I can stop any time I like.
No, you have to close threads with a parting shot to force yourself to stop. That's different. And dishonest.
Don't play coy with your readers, Sarkus.
I'm not. That's your failure to read people coming to the fore again.
You remember our little run-in last year in the crypotcurrency thread, I'm sure. I can't say that's where your grudge started, but it's certainly where it seriously escalated.
I remember that incident and your nonsense standard, sure. And that may have been where I finally came to realise the nature and scale of your dishonesty and behaviour in your posts, but I don't do "revenge", James R. That you assume this is all about some revenge speaks more about you. Life is too short for revenge, and this site simply doesn't register on things that concern me. In the grand scheme you are no more annoying than a fly in the soup. Sure, it's annoying and we take issue with it, call it out etc, when we see it. But worth taking revenge on the chef? Perspective, James R. I suggest you get some.
Since then, you've been following me around the forum...
Again, James R: perspective. This isn't a particularly active website. When someone posts something new, people respond to it. Are you really that paranoid?
...looking for any opportunity to criticise or take issue with stuff that I write.
If I was looking for any opportunity, or was following you around, I'd be posting a lot more than I do, James R, because, well, of what you post. Sometimes what is written by someone I feel has been overlooked by others, that they have let slip a point that needs to be raised. Not because it's you, but because of what is said. Period. My opening post in this thread is a case in point: you insulted and misrepresented an entire swathe of the population, notably religious, and had framed the debate with that post ostensibly to exclude them. That was worth calling out no matter who it was. That it was you, seriously not my concern. You won't believe that, though. You assume bad faith so
any response from me to you will immediately be seen as picking on you, stalking you, unduly criticising you. I don't care what you think in that regard, but what you assume... that is on you. Not me. And from there, from your reaction, things invariably deteriorate.
You're pedantic, nit-picky and aggressive. You want to get in my face at every opportunity. You crave my attention.
That you don't see the relevance of a point, James R, does not make it pedantic, or nit-picky. Calling it such just speaks to your (continuing) ignorance of why it is important, and maybe you should just try asking why something is being considered important
without ad homineming. Just a thought.
As to the aggression - sure, I can be. But in that I mostly reflect what I receive.
As to "craving your attention", no. As said, you're just not that important. Sorry. But then I could say that you seem to crave
my attention, by latching on to any criticism I raise and taking it personally.
As you know, you and I have had a number of minor flare ups over the past few months, usually - but not exclusively - instigated by you.
Not usually, no. Facts don't speak for you in this regard.
There
are facts, yes, but they don't support your assertion.
You're not fooling anybody.
I don't need to. The facts are in the record for anyone to see if they so wish. Case in point, your response to my opening post here.
Well, maybe you fooled parmalee and cluelusshusbund, but some other people can see you for what you are.
That's true of everyone about everyone, James R, so a rather vacuuous comment, is it not?
You're telling me that you'll never be satisfied, because I will always be a hypocrite, according to you.
I never said that you'll always be a hypocrite. Are you now telling me you will always be one??
More excuses for why you'll never be satisfied. The truth is, you just don't know how to stop.
If you're telling me that I won't ever be satisfied then logically you're just confirming that you won't stop the behaviour I've listed. Is that
really what you want to be telling people??
I think that, actually, you're unable to recognise when it's appropriate to stop. (Which, now that I think about it, is probably justification for stopping you. I'll think further on that.)
Seriously, just stop responding to me, stop with your bullshit and your ad hominems, and this conversation will be over. You're as guilty as me in not knowing when to stop - at least not without taking the final parting shot and closing a thread, preventing me from a right of reply, which really isn't an honest way of you doing things.
You misunderstood, again. I said you can fool some of the people some of the time [but not all of the people all of the time].
:sigh:
Ironic, but it is
you who has misunderstood what
you have written, or at least the implications thereof.
You said that "You can fool some of the people some of the time..." by which you're telling me that you think I haven't fooled you. Therefore, since you think you're not fooled, you think I must not be posting in good faith, that being what you think I have fooled others about. So, yes, you are admitting that you assume I am posting in bad faith, irrespective of whether I am or not.
Happy to explain it more clearly to you if you're still struggling.
You have managed to fool at least a couple of people here, who have happily taken the opportunity to join you on your bandwagon of hate and recrimination.
No hate, James R. Again, your not worth it. You're just some text on a screen. What's there to hate? Recrimination, sure, but then that's only a response to your initial accusation / ad hominem / trolling and obvious hypocricy.
I seldom initiate these things. But I do finish them.
You begin them far more than you seem to be aware. Maybe that's a blindspot you have, and maybe you'll never be quite as aware as you really should be. But as for finishing, yes, that's certainly a power a moderator has. Whether the manner in which you finish them is honest or just or not ....
(Ooh, look, an ad hominem. But somebody told me those are okay when we're discussing character.)
Maybe a little light reading is in order:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/character-attack/
How people choose to react in public to things is, as you say, entirely up to them. But public reactions inevitably have consequences on public reputations. So, it's a question of what sort of reputation you want.
You've previously told me, in effect, you don't care how low your reputation goes, here. It's a subsidiary explanation for why you won't stop.
Appealing to the optics is fallacious, James R. A criticism of an argument/position doesn't stop being a criticism just because raising it might make the one raising it look bad. That you are so concerned about your reputation
may explain much of your behaviour: you don't like being criticised, you take it far too personally - and maybe this is because you think it harms your reputation - and you thus evade, avoid, ad hominem, misrepresent etc to get out of addressing it.
To wit, your response in this thread to my opening post, and as already explained, you could have just responded with words to the effect of “noted” to the first point, “sure, they were intended as examples” to the second, and “fair enough, that was not my intention and I apologise if anyone felt insulted or dismissed by it” to the third.
The irony is that responding the way you do to such instances does far more harm to whatever you think your reputation is than simply addressing the criticism fairly and honestly. But unfortunately you assumed bad faith, and because you don't like being criticised (maybe this latter is because you think it harms your reputation) you responded as you did. For you to ponder on.
Anyhoo, are we done yet?
Or want to add more nonsense onto the heap for me to pore through?