See other 4play Articles
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: 2438
Comments: 203
HERE Thank you christine for allowing all POV to be discussed openly and freely. The 1st amendment is alive and well on 4um.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-111) not displayed.
.
.
.
#112. To: ... (#101)
So what was the "sound reasoning"? Did someone call her "penis breath" or did someone call her a "commie"? I haven't seen it get any deeper than that - save for the conspiracy theory that Obama now manipulates our minds. Sorry yuktard no cigar - and you are going to have to look elsewhere for your "penis fix". Have some more Sterno it helps reinforce your "world view".
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
Doesn't work. That's what got us to our current predicament.
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
Sorry I used the wrong childish insult in my example. My point is that what you call "sound reasoning" is usually the sort of juvenile insult you just used above. What I meant is that people probably acted like you are acting now in response to Robin's arguments. I didn't mean that you flung the specific piece of feces of "penis breath". I realize you have your own silly McCainBot stuff to toss out.
.
Where there goes my backup plan! ;)
Voting and in the work place when a less qualified person bumps them out of the line b/c they are "guests" from some 3rd world slum or are simply more dusky.
...which explains the rabid nature of supporters. Guess I was born a hundred years too late.
Change doesn't always make things better. Often times, it makes things a heck of a lot worse.
There is no conspiracy theory about it. Its a simple analysis of tactics. The fact that the tactics are generally successful has nothing to do with a "conspiracy" - it is how and what it is. Perhaps a little reading material would help. It will explain why the 'downtrodden' and the yutes are attracted -- but not many others. Its a handbook on how to get people "on" to your "cause" - nothing more, and it doesn't work on all people. Shows you how to make an argument and how to use the mob once you get it assembled. It still requires work to get the mob assembled. There is no magic bullet. There is no mind-control ray. Its just a psychological trick that happens to be able to zero-in on weaknesses and exploit them.
Change doesn't always make things better. Often times, it makes things a heck of a lot worse.
Guess I was born a hundred years too late. LOL!!! I feel that way sometimes too!
My point is that what you call "sound reasoning" is usually the sort of juvenile insult you just used above. What I meant is that people probably acted like you are acting now in response to Robin's arguments. I didn't mean that you flung the specific piece of feces of "penis breath". I realize you have your own silly McCainBot stuff to toss out. There you demonstrate clearly that you are nothing other than a Troll looking to create hate and discontent. Please show any post of mine where I have ever supported McInsane. You cannot. You are simply trying to throw out childish temper tantrums and disinfo tactic lines to agitate people and distract them into your childish feces flinging.
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
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.
To robin: a patriot and a lady. You are missed, and you are appreciated. Your differences with JT and others are triflings compared to what we face together. There is no need for schism among us. Nothing will be changed by the vettings of November. But change it will come.
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.
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. You can say that, but not with logic. That's simply your opinion and one you are fully entitled to. 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. 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.
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.
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.
.
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.
I posted two articles and was banned BEFORE comment.
Which makes me wonder why he was invited in the first place.
That's complete BS and you know it. The bozo was used by some here as a tool to demoralize, in the hopes of making that poster leave. christine and one poster in particular knows this is true. I saw it as no different than the goofy LF rating system which served to run off some very qualified new posters by making their comments all but invisible. As things stood, if a new poster came to 4um and didn't toe the D Party line, they would have been attacked by the usual suspects. That is no way to grow a forum, or welcome new ideas. I love the clash of ideas, even your obscene cry for the abolishment of out 2nd. Please do offer that gem again sometime in the near future. It's always a laugh reading the wisdom of an ex pat.
If you don't want to be banned from forums, maybe it's not a good idea to issue what amounts to an assassination threat.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
If every socialist on the planet failed to wake up tomorrow, it would be a glorious day. I'm sure you agree. Of course that would mean PC (Peoples Collective) would be sans posters.
You say that, and you're puzzled that a forum would not want you?
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
Puzzled I was invited.
that's a stretch characterizing that "wish" or "fantasy" as an assassination threat. have you never had the thought that this world would be a lot better off without the likes of bush/cheney/neocons/et al as an example? there's been lots of times that i've wished for the demise of what i consider to be evil and dangerous people.
Puzzling, indeed. Must have been a set up...or a mass mailing. I didn't get an invite, so it think it was intentional. Robin filtered me after logic had her spinning in a most uncomfortable way. She's not a lawyer.
Her turn to the political left, left her uncomfortable with all but fellow travelers, most of whom are D members and lawyers.
ping to #137
Story of my life, the only invitations I see are indications I should leave. I snuck in here when Christine was not looking. Several people have told me where I should go but they suggest bad places. (unnamed)
A singer with but one song to sing has a short life.
Curious, isn't it? A schoolyard prank perhaps.
