toldailytopic: Do you think TOL bans members too frequently, or not frequently enough

[serpentdove]

[Observation thread] It's not closed for business, only to your forgetting yourself..."

If I posted in your thread, I would receive another infraction--especially without your making it clear that you would like my opposing view. I assume you do not (Eccl 10:2). :Commie:

"...as you have in the past."

Proof please. each:

"...[Y]ou've demonstrated that you can't be relied upon to honor the mods' instruction."

I have not reentered your gossip thread since receiving these warnings (1, 2).

"Buy a dictionary. If you own one, burn it and buy a better one."

:yawn: Ad hominem

"Let's look at the quote together and see if, using those razor sharp Eng. 101 skills of yours, we can get at the heart of the enigma."

:yawn: Ad hominem

"It's a tough one all right. Maybe if you diagrammed it."

:yawn: Ad hominem

"Think harder next time so we can all hear it."

:yawn: Ad hominem

[SD: Do I believe you are a Christian?] "Would a black man ask David Duke for a credit reference?"

:yawn: Ad hominem

"Maybe you'll be better able to distinguish between the real thing and what you keep mistaking it for next time....And maybe Jesse Jackson will be elected President."

:yawn: Ad hominem

You're like the Maxwell House of bitter.

:yawn: Ad hominem

...[W]hy should I expect you to be any different at this point?

:yawn: Ad hominem

[Being invited into the observation thread] Now why wouldn't anyone want that sort of important, substantive and witty repartee all over their thread...

I take that as a no?

 

[Town Heretic]

If I posted in your thread, I would receive another infraction..

Likely, given what you tend to post. Didn't stop you the last time and your ongoing concentration on it tells me you'd fail to restrain yourself--so I'm helping you help yourself.

And now, a moment of silence or wit--it's hard to tell the difference with you.

:yawn: Ad hominem
:yawn: Ad hominem
:yawn: Ad hominem
:yawn: Ad hominem
:yawn: Ad hominem
:yawn: Ad hominem
:yawn: Ad hominem
:yawn: Ad hominem

Staggering--by which I mean to inquire as to whether you've been imbibing.

Quick question: what was your most repeated line in response to college application letter responses?

I take that as a no?

You card you.

 

[serpentdove]

[If I posted in your thread, I would receive another infraction] "Likely, given what you tend to post."

You can admit it. :Shimei: You don't want me to post in your thread. You do not want opposition to your arguments (Eccl 10:2). :Commie:

"Didn't stop you the last time..."

I didn't think I'd get a warning for asking a question (1,2). Live and learn. :hammer:

"...[A]nd your ongoing concentration on it tells me you'd fail to restrain yourself..."

You said I would likely get another infraction. Would it be wise for me to post in your observation thread again? My re-invitation seems to have been lost in the mail so :think: I won't have that to show the administrators.

"...I'm helping you help yourself."

Because you care that I am not banned? :BRAVO:

You are the number one reporter of other members. Is it always your hope that they are not banned when you report them? :banned:

"And now, a moment of silence or wit..."

That's all you want? :idunno: No challenges. Freedom to gossip. :blabla: Silence the critic (Eccl 10:2). :Commie:

 

[Town Heretic]

You can admit it. :Shimei: You don't want me to post in your thread. You do not want opposition to your arguments...

I love reasoned counter and witty repartee--so in your case, no.

I didn't think I'd get a warning for asking a question (1,2). Live and learn. :hammer:

You didn't. That isn't against the rules. Now if you ask a black poster, "Excuse me, but aren't you a "N-bomb"?" you might believe it's the punctuation that got you in trouble, but it really isn't. :nono:

You said I would likely get another infraction.

I was agreeing with your assessment, given what you tend to post. Sure.

Would it be wise for me to post in your observation thread again?

I tend to doubt it, but don't worry, I'm helping you to remain strong.

Because you care that I am not banned? :BRAVO:

I'd like for you to change, but I've never wanted you banned, no.

You are the number one reporter of other members.

Not exactly. I'm the number one reporter of Sod and Sod was the number one reporter of me. That was most of it. Now tell the good people how you know that. I'll wait.

Is it always your hope that they are not banned when you report them? :banned:

Depends. I wanted Stuu banned for repeated blasphemy, but there aren't many people like that, thankfully.

That's all you want?

No. I'd like honest and honorable differences. Rough and tumble is fine when it can't be avoided and humor will win a nod for me even if it's at my expense so long as it has some head to it.

:idunno: No challenges.

I argue all the time. And most of the heathen or brethren I argue with have earned rep and respect for their efforts. Some of them appear to feel the same way about me.

Freedom to gossip.

That's part of forum life, but it depends on what you mean by it specifically.

