I don't think that's true. There's a bias in play as to getting slack cut, but I haven't recalled anyone being banned without a rules violation attached that could be understood looking at the woodshed.
I tried to discuss that issue with you. It led to my second warning.
) led to my asking you this question. thread hijacking or being disruptive? :Commie: Do you have an arrangement with the Gestapo to not allow members who challenge you when you gossip about them in your Small Observations Thread? lain:
Is that right? I didn't speak with him enough to know.
I remember the never ending questions.
I didn't view them but I trust your judgment. I do not attend your turtle club meetings. :skeptic:
That taught us something. I always wondered if that Chloe O'Brian modulating IP address software
was for real. Aren't the Lefties (Eccl 10:2) always telling us :Commie: if you don't like their comments, don't read them?
Get your terms right.
I am a :CRASH: "thread hijacker" who is "unnecessarily disruptive". :reals: Summary Interesting reading?
2 Thess. 3:11
Nah. You got your warning for spamming my thread. You were on post number three or four if memory serves. Anyway, neither my profile page nor my PM is locked. So anyone wanting a side bar on something with me that they don't want to create a thread to get into is always free to use those.
See, that's just an insult with interesting punctuation. You'd done that whole "this isn't interesting" song and dance before. You weren't actually attempting to contribute to the thread. The good news is that you don't have to read it.This dialogue (which was less interesting than watching paint dry
"She's just that that into you. Why do you think that is??"
Actually, it was the straw, not an isolated instance. You'd been warned off for posting a stream of insults prior. You don't remember the whole, "You must not be a good lawyer" line of nonsense?
No. I've been a subscriber for a while but that's not what got you a warning. You got a warning because what you were up to was fairly obvious and it was part of a series of similar posts.
In Observations? Likely. You should use the PM or profile bit if you actually have a question about why I'm doing a thing.Will asking you these questions get me banned :banned: today for:
Reposting a public comment and response, along with a link inviting anyone to read the entire exchange isn't gossiping, but let's be clear: your actual point deduction came from you commenting after you'd been warned off and you weren't quoted or actually even mentioned in the lengthy repost you pulled the quote from to "ask a question".
No. Your gossip is in a signature line. As certain readers who aren't in that signature line and who aren't me have read and judged: you routinely misrepresent people, which is a polite way of saying you lie to suit your want of maturation. That explains your calling the mods gestapo and ignoring polite warnings about your behavior from them, resulting in your infraction. And before I ever reported a post by you I asked you to stop, to get in the spirit of the thread or take it elsewhere.I don't report people. I don't give negative rep.
I prefer these things to be out in the open for all to see.
each: Summary It was too probing a question.
I must have missed that memo.
Was I supposed to get a warning from that post, too?
each: You claim to be a lawyer; but, you appear afraid to address opposition to your arguments. TOL is for debate. Isn't that what lawyers are supposed to specialize in? I didn't understand. That is why I asked for an explanation. The inquiry lead to warning number two.
In general do you not want others to be able to challenge your comments?
The long tedious dialogue showed any gluttons for punishment :Letsargu: how the Left argues (Eccl 10:2).
each: In that way it was a worthwhile exercise. I received a new email from your thread and that is what I responded to. My user options are set up to automatically subscribe to any thread that I have previously commented in.
I warn others about dangerous make-believers (Eph 5:11, Ga 5:9). :reals:
You're projecting again. :noway: Let the reader decide.
“Sorry gang, have to lock this down while I report the spammer.” ~ Town Heretic link
lain:I appreciate that. Are you moving to the Right? :smokie:
I believe you got your wish. He is banned :banned: as we speak.
There's always Twitter. :idunno: Hos 3:1, Ps 26:5
:chuckle: Well, let no one say you lack an inadvertent sense of humor.I prefer these things to be out in the open for all to see.
See, that's you doing the whole lying thing again, since I've never said or suggested that the moderators are swayed by financial support. That was your disrespect in play, not mine.
Again: it isn't a gossip thread. I cull bits and pieces from conversations I have among other things (though less of those since Jack's arrival). Don't like it? Don't read it. Start your own thread and see if anyone is interested.
Yes and no. I have a lot of bits and pieces of time while I take care of Jack. When he sleeps, while he's playing by himself on and off. That sort of thing. This is a great outlet and I get decent dialog ideas from some of the conversations as well as the opportunity to keep up with friends here.
I am. At least one member here in good standing will confirm it if it's a point of serious inquiry for you. Send AMR a PM.
That's nuts. The very posts in those threads you're getting your garters in a bind over are precisely that. And I've never been known for not arguing around here.
Not exactly. Depends on the attorney. Lawyers are trained in critical thinking and its application to the law. Debate is only a part of that.
I don't believe you. Neither did the admin.
They do all the time. And I answer them. But every thread linked to in my Observations thread is an ongoing argument. I don't mean to argue them in two places. Observations is a mostly humorous, occasionally serious reflection on those arguments in progress.
You can still unsubscribe to a specific thread. So you aren't chained to any of them. It's not an either/or situation.
You strike me as someone in need of significance. You make claims you can't support and then declare "Let the reader decide." When the reader does, publicly, as zoo recently did, you attack them, call them pagans, etc. So there you are.
