Stop crying, seriously
In all seriousness, Geoff, nobody else cares, and I just don't feel like wasting that much time writing a post you're not actually going to pay attention to.
Well, you drove me here.
For instance, take #1 on your list:
"1. Sam reports on a media story, then performs an enormous leap of logic to arrive at the conclusion that Jews are generally, socially, economically and/or morally evil."
Now, you've had plenty of time to actually comment on what I've posted in relation to S.A.M.'s question, but that pretty much equals your
disagreement—indeed,
resentment—that there is more to the American Jew than the fact that he is Jewish:
I'm sorry, but that makes not the slightest bit of sense.
"Whoa whoa: you're seriously portraying this as a branch of Americanized thought? Do you really think it's time to slap on the stretchy tights for another blind-man's grapple with the coat rack?"
Your criticism of my posts has been entirely personal, Geoff.
Congratulations. You have taken your first step on the road to differentiating a personal tack - something with which you have little compunction - with outright libel - something else which, unfortunately, you also have little compunction. We must deviate, eh? We have to? Fine.
Sure: the coat rack comment was mean. It differs, though, in being a simple jibe rather than an absolutism damnation of your character. I'm sure you feel well-justified, which is a very stupid feeling on your part. Here's the thing: keep it off the forums if you don't like the fallout. Simple stuff. I'm honest about my views, which are pretty tame compared to some of the criticisms on here. If you push too far, back you go. And in case I have to remind your for the nth time: while you might have said something equally glib, we need to pause for a moment here and reflect on
who dismissed whom first. OK? You fired first. It was personal. It has to be a schoolyard game: not because it matters, but because given the structure of the intertubes and the format of discussion, it has to be. That's the way it is. And you wanted to make it a personal dismissal: or should I
really, really think I wasn't included in your list of "suspects"? Oh, Tiassa: give it a shake, ok? Really. It's not even that no one is buying that schtick - and when I say 'no one' is, I mean Bells - but that
it is utterly absurd for you to start spouting crocodile tears 'cause
mean ol' Geoffy got pursonal! Boo hoo hoo. Don't want no shit, don't start no shit, Captain Entitlement. Substitute "you started it" if that's preferable.
You didn't bother to address any of the assertions on record.
:yawn: Not really required to. I was addressing your specific post. And I might add that
until your last post you mentioned not one of my objections whatsoever. Not. One. Are you starting to see a pattern? Everything you say pretty much spills from that same water - Pigeonholing Gone Wild - and since you didn't bother to discuss the initial points I made at any point...well. Nice work, Johnie-come-almost-not-at-all.
You simply gave your summary, and screw what anyone else has said. *They're wrong. There is no alternate configuration, and thus you don't have to actually address any issues that you're simply sweeping away.
Hell, now we're
really making progress.
Assertion sucks, doesn't it? And it's not even vile personal crap. It's just a simple assertion of how your posting repertoire works. Now, I appreciate your bringing a gripe about assertion to the table: it's annoying, yes. But don't pretend you're not standing on a soap-box as you gripe about it. And, in any event: my summary was correct, as we've just seen. Want to deviate? Go for it, if you can stay civil.
That's just one. And since you couldn't be bothered to attend any of the details of what you purport to refute, I don't see the purpose of going through it all again, in an even longer form than what you won't bother to read or consider.
Not my fault. I was radicalized.
Your point #1 is true only because you say so. Sure, it conflicts with a much more detailed consideration, but you have no need to address that conflict. Because there is no alternate configuration. Those other details are impossible, and thus can be dismissed, simply because you say so.
Excepting of course that the comment of "no alternate configuration" deals with the way in which you run threads into the ground, and not my initial comments.
What's it like to live in a morass of cognitive dissonance so profound it interferes with the very comprehension of timing, sequence and connection? I can scarcely imagine. Another example?
****************************************************************************************
Small reminder for yas:
What really disgusts me about it is that this sort of thing happens over and over again. Here's a famous one: You remember that fight I had with James in December, '09? I know, unpleasant memories. But think about right before the catalyst 30-day suspension. There was an attempted 3-day suspension that got shot down. And there were all sorts of interpretive issues going on at the time—It's S.A.M., so it must be evil. But here's the thing: I was having a perfectly entertaining and enlightening discussion with S.A.M. then, too. And then someone who had a grudge with her stepped up and soiled the carpet with a belligerent challenge, and everything went to hell. This, of course, can only be S.A.M.'s fault.
Well, shit. That sounded serious. God, if it's the event I'm thinking of, who was it that got that 3-day revoked? Again: I think it's the right one, and if it's the one I'm thinking of - hell, there
have been a few, haven't there? - it sounds as though it got revoked on some action of
yours, or on the merits of the case itself. I don't keep perfect records, of course; and this is SF, so who cares? It's just that - if it's the case I'm thinking of, there was a member who asked the admins
not to give Sam a 3-day ban. Shit:
who was that guy? I remember that you sent a gushing PM about how special that guy was and how it would mark a turning point for the forums. I remember even
Sam PMed that guy: again, assuming this is the specific near-banning I remember. Ah well. Maybe his name will be lost to history: of course, it did happen.
You were partially right, though: it sure was a turning point for the forums. Instead of disagreeing, we have some mods handing out assertions of neo-Nazism (backed, in a strange distrait of the discussion above, by the sheer force of their own will) while running interference for elementally and pointlessly biased anti-Semitism: I'd have held back on that characterization, but, ah - well,
you know. Welcome to the new generation.
C'est bon?
I'd ask you to go off playbook, but you've already admitted it's just a personal deal, so meh.
