Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 22

Thread: Obama fails to disclose transition meetings

  1. #11
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,740

    Re: Obama fails to disclose transition meetings

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Do you ever have anything intelligent to say? Ever? For once in your ****ing life?

    Jesus Tapdancing Christ.



    hmm since Captain posted after this, i assume this line of personal attack is ok?



    But to answer the question, i play down to you kid, so you can keep up.
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  2. #12
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: Obama fails to disclose transition meetings

    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    So he lied then? is this your argument?
    No, I don't think its something I would constitue as a lie, depending on the reason. If it was an issue that upon becoming President Elect he realized that some of the stuff in these meetings actually NEED to be kept confedential, and feeling that cutting out specific portions of it would seem worse than cutting the whole thing, then I would say it wasn't a Lie so much as new information came to light.

    Sure, he may've had an inclination that was the case at the time of making the statement, but once its clearly evident sometimes things can change.

    Do you believe he lied Reverend?

    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    hmm since Captain posted after this, i assume this line of personal attack is ok?

    But to answer the question, i play down to you kid, so you can keep up.
    There is a proper way to question moderator action or inaction, and to request moderator action. How about you actually do it that way instead of some sarcastic remark in the wrong channel for it.

  3. #13
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,740

    Re: Obama fails to disclose transition meetings

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    No, I don't think its something I would constitue as a lie, depending on the reason. If it was an issue that upon becoming President Elect he realized that some of the stuff in these meetings actually NEED to be kept confedential, and feeling that cutting out specific portions of it would seem worse than cutting the whole thing, then I would say it wasn't a Lie so much as new information came to light.
    Then for the sake of "transparency" as he campaigned on it, should he at least say this?


    Sure, he may've had an inclination that was the case at the time of making the statement, but once its clearly evident sometimes things can change.

    Do you believe he lied Reverend?

    No I believe he is pragmatic but naive.





    There is a proper way to question moderator action or inaction, and to request moderator action. How about you actually do it that way instead of some sarcastic remark in the wrong channel for it.


    I did not see any moderator action.
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  4. #14
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: Obama fails to disclose transition meetings

    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    Then for the sake of "transparency" as he campaigned on it, should he at least say this?
    Yes. I didn't say it was a good move, I didn't say it is counter to what he campaigned on. I just don't consider it a "lie". I think this way for many of the same reasons that I don't buy a lot of the "Bush Lied" about certain things as well. To me a lie is something purposeful, where you said something purposefully to mislead and decieve or stating something you know full well to be untrue. In this case with Obama, without knowing the reasons he did it its hard for me to say he "lied" becuase the reasons why it happened is what would deterimine that for me.

    I did not see any moderator action.
    MOST moderator action is unseen; indeed I'd say public warnings are barely half of all moderator action. You got an issue with a post, report it. You got an issue with a moderator not posting a public warning, you got places to complain about it. Sarcastic insults to Mods for not doing something YOU think they should do is speaking specifically about Mod Action (in this case, their inaction or PERCIEVED inaction.) You got issues with rule violations, you know the ways to persue it. Making sarcastic snipes at a moderator in thread is not one of those.

  5. #15
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,740

    Re: Obama fails to disclose transition meetings

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Yes. I didn't say it was a good move, I didn't say it is counter to what he campaigned on. I just don't consider it a "lie". I think this way for many of the same reasons that I don't buy a lot of the "Bush Lied" about certain things as well. To me a lie is something purposeful, where you said something purposefully to mislead and decieve or stating something you know full well to be untrue. In this case with Obama, without knowing the reasons he did it its hard for me to say he "lied" becuase the reasons why it happened is what would deterimine that for me.
    I fully agree. A lot of what I post here on Obama is tongue in cheek as the shoe is now on the other foot. I kinda tried to be clear that I thought it not a big deal in my 1st post.