:blabla: Silence the critic

Were that true I'd have tried to have you banned. And, again, most of those who differ with me manage to do so on my friends list. It's the odd duck or two like you or Sod or chrys (though this wasn't always true of him) and that sort. It's the MEshaks of the world who can't stand me, because they take themselves so very seriously and I don't...

:e4e:

 

[serpentdove]

[You can admit it. You don't want me to post in your thread.] "I love reasoned counter and witty repartee--so in your case, no."

Just ask me to stick around. :BillyBob:

 

[Town Heretic]

Just ask me to stick around. :BillyBob:

No? It's too much to ask. Literally too much.

 

[serpentdove]

If I were permitted to respond to your small observations thread,

"Then I thought, who cares? If someone spams the joint up, well, that's what the report option is all about. And locking it only really lets the thread terrorists win. Gives heal bitters something to chew on and grouse about."

I'd ask: How do you define "spam" :spam:—disagreeing with you? :hammer: Anyone who disagrees with you is a terrorist and a heal-bitter? :dizzy:

"I'll be reporting Chrys sad spam attempt at posting what isn't in any sense an observation in keeping with the OP. As I've said and this notes, he's become peculiarly obsessed."

Everyone who differs with you is "obsessed"? :smokie:

TOL is a place for debate. Why start a thread when no one can respond to your post? You are a lawyer. You argue for a living. :kookoo:

[Chrysostom "I get that you're obsessed..."

Spiraling. :shocked:

"Sorry about that folks..."

Who is your audience? Eccl 10:2, Prov. 20:19 :Commie:

"...[T]he good news is that if chrys decides to keep at it you'll soon be able to read Observations here or in its new second home: Gather in His name."

Bring the name of Jesus into a new gossip thread :sibbie: (2 Thess 3:11). :BRAVO:

 

[Town Heretic]

If I were permitted to respond to your small observations thread,

I'd ask: How do you define "spam" :spam:—disagreeing with you? :hammer: Anyone who disagrees with you is a terrorist and a heal-bitter? :dizzy:

Nah. I could point you toward any number of members here whom I've disagreed with strongly on subjects and not only failed to characterize their opposition as Spam, but given them pos rep for solid argument. Spam is when someone posts, say, in response to a snippet of argument, something that isn't about the argument but purely the sort that, removed from debate, is violative of the rules of conduct.

So if I show up in a thread and say, "You're boring." Then I'm spamming. As for continuing the arguments, well, isn't that what we're doing in this thread? I say keep the thread arguments in the threads.

Everyone who differs with you is "obsessed"? :smokie:

No, again. Only people like chrys, who follow my correspondence with other members and create threads bearing my name or create threads about me. That sort of thing. Else, again, I've differed with most of my friends here on one point or another.

TOL is a place for debate. Why start a thread when no one can respond to your post? You are a lawyer. You argue for a living. :kookoo:

Not every thread here is about argument. Mine isn't. It's a digest with some additional original material included. Some threads are specifically about discussion and not argument as well, just as some threads are Christians only, that sort of thing.

Spiraling. :shocked:

I've never created a single thread, in my several years here, about another poster. And I never will.

Who is your audience?

Anyone stopping by for a chuckle. Right now the thread is looking at nearly 160,000 views. But I could only tell you of a handful of people I know look in regularly. I don't keep up with that. :idunno:

Bring the name of Jesus into a new gossip thread :sibbie:

Not really sure what you're saying here or if you're talking to me or chrys.

Thanks for the conversation. :thumb:

 

[serpentdove]

"...Spam is when someone posts, say, in response to a snippet of argument..."

That is what you do in your observations thread. You post snippets of an argument that you found interesting. By your own definition, your entire observation thread would be spam. :spam:

"So if I show up in a thread and say, "You're boring." Then I'm spamming."

Luckily, I did not say that in my response to you--though that would haven been a valid observation. I only got a warning for what I asked per your request. Would you have asked for me to be banned had I initially said you're boring? :banned:

"As for continuing the arguments, well, isn't that what we're doing in this thread? I say keep the thread arguments in the threads."

You don't want opposing views (Eccl 10:2). :Commie:

[Everyone who differs with you is obsessed?] "Only people like chrys, who follow my correspondence with other members..."

So?

"...and create threads bearing my name or create threads about me."

You create threads where others may not respond :Commie: because 1) You've had them warned (Example: 1,2) or 2) You've gossiped and then locked them out. How can you rebuke Chrysostom for creating a thread where people can freely respond to your posts which bear other's names? :dizzy:

I could have reported you for misquoting me and did not. Chrysostom could have done similarly recently and did not.

We don't all run to Knight to fight our battles for us. :baby:

"Some threads are specifically about discussion and not argument..."

