Title: OK, so a new forum opens and I posted these two articles without comment, and immediately got banned. WTF? Source:
[None] URL Source:[None] Published:May 10, 2008 Author:me Post Date:2008-05-10 13:46:57 by Jethro Tull Keywords:None Views:5072 Comments:203
Well, JT, obviously you were banned not because of what you posted but because of what you are. Robin knows you and doesn't want you around, and that's her prerogative -- one you no doubt respect as her right in spite of your rantings.
It's really a sad thing. I'm sorry to see it come to this. But you thought it would be a great idea to get rid of the bozo feature -- to change the rules -- because you didn't like what was getting posted here. It just didn't reflect your own political views. So you wanted the rules changed, and you applied suitable pressure to change them, promising to leave 4um if they didn't.
Well, they changed. I didn't think it was a good idea. Somehow Chrissy thought that 4um was being torn apart. It wasn't. But the attempt to fix it is what really tore it apart. So are you happy now, JT? Looks like there will be a lot less Obama advocacy here so I imagine you are.
Still it seems is was not possible to objectively discuss Obama here, and probably many other places, so maybe this outcome was unavoidable.
#125. To: Pinguinite, Jethro Tull, christine (#122)(Edited)
Well, JT, obviously you were banned not because of what you posted but because of what you are. Robin knows you and doesn't want you around, and that's her prerogative -- one you no doubt respect as her right in spite of your rantings.
Well Neil, as my dear, sweet mother used to say, "That's your tale, I'm sittin' on mine."
Because JT was invited out before offering any comment and his contributions were valid and would likely be allowed to stay up at even the more extremely partisan forums, I could with unproven and therefore equally valid logic say that robin chose him and this indefensibly craven means to telegraph a chilling message to all. "You either genuflect and lower your eyes before the graven images of my deity or, you're simply not welcome."
Robin knows as well as anyone that JT has a real talent for asking escape-proof questions that force hypocrites and tunnel vision sufferers to face facts that the cheerleaders and party hacks for their preferred candidates never allow in "polite conversation."
I'm sorry to say that robin is so blinded by love that she is completely dedicated to ignoring the primary chancres (or tertiary scars) of her syphilitic lover. And, sooner or later JT would get around to presenting the medical prognosis and eventually the autopsy report, and she has no use for any truth that her candidate/lover would prefer that his loyalists ignore.
So, once again you've been caught humping JT's leg while accusing the victim of "asking for it" as mentally disordered sex offenders so often do.
Well Neil, as my dear, sweet mother used to say, "That's your tale, I'm sittin' on mine."
Because JT was invited out before offering any comment and his contributions were valid and would likely be allowed to stay up at even the more extremely partisan forums,
Your premise about JT's contributions being valid are subjective. JT was banned not before offering comment but very much after, as you are ignoring the fact that he and Robin have a long history here. Or one that seems quite long. Too long.
I could with unproven and therefore equally valid logic say that robin chose him and this indefensibly craven means to telegraph a chilling message to all. "You either genuflect and lower your eyes before the graven images of my deity or, you're simply not welcome."
You can say that, but not with logic. That's simply your opinion and one you are fully entitled to.
Robin knows as well as anyone that JT has a real talent for asking escape-proof questions that force hypocrites and tunnel vision sufferers to face facts that the cheerleaders and party hacks for their preferred candidates never allow in "polite conversation."
As one who has sparred with JT, my experienced opinion is that JT does not defend his own positions and has consistently failed to make any effort to understand me. I've no reason to think he's any different with Robin or any others for that matter. You may well disagree, which is fine, but it's no secret that a number of people besides robin and me see something wrong with JT.
So, once again you've been caught humping JT's leg while accusing the victim of "asking for it" as mentally disordered sex offenders so often do.
Humping JT's leg? I've no idea where that's coming from. You're the one singing his praises. But JT is no victim and that he'll freely admit I'm sure. He knows it's Robin's forum and that she can kick out anyone she wants. Only bleeding hearts would be crying "victim" over something like this.
#127. To: Pinguinite, Jethro Tull, christine, Peppa, Phant2000, All (#126)
You may well disagree, which is fine, but it's no secret that a number of people besides robin and me see something wrong with JT.
You are the victim of your own mouth, therefore may I assure you that people view you with equal disgust and utter disdain.. Your foul mouth is a positive indication of your moral character or lack thereof, followed by a childish third grade attempt to deny and subvert the obvious truth. You are a person in total lack of common civility and barren of even basic social manners.
Any assurance that I may have had that you were a person of acceptable decency and a practitioner of acceptable social mores was and is invalid. A self portrait was painted for all to see and it did not sell then, nor now.
Your foul mouth is a positive indication of your moral character or lack thereof .... You are a person in total lack of common civility and barren of even basic social manners.
Cyni, all I see is a cogent, well expressed and well supported opinion from Neil. No foul mouth at all. No incivility. No bad manners.
But I do see a silly, frustrated old man trying to smear somebody with something that just isn't there.
If you disagree with Neil, say so and explain why -- and spare us the over the top bullshit.
all I see is a cogent, well expressed and well supported opinion from Neil.
No foul mouth at all. No incivility. No bad manners.
You've missed a few threads to the contrary. I've been the recipient myself, to my surprise. Silly old man? Trying to smear someone? Cyni adds intelligence, and maturity as well as decorum to 4um.
From my perspective you're sadly mistaken. Neil showed his mind on the thread where he went off the deep end for Obama and hasn't been quite right since. If you agree with his position, I'm sorry for you as well.