monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

@izzythepush,

We’ll see about the rules against personal harassment etc enumerated in the TOS.

As long as I’m free to speak my opinions about the motivations of other posters, with the same freedom others speak theirs about me, I have no complaint.

1 Reply

@Lash,

Quote:

You don’t.

I do for a few members and it works out pretty well. It's true, I don't have you (or Builder, because I don't take him seriously and find him somewhat amusing) on "ignore" but you actually post some opinions from sources that I wouldn't see otherwise and I like to read them. Really, Lash, if you look at the ratio of your posts to my replies to your posts you'll see I don't engage with you that often, and when I do, it's mostly pretty mild stuff, like pointing out a different interpretation of the same events, criticizing conspiracy theories, or defending politicians who I believe are being attacked unfairly.

Quote:

8) No personal attacks

No personal attacks on other members. Heated arguments are okay; mudslinging and calling each other names is not. It’s not okay when done in response to attacks on you or others either; please just report and downvote the offending comment instead. (If you feel provoked by offending comments, you can also use the "ignore user" function.) Creating topics specifically to criticize or mock another individual member is definitely not okay. Neither are specific or credible threats to other members.
9) No personal arguments ad nauseum

If a personal dispute between members drags on and on and gets in the way of others being able to discuss a topic (or crosses from topic to topic) members may be suspended.

If you really want to engage someone whom you feel is personally attacking you, try composing responses that don't make personal accusations, stay cool, state why their argument is fallacious, and move on. You can dismantle someone's points, imply that they indicate ignorance or gullibility, and sign off without ever calling them names or indicting their alleged personal failings. Really, if someone really is a lying, overweight, drunken ignoramus it will be obvious to everyone else and stating it directly should be unnecessary. Have a good day, and have an upvote!

0 Replies

I prefer to have the same freedoms other people have. I’ve got this thing about fairness and equality.

0 Replies

@Lash,

How are you being harassed?

All I’ve seen is a succession of posters saying they don’t believe you, and, more importantly, why they don’t believe you.

That’s not harassment.

1 Reply

@Builder,

That's naïve in the extreme. It was a political process, not a judicial process. There was no way the Republicans were going to vote to convict. You pulled some bullsh*t out of your ass to the effect that he was not indicted, but Roger pointed out that he was indicted--that's what impeach means. Now you're saying he was exonerated. That's not true, he just was not convicted. Those are not the same ideas at all.

0 Replies

My expression of my contempt for your posts here does not include egregious name-calling, as you seem incapable of dispensing with here. That's why I have reported your post for name-calling. There was no lying. You have said that the Republicans are your party, and that Plump is your president. You have suggested to others reading here that they vote for a hopeless third party candidate, which would, of course, benefit Plump's attempt at re-election.

Commenting on a person's posting content and name-calling are two entirely different things. Pointing out that an alleged progressive is advising others to vote in a manner which would harm the prospects of progressive reform is right on topic here.

1 Reply

@Builder,

Says the guy who has repeatedly all me "Canuck," a disobliging term that refers to a Canadian. I am an American, and I thank Dog every day that I am not a countryman of yours, or worse, a neighbor.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Izzy said it in a nutshell. She can’t seem to accept intelligently that no one left of center (besides Edgar) believes her ****.

She wants to simultaneously claim aggrieved status, and call someone a “toothless old git”, a miserable alcoholic, suggest sexual motives for interacting with her, the vilest kind of personal attacks.

I hope the moderators don’t let her get away with it, in an effort to be fair to “both sides”.

1 Reply

I don’t need to be believed, but no one can muster a disagreement with the content of my posts. It is all ad hom.

So, ok. Me too.

2 Replies

@snood,

snood wrote:

Izzy said it in a nutshell. She can’t seem to accept intelligently that no one left of center (besides Edgar) believes her ****.

She wants to simultaneously claim aggrieved status, and call someone a “toothless old git”, a miserable alcoholic, suggest sexual motives for interacting with her, the vilest kind of personal attacks.

I hope the moderators don’t let her get away with it, in an effort to be fair to “both sides”.

Let’s go back through your posts, Izzy’s, and setanta’s and highlight name-calling...

1 Reply

@Lash,

Just look at the last two pages. Setanta’s last post regarding you is all substantial refutation. No ad hom. Your last post regarding him is all ad hom and protestation of unfair treatment by the moderators, no substantial argument.

1 Reply

Series of video clips from across New York of citizens doing the 7 o'clock cheering thing.
Here
Warning: you might end up crying like me

0 Replies

@snood,

That’s ok. Don’t worry. I’ll find REAMS of his attacks, name-calling, etc. Yours too.

3 Replies

@Lash,

Lash wrote:

snood wrote:

Izzy said it in a nutshell. She can’t seem to accept intelligently that no one left of center (besides Edgar) believes her ****.

She wants to simultaneously claim aggrieved status, and call someone a “toothless old git”, a miserable alcoholic, suggest sexual motives for interacting with her, the vilest kind of personal attacks.

I hope the moderators don’t let her get away with it, in an effort to be fair to “both sides”.

Let’s go back through your posts, Izzy’s, and setanta’s and highlight name-calling...

We’ve done that before, and you ALWAYS come up as the most prodigious producer of low-blows. You like to make that challenge to look like the aggrieved party, and because you know how cumbersome and tedious a task it would be to pick through all your years of slime slinging.

When you add up the number of your repeat targets ( me, Blatham, GB, Izzy, Rev, Setanta, Maporche, etc) and multiply that by your outpouring of bile on each one, it ain’t even close.

0 Replies

@Lash,

Lash wrote:

That’s ok. Don’t worry. I’ll find REAMS of his attacks, name-calling, etc. Yours too.

Do you really think anyone believes you’d account for your own name-calling fairly?

0 Replies

@Lash,

Go on then. I can’t think of a better use of your time than trawling through old posts.

Enjoy.

0 Replies

@Lash,

Lash wrote:

I’ll find REAMS of his attacks, name-calling, etc. Yours too.

A ream is 500 sheets of A4 paper. That’s 1000 sides. Taking a highly conservative approach of 30 sentences per side that would mean you’d find in excess of 30,000 insults,(ad Homs) for Setanta, Snood and probably me too.

Any less would mean you’re lying or at the very least abusing hyperbole.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

The harassment charge grows out of the user's feeling that the site's rules on content policy are not applied fairly, to the user's disadvantage. The user feels that the "ignore" function is insufficient redress to a violation of the user's freedom and right to equality and, seeking a measure of retributive justice, would prefer to pursue a more progressive plan of action. Something along the lines of, "Whoever causes an injury to a neighbor must receive the same kind of injury in return: Broken bone for broken bone, eye for eye, tooth for tooth." What could go wrong?

0 Replies

My personal thoughts on all the above is that while we are in the midst of the most serious worldwide pandemic in our lifetimes and facing the most consequential and dangerous election perhaps in US history that our time here is probably not best spent in dozens - hundreds - thousands of posts regarding this one individual when dozens - hundreds- thousands of post of the same sort with this same individual have been invested over many years previously.

3 Replies

@Lash,

I disagree with your posts recommending that people vote for a third party candidate with no chance in the general election. I have already said this, and pointed out that that would not forward a progressive program. Which is one of many reasons that I don't have any reason to consider you progressive.

0 Replies

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know