NationStates Jolt Archive

Back in 2002, when I was against the bloodshed in Iraq, I got kicked out of a channel due to it, also getting the label of "anti-American" and so on.

Gee, I was right, what do you know?

Back in 2006, I had my vacation time ruined due to a conservative understanding of a religion.

And I recently got a re-run of 2002.

What do they have against me? What SHOULDN'T I have against them?

Back in 2006, I had my vacation time ruined due to a conservative understanding of a religion.

I give this statement a resounding, "Huh?"

I give this statement a resounding, "Huh?"

I had to deal with a problem stemming from a conservative interpretation of a holy book.

They have guns.

There we go.

I give this statement a resounding, "Huh?"

You mean you only went "Huh?" at one statement?


Explain dude. I dont get what we're supposed to be commenting on.

Can you elabortate?

Can you elabortate?

It's more a private matter, but suffice to say that I had a whole lot of hurt due to a conservative interpretation of a religion.

It's more a private matter, but suffice to say that I had a whole lot of hurt due to a conservative interpretation of a religion.
Did you get into a stupid argument with people you hardly knew about the Bible or something?

You mean you only went "Huh?" at one statement?


Explain dude. I dont get what we're supposed to be commenting on.

It's just that I got screwed already thrice because of conservatives. -_-

You believe in fire.

That scares conservatives.

Especially religious conservatives.

Did you get into a stupid argument with people you hardly knew about the Bible or something?

Nope.

Nope.
Got caught shagging a man by a conservative hotel owner?

You need to provide more detail. How are we suppose to beat you down and tell you it's all your fault? If it is a personal matter that you can't talk about then maybe you shouldn't post the question if you didn't want to give us details.

It's more a private matter
Then why are you making a thread on a public board about it?
Nobody has any opinion about whatever it is you are talking about, because nobody has any clue what it is. You don't want anyone to know what it is, so obviously you don't want anybody's opinions.

Back in 2002, when I was against the bloodshed in Iraq, I got kicked out of a channel due to it, also getting the label of "anti-American" and so on.

Gee, I was right, what do you know?

Back in 2006, I had my vacation time ruined due to a conservative understanding of a religion.

And I recently got a re-run of 2002.

What do they have against me? What SHOULDN'T I have against them?

Is it not just those particular people who you have a problem with?

Haven't we all had bad experiences? Should we all generalize like that?

I'm a conservative, I don't have a problem with you in the least.:p

It's more a private matter, but suffice to say that I had a whole lot of hurt due to a conservative interpretation of a religion.

I'm not sold that this explanation clarifies the confusion, at all.

Sorry, was just venting really. -_-

*Accepts 100 mod-lashes for misuse of the forum*

Got caught shagging a man by a conservative hotel owner?

tried to buy a drink on st patrick's day in ireland?

Is it not just those particular people who you have a problem with?

Haven't we all had bad experiences? Should we all generalize like that?

I'm a bigot, I don't have a problem with you in the least.:p


Fixed.:)

Fixed.:)

Ahhh, the refreshing double standard of the left. I was afraid it would be gone, but it's still here after my trip. :)

Ahhh, the refreshing double standard of the left. I was afraid it would be gone, but it's still here after my trip. :)

You really do like to push your victim-complex, don't you? :p

Now now, children, play nice.

Heikoku: Care to elaborate? I for one have no idea what you're talking about.

Now now, children, play nice.

Heikoku: Care to elaborate? I for one have no idea what you're talking about.

I already apologized for venting. :p

Back in 2002, when I was against the bloodshed in Iraq, I got kicked out of a channel due to it, also getting the label of "anti-American" and so on.

Gee, I was right, what do you know?

Back in 2006, I had my vacation time ruined due to a conservative understanding of a religion.

And I recently got a re-run of 2002.

What do they have against me? What SHOULDN'T I have against them?

Quoi?

But that wasn't even a decent vent!

We can't even come to a decision about what's happened to you, let alone what to think about it. Meh. We can't force you to divulge, but it might make you feel better. Tell Uncle NSG aaaaalll about it.

Back in 2002, when I was against the bloodshed in Iraq, I got kicked out of a channel due to it, also getting the label of "anti-American" and so on.

...

And I recently got a re-run of 2002.
I have no idea what happened to you in 2002, but you didn't get kicked out of the channel today for being anti-American, you got kicked out of the channel for making personal attacks on other people in the channel after having been warned by the ops to stop making personal attacks on other people in the channel.

I can post logs if you insist on it, but I'm hoping you're not so desperate to cling to your victim complex as to push me to that point.

I have no idea what happened to you in 2002, but you didn't get kicked out of the channel today for being anti-American, you got kicked out of the channel for making personal attacks on other people in the channel after having been warned by the ops to stop making personal attacks on other people in the channel.