You make the rules (Jn 3:8). :bow: Squeaky wheel gets the oil? :Shimei:

[Bring the name of Jesus into a new gossip thread?] "Not really sure what you're saying here or if you're talking to me or chrys."

Do you plan to create a new thread with the title Gather in His Name? If so, how will this be different from Observations?

 

[Town Heretic]

That is what you do in your observations thread.

No. I do a number of things, beginning with drawing attention to threads by posting snippets of conversation that deal with real and live controversies. That's sort of my mission statement, one I further defined for anyone visiting the thread not too long ago. The author of a thread can't spam his or her own thread. :chuckle:

You post snippets of an argument that you found interesting.

I do.

By your own definition, your entire observation thread would be spam. :spam:

No, it wouldn't. Nothing in those snippets violates the rules of conduct here. And my humorous barbs are always responsive. So it would be a hypocritical poster who decried his or her treatment.

I only got a warning for what I asked per your request.

You're welcome.

Would you have asked for me to be banned had I initially said you're boring? :banned:

You know the answer to that. You posted two or three fairly pointless insults prior to my first complaint and request not that you be banned but that someone ask you to cut it out.

You don't want opposing views. :Commie:

You can keep saying that, but it's still not true and most of the people who've argued with me understand that.

So?

So you made a statement and I answered you. I call chrys or Sod obsessive because they evidenced behavior in keeping with it. Sod was penalized for stalking me. Both have created threads about me. Both appear to have been reading over my correspondence with other posters.

You create threads where others may not respond

No. The reposts are always ongoing. That's where the argument belongs. It wouldn't make sense to argue the same thing in Observations that is being argued in another thread...think of my snippets as a digest, a sort of headlines plus. If it intrigues you and you weren't aware of it you can follow the link and get into the argument. If not, have a laugh or think about a more serious point (I mix one in here or there) and move on.

Also, if you don't like the point of the thread you aren't required to read it, again. :idunno: Given everything in it is already on the public record it isn't like my closing the doors on Observations would spare you or anyone from a treatment not already set out.

:Commie: because 1) You've had them warned

I can't have anyone warned. I simply report a violation of the rule and the mods decide what should or shouldn't happen.

How can you rebuke Chrysostom for creating a thread where people can freely respond to your posts which bear other's names? :dizzy:

I haven't "rebuked" chrys for creating yet another thread bearing my name. :chuckle: Proof please. I complained about meshak starting a thread in my name inviting me to argue and then putting me on ignore so that I couldn't. Sort of a "make up your mind" objection. Anyone disagreeing with any position referenced in Observations can step into the thread referenced and take a swing. :thumb: Well, except chrys, of course. He could, but I wouldn't see it.

I could have reported you for misquoting me and did not.

When and where? And, just so you know, there isn't a rule against misquoting, but it's a bad practice. I don't do it. You've already established you don't know the difference between misquoting and omitting the entire text or supporting citation.

Chrysostom could have done similarly recently and did not.

:chuckle: Chrys, who only just set out a neg rep to another poster over a smiley? Chrys who intentionally spammed Observations and actually owned up to the rule violation, attempting to justify it by saying he felt he had a right to violate the rules because I gave a neg rep to meshak for insulting me in a thread where he had overstepped and forbidden reports (which I didn't do) but not neg rep (which I did).

:rotfl: Report away. I don't break rules here. I don't need to in order to make or defend my point.

We don't all run to Knight to fight our battles for us. :baby:

What's really childish is characterizing what I did as you just did. But suit yourself.

Do you plan to create a new thread with the title Gather in His Name?

No. I was, in your way of thinking, fighting my own battles. What I told chrys was that if he continued to spam my thread, a thing he admitted to doing and something I've never done to him, that I'd respond by posting in a thread that he's put a lot of work into. That's fair.

Actually, it isn't. It would have been fair of me to have first posted a lengthy bit of Observations in his thread and then said we could continue to do that or he could stop and I would. But I don't want to violate the rules. So I didn't.

 

[serpentdove]

[Observation thread] "No. I do a number of things, beginning with drawing attention to threads by posting snippets of conversation..."

Spam, according to your own definition. :spam:

"That's sort of my mission statement..."

A spam by any other name is still a spam.

"...[O]ne I further defined for anyone visiting the thread..."

Spam, how do I love thee? Let me count the ways. :roses: I love thee to the depth and breadth and height my soul... :straight:

"...The author of a thread can't spam..."

Is that like a black man can't be a racist? :think:

"...[M]y humorous barbs are always responsive...."

If you were on the Gong Show, they would have gonged you long ago.

"... request not that you be banned but that someone ask you to cut it out."

You could have asked me to stop asking you questions. (1, 2). :freak:

TOL is for debate.

"...[M]ost of the people who've argued with me understand that."

