Let's take one of the names on that list, a moderator at the time and see how he responded to an legitimate claim of harassment.
Factually incorrect.
Funny that?
Per the actual post your statement should have said something to the effect;
"Let's take one of the names on that list, who was not a moderator at the time and see how he responded to an legitimate claim of harassment."
Funny that?
Charactures. Cartoons. SNL, The Daily Show, The Colbert Report. Boss Dimbulb is "just a entertainer". Cherry picking. A constant barrage of bias with intent editorial hit pieces from the likes of Breitbart, the WSJ, the WT, ad infinitium, ad nauseam.
After all the hand waving is done it all sounds distinctly like those you don't claim to watch, you know like Sean, Bill, Rush, Michelle, Ann, Laura, Glenn, ad infinitum, ad nauseam.
Funny that?
Objectivity?
Facts? I guess presentation of just half (or less than half of) the relevant information passes for some people as the entire factual record.
You know nick, I am not sure how you got those messages.
I honestly would only care if you came by them by some fraud, be it either directly hacking into an account, or having a moderator do the same. Either way, my opinion of you is certainly not increased by your using those messages.
Furthermore, you list all recipients as if we were a part of a conspiracy against you. I was not. We were not. This paranoia is telling, regardless.
As far as I remember, your posts at the time of that PM were intentionally grating. Yes, intention. There comes a time when it matters, particularly in a discussion that can at times be heated. The temperature of those discussions can be quickly changed by raising the hackles of your opponents and that without a doubt was your purpose at the time.
Maybe you believe you were being persecuted at the time, but that doesn't matter. Your actions and response was to attempt to start a nuclear war in PO.
Ah, yes. Posting PRIVATE messages in a public forum. With all recipients included.
I absolutely cede the moral high ground to you, Nick. You are, truly, a class act.
Why thank you for the compliment!
Why would I care about posting them. They were given to me by multiple sources and since they clearly have no honest intent, why should I feel bad about revealing the bad intent?
Quote:
Where did you get it? Are you a moderator now? Certainly explains why you can spam a forum when the political climate looks uncomfortable and not get banned.
Prince riding on a magical unicorn gave them to me. Then Shania Twain whispered the rest into my ear. I was in the middle of a Prince Shania Twain sandwich.
My actions are acceptable because they follow the rules. The distortion of them by yourself amounts to harassment. The fact that you were banned and returned to spam again are actions, not intentions, not distortions, that show exactly what you are about.
Quote:
As it happens I thought that was all foolishness and didn't really join in. I was in the southern Kalahari at the time and didn't participate in the 'Nick's a dick' webring. But whatever. You have the PM? Check the fucking dates yourself. I'm banned, so I can't.
I find it very amusing that no one has anytime to do anything but then they do just the opposite. It reminds me of all those nice parents who claim they don't care about money but send their kids to school sick and vomiting because the bills have to get paid. Self-delusion is the worst kind of delusion in that case but really, claiming something contrary to actions just isn't very convincing.
Quote:
And a word in your ear before you pick up the whine-o-phone and contact lundy about Hassan being back and he's so mean and etc.
I think he would notice just doing his job however I'm sure circumventing the ban, spamming the forums and publicly commenting on moderation practices will endear you to many.
Quote:
That 'conspiracy'? You behaved terribly. You provoked it. It wasn't your politics, and it wasn't the standard of your rhetoric. It was your contempt for the community, which continues, and which is more poisonous than the ad homs you complain all the fucking time about.
Thanks for sharing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar
You know nick, I am not sure how you got those messages.
Does it matter? It was the Obama administration. They are declassifying everything these days you know.
Quote:
I honestly would only care if you came by them by some fraud, be it either directly hacking into an account, or having a moderator do the same. Either way, my opinion of you is certainly not increased by your using those messages.
Oh no! hardee lowered his opinion of me! Perhaps you should read my sig.
Quote:
Furthermore, you list all recipients as if we were a part of a conspiracy against you. I was not. We were not. This paranoia is telling, regardless.
?There are times when silence has the loudest voice?
-Leroy Brownlow
Quote:
As far as I remember, your posts at the time of that PM were intentionally grating. Yes, intention. There comes a time when it matters, particularly in a discussion that can at times be heated. The temperature of those discussions can be quickly changed by raising the hackles of your opponents and that without a doubt was your purpose at the time.
Sorry that the world is not a place where intentions and hackle raising are punishable crimes. I've heard it might soon be though thanks to Janet Napolitano and the Obama administration so hey, cheer up.
Quote:
Maybe you believe you were being persecuted at the time, but that doesn't matter. Your actions and response was to attempt to start a nuclear war in PO.
That the equipment is only for power generation. I'm just a paper tiger. You'll discover this when you invade my country but remember, you break it you bought it.
I don't think he cares, because only what he thinks is important.
His sig's are from Ayn Rand, one of her ideas is,
So if you believe it's all about your happiness you can rationalize away what doesn't fit and fuck everyone else.
Which is pretty much what his last post was about.
A bit of a distortion there, but perhaps if some more reading happens it will firm up a bit.
Which is nice because it hits the premise of this thread a bit.
Some noted that when posting anonymously on an internet forum, it isn't really possible to prove credibility and anyone could claim pretty much anything. This is part of why the focus should be on information and not on personal attacks.
Take that to the next level though and people would ask themselves, why would I need to worry about guilt, approval or sanction from anonymous people in different countries or even on different continents encountered through an internet forum?
If you can't get past something that is anonymous then how can someone be healthy in "real life" where there might even be real stakes?
We are not our jobs, our titles, our degrees or even our spouses. As it says, I am the warrant and the sanction. If I want to do it, you don't count. I'm quite sure if you want to do it I don't count so why ask any to self-guilt themselves over the desires of another?
