Re: The Conspiratorial Clowns

[Gadianton]

Your world may be different but In my world, if people have issues with people, they address the person that they have the issue with directly.

In my world, it's okay to address people in other threads. But I think the need to shift to other threads to stay on topic has settled, so you probably won't see much more of it for now.

By the way, did you see the article I linked to, and do you better understand why I uniquely singled out Rush as the most likely influence for A-Mike's opinions on climate change? Not that you have to agree -- but do you see why I pointed to Rush, and not Pelosi or Trump or others?

What is with you and this poem and how did you come to this conclusion about the poem? I am asking because I have no idea what you're talking about

The poem you offered in the first climate thread included this line:

Not all who snarl are cruel.
Not everyone generous is just.

A-Mike and Cultellus began their plight here with the most offensive language I've seen on a forum. Cultellus for his direct insults and four-letter words, and A-Mike for getting extremely personal, including telling people he's the guy to 'give it to them in the..." -- you know. You've gravitated towards these two individuals as fellow travelers who share your concerns with the climate of this board. For instance, when I was happy about Rush's death a while back, that apparently offended you. A-Mike's message about progressives (of which I'm not, but I can understand why someone might lump me in) seemed to resonate with your way of thinking. Given your extensive efforts preaching decency between each other as posters, I've found it odd that you can so easily swallow the extensive personal attacks of these two, but whatevs. I just sort of let it go, kind of like you didn't say much when I've made remarks about politicians and "right-wingers" and pillow cases and scissors.

It may have been just an accident and not intended on your part, but the poem came at a time when you really began throwing in with Cultellus. He was speaking of the three of you as a Duck, an alcoholic, and a roofer, just common regular folk. A-Mike has persistently preached his own persecution long before anyone had a chance to say anything to him, that high-minded progressives look at people like him as sub-human. It's like, somehow, the 'liberals' on the forum are connected to an elitist network with no self-awareness while the three of you are common, decent folk with real lives and problems. So that line in the poem seems to put the stamp of approval on Cultellus and A-Mike -- "Not all who snarl are cruel". Sure, these two have a big bark, but people need to see past that to get to know the real them and see the deeper message they bring. Perhaps that's not what you meant to communicate, but that's what it seemed to me you were going for.

Perhaps you even think Cultellus's extreme vulgarity against me is justified for the things I've said about "right-wingers" and whatnot? True? Maybe he's saying what you wish to say, but don't for whatever reasons? I'm not saying that's the case, I'm asking.

[canpakes]

A-Mike and Cultellus began their plight here with the most offensive language I've seen on a forum.

I could not have said it better myself. You were not offended by the heinous and egregiously offensive, bigoted and insulting things that were said before I got here. We have gone over that. You actually loved it and said specifically and explicitly that you liked it and saw nothing wrong. When horrible and insulting things were brought up, including the suggestion that one can assign no value to homosexuality, so homosexism on this board is therefore not insulting - you agreed. You went one step further and moderated the board to promote that sort of nonsense.

Make no mistake Gad, your words would be significantly less welcome out there in the world than mine. My mother has seen me tell people like you to sit down. I doubt you would walk around in public saying the things you do about people of color and about your so-called friends, LOL!

You wallow in this Nazi stuff more than anyone I know. I know you, Alf, Doc and others like to bring your filth from 4Chan to this board, including use of the N-word. And you are fine with that. You have always been fine with that. I suspect you will always be fine with that.

Interesting projection, but I doubt that anyone is buying this.

[Gadianton]

Some of what Cultellus just wrote is barely comprehensible, but I can respond to a couple of points.

Considering what I would or wouldn't say to my friends in the real world: the main "right-wing friend" that I talk about I absolutely would say, and have said things here to him personally, including any insults toward him which I have said here. I try not to do that, as he's the only person in my adult life I've ever raised my voice with like that. He has a rare talent for pushing a person to the edge. As a troll, I'd say hands down he's better than I am. I absolutely would tell him Rush is one of the most evil persons to have lived, but for him, that kinda gives Rush too much credit so it's a bad play. I've never met someone who can push a person to the edge like he does. I have to say though, he's been a fountain of information about today's conservativism. Oh, he talks crap about me so we're even. I know that because it's come back to me from others. I Know he's the gossip type so I only tell him what I'd be okay with the rest of the neighborhood hearing.

