GoRight's Community Hall of Shame
UPDATE: With the recent appointment of new moderators for the site this appraoch to community self-rule is no longer needed or desirable. The article is being retained for future reference in the comments found below.
--------------------------------------------
All who wish to make a commitment to their community of peers are free to do so, and in so doing they agree to be bound by the covenant they enter into and agree to be subject to the deliberations and decisions made by the group as may be deemed necessary to enforce that commitment.
The following table shall record the names of all who have entered into this covenant along with a record of transgressions made by them subsequent to their having made the commitment to this group.
| Community Hall of Shame | ||
| Community Member | Minor Violations |
Major Violations |
| GoRight | 0 | 0 |
By declaring my intention to participate via my comment below, I hereby commit to the following:
- I will make a good faith effort to adhere to the letter and the spirit of the site's rules.
- I will make a good faith effort to honor the reasonable requests of anyone who has so pledged below in terms of how they wish for the community to interact with them.
- I agree that any such community requests will be duly recorded with my pledge below and I acknowledge that any such requests will be biding on the entire community and cannot be directed at specific individuals.*
- I understand and acknowledge that my commitment here is only applicable to others who have likewise taken this pledge and that my actions with respect to others who have not taken the pledge shall not be a subject for discussion or action within this forum.
- I understand that my actions and those of others who take this pledge which were taken prior to the taking of this pledge shall not be a topic of discussion or action by this forum.
- Should I violate any of these commitments I agree to having my actions discussed openly in this forum and to having that violation recorded in the table provided above for all to see.
- If I commit any major violations of these commitments or the sites rules, as determined by a 2/3 majority of those having made this commitment, I agree to accept any punative action that the community deems appropriate.
- If the community imposes a punative action on any member after due deliberation, I agree to be bound by that action and to do what is required of me to enforce such action even if I personally do not agree that such punative action is required.
----------------------------------------------------
* If individuals wish to create their own personal agreements amongst themselves that is fine, but any such agreements will not be considered or addressed within this forum.
- GoRight's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Comments :
GoRight's Commitment
I, GoRight, do hereby pledge to adhere to the covenant descibed above and to apply its principles in any and all interactions with others who likewise enter into this agreement.
I have no special requests of the community at this time.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Hold on...
You promise to be nice only to other people who have done likewise? Some pledge. But hey, feel free to record any violations of mine even though I hereby do not so pledge.
See, I believe that "A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction into a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day"1.
If you weren't such a muffin head, you might have thought of that yourself.
1 Bill Watterson, Calnvin and Hobbes. Words to live by.
Well, this only makes sense.
Some people here appear to be unhappy with the way that we interact, so I am offering up that I will meet the half-way with a mutual commitment. I'm not being altruistic here. I pledge to treat you the way you want to be treated so long as you agree to recipricate. It makes no sense for me to pledge to honor someone's request in how they want to be treated if they refuse to honor mine.
The only thing that taking the pledge buys you is a public commitment on my part to adhere to the letter and the spirit of the site rules in my interactions WITH YOU because you are likewise taking a pledge to do the same in return.
So, for example, if someone didn't want me to use satire with them because they think that shows me to be disingenuous, then they can note that in their special requests. The only limitation is that the request has to apply to everyone who takes the pledge, not just specific individuals. Also, and I need to note this above, anything you request of me your must return in kind. So if you ask for no satire then you are not allowed to use satire in your interactions with me.
Oh, and you also get the right to complain here if you feel I have violated our agreement and, if others agree then you get to have my tally above increased accordingly. The advantage of the tally board is we will get to see who is true to their word and who is not.
This is completely voluntary. If you intend to obey the site rules there is really no downside to taking the pledge as far as I can tell. But if someone doesn't want to take the pledge, well then I reserve the right to deal with them however the situation suggests would be prudent without regard to my pledge above.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Oh, I gotcha
I was being completely tongue in cheek. I don't find that you and I have civility issues so it's a non-issue for me. Please be as courteous or nasty with me as you feel inclined.
While I see no need
...to personally take your pledge at this time (on the grounds that I believe the site rules themselves are clear and sufficient in their purpose), I will reserve the right to note your major and minor violations of site rules under item #1 in the interests of keeping your Wall of Shame tally accurate ;-)
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Sorry, skymutt, no freeloaders allowed.
I am not at all trying to be altruistic here. It is a give and take. If you agree to abide by the rules with me, I will abide by the rules with you. If you violate the rules with me, I am free to violate the rules with you.
This is completely voluntary on everyone's part. If you are happy with things as they are then no need to take any action. But if you want a voice on this forum and want to have your grievences recorded in the tally above, you have to take the pledge.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Ah, but we are all already bound by the site rules...
which nullifies your carveout for yourself in which you attempt to give yourself grounds to not make a good faith effort to follow site rules with those who do not take your pledge. The pledge is null and void and therefore a non-starter IMO.*
*This is not to say that certain elements of the pledge cannot be applied on an ad hoc basis. Fo instance, I still reserve the right to note the transgressions of fellow posters using protocols of my own choosing, including the use of a "Wall of Shame" and tallies of major and minor violations of site rules ;-)
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
If this were actually true ...
we would not be having this conversation. You have already acknowledged that you are not the moderator and as far as I can tell there is none on this site any longer. Lacking a moderator and an effective enforcement mechanism for the rules the rules themselves are moot. Which is basically my point.
The events of the past several weeks in which a certain disruptive editor has been willfully attacking others ... and therefore generating in-kind retaliations which are themselves also violations of these rules you speak of ... only serves to illustrate that there are, in effect, no such rules outside if such an agreement.
Feel free to start you own wall of shame mr copycatter, I care not for I do not recognize your authority as an enforcer of the rules any more than I recognize certain others as being the authority of the level of discourse here.
The bottom line here skymutt, and I am not just playing games here, is that I am sick and tired of the BS that has been occuring here and you can either try to be part of the solution or you will end up being part of the problem.
