rigorousintuition.ca

barracuda wrote:

chump wrote:You brought Makow into the discussion and somehow made it seem as though I did.

You brought Makow into the discussion by including a reference to Truthseeker. You didn't have to do that - after all, the text is over one hundred years old. But the context of the version you specifically pointed us to was "introduced by Henry Makow."

I didn't know I was doing anything wrong. So where do we draw the line Genius?

Well, Pollyanna, here's the deal: you started the thread, one which just happens to contain a large variety of cliche stereotypes of Jews, Rothschilds, bankers, and Hertzls, and then referred us to an anti-semitic source. Your introduction to the piece concludes with the statement, "it is interesting to see Mark Twain's perspective and how the situation has evolved." Subsequently, the thread ran for two pages, consisting of a variety of responses from your fellow posters without a single comment from yourself regarding the "situation". So do me a favor: tell me in your thread just what you think is interesting about Twain's piece, and how the situation (whatever situation you were referring to) has, to your way of thinking, evolved. In other words, enter your own discussion. It's not as if you're incapable of that. Put your own opinion out there. Otherwise you're just setting out the bait, and watching as the board comes by to sniff it. Okay?

You may have a point there. Unlike some people, I don't have time to sit around the computer all day. Sometimes I do, but not that day, and not today. I'm posting on the run as it is. I wish I had been around that day to head off what was an ignorant assumption. Can't you guys carry on a reasonable discussion about anything without attacking the messenger? What you posted could be viewed as deceptive as well.

I referenced truthseeker because that is where I saw the article. I didn't post Makow's introduction and interpretation because he is blatantly a rascist. I felt that the original article should speak for itself. The truthseeker website also definitely has an anti-semitic slant, and I have learned not to link there because of the reaction. But I still look there, as I do many sites. I was under the impression that it was proper ettiquette to reference the original link. You are like one of those motorists who flips off other drivers off because they didn't use their turn signal.

I hate to leave ya' hangin', but I'm gonna be gone for awhile, okay? In the meantime could you please explain what you mean by "setting the bait out, and watching as the board comes by to sniff it." You say that as though I am trying to ensnare someone into a trap - and that sounds ominous.

Pollyanna

CosmicCowbell wrote:You have an anger management, passive aggressive personality disorder that is manifestly apparent.

Precisely where did you study medicine, o bodhisattva? Harvard's my guess; or perhaps the Serbsky Institute. Or, just possibly, nowhere. In any case, it's no wonder you sided so enthusiastically with those brainlessly bullying parents & psychiatrists in that Jani thread! (It's amazing, or rather not, how closely these things hang together.) In any case, it is manifestly apparent that you have delusions of adequacy. Perhaps you're schizophrenic.

CosmicCowbell wrote:And we all pay for it.

I hate to break the news, CC, but there's only one of you.

Anyway, how much did you pay, exactly? Show me the bill and I'll pay you back. But it better not be a forgery, like your medical degree.

CosmicCowbell wrote:That sucks.

You have a gift for expressing yourself. You might consider abandoning your career as a quack medic and taking up Great Thought on a full-time basis.

NSWMTAPOYB

Ha. What in the world could be construed as "passive" aggressive about mac when he's mad?



He pretty much lets it all hang out!

Cosmic Cowbell wrote:Rather than supporting anyone Mac, it was more a graphical representation of my emotion upon reading that you describe yourself as some sort of defender against bullying, when you yourself are, by far, the most ardent practitioner of bullying here with your foul attitudes and language towards anyone who might possibly disagree with you.

On the subject of trolls, I have absolutely no doubt that they are drawn to you like a moth to flame, simply because you come off as such a dick.

Everyone sees it, most have commented on it but again, because they disagree with your point of view, they became a target of your inability to control your emotions. That includes the management here as well. Why they tolerate you is truly a mystery to me.

I've never really hungered for anyone to have the ban hammer dropped on them as much as I have for you as I feel that as much as you bring to the forum, it will never truly outweigh the amount of ill will you've managed to sow here over time.

You have an anger management, passive aggressive personality disorder that is manifestly apparent. And we all pay for it. That sucks.

Luvs,

~C

I think I may love you. Great analysis.

17breezes wrote:I think I may love you. Great analysis.

Maybe you should run a search here on Cowbell to learn about his primary interests here. I won't spoil the surprise, but for someone who thinks conspiritards are "nuts" regardless of who or what they are, you recruit some strange allies. Are you with MILAB?

chump wrote:You are like one of those motorists who flips off other drivers off because they didn't use their turn signal.

There are plenty of times when ignoring the laws concerning turn signals can be thoughtless and dangerous, though, and at those times a little reminder of that fact may actually be a great kindness. You're welcome.

I hate to leave ya' hangin', but I'm gonna be gone for awhile, okay? In the meantime could you please explain what you mean by "setting the bait out, and watching as the board comes by to sniff it." You say that as though I am trying to ensnare someone into a trap - and that sounds ominous.

Since you're not gonna be around anyway, I'll probably pass on that. But I do confess to deriving some measure of amusement from folks who take several paragraphs to inform me that they don't have time to answer my questions.

nathan28 wrote:

17breezes wrote:I think I may love you. Great analysis.

Maybe you should run a search here on Cowbell to learn about his primary interests here. I won't spoil the surprise, but for someone who thinks conspiritards are "nuts" regardless of who or what they are, you recruit some strange allies. Are you with MILAB?