Some people on here express a tremendous amount of frustration and anger at me but really I'm a guy half a world away from them so why would I spend my life or thoughts catering to what they want? The reverse won't be true and even if it were, why would I want to and what would I gain by having sanction, control, approval, whatever of someone thousands of miles away from me?
The only really scary bit about this is if someone expresses this much anger about their inability to control an anonymous guy thousands of miles away over the internet, how much do they show when it is in real life and someone of consequence?
Sanction yourself, live for youself, worry about yourself. I'm not your brother. You don't need to keep me.
Well, there you go folks, he doesn't care about this forum's posters, doesn't consider it a community because we're just an anonymous group.
This group, that showed caring when they thought you had a problem and you shit on them.
Ayn would be proud, maybe not,
Quote:
Branden accused Rand and her followers of "destructive moralism," something he reports having engaged in himself when he was associated with Rand, but which he now claims "subtly encourages repression, self-alienation, and guilt."[75] Since the publication of Rand's private journal entries regarding Branden, it has been shown that Rand herself had been warning Branden against such "moralism," "repression," "self-alienation" and "guilt," in very similar language to that now used by Branden.
I agree. I think we should speak about credibility because it has absolutely nothing to do with factual reality.
In reality, something is ether true or it isnt true. The person presenting the information is really nothing more than a vessel for that information. If the vessel is bad, the information is not bad and likewise is the vessel is awesome and great, the information does not become awesome and great.
This was the list of people who engaged in a PM discussion to manipulate the board. I think I see the name of a certain person bumping this thread and several more who have been banned.
Let's take one of the names on that list, a moderator at the time and see how he responded to an legitimate claim of harassment.
Hmmmmm.... I'm not feeling the love there are you?
How about this guy we call franksargent, let's see what he has to say about how to post.
Or how about this one?
So once again, we see the paradox of paradoxes. Those doing the complaining are those who are engaged in the conspiracy. They manipulate the content (or lack of it in posts) and even manipulate which posts are bumped and then COMPLAIN about it. In other words they hang nooses on their own office doors and scream victimization.
They start a cabal and complain that the group attacking the person won't admit paranoia when their little group goes around engaging in all their bullying tactics. They bump the posts of a poster then complain the poster is FLOODING the forum with posts.
But most amazing of all, they try to have a discussion on credibility when the pm's show that everything they do is a blatant dishonesty, a manipulation, a sham and a lie.
How about this for credibility...
Notice how the claim just floats out of the either. It wasn't that this POSTER brought up the credibility question, it was just that a question that wandered in out of the rain.
That lacks some credibility right there.
Why does he bring it up? It is just another ruse and more of the same. Part of flooding the forums with irrelevant responses from him includes flooding it with links to this thread. The spamming was stopped and now with hand in cookie jar, the spamming needs a justification.
It has none. The pm names and shows the tactics for what they are admitted to by the sources. The sources engage in the manipulation and then complain about the manipulation which is itself a manipulation.
Quite the paradox...
The real question is how do you know these guys were PMing anyone let alone what it was about?
A bit of a distortion there, but perhaps if some more reading happens it will firm up a bit.
Which is nice because it hits the premise of this thread a bit.
Some noted that when posting anonymously on an internet forum, it isn't really possible to prove credibility and anyone could claim pretty much anything. This is part of why the focus should be on information and not on personal attacks.
Take that to the next level though and people would ask themselves, why would I need to worry about guilt, approval or sanction from anonymous people in different countries or even on different continents encountered through an internet forum?
If you can't get past something that is anonymous then how can someone be healthy in "real life" where there might even be real stakes?
We are not our jobs, our titles, our degrees or even our spouses. As it says, I am the warrant and the sanction. If I want to do it, you don't count. I'm quite sure if you want to do it I don't count so why ask any to self-guilt themselves over the desires of another?
Some people on here express a tremendous amount of frustration and anger at me but really I'm a guy half a world away from them so why would I spend my life or thoughts catering to what they want? The reverse won't be true and even if it were, why would I want to and what would I gain by having sanction, control, approval, whatever of someone thousands of miles away from me?
The only really scary bit about this is if someone expresses this much anger about their inability to control an anonymous guy thousands of miles away over the internet, how much do they show when it is in real life and someone of consequence?
Sanction yourself, live for youself, worry about yourself. I'm not your brother. You don't need to keep me.
Quote:
Some noted that when posting anonymously on an internet forum, it isn't really possible to prove credibility and anyone could claim pretty much anything.
That would be me. That situation doesn't extend however into the realm of not caring for anyone in this little internet community. Anonymous or not. Anything else is just an attempt at justification for one's actions. Be they good or bad.
Quote:
I'm a guy half a world away from them so why would I spend my life or thoughts catering to what they want?
If this situation is that unreal to you why come here at all? I've laughed and felt saddness with many of these people and I don't really know them at all. Hell I even felt sorry for SDW's marital problems, congratulated Fellows on his relationship, and given advice to others . I really have no assurance that they were real. However little communities like this are one of the nicer things about the internet. And really if you meet someone face to face how do you know that they're telling the truth? When I talked to you about posting anonomously and stating facts that must be backed up that's true. We could have a bunch of professionals here or a bunch of little kids. The rest though can be left to trust. Just like anything else.
Quote:
Some people on here express a tremendous amount of frustration and anger at me but really I'm a guy half a world away from them so why would I spend my life or thoughts catering to what they want? The reverse won't be true and even if it were, why would I want to and what would I gain by having sanction, control, approval, whatever of someone thousands of miles away from me?
Can you say Rationalization?
Quote:
The only really scary bit about this is if someone expresses this much anger about their inability to control an anonymous guy thousands of miles away over the internet, how much do they show when it is in real life and someone of consequence?
If you can't muster any compassion for someone as distant as an anonymous person on an internet forum how can you do it in real life?
