Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Don't Piss Me Off (Page 4)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   
Author Topic: Don't Piss Me Off
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm pissed that I wasn't approached! I didn't have one problem while Modding the OWW! This is discrimination against felons, Liberals, the Ornery 8, members who tell OSC he is an idiot in his own living room, and people that sometimes forget to take their Meds! [Wink]

Depending on the Med thing I: A) Would have let Ev slide, B) Suspended him, or C) Hunted him down and killed him. [Wink]

(Oh, and people who gave up the other Mod assignment because they didn't have time for even such a small job that never made me email anybody about anything concerning violations.) [Smile]

KE

[ September 12, 2006, 04:37 PM: Message edited by: KnightEnder ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
canadian
Member
Member # 1809

 - posted      Profile for canadian   Email canadian       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
[LOL]
Posts: 5362 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rightleft22
Member
Member # 2832

 - posted      Profile for rightleft22   Email rightleft22   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:

quote:
________________________________________
My "hot button" is the belief that you intentionally try to inflame, enrage, and generally bother your opponents rather than engage them purely on the arguments.
________________________________________

That's false. I'm calling you on it. I defy you to show me where I've intentionally tried to "inflame, enrage, and generally bother" my opponents when they were making actual arguments rather than personal attacks. I've only taken those tactics in response to personal attacks.

For example, you were making personal attacks on me in this thread, before I even noticed you. You've been crying about the word "Matthew" for half a page, while you've been making vicious and unsubstantiated personal attacks on me since you first entered this page. You're terribly hypersensitive for a well-poisoner.

I defy you to show me where I’ve intentionally try to “inflame” …. I’ve only used those tactics in response to…. = proof you do intentionally try to inflame.

Reasons for doing so are not relevant, your intentions were being questioned “It is the belief that” not a fact of your intentions, and you responded that you do indeed use personal attacks as a tactic.

In the case of Matt you have attributed motivation behinds his statements that you cannot “know”, nor did you ask, instead you declared them “personal” attacks thus freeing you to “engage” with personal attacks. Pretty much making the MattP's point.

In my opinion, It is far from clear that MattP purpose in engaging you in dialog was a to attack personaly … questioning your debating style does not necessarily equate to a personal attack.

On the calling Matt, Matthew, re-read the post and its clear he did not wine, he did not cry, he asked you to stop. All that was required was a statement that it was not your intent instead you labelled/”belittled" the request as a “hot button” to which Matt responded that no it was not a hot button but he didn’t like the way he felt you were using it and questioned your motives. Again all that was required was a statement that malice was not your intent and perhaps a apology if it so appeared.

I think you make some good arguments; your delivery on the other hand does not seem to be effective.

Posts: 935 | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
[shoo-ing the "disinterested third-party" vultures. Fight's over. No lunch for you!]
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:


quote:
"Which supports my McCarthy comment, which you did not address."
I did not address it because I don't know what to say, Velcro; I don't know the history. I've done enough research to know that some of the folks that Left claimed were innocent martyrs, actually ended up on the KGB list of agents, like Alger Hiss. I know that one of my graduate level textbooks in 1993 ranted about how McCarthy went after poor Alger Hiss, and how some brave dude confronted McCarthy with the whole "have you no decency" line. In spite of the fact that the KGB had already released the fact that Alger Hiss was one of their agents.

I don't know what happened, and I don't believe the Leftwash any more than I believe the Rightwash. No frigging comment. As best I can tell, some spies got taken down by an ambitious and dishonest man who in turn got taken down by more ambitious and dishonest men, and the whole event got written up by lots of careless historians trying to please their political masters on either side. Did some honest folks get taken down too? Given the fact that the left was still defending Alger Hiss after the KGB report, I'm not willing to trust those claims.

I'm not sure I can draw any moral lesson out of that morass. Twain probably could have, but he sure is not here, and I don't reckon that either of us would have him in our pocket. I think he'd probably make both of us feel pretty uncomfortable.

If you want to tell me that no one could have brought down Joe McCarthy if the Lefties hadn't been able to bleat the word "liar" over and over again, untl Joe McCarthy's nerves collapsed, then that would tend to support the Rightwash on the incident, more than it supports your argument. Tourette's syndrome is no substitute for facts.


Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Canadian

"blessed is the peacemaker..."

Liar.