:yawn: Bandwagon. You are open-minded--as long as others agree with you (Eccl 10:2). :Commie:

"I call chrys or Sod obsessive because they evidenced behavior in keeping with it."

:yawn: Ad hominem. You're projecting again. :noway:

"Sod was penalized for stalking me..."

Did you report him, too? :banned:

"...Both appear to have been reading over my correspondence with other posters."

So? Can't you win a debate on the merits of your argument? If they check you on various points, that's a good thing (Jn 3:8).

[You create threads where others may not respond.] "No. The reposts are always ongoing. That's where the argument belongs."

:yawn: Strawman. I am referring to your new comments.

"...[T]hink of my snippets as a digest, a sort of headlines plus..."

Gossip (2 Thess 3:11).

"...If it intrigues you and you weren't aware of it you can follow the link and get into the argument...t isn't like my closing the doors on Observations would spare you or anyone from a treatment not already set out."

You said that you do not like people "reading over [your] correspondence". You reported Chrysostom and S.O.D. for doing this very thing. :dizzy: Everyone felt free to discuss issues until you tried to turn TOL into China (Jn 10:10). :Commie:

[Rebuking Chrysostom for starting thread bearing your name] "I complained about [M]eshak starting a thread in my name..."

Not this thread started by Chrysostom?

"...nviting me to argue and then putting me on ignore so that I couldn't."

That's what you do in your observation thread. “Sorry gang, have to lock this down while I report the spammer.” ~ Town Heretic link
Anyone who differs with you is a "spammer" and you lock the thread. You gossip, cut and run. :hammer: How is what you do any better than what Meshak does?

"Anyone disagreeing with any position referenced in Observations can step into the thread referenced and take a swing."

Except me (1,2).

You don't want opposing views (Eccl 10:2). :Commie:

[Misquoting me]"...[T]here isn't a rule against misquoting..."

You found a loophole, lawyer. :Shimei:

"I don't do it."

Lie of the day (Ingraham). Eph 4:14

"You've already established you don't know the difference between misquoting and omitting the entire text or supporting citation."

You're projecting again. :noway: summary

[Reporting members :baby:] "What's really childish is characterizing what I did as you just did....I'd respond by posting in a thread that he's [Chrysostom ] put a lot of work into [thread entitled Gather in His Name]. That's fair."

He's the baby?

"It would have been fair of me to have first posted a lengthy bit of Observations in his thread and then said we could continue to do that or he could stop and I would."

You're a meddling gong show. Pr 20:3 :kookoo:

 

[bybee]

Spam, according to your own definition. :spam:
A spam by any other name is still a spam.
Spam, how do I love thee? Let me count the ways. :roses: I love thee to the depth and breadth and height my soul... :straight:
Is that like a black man can't be a racist? :think:
If you were on the Gong Show, they would have gonged you long ago.
You could have asked me to stop asking you questions. (1, 2). :freak:
You are nitpicking for your own exclusive amusement.
TOL is for debate.

:yawn: Bandwagon. You are open-minded--as long as others agree with you (Eccl 10:2). :Commie:
:yawn: Ad hominem. You're projecting again. :noway:
Did you report him, too? :banned:
So? Can't you win a debate on the merits of your argument? If they check you on various points, that's a good thing (Jn 3:8).
:yawn: Strawman. I am referring to your new comments.
Gossip (2 Thess 3:11).
You said that you do not like people "reading over [your] correspondence". You reported Chrysostom and S.O.D. for doing this very thing. :dizzy: Everyone felt free to discuss issues until you tried to turn TOL into China (Jn 10:10). :Commie:
Not this thread started by Chrysostom?

That's what you do in your observation thread. “Sorry gang, have to lock this down while I report the spammer.” ~ Town Heretic link
Anyone who differs with you is a "spammer" and you lock the thread. You gossip, cut and run. :hammer: How is what you do any better than what Meshak does?

Except me (1,2) .

You don't want opposing views (Eccl 10:2). :Commie:
You found a loophole, lawyer. :Shimei:
Lie of the day (Ingraham). Eph 4:14
You're projecting again. :noway: summary
He's the baby?


You're a meddling gong show. Pr 20:3 :kookoo:

 

[Town Heretic]

Spam, according to your own definition. :spam:

Rather, as I understand it, which I suppose is true for everyone and any word. The rest is up to the mods.

Is that like a black man can't be a racist? :think:

No, more like a giant can't be a midget. lain: Or, it's more like the person who decides what the topic is can't be off topic.

You could have asked me to stop asking you questions.

Just because you put a question mark at the end of it doesn't necessarily make it a question. By way of example: have you always been a loon? See? Not really a question, just a way to pass an insult.

