When Shutting Up isn't Cowardice

but wait, I spelled listening incorrectly...

Ok, ok, and thanks, Tico..

or maybe not, as I might soon be addicted yet again.

0 Replies

OK, Tico, I looked at that closer, looks like touble for me....

Thanks!

0 Replies

ossobuco wrote:

OK, Tico, I looked at that closer, looks like trouble for me....

Thanks!

Sure. Have fun. Very Happy

0 Replies

You may not have on the Mac, osso.

0 Replies

roger wrote:

You may not have on the Mac, osso.

Details.

0 Replies

We'll see, manana.

Thx, both of you.

0 Replies

LittleBitty wrote:

ehBeth wrote:
ehBeth wrote:
appear and disappear together.

cha-ching

Would you like to know why? I'd be more than happy to share this information with you. I'm being sincere.

You betcha. bethie's kaching has got my ears to ringing and I can't think straight.

0 Replies

deb

The Bachevich piece heads up this thread. What surprised me, perhaps it ought not to have, was the "zeitgeisty" aspect of "who lost the war in iraq"... it much precedes the Bachevich piece and has a huge presence quite unrelated to that same piece.

0 Replies

LittleBitty wrote:

ehBeth wrote:
ehBeth wrote:
appear and disappear together.

cha-ching

Would you like to know why? I'd be more than happy to share this information with you. I'm being sincere.

Sure, go for it.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

LittleBitty wrote:
ehBeth wrote:
ehBeth wrote:
appear and disappear together.

cha-ching

Would you like to know why? I'd be more than happy to share this information with you. I'm being sincere.

You betcha. bethie's kaching has got my ears to ringing and I can't think straight.

Monte Cargo is my husband. As I have stated before, I've read this board off and on for many years. When I joined several days ago, I thought my husband might wish to participate as well, so I encouraged him to take part in your political forum. We have separate computers but share an IP through a router.

We purposely picked names that were two words; a detail that was overlooked in the witch hunt. The idea was to ease ourselves into this situation as we know how emotionally invested many posters become in their respective message boards. If we wanted to fool you, we'd never have joined or posted at the same time.

We've participated on other boards without any explanation and maintained that zero connection between the two of us for years. I wouldn't be too quick with that pat on that back considering all of the clues we left in this case.

This is information we were more than willing to share, but the accusations flew, first in my husband's direction accusing him of being a return poster under another name, and they continued on until there was open discussion here and we imagine behind the scenes as well.

You yourself blatham had your doubts though and have complimented MC whether you agreed with him or not. Unlike the the little emotional wreck I appeared to be days ago, I can promise you that many of you are wrong about my education, my husband's whereabouts prior to this time, and how we truly interact on a message board.

I've had a difficult time of it, but I've kept my husband off of this particular thread as he was less than impressed with what was said here. That, and I fight my own battles.

We thought that if I chose a rather ridiculous looking avatar and name, coupled with sounding naive and emotional, that I wouldn't be perceived as any sort of threat as my husband comes on rather strong. The amazing thing is the least tolerant group is this political forum. I've posted for far too many years on political issues to be that sensitive!

So, in conclusion, it is clear that you need to change your rules. You need to state that husbands and wives cannot join at the same time and enjoy any sort of positive experience. You need to add that all newcomers will be subjected to labels such as trolls, uneducated, etc. You need to share how quick you are to judge, and how quick you are to remove yourselves from that same judgment.

We feel sorry for those of you that appear to be too insecure to share your board with any new arrivals. That was a big concern to us... not upsetting the balance that you've achieved here.

If we should decide not to return, a fond adieu to a select few of you that were fun to debate regardless of whether or not you agreed with us on a topic. Tico and roger, your names come to mind right off the top of my head. We hope that you both remain the true gentlemen that you have been to us.

Humankind cannot stand very much reality. ~ T.S. Elliot

0 Replies

Hooray, Hooray ! ! !

The ignore function in Firefox works a treat ! ! !

0 Replies

LittleBitty wrote:

If we should decide not to return, a fond adieu to a select few of you that were fun to debate regardless of whether or not you agreed with us on a topic. Tico and roger, your names come to mind right off the top of my head. We hope that you both remain the true gentlemen that you have been to us.

Ah, the fragrant stench of hypocricy.

The first time i ever saw a post by Monte Cargo at this site, he was attacking me. I had never seen that member before, and had therefore never made any remarks to or about him. He disparaged my intelligence, speculated on my political affiliation (i have none) and how i had voted in the elections in which Clinton stood for office. When pointed out that i had never voted for Clinton, MC decided that must be because i wasn't old enough to vote in those elections--i first voted in a national election in 1972, since in my younger days, one had to be 21 to vote, so that was the first national election for which i qualified. That was the first election in which 18 year olds could vote, but i was already over 21 by then.