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
canadian
Member
Member # 1809

 - posted      Profile for canadian   Email canadian       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
[Exploding]
Posts: 5362 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
[Wink]
Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rightleft22
Member
Member # 2832

 - posted      Profile for rightleft22   Email rightleft22   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And so I’m brushed aside, irrelevant, the point conceded. [Smile]

Kidding Pete – I believe you once mentioned that you feel you had to defend yourself at all costs or it might be used against you at some latter date as acceptance or capitulation to some such point or other.

To correct you, I am a interested third party, however it was not my intent or conscious motive to be a vulture and gain up on you; I just couldn't resist the “I defy you” contradiction:

"I defy you to show me where I’ve intentionally try to “inflame””... immediately followed by – “I’ve only used those tactics in response to…” (Acknowledgement of intentionally trying to inflame.)
I also don’t like the 'do unto others what they are doing - or might be doing - or might do sometime in the future - unto you' excuse. Pisses me off..

In another thread you mentioned that you had wished people acknowledged a wrong done to you. I felt you unfairly assigned motives to MattP, that may or may not have been his and in doing so felt you questioned his integrity. (No different in my book then calling someone a liar.) And so I responded

In your shoes my first reaction might be to bemoan the fate of being “dog piled” on but I might also ask myself the question of why people not only disagree with me but do so vehemently. Could it be something I’m doing? Am I effectively making my argument? What the point of my making the argument, what do I really want out of this discussion?

Back to my perch, I have said to much [Smile]

[ September 12, 2006, 06:55 PM: Message edited by: rightleft22 ]

Posts: 935 | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I just couldn't resist the “I defy you” contradiction:

Then answer it dotting out what I was actually defying you to get.

quote:
I defy you to show me where I've intentionally tried to "inflame, enrage, and generally bother" my opponents when they were making actual arguments rather than personal attacks. I've only taken those tactics in response to personal attacks.
I was responding to this:

quote:
My "hot button" is the belief that you intentionally try to inflame, enrage, and generally bother your opponents rather than engage them purely on the arguments.
I can't respond "purely on the arguments" to a personal attack. Think about it, RightLeft. If there are no substantive arguments to respond to, then I can't engage my opponents purely on the arguments. [DOH]

[ September 12, 2006, 07:48 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
velcro
Member
Member # 1216

 - posted      Profile for velcro   Email velcro   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete wrote

quote:
If you want to tell me that no one could have brought down Joe McCarthy if the Lefties hadn't been able to bleat the word "liar" over and over again, untl Joe McCarthy's nerves collapsed, then that would tend to support the Rightwash on the incident, more than it supports your argument. Tourette's syndrome is no substitute for facts.
Pete, try as I might to avoid it, you have pissed me off. It is not easy to do.

You managed to ignore the gist of my posts (i.e. AFTER submitting facts that are ignored, powerful language can have an effect) and belittle an example that you admit you don't even understand.

If you bothered to use your impressive intellect to actually try to UNDERSTAND what I am saying, rather than just prove me wrong, you would see that I did not claim that saying "liar" affected McCarthy at all. It was that powerful language focused attention on what was actually happening. All your details were irrelevant to my simple point.

Again, you skip my questions. Why am I prohibited from using powerful language just because someone else may abuse it?

And Pete, I never attacked you personally.

Posts: 2096 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rightleft22
Member
Member # 2832

 - posted      Profile for rightleft22   Email rightleft22   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I defy you to show me where I've intentionally tried to "inflame, enrage, and generally bother" my opponents when they were making actual arguments rather than personal attacks. I've only taken those tactics in response to personal attacks.
From my point of view you basically told MattP to find a example, but when he did, which I assumed you thought he would, your defense was going to be that the other guy started it first and you were just defending yourself and giving as good as you got? There was no point in MattP following up.


quote:
I can't respond "purely on the arguments" to a personal attack. Think about it, RightLeft. If there are no substantive arguments to respond to, then I can't engage my opponents purely on the arguments.
That’s just it you may have felt a “personal attack” had been made on you and so responded but that doesn’t make it a personal attack. (circular)
If the confrontation was not intended as a personal attack and you were wrong who initiated what?
I feel MattP was commenting on style of argument and not making a personal attack, while your response to him did come off as personal.
- If I smell and some one tells me I smell it may feel personal, I may even feel attacked, (a response to embarrassment) but it’s not necessarily a personal attack. To know for sure I either have to ask, or check other factors, such as tone, facial expressions, etc… the latter of which you can’t, with any kind of certainty, know in this type of format. Graemlins on go so far...