I can post logs if you insist on it, but I'm hoping you're not so desperate to cling to your victim complex as to push me to that point.

Ruh-roh, Rorge, it's the facts!

I have no idea what happened to you in 2002, but you didn't get kicked out of the channel today for being anti-American, you got kicked out of the channel for making personal attacks on other people in the channel after having been warned by the ops to stop making personal attacks on other people in the channel.

I can post logs if you insist on it, but I'm hoping you're not so desperate to cling to your victim complex as to push me to that point.

I'm sorry, who started it today again? If you post the logs, do post them ALL, will you?

I'm sorry, who started it today again? If you post the logs, do post them ALL, will you?

Hokay...this looks like a lovers' quarrel. Why don't you two take this into a private little TG bash?


On second thought, *grabs popcorn and lovely beverage*, have at it. LET THE LOG POSTING BEGIN!

Ruh-roh, Rorge, it's the facts!

I wanna be Judy, pass that popcorn over! ;)

Logs don't really need to be posted. You were banned from #ns today on IRC because of personal attacks you were making. At first I thought it was because you had an opinion and I was indignant but after I realized you lashed out at two people and you've apparently been told before to not do so, you sort of had it coming.

I'm still reeling at the fact you called someone a moron because they didn't know you were Brazilian. Sheesh, the insanity of some people.

To answer your thread's title "What the hell is it with conservatives and me?" is a weird question to say the least.

I'm a liberal. Sure, I'm a capitalist but I'm very socially liberal. It's not a matter of a clash of ideologies, but one of reasonable discussion and disagreement versus unwarranted hatefulness and/or rudeness.

So there, that's it.

Fixed.:)

Things like this make me really uncomfortable. I mean, I understand if you did that because of the individual poster but if "bigot" was only applied because he self-identified as a conservative then that's probably not the best thing, even in jest (though I'm often guilty to the MAX of that thing).

Speaking as an ex-conservative here, I can assure you that not all of them are bigots and, likely, not even the majority.

I'm still reeling at the fact you called someone a moron because they didn't know you were Brazilian. Sheesh, the insanity of some people.

Then they should have banned me for THAT and at THAT POINT. Even assuming what the guy said about me valuing American lives over Iraqi ones wasn't offensive in and of itself, which would sorta be an easier explanation for my reaction, now wouldn't it?

And they should also have banned Siri for, and I repeat, STARTING IT by calling me a "soul-less little man". There WASN'T a discussion about the cursed bloodshed up to that point.

The log, with names (except Heikoku's) and IP's (including Heikoku's) removed for privacy.

Timestamps are EDT. The comment that finally earned Hei the ban is in boldface.
[15:02:22] <Heikoku> So we all agree that veto power has to go?
[15:02:25] <Heikoku> Good.
[15:02:25] <Person_3> No.
[15:02:26] <Person_2> Heikoku: Now. *MARK*
[15:02:29] <Person_3> What? Who?
[15:02:29] <Person_2> Now. *MARK*
[15:02:31] <Person_3> Who agreed what?
[15:02:36] <Person_3> Wait, what did I agree to?
[15:02:38] <Person_3> I'm confused and scared.
[15:02:42] <Person_6> "The difference between "liberal" and "far-left wacko". :P"
[15:02:44] * Person_3 curls up in a little ball and starts to suck her thumb.
[15:02:46] <Person_2> At both of these times, and many in between, the United States did not stop the UN doing something.
[15:02:58] * Person_4 avoids this
[15:02:59] <Person_2> Learn to use the English Language. It'll be a great benefit to you.
[15:03:19] <Heikoku> 1- I minored in English.
[15:03:33] <Person_3> THE GUBBERMINT CAN'T HAVE MY TEETH! I'M USING THEM!
[15:03:34] <Person_2> Heikoku: Not really, no.
[15:03:41] <Heikoku> Yes, yes I did.
[15:03:45] <Person_2> The security council veto is the only thing, on a practical basis, that makes the security council workable.
[15:04:02] <Person_3> I think, uh, can't people get around the veto?
[15:04:07] <Person_3> By going through the general assembly?
[15:04:17] <Person_1> The really funny thing is that the US would be *more* powerful if the veto vanished.
[15:04:21] <Person_5> Are you lot still arguing?
[15:04:23] <Person_3> And just, you know, getting a majority vote there? So you can say that you have majority support?