I, at least, am making a serious effort to try and put some bounds in place with a mechanism whereby we as a community can come to some agreements. In that regard your posts here are not helpful, IMHO.
I am not trying to carve anything out for myself. I intend to operate exactly as I have been with respect to anyone who is happy with things the way they are. If you aren't happy with how I have interacted with you in the past, take the pledge and tell me how you want to be treated and I will make a good faith attempt to do so. It's that simple, skymutt.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Meh
And there is no enforcement mechanism for your pledge either, without someone willing and able to be a moderator. That, and the fact that your rules add nothing to the existing rules anyway, is really all that needs to be said about them.
Meh. You were egging BR on a couple weeks ago when I last checked. Now, after a brief absence, I come back and he is somehow he is getting to you. I suspect that a good measure of what you are sick and tired of is at least partially of your own making. You should recognize that you walk a fine line with your provocative style of posting, and develop a thicker hide.
Well, if this was a serious effort, it is seriously flawed IMO. There is no need for juvenile pledges, secret handshakes, tribal compacts, or anything else. Are we adults here or what? An adult should know to have at least a modicum of civility towards others even if there were no civility rules posted. And an adult should also know when to back away, when to apologize, and when to ignore.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
I'm gone - NOT.
Fine, BR, your want a friggin' war, fine. You want to ruin the entire site by filling it will nothing but your own BS crusade against me and my responses to your idiocy, fine. You have no honor and so you don't deserve to be treated honorably.
Let us just continue like we have been. Back and forth, back and forth, endlessly until everyone leaves for greener pastures. That should really help you achieve that goal you keep CLAIMING to care about. I don't buy it. It's a made up meme to simply enable you to harass people.
Fine, that's now my meme too. I'm here to help the site by ridding of obnoxious blowhards like yourself. I'll point out every logic flaw you make. I'll point out every personal attack and violation of the site rules you engage in. That's the way you want it, fine.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Ignore him, GR
Ignore him. He reveals more of himself with each post. He's not going to change.
Ignore him. I intend to.
Besides, you have a debate with corph to finish.
I truly wish I could.
But I can't stand to let his BS stand unchallenged. It just gauls me and I know that admitting such openly is only going to feed the monster, and a monster he is. He tries to hide behind a facade of logic but in reality he's just here to disrupt things and try to make himself the center of attention. Hence my comment earlier about shunning. Shunning him would be the worst possible fate we could, as a community, do to him because it would cut off his feedback.
But it won't work if just one or two people do it. It has to be the community.
Now I don't want to drive him out like he is obviously trying to do to me, but if we could get him to simply obey the rules it would be nice. I'd volunteer to moderate the board but at this point I couldn't take any action against BR anyway. My conflict of interest is too high at this point.
Perhaps we should take a lesson from wikipedia. How about a mediation. That's a nice sane option. I would agree to abide by the decision of the mediator as long as we could find someone neutral enough. You would be fine, SL possibly. Are there any lurkers out there than have not been too involved that think they might be up to the task?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Shunning him would be the
Why? If the people with whom I don't "get along" and I cease to comment in reply to each other's diaries and comments, problem solved. Which is why I proposed this swordscrossed.org/diary/20090327/populist-rage-revolution#comment-109843
, which you have apparently rejected even though it's a darn good deal for you (considering you can fool some of the people some of the time, so to speak, and more so without someone pointing out the fooling)
Are you implying again that I'm trying to get you banned? If so, in light of this correction swordscrossed.org/diary/20090327/populist-rage-revolution#comment-109763
of that charge the first time you made it, I would ask: Which is it, extremely short memory, disingenuous charge, persistent confusion, rejection of a sensible assessment, or something else?
No, I reject your faux offer.
Because I don't believe you have an ounce of honor in you and I don't believe that you wil stick to the deal. I won't make a deal with the devil.
You make shit up and paint up up to look like you are all concerned for the site, but it's just so much BS. We all know it. If you really cared about the site you wouldn't be trying to poke people. You'd actually be trying to pull the together. I don't see much of that in your style and tactics. Why is that?
Sure, there's maybe a small glimmer of concern in there somewhere but the shear volume of your garbage and that fact that it is generating complaints that these abuseive threads that YOU inititiate with your personal attacks shows you for what you truly are. A lying blowhard. For some reason you have chosen to make me your target, I know the publicly stated reason but not the true behind the scenes motive. You want some good faith from me? Offer some up first. Put up or shut up.
No, it's not a good deal for me or the community but it would be a good deal for you because it will have left you off scott free. I try to be accepting of other people but you make it impossible. You are by far the most obnoxious, self-centered, pompous, blowhard I have ever encountered. And believe me I've know a few. In your case I have decided to make an exception and not suffer you quietly. Doing so in the long run truly would be a disservice to the community. You're a pestilence and you need to be stomped out.
I find that I may be in a position where I will be forced to destroy the site in order to save it. I never really had an appreciation for that saying until now. You wanted me to have a revelation? Well there it is.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Don't you think that mutual ignoring is better
than an endless meta flame war?
I submit it is entirely possible that BR is genuinely concerned for SC but is choosing a means of acting on that concern that you (and others) view as counterproductive.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Like I said.
He has no honor and he cannot be trusted. I am not going to make an agreement with the devil because it will just come back to bite me in the ass. You're not gonna smooth this one over. If you want to ban me, then ban me. I don't really give a rat's ass anymore because he has made the place a toxic waste site.
If he is truly worried about the image of the site, then tell me why he is doing everything he can to make it a toxic atmosphere and driving others away? Please explain to me how it is at all rational to believe that harassing people is going to make others want to show up? Who in any rational state of mind thinks that relentlessly refering to other posters on the site (and not just me):
So, Brendan, please explain to me how that makes any sense at all? Do you want to see references? I can provide plenty if you want. Please explain that to stupid o' me. Do you honestly believe that he thinks that this will make the place a better site? Who is going to want to come to a site where they are attacked by a common (want-to-be) bully?