That's okay, dots. Cyni is entitled to his opinion of me and I respect that. At this point I think that's the most constructive position I can take. Thank you.
Yes, I gathered that.
A cop who despises the rule of law. What is wrong with this picture?
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
You're saying that Neil is dishonest and untrustworthy because he expressed a political opinion that you disagree with. Why don't you post a list of the political opinions that you will allow us to hold?
.
At this point I think that's the most constructive position I can take. Thank you. He has me on bozo anyway - so it doesn't matter.
.
JT, I'm fully confident that you honestly believe what you say. For my part, however, I'm confident that you despise Obama so very much to the point where you have fooled yourself into looking for excuses to discourage pro-Obama postings, viewing such excuses as actual reasons. It's the same as you believing that I want to do away with the 2nd Amendment. That's a complete fabrication and there's no truth to it at all. Yet you believe it. Completely. You see what you want to see. You wanted to see the bozo filter as a problem, and it was one. But only in your mind. I don't doubt your sincerity though. Case in point. You see what you want to see, not what is real. I've qualified my meaning to you a half dozen or more times already, but to no effect.
I just spoke to Robin about this. She says she specifically did not invite you. No PM. No email. No nothing. And it makes sense given that you were instantly banned when you went over. So I am sure you have a dodge to cover your deliberately misleading statement here, e.g., "When I said Robin invited me, what I really meant was ..... blah, blah, blah". So let the tap dance begin. Morph your story for us.
.
Comments (152 - 203) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest.... even though backed with sound reasoning.
#113. To: Peppa (#109)
If sticking your fingers in your ears and saying la la la la la la la la, would fix things... I'd happily join in.
#114. To: Original_Intent (#112)
Have some more Sterno it helps reinforce your "world view".
#115. To: Original_Intent (#113)
Doesn't work. That's what got us to our current predicament.
#116. To: Cynicom (#108)
I suspect a lot of white guilters in public are closet racists when voting.
#117. To: Peppa (#110)
This forces people to accept the only 'solution' offered, which transforms itself into a cause.
#118. To: ... (#101)
the conspiracy theory that Obama now manipulates our minds
#119. To: mirage (#117)
...which explains the rabid nature of supporters.
#120. To: mirage (#118)
It will explain why the 'downtrodden' and the yutes are attracted -- but not many others.
#121. To: ... (#114)
(Edited)
Sorry I used the wrong childish insult in my example.
#122. To: Jethro Tull, christine (#0)
#123. To: Pinguinite, robin (#122)
It's really a sad thing.
#124. To: Pinguinite (#122)
Still it seems is was not possible to objectively discuss Obama here
#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.
#126. To: HOUNDDAWG (#125)
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."
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.
#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.
#128. To: Cynicom (#127)
(Edited)
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.
#129. To: ... (#128)
all I see is a cogent, well expressed and well supported opinion from Neil.
#130. To: Pinguinite (#126)
JT was banned not before offering comment but very much after
#131. To: Pinguinite, HOUNDDAWG, Jethro Tull, christine, Peppa (#126)
you are ignoring the fact that he and Robin have a long history here
Thought for the day:
Calling an illegal alien an 'undocumented immigrant' is like calling a drug dealer an 'unlicensed pharmacist'
#132. To: Pinguinite (#122)
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.
#133. To: Jethro Tull (#132)
#134. To: aristeides (#133)
(Edited)
#135. To: Jethro Tull (#134)
#136. To: aristeides (#135)
#137. To: aristeides (#133)
#138. To: Jethro Tull (#136)
Puzzled I was invited.
#139. To: angle (#138)
#140. To: Arator (#137)
#141. To: angle (#138)
I didn't get an invite, so it think it was intentional.
#142. To: Jethro Tull (#139)
#143. To: Cynicom (#142)
#144. To: farmfriend (#131)
Which makes me wonder why he was invited in the first place.
#145. To: ..., Cynicom (#128)
#146. To: Jethro Tull (#130)
I posted two articles and was banned BEFORE comment.
#147. To: Jethro Tull (#139)
(Edited)
Her turn to the political left, left her uncomfortable with all but fellow travelers, most of whom are D members and lawyers.
#148. To: angle (#129)
Neil showed his mind on the thread where he went off the deep end for Obama and hasn't been quite right since.
#149. To: Pinguinite (#145)
hat's okay, dots. Cyni is entitled to his opinion of me and I respect that.
#150. To: Jethro Tull (#132)
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.
That's complete BS and you know it.
I love the clash of ideas, even your obscene cry for the abolishment of out 2nd. Please do offer that gem again sometime in the near future. It's always a laugh reading the wisdom of an ex pat.
#151. To: Jethro Tull (#136)
Puzzled I was invited.
.
.
.