The other point is my supposed racism. A-Mike and Cultellus both have a play down pat from the white supremacy playbook, even if they themselves aren't white supremacists. It's the progressives who are the racists, and not them or those who only positively advocate for their own people. If Doc Cam posts something from 4chan to criticize it, like a far-right meme as an example of what's going on in that world, A-Mike immediately accuses him of being the racist. Sometimes it might not be clear when something is intended as satire, but we usually can tell the difference by context. Finding ways to twist a condemnation of racism into racism itself is a play to disallow the discussion of racism.

Because I've used the wording "people of color", Cult goes A-Mike and turns that into me "saying things about people of color". My right-wing friend, coincidently does a similar thing. He says when opportune, we're all the same, and people who distinguish between black and white (progressives and blacks) are the real racists, while he as a white conservative, was taught not to see the difference.

considering my last two long-winded paragraphs, sigh. I'm once again owned by Canpakes:

Interesting projection, but I doubt that anyone is buying this.

[Lem]

I could not have said it better myself. You were not offended by the heinous and egregiously offensive, bigoted and insulting things that were said before I got here. We have gone over that. You actually loved it and said specifically and explicitly that you liked it and saw nothing wrong. When horrible and insulting things were brought up, including the suggestion that one can assign no value to homosexuality, so homosexism on this board is therefore not insulting - you agreed. You went one step further and moderated the board to promote that sort of nonsense.

Make no mistake Gad, your words would be significantly less welcome out there in the world than mine. My mother has seen me tell people like you to sit down. I doubt you would walk around in public saying the things you do about people of color and about your so-called friends, LOL!

You wallow in this Nazi stuff more than anyone I know. I know you, Alf, Doc and others like to bring your filth from 4Chan to this board, including use of the N-word. And you are fine with that. You have always been fine with that. I suspect you will always be fine with that.

Interesting projection, but I doubt that anyone is buying this.

Seriously. What a bizarre post from cult.

[ceeboo]

Your world may be different but In my world, if people have issues with people, they address the person that they have the issue with directly.

In my world, it's okay to address people in other threads

So we just live is different worlds - fair enough.

By the way, did you see the article I linked to, and do you better understand why I uniquely singled out Rush as the most likely influence for A-Mike's opinions on climate change? Not that you have to agree -- but do you see why I pointed to Rush, and not Pelosi or Trump or others?

Yes, I saw the article (as well as others that were posted on the board) and yes, I now see why you specifically chose Rush as it relates to the discussion about climate change.

What is with you and this poem and how did you come to this conclusion about the poem? I am asking because I have no idea what you're talking about

The poem you offered in the first climate thread included this line:

Yeah, I'm not going to try to even attempt to answer this with any detail at all - I'll simply say that I chose a poem, in about 38 seconds from a quick google search - that had no intended meaning at all. Just liked it and posted the poem as a sarcastic reply to another posted poem. Just being silly because, at times, I am silly - That's all it was.

A-Mike and Cultellus began their plight here with the most offensive language I've seen on a forum. Cultellus for his direct insults and four-letter words, and A-Mike for getting extremely personal, including telling people he's the guy to 'give it to them in the..."

To suggest that the language from these two was/is offensive is about as obvious a statement as one could make. As far as it being the most offensive language that you have seen on a forum goes (including four letter words and the extremely personal stuff) - I would suggest that I have been reading these things on this board long before these two made their entrance.

you know. You've gravitated towards these two individuals as fellow travelers who share your concerns with the climate of this board

No doubt about it - I do indeed share their concerns about the "climate" of this board and I thought deeply about the challenges and criticisms that were delivered to this board (because I have been a part of this board for so long - as many of you have) - In addition, I found the challenges and criticisms to be valid. Did you?

For instance, when I was happy about Rush's death a while back, that apparently offended you.