“I can't respond "purely on the arguments" to a personal attack.” I don’t believe that, one always has a choice in such matters, return in kind or remain focused on the issue to name just two.

Perhaps that’s were I lose the thread of your arguments; the personal attack is combined with the substantive arguments and the both get muddled.

“If there are no substantive arguments to respond to then I can't engage my opponents purely on the arguments” why engage at all if there are not substantive arguments, the debate has ended.

In such communication conflicts the experts suggest to engage the behavior but not the person however I see the same problem I have with the saying ‘love the sinner but not the sin’, To the one who’s behavior is being questioned there’s a high probability its going to feel a personal attack.


I'll be off for a while

Posts: 935 | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by velcro:
Pete wrote

quote:
If you want to tell me that no one could have brought down Joe McCarthy if the Lefties hadn't been able to bleat the word "liar" over and over again, untl Joe McCarthy's nerves collapsed, then that would tend to support the Rightwash on the incident, more than it supports your argument. Tourette's syndrome is no substitute for facts.
Pete, try as I might to avoid it, you have pissed me off. It is not easy to do.
Nor was it my intent to do. [Frown]

quote:
You managed to ignore the gist of my posts (i.e. AFTER submitting facts that are ignored, powerful language can have an effect)
I did not ignore that argument. I challenged you to find an example in the history of Ornery where use of the word "liar" against another Ornery member improved the quality of the debate.


quote:
and belittle an example that you admit you don't even understand.
No. I belittled my understanding of your example, and explained why I hadn't replied to it. You seemed angry that I'd "ignored it." I didn't ignore it. I simply cannot identify the truth of that story between all the lies that have been told about it by both conservatives and liberals.


quote:
If you bothered to use your impressive intellect to actually try to UNDERSTAND what I am saying, rather than just prove me wrong, you would see that I did not claim that saying "liar" affected McCarthy at all.
Oh? [Confused] Then what did you mean by this:
quote:
Lots of people pointed that out, but it took people standing up and calling him a liar to get him to shut up and sit down.
That "shut up and sit down" sounds to me like you were saying that it affected McCarthy. That's why I responded with "shattered his nerves." I hope you'll look at what you said and reconsider your accusation that I'm not trying to understand what you said. [Frown]

quote:
It was that powerful language focused attention on what was actually happening.

Maybe. What we do know from objective history is that it protected folks that are now proven to be KGB agents from being removed from key government posts.


quote:
All your details were irrelevant to my simple point.
Your simple point may be valid, but your McCarthy example is not so simple, and detracts from your point. Counterexample: Clinton. People proved that he lied. To my knowledge, no one at all questions the fact that Bill Clinton lied. No question about it at all. But just how much good did it do our country for people to scream "liar" at him, over and over again?

quote:
Again, you skip my questions.
I have limited time and there are a lot of people who want to argue with me. I've kept you high on the respond list list, but I need more time to think about that. My answer depends on a few things, and you may yet persuade me. That's why I've continued to repost my reply to you, because I didn't want my substantive discussion with you to get lost in the sea of vultures who seem to be trying to stir the ashes of my quarrel with Matt back into flame. (Matt and I resolved our differences earlier; Matt was the bigger man and offered the olive branch on another thread.)
quote:
Why am I prohibited from using powerful language just because someone else may abuse it?
Null question, because:
1. The OMs have yet to determine whether they will prohibit the word "liar."
2. You have yet to prove that it's "powerful language." To me, your McCarthy example is broken. I challenged you to find an example in the history of Ornery where use of the word "liar" against another Ornery member improved the quality of the debate.

quote:
And Pete, I never attacked you personally.
That's right, you have absolutely not attacked me. This last post has the most hurtful things that you've ever said to me, [Frown] and nothing you said rises to the level of a personal attack. I'm not sure why you even say that. Do you feel that I've personally attacked you? If so, I'd very much appreciate it if you'd email me. I think that until this last post that you've been calm, articulate, a pleasure to argue with, and I tried very hard to mirror you rather than to let my irritation with less civilized discursants color my replies to you. If I failed, please show me where I erred, and I'll try to make it up to you.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
velcro
Member
Member # 1216

