I Don't Believe You

[Cultellus]

So, back to the topic and the OP we go.

Here is Chap

Judging from that quote by Snazzip, I can see I am not missing anything much by leaving Cultellus on ignore.

He is strange, certainly. But not in an interesting way.

And, here is the quote by Snazzip. Snazzip knows that I posted a Babylon Bee story that said, "Also on the internet" which was not provided as evidence of anything other than, one can find just about anything on the internet, including satire.

Holy crap, that was a lot of words just to say

Why all the words? Didn't The Babylon Bee have any articles for you to cite? Hey, maybe go check out The Onion, you will probably find them to be another reputable source of information.

In a nutshell, Chap is pretending to have me on ignore, while making judgments based on information he refuses to consider. This is how we filter facts and how we particularly do so in silos like this. Judging others based on facts that we filter, or by omitting actual data, does indeed make us unbelievable. Chap is exclaiming that for us, and we are grateful. Thank you, Chap.

ETA: Sorry Snazzip. I forgot to give you credit for your emphatic endorsement of the OP. Ignore too many words, make an assumption, include snark and reject data - it all makes you an unbelievable character. Sorry for the delayed recognition of your contribution. Thank you for your help.

[Jersey Girl]

Why did I do it, to get YOUR damned attention. What is not clear about that? And to make the point that Doc Cam was being an unchecked bigot on this board, and he was.

No. He wasn't.

[Cultellus]

I've got nothing to disagree with in that, Schmo, especially in regards to wanting some change internally. Thanks for taking the time to flush out your thoughts more with me.

I certainly can't fault anyone for not wanting to engage the wall (walls here being more of positions held, not the individuals themselves. At least in my opinion). But I think even as a metaphor it highlights my point. Walls aren't actually indestructible or immovable. They can be power washed, chipped away at, eroded, and eventually torn down. Now you're absolutely correct and well within your rights to not want to put in that work, time is precious and there are so many fulfilling things to do instead. I think it is also more than fair to pick and choose the "walls" you work with so to speak.

I discussed it in a other thread by I viewed my father's own vaccine hesitancy in much the same way. It took a lot of time and patience to bring him around but that was obviously work of high personal value to me. I'm definitely in favor of using your time in ways that bring the most value to you.

Xenophon, I read this post while driving. I even fired off a response to one of your earlier posts while driving and had some typos in it. Happens.

I thought a lot about this post and my reactions to you and to the story you referenced. If you recall, the "pushed over the edge" metaphor set me off a bit as extreme. My point, was that pushing someone to their perimeter limits to get a reaction was not, in my interpretation, a fair or good thing in all cases. And then.... I read your posts here and thought about them for hours. And for that - THANK YOU.

I spent some time thinking about your posts in the context of your vulnerability in pushing your dad to something that you thought was good for him, even if it was uncomfortable for him. I tried to consider the context where you, and your father, were both negotiating, teaching or learning about something while putting your own vulnerability in the mix or equation.

My first round of thoughts on this were - holy crap was I wrong about Xeno and wrong about his post. Holy crap. I just viewed him as the trigger for a reaction. I was wrong, and I am sorry. I think that what you are describing in your posts in this thread bring that conversation full circle or make it more whole. Applying the vulnerability that happens with a personal connection is the difference. And I agree with you. These connections obviously do not happen typically in a Twitter silo or a forum of people with masks and fake names.

I know most people on this board will not believe me. But, I actually do give some credit to the cabal members here for holding a party line and an offense for their position as members in a dialogue and game and silo. I believe what you are saying Xeno, that we all can be believable and we can all influence others in real life personal situations. Perhaps this is why unaligned avatars and fake-named characters are just trolls and nuisances in the forum game, we are just squids on this board. Where it is personal and real, it is different and the results are different.

[Cultellus]

Why did I do it, to get YOUR damned attention. What is not clear about that? And to make the point that Doc Cam was being an unchecked bigot on this board, and he was.