I wasn't offended - I thought it was awful - So I said so - because I (just like all of us) have lost a loved one and it doesn't matter if you or I happened to love Rush - He had a family and children and friends who did. They just lost their dad/husband etc. Yeah, if you equate him to Bundy then you would say "Bundy was a father/husband" should we have been respectful regarding his death too? I don't see them as comparable so I do think, if nothing else, a small dose of respect ought to be extended, if not for Rush, for those he left behind.

A-Mike's message about progressives (of which I'm not, but I can understand why someone might lump me in) seemed to resonate with your way of thinking.

Why would you say that? Did I post in any of his numerous threads with the title of "progressive?" I don't recall making a single post. Having said that, I am not a progressive so that clearly ought to tell you something about my way of thinking. But that's hardly breaking news, I mean come on Gad, do you think the people on this board that are left of center (meaning 98.873 % of the board) would "resonate" with a post about an ignorant "right-wing friend?"

Given your extensive efforts preaching decency between each other as posters.....

You don't like my "preaching" either? Man, I need to find another church!

Perhaps you even think Cultellus's extreme vulgarity against me is justified for the things I've said about "right-wingers" and whatnot? True?

I don't think anyone is justified using extreme vulgarity against another person - Cultellus included. I have to ask you, why haven't you pointed out the countless times that extreme vulgarity was used against another person that was not authored by Cultellus? Surely, you have had thousands of opportunities to do so over the years. Have you ever done it even once? Or is pointing this out completely dependent on who it is that posts the extreme vulgarity against another person? Yeah, I know the answer - you don't need to reply to the questions.

Maybe he's saying what you wish to say, but don't for whatever reasons? I'm not saying that's the case, I'm asking.

If I want to say something, Gad, I say it. If I don't want to say something, I don't.

[Gadianton]

For the parts I don't respond to directly, interpret as: I see where you're coming from or I agree to disagree and/or thanks for the clarification.

You don't like my "preaching" either? Man, I need to find another church!

I'm neutral to your preaching as it goes, I find it mildly irritating as I rarely see you participate in any other way since you've returned to the board.

Gad, do you think the people on this board that are left of center (meaning 98.873 % of the board) would "resonate" with a post about an ignorant "right-wing friend?"

I think it's divided; some like it, some tolerate it, but if I were to couple that with graphic sexual invective toward other posters especially towards posters of the opposite sex, and nonstop extreme name calling and pointless disruptions, then I think any who resonate with it would resonate with it a whole lot less.

I have to ask you, why haven't you pointed out the countless times that extreme vulgarity was used against another person that was not authored by Cultellus?

I only bring it up to you now because of your sensitivity towards the way others are treated on the forum and your concern with what I say about others not on the forum. I'm not so self-absorbed that I'm really worried about how I'm being treated. I'm not big on patrolling tone. It's not my agenda. The way I see it, people here know this is a free speech forum, we're all adults, education level is relatively high, and so if people want to sock it to each other then feel free. People can bow out or put people they don't like on ignore. I've made exceptions in some cases, I admit. So, to be clear, I wouldn't be calling out Cult to you, especially in regard to how he treats me, aside from the context of our tussle on my tone regarding non-forum participants.

In addition, I found the challenges and criticisms to be valid. Did you?

Wasn't sure what you meant. Challenges and criticisms to, say, climate change? 100% invalid. In regard to the tone of the board: I assume that means how Ajax is treated or Doc Cam's style. Perhaps 15% valid; the only valid point that came out of that was how Ajax is spoken to.

"Doc Cam" is a license to say what they want. One of the biggest issues with the "Doc Cam" crusade is that at the time of forum entry, I wasn't seeing Doc Cam be particularly bad. Sure, he posts memes and stuff like that, I think a lot of those are hilarious. But I wasn't seeing the dirty insults. It turns out we later learned that Cam had a deal with Shades and so had quit that some time back. A-Mike and Cult were digging up posts from the past, expecting people to find afresh outrage at things Cam had said, and if not, then they could say whatever they want. That's just disruptive trolling.

If Cult were to quit his extreme insults, I wouldn't bring them up six months later or even two days later.

