Discussion in 'The War Room' started by Cubo de Sangre, Jul 8, 2019.
Ohhhh. You're taking issue with me responding to people's concerns in this thread. My mistake.
Yeah ok bud, feel free to believe that was my issue.
You're welcome to substantiate your claims with quotes from the threads. Without any shred of evidence, how are people here supposed to know whether you're telling the truth or not?
Feel free to spell it out.
It's a waste of time. Pass.
this was you unable to accept you and @Fawlty could simply agree to disagree on a definition and you labelling at is dishonest or deceptive aka, bad faith...
here you are again doing the same as @Jack V Savage disagrees and will not accept your definitions,
Here you are saying someone who agrees with you is an "honest debater" suggesting again those with differing opinions cannot honestly disagree..
here you are with the start of your thinly veiled threats, this one to @BarryDillon who merely said your definition was overly broad and bullshit. He never said anything about you personally and certainly nothing as provocative as all the times prior you were calling people liars and yet here you are over sensitive and wielding the little power you have as a weapon when you cannot get your way.
here you are with more of the same. Saying a definition is bullshit and asinine is a perfectly appropriate way to define something if in fact you think they are bullshit and assinine. That is not liek suggesting someone is acting in 'bad faith' as you do.
After I say i find you to being disingenuous in a post you immediately go to this...
which is at best thin skinned noting you slinging around 'bad faith' and 'unwillingness to admit' and saying people who don't agree with are being 'dishonest'.
there is more and especially if you go to the other threads. But the point is made. What you call infractions and have no issue censuring people for are things you do yourself and first. In fact you go further and directly comment on the person and not just their opinion. Saying someone is acting in 'bad faith', saying they 'unwilling to admit' and your go to insults impugn character. Very different than simply saying a definition is overly broad and bullshit which you feel the need to flag while ignoring your own comments.
@Fawlty said it best when he stated
but of course you waved your arms and dismissed it while continuing to point to what you say were others infractions.
Don't worry. I got this.
A lot of the problem(s) is that people are still upset about the election and hold that against Cubo. He has done a perfectly fine job and has had a lot of patience with some of you who will never give him a chance.
It's not a coincidence that the person displaying that level of stubbornness and bad faith is also the person who, when he sniffs even the smallest bit of karate forum authority, becomes possibly the most overzealous thread moderator in the history of the Internet.
But my main complaint with this thread is like I said before, it's not a state of the War Room but a defense of the sticky thread series. Self-absorbed much?
Classic display of CDS going on in this thread. (@Cubo de Sangre derangement syndrome)
Cubo has done the best job of making use of the War Room presidency by far (I think Lead originally thought the election would be a vote on thread making abilities rather than popularity). In fact I was completely wrong about his presidency, because prior to this he hadn't been much of a thread starter. He's so good we might not even uphold the WR presidential tradition of banning him.
...and yes, that's even taking into account the flat earth thread.
You and couple of your pals do nothing but attempt to derail his threads and antagonize him. He has done a fine job, if you put the prejudice aside.
Ruprecht with the rare troll post.
Let's start here since you seem to build from it. You've taken this quote out of context.
Here's exactly what I was responding to.
When someone says in the same breath that they don't know what you're getting at and won't agree with you regardless, that to me is them obviously announcing their intent to argue in bad faith. I merely rephrased what I was told and politely informed the other poster I was moving on.
If that's the best you've got then maybe you should reflect on if it really warrants the level of offense you seem to have taken. As your other quotes indicate, I've given out warnings for borderline shit. I've also cut slack to people who appeared to make an effort and had no history of needing moderation. All things considered, that's hardly an example of something I got away with that everyone else would have received a reply ban for.
Can you substantiate your claim that I ban people for simply disagreeing with me? Your linking skills need improvement so go ahead and post quotes with context please.
Drunk or your account was hacked? We'll accept either answer.
Other people (@Fawlty and @Jack V Savage amongst others) did not give on your attempt to define censorship. They did not agree and that is OK. They are allowed another opinion and there is nothing wrong with that.
You would not accept that and instead tried to define your view as FACT instead of just your view. YOu stated you were making that a "foundational FACT" of the discussion despite them not agreeing. Like you have the power to simply declare it so because that is what you think.
Fawlty said 'no he was not going to give you that as an accepted fact and you should be clear on that'. Again his right and his view.
You are the type of person who cannot accept that. Except you have to outside the thread you do not moderate. But WITHIN it you make it clear you won't accept it. Your view will rule, disagree honestly or not and you will label it as dishonest for others to merely hold a different view.
And it has nothing to do with a level of offense I have taken. I actually don't take offense. I do call out the hypocrisy though and always will. You are projecting as you are the one who takes offense, starts threatening and then actually bans people for saying and doing less things of offront than you yourself do.
But as you have shown in this thread already I do not expect you to do a minutes genuine self reflection on that. Instead you will see your use of those words as apt while maintaining others were crossing lines.
I don't need to post anymore as my point is made, and its clear that you have no interest on actually considering or reflecting on what you said and did just as you had no intention of accepting any constructive criticism in this thread. Your biggest regret being that you did not create as a POWTR thread so you could have already banned those who are calling you out rightly.
Thanks for your feedback.
No problem. Now declare something else FACT that is not fact and then act like the person you are debating did something wrong in saying they do not accept your assertion of fact.
If that is the lie you need to tell yourself that in FACT you were not the antagonist in that thread and were instead reacting to 'how dare Fawlty not accept your definition as fact' 'bad Fawlty' then knock yourself and lie to yourself. Certainly do not try to view the exchange with an open mind that might let you see your culpability in the exchange. Nope, not you.
Thanks, always a pleasure.
Separate names with a comma.