 - posted      Profile for velcro   Email velcro   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete,

My statement about calling McCarthy a liar causing him to sit down and shut up was not clear. The powerful language focused attention on his methods which caused him to stop lying. It did not "shatter his nerves", a comment belittling to my argument, not to your understanding. Whether some of the dozens of those he accused happened to be guilty is completely irrelevant to my argument.

quote:
You managed to ignore the gist of my posts (i.e. AFTER submitting facts that are ignored, powerful language can have an effect)
And you ignored it again. You said that "Tourette's syndrome is no substitute for facts.", a clever way to say that calling someone a liar is no substitute for submitting facts. This is a direct contradiction to my point.

What is this null question crap? YOUR justification for prohibiting lying was that it can be abused by "howling idiots" or somesuch. OM was not involved in your hypothetical.

I don't have to prove that "liar" improved debate. I don't even have to prove that "liar" shamed someone into stopping the misinformation. If you argue for removing my freedom to say what I want, the burden is on you to prove why it is harmful, beyond that "someone MIGHT" abuse it.

And I pointed out that I never attacked you personally because you seemed to imply that the only people you pissed off were people who attacked you first.

I said something like this to Warrsaw, don't focus on winning - focus on understanding.

I'm taking a break too. Feel free to rebut, but I will not be replying.

Posts: 2096 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rightleft22
Member
Member # 2832

 - posted      Profile for rightleft22   Email rightleft22   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I re-read my post and notice that due to my sign off, “I’ll be off for a while” it may have appeared that I was upset. I wasn’t, I was only logging off and going to bed and so would not be able to respond further.
I apologies if you felt I was picking on you like some vulture, trying to re-flame a conflict you had with Matt. That was no my intent, it was clear to me that you and Matt had managed to come to some collusion.
I was very interested in the how the world ‘lie’ could produce such inflamed emotional responses. The differences between style and content, calling a lie outright is somehow wrong but implying it and questioning the integrity of someone is ok???
My intent, using Pet’s and Matt interplay, was to see if I could stay focus on the behaviour without the dialog getting “personal” in the sense of anyone feeling attacked at the personal level and so the need to defend their sense of identity.
I failed; being called a vulture felt personal and though I tried to ‘let it go’ I see that my responses/reaction were coloured by that. Based on your previous comments I can only conclude that you did so because you felt I personally attacked you.

Posts: 935 | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
canadian
Member
Member # 1809

 - posted      Profile for canadian   Email canadian       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Don't worry about it y'all. Pete just doesn't get it. And if he does, he'll never admit it.
Posts: 5362 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I said something like this to Warrsaw, don't focus on winning - focus on understanding.
Practice what you preach, man. Just look at what you did here:

quote:
And I pointed out that I never attacked you personally because you seemed to imply that the only people you pissed off were people who attacked you first.
That is an outrageous distortion of what I said. I would never commit myself to something so foolish and impossible. People attack me in the first place because they are pissed off at me, because they don't like my positions. If you don't like my tentative view of the McCarthy story, that is your problem. Deal with it.


quote:
Originally posted by velcro:
Pete,

My statement about calling McCarthy a liar causing him to sit down and shut up was not clear. The powerful language focused attention on his methods which caused him to stop lying. It did not "shatter his nerves", a comment belittling to my argument, not to your understanding.

Your statement sounded perfectly clear to me. "Shattered his nerves" is a perfectly reasonable inference of what you said. I can't see how you could cause a powerful US federal legislator to shut up and sit down by calling him a liar, unless it was through shattering his nerves. It's not "belittling" your argument for me to use the facts that you presented to make an argument that you disagree with and present this new argument as my own. You accused me of not trying to understand your argument. If you said something that you did not mean to say, then please take some responsibility and stop blaming me for the miscommunication.

quote:
I don't have to prove that "liar" improved debate.
No, you don't. You can drop your argument at any time. But that is what you were arguing above on this thread, and if you recharacterize that whole argument now as a mere "freedom to say what I want," that revision of history reflects badly on you.