[15:04:24] <Heikoku> And it makes it workable HOW?
[15:04:27] <Person_1> The really funny thing is that the US would be *more* powerful if the veto vanished.
[15:04:33] <Person_7> They are always arguing.
[15:04:34] <Person_6> Person_1 has a point.
[15:04:36] <Heikoku> Oh, it would?
[15:04:40] <Person_1> Yes, it would.
[15:04:47] <Person_3> Person_1: The US would be more powerful if the UN building was replaced by apartments.
[15:04:50] <Heikoku> Pray tell, how?
[15:04:51] <Person_3> I have some blueprints.
[15:04:55] <Person_6> Yes. I think I agree. I'd hvae to think about it longer to decide otherwise.
[15:04:55] <Person_2> Heikoku: It issues directives and warnings with the force of Russia and China behind them.
[15:05:08] <Person_3> What Person_2 said.
[15:05:08] <Person_2> Without the veto, those nations would just flip the UN the bird, and leave.
[15:05:19] <Person_2> Making it even more of a farce.
[15:05:32] <Person_6> Which is what Person_1, in the end, really wants I guess. XD
[15:05:56] <Heikoku> Of course, she doesn't care what happens as long as brown people die.
[15:06:01] <Person_3> No, that's me.
[15:06:13] <Person_3> Person_1 cares very deeply about all living beings.
[15:06:17] <Person_6> Indeed.
[15:06:18] <Person_2> Heikoku: This from someone who proposes immediate withdrawl from Iraq?
[15:06:26] * Channel_Op sets mode: +b *!*@[Heikoku's IP]
[15:06:27] <Heikoku> So much so that she favors the invasion.
[15:06:36] <Heikoku> ...
[15:06:36] * Heikoku was kicked by Channel_Op (thats just about enough from you)
[15:06:45] <Person_2> Because it doesn't matter if the place gets more shot to hell, so long as Western Soldiers aren't hurt?
[15:06:45] <Person_6> 0_o
[15:07:09] <Person_2> Many thanks Channel_Op.
[15:07:09] <Person_3> Did that warrant a ban..?
[15:07:24] <Person_3> Personal attacks tend to warrant at least a kick.
[15:07:24] <Person_2> Fallaciously accusing people of racism?
[15:07:33] <Person_3> Repeated personal attacks warrant a ban, yes.
[15:07:39] <Person_4> He's been doing this for a while...
[15:07:39] <Person_2> I've seen worse meted out in other places for less.
[15:07:41] <Channel_Op> I'd warned him before
[15:07:47] * Person_1 hugs Channel_Op.
[15:07:55] <Person_6> Yes, he did repeatedly attack personally. And if you'd warned him before I'll shut up about it.
Still, at least I'm understanding you more. You've taken a whopping THREE instances in your life that you feel you were 'screwed' by 'conservatives' and you've spun that up into a big spikey bundle of hate. And that's fine. Just not on the IRC channel.

Still, what kind of person holds a grudge against an entire political viewpoint for a channel kick six years ago? Please, do get some help.

EDIT: Actually, I called you a hateful, soulless little man. I apologize for calling you soulless, that probably went too far. As for hateful, you validated that characterization more than adequately. For a guy who trumpets his alleged debating prowess in his sig, you demonstrate more than a passing familiarity with the ad hominem fallacy.

EDIT: Actually, I called you a hateful, soulless little man. I apologize for calling you soulless, that probably went too far. As for hateful, you demonstrated it more than adequately yourself.

Gee, thanks, I had forgotten the OTHER adjective you used when you STARTED the flamefest. Oh, wait, you sorta forgot to put it in the logs you so kindly copied, now didn't you?

For a guy who trumpets his alleged debating prowess in his sig, you demonstrate more than a passing familiarity with the ad hominem fallacy.

A trait which you, of all people, that started the debate off with me in that tone, should be pretty familiar with.

Gee, thanks, I had forgotten the OTHER adjective you used when you STARTED the flamefest. Oh, wait, you sorta forgot to put it in the logs you so kindly copied, now didn't you?
And I cleverly concealed doing so by publicly admitting it and apologizing for doing it.

Man, you've really got my number.

And I cleverly concealed doing so by publicly admitting it and apologizing for doing it.

Man, you've really got my number.

Don't you see? Knowing that we all expected you to hide it, you placed it in the one place we would never think to look: right out in the open!

Just want to point out that someone did in fact question whether the ban was warranted and the question was answered. You should know that in #ns they don't play around with the rules. They're strictly enforced. I've been visiting the channel off and on for something like four years. It only took me maybe four weeks to figure out that the chan ops don't play games with the rules.

What's done is done and if you want to characterize it as a conservative hitjob on your character you go right ahead. It doesn't make you right, though! :)

And I cleverly concealed doing so by publicly admitting it and apologizing for doing it.

Man, you've really got my number.

