Split: Full Reichstag Fire - The Derail

[canpakes]

Are you on that list, too? : D

AI says this is your usual playbook. No substance. No argument. Nothing original to add. You toss bait into the thread hoping someone reacts so you can wear the moderator hat and pretend it is authority. Everyone sees it. You do not debate. You do not build ideas. You recycle the same tired triggers and call it contribution. It is not clever. It is not subtle. It is the only move you have. That is an own goal.

Now you derail the thread by accusing not one but two posters of crimes. What is the intent? What outcome are you fishing for? Do you hope for vulgarity so you can step in? Do you hope for silence so you can pretend you scored a point? Do you need someone else to give you the exit line you cannot write yourself?

I dare you to drag the ball out of your own goal and explain what intention you had and what outcome you expected when you suggested that a poster supported a crime?

Nice pearl-clutching and faux rage.

1. Your first paragraph describes your participation here. ‘Own goal’, indeed.

2. The derail occurred when the ‘Hound’ account posted an off-topic accusation. Maybe that needs a boot from the thread.

3. Where is the accusation of a crime? Point it out with a quote.

This ‘delicate, disingenuous snowflake’ act of yours is predictable. Do better. Be better.

[Whiskey]

Nice pearl-clutching and faux rage.

1. Your first paragraph describes your participation here. ‘Own goal’, indeed.

2. The derail occurred when the ‘Hound’ account posted an off-topic accusation. Maybe that needs a boot from the thread.

3. Where is the accusation of a crime? Point it out with a quote.

This ‘delicate, disingenuous snowflake’ act of yours is predictable. Do better. Be better.

Answer to 1: I know you are but what am I, is about me, not you. Please share your intent and expected outcome when you accused a poster of a supporting a crime.
Answer to 2: You derailed the thread.
Answer to 3:

A comprehensive review of posts by yourself and all of the folks you’ve named indicates that they believe what you claim as often as you’ve posted your support for child sex trafficking.
; )

pancakes, without another derail, without pointing at another poster and saying it is their fault or they are worse - what was your intention and expected outcome when you accused a poster of supporting a heinous crime?

[canpakes]

Nice pearl-clutching and faux rage.

1. Your first paragraph describes your participation here. ‘Own goal’, indeed.

2. The derail occurred when the ‘Hound’ account posted an off-topic accusation. Maybe that needs a boot from the thread.

3. Where is the accusation of a crime? Point it out with a quote.

This delicate, disingenuous snowflake act of yours is predictable. Do better. Be better.

Answer to 1: I know you are but what am I, is about me, not you. Please share your intent and expected outcome when you accused a poster of a supporting a crime.
Answer to 2: You derailed the thread.
Answer to 3:

A comprehensive review of posts by yourself and all of the folks you’ve named indicates that they believe what you claim as often as you’ve posted your support for child sex trafficking.
; )

pancakes, without another derail, without pointing at another poster and saying it is their fault or they are worse - what was your intention and expected outcome when you accused a poster of supporting a heinous crime?

You’re floundering, Binger. : D

Point to the quote where someone is accused of a crime.

Point to the portion of the ‘Hound’ account post I was responding to that has anything to do with this thread’s topic.

You’ve already failed a few times, here. Care to stomp your feet and fail again?

[Whiskey]

Point to the quote where someone is accused of a crime.

You refuse to answer the exact question I asked. Instead you pivot to a false paraphrase and argue against that instead of the original point. That is not debate. That is evasion dressed up as correction.

Here is the quote I responded to:

A comprehensive review of posts by yourself and all of the folks you’ve named indicates that they believe what you claim as often as you’ve posted your support for child sex trafficking.
; )

You did not accuse anyone of a crime. You suggested they support a crime. Those are different claims. Explain why you wrote that sentence and what outcome you expected from it. Which reaction were you fishing for when you framed people that way? Were you aiming to provoke vulgarity so you could moderate, or were you aiming to silence the thread so you could claim a win?