Here's someone showing you some compassion :
Quote:
Nick I give you credit for opening up here honestly with our AI family. Not everyone would feel comfortable laying out all the details of life as you have done in a brief and compact "get to the point" way. I am sorry to hear that there are strains in your family because as you report your wife is not happy. I hear that you report that individual metrics under this configuration of her working has created a better situation for household finances and her health etc. I will have to say that I do not have an answer other than to say pray about this and have constructive conversations with your wife to explore options and in the process you may discover if the situation as it is can be tweeked or if there will have to be major changes. As long as you both agree to do what is best for the entire family while being understanding of each other's needs I believe you can come to resolution of this dilema.
I am sorry you are facing these difficulties.
Email me anytime.
Fellows
Of course you live many miles away and he's annonymous so you weren't obligated to tell him the truth. Somehow though I think he was being genuine.
If you do this sort of thing on an internet forum what's to keep you from doing it in real life? As a matter of fact one would think it much more likely.
Well, there you go folks, he doesn't care about this forum's posters, doesn't consider it a community because we're just an anonymous group.
This group, that showed caring when they thought you had a problem and you shit on them.
Ayn would be proud, maybe not,
Yes that must be it!
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac
The real question is how do you know these guys were PMing anyone let alone what it was about?
No that isn't the real question. The real question is why a bunch of people who were PM'ing each other to try to control a forum and then purposely demanded "hard moderation" are now claiming that it really wasn't about controlling anyone or anybody. That is quite the delicious paradox right there in my view.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac
That would be me. That situation doesn't extend however into the realm of not caring for anyone in this little internet community. Anonymous or not. Anything else is just an attempt at justification for one's actions. Be they good or bad.
Caring, in what way do you think caring has been expressed on here? By agreement? By expressing a courtesy platitude when someone spills some angst?
Quote:
If this situation is that unreal to you why come here at all? I've laughed and felt saddness with many of these people and I don't really know them at all. Hell I even felt sorry for SDW's marital problems, congratulated Fellows on his relationship, and given advice to others . I really have no assurance that they were real. However little communities like this are one of the nicer things about the internet. And really if you meet someone face to face how do you know that they're telling the truth? When I talked to you about posting anonomously and stating facts that must be backed up that's true. We could have a bunch of professionals here or a bunch of little kids. The rest though can be left to trust. Just like anything else.
This is some very interesting logic. One can laugh and feel sadness but cannot trust or assign credibility to people unless they are willing to back things with something other than themselves.
Both of those claims are actually in the same paragraph.
Quote:
Can you say Rationalization?
I can and when looking at the mish-mashed reasoning above, I can see quite a lot of double-standards as an operating norm.
Quote:
If you can't muster any compassion for someone as distant as an anonymous person on an internet forum how can you do it in real life?
Here's someone showing you some compassion
Proximity would probably have something to do with that.
Quote:
Of course you live many miles away and he's annonymous so you weren't obligated to tell him the truth. Somehow though I think he was being genuine.
If you do this sort of thing on an internet forum what's to keep you from doing it in real life? As a matter of fact one would think it much more likely.
And no one wants to control you Nick.
Platitudes are nice, but the reality is that PMs and demands for hard moderation didn't come from me and were in fact hatched as a form of control. This was all called for and voted affirmatively for by the people on that list. Now many of those people are paradox of paradoxes, gone due to their inability to see that they were the very cause of what they claimed as victims.
That PM is both depressing and eye-opening. Obviously, someone on the recipient list had second thoughts about what was transpiring and spilled the beans.
It's unbelievable that anyone can link that kind of duplicity to "caring about this community."
That PM is both depressing and eye-opening. Obviously, someone on the recipient list had second thoughts about what was transpiring and spilled the beans.
But you'll never know the whole truth, now will you?
Given the source's abject penchant for cherry picking.
No that isn't the real question. The real question is why a bunch of people who were PM'ing each other to try to control a forum and then purposely demanded "hard moderation" are now claiming that it really wasn't about controlling anyone or anybody. That is quite the delicious paradox right there in my view.
Caring, in what way do you think caring has been expressed on here? By agreement? By expressing a courtesy platitude when someone spills some angst?
This is some very interesting logic. One can laugh and feel sadness but cannot trust or assign credibility to people unless they are willing to back things with something other than themselves.
Both of those claims are actually in the same paragraph.
I can and when looking at the mish-mashed reasoning above, I can see quite a lot of double-standards as an operating norm.
Proximity would probably have something to do with that.
Platitudes are nice, but the reality is that PMs and demands for hard moderation didn't come from me and were in fact hatched as a form of control. This was all called for and voted affirmatively for by the people on that list. Now many of those people are paradox of paradoxes, gone due to their inability to see that they were the very cause of what they claimed as victims.
Quote:
No that isn't the real question. The real question is why a bunch of people who were PM'ing each other to try to control a forum and then purposely demanded "hard moderation" are now claiming that it really wasn't about controlling anyone or anybody. That is quite the delicious paradox right there in my view.
Tell me then why do you try to control the forum with spaming and " Thought experiments "?
Quote:
By expressing a courtesy platitude when someone spills some angst?
Sounds kind of disingenious to me. Giving quite bit less than was being given to you.
Quote:
This is some very interesting logic. One can laugh and feel sadness but cannot trust or assign credibility to people unless they are willing to back things with something other than themselves.
One's a debate the other is just caring for your fellow man. You really don't get the difference do you?
Quote:
I can and when looking at the mish-mashed reasoning above, I can see quite a lot of double-standards as an operating norm.
Once again you really don't get the difference do you?
Quote:
Proximity would probably have something to do with that.
So you can only care for things that are geographicaly close to you?
God! I hope you don't have family living in another state!
Quote:
Platitudes are nice, but the reality is that PMs and demands for hard moderation didn't come from me and were in fact hatched as a form of control. This was all called for and voted affirmatively for by the people on that list. Now many of those people are paradox of paradoxes, gone due to their inability to see that they were the very cause of what they claimed as victims.
