NationStates Jolt Archive

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11264472&postcount=58

More in the same vein:



and, of course, merely critizing them { Pedophiles } now won't count for anything, because it was only done after being compelled to.


*nods*

You're in a bit of a bind here, Eutrusca. Choose your words carefully.

Why am I unsurprised you're here complaining about this? You were arguing that unless someone complains about something, he or she must support that thing. Saying that because you weren't saying you WERE NOT a pedophile, then you must be one, was a way of pointing out how ridiculous your argument is.

Eut, are you a pedo? No, so why worry about what a bunch of puberty ridden teens say about you over an online forum? Don't let people like this get to you man. The more you let it get to you, the more they will try to do crap, just to piss you off.

Eut, are you a pedo? No, so why worry about what a bunch of puberty ridden teens say about you over an online forum? Don't let people like this get to you man. The more you let it get to you, the more they will try to do crap, just to piss you off.

Indeed. Just try and forget it--I was accused of being a pedophile just yesterday. It seems to be one of the favorite accusations of these days.

For some context, this is where it all began:

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11264373&postcount=25

Eutrusca's logic: "If you complain about Gitmo but don't complain about Iran, you agree with whatever Iran does."

By that logic, since you complain about Cindy Sheehan but don't complain about pedophiles at the same time, you like peds.

Eutrusca never addressed this point, brought up by many others as well. Heikoku was not in any serious way calling him a pedophile. The word stems from this argument alone.

Why am I unsurprised you're here complaining about this? You were arguing that unless someone complains about something, he or she must support that thing. Saying that because you weren't saying you WERE NOT a pedophile, then you must be one, was a way of pointing out how ridiculous your argument is.

Pointing it out once was raising a good point. Repeating it everytime he posts is driving it into the ground. IMHO.

For some context, this is where it all began:

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11264373&postcount=25



Eutrusca never addressed this point, brought up by many others as well. Heikoku was not in any serious way calling him a pedophile. The word stems from this argument alone.

It's Eut's way of life. He runs to the mods with some distorted, imagined or merely invented offense whenever he finds himself losing the argument...

It's Eut's way of life. He runs to the mods with some distorted, imagined or merely invented offense whenever he finds himself losing the argument...
To be fair, he and DK were thoroughly ripped to shreds in that thread.
Also you did repeat your point quite often.

However, I don't see any wrongdoing.

Why am I unsurprised you're here complaining about this?

Because it's the kind of crap this guy keeps pulling.

You were arguing that unless someone complains about something, he or she must support that thing. Saying that because you weren't saying you WERE NOT a pedophile, then you must be one, was a way of pointing out how ridiculous your argument is.

Oh, he got it. But he couldn't afford to admit my point, so he decided to try to get me banned instead. You know, like the Iranian judge he's supposed to be criticizing in the thread does to people that don't parrot the lines he wants.

To be fair, he and DK were thoroughly ripped to shreds in that thread.
Also you did repeat your point quite often.

Which means you can accuse me of being repetitive, but that Eut tried to shock mods into banning me here tells volumes about his ethics.

However, I don't see any wrongdoing.

Of course. Because I was NOT calling him a ped, and he KNEW IT.

Indeed. Just try and forget it--I was accused of being a pedophile just yesterday. It seems to be one of the favorite accusations of these days.

Of course, the difference is, this case is a matter of an analogy that Eut didn't like.

In your case, you are actually defending pedophilia and don't seem to see what is wrong with it. I'll wager you can spot the difference.

I want to know: Is trying to get a member banned by balantly and deliberately misinterpreting them not an offense in and of itself?

I want to know: Is trying to get a member banned by balantly and deliberately misinterpreting them not an offense in and of itself?
Either way, we'll get a ruling. I don't think it's an offense but it gets noted and your next complaint tend to get ignored.

Why am I unsurprised you're here complaining about this? You were arguing that unless someone complains about something, he or she must support that thing. Saying that because you weren't saying you WERE NOT a pedophile, then you must be one, was a way of pointing out how ridiculous your argument is.
Oh. You mean kinda like "hyperbole?"

Pointing it out once was raising a good point. Repeating it everytime he posts is driving it into the ground. IMHO.
Agreed, but you have to remember that there's one rule for people who get pissed at being called a liar or a pedophile, and another rule for those who make the allegations.

This all stems from a valid point made by Heikoku, as pointed out by Sinuhue.

Thus, no action, but a word of advice to Heikoku and Eutrusca - if you hate each other's politics to the extent that you cannot sustain a civil discussion, just leave each other alone.