Sorry, if there is some form of logic there it completely evades me. And if that makes sense to anyone else here I must be as stupid as he says.
And that's another thing. He has made the claim over and over that I (and others) are too stupid to understand and/or make a logical argument. He then claims that the reason he is doing all this is so that I will stop being a moron and argue more logically. How rational is that? I mean if you yell enough at someone with a 50 point IQ can you somehow turn them into an Einstein? If he were half the genious he thinks he is in his own head he'd have to know that doesn't make any sense.
So if that makes no sense, why is he doing it? I know he's smart enough to undertand that point, so that must mean he is lying somewhere. Either he doesn't think we are that stupid (and therefore he himself is being distinctly disingenuous while claiming the same of others) or he's too stupid himself to realize that you can't make someone smarter by yelling at them. I won't even venture a guess as to which.
(Cue some ridiculous tripe on the part of the blowhard.)
UPDATE:
Now you can add the following to the list:
Now I ask you Brendan, have you ever known PF to be a real d*ck?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Brendan, Just to try to
Brendan,
Just to try to ensure that neither you nor anyone else is misled by GR's misrepresentations of what I've been doing:
Over and over and over again, just over the last couple of days, right before GR's eyes, I have very clearly distinguished between the problem on which I am focusing and which is the primary problem on SC right now -- bad faith -- vs. genuine difficulties/limitations a few individuals seem to have with logic (or more precisely, with logical, rational, relevant, mutually-responsive argumentation). In fact, I have emphasized the distinction between these two dynamics and emphasized that the primary focus and objective of my criticism has been the latter. I have even stated explicitly that such genuine limitations per se are not "the" problem and that having a few commenters around with such limitations is not, per se, an enormous problem. Although, as I've admitted, I have on some occasions been more insulting than is justified by my worthwhile objectives, in his quote above GR is mostly misunderstanding (or at least misrepresenting) what has happened and what I've done:
What has happened, for the most part, on numerous occasions over the last few weeks is that GR (or someone else, but particularly GR) and I will be in some exchange, I will point out fundamental flaws in his logic/argumentation, he will persistently respond (combatively, provocatively and ironically snarkily) with obvious straw men, non sequiturs, gross mischaracterizations, irrelevancies, and other fundamentally flawed and obvisouly invalid arguments (while often asserting that I am the one being illogical), and this continues, over and over, and even if there are numerous, consistent, sequential iterations in which this occurs -- his laying out this stuff and my clearly correcting it -- he just keeps coming back with more of the same, and at some point I throw my hands up and say "ok, it seems that you are not engaging in good faith (either not taking a moment to think before replying or simply being disingenuous), because the alternative explanation is that you somehow are genuinely incapable of grasping anything I'm saying even at this point, but I find that hard to believe".
As for my concern about the secondary problem of poor logic/argumentation, I have -- for the most part -- taken a very different approach. Whereas I have just cricitized the bad faith stuff and sought to embarrass the individuals (2 in particular, assuming GR and Centinel are not 1) who seem to very often exhibit particularly the disingenuous type of bad faith (the other type of bad faith being repeatedly, thoughtlessly throwing out combative, provocative responses without given any reasonable degree of thought to one the person has [actually] said), with regard to genuine difficulties with logic/argumentation I have, on numerous occasions including numerous times just in the last couple of days, tried to make constructive suggestions and soliciation of ideas for how to help people along and guide them toward argumentation that, well, makes sense and allows discussions/debates to get some where instead of people just talking completely past each other and never really dealing with each other's actual arguments/questions. I realize that suggesting such guidance sounds/is patronizing, but my point is that my comments and approach regarding the "logic" problem have, for the most part and with some exceptions of unnecessary and unjustifiable insults, been categorically different from my comments and approach regarding the "bad faith" problem and in particular the disingenuous part of the bad faith problem, notwithstanding what GR wants you and others to think or what GR may actually, genuinely think out of confusion.
As for my line regarding Purpleface, that is totally unfair and misleading, whether GR was being deliberately misleading, sloppy, so biased that he couldn't think sensibly, or just dumb (just trying to cover all the bases). Look at the context and read my actual comment. True, Purpleface has been taking empty pot shots at me lately and one could think that I wanted to throw out an insult, but in the context of my exchange with puppethead I was just making a juvenile, hopefully chuckle-worthy pun. I looked at other handles on SC and just couldn't think of others, but if I had, I would have included them whether I "like" those individuals or not. Heck, I had nothing against puppethead and look what I said to him/her about his/her name (which is what started off my puns), not to mention what I said in the banter that preceded that comment.
So I wish GR would stop with the unfair, misleading, gross mischaracterizations, if only because I don't want to have to keep taking time to set the record straight out of concern that other folks here will be misled and get the wrong impression.
You called me a d*ck?
Hahahahahahahahahahah
Oh please. I know you are
Oh please. I know you are making a little hobby of taking empty pot shots at me lately (and being unwilling to discuss their validity [or lack thereof] at all), but read my explanation if you have an interest in fairness. And if you don't understand the pun, I'll pass on explaining it to you graphically.
I don't see how it could hurt, though
Suppose you leave BR alone and then BR comes along and starts harassing you, what have you lost as compared to now?
On the other hand, look at what you gain even in such a "worse case" scenario:
* Time that you would have wasted in a meta flame war.
* Community acknowledgment that you tried to avoid such a meta flame war.
* Community support based on the conversations you've been having while avoiding a meta flame war.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Suppose you leave BRÂ alone
FYI, and a reminder (and repeat request) for GR: swordscrossed.org/diary/20090327/populist-rage-revolution#comment-109843
I don't suffer bullys at all.
Ever. So no, I don't accept your offer because it is completely and utterly NOT in the spirit of this blog.