Or: "She's just that that into you. Why do you think that is?"
Or: "Is this your scrapbooking party? Do you sell candles, too?
Or: "You seem to have a lot of time on your hands. You're not a very good lawyer are you?"
Or: "Is this your trip down memory lane thread? These observations are not so great."
Or: "Do you mean--got pwned by SerpentDove?

Those being just a few of your "questions"... lain:

TOL is for debate.

Frequently. Not always.

You are open-minded--as long as others agree with you.

You're an ostrich. lain: And you dance to polka music.

:yawn: Ad hominem. You're projecting again. :noway:

No. I've never been banned for stalking. Sod was.
I never received and infraction or ban for conduct. Sod did.
I've never started multiple threads about another poster. Both Sod and chrys have done that about me. And I've never tracked another posters profile comments. :chuckle: Both Sod and chrys have done that.

It isn't projecting behavior. It's their actual behavior. You don't have to like me or agree with me to be honest about the facts...well, you shouldn't. You were about the bullying nonsense. So this is disappointing.

Re: Sod banned for stalking.

Did you report him, too? :banned:

About as frequently as he reported me. But only one of us managed to get kicked to the curb and penalized and it wasn't because I'm more popular with the mods.

But way to get at what's really important.

So? Can't you win a debate on the merits of your argument?

As decided by who? You? :rotfl: Like asking a Klansman to advise on Affirmative Action. Else, reading profile comments has no bearing on anything other than evidence of an obsessive character. The last thing I want to read more of is you talking to people on your profile page. If I did that I'm sure you'd find it odd.

I am referring to your new comments.

Which weren't the subject of nearly any of your quotes above.

You said that you do not like people "reading over [your] correspondence".

No I didn't. Cite? I noted it as evidence, coupled with other salient facts, of obsessive behavior on the part of someone who otherwise loudly announces their disdain and dislike for the poster they're following about. :chuckle:

You reported Chrysostom and S.O.D. for doing this very thing. :dizzy:

No. I've never reported anyone over discussing issues. I don't think I've reported chrys before. But he ADMITTED to spamming my thread with a large chunk of scripture absent commentary or aim. He even said WHY HE SPAMMED Observations. Sod I reported for stalking and spamming long after I'd put him on ignore, removed myself from threads started by him and ceased communicating or attempting to communicate with him at all.

Everyone felt free to discuss issues until you tried to turn TOL into China. :Commie:

Never did and I've never had any power here.

Not this thread started by Chrysostom?

Nope. Cite to me "rebuking" him.

That's what you do in your observation thread.

No, it isn't. I never invited debate in Observations. The OP of meshak's thread specifically set up a discussion between us that she then precluded.

Anyone who differs with you is a "spammer" and you lock the thread.

No, people like you, who launch a series of non responsive insults like the ones I reposted above from you would qualify.

You gossip, cut and run. :hammer: How is what you do any better than what Meshak does?

I engage on any point of argument, again, IN THE THREAD WHERE THE ARGUMENT IS ONGOING. Meshak doesn't. There is a vast difference between not arguing and not arguing the same points in two different threads. I've set this out prior. If you're still confused it's because you mean to be and I won't go over this point with you again.

You don't want opposing views

Now you're repeating yourself within the same thread...and you're still wrong. I've kept answering you, haven't I?

You found a loophole, lawyer. :Shimei:

No, just letting you know another thing among many that you have wrong. I don't need a loophole. Report away any old time you think you have a case. Won't bother me a bit.

[URL="http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3065947&posted=1#post3065947"]Lie of the day

(Ingraham).

No. You don't understand what a misquote is, apparently. It isn't omitting your attempt to add scriptural citation after a point. Show proof otherwise using any recognized grammatical authority. Here's your chance. When you realize you can't you owe me an apology on the point.

But I don't think you'll even try.

He's the baby?

Go to Gather in his name and see if you find me spamming that thread.

You're a meddling gong show.

That's nice. :cheers:

 

[serpentdove]

[Is that like a black man can't be a racist?] "...[M]ore like a giant can't be a midget. Or, it's more like the person who decides what the topic is can't be off topic."

You want to control the topic and all responses to it (Eccl 10:2). :Commie:

[You could have asked me to stop asking you questions. Reported/warning 1, 2] "Just because you put a question mark at the end of it doesn't necessarily make it a question."

Do you want to control rules of grammar, too? :Commie:

[TOL is for debate.] "Frequently. Not always."

You could provide fill-in-the-blank question and answers for others? :idea: No one would be reported if they filled in a Mad Libs form to have a conversation with you.

[You are open-minded--as long as others agree with you.] "You're an ostrich."

:yawn: A liberal is open-minded. A Leftist is not (Eccl 10:2). :Commie:

"I never received and infraction or ban for conduct. Sod did."

