What's going on?

[seemslikeadream]

yeah talk about special privileges

Mac takes the cake

[JackRiddler]

.

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.

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?

.

[seemslikeadream]

you don't get to do the banning either

you are the one flooding this board with your hissy fits

DO THIS DONT DO THAT CHANGE THE TITLE OF YOUR THREAD DONT USE CAPITAL LETTERS DON'T USE RED CAPITAL LETTERS GO KILL YOUR SELF ON AND ON AND ON AND ON

[Jerky]

Hey Jack has anyone ever told you that you fight like a girl?

.

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.

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]

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.

[seemslikeadream]

the grammar police strikes again!

[JackRiddler]

Could be. You have been very kind to me, iamwhoiam.

[Jerky]

I'm pretty sure everyone "got" the "joke", Iam. She wasn't correcting. She was rebutting.

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.

[seemslikeadream]

maybe I will start posting in red letters


or

BOLD CAPITAL RED LETTERS

OR

ASK HIM TO CHANGE THE TITLE OF THIS THREAD BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE IT


all of which are some of Jack's pet peeves

edited to make sure I got the spelling correct

[Jerky]

Oops... Jumped the gun on that one. Sorry Iam!

I'm pretty sure everyone "got" the "joke", Iam. She wasn't correcting. She was rebutting.

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.

[Iamwhomiam]

I've tried to be, Jack. There is no benefit to being cruel towards anyone, though I'm sure I have been cruel to more than a few and have regrets weighing heavy on my heart. Apologies after insult rarely do more than asswague the injury, which can be long-lasting, and avoidance of causing injury through insult more important to practice, imo. But in that, too, I still fail occasionally.

[Belligerent Savant]

.

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.

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?

.

Co-sign all the above.

You can ban me as well.

[seemslikeadream]

BS back in the swing of things

you don't have to be banned to stop your constant personal attacks you have the power over your keyboard

you could follow Jeff's rules if you wanted to

[Belligerent Savant]

.

My "attacks" (read: comments) were never 'personal', despite your repeated false representations as such.

I've made my position quite clear.

[seemslikeadream]

yes I know your position very very well


you're really really smart at it most of the time....practice makes perfect

there will be only one point of view here and Jack Mac and BS will try as hard as they can to enforce that rule

they start new dup threads cause they don't want to post in other members threads but they still do anyway

they ban opposing points of view by banning certain members from their threads, I am not sure why I guess they are afraid of something

they flood other members threads with off topic replies