All they wanted is for you to stop your campaign of spam trumptman. And once again how does just a forum member get knowlege of the content of PMs? Unless of course they aren't really all that private.
Tell me then why do you try to control the forum with spaming and " Thought experiments "?
As has been noted (repeatedly by repeated parties) the board has an ignore function. You nor does anyone have to see a single word I write ever again. I had the mod remove every supposed spamming post. You guys STILL didn't start any threads and what did you talk about then... the possible motivations about why I left.
When Hassan shows up for a day and wants to get in touch with his friends how does he do it? Oh by bumping 12 Trumptman posts.
It is just hilarious that you think one guy has "control" when you have the ignore function, the post button and numbers of people who could start threads but you all simply don't. My last post was started NINE Days ago. I'll probably add another soon because about once a week there is something worth starting a thread on. You could start a thread every day. Frank could start one every day. THE LIST (what is left of it) could start a thread every day. Frank even listed as one of his strategies starting a bunch of posts.
Give it a try and I hate to break it to you, someone engaging in an action while someone else DOESN'T engage in action isn't control. If I walk and you sit, I'm not holding you down.
Quote:
Sounds kind of disingenious to me. Giving quite bit less than was being given to you.
Sounds like questioning intent (again) to me. Just call someone a liar and be done with it.
Quote:
One's a debate the other is just caring for your fellow man. You really don't get the difference do you?
I guess what I don't get is how spouting a Hallmark Card platitude is "caring." That standard of caring must be so ridiculously low as to not register as caring to me. See when I care for someone, I don't do so with a platitude. So someone saying "Gee I hope it works out for you or that you feel better" isn't caring, it is just being polite. It is akin to saying fine when asked how one is doing.
Quote:
Once again you really don't get the difference do you? So you can only care for things that are geographicaly close to you? God! I hope you don't have family living in another state!
If they live in another state and want me to care for them by saying "Gee I hope you feel better," doesnt cut it in my opinion. I don't call being polite or pleasant the same thing as caring. I guess you do but in my opinion that isn't the same. It is very different. It is different like small talk and conversations are different. I can make pleasant small talk with just about anyone. I don't consider that a connection though. My definition is deeper than that.
Remember Kiva.org? Taking action is caring. Expressing a platitude isn't.
Quote:
All they wanted is for you to stop your campaign of spam trumptman.
I really don't care what they want. They have the ability to post or ignore. Their desires do not drive my actions and likewise I know my desires do not drive their actions. Hell a moderator telling them not to break the rules didn't even stop many of their actions, hence why they were banned.
Let's see what you did with such an example Jimmac. I asked you as a form of etiquette, not of control, to simply use multi-quote and also to stop quoting the entire message and THEN cutting and pasting it a second time. The result is (especially from someone complaining about spam) that every word you respond to ends up posted THREE TIMES. It is posted once by the poster and twice by you in a response.
I've asked you to stop ad-homing people. I've asked you to stop dismissing sources you demand with a quip and a smilie.
You've done none of these things not once, not even for a short period of time. If you want values followed, you have to demonstrate them. This has not happened with you.
Quote:
And once again how does just a forum member get knowlege of the content of PMs? Unless of course they aren't really all that private.
Tell me then why do you try to control the forum with spaming and " Thought experiments "?
Sounds kind of disingenious to me. Giving quite bit less than was being given to you.
One's a debate the other is just caring for your fellow man. You really don't get the difference do you?
Once again you really don't get the difference do you?
So you can only care for things that are geographicaly close to you?
God! I hope you don't have family living in another state!
All they wanted is for you to stop your campaign of spam trumptman. And once again how does just a forum member get knowlege of the content of PMs? Unless of course they aren't really all that private.
jimmac, just a suggestion, give it a rest, silence is golden.
If you're having a relationship within a community based on anonymous participation and you feel any kinship, you should realize that the foundation is virtually non-existent, therefore the kinship is as well.
Sort of like wearing your heart on your sleeve, you can do it, it's not wrong, but you're setting yourself up for disappointment and you'll only have yourself to blame.
The inter-world is an abstract virtualization, it's not reality. Getting upset because someone misrepresented themselves is foolish and immature.
If you're having a relationship within a community based on anonymous participation and you feel any kinship, you should realize that the foundation is virtually non-existent, therefore the kinship is as well.
Sort of like wearing your heart on your sleeve, you can do it, it's not wrong, but you're setting yourself up for disappointment and you'll only have yourself to blame.
The inter-world is an abstract virtualization, it's not reality. Getting upset because someone misrepresented themselves is foolish and immature.
Comments
Let's take one of the names on that list, a moderator at the time and see how he responded to an legitimate claim of harassment.
Factually incorrect.
Funny that?
Per the actual post your statement should have said something to the effect;
"Let's take one of the names on that list, who was not a moderator at the time and see how he responded to an legitimate claim of harassment."
Funny that?
Charactures. Cartoons. SNL, The Daily Show, The Colbert Report. Boss Dimbulb is "just a entertainer". Cherry picking. A constant barrage of bias with intent editorial hit pieces from the likes of Breitbart, the WSJ, the WT, ad infinitium, ad nauseam.
After all the hand waving is done it all sounds distinctly like those you don't claim to watch, you know like Sean, Bill, Rush, Michelle, Ann, Laura, Glenn, ad infinitum, ad nauseam.
Funny that?
Objectivity?
Facts?
Funny that?
Yes, very funny indeed.
I honestly would only care if you came by them by some fraud, be it either directly hacking into an account, or having a moderator do the same. Either way, my opinion of you is certainly not increased by your using those messages.
Furthermore, you list all recipients as if we were a part of a conspiracy against you. I was not. We were not. This paranoia is telling, regardless.
As far as I remember, your posts at the time of that PM were intentionally grating. Yes, intention. There comes a time when it matters, particularly in a discussion that can at times be heated. The temperature of those discussions can be quickly changed by raising the hackles of your opponents and that without a doubt was your purpose at the time.
