Clarification so as to be clear.

[Bret Ripley]

"Clarification ... to be clear." Why should it be necessary to explain that "to be clear" is the reason a clarification is being offered?

[malkie]

"Clarification ... to be clear." Why should it be necessary to explain that "to be clear" is the reason a clarification is being offered?

Apparently, in spite of having been fairly clear about something in the recent past, one might state it again so as to be clear.

Doing so may also afford the opportunity to use the term "religious racism" as an accusation against other posters. This accusation can then be used as a jumping off point for other accusations - especially those of acting in bad faith, attempting to assert dominance, using rhetorical devices, cherry picking, bringing up past grievances, and diversion or disruption. No indication that the poster considers that any of this might apply to him.

At least, that's what I got from the thread so far.

[I Have Questions]

I've already been fairly clear about this in the recent past, but I will state again so as to be clear.

There are some posters who over time I have come to the realization are not serious posters. They will mock, deride, and cherry pick and/or create straw men arguments and fail to answer questions pointed towards them with any clarity and/or completeness. I have found that it is not worth the time and effort to respond to those particular posters. There are four or five of them.

I also realize that these posters will most likely continue to post in the same manner distorting my posts and get away with it since I will not regularly check their responses and will not respond to them. Their twisted and pretzel like logic which circumvents and actually changes the narrative of my posts in order to get their own agenda across as the dominant narrative will continue, I'm sure.

Apparently, it already has.

I have recently posted in regard to what I see as "religious racism". There are those here that exemplify that to the extent that I am not willing to contend with them. For me, it has saved a LOT of time going around in circles with certain folks without accomplishing anything besides wasting the time of other posters who would just as well read something interesting without having to wade through personal attacks and religious racism.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Regards,
MG

So just to be clear, what this^ is, is an attempt to poison the well, rather than engaging with the specific counter points and rebuttals that MG is faced with. Conversations only go around in circles because MG keeps repeating the same baseless assertions that have been adequately dealt with and shown to be erroneous in the past. If MG keeps bringing the same things up, apparently not learning from the education he received the last time he brought it up, what’s a poster to do other than repeat the rebuttal and recall out MG’s bad behaviour (“spiritual autism” and now “religious racism” anyone?)?

Poor little MG, why can’t people just accept without quibble that what he asserts on the basis that he’s right because he says he’s right? That’s what he wants. Along with the ability to use really offensive terms and be abusive to some posters, usually female posters.

[sock puppet]

Along with some others I've mentioned...and not mentioned... I've decided that sock puppet is on ignore also. * * *

Regards,
MG

My calling and election has just been made sure

[sock puppet]

Someone ought to take up a betting board on how long it will take MG 2.0 to forget he 'put me on ignore' and responds to one of my posts (because he really didn't put me on ignore).

[Shulem]

Along with some others I've mentioned...and not mentioned... I've decided that sock puppet is on ignore also. * * *

Regards,
MG

My calling and election has just been made sure

[Shulem]

Hey everyone! Are we clear yet! I’m gambling in the casino playing this Whitney Houston bitch and she won’t sing for me! What the hell.

[Shulem]

I want to be clear and find out what Whitney sounds like. I have no idea.

[huckelberry]

MG is hardly the only person who goes on and on and on about MG. MG too this MG is too that. Not so exciting stuff.

I'm not sure if I may be misunderstanding you, huckelberry.

MG started this thread, and has continued it, with accusations aimed at other posters. Is responding to him somehow inappropriate?

Malkie, thinking legally I can see it as appropriate. It just goes on and on and presents little that is very interesting. I am just hoping everybody including MG can limit it.

[huckelberry]

MG,

I’ve found that disengaging when a conversation starts going sideways to be the best tactic. It takes two to tango and I see you and those you called out both dancing together most of the time.

No one will be offended if you bow out whenever you feel like nothing productive is coming from further discussion in a thread. I do it all the time and find it works really well.

I think you often make really good points and I appreciate reading them.

drumdude, thoughtful proposal thank you.