    MOST moderator action is unseen; indeed I'd say public warnings are barely half of all moderator action. You got an issue with a post, report it. You got an issue with a moderator not posting a public warning, you got places to complain about it. Sarcastic insults to Mods for not doing something YOU think they should do is speaking specifically about Mod Action (in this case, their inaction or PERCIEVED inaction.) You got issues with rule violations, you know the ways to persue it. Making sarcastic snipes at a moderator in thread is not one of those.



    relax. I was just razzin the Captain. I really didn't mind either way.....
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  6. #16
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: Obama fails to disclose transition meetings

    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    I fully agree. A lot of what I post here on Obama is tongue in cheek as the shoe is now on the other foot. I kinda tried to be clear that I thought it not a big deal in my 1st post
    I noticed, and I agreed that it wasn't a big deal. And I can understand where you're going with the hypocracy angle.

    I also have noticed the large amount of tongue in cheek threads. I would suggest that perhaps you should be a little less offended and upset with people that treat posts of yours, espicially new threads, that are obviously not serious and just meant to be almost childishly sarcastic or bitterly tongue in cheek in tone in a likewise unserious matter. You've pointed to some useful points that could lead to legitimate discussion in recent weeks, but so often you do it in an incredibly disingenuous and almost hcildish manner that just spurs and welcomes similar respones.

    If someone starts a thread screaming about fascist republicans, they tend to get hostility and hyperbole right back when people respond. When you have people posting a thread with an obvious agenda that they try to hide, generally its responded with people ignoring their attempt to hide it and go at the agenda. When people post threads in a manner that it is obvious they're just being sarcastic or over the top in their tongue and cheek nature, it tends to cause those responding to it to respond to it like the joke its trying to be. And when people make a well thought out post actually asking a legitimate question or stating an opinion in an intelligent manner, often times its responded back in kind.

    You get what you give. This isn't a complaint really, I can appreciate parody and tongue in cheek as well as anyone...I enjoy using it in my posts as well. But just a suggestion to not be so offended and be so offensive when people respond in kind. Its not that they don't want to discuss it, but if you won't start the thread serious often they won't take it serious...espicially when it is, as you said, a "lot" of your Obama posts.

    You've pointed to some legitimate issues with him, I just wish more of the times you've done it it actually had some thoughts and intelligent discourse then you instead of generally non-stop tongue in cheek sarcasm.

  7. #17
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,740

    Re: Obama fails to disclose transition meetings

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    I noticed, and I agreed that it wasn't a big deal. And I can understand where you're going with the hypocracy angle.

    I also have noticed the large amount of tongue in cheek threads. I would suggest that perhaps you should be a little less offended and upset with people that treat posts of yours, espicially new threads, that are obviously not serious and just meant to be almost childishly sarcastic or bitterly tongue in cheek in tone in a likewise unserious matter. You've pointed to some useful points that could lead to legitimate discussion in recent weeks, but so often you do it in an incredibly disingenuous and almost hcildish manner that just spurs and welcomes similar respones.

    If someone starts a thread screaming about fascist republicans, they tend to get hostility and hyperbole right back when people respond. When you have people posting a thread with an obvious agenda that they try to hide, generally its responded with people ignoring their attempt to hide it and go at the agenda. When people post threads in a manner that it is obvious they're just being sarcastic or over the top in their tongue and cheek nature, it tends to cause those responding to it to respond to it like the joke its trying to be. And when people make a well thought out post actually asking a legitimate question or stating an opinion in an intelligent manner, often times its responded back in kind.

    You get what you give. This isn't a complaint really, I can appreciate parody and tongue in cheek as well as anyone...I enjoy using it in my posts as well. But just a suggestion to not be so offended and be so offensive when people respond in kind. Its not that they don't want to discuss it, but if you won't start the thread serious often they won't take it serious...espicially when it is, as you said, a "lot" of your Obama posts.

    You've pointed to some legitimate issues with him, I just wish more of the times you've done it it actually had some thoughts and intelligent discourse then you instead of generally non-stop tongue in cheek sarcasm.



    Want to play a game?


    Watch as I do bring up pertinent issues as certain usual suspect posters derail it... Happens more often that Caroline saying "you know" .......



    Take for example my Obama context thread.

    For as long as we had the issue of Obama's racist comments, I have posters saying I took him out of context.

    When asked what context I took him out of...... All hell breaks loose.


    I see what you are saying zyph. But it's a two way street. I give what I get and often I don't give it for some time either.
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  8. #18
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: Obama fails to disclose transition meetings

    Its reputation man.