Maybe you believe you were being persecuted at the time, but that doesn't matter. Your actions and response was to attempt to start a nuclear war in PO.
Ah, yes. Posting PRIVATE messages in a public forum. With all recipients included.
I absolutely cede the moral high ground to you, Nick. You are, truly, a class act.
Why thank you for the compliment!
Why would I care about posting them. They were given to me by multiple sources and since they clearly have no honest intent, why should I feel bad about revealing the bad intent?
Where did you get it? Are you a moderator now? Certainly explains why you can spam a forum when the political climate looks uncomfortable and not get banned.
Prince riding on a magical unicorn gave them to me. Then Shania Twain whispered the rest into my ear. I was in the middle of a Prince Shania Twain sandwich.
My actions are acceptable because they follow the rules. The distortion of them by yourself amounts to harassment. The fact that you were banned and returned to spam again are actions, not intentions, not distortions, that show exactly what you are about.
As it happens I thought that was all foolishness and didn't really join in. I was in the southern Kalahari at the time and didn't participate in the 'Nick's a dick' webring. But whatever. You have the PM? Check the fucking dates yourself. I'm banned, so I can't.
I find it very amusing that no one has anytime to do anything but then they do just the opposite. It reminds me of all those nice parents who claim they don't care about money but send their kids to school sick and vomiting because the bills have to get paid. Self-delusion is the worst kind of delusion in that case but really, claiming something contrary to actions just isn't very convincing.
And a word in your ear before you pick up the whine-o-phone and contact lundy about Hassan being back and he's so mean and etc.
I think he would notice just doing his job however I'm sure circumventing the ban, spamming the forums and publicly commenting on moderation practices will endear you to many.
That 'conspiracy'? You behaved terribly. You provoked it. It wasn't your politics, and it wasn't the standard of your rhetoric. It was your contempt for the community, which continues, and which is more poisonous than the ad homs you complain all the fucking time about.
Thanks for sharing.
You know nick, I am not sure how you got those messages.
Does it matter? It was the Obama administration. They are declassifying everything these days you know.
I honestly would only care if you came by them by some fraud, be it either directly hacking into an account, or having a moderator do the same. Either way, my opinion of you is certainly not increased by your using those messages.
Oh no! hardee lowered his opinion of me! Perhaps you should read my sig.
Furthermore, you list all recipients as if we were a part of a conspiracy against you. I was not. We were not. This paranoia is telling, regardless.
?There are times when silence has the loudest voice?
-Leroy Brownlow
As far as I remember, your posts at the time of that PM were intentionally grating. Yes, intention. There comes a time when it matters, particularly in a discussion that can at times be heated. The temperature of those discussions can be quickly changed by raising the hackles of your opponents and that without a doubt was your purpose at the time.
Sorry that the world is not a place where intentions and hackle raising are punishable crimes. I've heard it might soon be though thanks to Janet Napolitano and the Obama administration so hey, cheer up.
Maybe you believe you were being persecuted at the time, but that doesn't matter. Your actions and response was to attempt to start a nuclear war in PO.
That the equipment is only for power generation. I'm just a paper tiger. You'll discover this when you invade my country but remember, you break it you bought it.
You are not.
No matter your protests or your signature, one thing has been constant from you Nick... You have a need to perceive that you are owed respect.
You are not.
I don't think he cares, because only what he thinks is important.
His sig's are from Ayn Rand, one of her ideas is,
the proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness or rational self-interest
So if you believe it's all about your happiness you can rationalize away what doesn't fit and fuck everyone else.
Which is pretty much what his last post was about.
Prince/Shania Twain sandwich?!?!?!
You've got to respect that man!
I don't think he cares, because only what he thinks is important.
His sig's are from Ayn Rand, one of her ideas is,
So if you believe it's all about your happiness you can rationalize away what doesn't fit and fuck everyone else.
Which is pretty much what his last post was about.
A bit of a distortion there, but perhaps if some more reading happens it will firm up a bit.
Which is nice because it hits the premise of this thread a bit.
Some noted that when posting anonymously on an internet forum, it isn't really possible to prove credibility and anyone could claim pretty much anything. This is part of why the focus should be on information and not on personal attacks.
Take that to the next level though and people would ask themselves, why would I need to worry about guilt, approval or sanction from anonymous people in different countries or even on different continents encountered through an internet forum?
If you can't get past something that is anonymous then how can someone be healthy in "real life" where there might even be real stakes?
We are not our jobs, our titles, our degrees or even our spouses. As it says, I am the warrant and the sanction. If I want to do it, you don't count. I'm quite sure if you want to do it I don't count so why ask any to self-guilt themselves over the desires of another?
Some people on here express a tremendous amount of frustration and anger at me but really I'm a guy half a world away from them so why would I spend my life or thoughts catering to what they want? The reverse won't be true and even if it were, why would I want to and what would I gain by having sanction, control, approval, whatever of someone thousands of miles away from me?
The only really scary bit about this is if someone expresses this much anger about their inability to control an anonymous guy thousands of miles away over the internet, how much do they show when it is in real life and someone of consequence?
Sanction yourself, live for youself, worry about yourself. I'm not your brother. You don't need to keep me.
This group, that showed caring when they thought you had a problem and you shit on them.
Ayn would be proud, maybe not,
Branden accused Rand and her followers of "destructive moralism," something he reports having engaged in himself when he was associated with Rand, but which he now claims "subtly encourages repression, self-alienation, and guilt."[75] Since the publication of Rand's private journal entries regarding Branden, it has been shown that Rand herself had been warning Branden against such "moralism," "repression," "self-alienation" and "guilt," in very similar language to that now used by Branden.
I agree. I think we should speak about credibility because it has absolutely nothing to do with factual reality.