I have offered you a constructive approach to the problem that does not violate the spirit of the blog. You take my oath. You commit to following the rules like we are supposed to be doing anyway. You agree to let us point out, as a group, any violations on the part of yourself or myself relative to that pledge.
You want special restrictions on my interactions with you? Fine, write them in. But you have to agree that they go both ways and that they apply to everyone that enters into the covanent. No satire? Fine. Only straight-up logical arguments? Fine. No pointy sticks? Fine. Whatever you want. But you get held to the same standard and the community decides if a violation has occurred. And the violations are put on display for all to see.
That's my offer. The ball is in your court.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Community acknowledgement?
OK. Here's mine.
GoRight did not start this particular meta mess. BR has done nothing but respond with ad hominems, insults to the community at large, and remarks intended to rile and provoke. Then he gets offended when he gets back a little of what he's dishing out. He repeatedly has stated that GoRight, missliberties, and Centinel are essentially idiots who are detrimental to this site. I don't know why my name isn't in that list; oh, wait, that's right, I'm the d*ck ;-)
GoRight took definitive steps to ameliorate the situation, starting with his "Let's Pile On GoRight" diary where he openly asked for feedback, this diary, and comments in the open thread asking if there is agreement that the site is broken. BR has made zero effort to engage the community here; instead he chooses to harp upon how awful this place is.
You admitted that you've not been following the threads. I have been.
Sure there were a few elbows in sqb's diary. Shall we all just roll over and let BR have his way?
Fair is one thing. But IMHO, BR is in flagrant violation of the site rules concerning vilifying other posters. GoRight had enough and wasn't going to let him continue. Sure he also violated the rules, but he was provoked and it was way overdue for somebody to get into BR's face about his behavior.
That's ridiculous. PF, I'm
That's ridiculous. PF, I'm not sure exactly what your problem is -- why you've taken lately to taking unfair, empty pot shots at me (and then declining to discuss them -- but if it's just that I never commented on threads of your diaries swordscrossed.org/diary/20090403/weekend-open-thread#comment-108062
you shouldn't hold a grudge over something like that. I'm not saying that IS what is motivating you; it could be that there is some other source of strong bias (perhaps as simple as not appreciating what you perceive as criticism of the SC community), and it's possible that there is some other reason why you have such a misguided (and extremely distorted and grossly unfair) assessment of what has transpired here.
At the very least, please stop with the silliness (by which some may be misled) regarding the "d*ck" thing. It's not what you seem to want to present it as. No, I did not call you a d*ck. Again, I was just making goofy puns with people's handles, in the midst of a goofy exchange I was having with puppethead and starting with puppethead's handle.
Try to get or regain some sense of objectivity and fairness on this matter.
Oooh, nice link
Yet another example of a thread where you start off with your normal "gee, this site is just so awful, let me lead you all to the promised land...except of course for the dishonest, hyperpartisan, logically challenged, unthoughtful, irritating, idiots that really should be removed from this site"
How is this not consistent vilification?
Your argument is unclear at
Your argument is unclear at best.
And as a note, lest anyone (particularly anyone who hasn't followed all this crap) be misled by your misleading, out-of-context quote, that "screening" suggestion was obviously satirical, not a serious suggestion, as I indicated via my title for the comment -- A "MODEST PROPOSAL" -- and at the end of the comment, when I wrote:
I also cleared up (to the extent one could) GR's misunderstanding here swordscrossed.org/diary/20090327/populist-rage-revolution#comment-109773
Oh, so you didnt mean this?
This was all part of your "modest proposal"? You were just kidding about this, right?
Please don't make me dig up the last thirty examples of this. Any review of the your last 100 comments will show that quite easily.
This was all part of your
Why would you ask that rhetorical question? It seems to imply that the quote you provided was part of that "MODEST PROPOSAL" comment of mine. As you know, it wasn't. It was totally unrelated and on a different thread. So what the heck is it that you are doing?
Perhaps you are confused (it's getting tedious to keep correcting stuff, so I wish a few particular individuals here would think a bit before posting combative, provocative stuff based on their own confusion). No, obviously I was never kidding that there are the problems I've described, primarily the problem of bad faith, nor have I ever suggested that I was kidding about them. I was OBVIOUSLY saying only that I was kidding about the idea of having all SCers screened via logic tests (duh).
Clear now?
Oh, so now the circle of confused morons and liars includes PF.
And she's provacative to boot. Welcome to the club, sweetie. And the circle of conspirators who are working their nefarious trade has widened yet again.
First they came
for GoRight ...
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I'm not sure what's up with
I'm not sure what's up with PF re: her commentary on this matter (the pot shots, the bizarrely skewed assessment, the obviously misleading representations via quotes, etc.), but whatever is going on at the moment, and notwithstanding your transparent, crude efforts at coalition building and currying favor, prior to this crap I don't recall having any problem with PF of the sorts I have pointed re: your comments on SC (primarily the frequent bad faith, secondarily the glaring lack of rational argumentation and very frequent, oblivious confusion). I don't recall exchanges that I may or may not have gotten into with PF in the past, so I have no opinion, positive or negative, re: good faith or quality of argumentation, except that I suspect that if she had had a history of comments and commenting behavior like yours, I probably would have noticed.
Oh, well it was just a pun. A joke if you like.
Since I am a stupid moron I don't understand your pun. Please explain to us all how this is a pun?
What exactly is it that you are comparing PF to in that pun?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Hey. I don't want a flame war.
It will be a huge waste of everyone's time, something that everyone seems to be in short supply of anymore. I have on multiple occasions offered up opportunities to let both sides back down while saving face. I have tried ignoring his ad hominems and only responding to the substance of his posts (when they contained any). But there is no notion of agreeing to disagree with BR. He just keeps repeating the same old crap ad nauseum and I'm tired of it.