    You even said, a "Lot" of your posts about Obama have been tongue in cheek recently. Not serious. Borderline childish.

    Yes, you do put an occasional one out there...and even the one you speak of, you did it in such a way that you were borderline condenscending and in such a way that you didn't do much to even explain your position but just stated a premise and demanded people to counter your premise that was in and of itself not predicated on common, universally accepted fact but opinion.

    Yes, you don't get good responses in that thread? Why? Who knows. My opinion, you've recently and for some time been known as a joke poster when it comse to Obama. Everything has an agenda, nothing about your posts are honest attempts at discourse, almost everything you post about him has some alterior motive to "trap" people into saying something that they don't actually mean but you can spin to what you want. Most of your posts are either tongue in cheek, filled with insulting idiotic childish baiting like "dear leader" and other such crap, and is on par with trying to debate with a 5th grader. So yes, you do occasionally post a good serious thing...but people are immedietely suspicious and questioning of it becasue so much of the rest of your stuff is far from it.

    There's a reason why the Truman Show was rather crappily recieved by the average person. There's a reason why comedy princess Whoopi gets eyes rolled at her when she tries to talk serious politics. There's a reason why conservatives didn't buy into what McCain was selling.

    If you see someone doing a specific thing over, and over, and over again you're conditioned to expect that from them and conditioned to respond in that way to them...when they step outside of the box for short moments, they generally aren't taken seriously and still get treated as they previously have been. It takes about as long to change a perception as it takes to create one.

    I don't care all to much. As long as its within the rules, people can post any way that makes them enjoy themselves. If they like to just have fun, be sarcastic, unserious, etc, more power to them. Look at Tucker Case, he very often posts in a tongue and cheek, sarcastic/humerous fashion. The difference is that when people respond to Tucker in kind and don't take him seriously, he doesn't blow up at them or claim their ducking his point or any other thing. The other difference is tucker rarely has an agenda with his tongue and cheek.

    So post however you like, more poewr to you for that. Whatever makes it enjoyable. But no one is going to listen when you don't get many serious responses or when people don't bother to comment save to point out your obvious agenda or attempts to twist what people say/trap them.

    In regards to this thread, I think it was a good one. The partisan bias is evident (because what politician HASN'T renegged on a campaign promise? Nation Building anyone?), but there's nothing really wrong with that. But you got the reaction you did after taking all of his post and just going "So you say he's lieing" adding nothing more or explaining how in the world you came to that conclussion. It basically was yet another sign that, rightly or wrongly, pointed to the perception you don't really care an inch about honest debate but just want to push your agenda, make people respond to you, and then take whatever they say and twist it to try and continue your drum beat of a message or just insult them about their love for "dear leader" or "the messiah" or whatever other childish term is the top one for the day.

  9. #19
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,740

    Re: Obama fails to disclose transition meetings

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Its reputation man.
    You have all said this before. I took it, I thought about it, then I observed. These posters who derail my threads because of "reputation" do not have any better "Reputation" than I.

    This is excuse making. And I no longer buy into this. Like I said long ago, I am as nice to people as they are to me.


    You even said, a "Lot" of your posts about Obama have been tongue in cheek recently. Not serious. Borderline childish.

    Incorrect. let me clarify what I meant. What I have been saying is that while I post on a topic regarding a current topic, I am well aware of the likley hypocritical stance some will take on the issue now that the shoe is on the other foot. I make light of it by trying to mention it in the 1st post so as not to be accused of as I often am of "baiting" or "Trolling" or other some such nonsense for daring to post a thread critical of Obama.


    Tell me zyph, what threads of mine latley are childish and why? I am open to your view on this.... I am trying to step cautiously here as this is truly a gift watching some of this hypocricy I see and don't want to spoil it.... (note my noticing of hypocricy of the obama fans does not mean I do not think it does not happens elsewhere)......



    Yes, you do put an occasional one out there...and even the one you speak of, you did it in such a way that you were borderline condenscending and in such a way that you didn't do much to even explain your position but just stated a premise and demanded people to counter your premise that was in and of itself not predicated on common, universally accepted fact but opinion.
    Condescending? Maybe, but if you saw the shennagigans I was put through in the other thread, I submit it was warranted.

