55
   

WikiLeaks about to hit the fan

 
 
Builder
 
  0  
Reply Sat 13 Oct, 2012 02:02 am
@Robert Gentel,
"Anyway, you clearly don't understand how the internet works..."

Your patronising nature does not hide the fact that every time you make a point about wikileaks, you avoid the reality that regardless of who is behind the org, the US MIC is run by corrupt corporate criminals, and those same criminals are now actively pursuing control of your country.

I do sympathise with the fact that it scares the **** out of you, Robert, but I don't see how your fear justifies your attempts to cut others out of what is an active issue, and a very interesting conversation.

Your pretence that you know more about the internet than longterm hackers, is somewhat comical, but the laughter doesn't extend to your inferences about my intelligence, or knowledge base, because, like your comments about the two Swedish girls in question, your research is shoddy, and unreliable.

As for your offhanded dismissal of msolga, that is probably based upon the fact that you can't refute the information she presents, so you attempt to belittle her.

All round, quite a dissappointment.

Hoping you come to your senses, but not holding my breath too long.
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Oct, 2012 03:53 am
@Robert Gentel,
Frankly, Robert I think that's a pretty over-the -top response.

Quote:
You are the only person on the internet with the perfect storm of characteristics that has ever made me use an ignore feature.

The only person?
Really? Surprised
I had absolutely no idea I was so terrible till now!
The worst of the worst!
(Did you hear that hawkeye? Even worse than you! )

Quote:
I've told you that after years of never being able to find ways to agree to disagree with you without a lot of unwanted drama, I'd rather just avoid it altogether

"A lot of unwanted drama"?
Really?
I'd call it something different.
Like debate? Discussion?

You know what, Robert?
Seeing as you've decided to go "personal" in your criticisms :
I've found your posts to this particular thread particularly disappointing.
I've actually felt a little embarrassedfor you because you are so out of touch with all the easily accessible information out there ... if you cared to look. Which you obviously haven't.
I had actually decided to lay off you, for that reason.
Honestly.

I'm very disappointed in this particular post of yours, because often I've actually [agreed[/i] with you, in so many of your other posts. Especially your political posts.
But on this particular issue I think you've lost the plot.
Sorry.

Quote:
Why do you insist on talking to someone who has repeatedly expressed robust disinterest in doing so?

A2K is about debate, at least part of the time , yes?
Anyone can comment on another person's comment, yes?
That's what I've done in response to your comments here, on this thread.
Is that OK with you?
And on this particular issue I think you're wrong, say nothing of poorly informed & biased.

I couldn't care less if it was you or anyone else here who has said what you've said on this thread. Nothing personal, but I totally disagree with your arguments. And I don't think you've backed up your arguments credibly.

Robert, what exactly is the point of discussion/debate on this site when a person who disagrees with your perspective has to deal with this sort of personal response/attack from you to what they've said?
As I'd say to anyone else ... that is no substitute for a plausible counter-argument.

Robert Gentel
 
  4  
Reply Sat 13 Oct, 2012 08:27 am
@msolga,
Yes. Really. I have never felt compelled to ignore anyone else. But I didn't say you are horrible, you are just the prefect storm of annoying to me. Poor arguments, highly opinionated, and hyper sensitive all with a healthy dose of repetition ad nauseum. I just do not wish to hold converse with you. This is my right and I wish you would have more respect for it instead of your obdurate, obnoxious insistence to keep talking to me. That isn't "debate" that is just an absence of social graces.

I've addressed your arguments here ad nauseum, but like a dog with a bone you want to go on forever, that's one reason I don't enjoy discusion with you. I find discussion with you unedifying and frustrating and once again I will ask you to stop going around responding to me. It's annoying and obnoxious to insist to talk to someone who does not want to talk to you.

You've had your say on this subject, so have I and I really have nothing more to say to you about this and this is only a good reminder of why I haven't talked to you for years and will go back to not doing so. It's not debate when one person doesn't want to talk to another and the other insists on it. It's just boorish harassment. Please find other people who want to talk to you instead of insisting on talking to me when I've made it plain for years that I lack the desire to do so. Why can't you respect that? And find other people who actually want to talk to you to debate?
Robert Gentel
 
  3  
Reply Sat 13 Oct, 2012 09:03 am
@msolga,
msolga wrote:
A2K is about debate, at least part of the time , yes?
Anyone can comment on another person's comment, yes?


Just want to mention that a2k is going to change so that "ignoring" is like "blocking" and just prevents people from seeing or replying to someone who has blocked them.

This is one of the reasons. If someone doesn't want to talk to you, insisting anyway is just boorish harassment. In the future when someone "blocks" someone else they both simply won't see each other's posts or be able to reply to them.

It will be a much-needed change on a2k. If someone doesn't want to talk to you they should be given better mechanisms to avoid it. The "ignore" feature needs a lot of improvement to make it actually remove more of what the user is wishing to ignore. Debate does not mean everyone should have the ability to force people to have to listen to you when they are trying to ignore you.
spendius
 
  2  
Reply Sat 13 Oct, 2012 09:40 am
@Robert Gentel,
Good. That will prevent people who have announced that they have put you on Ignore from "peeking".

Is it not possible to fix it so that somebody who puts you on Ignore cannot thereafter undo the action.

And a comparison with "debate" requires, surely, that members are informed of who has them on Ignore as would be obvious in a face-to-face debate. Someone in a debate who refuses to listen to another in the debate cannot help but make it obvious to the other that he or she is refusing to listen.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Oct, 2012 01:33 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Quote:
Just want to mention that a2k is going to change so that "ignoring" is like "blocking" and just prevents people from seeing or replying to someone who has blocked them.