The mutual ignore option is completely against the very principles of this site. Do you agree or not? That's just another way we can destroy the site in order to save it in my book. With a flame war at least people will get a good show.
I have offered up an alternative that is in line with the principles of the site. Pledge to obey the rules, add whatever you want in terms of requests on how you want to be treated, agree to treat others the same way, and let violation of the pledge be put on public display. Simple and fair. I don't except myself from the public shame of the tally board. As punishments go a tally board is pretty mild I would have to say, do you not agree?
Interestingly, I have had no takers on this offer. People are afraid to publicly declare a commitment to the site rules. How funny is that.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Obviously just a stream of
Obviously just a stream of insults in lieu of a non-response response to my legitimate questions.
But what's amusing is this:
At 21:06, GR: I have not claimed to be making shit up for some time
At 21:15 BR: are you about to have another profanity-laced breakdown again for a second night in a row?
At 21:28 GR: Nope, no profanity tonight. I've decided you're not worth it.
AT 21:43 GR: You make shit up
What legitimate questions would those be?
And I'm not sure what you little timeline is supposed to show. What the hell is the point of that?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Whoosh! and Whoosh!
Whoosh! and Whoosh! again.
Those little "?" thingees indicate questions. If you don't think they are legitimate in response to your comment, I can't help ya'.
As for the point of the timeline, well, did I mention Whoosh! Do you really have no idea what the point was? Tell ya' what: think on it all night, and maybe by mornin' you'll have some inklin'. It's a reeeeal toughee. Gotta give ya' that. Way, way obscure.
Which ones?
Repeat them here without the ad hominems and I might reply.
And try responding to my questions. You very frequently don't bother to respond to mine. If you won't show me any common courtesy why should I show you any?
UPDATE:
Here is an example of how you lie and make shit up. You asked if I was going to have another profanity laced breakdown. I said no. Question asked. Question answered. Simple eh?
You lied. Simple as that. Proof is right there in your own post.
UPDATE 2:
Yea, ya did. But there is nothing there to be a whoosh. There is nothing inconsistent in that timeline.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4You are confused again. I'm
You are confused again. I'm not going to bother explaining this one to you, except to say that (1) my point re: the timeline was totally unrelated to my point that you didn't answer my questions, and (2) if you don't see something inconsistent between your saying to me "No profanity tonight" and then just 15 minutes later throwing profanity at me, well, I can't help ya'.
Oooh, OK.
If you want to characterize "shit" as "profanity" on the same order of what I did the other night, then fine, you caught me.
But what about your lie I exposed. Care to comment on that Mr. non-responsive?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4what about your lie I
lol, and what, in your mind, would that "lie" be?
Edit: Oh, and not that it matters much, but your straw man aside, no, I wasn't equating your saying "shit" once with the completely unhinged, profanity-laced tirade of yours the other day, just pointing out that you said "No profanity" would come from you, then 15 minutes later used profanity. Simple as that.
I suspect this is a good example
of both people being "right" but having totally different points of view.
My guess as to what is happening here is that BR reads literally and correctly points out that GoRight used profanity, while GoRight correctly views his reply to BR as addressing the actual question asked (ie, profanity-laced breakdown) and doesn't view it as necessary to spell that out.
But perhaps the more useful question is why this sort of meta is being debated. If BR is concerned that GoRight is breaking the no profanity rule by spelling out shit instead of writing sh*t then perhaps that should simply be stated, without the repeated references to a past event that could give the impression that this is a deliberate needling.
(Edit: if anyone is interested, there is this discussion
of the profanity rule.)
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Brendan, don't make too much
Brendan, don't make too much of this one. Yes, as I touched upon, I realize that it's possible, and not implausible, that GR could have been thinking "profanity-laced tirade" even though he stated more absolutely "No profanity". So it's quite possible he just spoke very sloppily.
I wouldn't want you to see this little micro-incident as reflective of the problem I'm talking about or of the exchanges that have been going on. Again, I suggest (and request) that you not read much into this one vis a vis all the other stuff.
Actually, my purpose with that post was to return the insult.
He calls me (and others) a liar all the time. Using similar tactics to what I have done here.
I caught him in some minor discrepency and so now I am using it to level a completely overblown charge that he is lying. He does this to me, so I am doing it to him. Give the bully a taste of his own medicine, that's my motto.
But in the language and thought processes of BR I have constructed a completely valid argument here. I have demonstrated beyond all doubt that he lied. He said I was non-responsive (i.e. didn't answer his questions) and I pointed out where he obviously knew that I had so he couldn't squirm out from under it.
Note that he chooses not to acknowledge his lie. That's what he'd say to me. Come on, GoRight, acknowlege your obvious lie. If you don't you're just being disingenuous and completely ruining the discourse on this site.
Well, BR, here is an example of you failing to practice what you seem to want to preach.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Oh Geez, Louise. Stop
Oh Geez, Louise. Stop embarrassing yourself. I already told you that you are confusing stuff (See #1 at swordscrossed.org/diary/20090429/gorights-community-hall-shame#comment-110047
). I said you were non-reponsive to X and you're saying that you caught me in a lie because you think (incorrectly) that I said you were non-responsive to Y. Geez, man, think, at least think at some point along the way rather than persisting so combatively based on a misunderstanding of yours. Yeeesh.
I am not confused about anything.
You quite clearly made the claim that I was being non-responsive to your questions:
Since you were not specific as to which questions you meant, I asked for clarification:
To which you responded:
Having received your clarification I then began to research our discussion for an example of where you had a question with a "?" thingie to which I had responded. The first example I came across was your own post from which I quoted:
and then quite correctly pointed out that you had asked me a question and that I had responded. And furthermore this example clearly illustrates that you were fully aware of this example at the time that you made your assertion because you quoted them in the very same post.
So, we are left with the following facts:
You claimed I was not answering your legitimate questions (i.e. I was non-responsive).