    My position was simple. I stated that "white man's greed" is a racist statment, and his calling his grandmothers racism "typical of white people" also racist. I spent half a thread with the usual suspects claiming I took him out of context. I simply asked what said context was, I was assaulted with nonsense. So I started a thread asking what that context was..... I applaud the 2 out of 20 posters (or so) who attempted to explain it..... Look at the rest.


    I also submit I put forth more on topic non condescending threads than condescending ones. I am open to being proven wrong.



    Yes, you don't get good responses in that thread? Why? Who knows. My opinion, you've recently and for some time been known as a joke poster when it comse to Obama. Everything has an agenda, nothing about your posts are honest attempts at discourse, almost everything you post about him has some alterior motive to "trap" people into saying something that they don't actually mean but you can spin to what you want. Most of your posts are either tongue in cheek, filled with insulting idiotic childish baiting like "dear leader" and other such crap, and is on par with trying to debate with a 5th grader. So yes, you do occasionally post a good serious thing...but people are immedietely suspicious and questioning of it becasue so much of the rest of your stuff is far from it.

    Hmm, I don't start into the "Dear leader" stuff until the obama supporter starts in on me. Look at what you called of my posts "childish" and then look a few posts up to see where it began. Two wrongs do not make a right indeed, however, after months of it, it's hard not to fall into it...

    Look at IT's Hatueys', adk's, iriemons, and a plethora of others behaivor, why no singling out of them? This is what I don't get. Maybe I am missing something. but Obama is the new president. Me starting ANY thread on him is topical on a debate forum. Thier baiting and hijacking is the CHILDISH behavior.


    Go ahead post my childish threads. I will show you 10 more that weren't.

    Reputation is a two way street.



    There's a reason why the Truman Show was rather crappily recieved by the average person. There's a reason why comedy princess Whoopi gets eyes rolled at her when she tries to talk serious politics. There's a reason why conservatives didn't buy into what McCain was selling.

    If you see someone doing a specific thing over, and over, and over again you're conditioned to expect that from them and conditioned to respond in that way to them...when they step outside of the box for short moments, they generally aren't taken seriously and still get treated as they previously have been. It takes about as long to change a perception as it takes to create one.
    Show me threads and issues in question, I will be happy to discuss....


    My reputation being the issue for others poor behaivor is a cop out.





    I don't care all to much. As long as its within the rules, people can post any way that makes them enjoy themselves. If they like to just have fun, be sarcastic, unserious, etc, more power to them. Look at Tucker Case, he very often posts in a tongue and cheek, sarcastic/humerous fashion. The difference is that when people respond to Tucker in kind and don't take him seriously, he doesn't blow up at them or claim their ducking his point or any other thing. The other difference is tucker rarely has an agenda with his tongue and cheek.

    So post however you like, more poewr to you for that. Whatever makes it enjoyable. But no one is going to listen when you don't get many serious responses or when people don't bother to comment save to point out your obvious agenda or attempts to twist what people say/trap them.



    That is cool. See there is a kabal of a group of 5-10 posters this is a big issue for, most it is not. This is why I get along with most everyone here. You see me as a big bad wolf when I am not.


    Like I said, I give what I get. I challenge you to prove otherwise.





    ***DISCLAIMER****


    We cool man, no worries, don't take my post as any sort of animosity.....
    Last edited by ReverendHellh0und; 12-30-08 at 03:02 PM.
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  10. #20
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: Obama fails to disclose transition meetings

    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    You have all said this before. I took it, I thought about it, then I observed. These posters who derail my threads because of "reputation" do not have any better "Reputation" than I.
    Indeed, many of them don't. That doesn't change the fact.


    Incorrect.
    You're the one that said a LOT of your posts lately had been tongue in cheek.