Therefore, my conclusion is that you only consider those who agree with your political points of view to be "true gentlemen," and that you are unable to include Monte Cargo in a list of "true gentlemen."

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

LittleBitty wrote:
If we should decide not to return, a fond adieu to a select few of you that were fun to debate regardless of whether or not you agreed with us on a topic. Tico and roger, your names come to mind right off the top of my head. We hope that you both remain the true gentlemen that you have been to us.

Ah, the fragrant stench of hypocricy.

The first time i ever saw a post by Monte Cargo at this site, he was attacking me. I had never seen that member before, and had therefore never made any remarks to or about him. He disparaged my intelligence, speculated on my political affiliation (i have none) and how i had voted in the elections in which Clinton stood for office. When pointed out that i had never voted for Clinton, MC decided that must be because i wasn't old enough to vote in those elections--i first voted in a national election in 1972, since in my younger days, one had to be 21 to vote, so that was the first national election for which i qualified. That was the first election in which 18 year olds could vote, but i was already over 21 by then.

Therefore, my conclusion is that you only consider those who agree with your political points of view to be "true gentlemen," and that you are unable to include Monte Cargo in a list of "true gentlemen."

I rarely agree politically with Monte Cargo. I suggest you go back and read my posts. I'm merely pointing out those who have been kind that I could immediately recall. I'm a registered Democrat but my views are somewhat right in the middle of the road. In fact, I felt insulted by Monte Cargo and put it in a post. He then clarified his point.

It's easy to pull out one small piece of what I have said and not look at the big picture. I voted for Clinton twice. I believe you've drawn the wrong conclusion.

As I mentioned, my husband comes on strong, so I attempted to take a backseat in the interest of being accepted into the fold, but that didn't pan out too well. For example, if I had been more aggressive, there's a chance you'd probably be more familiar with my views.

I've noticed in the past that few posters forget what my husband says to them. I can't defend the words. He's his own poster here and answers for himself.

How's that ignore button working? I've had it available to me on other boards and never had any use for it. I guess to each their own. <shrug>

0 Replies

LittleBitty wrote:

This is information we were more than willing to share, but the accusations flew, first in my husband's direction accusing him of being a return poster under another name, and they continued on until there was open discussion here and we imagine behind the scenes as well.

You and your husband had the misfortune to arrive in the aftermath of our battle with a particularly persistent multiple-identity troll. As part of its legacy, it has now made many of us suspicious of new members who might, in truth, be its reincarnations. Those suspicions are exacerbated by the generally toothless response of the moderators, which has led some to act in the self-appointed role of watchdogs for the site, vetting new members to determine if they are genuine or merely the reappearance of that virulent troll. It's too bad that, in their understandable zeal to expose this pest, they targeted you and your husband.

LittleBitty wrote:

So, in conclusion, it is clear that you need to change your rules. You need to state that husbands and wives cannot join at the same time and enjoy any sort of positive experience. You need to add that all newcomers will be subjected to labels such as trolls, uneducated, etc. You need to share how quick you are to judge, and how quick you are to remove yourselves from that same judgment.

We feel sorry for those of you that appear to be too insecure to share your board with any new arrivals. That was a big concern to us... not upsetting the balance that you've achieved here.

Newcomers, unfortunately, are not always welcomed here. I know that I encountered some resistance when I first joined. Some people here treat it like high school, and if you're not in the "alpha group," then you're mocked, abused, or ignored. All I can say is that, like high school, we tend to find our niches eventually. I hope that you and your husband will choose to remain here and become valued members of our community.

0 Replies

Setanta,

Here's a portion of a post from this very thread submitted to us by blatham:

Quote:

One of them, MC, is bright and could turn out to be a lot of fun. The other two are merely uneducated nuisances (assuming we are speaking of the same three).

I originally felt he was a gentleman but of course I have good reason to feel differently now.

0 Replies

The "Cannot connect to database" monster is striking again.

Here is the response which i tried to post to Littlebitty:

Who did or didn't vote for Clinton is hardly the issue. Monte Cargo lashed out at me in a vicious manner completely out of the blue. Given that the persistent troll to whom Joebythebigstinkylake refers was obsessed with attacking me, and the style of the content was so similar, including that "shouting" (the use of all caps) was also a characteristic, it was not an unreasonable suspicion on my part.

I had received a PM before reading MC's attack on me which suggested that another new member might be Massagato. When i went into that thread, i concluded that that poster was probably not Massagato, but went with the idea for the entertainment value. I did strongly suspect that MC was Massagato reborn, and said as much.

It is a bit much to see you making comments about "true gentlemen." Roger probably deserves that accolade as much as or more than anyone else here. I can think of few candidates less qualified for the praise than Ticomaya. And given that you complained in your post about how Monte Cargo was being treated, and spoke of "true gentlemen," i was more than a little amused and disgusted.