RightLeft, sorry if I mistook you for one of the vultures. Ken always comes out like this to try to stir a fight back up, and now Can's back up his judgmental throne again, milking this. You said some stuff in public that I could not reply to without stirring up problems with Matt again. I think that was a bad call on your part, but I believe you when you say that it wasn't malicious.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
canadian
Member
Member # 1809

 - posted      Profile for canadian   Email canadian       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I love milking sacred cows. I stand by my earlier decree.
Posts: 5362 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Ken always comes out like this to try to stir a fight back up"

Thank heaven for Pete. Without him, how would I know what my motives were? (I had to backtrack a ways to see that I'd even posted on this thread. Ah, the which witch pun used to describe how what we call a witch hunt is notorious for destroying the careers and reputations of myriad innocents in its attempts to bring the Devil Within to justice.)

Imagine me, a mere vulture, attempting to stir up a fight over a dead carcass. Oh, wait, is it still alive? Eww... I think I'm gonna regurgitate.

Hey, no fair fighting over it! I puked it up fair and square! It's MINE!

An onerous clash of swash-buckling beaks ensues...

[ September 13, 2006, 01:08 PM: Message edited by: kenmeer livermaile ]

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oh, look, another post of mine:

a shrill commentary by a howling lowbrow.

I ain't nothin' but a hound dog... when I ain't a carrion bird.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
canadian
Member
Member # 1809

 - posted      Profile for canadian   Email canadian       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"I am not left-handed!"

Pete's modus operandi is to attribute foul intent where none did reside, but the accusation alone draws the accused to self-defense, weaving a sad sort of reality around the baseless aspersion.

Posts: 5362 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You tantalise with Shakespearian gleams but ill-polish the facets thereof: it sings, man, but it don't scan.

Fix it, please.

Everett Juan A. Critic

[ September 13, 2006, 01:13 PM: Message edited by: kenmeer livermaile ]

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
canadian
Member
Member # 1809

 - posted      Profile for canadian   Email canadian       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I did go forth with glorious intent, but in the end was just low rent.
Posts: 5362 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Thass bettah.
Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mormegil
Member
Member # 2439

 - posted      Profile for Mormegil         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete at Home:
quote:
[shoo-ing the "disinterested third-party" vultures. Fight's over. No lunch for you!]
Ornery Rules:
quote:
Personal attacks, mockery, or speculation about the motives of people posting here are not allowed...
Shame on you, Pete, for speculating about my motives.

Shame.

Posts: 800 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Do we motivate his speculations?
Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
canadian
Member
Member # 1809

 - posted      Profile for canadian   Email canadian       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
<sqwak!>
Posts: 5362 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom Curtis
Member
Member # 2730

 - posted      Profile for Tom Curtis   Email Tom Curtis   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
That is an outrageous distortion of what I said. I would never commit myself to something so foolish and impossible. People attack me in the first place because they are pissed off at me, because they don't like my positions. If you don't like my tentative view of the McCarthy story, that is your problem. Deal with it.
People "attacked" Pete in the first place because they don't like his constant evasions, misrepresentation of their position, inflamatory and offensive language about views and people they have regard for, and continuos low level mockery of themselves and their views. Despite this provocation, for the most part attacks on Peter have simply consisted of pointing out his evasions, misrepresentations, inflamatory and offensive language, and mockery.
Posts: 1208 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tom Curtis:
[excuse excuse excuse] inflamatory and offensive language [excuse excuse excuse] provocation, [excuse excuse excuse] inflamatory and offensive language, and mockery.

Oh my. Is this the same Tom Curtis who calls Red "the moral equivalent of Adolf Hitler," and then maintains that this was the only ethical way to speak to someone like Red on a public form? [Eek!]
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Is this the same Tom Curtis who calls Red "the moral equivalent of Adolf Hitler," and then maintains that this was the only ethical way to speak to someone like Red on a public form?"

BYOV: Bring Your Own Vulture

or

What has Red/TomC got to do with Pete/Ornery?

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
canadian
Member
Member # 1809

 - posted      Profile for canadian   Email canadian       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Red Tom and Ornery Pete.

I like it.

Posts: 5362 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
A lot more appealing than Ornery Red Peter.

Well, to some of us.