No. He wasn't.

Yes. He was, Jersey. Yes he was.

His use of homosexual epithets was bigoted. There are other examples, but make no mistake here, that was enough. And your defense of it was noted then and is noted now.

[Jersey Girl]

No. He wasn't.

Yes. He was, Jersey. Yes he was.

His use of homosexual epithets was bigoted. There are other examples, but make no mistake here, that was enough. And your defense of it was noted then and is noted now.

I defended nothing. I stated fact. Had you and your sidekick bothered to READ this board, you would have known exactly what he was doing. But you didn't read this board.

Hint: There are ongoing, shall we say, exchanges between posters that spread over time and over multiple threads. And that's how uninsightful you both were when you blundered your way through your first posts and accusations here, floundering around to find something to latch on to in order to justify your trolling of this board.

[Cultellus]

Yes. He was, Jersey. Yes he was.

His use of homosexual epithets was bigoted. There are other examples, but make no mistake here, that was enough. And your defense of it was noted then and is noted now.

I defended nothing. I stated fact. Had you and your sidekick bothered to READ this board, you would have known exactly what he was doing. But you didn't read this board.

Hint: There are ongoing, shall we say, exchanges between posters that spread over time and over multiple threads. And that's how uninsightful you both were when you blundered your way through your first posts and accusations here, floundering around to find something to latch on to in order to justify your trolling of this board.

I get it Jersey. You have made this point over and over and over again. I am not in disagreement. There was a way things were said and done around here, and asking people how many cocks they suck between appointments was just part of that way. You have made this point over and over that if I understood you better, that I would not think Doc was bigoted for using many many many homosexual epithets. We have also gone over the post with a black woman being shot in the head and labeled a disposable "Nigress." He was just trolling, and it is not "who he really is."

I did not flounder around. I stood in front of a cabal and said, let's go. Oh, and I called some people pissboys for carrying water for the cabal. I did that too. I think you are more of the hall monitor and apologist.

And, did you not see my post? Doc was trolling. Do you recall? That is how it works around here. That is the process. That is what the rules allow.

[Lem]

Lem, what kept you from quoting the next post in that thread?

Why would I? I was quoting Canpakes. But in any case, the link is there, if anyone wants to, they can see the posts. Well, except for yours because you delete them.

And I disagree with your memory of what happened. The difference between your opinion and others opinions about what was going on is that I or anyone else here can go back and look at what was said in the conversation, except for what you said, because you deleted your posts. People quoted you quite a bit so it's not hard to see your pattern, but you have no credibility when you argue something dramatically different from others memories, because you deleted every post you made. Nobody's going to trust your version of events after that.

[canpakes]

Ah yes, I remember it well ... all that gibberish, all those insults, all obviously intended to disrupt the board by some of the most intense trolling I have ever seen ... all now deleted. But remembered and in many cases recorded.

What do yo remember, Chap? Do tell. Do you remember that you and your cabal could not get any traction because the cabal was getting smashed? Do you remember that Icarus had a fit and left because he was getting his head handed to him? Do you remember how Doc Cam asked me how many cocks I sucked between appointments, and you laughed? Do you remember that Atlanticmike shut down conversations merely by pointing out how y'all giggled at someone calling their wife a cunt? Do you remember Doc's post with black woman having her head shot and it had the word "Nigress" in the post? Do you recall any of that? Actually, I think it said "one less Nigress." And there was something about it not mattering until there was a million dead black women. I do not recall, you will have to ask Doc. He made the post in Parsdise and to you, Schmo, Gadianton, Lem, Jersey and others there was nothing wrong with that whatsoever. Remember that, Chap?

And you want to now sit here and “F” off like this and say there was gibberish and insults on my part? I trolled the everloving “F” out of you guys, and when Shades asked me directly if I was still trolling, I said no. Why did I do it, to get YOUR damned attention. What is not clear about that? And to make the point that Doc Cam was being an unchecked bigot on this board, and he was. It was a surprise and discovery to find that Gadianton was such a deep and entrenched bigot in your cabal, but, so be it. We can work with that going forward.