    What I have been saying is that while I post on a topic regarding a current topic, I am well aware of the likley hypocritical stance some will take on the issue now that the shoe is on the other foot. I make light of it by trying to mention it in the 1st post so as not to be accused of as I often am of "baiting" or "Trolling" or other some such nonsense for daring to post a thread critical of Obama.
    Yes, you do make light of this possible hypocracy. The problem is you come into the post assuming the hypocracy and essentially attacking on the hypocracy before anything happens. You're stating something or acting as if something is some kind of fact before anything even happens to establish this. It is condenscending and rather juvenile when you do it over, and over, and over agian. Its not about "pre-empting" it, its about steering the conversation and pushing forward a premise. One of Rush's favorite thing is to point out this is a typical Media tactic; to enter into a conversation or article predicated on a premise that they act is true but isn't actually very factual.

    Its one thing to do that once in a while, but you have been doing it in a LOT of Obama threads.

    It also ignores the possibility that people could equally assume hypocracy on your part in potentially complaining about things you didn't complain about when it was done by Republicans. Now you say "Prove it, show me!"...but that's my point. You start off with making assumptions without proof as well right off the bat.

    Tell me zyph, what threads of mine latley are childish and why?
    Sorry, not wasting the time to search and find every post of yours in the past few weeks with "dear leader" or "messiah" or other such childish terms. And in my opinion, repeated constant use of tongue in cheek assumptions at the start of threads or within posts is a rather childish means of debating.

    I am trying to step cautiously here as this is truly a gift watching some of this hypocricy I see and don't want to spoil it
    The hypocricy IS fun. I love it, and I've pointed it out for some time, on both sides. Here's a bit of hypocricy though Reverend. Where was your huge care about hypocricy when republicans were hypocrites. Isn't it a bit hypocritical to only be concerned about hypocricy when it is liberal hypocrites?

    I'm not saying don't stop pointing out hypocricy. Its fun to do and go at it. I'm saying starting out your threads with generalized tongue-in-cheek sarcastic comments about hypocricy that hasn't actually happened yet is a way to do it and basically get a bad reaction from people. If you actually want to debate, find someone actually seeming to say something hypocritical, quote it, and explain WHY you think its hypocritical. That may actually spawn some interesting debate, where you may be able to adequettely prove your point of they may be able to present why they think the two situations are different.

    You just making a blanket sarcastic statement about it at the start, thus instantly interjecting the premise that anyone that doesn't view the situation like you is being hypocritical, is not going to spur the same.

    Condescending? Maybe, but if you saw the shennagigans I was put through in the other thread, I submit it was warranted.
    Perhaps, but some of the things you seemed to take offense to I thought was perfectly acceptable and you acted a bit babyish. In other ways I think they over reacted to you. That said, I didn't say that their reactions to your more childish portions of posts was a GOOD thing...I just explained my belief of part of why it happens. Its not a good thing, it doesn't add anything to debate, but then generally neither does the stuff I was pointing out either. Both are unfortunante.

    My position was simple. I stated that "white man's greed" is a racist statment, and his calling his grandmothers racism "typical of white people" also racist. I spent half a thread with the usual suspects claiming I took him out of context. I simply asked what said context was, I was assaulted with nonsense. So I started a thread asking what that context was..... I applaud the 2 out of 20 posters (or so) who attempted to explain it..... Look at the rest.
    Yes, I ignored the thread completley. Your initial post made me roll my eyes, and just about every response to it made me equally roll them again.

    I also submit I put forth more on topic non condescending threads than condescending ones. I am open to being proven wrong.
    I'm not going to take the time to go through every one of your threads Reverend, espicially since my primary areas that I come and go are BN, and the US politics sections. I was going off your own statement about a "Lot" of your Obama posts being tongue in cheek, and the impressions I've got from your posts. I know you may find this absolutely astounding, but I don't read every thread. I don't go in every forum. I will often skip over things. I don't read everything you post. Actually, I skip a great bit of it because I've rarely read anything amazingly earth shattering in its thought process or that I couldn't imagine the general gist of what it said in it. If the subject or the little revealed text looks interesting, I'll likely go into it. If its posted by a poster I respect as one whose threads almost every time deliver, I'm more apt to read. So I'm not speaking to all of yours based on actual experience, I went based on the things I've read and your own statement about Tongue in Cheek being "lots" of what you've posted on Obama. (And personally I find constant tongue and cheek attitude when mixed with an agenda to be extremely condenscending often). Add to this your dismissive "Dear Leader" mentality that just instantly makes me reach for the "page down" key.