Another fun feature that no one had ask for or likely desire................
0 Replies
 
Rockhead
 
  2  
Reply Sat 13 Oct, 2012 01:40 pm
@Robert Gentel,
I think your move will have some unintended complications, but it will certainly be a large change in format.

good luck...
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Oct, 2012 01:55 pm
@spendius,
Quote:
Good. That will prevent people who have announced that they have put you on Ignore from "peeking".

Is it not possible to fix it so that somebody who puts you on Ignore cannot thereafter undo the action.


Spendius for some reason in regard to this website the image of the space shuttle challenger last minute is coming to my mind where the explosion had already broken apart the crew section from the rest of the craft and all the crew could do is 'enjoy' the last minute or so before the crew section hit the ocean.

Hmm maybe a more accurate analog would be the Egyptian co-pilot who after takeoff from New York put the plane in a dive and shouting that god in great while doing so until the plane impact the ocean.

It look like Robert is arranging a similar interesting if short ride for all of us.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Oct, 2012 02:27 pm
@BillRM,
I hardly think it is that big a deal Bill.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Oct, 2012 02:53 pm
@spendius,
Quote:
hardly think it is that big a deal Bill.


I disagree as it allow a user to decide who can see his or her public postings and that is crazy.

The ignore function work just fine now and allow you to decide if you wish to see another poster or not postings but if I understand the great Robert that feature will in the future give you control over whether someone else will see a public posting of your and that is a horse of another color completely.

The pilot is threating to put the control column all the way forward it would seems.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Oct, 2012 03:00 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
I disagree as it allow a user to decide who can see his or her public postings and that is crazy.


That is common practice in debates. Muttered asides to confidantes and talking behind people's backs.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Oct, 2012 03:07 pm
@spendius,
Quote:
That is common practice in debates. Muttered asides to confidantes and talking behind people's backs.


We are not talking about private mail that this system happen to support but public statements that everyone can read but the persons you had on ignore and I find it strange given some of the charming people we have on this system that you can not foresee the results of such a feature.

I was under the impression up to Robert last posting that Hawkeye was overstating Robert plans to recreated this system in a manner that is harmful to the free flow of ideas but it seem Hawkeye was at least partly right.
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  2  
Reply Sat 13 Oct, 2012 03:09 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Fine. No worries about the ignore.
No great loss.
Actually, I was not so much eager to talk to you, never have been really, but more disagreeing with what you'd said on this thread. (Exactly the same as if I disagreed with anyone else's argument/s) And what you were choosing not to see or acknowledge because it didn't suit your "argument".
As for having "addressed my arguments ad nauseum" ... you're dreaming if you think that. You haven't at all. You could do with some catch-up reading on the subject, actually.
Bye, then.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Oct, 2012 03:15 pm
@msolga,
Frankly I do not think that Robert problems with you have anything to do about this new feature at the very most it is a weak excuse for adding it to the website.
0 Replies
 
hingehead
 
  9  
Reply Sat 13 Oct, 2012 03:33 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Quote:
I just do not wish to hold converse with you


Then don't. How's that for a hi tech solution? Neutral Yay me!
hawkeye10
 
  2  
Reply Sat 13 Oct, 2012 03:45 pm
If I have this right if xyz has hawkeye on block the hawkeye will not be able to see anything that xyz has written.

Wow.

If so then Robert is more desperate to cleanse A2K than I thought, because that is a strong act of censorship right there. Not sure how such hostility to open conversation helps the A2K brand though.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Oct, 2012 04:03 pm
@hawkeye10,
Hawkeye able2know is a nice website with interesting people and that even cover my true love Firefly as in interesting at least but it is hardly the only debating website on the net.

If Robert wish to be hostile to viewpoints that is out of the mainstream on his website so be it.....................
Robert Gentel
 
  3  
Reply Sat 13 Oct, 2012 04:10 pm
@hingehead,
I tried that for about two years. She kept replying to my posts anyway. Other than TTL I've never had a situation online where if I just stopped talking to someone that didn't make a difference, and they still insisted on talking to me for years without my ever replying. She knew damn well I did not want to talk to her but wouldn't stop replying to me, saying how I am uninformed about this and that (when in reality I simply disagree with her with access to the very same information).

It gets annoying when someone doesn't take a hint after that long and I decided to reiterate my request to her. That's low-tech too (edit: just to be clear, the planned feature change has nothing at all to do with her and everything to do with the current ignore feature not working well for most). All I am doing is asking her once again to respect my wish not to be drawn into endless, frustrating and mutually fruitless discussions. This usually works in low-tech, offline conversations with normal people.

Hopefully this will work and she will leave me alone. It's obnoxious and has gone on for about two years now without me saying a word, I had finally had it with her ongoing attempts to bait me into an argument.
Robert Gentel
 
  3  
Reply Sat 13 Oct, 2012 04:21 pm
@BillRM,
I keep telling you that, you and hawkeye keep saying how horrible it is here, why not vote with your feet?
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Oct, 2012 04:28 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Quote:
I tried that for about two years. She kept replying to my posts anyway.

Confused
Quick comment:
Check your posts over the past 2 years & see how often I've tried to engage you personally.
Go on. Just do it & see.
I think a lot of this might be in your mind.
I wish you'd stop this now. You're starting to look silly making such a big deal about nothing.
edit: I've actually been avoiding you pretty much of the time during the past 2 years ( longer, actually) , because the encounters were so unnecessarily unpleasant. But believe what you want.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 12/02/2021 at 04:14:27