You are a squeaky wheel. :idunno: You get the oil--not respect--oil. Pr 18:6

[Can't you win a debate on the merits of your argument?] "As decided by who? You? Like asking a Klansman to advise on Affirmative Action."

:yawn: Ad hominem

[Tracked another member's profile comments] "Both Sod and chrys have done that."

lain:

"...Else, reading profile comments [of mine] has no bearing on anything other than evidence of an obsessive character..."

:yawn: Ad hominem

"...The last thing I want to read more of is you talking to people on your profile page."

Why is it ok for you to read my profile page but not ok for SOD and Chrysostom to read your profile page? :hammer:

[Members addressing new comments in observation thread] "Which weren't the subject of nearly any of your quotes above."

Let the reader decide. each:

See:

:yawn: Sample ad hominem attacks in small observations

"You said that you do not like people "reading over [your] correspondence.] "No I didn't. Cite?"

Let the reader decide. each: See: summary

"I noted it as evidence, coupled with other salient facts, of obsessive behavior."

:yawn: Ad hominem

[Perturbed: This thread started by Chrysostom?] "Nope. Cite to me "rebuking" him."

Let the reader decide. each:

[That's what you do in your observation thread.] "No, it isn't. I never invited debate in Observations."

That's the point (Eccl 10:2). :Commie:

[Anyone who differs with you is a "spammer" and you lock the thread.] "No..."

Let the reader decide. each:

[You gossip, cut and run.] "I engage on any point of argument, again, in the thread where the argument is ongoing..."

In your observations thread you "never invite debate". Your words not mine. :kookoo:

"If you're still confused it's because you mean to be..."

:yawn: Ad hominem

[You don't want opposing views] "...[Y]ou're repeating yourself within the same thread...and you're still wrong."

What's to debate? :idunno: We agree.

"I never invited debate in Observations." ~ Town Heretic Eccl 10:2 :Commie:

[Misquoting not against TOL Rules/You found a loophole, lawyer. :Shimei:] "No, just letting you know another thing among many that you have wrong."

Ethical members don't need a TOL rule or lack thereof to know right from wrong. :dizzy:

"Report away any old time you think you have a case. Won't bother me a bit."

I'm not like you (Pr 3:35).

[You deliberately misquoted me] "No..."

Let the reader decide. each:

"You don't understand what a misquote is, apparently."

:yawn: Ad hominem

 

[Town Heretic]

...Do you want to control rules of grammar, too? :Commie:

I've simply stated that you're making a charge based on a reading of misquotation that I don't believe you can sustain using any authoritative book on grammar. I challenged you to.

You still haven't.

"...The last thing I want to read more of is you talking to people on your profile page."

Why is it ok for you to read my profile page but not ok for SOD and Chrysostom to read your profile page? :hammer:

Where did I say I wanted to read your profile page? And I don't follow your profile page conversations with other people. The other point you appear to have missed is: why on earth would anyone want to read through conversations between someone they don't like and anyone else? :idunno: You'll have to ask either of the gentlemen I noted having the habit.

In your observations thread you "never invite debate".

I don't invite debate on the ongoing arguments there. It wouldn't make sense.

"...Else, reading profile comments [of mine] has no bearing on anything other than evidence of an obsessive character..."

Ad hominem

That doesn't make sense. How is providing behavior that supports my charge of obsessive quality an ad hom.?

...Ethical members don't need a TOL rule or lack thereof to know right from wrong. :dizzy:

Locks aren't meant to keep out the honest. Sure. That's why I've never had an infraction or been banned.

You? lain:

I'm not like you.

I know. You've been banned.

 

[Arthur Brain]

You want to control the topic and all responses to it (Eccl 10:2). :Commie:

Excuse me for butting in here TH as it's not as though you need any help in constantly re-serving SD's head back to her, but I felt the need to address some of this also.

SD, it's not being 'controlling' to want one's own thread free from inane insulting commentary or hijack. It also happens to correlate with the rules of the board.

Do you want to control rules of grammar, too? :Commie:

No, I think he probably just wishes you used it better, I know I do....

lain:

:yawn: A liberal is open-minded. A Leftist is not (Eccl 10:2). :Commie:

TH is neither, so once again you lack a point.

You are a squeaky wheel. :idunno: You get the oil--not respect--oil. Pr 18:6

TH gets my respect because he acts with integrity and honesty, and there's a number of issues where we're practically polls apart, yet despite somewhat heated exchanges at times I don't think any the less of the guy as a person. Kinda because of the 'integrity/honesty' thing....lain:

:yawn: Ad hominem
lain:
:yawn: Ad hominem

They aren't 'Ad hominems' SD. You've been told what such amounts to around 453 times yet you still play ignorant on it. Why?