I didn't claim you concealed it. Merely pointed out once again that you said it FIRST THING in the discussion. At a time in which I wasn't even pointing out the wrongfulness of the cursed, useless bloodshed named Iraq War II.

well this wasnt very interesting.

maybe now you can tell us about your vacation problems in '06

I didn't claim you concealed it. Merely pointed out once again that you said it FIRST THING in the discussion. At a time in which I wasn't even pointing out the wrongfulness of the cursed, useless bloodshed named Iraq War II.It was said once. However, in your case, you had been warned about making personal attacks upon others prior to this discussion, and yet you refused to heed the op's warnings by continuing them well into this new one.

well this wasnt very interesting.

maybe now you can tell us about your vacation problems in '06

Fine: A friend interpreted a religious text in a conservative way and I nearly lost that friendship because of it. I spent most of the time back then trying to set the person straight, as opposed to resting.

It was said once. However, in your case, you had been warned about making personal attacks upon others prior to this discussion, and yet you refused to heed the op's warnings by continuing them well into this new one.

Oh, really? So I should expect to see the bans of everyone that personally attacked me, say, twice there? Or was I supposed to first hope that an op would warn them, THEN expect their bans?

Things like this make me really uncomfortable. I mean, I understand if you did that because of the individual poster but if "bigot" was only applied because he self-identified as a conservative then that's probably not the best thing, even in jest (though I'm often guilty to the MAX of that thing).

Speaking as an ex-conservative here, I can assure you that not all of them are bigots and, likely, not even the majority.


Exactly.
Thank you.

Fine: A friend interpreted a religious text in a conservative way and I nearly lost that friendship because of it. I spent most of the time back then trying to set the person straight, as opposed to resting.

no i think thats bad psychology on your part to blame rather than conservatives.

I didn't claim you concealed it. Merely pointed out once again that you said it FIRST THING in the discussion.

Oh, wait, you sorta forgot to put it in the logs you so kindly copied, now didn't you?
You need to work on keeping your story straight. You're starting to come off much like a certain junior senator from a northeastern state who shall remain nameless.

I didn't include it in the logs because I figured people would be more interested in the fact that your ban wasn't caused by what you claim it to have been caused by, than in reading a full thirty-five minutes of a log which was, in fact, interspersed with other subjects (gay marriage; separation of church and state; elves; whether Person_3 was a moron, as you quite loudly claimed, for not reading your mind and knowing that you're Brazilian; the acting skills of a fellow playing a soldier on Battlestar Galactica; the definition of colonalism; the recent WMO study showing global temperatures haven't risen in a decade), most of which were discussed quite rationally, before turning to the matter of the United Nations, as opposed to being a single long flamefest about Iraq.

no i think thats bad psychology on your part to blame rather than conservatives.

No, I'm certain it's not bad psychology. Because in the end of July, I set them straight with a WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE that pointed out that the conservative interpretation was wrong.

Of course, by that time, my vacations were all but gone.

Oh, really? So I should expect to see the bans of everyone that personally attacked me, say, twice there? Or was I supposed to first hope that an op would warn them, THEN expect their bans?Other than Menelmacar's, I do not really remember any other personal attacks upon you. But, if you felt that you were being attacked, why not bring it up to the ops, instead of lashing back with the same treatment?

No, I'm certain it's not bad psychology. Because in the end of July, I set them straight with a WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE that pointed out that the conservative interpretation was wrong.

Of course, by that time, my vacations were all but gone.

i rest my case.

Snip.

I called him a moron after he claimed I valued American lives more than Iraqi ones. In reaction to that.

Also, discourse analysis 101: A good deal of the tone of the discourse is set in the beginning of it. You started the discussion with the words "hateful soulless little man".

What exactly did you expect?

No, I'm certain it's not bad psychology. Because in the end of July, I set them straight with a WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE that pointed out that the conservative interpretation was wrong.
Mmm, Wikipedia. The final arbiter of truth, equally venerated by all. Because it's not like someone can log into Wikipedia and post whatever they like.

Oh, wait...:p
Also, discourse analysis 101: A good deal of the tone of the discourse is set in the beginning of it. You started the discussion with the words "hateful soulless little man".
Your analysis is flawed. It wasn't part of the same discussion, there were several discussions between that time and the time you were banned, several of which included personal attacks from you, despite the op's previous warning to you not to use them.

Even if this premise somehow granted you an excuse, as anyone reading the posted log can see, the discussion during which you got banned was, aside from your comments, quite a good-natured one. The only one who was continuing this 'tone' was you.

Other than Menelmacar's, I do not really remember any other personal attacks upon you. But, if you felt that you were being attacked, why not bring it up to the ops, instead of lashing back with the same treatment?

I do see claiming that I value American soldier's lives over Iraqi civilian's ones as a personal attack. It's like claiming I value the life of the invader over the invaded.

Mmm, Wikipedia. The final arbiter of truth, equally venerated by all. Because it's not like someone can log into Wikipedia and post whatever they like.

Oh, wait...:p

What, you'll really try to bait me into a discussion about the validity of a religious interpretation you don't even KNOW about now? Moreover, aren't the means for me to have solved it sorta beyond the point here?

