Discussion in 'The War Room' started by Cubo de Sangre, Jul 8, 2019.
Pot/kettle... blah, blah, blah...
Blah, blah, blah. That pretty much sums up your posting history.
I had a good laugh reading this:
Apparently you shouldn't do this now.
Not funny, but not anti-semitic. Rhetorically centrist, but not necessarily really centrist, either.
The part that most annoyed me then and still annoys me now is the "....want a Ted Cruz presidency" bit: the repeated, ignorant insistence that Hillary was a sure thing to win and Sanders was a sure thing to lose, based on a misreading of the national pulse that was so impossibly daft that it seemed like it had to be purposeful and in bad faith.
Thanks. As far as minicraque's initial criticism, I agreed with him and informed him I'd already done that with Mike. You saw that, right?
Since I don't know what exactly you desire, nor what you perceive has transpired here, I don't know what to tell you.
The topics that have involved professionals have been formulated and presented by a professional, except for the computer safety thread. I think that was my brainchild. For all of them some coordination took place behind the scenes with everyone who was asked to be involved. They were shown the OP to be discussed and their input solicited. I'm not sure what more I could have done.
There's no rivalry. Just a mutual dislike. And in spite of that I've invited him on multiple occasions to host a thread. Last I recall he insisted that me wanting to see his OP ahead of time (like as happened with every thread by someone else) meant I was going to censor him. At that point I just gave up.
Nobody got banned for not liking it. Do you think I'm a mind-reader?
There were a few people who got banned for using the thread as a springboard to complain about the existence of the thread. Since they were off-topic and derailing I stand behind those decisions.
As I've alluded to in this thread, you'll see a course-correction down the home stretch. Though I can't promise you'll be interested or find them fun. But as promised, there will be seven more and I'm open to suggestions.
Mr. essentialoilscurecancer.org liking himself to a scientist
Can we JFK (figuratively speaking) this guy?
Tell me that you'll draw me like one of your Vietnamese boys.
Wasn't saying that you did anything wrong, nor was I suggesting specifically anything more you should have done. I was just clarifying why (I think) the volume of contributions might be low for some: that theoretical discussions have to be fairly particularized for persons who work in an area every day to be drawn to it.
My art skills are lacking. But PM me a picture and maybe I could find a dude to photoshop some slanty eyes on you.
Taking your comments as guidance for improvement, I was trying to put them to work in my mind. Hence the reply. Likely there won't be any more of those types of threads anyway.
Please acknowledge that you see where I initially agreed with minicraque. And do you see that I informed him I'd already had discussion with Mike on the matter? Do you see in his next reply to me he continues on as if he didn't read what I'd said? And in my reply to that I again agreed and then repeated in different words that what he suggested at already happened? And then instead of acknowledge it he just goes off on a personal attack that ignores what he'd been told twice? Since you cared enough to bring it up I'd like to think you care enough to make sure the facts are straight.
Huh? That's the same thing except from your perspective it was complaining and from mine it was voicing displeasure. Whatever. The prez should have thicker skin imo.
Honestly I think the effort is there, there are just a few roadblocks to more active participation.
Maybe get some more +++s and WOWs in the titles?
Did he actually say that?
Or better yet did he say he had the science behind him and others did not while using the time tested technique of CT'ers of quoting all sorts of barf to just volume up and clutter up the topic?
He has answered the jeopardy question:
- this is what would happen if you give someone with a naturally conflicting personality the power to ban others who may dissent and continue to call him out when he is wrong...
The difference is between holding a view and acting on it inappropriately. That wasn't the place for you to voice your displeasure. It was off-topic and disrespectful to @abiG. The thickness of my skin shouldn't prevent you from taking ownership for that behavior. Do you have a right to derail and shit on the guy? Do you get to break the rules because you personally don't like them?
He just always posts articles and studies from shitty websites like that
What the hell are you talking about? I'm perfectly fine taking ownership for calling a shit thread topic shit.
I've also noticed that you started a thread for feedback and are getting mad with any that is negative. Like I said, the prez needs thicker skin.
the bigger problem is that you seem incapable or unwilling to accept your personal view and bias does not make fact. Others can disagree and simply because you have limited mod powers in a thread does not mean you are right when you exercise them.
People like Jack can legitimately disagree with your use of the word 'censorship' or 'suppress'. That can legitimately lead to an inability to agree on the greater points of the thread since you are not working from the same framework. You insist your view is the only one and correct one, and then use not so thinly veiled insults to suggest they are lying if they continue and to threaten bans (deplatforming, lol).
Had they the same power they could apply the exact same reasons to ban you, if they were you. But that is not the basis for good debate or any debate.
You really need to add to your OP in your threads that if anyone is going to strongly disagree they should not participate in your threads as you have little tolerance for dissent and the power in those threads to end it.
Separate names with a comma.