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom Curtis
Member
Member # 2730

 - posted      Profile for Tom Curtis   Email Tom Curtis   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete, you have your opinion, and I have mine. Your description of what happened, however, strikes me as deceptive self justification. You don't like that? Tough.
Posts: 1208 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
velcro
Member
Member # 1216

 - posted      Profile for velcro   Email velcro   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete wrote

quote:
I defy you to show me where I've intentionally tried to "inflame, enrage, and generally bother" my opponents when they were making actual arguments rather than personal attacks. I've only taken those tactics in response to personal attacks.
Velcro wrote
quote:
you seemed to imply that the only people you pissed off were people who attacked you first.
Pete wrote
quote:
That is an outrageous distortion of what I said. I would never commit myself to something so foolish and impossible.
I was hoping to remain silent, but I was compelled to point this out.
Posts: 2096 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, my suspension was lifted. Ornerymods and I are in communication trying to figure things out between us. I'm not going to post details until we have finished that communication. It remains to be seen whether I will leave or not, but right now I'm comfortable posting at least a little bit, as the communication I've had with ornerymod has been productive at least on one of my major gripes.

I will not be convinced, however, that its anything other then a potential disaster to let the ornerymods exercise the power to suspend people for remarks made off the board, no matter where those remarks are, or what they are.

One of the many problems with that rule is, the ornerymods do a lot of communicating with people off the boards about rules violations. Having the ability to suspend people for what they write during that exchange of emails diminishes the trust with which members can respond to emails by ornerymod, thus potentially making moderation less effective. Since email exchanges are the primary method of moderation on these boards, any rule that will cast a chill on those communications will damage the ability of the moderators to try to maintain a clean board.

More later, I guess.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LoverOfJoy
Member
Member # 157

 - posted      Profile for LoverOfJoy   Email LoverOfJoy   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Glad to see you're back, Everard.
Posts: 3639 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tom Curtis:
Pete, you have your opinion, and I have mine. Your description of what happened, however, [motive speculation] You don't like that? Tough.

[LOL]
Your stated "opinion" yesterday was that I was sincere. Your stated "opinion" today is that I'm not. I defy you to show me anything that I've said in the last 24 hours to warrant your change in "opinion."

<crickets chirping>

Tom, I don't know or care whether you actually believe your false accusations, but I do wish that you'd stop playing games. You apologize on one thread for motive speculating, then you beg me to continue a discussion that I've had before, and I take the time to answer you because you seem to be trying to make peace, and then you hop on here and start yapping the same tedious things that you just apologized for.

So what's your problem today, Tom? Was the apology just a lure to continue the discussion, and now you've got sour grapes because you can't rebutt my response?

It was a polite response, too. I combed it twice to try to make sure that nothing snagged on your hypersensitivities, that it contained nothing that a hyperactive imagination could construe as "hate speech."

Bah.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Lest anyone point out that I responded to Tom's motive speculation with a motive speculation, wull yeah. [DOH] [Big Grin]
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kenmeer livermaile:
Oh, look, another post of mine:

a shrill commentary by a howling lowbrow.

Don't put them words in my mouth, KM; I never called you a lowbrow or a fool. That would be unwarranted compliment to your acting skills, and I've never understood why you sometimes try to pass yourself off in such a role.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I never said you did. I was practicing me poetical license, I was.

I like howling lowbrows on occasion, although generally from afar.

a cacophony of ravens and a baskering of hounds...

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom Curtis
Member
Member # 2730

 - posted      Profile for Tom Curtis   Email Tom Curtis   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete:

quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Tom Curtis:
Pete, you have your opinion, and I have mine. Your description of what happened, however, [motive speculation] You don't like that? Tough.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Your stated "opinion" yesterday was that I was sincere. Your stated "opinion" today is that I'm not. I defy you to show me anything that I've said in the last 24 hours to warrant your change in "opinion."

<crickets chirping>

If you care to look at the time & date of this post, it was 6:53PM on the 13th of Sept (Ornery time). If you look at the time & date of my suposed apology, it was 3:18 AM of the 14th of the Sept. (I assume my post on the Ornery Rules thread is the one he refers to, as it is the closest I have come to apologising.) So in this case Pete launches an attack against me because he couldn't be bothered noting the time different posts were written.

And for the record, my opinion of Pete has not changed, and nor do I see reason for apology. IMO, Pete continuosly misrepresents me because he continuosly misunderstands me, and because he sincerely (and subconsciously) recasts his memory of events to place himself in a better light. He also refuses to take responsibility for the inflamatory way in which he discusses various topics, made more inflammatory because (at best), he is careless about how expresses his ideas.

Posts: 1208 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1