And I cleverly concealed doing so by publicly admitting it and apologizing for doing it.

Man, you've really got my number.

Don't you see? Knowing that we all expected you to hide it, you placed it in the one place we would never think to look: right out in the open!

Damn, you beat me to it Geniasis...

Your analysis is flawed. It wasn't part of the same discussion, there were several discussions between that time and the time you were banned, several of which included personal attacks from you, despite the op's previous warning to you not to use them.

Even if this premise somehow granted you an excuse, as anyone reading the posted log can see, the discussion during which you got banned was, aside from your comments, quite a good-natured one. The only one who was continuing this 'tone' was you.

Yes, it WAS part of the same discussion. Not of the same TOPIC, but yes of the same discussion. Or do you expect people that, in a room, for instance, were offended, to simply forget the offense as soon as the topic changes? Let's take a look at how that would be:

- You hate America for being against the war!
- WHAT?
- Anyways, how are those Knicks, huh?
- Tell me about it.

It doesn't work like that.

I do see claiming that I value American soldier's lives over Iraqi civilian's ones as a personal attack. It's like claiming I value the life of the invader over the invaded.However, I did not ask for that. What I did ask is why you did not bring the alleged personal attacks up to the ops and not make your own against others?

Isn't this what you're supposed to do here in General? It would seem to me that continuing the cycle of attacks would not do any good for any involved. It would also seem that you would have a higher moral standing by not giving into these personal attacks...

What, you'll really try to bait me into a discussion about the validity of a religious interpretation you don't even KNOW about now? Moreover, aren't the means for me to have solved it sorta beyond the point here?
I didn't ask about the religious interpretation and I don't care about it. You will note the smiley indicating a tongue-in-cheek context (:p) which I thoughtfully included because I knew that otherwise you would miss my tone. The statement was partly made in response to your apparent implication that a Wikipedia article is the be-all and end-all of any debate, when no professor I've ever had has been willing to accept Wikipedia articles as a valid research source.

Maybe it's because anyone can log in to Wikipedia and post anything they want. Or maybe it's because all those people with doctorates are just conservative bigots and don't know how to teach. I'll leave deciding that up to you.

It was also partly made to inject some levity and release a little tension. Clearly it didn't much work for that.

However, I did not ask for that. What I did ask is why you did not bring the alleged personal attacks up to the ops and not make your own against others?

Isn't this what you're supposed to do here in General? It would seem to me that continuing the cycle of attacks would not do any good for any involved. It would also seem that you would have a higher moral standing by not giving into these personal attacks...

Fine, I don't have a higher moral standing.

Now that the point was settled, moving on.

Or do you expect people that, in a room, for instance, were offended, to simply forget the offense as soon as the topic changes?

It doesn't work like that.
Of course not, that would be stupid.

On the other hand, pressing ahead with something you were publicly and firmly warned by channel ops to stop doing, and then blaming the resultant ban on 'conservatives' is pretty stupid, too.

EDIT: As you said, moving on. I think we can agree, at least, to disagree. I wonder if you'll continue to be 'moving on', or if you will insist on continuing to post on this. ;)

I didn't ask about the religious interpretation and I don't care about it. You will note the smiley indicating a tongue-in-cheek context (:p) which I thoughtfully included because I knew that otherwise you would miss my tone. The statement was partly made in response to your apparent implication that a Wikipedia article is the be-all and end-all of any debate, when no professor I've ever had has been willing to accept Wikipedia articles as a valid research source.

Maybe it's because anyone can log in to Wikipedia and post anything they want. Or maybe it's because all those people with doctorates are just conservative bigots and don't know how to teach. I'll leave deciding that up to you.

It was also partly made to inject some levity and release a little tension. Clearly it didn't much work for that.

I never researched on wikipedia for academic work. It IS, however, a pretty good place for quick doubts. Furthermore, it's not that wikipedia is the be-all, end-all of a debate. It had, however, a much better interpretation than the conservative one.

Of course not, that would be stupid.

On the other hand, pressing ahead with something you were publicly and firmly warned by channel ops to stop doing, and then blaming the resultant ban on 'conservatives' is pretty stupid, too.

At the very least, they should have banned you too.

At the most, they should have banned you FIRST.

Or at least given you "warning".

At the very least, they should have banned you too.

At the most, they should have banned you FIRST.

Ah, guess I was right in assuming you couldn't actually move on.

You'll note the crucial differences:
1. I didn't get a warning. You did.
2. I didn't persist in the behavior. You did.
3. I apologized for doing it. You didn't.

Apples and oranges, me boyo.

Ah, guess I was right in assuming you couldn't actually move on.

You'll note the crucial differences:
1. I didn't get a warning. You did.
2. I didn't persist in the behavior. You did.
3. I apologized for doing it. You didn't.

Apples and oranges, me boyo.