When asked which questions you meant you responded with "the ones with the '?' thingies."
I provided an example where you had asked a question (as designated by a "?" thingie) and I had, contrary to your assertion, provided an answer.
You clearly knew that you had asked that question and that I had provided a response because you quoted them both yourself.
So the bottom line is that you knowingly made a false assertion. Knowingly making false assertions is otherwise known as lying.
This leaves us with the following questions: *
1) Do you deny that any of these facts occurred, as described?
2) Do you deny that knowingly making false assertions constitutes lying?
--------------------------------------------------------------
And please note that these are legitimate questions.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Â Goodness. Is there anything
And if you do get it, any chance you'll admit that you just misunderstood all along, let alone admit that if you had been listening and thinking at all you wouldn't have made (much less persisted with) such an obvious error, let alone apologize for repeatedly making a charge (saying I lied) that you now realize was completely baseless? I won't hold my breath.
Non-responsive.
I'm not sure which part of that you feel addresses my questions, presumably because I am too stupid to understand your overly verbose prose, so please give me a simple one word answer to each of the following questions (I fear I won't understand anything longer than that):
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Of course he gets it
He is attempting to make the point that your criticism of him is similar in nature. He explicitly told you that he would mimic what he sees as your tactics.
Like I said, I'm not sure you understand his style.
In the particular case of your comment re: profanity anyway, you do acknowledge that he "could have been thinking "profanity-laced tirade" even though he stated more absolutely "No profanity." I am not taking this as indicative of the interactions between you and GR, as per your comment above, but that seems to me to be a reasonable base upon which to construct this particular parody.
Frankly, I find the whole thing sort of pointless, but whatever...
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Nah, he may mimic style (or
Nah, he may mimic style (or try to, but substituting faux logic for actual logic), but I consider it highly probably that he was indeed trying to give folks the impression that he had caught me in a lie, and did so because he was just (however oddly) persistently confused about which questions I was referring to. Do you think otherwise?
This is part of his modus operandi. When he throws out some argument and ultimately finds it indefensible, rather than admitting he was wrong he claims he didn't mean it. It's childish, and at best it wastes the time of anyone who thinks he is engaging in good faith.
And he mixes in the occasional actual put-on just to maintain the option of that pretense, apparently fooling some of the people some of the time.
Clueless.
Even when it is clearly explained to him.
OK, I'm a moron. You've said so yourself. So I am having trouble understanding how this assertion applies in this context. Please explain.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Clearly.
You are quite correct. He doesn't understand that I am illustrating for him what I see him doing to me so that he can understand things from my point of view. He doesn't get this even though I have told him many times that I was going to do that exact thing. I guess I never directly stated it that way before. Either way it should be obvious if he is even a small fraction as smart as he believes himself to be. And he calls me (and others) stupid.
Please believe me when I say I totally agree but I don't know what else to do. I'm not going to let up until he agrees to stop harassing people and calling them stupid. That's all I am after here and I shouldn't even have to be asking for it. We can all overlook a comment here or an isolated thread there, especially when we know that the other person only half means it or it was said in the heat of the moment. But in this case he really and truly means it.
Like I have said before, I don't want him to leave. I don't even want to stop interacting with him. And I am completely willing to make a good faith effort to interact with him on his own terms. He can write any restrictions that he wants but he can't single people out for special treatment. I can't think of a more reasonable approach than that while still staying true to the ideals of the site.
I will commit to treating him exactly as he wants to be treated, the only thing I demand is that he show me and others the same respect that he asks for. While this should all be obvious on this site, it apparently is not. Hence my Hall of Shame meme. Go back on your word and you get a mark next to your name. In the grand scheme completely harmless, and yet it applies pressure to keep one's word because you won't want the other guy to be able to point to the tallies and say, well the board says you're the problem.
I'll even agree to cease and dessist on the current flame war as long as he agrees to stop calling people stupid morons in almost every single post ... even without taking the pledge. I just want all this silliness to go away.
UPDATE:
Oh, and I further demand that he stop accusing me of operating in bad faith.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4swordscrossed.org/diary/20090
swordscrossed.org/diary/20090428/midweek-open-thread#comment-110124
Give the community a chance
I don't know the path everyone will choose, but maybe it would be good to give them some time to demonstrate their choices in their own way?
Maybe a vigorous debate about something other than one person's perception of the quality of the posters on this blog would be a good thing. Healthcare is a big issue, and you and corph have only laid out some very basic positions. Smacking down corph would be much more satisfying, don't you think? ;-) He at least won't immediately retreat into the stuff whatshisname loves to wallow in.
Thanks, PF.
I'll take a break for a while. Tomorrow I will get to the corph thread again, I promise.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Even though I have already pronounced you the winner
I am more interested in seeing how that comes to fruition than watching you continually embarrass BR.
Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition From Mediocre Minds...~ A. Einstein
+2
Exactly we don't need more "rules", we just need to follow the "rules" on the books.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Which, of course, is all the pledge obligates you to do.
But it puts you on record as having said you would and allows us to self-police violations.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Yeesh. So much work, so much
Yeesh. So much work, so much missing the (obvious) point. Here ya' go, GR. Here's a pledge that, if abided by to even a reasonable degree, would eliminate the root cause of at least most of the trouble:
I enthusiastically take the above pledge. I hope all will, too, but moreover, I hope all (a couple of individuals in particular) act accordingly. Granted, compliance with this pledge is harder to prove and therefore harder to measure, but it's an honor system kinda thing, for whatever that's worth as pressure on anyone who would be disingenuous and/or thoughtless to begin with
I don't need to take that pledge.
I already live that pledge. I notice you purposefully left out your own use of logical fallacies and personal attacks. Care to add that? Oh, and oyu can add lying to your pledge, you do plenty of that too.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4You are obviously and quite
You are obviously and quite absurdly asserting a false equivalence regarding "logical fallacies". If you really want to insist on the assertion that I have a problem with making logical fallacies, I have to tell ya', anyone with at least a decent capacity for logic and who is familiar with my comments will see your assertion as utterly baseless and absurd, and if anything, an indication that you either can't recognize logic (or lack thereof) or are deliberately, knowingly making a false charge.