Let the reader decide. each:

How many times does that have to occur before you'll realize that it usually has been - and not in your favor? Remember that poll regarding your sig? And how across the board it had been decided you were off the planet, from liberals to conservatives alike? Yet you still retain it, which goes to show just how much you actually "care" what the reader decides anyway.

It's just a shame there wasn't a 'proof please' quote in here as the irony in regards to the above still stands. If you had 'integrity' you'd either remove it or provide that for which you make claim.

In your observations thread you "never invite debate". Your words not mine. :kookoo:

Which most have understood and realized since practically the outset.
It's not the thread for it. All discussions/debates quoted can be addressed on the thread in question. Pretty pointless to have two (4,6,10,78) debates on one thread where the actually relevant ones on the subjects are left to die....heck SD, I've been quoted in 'Observations' a few times and I don't have a problem with it.....

Ethical members don't need a TOL rule or lack thereof to know right from wrong. :dizzy:

'Ethical' members tend to abide by standard rules and don't misrepresent people without proof of support. So there's that...lain:

I'm not like you (Pr 3:35).

Indeed you aren't....lain:

 

[serpentdove]

"SD, it's not being 'controlling' to want one's own thread free from inane insulting commentary or hijack..."

I responded to his comments. each: (Example: 1,2).

"TH gets my respect because he acts with integrity and honesty..."

Lie of the day (Ingraham). (Example: 1,2).

"'Ethical' members tend to abide by standard rules and don't misrepresent people without proof of support."

Agreed.

[Grammar, English 101] "I think he probably just wishes you used it better..."

[Fallacious arguments, Philosophy 101] "They aren't 'Ad hominems' SD...."

Classic

[Let the reader decide. each:] "How many times does that have to occur before you'll realize that it usually has been - and not in your favor?"

Ex 23:2, Mt 7:14

"Remember that poll regarding your sig?"

No.

"...[M]ost have understood and realized since practically the outset."

:yawn: Bandwagon

[Debate] "...[T]he actually relevant ones on the subjects are left to die..."

There is little, if any, debate. The leftist :Commie: cannot win on the merits of the argument (Eccl 10:2). each:

See:

Tactics of the Left

 

[serpentdove]

"...[Y]ou're making a charge based on a reading of misquotation that I don't believe you can sustain using any authoritative book on grammar."

It's a no-brainer (Eph 4:14). :freak:

In example one you do not use ellipses (...) and make it clear that even after your error is pointed out you will not change your behavior in the future.

In example two you replace my words:

My actual comments read: "You removed the scripture from my quote (Eph 4:14). All of the devils here love you. Why do you think that is? Hos 3:1, Ps 26:5."

You quoted me as saying: "I ... love you. Why do you think that is?"

You have no integrity.

"Why is it ok for you to read my profile page but not ok for SOD and Chrysostom to read your profile page? :hammer:] "Where did I say I wanted to read your profile page?"

Let the reader decide (Pr 10:8,14; Ec 10:12). each:

"...[W]hy on earth would anyone want to read through conversations between someone they don't like and anyone else?"

:yawn: They wouldn't.

"Locks aren't meant to keep out the honest. Sure. That's why I've never had an infraction or been banned. You?"

:yawn: Poisoning the well

[I'm not like you.] "I know. You've been banned."

:yawn: Poisoning the well. Let the reader decide. each:

"Observations Great and...
Reason: Unnecessarily disruptive May 5th, 2012 07:59 PM by Knight 1 / November 1st, 2012 07:59 PM
Observations Great and...
Reason: Unnecessarily disruptive May 4th, 2012 11:08 AM by Knight 0 / October 31st, 2012 11:08 AM
Interview a Member Thread
Reason: Thread hijacking January 19th, 2012 11:15 PM by ebenz47037 0 / July 18th, 2012 12:15 AM
Two Missing Legs: Did...
Reason: Duplicating content from the AIG website July 24th, 2010 01:58 PM by Knight 5 / Expired
Creation Is Religion Pt V
Reason: Posting previous essays/writings July 18th, 2010 02:51 PM by Knight 2 / Expired" link

[Serpentdove blog: infraction: sexual innuendo] "Perv' Cattyfan still does not understand the nickname given to Hitler--which is why I got an infraction (Titus 1:15, Col 3:8). "Hitler had been in such a maniacal mood over the Czechs the last few days that on more than one occasion he had lost control of himself completely, hurling himself to the floor and chewing the edge of the carpet. Hence the term "carpet eater." The evening before, while talking with some of the party leaders at the Dreesen, I had heard the expression applied to the Fuehrer -- in whispers, of course..." full text: William L. Shirer

If I were permitted to comment in your small observation thread, I would respond:

"A few more moments with SD, though it might seem longer..."