1- You should have gotten a warning.

2- Fair enough. Though you did start it.

3- Here, you apologized. You know, after the flamefest.

Perhaps I wasn't clear. You don't get a warning for doing something once. There's a thing called banter on IRC and people tend to rib each other pretty consistently. Usually (but not always) it's good-natured and known all round to be generally all in fun.

No, to get an actual warning from an op you've basically got to demonstrate a pattern of stubborn malevolence, which you did. And to get banned you've got to demonstrate that the warning did not change that pattern, which you also did.

Your behavior was a problem well before you were warned. That's why you were warned.

Perhaps I wasn't clear. You don't get a warning for doing something once. There's a thing called banter on IRC and people tend to rib each other pretty consistently. To get an actual warning from an op you've basically got to demonstrate a pattern of stubborn malevolence, which you did. And to get banned you've got to demonstrate that the warning did not change that pattern, which you also did.

Your behavior was a problem well before you were warned. That's why you were warned.

Not even for starting a friggin' dialog with an insult, as you did?

Wow.

And please, PLEASE try to make a case that "hateful, soulless little man" is in good fun. I BEG of you.

And please, PLEASE try to make a case that "hateful, soulless little man" is in good fun. I BEG of you.
I'm not going to, because it wasn't. Hence the apology.

The channel management is extremely easygoing, and while they don't mess around with the rules, they're not exactly Nazis. Frankly, the fact you managed to go through the entire warning/ban process in a total of about six to eight hours spent in the channel from your first visit is a rare, if dubious, feat, unmatched even by a pedophile (no, really, I'm serious).

I'm not going to, because it wasn't. Hence the apology.

Frankly, the fact you managed to go through the entire warning/ban process in a total of about six to eight hours spent in the channel is a rare, if dubious, feat.

Oh, so you do admit to starting it?

And mind you, I frequented the channel for a LONG time before I made the mistake of crossing your path.

unmatched even by a pedophile (no, really, I'm serious).

That tells more about the channel security than it tells about me.

Channel security? Again you seem to assume people in the channel are (or should be) capable of reading minds.

Now that you mention it, I do recall seeing you in the channel way the hell back in the day. Still, a multi-year hiatus (what's it been? Three? Four years?) is long enough that your return would generally be considered starting from scratch. For a long time before? Before, possibly. The channel, however, was still rather new when I started frequenting it, and I've been there consistently since, even while not being particularly active on NS. So saying 'a long time' doesn't really wash.

I don't admit to 'starting it', no. I admit to the statement. As you so eloquently pointed out earlier, people don't immediately forget things other people have previously said. I like it when people undermine their own points, it's both helpful and amusing, thank you. But you will probably continue to assume I called you a hateful, soulless little man totally out of the blue, not knowing you from Adam. That's fine. I pretty much expect assumptions like that from you.

Back in 2002, when I was against the bloodshed in Iraq, I got kicked out of a channel due to it, also getting the label of "anti-American" and so on.

Gee, I was right, what do you know?

Back in 2006, I had my vacation time ruined due to a conservative understanding of a religion.

And I recently got a re-run of 2002.

What do they have against me? What SHOULDN'T I have against them?


I´m sorry to say but I think you just have very bad luck.:( And it sucks.

Oh, so you do admit to starting it?

And mind you, I frequented the channel for a LONG time before I made the mistake of crossing your path.

You did? 'cause I certainly didn't know of your existence for the... four years I have been there pretty much 365 days a year, aside from the... what? 6-8 weeks out of that I have had off on holidays. Unless you dropped in then and only then. I doubt it....

In fact the first time I remember you was indeed the whole conversation which resulted in your banning.

Channel security? Again you seem to assume people in the channel are (or should be) capable of reading minds.

Now that you mention it, I do recall seeing you in the channel way the hell back in the day. Still, a multi-year hiatus (what's it been? Three? Four years?) is long enough that your return would generally be considered starting from scratch. For a long time before? Before, possibly. The channel, however, was still rather new when I started frequenting it, and I've been there consistently since, even while not being particularly active on NS. So saying 'a long time' doesn't really wash.

I don't admit to 'starting it', no. I admit to the statement. As you so eloquently pointed out earlier, people don't forget things other people have previously said. I like it when people undermine their own points, it's both helpful and amusing, thank you. But you will probably continue to assume I called you a hateful, soulless little man totally out of the blue, not knowing you from Adam. That's fine. I pretty much expect assumptions like that from you.

1- I visited the channel EVERYDAY for the last few months, if with little activity.

2- So you claim that I should have "let it go" over about half an hour when you didn't let something go over a DAY?

1- I visited the channel EVERYDAY for the last few months, if with little activity.

2- So you claim that I should have "let it go" over about half an hour when you didn't let something go over a DAY?