To keep you from launching posts meant to derail it while I asked the mod to warn you off the activity instead of asking for you to receive an infraction for a rules violation. And I did that even after you'd done the same thing prior and with even a more incendiary use of verbiage (that old "You aren't a very good lawyer, are you?" sort of insult.
Who's trying to spam yours? Again, start a thread filled with your thoughts and bits and pieces. See if anyone shows up. Could be edifying for you.:Commie: I don't lock down threads.
No, you say that but then you went right back at it. You went at it without even the excuse of answering a post about you. And that's why you received an infraction.
I believe I have a little since my arrival here, but I haven't taken another of the tests on the subject. So as far as I know I'm still, essentially, about dead center with an incremental lean to the left and more so in the libertarian side of things.
I must have misunderstood.
Is that a yes or a no.
I enjoy your updates to the thread. I've responded to others from a point I've missed after reading your highlights. If my name comes up and I disagree, usually I respond.Your odd comment seemed related to the earlier thread. It was in all caps (yelling). Apparently, it meant something to you. Were you just being silly? I don't know.
link
each: You're a lawyer. You aren't supposed to have to call in the cavalry :baby: to avoid tough questions or try to make me disappear. :WA:
You should read How to Argue & Win Every Time: At Home, At Work, In Court, Everywhere, Everyday by Gerry Spence
You were incoherent and they were lazy.
I commented on your observation of the argument. You observe that you win the argument. I observe that you do not. If you don't want me to chime in, I won't.
You now identify yourself as "more left than right". How do we disagree?
Works for me. :idunno: If you don't want my comments, just say so. I've never had to unsubscribe to a thread before. :hammer:
You're projecting again. :noway: My deep-soul security is part of my salvation. It is my right as a child of God. I am able to grow in humility because of my identity in Him (Moore).
If you believe that I misrepresent a bible verse, you're going to have to bring more to the table than "That's not what that verse means." :freak: Make your case--lawyer.
The pagan heathens who identify as "other" routinely come out to support you. What does that say about you? Ps 26:5. You call God-haters "friend".
How do you derail a thread? Does a new spider silk derail the entire spider web?
Your argument style is on display for all to see.
each: Are you proud of this dialogue? lain: Most people move to the right as they get older. If you don't, what are we to conclude? Eccl 10:2 PlastikBuddah (aka Gamara aka Taikoo, aka ThermalCry, aka Samstarrett, aka IXOYE) used some strange tactics. AB used roll out a bunny trail or two. Why would I care? I don't use the term spam. It's meaningless. If I don't want to answer a post because it doesn't forward the argument, I don't. It's an unopened can of so-called spam :spam: which harms no one.
Someone doesn't know how to take a compliment.
I am pleased that you asked for me not to be banned. Someone misquoted Barbarian today and he expressed concern, wondering if the member was banned because of it. This is an improvement to the forum in my opinion. In years past I would have gotten no warning.
I hope so (Pr 27:17).
You misunderstood your own writing? Because you were the one who speculated that it was my financial contributions that influenced the mods. Peculiar. As a rule, if you don't know what it is you're saying you should either stop saying it or run for Congress.
I understand you'd like for it to appear as innocuous as that. But your last response, the one that ended with an infraction, wasn't in connection with anything written about or to you. And here's another expression of your enjoyment in reading my highlights:
Is this your scrapbooking party?
Originally Posted by Town Heretic
I thought it might be interesting to have a thread where the miscellaneous observations of life could be made...
All the more reason to subscribe and enjoy my writing.
lain:Been there/explained that. Go look for the moderate designation. Because that's what my actual position should look like.
I don't want to argue points being argued in the threads referenced. If you want to take up a point then take it up in the thread where it's being argued. Simple as that.
Nothing says "I'm growing in humility" quite like pointing it out to others. :chuckle:
I've stated the why of my objection to your abuse of scripture to lend authority to declarations unsupported in association with their target. It's illustrated perfectly in your use of God's response to the luke warm. The problem being that you don't establish the charge against me, merely declare it. Then prop it up with the verse that would be relevant had you made anything like the case.
You made that declaration after zoo answered your ever popular "let the reader decide" by deciding against you. His designation? Christian. No "other" and no pagan.
The same thing my friendship with Psalmist or Knight or any number of people across a spectrum of positions says: I can have respectful differences with men and women of principle and retain their friendship. That they don't see in me the things you project there.
I do not. I don't have a friend who hates God. I have a number of friends who don't believe my God exists. I love them as Christ loved them. And I argue and witness with them while worrying after the state of their souls. I treat them with respect as some among the faithful treated me when I was lost. And they know that I'm concerned for them and that I'm fond of them. And many of them evidence more character, compassion and desire for truth than some zealots who share my faith. And that's a sad thing to see in the Body.
Not demonstrably. That's a saying you're confusing with a fact. What I suspect happens, if you live long enough, is that the world moves to your left. That's rather what Reagan said, in essence, when he noted he didn't leave the Democratic party, it left him.
A conclusion is the end of a rational process. You don't conclude. You just declare whatever reality suits you.
I didn't say you weren't pleased. I said you didn't appreciate it. :e4e: