When Shutting Up isn't Cowardice

But how bad is it? So I accused you of voting for Clinton. It's no big deal. When I was in music school, my buddies used to accuse me of listening to Peter Frampton. Well, it's not exactly the same, but as an analogy, it will do.

So I think you said you voted for Ralph Nader.

You also read the post where Little Bitty disclosed that I am her husband, yet you referred to me as a she. It would really make your complaints look even more pathetic if I were a woman, so let's get into the pits and scrap, okay?

LittleBitty wrote:

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

Well, thank you very kindly for this. I have to confess to guilt here. Of course, now that I've confessed, I don't have to worry about it any more.

We get nutty here sometimes and I put myself slightly below the 50 percentile (not necessarily accurate, but necessary for my equanimity). Your story ought to provide a reminder as to the limited functionality of jackboots for dancing.

A little ps, re one thing I said which may have been taken personally and misconstrued in that...I earlier mentioned something about two new posters and I described them as "uneducated nuisances". That wasn't a reference to you as I actually hadn't bumped into a post by you at that point.

Finally, welcome to both of you. I would like to offer you a sweet cookie now along with ten dollars canadian. Of course, you'll owe me ever after.

In fact, i have referred to you as the Madame of the Lone Star Whorehouse--you do yourself no favors by posting false statements.

It's not a matter of dishing it out or taking it. Monte Cargo attacked me, without provocation, and then came here to whine that he had been flamed. You got nasty comments from me because you made nasty comments to me.

I guess you can dish it out, but can't take it.

LittleBitty wrote:

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.

I appreciate your kind words. You should understand that Setanta holds a grudge against me for some reason, probably having to do with my having little tolerance for his cranky nonsense, and as a consequence he doesn't like me very much and resents it if others hold me in high regard.

And welcome to A2K, LB.

In fact, i have referred to you as the Madame of the Lone Star Whorehouse--you do yourself no favors by posting false statements.

It's not a matter of dishing it out or taking it. Monte Cargo attacked me, without provocation, and then came here to whine that he had been flamed. You got nasty comments from me because you made nasty comments to me.

Monte Cargo wrote:

But how bad is it? So I accused you of voting for Clinton. It's no big deal. When I was in music school, my buddies used to accuse me of listening to Peter Frampton. Well, it's not exactly the same, but as an analogy, it will do.

No, it's not a big deal--it's just an example of your puerile attempt to attack me, and to attack me without cause. It was also evidence that you know nothing about me, but were willing to make an attempt to disparage me by reference to something which is a political slur from people with your point of view.

Once again, i had not flamed you, so your earlier attempt to justify your behavior was a lie.

So I think you said you voted for Ralph Nader.

Quote:

You also read the post where Little Bitty disclosed that I am her husband, yet you referred to me as a she. It would really make your complaints look even more pathetic if I were a woman, so let's get into the pits and scrap, okay?

Yet another lie--i did not refer to you as she, and, in fact said that i assume you are male, precisely because Littlebitty referred to you as her husband. You apparently lack reading skills in addition to having a scurrilous posting style.

Setanta wrote:

In fact, i have referred to you as the Madame of the Lone Star Whorehouse--you do yourself no favors by posting false statements.

It's not a matter of dishing it out or taking it. Monte Cargo attacked me, without provocation, and then came here to whine that he had been flamed. You got nasty comments from me because you made nasty comments to me.

I guess you can dish it out, but can't take it.

I can assure you that if you used that language on a thread, you weren't about to get a round of applause from MC and for good reason.

One other matter I'd like to clear up for you. I've read post after post after post after post where you carry on about MC and your being attacked by him. I'm not sure about your definition of a whiner, but MC isn't looking like one to me. I can promise you that MC doesn't have the patience to actually spend any time whining and much prefers the fine art of debate.

I dunno if I followed all of the swoop of posts here from an apparent couple from another site who'd read awhile.

Or care, except that I'd not like to see only their posts.

On openness, may we all do that.

Setanta wrote:

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.

Jealous?

I'm a gentleman to all who are deserving of such treatment. You have, over the years, demonstrated time and again that you are not. Your treatment of these new posters is typical of your treatment of most new posters ... more often than not you are churlish and rude. That was the treatment you gave me in our first memorable interaction, and you received flames in return.

I like how Monte Cargo put it: "If a poster debates from a thoughtful perspective, the response is reasoned discourse, but, frankly, if I'm going to get flamed, there will be scorch marks at the edges of my replies."

I dunno if I followed all of the swoop of posts here from an apparent couple from another site who'd read awhile.

Or care, except that I'd not like to see only their posts.

On openness, may we all do that.

Do I get it right, LittleBitty, that you are engaged in developping this site?

(re "One thing I can offer you though, is once the ignore feature is up and running....")

I dunno if I followed all of the swoop of posts here from an apparent couple from another site who'd read awhile.

Or care, except that I'd not like to see only their posts.

On openness, may we all do that.