In reality, something is ether true or it isnt true. The person presenting the information is really nothing more than a vessel for that information. If the vessel is bad, the information is not bad and likewise is the vessel is awesome and great, the information does not become awesome and great.
Believing credibility alters information is a logical fallacy.
However in speaking to credibilitity perhaps we should look at this...
Flounder ; screener ; tonton ; giant ; @_@ Artman ; Outsider ; FormerLurker ; hardeeharhar ; groverat ; Northgate ; addabox ; midwinter; BRussell ; franksargent ; Hassan i Sabbah ; MarcUK ;
This was the list of people who engaged in a PM discussion to manipulate the board. I think I see the name of a certain person bumping this thread and several more who have been banned.
Let's take one of the names on that list, a moderator at the time and see how he responded to an legitimate claim of harassment.
Hmmmmm.... I'm not feeling the love there are you?
How about this guy we call franksargent, let's see what he has to say about how to post.
Or how about this one?
So once again, we see the paradox of paradoxes. Those doing the complaining are those who are engaged in the conspiracy. They manipulate the content (or lack of it in posts) and even manipulate which posts are bumped and then COMPLAIN about it. In other words they hang nooses on their own office doors and scream victimization.
They start a cabal and complain that the group attacking the person won't admit paranoia when their little group goes around engaging in all their bullying tactics. They bump the posts of a poster then complain the poster is FLOODING the forum with posts.
But most amazing of all, they try to have a discussion on credibility when the pm's show that everything they do is a blatant dishonesty, a manipulation, a sham and a lie.
How about this for credibility...
Notice how the claim just floats out of the either. It wasn't that this POSTER brought up the credibility question, it was just that a question that wandered in out of the rain.
That lacks some credibility right there.
Why does he bring it up? It is just another ruse and more of the same. Part of flooding the forums with irrelevant responses from him includes flooding it with links to this thread. The spamming was stopped and now with hand in cookie jar, the spamming needs a justification.
It has none. The pm names and shows the tactics for what they are admitted to by the sources. The sources engage in the manipulation and then complain about the manipulation which is itself a manipulation.
Quite the paradox...
The real question is how do you know these guys were PMing anyone let alone what it was about?
Bu...bu...bu....
Prince/Shania Twain sandwich?!?!?!
You've got to respect that man!
A bit of a distortion there, but perhaps if some more reading happens it will firm up a bit.
Which is nice because it hits the premise of this thread a bit.
Some noted that when posting anonymously on an internet forum, it isn't really possible to prove credibility and anyone could claim pretty much anything. This is part of why the focus should be on information and not on personal attacks.
Take that to the next level though and people would ask themselves, why would I need to worry about guilt, approval or sanction from anonymous people in different countries or even on different continents encountered through an internet forum?
If you can't get past something that is anonymous then how can someone be healthy in "real life" where there might even be real stakes?
We are not our jobs, our titles, our degrees or even our spouses. As it says, I am the warrant and the sanction. If I want to do it, you don't count. I'm quite sure if you want to do it I don't count so why ask any to self-guilt themselves over the desires of another?
Some people on here express a tremendous amount of frustration and anger at me but really I'm a guy half a world away from them so why would I spend my life or thoughts catering to what they want? The reverse won't be true and even if it were, why would I want to and what would I gain by having sanction, control, approval, whatever of someone thousands of miles away from me?
The only really scary bit about this is if someone expresses this much anger about their inability to control an anonymous guy thousands of miles away over the internet, how much do they show when it is in real life and someone of consequence?
Sanction yourself, live for youself, worry about yourself. I'm not your brother. You don't need to keep me.
Some noted that when posting anonymously on an internet forum, it isn't really possible to prove credibility and anyone could claim pretty much anything.
That would be me. That situation doesn't extend however into the realm of not caring for anyone in this little internet community. Anonymous or not. Anything else is just an attempt at justification for one's actions. Be they good or bad.
I'm a guy half a world away from them so why would I spend my life or thoughts catering to what they want?
If this situation is that unreal to you why come here at all? I've laughed and felt saddness with many of these people and I don't really know them at all. Hell I even felt sorry for SDW's marital problems, congratulated Fellows on his relationship, and given advice to others . I really have no assurance that they were real. However little communities like this are one of the nicer things about the internet. And really if you meet someone face to face how do you know that they're telling the truth? When I talked to you about posting anonomously and stating facts that must be backed up that's true. We could have a bunch of professionals here or a bunch of little kids. The rest though can be left to trust. Just like anything else.
Some people on here express a tremendous amount of frustration and anger at me but really I'm a guy half a world away from them so why would I spend my life or thoughts catering to what they want? The reverse won't be true and even if it were, why would I want to and what would I gain by having sanction, control, approval, whatever of someone thousands of miles away from me?
Can you say Rationalization?
The only really scary bit about this is if someone expresses this much anger about their inability to control an anonymous guy thousands of miles away over the internet, how much do they show when it is in real life and someone of consequence?
If you can't muster any compassion for someone as distant as an anonymous person on an internet forum how can you do it in real life?
Here's someone showing you some compassion :
Nick I give you credit for opening up here honestly with our AI family. Not everyone would feel comfortable laying out all the details of life as you have done in a brief and compact "get to the point" way. I am sorry to hear that there are strains in your family because as you report your wife is not happy. I hear that you report that individual metrics under this configuration of her working has created a better situation for household finances and her health etc. I will have to say that I do not have an answer other than to say pray about this and have constructive conversations with your wife to explore options and in the process you may discover if the situation as it is can be tweeked or if there will have to be major changes. As long as you both agree to do what is best for the entire family while being understanding of each other's needs I believe you can come to resolution of this dilema.
I am sorry you are facing these difficulties.
Email me anytime.
Fellows
Of course you live many miles away and he's annonymous so you weren't obligated to tell him the truth. Somehow though I think he was being genuine.