You can shorted debate by refraining from using :yawn: fallacious arguments.

"SD, who is a gamer, no matter what else..."

I'm not a gamer. lain: Why are you highlighting your backpedaling? :AMR:

Chrysostom: "I wonder who does the most reporting?
Town Hertic: "In point of fact: it's me..." link

SD: "You are the number one reporter of other members."

Town Heretic: "Not exactly." link

 

[Town Heretic]

"...[Y]ou're making a charge based on a reading of misquotation that I don't believe you can sustain using any authoritative book on grammar."

It's a no-brainer. :freak:

And yet you still haven't done it. That's because you can't or you would. You're wrong on what does or doesn't constitute a misquotation. Proof please.

In example one you do not use ellipses (...) and make it clear that even after your error is pointed out you will not change your behavior in the future.

You're wrong on the necessity of ellipses too but first things first. Proof please. Citation to grammatical authority would be fine.

In example two you replace my words:

My actual comments read: "You removed the scripture from my quote . All of the devils here love you. Why do you think that is?"

The quote remains unaltered. Not presenting the citation to Biblical or other authority via end note isn't misquoting. Citation to authority that says otherwise?

And I know I left off scripture. I know and have explained to you and anyone reading this why that is. So there's no guessing for anyone.

You quoted me as saying: "I ... love you. Why do you think that is?"

You have no integrity.

I did that intentionally. I illustrated an actual alteration of your words. I did so in a way that no one could mistake for your intent. There was nothing in that aimed at fooling anyone, only lampooning you. And you appear to be the only one who didn't understand that.

Why is it ok for you to read my profile page but not ok for SOD and Chrysostom to read your profile page? ]

"Where did I say I wanted to read your profile page?"

Let the reader decide.

Using what? Cite to it. It didn't happen. I never said it. You did. I asked why I or anyone would want to. The inference is that no one would.

"...[W]hy on earth would anyone want to read through conversations between someone they don't like and anyone else?"

They wouldn't.

And yet Sod did and chrys only just commented on my profile comments to bybee, including a link to them.

"Locks aren't meant to keep out the honest. Sure. That's why I've never had an infraction or been banned. You?"

:yawn: Poisoning the well

It's the truth. If the truth poisons your well that's just. You've earned it.

You've been banned.

:yawn: Poisoning the well. Let the reader decide. each:

No. The reader doesn't decide if you've been banned. You've actually been banned. :chuckle: Doofus.

You can shorted debate by refraining from using :yawn: fallacious arguments.

I never have.

I'm not a gamer. lain: Why are you highlighting your backpedaling? :AMR:

I'm not. Let's look together:

Chrysostom: "I wonder who does the most reporting?
Town Hertic: "In point of fact: it's me..." link

Right, to begin with I looked into the numbers, something chrys couldn't do, not being a subscriber. And I told the truth about what I found. No one asked me to do either.

SD: "You are the number one reporter of other members."

Town Heretic: "Not exactly." link

Here's where you miss my point. I'm not the number one reporter of other posters. I was the number one reporter of Sod. Remove that feud from the mix and reports of robospammers (programs mimicking people to sell products and push links) and my number of reports would fall behind several people and toward the middle of the pack. And that's just in the last thousand reports. If you go back to my arrival I move further into the pack, as prior to Sod my reportings were far fewer and between.

And that's the truth, if that's what you're interested in. :e4e:

 

[Arthur Brain]

I responded to his comments. each: (Example: 1,2).

They could hardly be considered "responses", but rather posts of an inane manner which if left unchecked would have spammed up the thread.

Lie of the day (Ingraham). (Example: 1,2).

It would only be a lie had I been insincere, and as I'm not in the business of handing out compliments I don't mean you can rest assured it was genuine. Your opinion of TH is irrelevant on that point and your links are only reflecting on you. He hasn't lied in either.

Agreed.

So why aren't you? As long as you retain that sig sans proof for your "proclamations", you are deliberately and willfully misrepresenting other posters here.

Classic
Ex 23:2, Mt 7:14

Even if such were an ad hom (which it isn't but if you've not got it by now the chances are you're just not gonna) it would be on my part, not TH's.

No.

How convenient....lain:

:yawn: Bandwagon

It was a poll not a bandwagon. lain: People were free to align themselves with your position if they wished. The fact that an overwhelming majority saw your opinion as utter baloney likely had something to do with the fact that Kmo and PB were already long standing members of the board before your 'arrival'.

There is little, if any, debate. The leftist :Commie: cannot win on the merits of the argument (Eccl 10:2). each:

The irony of the ^ is likely lost on you. Deflecting with this "leftist" garbage while simultaneously addressing zero to do with anything I wrote amounts to a complete lack of debate on your part.

See:

Tactics of the Left

As above.

lain: