Obama '08?

Finn wrote:

Here's a radical suggestion for you all:

Ignore him.

Don't read his posts. Don't respond to them [..].

Indeedie.

I confront those with whom I disagree, as do you. Perhaps we're not so different as you might like to think.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

I confront those with whom I disagree, as do you. Perhaps we're not so different as you might like to think.

I confront those with whom I disagree, when I'm up to it - no matter which side of the political divide they are on.

For sure, I disagree more often with conservatives than with liberals, when it comes to actual arguments. But if a liberal or leftwinger says something out of line, I'm not going to hold back because he's "on my side". Because I don't want to break ranks or give the enemy an opportunity, or whatever the reasoning is that underlies that kind of hypocrisy.

You appear happy to denounce people for wild or insulting behaviour when they are, in your eyes, on the other side - say, Roxx - but will let the very same behaviour pass, or even defend it, when it comes from a conservative or rightwinger - say, Bernard.

That's where the difference is. I don't hold much of that kind of mentality.

(OK, now this post was off-topic)

I'm also happy that you find A2K postings to be a test of your integrity, and that you give yourself such high marks. Alas, I do not feel compelled to equitably spread my scorn for twits on both sides of the spectrum.

I have a different opinion. When I began to post, I worked very hard to be as polite to people as I could. I regulary addressed them as Mr. or Ms.
I can, of course, go to search to find instances where the "gentleman" Mr. Blatham, addressed me as "excrement" and where Mr. Imposter used obscene language towards me. Nimh, Unfortunately, also referred to me as the "village idiot".

While such labels are obviously in violation of the TOS, I care nothing for that prodecure.

I am really amazed that someone as brilliant and learned and LIBERAL as Mr. Blatham would deny me my right to post. His admonition that no one interact with me has no effect, I assure you, on my posting, present and future, but it does, no matter how many protestations the learned Mr. Blatham makes, convince me beyond the shadow of a doubt that he fears my posts and cannot debate with me without being shown to be a loser!


Otherwise, why wouldn't the learned and erudite Mr. Blatham wipe my arguments out in one or two impressive paragraphs and force me from the field to be the laughing stock because I had been put in my place!!!


I am very sorry, Mr. Blatham, you don't have to read my posts. Neither does anyone else, but I assure you that when you make the same old supercilious elitist statements you are prone to make, whether or not you like it, I will be there to post a demurrer.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

I'm also happy that you find A2K postings to be a test of your integrity, and that you give yourself such high marks. Alas, I do not feel compelled to equitably spread my scorn for twits on both sides of the spectrum.

Anything is a test of integrity <shrugs>.

For sure, I've seen where someone made the argument that web forum posting is in some way a kind of holiday from the kind of standards (of integrity, politeness, etc) that you would set yourself in normal life. And I'm definitely not the same here as I am IRL - but I dont see why I should suddenly stop trying to be fair just cause this is online.

Posting on a forum is pretty much the most inconsequential activity one can undertake in life, but it's a behaviour like any other, in which you can try to be integre [sp?], or not. Just like going to the shop and giving extra change back if the cashier made a mistake or something. Perfectly inconsequential - but yeah, sure, everything is a test of integrity of sorts. You know people by how they behave in all the little daily things, right?

Here we go into posting meta-politics... (Soz, stop us)

I agree with Finn; doling out criticism and integrity are two separate issues. That's about "fairness."