You want to know whether I would defend a non-team member from a team member. I barely defend people on my own team who are attacked for reasons stated. Most significantly, I defended Grindeal from MG, but that's a special circumstance and Grindael is way down on the list of people here I'd call a friend or a board ally. Not saying something at times concerning Ajax perhaps was an oversight, but he is pretty tough, and I'm less likely to worry about strong people. I defended Sledge and had my team thinking I'd lost my mind. Doesn't matter; I thought it was right so they were free to think that.

[Jersey Girl]

Cult [was] digging up posts from the past, expecting people to find afresh outrage at things Cam had said, and if not, then [he] could say whatever [he] want[ed].

edited to make specific and singular.

This is such an egregious lie, Gadianton. Even for you, this is so far beyond the pale that I am, again, shocked.
The fact that you were moderating and still have access to the moderator forum, while believing and perpetrating such lies, is astounding to me.

I am not amused. Your lying is noted.

If Gad didn't have access to the inner workings of this board, you wouldn't have had anything to troll.

[Gadianton]

C, If what you meant to say is that you did not bring up Doc Cam's old posts, only A-Mike did, while you acted as A-Mike's foremost cheerleader for doing so, then I stand corrected. But we'll never know given your massive post deletions.

You're worried I have mod access? lol. I have root access; I have the most extensive board powers that can be had (with another account) and it's impossible to take them away from me. Not even I can take them away, that's the kind of power I have.

[Lem]

C, If what you meant to say is that you did not bring up Doc Cam's old posts, only A-Mike did, while you acted as A-Mike's foremost cheerleader for doing so, then I stand corrected.

No need for correction, Gad, you were correct the first time.

[Atlanticmike]

Some of what Cultellus just wrote is barely comprehensible, but I can respond to a couple of points.

Considering what I would or wouldn't say to my friends in the real world: the main "right-wing friend" that I talk about I absolutely would say, and have said things here to him personally, including any insults toward him which I have said here. I try not to do that, as he's the only person in my adult life I've ever raised my voice with like that. He has a rare talent for pushing a person to the edge. As a troll, I'd say hands down he's better than I am. I absolutely would tell him Rush is one of the most evil persons to have lived, but for him, that kinda gives Rush too much credit so it's a bad play. I've never met someone who can push a person to the edge like he does. I have to say though, he's been a fountain of information about today's conservativism. Oh, he talks crap about me so we're even. I know that because it's come back to me from others. I Know he's the gossip type so I only tell him what I'd be okay with the rest of the neighborhood hearing.

The other point is my supposed racism. A-Mike and Cultellus both have a play down pat from the white supremacy playbook, even if they themselves aren't white supremacists. It's the progressives who are the racists, and not them or those who only positively advocate for their own people. If Doc Cam posts something from 4chan to criticize it, like a far-right meme as an example of what's going on in that world, A-Mike immediately accuses him of being the racist. Sometimes it might not be clear when something is intended as satire, but we usually can tell the difference by context. Finding ways to twist a condemnation of racism into racism itself is a play to disallow the discussion of racism.

Because I've used the wording "people of color", Cult goes A-Mike and turns that into me "saying things about people of color". My right-wing friend, coincidently does a similar thing. He says when opportune, we're all the same, and people who distinguish between black and white (progressives and blacks) are the real racists, while he as a white conservative, was taught not to see the difference.

considering my last two long-winded paragraphs, sigh. I'm once again owned by Canpakes:

Interesting projection, but I doubt that anyone is buying this.

What's obvious is before I came here you never criticized ICARUS ( a.k.a. Alf Omega), doc cam or schmo when they called certain posters names or put them down for being conservative. You could've spoke up but you chose not to even though those three were total A-holes. Actually, you seemed perfectly fine with them acting nasty. You see, you are used to being able to insult or shout down conservatives in the past on the board and probably in your real life. I think that's what upsets you the most about me and cultellus is you haven't been able to persuade me into believing you're this smart all knowing brilliant person, I don't see you like that. Personally, I feel sorry for you. You seem scared of life, almost like you've forgotten how to live. You don't impress me at all. I know a lot of bitter exmormons and you're know different.

Edited name to comply with SP 1. - cp -