You are a moderator in this community. Moderators moderate. You have ability and skills to plant bait, manufacture spectacle, and then lecture people for reacting to bait you placed on purpose. Just own the sentence you wrote and justify it with specifics, or retract it and explain why you thought it was appropriate to introduce that claim into this discussion.

Answer these three things clearly and simply:

What did you mean by that sentence?

What reaction were you expecting to produce?

If your goal was to moderate the thread, why introduce a provocative allegation instead of addressing the topic on its merits?

More obfuscation will be taken as confirmation that the post was a manufactured provocation. The pitch is yours.

[canpakes]

Point to the quote where someone is accused of a crime.

You refuse to answer the exact question I asked. Instead you pivot to a false paraphrase and argue against that instead of the original point. That is not debate. That is evasion dressed up as correction.

Here is the quote I responded to:

A comprehensive review of posts by yourself and all of the folks you’ve named indicates that they believe what you claim as often as you’ve posted your support for child sex trafficking.
; )

You did not accuse anyone of a crime.

Very good, Binger. Thank you for the walk-back.

You posted the quote immediately below just a few moments ago:

Now you derail the thread by accusing not one but two posters of crimes.

You are mistaken.

Moving on:

You suggested they support a crime.

Rather, I pointed out that the Hound account would be as likely to satisfy the statement as much as the Hound account’s statement would be satisfied by the people it is accusing.

Explain why you wrote that sentence and what outcome you expected from it. Which reaction were you fishing for when you framed people that way? Were you aiming to provoke vulgarity so you could moderate, or were you aiming to silence the thread so you could claim a win?

The sentence is offered to illustrate the preposterousness of so many of the Hound account’s statements. I also believe that you are smart enough to know that, and that pretending you’re not smart enough to recognize what is going on is both unseemly, and underestimates your audience.

(tip: no one participating in this thread is a Hollywood agent, so you’re wasting your efforts with the faux rage and drama)

Anyway, why you decided to take such offense at an obvious poke through that preposterousness is … quite interesting. It’s as if you are irritated that the sort of garbage that the Hound account posts is somehow able to be clearly illustrated to be garbage.

You are a moderator in this community. Moderators moderate. You have ability and skills to plant bait, manufacture spectacle, and then lecture people for reacting to bait you placed on purpose. Just own the sentence you wrote and justify it with specifics, or retract it and explain why you thought it was appropriate to introduce that claim into this discussion.

Done. See above.

Answer these three things clearly and simply:

What did you mean by that sentence?

What reaction were you expecting to produce?

If your goal was to moderate the thread, why introduce a provocative allegation instead of addressing the topic on its merits?

All answered above.

Now, three questions for you:

1. What is your name?
2. What is your quest?
3. What is the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?

(Please don’t use your actual name, though. Just pick one of your past socks/alt accounts)

More obfuscation will be taken as confirmation that the post was a manufactured provocation. The pitch is yours.

A provocation? To the Hound account, or the Whiskey account? I only see one of those throwing a tantrum, here.

[Whiskey]

The sentence is offered to illustrate the preposterousness of so many of the Hound account’s statements. I also believe that you are smart enough to know that, and that pretending you’re not smart enough to recognize what is going on is both unseemly, and underestimates your audience.

The sentence illustrated your preposterousness, not Hound's. It was an obfuscation and derail.
I am not smart. Never have been. Never will be.

Now, three questions for you:

1. What is your name?
2. What is your quest?
3. What is the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?

1 - Whiskey
2 -

3 - Pink.

[canpakes]

[Whiskey]

Mission accomplished - the mods saved the mod's thread from the mod's derail.

Nobody saw that coming. Nobody. This is such a shock. I mean, no way.

[canpakes]

Mission accomplished - the mods saved the mod's thread from the mod's derail.

Nobody saw that coming. Nobody. This is such a shock. I mean, no way.

Nobody saw it coming because you have imagined it.

We can’t all be inside your head at the same time. : D