As for personal attacks, if calling someone out on what seems very likely to be bad faith falls into that category, nope, I won't pledge never to do that, as much as you'd like me to for obvious reasons.
I've pointed out plenty already.
No need to recap as you'll make plenty more as things move along. Have at it. It won't take long.
The only bad faith being shown here anymore is your own. I have not thrown out any firecrackers for quite some time. I have not claimed to be making shit up for some time (e.g. the thread where you showed you were a sexist, I meant every word of it). Your schtick is running thin. And it will continue to get thinner. But your logic skills, those you can't help and believe you me I'll be more than happy to point out every flaw.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I have not claimed to be
Uph. First, it is beyond me how and why in the world you would think that the only disingenuousness on your part to which I'm referring relates to those occasions when you've falsely claimed to have been making stuff up (after having your argument thoroughly refuted). Yeesh.
Second, are you about to have another profanity-laced breakdown again for a second night in a row?
Look, I don't want to continue charging you with bad faith in the abstract (rather than in response to some future specific, egregious incidents of it as they arise) and have you continue to deny it. I think I've made the point on the meta meta level enough, at least for now. Next time it becomes very apparent that you are doing it, I may point it out yet again.
Nope, no profanity tonight.
I've decided you're not worth it. You're only intent here is to continue to poke people for your own amusement. I have decided to stop being amusing to you. You can charge me with bad faith all you want becuase I know it is all just a made up meme to poke me. I'm done letting it bother me. Sorry if I offended your delicate sensisbilities though. I realize that the reason you lash out at others like this is because you feel inferior on the inside. That's why you have to puff up your chest like a baboon every time you make a post.
I don't believe you and neither does anyone else reading these threads. This is an outright lie. You enjoy poking people. You do it for fun.
Another lie. You have said this in many, many, MANY posts and yet you persist. Do you actually mean it this time or are you lying to us again?
Pffft. You'll continue to make disingenuous false charges like you have been all along. Another lie for all to see?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4IMHO this goes to what SC should be (or become)
BR, it seems to me you view SC as ideally a debate-oriented site.
Others appear to me to prefer SC to be more of a corner bar atmosphere.
Once I wanted SC to be both. Now I tend to think it works best as a place to chat, just based on my experience.
One might say, what's so special about another blog where people bicker (albeit mostly in a friendly fashion) about politics? An answer is that the posters here have developed a history and mutual (grudging, sometimes) respect, and a comfortable routine.
Trying to transform SC into a "debate-oriented" site in a manner that threatens the "corner bar" atmosphere simply won't work. It's not what the majority of current posters here want. No surprise that an approach heavy on sticks and short on carrots is not going to garner a lot of support, and no surprise that the community will tend to react defensively to perceived criticism (warranted or otherwise).
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Just a couple of points, not
Just a couple of points, not meant as rejection of your comment as a whole, but I think worth noting:
I have been pointing out and criticizing the conduct of just 3 (very high comment volume) individuals, and just 2 in particular (who may really be 1). I suppose the community could take offense at my implication that they should be more concerned about the detrimental effect those individuals are having than they apparently are, but certainly the community as a whole should not confuse my assertions and criticisms of those individuals with assertions or criticisms of all or even most SCers (If I thought it applied to everyone or nearly everyone, I wouldn't spend any time here, much less try to make things better, whatever one thinks of my methods).
As for my "trying to transform" SC into anything, as I've said, I'm just trying to reverse the decline SC has experienced over the past half year or so and bring it back to something more closely resembling what it was before the composition of comments shifted dramatically such that three high volume, bad faith (along with low quality in general) posters comprise a huge chunk of the comments. So whatever you'd call what SC was in terms of quality of exchanges and the good faith behind them, that's my goal.
As for the "debate vs. bar" thing, I get your point to a degree, but I'm not sure I completely understand and my sense is that we have some disagreement as it pertains to the goings on here. I don't know how much fun it is for anyone to try to discuss or debate something with someone who, as soon as he feels his position or argument is threatened, becomes the world's most persistent, blatant bullsh*tter just because saving face is what matters most to him. I think if I had a buddy who acted like that he'd be wearing beer the first few times, and after that I'd just stay away from even trying to discuss anything serious with him in the sphere that triggers that much emotional insecurity and absense of integrity (be it politics or whatever).
How are you justified in harrasing people?
Meh. You are harassing people. Simple as that. Your conduct is reprehensible and is driving people away from the site. You should stop.
The site rules specifically state you are not allowed to harass others. How do you justify such flagrant abuses of the rules?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4BR asserts ...
What decline? Who says there has been a decline? What gives you the right to make unilateral decisions for the entire site?
If anyone thinks that the site is in decline relative to half a year ago, please reply to this message and state as much. Perhaps BR is merely tilting at the windmills in his mind?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I understand what you're saying
about criticizing the postings of specific individuals rather than criticizing the community as a whole.
But GoRight, for example, is a long-standing member of SC, and (many of) the other posters are not going to appreciate him (seemingly) being attacked even if they agree with your analysis of particular points of contention.
I think it's mostly a matter of style. A thread that starts off with broad generalizations or poorly supported arguments can develop into something quite useful and constructive (example
) or it can get sidetracked into a meta flame fest. If the goal is the former but the particular method being chosen to achieve that goal seems to typically result in the latter, I think it is worth reconsidering the approach. For example, one could let a meta point slide in order to keep discussion tracked on the underlying topic.