Oh, and one more thing. Trolling is not against the rules here. It is the process to get your attention when you are running a bully cabal of bigots.

Your problem, Chap, is not with me. Your problem, Chap, is that you used to have a bully pulpit with your clown cabal of Doc ChapGunnianton, Schmo and Icarus. and the hall monitors Lem and Jersey. Jersey was hanging off your bigoted arms like a battered woman telling me that oh, that is just how those boys are, and I should get to know them better.

I told you why I deleted the posts, Chap. My posts got chopped and dishonestly quoted. After the moderation board was changed and a cabal member got put on the team, they got moved. And the process allows me to edit posts, not move them back. Be careful what you damned ask for, clown. Now, get back on topic. We are talking about facts. Not about how victimized you are because someone trolled your board and deleted their posts. Jesus Christ Chap, seriously. What the “F” ever difference does it make if my posts are deleted? I have told you I will delete this one too. If that is concerning for you, get over it, because it is going to go away.

If you do not quote it, perhaps someone else will. That is all part of the rules and process, right?

Meh, whatever. Different day, same gaslighting. I especially like the part where you rant about Doc posting an example of what can be found in right wing extremist posts from a known site, with you then pretending that the example was what Doc believed.

And the falsehood about your posts being ‘chopped up’.

Or someone joking about their interaction with their wife, and you pretending that said poster was serious about the joke they shared.

There’s enough remaining of these interactions for you to link back to them if you believe that they’ll support your narrative. But I suspect that you won’t, because doing so will just result in further damage to your credibility … if that’s possible.

Anyhow, you’d already admitted why you started up here, via the thread that you created months ago, and your admission since:

Trolling is not the issue here. The issue is that this board has one acceptable ideology - ONE! End of damned story.

viewtopic.php?p=45163#p45163

[Cultellus]

And I disagree with your memory of what happened. The difference between your opinion and others opinions about what was going on is that I or anyone else here can go back and look at what was said in the conversation, except for what you said, because you deleted your posts. People quoted you quite a bit so it's not hard to see your pattern, but you have no credibility when you argue something dramatically different from others memories, because you deleted every post you made. Nobody's going to trust your version of events after that.

THIS IS damned EXCELLENT. Hell yes on this.

If we believe it, then it becomes fact?

This takes the OP to a whole nuther level. Believe it first, based on our own memory and filters, and then call it factual. So, basically, a set of facts can be memories or anything we want. If someone rejects your memories and recollection, by your standard, they are rejecting facts and are not believable.

I think I am going to edit my posts to say something along the lines of our beliefs becoming our facts - even if we do not have (or in the case of Chap where we refuse to see) actual facts. The 50 Cent contribution may have run its course. Thanks, Lem.

[Lem]

And I disagree with your memory of what happened. The difference between your opinion and others opinions about what was going on is that I or anyone else here can go back and look at what was said in the conversation, except for what you said, because you deleted your posts. People quoted you quite a bit so it's not hard to see your pattern, but you have no credibility when you argue something dramatically different from others memories, because you deleted every post you made. Nobody's going to trust your version of events after that.

THIS IS F'ing EXCELLENT. Hell yes on this.

If we believe it, then it becomes fact?

This takes the opening post to a whole nuther level. Believe it first, based on our own memory and filters, and then call it factual. So, basically, a set of facts can be memories or anything we want. If someone rejects your memories and recollection, by your standard, they are rejecting facts and are not believable.

I think I am going to edit my posts to say something along the lines of our beliefs becoming our facts - even if we do not have (or in the case of Chap where we refuse to see) actual facts. The 50 Cent contribution may have run its course. Thanks, Lem.

Lol. Just going to quote this one too, before you get scared and start deleting again.