The ignore works quite well, although i've only applied to two members, both of somewhat long-standing here. Monte Cargo is not one of the two, i find i have no trouble ignoring Monte Cargo at all, and have had none since the second post of his which i read, and which lead me to decide that he had nothing to write which i was interested in reading.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

LittleBitty wrote:
This is information we were more than willing to share, but the accusations flew, first in my husband's direction accusing him of being a return poster under another name, and they continued on until there was open discussion here and we imagine behind the scenes as well.

You and your husband had the misfortune to arrive in the aftermath of our battle with a particularly persistent multiple-identity troll. As part of its legacy, it has now made many of us suspicious of new members who might, in truth, be its reincarnations. Those suspicions are exacerbated by the generally toothless response of the moderators, which has led some to act in the self-appointed role of watchdogs for the site, vetting new members to determine if they are genuine or merely the reappearance of that virulent troll. It's too bad that, in their understandable zeal to expose this pest, they targeted you and your husband.

LittleBitty wrote:
So, in conclusion, it is clear that you need to change your rules. You need to state that husbands and wives cannot join at the same time and enjoy any sort of positive experience. You need to add that all newcomers will be subjected to labels such as trolls, uneducated, etc. You need to share how quick you are to judge, and how quick you are to remove yourselves from that same judgment.

We feel sorry for those of you that appear to be too insecure to share your board with any new arrivals. That was a big concern to us... not upsetting the balance that you've achieved here.

Newcomers, unfortunately, are not always welcomed here. I know that I encountered some resistance when I first joined. Some people here treat it like high school, and if you're not in the "alpha group," then you're mocked, abused, or ignored. All I can say is that, like high school, we tend to find our niches eventually. I hope that you and your husband will choose to remain here and become valued members of our community.

Another gentleman, I appreciate the level-headed explanation. I just wish someone had asked and this could have been cleared up when we joined to avoid all of this angst over who we are and why we joined able2know.

We could have been secretive and easily fooled everyone. As I've said, we've done that before elsewhere not to be difficult, but because we don't owe anyone that explanation. If it's a sensitive situation though, we'd much prefer to clear the air and issue assurances to all concerned.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

The "Cannot connect to database" monster is striking again.

Here is the response which i tried to post to Littlebitty:

Who did or didn't vote for Clinton is hardly the issue. Monte Cargo lashed out at me in a vicious manner completely out of the blue. Given that the persistent troll to whom Joebythebigstinkylake refers was obsessed with attacking me, and the style of the content was so similar, including that "shouting" (the use of all caps) was also a characteristic, it was not an unreasonable suspicion on my part.

I had received a PM before reading MC's attack on me which suggested that another new member might be Massagato. When i went into that thread, i concluded that that poster was probably not Massagato, but went with the idea for the entertainment value. I did strongly suspect that MC was Massagato reborn, and said as much.

It is a bit much to see you making comments about "true gentlemen." Roger probably deserves that accolade as much as or more than anyone else here. I can think of few candidates less qualified for the praise than Ticomaya. And given that you complained in your post about how Monte Cargo was being treated, and spoke of "true gentlemen," i was more than a little amused and disgusted.

The ignore works quite well, although i've only applied to two members, both of somewhat long-standing here. Monte Cargo is not one of the two, i find i have no trouble ignoring Monte Cargo at all, and have had none since the second post of his which i read, and which lead me to decide that he had nothing to write which i was interested in reading.

There may very well be others that deserve accolades but I don't know everyone yet. I'm sure over time, I'll be able to sort this out. I will defend my mention of Tico, as he didn't simply jump to conclusions and he immediately welcomed newcomers to the board when they happened to cross his path.

You take a chance when you accuse someone of being another. It was obvious to us that PMs were being exchanged and information albeit incorrect information was being suggested to various posters. It became more clear with each post.

I spoke of how we were treated, not just Monte Cargo. I mentioned on that 'who was pres when you were 20' thread that I am not here to defend Monte Cargo's posts. I brought up Clinton to demonstrate how opposite Monte Cargo's views are from my own. I don't always choose to post with him.

I am his wife and regardless of anything he posts don't you think I'll see him as a gentleman? Do you expect him to view me as "uneducated" based on blatham's post?

I respect you and your ideas, and would probably consider you to have been in the gentleman category but the accusatons put a twist on things in the very beginning. It isn't one post, but rather a combination of all combined that made this place seem so negative.

0 Replies

Quote:

I am his wife and regardless of anything he posts don't you think I'll see him as a gentleman?

Hopefully as his wife you would tell him when he isn't acting in that fashion, and that requires you to be able to discern the difference.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I never got around to deciding whether or not either you or Monte were massagatto, but it definitely looks now like neither of you are. Sorry for the discomfort that came from being wrongfully connected to our one-person infestation.

And Embarrassed

a belated welcome to A2K....

0 Replies

When Shutting Up isn't Cowardice

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know