You did? Under what name? 'cause I really really don't remember you in any capacity at all, and I tend to remember everyone who visits while I am about and even what a number of them say. And I tell ya, your name and "last few months" boils down to about 3-4 days tops. Not "months".

You did? Under what name? 'cause I really really don't remember you in any capacity at all, and I tend to remember everyone who visits while I am about and even what a number of them say. And I tell ya, your name and "last few months" boils down to about 3-4 days tops. Not "months".

The_Weirdo. I sometimes changed to Heikoku too.

I have logs from the channel going back years, and I'll check if you were there.

As for letting it go, I didn't say you should. What I said was that you should have abided by the warning given you by the ops.

Aaaah! Yes, I remember you now... and unfortunately I seem to remember your times there being brief due to your rather inflammatory nature and inability to enter a conversation without taking everything either personally, or shot back real insults to what was intended as jovial ribbing.

That and mildly irrational positions that largely stem from a highly liberal agenda that doesn't always sit comfortably with some of the channel, now we have conservatives and liberals in the channel, but every so often somebody comes in and rocks the boat by being a banshee towards anyone who disagrees with them.

I have logs from the channel going back years, and I'll check if you were there.

As for letting it go, I didn't say you should. What I said was that you should have abided by the warning given you by the ops.

Look for Heikoku and for The_Weirdo.

Ah, so it's not a matter of "reasonable" anymore, it's a matter of "survival tactics". Gotcha.

In fact the first time I remember you was indeed the whole conversation which resulted in your banning.

I remember numerous earlier conversations, most of which turned out the same way (i.e. extended arguments, largely with the same people taking the same sides, and the same other people attempting to ignore the conversation by pouncing, snuggling, kneecapping, sitting on laps, or being Doc_Evilonavich) -- can't remember any personal attacks, although I can check my logs, but there's definitely been plenty of animosity that I've seen and I'm not often active on IRC, either.

Look for Heikoku and for The_Weirdo.

Ah, so it's not a matter of "reasonable" anymore, it's a matter of "survival tactics". Gotcha.

The channel is not a democracy, it really is a matter of survival in there and about not trying to tred on as many toes as possible, and when a channel op tells you to put up and shut up, most of the channel, regardless of position or nature of conversation, do so.

Now sure there are people who carry on, lord knows I've done it a few times and you get warned again. Most of the time it works on a "Three strikes" principal if you're not too bad, or on a two-strike if you're worse.

Aaaah! Yes, I remember you now... and unfortunately I seem to remember your times there being brief due to your rather inflammatory nature and inability to enter a conversation without taking everything either personally, or shot back real insults to what was intended as jovial ribbing.

That and mildly irrational positions that largely stem from a highly liberal agenda that doesn't always sit comfortably with some of the channel, now we have conservatives and liberals in the channel, but every so often somebody comes in and rocks the boat by being a banshee towards anyone who disagrees with them.

You beat me to it by a couple minutes. >.< but yes, while I tended to ignore most of the political debates -- just because attempting to debate certain people always makes me want to bash my head against a wall -- I've observed this as well, and just from being present for a number of arguments that can be counted on the fingers of one hand.

My logs only go back a year and a half on this computer, I can check the others. But according to a quick search, you were in the channel at some point each day from March 18 to today.

You're right, this was more than a couple of visits totalling six to eight hours and so I concede that very minor point. It is, however, far from being 'every day' over 'the last few months'. Next, perhaps you can tell us: Where precisely were those snipers, Senator?

My logs only go back a year and a half on this computer, I can check the others. But according to a quick search, you were in the channel at some point each day from March 18 to today.

You're right, this was more than a couple of visits totalling six to eight hours and so I concede that very minor point. It is, however, far from being 'every day' over 'the last few months'. Next, perhaps you can tell us: Where precisely were those snipers, Senator?

Did you look up a The_Weirdo? Which was my nickname there BEFORE I changed the MIRC program?

Also, while I don't want Clinton to run, after all Obama is more likely to beat McCain, I'll answer with "the same place the WMDs were in" and leave it at that.

Ah, so it's not a matter of "reasonable" anymore, it's a matter of "survival tactics". Gotcha.
Hardly. It's a matter of following the rules as set out. When the ops get pissed, it's time to stop. Period.

Let's not even get into how you apparently don't think it's reasonable to be expected to let a single insult go anyway, and so reasonableness doesn't enter into the matter whatsoever.

Before you say anything, this was apparent from the first post in this thread, when you moaned about having been kicked from a channel six years ago by 'conservatives'. I'm not going to assume that the events there were the same as happened today, but it seems reasonable to speculate to that end. Either way, though, you don't let anything go. Ever. So why is it reasonable for you to remember an insult, but not for me?

Also, while I don't want Clinton to run, after all Obama is more likely to beat McCain, I'll answer with "the same place the WMDs were in" and leave it at that.