I suppose you get the idea that I think "conspiritards are "nuts" regardless of who or what they are," from that one post that some keep bringing up. The truth is that I do think SOME of them are but not all. I'm not familiar with CC's rep or interests but he is obviously spot on about the serial bully here. So on that we can agree.

And I am not interesting in recruiting allies. I am not that needy or vain.

17breezes wrote:the serial bully here.

No, I don't think Mac took your lunch money, and he's not in the running for the antagonist o The Cook, The Thief, His Wife & Her Lover 2, either, so this hardly qualifies as verbal abuse... especially given the magical distance of the internet. This is, after all, the internet, and more than that, we're on an English-language site. At least since the English Civil War acrimony has been something native English-speakers have excelled at and aside from the fact that it's entertaining, it's also even a decent way of coming to resolutions of various stripes. Mac has no authority here besides what he can carve out himself, just like every other non-mod, and he mostly follows the rules.

"Bully" when it comes to a purely verbal argument conducted anonymously is largely a non-starter.

OTOH, I would like to see less ad hominems--or at least no ad hominems not rooted in an argument--and less brawling between people caught up in classic transactional analysis games, but I can hardly lay the whole of the blame at the feet of Mac.

And I am not interesting in recruiting allies. I am not that needy or vain.

barracuda wrote:

chump wrote:You are like one of those motorists who flips off other drivers off because they didn't use their turn signal.

There are plenty of times when ignoring the laws concerning turn signals can be thoughtless and dangerous, though, and at those times a little reminder of that fact may actually be a great kindness. You're welcome.

It's funny the way some people can blow a dog whistle while driving but not hit that turn indicator. And I would like to kindly ask those of you drivers who use bike-heavy streets to please fucking use your goddamn turn indicators, assholes, unless you really like civil liability disputes.

nathan28 wrote:

17breezes wrote:the serial bully here.

No, I don't think Mac took your lunch money, and he's not in the running for the antagonist o The Cook, The Thief, His Wife & Her Lover 2, either, so this hardly qualifies as verbal abuse... especially given the magical distance of the internet. This is, after all, the internet, and more than that, we're on an English-language site. At least since the English Civil War acrimony has been something native English-speakers have excelled at and aside from the fact that it's entertaining, it's also even a decent way of coming to resolutions of various stripes. Mac has no authority here besides what he can carve out himself, just like every other non-mod, and he mostly follows the rules.

"Bully" when it comes to a purely verbal argument conducted anonymously is largely a non-starter.

OTOH, I would like to see less ad hominems--or at least no ad hominems not rooted in an argument--and less brawling between people caught up in classic transactional analysis games, but I can hardly lay the whole of the blame at the feet of Mac.

And I am not interesting in recruiting allies. I am not that needy or vain.

Verbal abuse? Heh..."cocksucker," ain't verbal abuse? What color is the sky in your universe?

nathan28 wrote: "Bully" when it comes to a purely verbal argument conducted anonymously is largely a non-starter.

I have to disagree with that. And there are plenty of sad cases in cyberspace to back me up. Avatars may be anonymous to readers, but they can be heavily invested with the identity of the poster. We may see only the words, but that doesn't mean there's nothing behind them.

17breezes wrote:

nathan28 wrote:

17breezes wrote:the serial bully here.

No, I don't think Mac took your lunch money, and he's not in the running for the antagonist o The Cook, The Thief, His Wife & Her Lover 2, either, so this hardly qualifies as verbal abuse... especially given the magical distance of the internet. This is, after all, the internet, and more than that, we're on an English-language site. At least since the English Civil War acrimony has been something native English-speakers have excelled at and aside from the fact that it's entertaining, it's also even a decent way of coming to resolutions of various stripes. Mac has no authority here besides what he can carve out himself, just like every other non-mod, and he mostly follows the rules.

"Bully" when it comes to a purely verbal argument conducted anonymously is largely a non-starter.

OTOH, I would like to see less ad hominems--or at least no ad hominems not rooted in an argument--and less brawling between people caught up in classic transactional analysis games, but I can hardly lay the whole of the blame at the feet of Mac.

And I am not interesting in recruiting allies. I am not that needy or vain.

Verbal abuse? Heh..."cocksucker," ain't verbal abuse? What color is the sky in your universe?

Well if you weren't a troll, you wouldn't be on the receiving end of that.

But you are, so you are.

Cocksucker.

Jeff wrote:

nathan28 wrote: "Bully" when it comes to a purely verbal argument conducted anonymously is largely a non-starter.

I have to disagree with that. And there are plenty of sad cases in cyberspace to back me up. Avatars may be anonymous to readers, but they can be heavily invested with the identity of the poster. We may see only the words, but that doesn't mean there's nothing behind them.

Who are you talking about, precisely?

Mac asked:

Re: Moderation question
Jeff wrote:
nathan28 wrote:
"Bully" when it comes to a purely verbal argument conducted anonymously is largely a non-starter.




I have to disagree with that. And there are plenty of sad cases in cyberspace to back me up. Avatars may be anonymous to readers, but they can be heavily invested with the identity of the poster. We may see only the words, but that doesn't mean there's nothing behind them.




Who are you talking about, precisely?

Maybe Theresa Duncan, for starters?

Hey, hey, c'mon you guys, save it for the krauts!