If you do this sort of thing on an internet forum what's to keep you from doing it in real life? As a matter of fact one would think it much more likely.
And no one wants to control you Nick.
Well, there you go folks, he doesn't care about this forum's posters, doesn't consider it a community because we're just an anonymous group.
This group, that showed caring when they thought you had a problem and you shit on them.
Ayn would be proud, maybe not,
Yes that must be it!
The real question is how do you know these guys were PMing anyone let alone what it was about?
No that isn't the real question. The real question is why a bunch of people who were PM'ing each other to try to control a forum and then purposely demanded "hard moderation" are now claiming that it really wasn't about controlling anyone or anybody. That is quite the delicious paradox right there in my view.
That would be me. That situation doesn't extend however into the realm of not caring for anyone in this little internet community. Anonymous or not. Anything else is just an attempt at justification for one's actions. Be they good or bad.
Caring, in what way do you think caring has been expressed on here? By agreement? By expressing a courtesy platitude when someone spills some angst?
If this situation is that unreal to you why come here at all? I've laughed and felt saddness with many of these people and I don't really know them at all. Hell I even felt sorry for SDW's marital problems, congratulated Fellows on his relationship, and given advice to others . I really have no assurance that they were real. However little communities like this are one of the nicer things about the internet. And really if you meet someone face to face how do you know that they're telling the truth? When I talked to you about posting anonomously and stating facts that must be backed up that's true. We could have a bunch of professionals here or a bunch of little kids. The rest though can be left to trust. Just like anything else.
This is some very interesting logic. One can laugh and feel sadness but cannot trust or assign credibility to people unless they are willing to back things with something other than themselves.
Both of those claims are actually in the same paragraph.
Can you say Rationalization?
I can and when looking at the mish-mashed reasoning above, I can see quite a lot of double-standards as an operating norm.
If you can't muster any compassion for someone as distant as an anonymous person on an internet forum how can you do it in real life?
Here's someone showing you some compassion
Proximity would probably have something to do with that.
Of course you live many miles away and he's annonymous so you weren't obligated to tell him the truth. Somehow though I think he was being genuine.
If you do this sort of thing on an internet forum what's to keep you from doing it in real life? As a matter of fact one would think it much more likely.
And no one wants to control you Nick.
Platitudes are nice, but the reality is that PMs and demands for hard moderation didn't come from me and were in fact hatched as a form of control. This was all called for and voted affirmatively for by the people on that list. Now many of those people are paradox of paradoxes, gone due to their inability to see that they were the very cause of what they claimed as victims.
It's unbelievable that anyone can link that kind of duplicity to "caring about this community."
It's no wonder that the Journolist discussion never took place...
That PM is both depressing and eye-opening. Obviously, someone on the recipient list had second thoughts about what was transpiring and spilled the beans.
But you'll never know the whole truth, now will you?
Given the source's abject penchant for cherry picking.
Toxicity
Conversion, software version 7.0,
Looking at life through the eyes of a tired hub
Eating seeds as a pastime activity
The toxicity of our city, of our city
Now, what do you own the world?
How do you own disorder, disorder?
Now somewhere between the sacred silence
Sacred silence and sleep
Somewhere, between the sacred silence and sleep
Disorder, disorder, disorder
More wood for the fires, loud neighbors
Flashlight reveries caught in the headlights of a truck
Eating seeds as a pastime activity
The toxicity of our city, of our city
Now, what do you own the world?
How do you own disorder, disorder?
Now somewhere between the sacred silence
Sacred silence and sleep
Somewhere between the sacred silence and sleep
Disorder, disorder, disorder
Now, what do you own the world?
How do you own disorder, disorder?
Now somewhere between the sacred silence
Sacred silence and sleep
Somewhere between the sacred silence and sleep
Disorder, disorder, disorder
When I became the sun
I shone life into the man's hearts
When I became the sun
I shone life into the man's hearts
Aerials
Life is a waterfall,
We're one in the river,
And one again after the fall.
Swimming through the void
We hear the word,
We lost ourselves,
But we find it all?
Cause we are the ones that want to play,
Always want to go,
But you never want to stay,
And we are the ones that want to chose,
Always want to play,
But you never want to lose.
Aerials, in the sky,
When you lose small mind,
You free your life.
Life is a waterfall,
We drink from the river,
Then we turn around and put up our walls.
Swimming through the void
We hear the word,
We lost ourselves,
But we find it all?
Cause we are the ones that want to play,
Always want to go,
But you never want to stay,
And we are the ones that want to chose,
Always want to play,
But you never want to lose.
Aerials, in the sky,
When you lose small mind,
You free your life.
Aerials, so up high,
When you free your eyes,
Eternal prize.
Aerials, in the sky,
When you lose small mind,
You free your life.
Aerials, so up high,
When you free your eyes,
Eternal prize.
We Didn't Start the Fire
Yes that must be it!
No that isn't the real question. The real question is why a bunch of people who were PM'ing each other to try to control a forum and then purposely demanded "hard moderation" are now claiming that it really wasn't about controlling anyone or anybody. That is quite the delicious paradox right there in my view.
Caring, in what way do you think caring has been expressed on here? By agreement? By expressing a courtesy platitude when someone spills some angst?
This is some very interesting logic. One can laugh and feel sadness but cannot trust or assign credibility to people unless they are willing to back things with something other than themselves.
Both of those claims are actually in the same paragraph.
I can and when looking at the mish-mashed reasoning above, I can see quite a lot of double-standards as an operating norm.
Proximity would probably have something to do with that.
Platitudes are nice, but the reality is that PMs and demands for hard moderation didn't come from me and were in fact hatched as a form of control. This was all called for and voted affirmatively for by the people on that list. Now many of those people are paradox of paradoxes, gone due to their inability to see that they were the very cause of what they claimed as victims.
