're against it. Good.
One could also take sides on the deployment of the fake-victimization trope. Or the calls of "censorship," those are also hilarious. As you seem to have also done:It's even more annoying than scrolling by the cut & pasted stuff, and is also part of the reason that this place just ain't what it used to be.
So we are agreed that the "victimization" argument advanced by those defending the cut&pasted stuff is a kind of second offense? Because it is.
I am not victimized. My views are not personal. I don't know the people who claim it's "personal" against them, and I don't care who they are. They are not my fellow anythings. They are interlocutors on a message board. Abusive ones. I don't want this board to be a dump for long copy-pastes of State Department disinfo ops and corporate media bullshit. But whenever I say that, it turns into the shitshow that you see, as the two who are most responsible and their usual-suspect/self-appointed genius/bully-boy ally claim it's "personal" and "hurtful."
Just stop the flooding. Or 82_28 and Elvis can decide to ban me.
.
PS - Pretty sure inciteful was correct. As in, inciting shit. A pun. Surely not over anyone's head?
.
Iamwhomiam » 05 Oct 2019 21:46 wrote:Jack wrote: "PS - Pretty sure inciteful was correct. As in, inciting shit. A pun. Surely not over anyone's head?" Of course not. But it seems "insightful" was over yours.
Jerky » 05 Oct 2019 21:49 wrote:I'm pretty sure everyone "got" the "joke", Iam. She wasn't correcting. She was rebutting.Iamwhomiam » 05 Oct 2019 21:46 wrote:Jack wrote: "PS - Pretty sure inciteful was correct. As in, inciting shit. A pun. Surely not over anyone's head?" Of course not. But it seems "insightful" was over yours.
JackRiddler » Sat Oct 05, 2019 4:39 pm wrote:.
Re: Jerky. Funny how that one came out of the hole soon as the shit started. You told us you'd had enough, officer. Still doing the daily scope around, finding the right points for intervention?
You don't get to do the banning, however. That will be a decision of Elvis and 82_28, possibly with Jeff deciding. So get off back to your hidey-hole, lightweight.stickdog99 wrote:If someone can post mounds of copy pasta, someone else should be able to criticize this practice in good faith, and someone should either defend this practice or simply let the criticism stand.
Indeed.However, the personalization of all of this is bizarre in my opinion.
But not at all, really. It's tactical. Since the flooding posters intend to continue with the flooding and thread proliferation of the same State Department and corporate media talking points ad infinitum, and since they cannot defend that, they pretend that criticism of this practice is somehow "personally hurtful" or "targeted" at a "fellow board member." Oh noes!
It's utter bullshit.Nobody should feel compelled to "take sides" in a neverending battle of over who is more victimized.
Agreed. One might, perhaps should, but need not take sides in the substantive matter of the flooding, the intentional thread proliferation, and the insistent dispensation of State Department talking points and corporate media disinfo. As you seem to have done: you say you're against it. Good.
One could also take sides on the deployment of the fake-victimization trope. Or the calls of "censorship," those are also hilarious. As you seem to have also done:It's even more annoying than scrolling by the cut & pasted stuff, and is also part of the reason that this place just ain't what it used to be.
So we are agreed that the "victimization" argument advanced by those defending the cut&pasted stuff is a kind of second offense? Because it is.
I am not victimized. My views are not personal. I don't know the people who claim it's "personal" against them, and I don't care who they are. They are not my fellow anythings. They are interlocutors on a message board. Abusive ones. I don't want this board to be a dump for long copy-pastes of State Department disinfo ops and corporate media bullshit. But whenever I say that, it turns into the shitshow that you see, as the two who are most responsible and their usual-suspect/self-appointed genius/bully-boy ally claim it's "personal" and "hurtful."
Just stop the flooding. Or 82_28 and Elvis can decide to ban me.
.
PS - Pretty sure inciteful was correct. As in, inciting shit. A pun. Surely not over anyone's head?
.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 45 guests