So... your responce to it is.... well, seeing as you're using random analogies.


"Sniper fire" and "Bosnia".

So why is it reasonable for you to remember an insult, but not for me?

Your claim on that was that it was unreasonable for me not to let go something in about 30 minutes. I didn't claim you were unreasonable for not letting it go, I merely pointed out a "pot calling the kettle black" situation.

The snipers were on the grassy knoll, watching you masturbate!

Madness? IT'S OVER NINE THOUSAND!

So... your responce to it is.... well, seeing as you're using random analogies.


"Sniper fire" and "Bosnia".

...

Read the post I was replying to.

The snipers were on the grassy knoll, watching you masturbate!

Madness? IT'S OVER NINE THOUSAND!

I'll concede that this post made me laugh, but the analogy was hers first.

...

Read the post I was replying to.


I did, and your reply was pretty much the same.

Your claim on that was that it was unreasonable for me not to let go something in about 30 minutes. I didn't claim you were unreasonable for not letting it go, I merely pointed out a "pot calling the kettle black" situation.
Except I didn't claim that it was unreasonable for you not to let something go in 30 minutes.

What I claimed was that you were banned for repeatedly using personal attacks over a span of two days to the point that the ops stepped in, and that 'conservatives' had nothing to do with it as you implied in your initial post. The comment that got you banned was simply the last straw.

Where these two things are supposed to overlap I have no clue, and I can only conclude you've totally lost the plot here.
Did you look up a The_Weirdo?
As a matter of fact, I did, and that list of hits was even shorter, though it does include others not in the above-stated span of time.

Specifically, a twelve-hour span from 12:44:08, January 6 to 00:25:52, January 7, during which you didn't actually say a single word.

Y'all have way way too much time on your hands.

:sniper: This is what you guys are doing. Play nice.

Y'all have way way too much time on your hands.

:sniper: This is what you guys are doing. Play nice.

I can't believe a guy actually used a first post AND a sniper smiley to make a not-too-bad point. O_O

I can't believe a guy actually used a first post AND a sniper smiley to make a not-too-bad point. O_O

http://photo.gangus.com/d/26788-2/ackbar.jpg

I can't believe a guy actually used a first post AND a sniper smiley to make a not-too-bad point. O_O
On that we can agree, completely. And to that end, I'm going to take his advice. I think I've made my point here, and you've... done whatever it is you do when you're not on drugs.

Seeya.

I'll concede that this post made me laugh, but the analogy was hers first.

"She started it!", in earnest? Are you 5? It's not important that she started it. It's important that you escalated. (I left around 14:45, so I missed most of the escalation, but [14:44] <+Heikoku> I'm BRAZILIAN, you MORON! is still in my logs, and apparently there was more that followed, including warnings from the channel operators.)

Essentially, grow up and ignore the personal attacks. They're flares; decoys; they aren't the argument and you shouldn't concentrate on them, or respond in kind (you've called conservatives inhuman, for instance, which includes at least four members of the channel and counts as a personal attack: I'll find logs later). Show that you're above them. Or, well, you aren't.

On that we can agree, completely. And to that end, I'm going to take his advice. I think I've made my point here, and you've... done whatever it is you do when you're not on drugs.

Seeya.

...

"She started it!", in earnest? Are you 5? It's not important that she started it. It's important that you escalated. (I left around 14:45, so I missed most of the escalation, but [14:44] <+Heikoku> I'm BRAZILIAN, you MORON! is still in my logs, and apparently there was more that followed, including warnings from the channel operators.)

Essentially, grow up and ignore the personal attacks. They're flares; decoys; they aren't the argument and you shouldn't concentrate on them, or respond in kind (you've called conservatives inhuman, for instance, which includes at least four members of the #nationstates channel and counts as a personal attack: I'll find logs later). Show that you're above them. Or, well, you aren't.

Did I claim to be above them at any moment? I claimed I was RIGHT and they were WRONG (Which I am and which they are). I never claimed to be above them.

Not in THAT sense anyways.

Did I claim to be above them at any moment? I claimed I was RIGHT and they were WRONG (Which I am and which they are). I never claimed to be above them.

I'm going to let this post speak for itself and follow Siri's example. 'Night.

Wow, you got banned from an IRC channel. If you need to make a thread ranting and whining about why that, I'd say thats rather indicative of a certain type of personality.

Wow, you got banned from an IRC channel. If you need to make a thread ranting and whining about why that, I'd say thats rather indicative of a certain type of personality.

Nowhere here did I claim NOT to be a pain in the ass.

I was right though. ;)

Well, that was entertaining. I think I'll go argue with Nodinia some more about Israel-Palestine, which this thread oddly reminds me of (just stop fighting! -- But, but, HE STARTED IT!)

Oooookay, I think this thread is about done now.