    Hmm, I don't start into the "Dear leader" stuff until the obama supporter starts in on me. Look at what you called of my posts "childish" and then look a few posts up to see where it began. Two wrongs do not make a right indeed, however, after months of it, it's hard not to fall into it...
    Thanks, you said it for me.

    Look at IT's Hatueys', adk's, iriemons, and a plethora of others behaivor, why no singling out of them?
    Sorry if it seemed singling out. I came to make a comment in your thread that seemed interesting. I saw your comment about CC, and decided to comment on it. You responded, and we started talking back and forth a bit so while I had some time to post it just kind of came out.

    It wasn't too long ago IT and I had a big duke it out in a thread, so don't know what you're talking about there. It was a long go round, with him even PMing me asking if everything was alright. We severely disagreed with something, and went at it.

    Hatuey is an interesting one, who yes often times is just very aggressive and flippant in his posts. However, other times he will make extremely well thought out, backed up, and original posts as well. Those kind of posts make me rethink a person and generally give them more credance when I read there things and able to go past it. Its one thing to regurgitate talking points or just post up a lot of news articles or prattle on with the typical attacking insults on both sides. Its another thing to actually have a semi-original thought, and make a good post filled with actual personal opinion backed up with facts and presented in a humble way that also gives hooks for people to debate or possibly sway him. For example with him see his post about deciding not to vote or his post about liberals acting wrongly in regards to islamist extremists.


    Maybe I am missing something. but Obama is the new president. Me starting ANY thread on him is topical on a debate forum. Thier baiting and hijacking is the CHILDISH behavior.
    Yes, yes it is. And I said there are good threads, I said this was a good thread. I said the constant injection of "tongue and cheek" or your immediete dismissal at times of anyone disagreeing with him as "dear leader" and other such bull**** is childish.

    Go ahead post my childish threads. I will show you 10 more that weren't.
    I'm sure you could. You post a **** ton. I'm sure most of the time that TO is probably a great teammate, but the impression is other wise. Impression shapes reputation, reputation shapes how one responds to something.

    Reputation is a two way street.
    Yes, yes it is. And the problem goes when both people are wanting to be in the same lane and both refuse to admit they're in the wrong lane.

    I give big props to MC.No.Spin and even TD slowly but surely as of late. No spin especially, who toned down a lot of his more childish additions in posts and started trying to actually post real thoughts and opinions instead of quick talking points and stereotyped attacks while still being a strong conservative voice.

    My reputation being the issue for others poor behaivor is a cop out.
    It'd be a cop out if it was an excuse for it. It isn't. They're crappy responses to your crappy tongue-in-cheek things or your "dear leader" stuff is well, crappy.

    That is cool. See there is a kabal of a group of 5-10 posters this is a big issue for, most it is not. This is why I get along with most everyone here. You see me as a big bad wolf when I am not.
    I don't see you as a big bad wolf at all. As I said, feel free to post how you want. You, contrary to what you may think I believe, are not a problem poster here. You don't rack up a ton of points, your actions don't demand a huge amount of mod attention. If you want to post the way you do, more power to you and I've go no qualms with it.

    But it does seem like you have a rather interesting thought process at times, and a slightly different conservative mindset. I think you could be someone that could put up intriguing posts that actually ADD something to the forum and debate beyond simply going "new story, [typical party talking point], [tongue in cheek shot at hypocricy I think is to come], discuss". Thus why I said something at first and now its became a lot longer then I was ever thinking. Indeed, I didn't even think it'd launch into a long discussion when I simply told you not to go sarcastic about whether a mod Did or didn't do anything...its not because I thought you had venom to it, it was because it was unneeded and sets a bad example and precident on what's allowed on the forum. And it snowballed from there.

    You want to know why I brought it up with you. Because generally with other people if I say something they say cool, or don't say anything. If they have a severe issue with it, perhaps they'll PM me. Generally they don't act all offended and continue on the conversation. You have a large tendancy to do, at which point we end up in thread talking directly to each other, and then further conversation spawns. No saying ones bad, or ones not, but that's really the difference. Its impossible to say anything to you without you having to respond in some way, shape, or form, often sarcastically or questioningly and it leads to conversation.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •