Jakell, thank you for your clarification.
Searcher, If you meant to write AD's second posting in the thread,
http://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board2/ ... hilit=ICKE , you should have written that. But you didn't. Instead you wrote the second post after the OP, which pointed all to my posting, the second offered after the OP.
The first insult comes at just the second post from the OP.
Had you written 'The first insult comes from AD in his second posting" there would have been no misunderstanding possible. But your claim nonetheless would remain patently false. Here's AD's second posting in the 2013 thread,
http://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board2/ ... KE#p508233This is AD's third posting which appears in the thread immediately
before my second posting,
http://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board2/ ... KE#p508240 , that still grieves you seven years hence.
Icke may be better received by the audience over at DU. I find my toe jam a more interesting subject to discuss than arguing with Ickeites.
Choosing an Icke thread is an absurdity in and of itself for any sort of comparison. How any can trust someone who has claimed to be the Messiah to be truthful about anything at all they've offered afterwards? And yet you and a few others seem to believe he is the Messiah, worth defending cause you like what he says, bizarre as that may be. There is no accounting for taste, whatsoever, no matter the subject.
First, what I've pointed out is not meant to be an attack on your character, just that you erred, and that's true.
Had your comment been accurate, I would not have called you to task. It's a shame you cannot recognize my intent in trying to keep things fact-based instead of misleading. Anyone can review only the first page of the thread to see for themselves your inaccurate and therefore erroneous much later comment. Not a big deal, Searcher, not at all.
Regarding this, you wrote,
You clearly have no problems with AD's approach.
In the normal course of events, your suggestions would cover the Bulk (maybe 98%) of interactions here. Take it to PM, talk with Mods, then 'suck it up and think of Jeff', then put on Ignore.
I really don't know what anyone's approach is, or their reasons for participating here at RI. I've rarely read AD's threads and I've not once suggested anyone utilize the "Ignore" button, though I've offered my opinion on it.
But in all you've offered so far, this stands out,
My issue is with the Exceptions = 2%
So reminiscent of alan ford's complaints!
So why don't you begin a thread to discuss the 2% you see as privileged more so than others? This seems to be the nub of your irksome discomfort. Besides, I'm sure alan would have a bit more to say, if you did.
Or you could simply begin your own blog and have total control of all being offered. I notice you have not offered to become a moderator.
When I first came here sometime in the spring or summer of 2005, I read only Jeff's blog and felt much of what was being discussed here far beyond the scope of my intellect or interests, so I didn't participate. I lurked and only commented on Jeff's blog when my son's murder was being discussed only hours after I learned of it. After consuming Jeff's past archives during the time his postings were becoming less frequent, I wandered over here and I'm glad I did. Some of our contributors wrote so well I was fascinated. It might be apparent to many how poor my writing skills are. But I try my best to relate my feelings. And let's face it, If I and Ben can discuss issues from diametrically different viewpoints without flaming, anyone can, but only if they want to put forth the effort.
Some today carry umbrellas, hoping to keep dry from yesterday's rain; some carry grudges for seven years or more after the fact, which seems much akin to our recently permabanned poster's issue.
If you allow your feelings to overcome your sensibilities, you've lost your rationality and posting from anger can do no one any good.
We have a feature I think is unique to RI. The ability to create your own blog within RI. I would much prefer those pursuing obviously controversial issues or those with a cause, to take advantage of this feature.