No that isn't the real question. The real question is why a bunch of people who were PM'ing each other to try to control a forum and then purposely demanded "hard moderation" are now claiming that it really wasn't about controlling anyone or anybody. That is quite the delicious paradox right there in my view.
Tell me then why do you try to control the forum with spaming and " Thought experiments "?
By expressing a courtesy platitude when someone spills some angst?
Sounds kind of disingenious to me. Giving quite bit less than was being given to you.
This is some very interesting logic. One can laugh and feel sadness but cannot trust or assign credibility to people unless they are willing to back things with something other than themselves.
One's a debate the other is just caring for your fellow man. You really don't get the difference do you?
I can and when looking at the mish-mashed reasoning above, I can see quite a lot of double-standards as an operating norm.
Once again you really don't get the difference do you?
Proximity would probably have something to do with that.
So you can only care for things that are geographicaly close to you?
God! I hope you don't have family living in another state!
Platitudes are nice, but the reality is that PMs and demands for hard moderation didn't come from me and were in fact hatched as a form of control. This was all called for and voted affirmatively for by the people on that list. Now many of those people are paradox of paradoxes, gone due to their inability to see that they were the very cause of what they claimed as victims.
All they wanted is for you to stop your campaign of spam trumptman. And once again how does just a forum member get knowlege of the content of PMs? Unless of course they aren't really all that private.
Tell me then why do you try to control the forum with spaming and " Thought experiments "?
As has been noted (repeatedly by repeated parties) the board has an ignore function. You nor does anyone have to see a single word I write ever again. I had the mod remove every supposed spamming post. You guys STILL didn't start any threads and what did you talk about then... the possible motivations about why I left.
When Hassan shows up for a day and wants to get in touch with his friends how does he do it? Oh by bumping 12 Trumptman posts.
It is just hilarious that you think one guy has "control" when you have the ignore function, the post button and numbers of people who could start threads but you all simply don't. My last post was started NINE Days ago. I'll probably add another soon because about once a week there is something worth starting a thread on. You could start a thread every day. Frank could start one every day. THE LIST (what is left of it) could start a thread every day. Frank even listed as one of his strategies starting a bunch of posts.
Give it a try and I hate to break it to you, someone engaging in an action while someone else DOESN'T engage in action isn't control. If I walk and you sit, I'm not holding you down.
Sounds kind of disingenious to me. Giving quite bit less than was being given to you.
Sounds like questioning intent (again) to me. Just call someone a liar and be done with it.
One's a debate the other is just caring for your fellow man. You really don't get the difference do you?
I guess what I don't get is how spouting a Hallmark Card platitude is "caring." That standard of caring must be so ridiculously low as to not register as caring to me. See when I care for someone, I don't do so with a platitude. So someone saying "Gee I hope it works out for you or that you feel better" isn't caring, it is just being polite. It is akin to saying fine when asked how one is doing.
Once again you really don't get the difference do you? So you can only care for things that are geographicaly close to you?
If they live in another state and want me to care for them by saying "Gee I hope you feel better," doesnt cut it in my opinion. I don't call being polite or pleasant the same thing as caring. I guess you do but in my opinion that isn't the same. It is very different. It is different like small talk and conversations are different. I can make pleasant small talk with just about anyone. I don't consider that a connection though. My definition is deeper than that.
Remember Kiva.org? Taking action is caring. Expressing a platitude isn't.
All they wanted is for you to stop your campaign of spam trumptman.
I really don't care what they want. They have the ability to post or ignore. Their desires do not drive my actions and likewise I know my desires do not drive their actions. Hell a moderator telling them not to break the rules didn't even stop many of their actions, hence why they were banned.
Let's see what you did with such an example Jimmac. I asked you as a form of etiquette, not of control, to simply use multi-quote and also to stop quoting the entire message and THEN cutting and pasting it a second time. The result is (especially from someone complaining about spam) that every word you respond to ends up posted THREE TIMES. It is posted once by the poster and twice by you in a response.
I've asked you to stop ad-homing people. I've asked you to stop dismissing sources you demand with a quip and a smilie.
You've done none of these things not once, not even for a short period of time. If you want values followed, you have to demonstrate them. This has not happened with you.
And once again how does just a forum member get knowlege of the content of PMs? Unless of course they aren't really all that private.
PM's have a forwarding feature.
Tell me then why do you try to control the forum with spaming and " Thought experiments "?
Sounds kind of disingenious to me. Giving quite bit less than was being given to you.
One's a debate the other is just caring for your fellow man. You really don't get the difference do you?
Once again you really don't get the difference do you?
So you can only care for things that are geographicaly close to you?
God! I hope you don't have family living in another state!
All they wanted is for you to stop your campaign of spam trumptman. And once again how does just a forum member get knowlege of the content of PMs? Unless of course they aren't really all that private.
jimmac, just a suggestion, give it a rest, silence is golden.
Peace.
Frank could start one (a thread) every day.
But I'm not angry at the world.
Sort of like wearing your heart on your sleeve, you can do it, it's not wrong, but you're setting yourself up for disappointment and you'll only have yourself to blame.
The inter-world is an abstract virtualization, it's not reality. Getting upset because someone misrepresented themselves is foolish and immature.
If you're having a relationship within a community based on anonymous participation and you feel any kinship, you should realize that the foundation is virtually non-existent, therefore the kinship is as well.
Sort of like wearing your heart on your sleeve, you can do it, it's not wrong, but you're setting yourself up for disappointment and you'll only have yourself to blame.
The inter-world is an abstract virtualization, it's not reality. Getting upset because someone misrepresented themselves is foolish and immature.
You're not real?
You're not real?
Can you touch me?
Can you prove I'm more than some poorly written computer algorithm?
Can I even prove that I exist, without going outside this medium?
Can you touch me?
Can you prove I'm more than some poorly written computer algorithm?
Can I even prove that I exist, without going outside this medium?
Wow.
Big fan of the Matrix huh?