Maybe this isn't so much a question of civility (plenty of elbows in the thread I linked), although of course that helps, as it is one of focus. I gather you have an interest in logic for its own sake, in methods of argument, and in blog dynamics, and perhaps that changes your personal perception of what constitutes unproductive meta. It seems to me that under the present circumstances at SC it would be best if everyone focused their energy on discussing outside news, events, and philosophy, rather than turning their gaze inward and obsessing over one another.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
I can certainly agree with that.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4It seems to me that under
In general (and yes, even at this point after my efforts) I would much prefer that focus. Just to be clear, I would MUCH rather focus on actual issues than on meta stuff. I've only focused on the problem I see here because it makes quality discussion of actual issues on SC extremely difficult, because a few very high volume commenters muck it all up.
But yes, I have to come to terms with it if the community as a whole does not agree with me that there is a major problem. It's unfortunate, because you and some others put in a lot of time and effort to make SC a relative oasis in a desert of blogosphere crappola, and now, due to much lower participation from good-faith, high quality members and much higher participation from their diametric opposites, most commentary (by volume, not members) on SC is at that crappola level in terms not only of "logic" but also of lack of good faith engagement (i.e., sincerity and a reasonable ratio of thoughtfulness-to-combativeness).
Again, I would like GR, Centinel, and ML (and anyone else who wishes) to take me up on this offer swordscrossed.org/diary/20090327/populist-rage-revolution#comment-109843
so that at least I could try to have a decent, good-faith discussion/debate with other folks here rather than such efforts being trashed and diverted by those individuals.
I've thought long and hard...
..... about this, and it's time to just go ahead and SAY it so there won't be any confusion in the future as to where I stand:
I like pie.
A politician is an arse upon which everyone has sat except a man -- e e cummings
That is so damn sexist
That is so damn sexist
My pie....
... is gender neutral, sir. Tasty, but gender neutral.
A politician is an arse upon which everyone has sat except a man -- e e cummings
ok, but watch the conceivably
ok, but watch the conceivably sexist double entendre. I have my hands full dealing with enough as is...I mean, I'm busy as...um, nuthin', never mind.
Oh.
Hm.
I love that stupid movie.
A politician is an arse upon which everyone has sat except a man -- e e cummings
Actually though....
..... it might be Pie-ist. Perhaps I am guilty of objectifying the object of my desire (pie).
Well, too dang bad. If loving pie is a crime, then let me stand guilty!
A politician is an arse upon which everyone has sat except a man -- e e cummings
ok, now yer just beggin' me
ok, now yer just beggin' me to post the vid of that kitchen scene from American Pie -- ya' know, with the guy "loving pie", so to speak.
Heh... well.
Let me just also say that my love for pie is pretty much platonic in nature. Well, platonic and gastronomic. Epicurean maybe.
You make a good point, though. One can love pie too much.
Maybe I should find me a 12 step program... or eat more cake.
I do like cake.
A politician is an arse upon which everyone has sat except a man -- e e cummings
Cake now? After all your
Cake now? After all your professed love and devotion to pie.
You ain't nuthin' but a low-down, no-good, sweet-talkin' cheater. So frickin' fickle.
And no way would I ever let you date my 3.14159, so you stay the hell away from her.
You know....
..... I deserved that.
I really need to stick to one dessert at a time, and stop my straying ways.
A politician is an arse upon which everyone has sat except a man -- e e cummings
I'm just glad you said "stick
I'm just glad you said "stick to one dessert". I hope that preposition was intentional. All this talk of your, um, unusual interests even has me wondering what exactly is meant by your handle. Safe to say I won't slip an anatomically correct puppet onto my hand if you're around.
...and speaking of handles here on SC:
- It just occurred to me that Purpleface is a real d*ck.
- I never have to ask GoRight "How's it hangin' ? "
hmm, any others I can work with?
apple pie?
heh
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Let's just hope that it's not
Let's just hope that it's not cherry pie.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
heh
:)
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
* If individuals wish to
No trolling or playing DA ad naseum on issues you don't strongly think is a valid point [if person makes a factual misstate or gross over characterization, you cannot defend that missteps by playing DA], goes for any post I may read of yours on here.
-----
You ignored a post about the history of statutory rape laws.
So far, ignored a post about states treating statutory rape different based on the "victim's" age.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
I didn't ignore you post(s).
I said my argument is unrelated to statutory rape laws
, and I provided additional evidence to back up why I think that. That may not be the answer you wanted, but that that isn't ignoring it either.
As for you post/request ... does this mean you would like to make an agreement on how I will respond to your posts? If so we need to go over the fine print a bit before I will accept the terms. I assume you understand that is only natural in any agreement, correct?
I am not clear on exactly what constitutes "play DA ad nauseum". How can we distingusich between that and when I just don't agree with something you have said? If we are discussing the finer points of the law the conversation will necessarily become drawn out and tedious, right? So we need some way to (relatively) objectively determine when I am violating our agreement, and vice versa.
I'm not going to agree to simply stop arguing my side of something when I think I am right, regardless of how strongly I feel on that particular topic. For example, if we were arguing the finer points of dryer lint I wouldn't simply concede a point when I think I am right even though I couldn't give a rat's patoot about dryer lint. Once I'm in the argument I'm there to stay for the most part.
So I am not sure how to address this particular point. Make a proposal. If we can come to an agreement I'll honor it.
If I have a defensible position why should I not defend it? You know as well as I do that we can't include every little nuance of some topic in an off-the-top comment in every post. There would be so many wherefores and whatifs the thing would be unreadable. What I can offer up is that I will acknowledge when you have scored a point in the debate in the sense that you caught me off guard with something. In other words if you legitimately raise a point that I was not aware of (either explicitly or implicitly but I legitimately know the response without having to research it first) then I can certainly be more forthcoming in those cases in acknowledging that you have done so.
I can also certainly address the ad nauseum aspect of things in our interactions, but be forewarned that this may lead to an increased number of times where we simply have to agree to disagree after we have both made our points ... and this is a two way street.
Thoughts?
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4