Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
Irony overload. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"
Irony overload."Funny you're the first to respond, with an attack. I thought you didn't interact with me anymore? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It’s been easy for the Left. They have just been sitting at the back of the class moaning about the teacher and refusing to do any work. Now the new teacher they have appointed is in charge, and everyone can already see what a total shit show Labour is going to be, not to mention the panoply of lies that got them elected. Their only way of dealing with it will be through ad hominem attacks." I love to see a righteous righty giving the new govt a chance  .
Btw if we of the left are loony, what is actually the "equivalent" for the right? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It’s been easy for the Left. They have just been sitting at the back of the class moaning about the teacher and refusing to do any work. Now the new teacher they have appointed is in charge, and everyone can already see what a total shit show Labour is going to be, not to mention the panoply of lies that got them elected. Their only way of dealing with it will be through ad hominem attacks. I love to see a righteous righty giving the new govt a chance .
Btw if we of the left are loony, what is actually the "equivalent" for the right?"Retarded? Is in going backwards | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It’s been easy for the Left. They have just been sitting at the back of the class moaning about the teacher and refusing to do any work. Now the new teacher they have appointed is in charge, and everyone can already see what a total shit show Labour is going to be, not to mention the panoply of lies that got them elected. Their only way of dealing with it will be through ad hominem attacks. I love to see a righteous righty giving the new govt a chance .
Btw if we of the left are loony, what is actually the "equivalent" for the right?"Synonyms . . . Strongest matches batty crazed kooky nutty screwball wacky Strong matches ape berserk cuckoo lunatic nuts psycho silly  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"That's the nature of political debate. Water off a duck's back tbh." This. Nothing here ever upsets me. Some things here make me go  A few things I read here make me go  Lots of things come over as  Many post to simply be 
Lots more just make me . . .
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Thread after thread, in the last few days has been nothing but attacking opposing posters rather than their opinions or data/links. I know this has always happened, but it feels a lot fucking worse this past few days. Am I the only one seeing this?" Oh shut ya face!! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It’s been easy for the Left. They have just been sitting at the back of the class moaning about the teacher and refusing to do any work. Now the new teacher they have appointed is in charge, and everyone can already see what a total shit show Labour is going to be, not to mention the panoply of lies that got them elected. Their only way of dealing with it will be through ad hominem attacks. I love to see a righteous righty giving the new govt a chance .
Btw if we of the left are loony, what is actually the "equivalent" for the right?"Fear not. Your big pay rise is coming. And everyone else can go hang. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It’s been easy for the Left. They have just been sitting at the back of the class moaning about the teacher and refusing to do any work. Now the new teacher they have appointed is in charge, and everyone can already see what a total shit show Labour is going to be, not to mention the panoply of lies that got them elected. Their only way of dealing with it will be through ad hominem attacks. I love to see a righteous righty giving the new govt a chance .
Btw if we of the left are loony, what is actually the "equivalent" for the right?"But you've already given us your suggestion = righteous righty. A wise and discerning choice to be fair, kudos.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"That's the nature of political debate. Water off a duck's back tbh." Indeed, you need a thick skin for political banter, there are so many with flawed and erroneous opinions, but ho-hum it's all part of free speech. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It’s been easy for the Left. They have just been sitting at the back of the class moaning about the teacher and refusing to do any work. Now the new teacher they have appointed is in charge, and everyone can already see what a total shit show Labour is going to be, not to mention the panoply of lies that got them elected. Their only way of dealing with it will be through ad hominem attacks. I love to see a righteous righty giving the new govt a chance .
Btw if we of the left are loony, what is actually the "equivalent" for the right?
Synonyms . . .
Strongest matches
batty
crazed
kooky
nutty
screwball
wacky
Strong matches
ape
berserk
cuckoo
lunatic
nuts
psycho
silly
"And yet failing alliteration | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It’s been easy for the Left. They have just been sitting at the back of the class moaning about the teacher and refusing to do any work. Now the new teacher they have appointed is in charge, and everyone can already see what a total shit show Labour is going to be, not to mention the panoply of lies that got them elected. Their only way of dealing with it will be through ad hominem attacks. I love to see a righteous righty giving the new govt a chance .
Btw if we of the left are loony, what is actually the "equivalent" for the right?
Synonyms . . .
Strongest matches
batty
crazed
kooky
nutty
screwball
wacky
Strong matches
ape
berserk
cuckoo
lunatic
nuts
psycho
silly
"If I wanted a synonym, I wouldn't have used quotation marks. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It’s been easy for the Left. They have just been sitting at the back of the class moaning about the teacher and refusing to do any work. Now the new teacher they have appointed is in charge, and everyone can already see what a total shit show Labour is going to be, not to mention the panoply of lies that got them elected. Their only way of dealing with it will be through ad hominem attacks. I love to see a righteous righty giving the new govt a chance .
Btw if we of the left are loony, what is actually the "equivalent" for the right?
But you've already given us your suggestion = righteous righty. A wise and discerning choice to be fair, kudos. "Yeah but the righteous righties won't know it's sarcasm | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Btw if we of the left are loony, what is actually the "equivalent" for the right?" Rectal | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It’s been easy for the Left. They have just been sitting at the back of the class moaning about the teacher and refusing to do any work. Now the new teacher they have appointed is in charge, and everyone can already see what a total shit show Labour is going to be, not to mention the panoply of lies that got them elected. Their only way of dealing with it will be through ad hominem attacks. I love to see a righteous righty giving the new govt a chance .
Btw if we of the left are loony, what is actually the "equivalent" for the right?
Synonyms . . .
Strongest matches
batty
crazed
kooky
nutty
screwball
wacky
Strong matches
ape
berserk
cuckoo
lunatic
nuts
psycho
silly
If I wanted a synonym, I wouldn't have used quotation marks."Oh dear. Sorry for being playful. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It’s been easy for the Left. They have just been sitting at the back of the class moaning about the teacher and refusing to do any work. Now the new teacher they have appointed is in charge, and everyone can already see what a total shit show Labour is going to be, not to mention the panoply of lies that got them elected. Their only way of dealing with it will be through ad hominem attacks. I love to see a righteous righty giving the new govt a chance .
Btw if we of the left are loony, what is actually the "equivalent" for the right?
Synonyms . . .
Strongest matches
batty
crazed
kooky
nutty
screwball
wacky
Strong matches
ape
berserk
cuckoo
lunatic
nuts
psycho
silly
If I wanted a synonym, I wouldn't have used quotation marks.
Oh dear. Sorry for being playful. "Aww sorry for not realising. Must be your first attempt | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It’s been easy for the Left. They have just been sitting at the back of the class moaning about the teacher and refusing to do any work. Now the new teacher they have appointed is in charge, and everyone can already see what a total shit show Labour is going to be, not to mention the panoply of lies that got them elected. Their only way of dealing with it will be through ad hominem attacks. I love to see a righteous righty giving the new govt a chance .
Btw if we of the left are loony, what is actually the "equivalent" for the right?
Synonyms . . .
Strongest matches
batty
crazed
kooky
nutty
screwball
wacky
Strong matches
ape
berserk
cuckoo
lunatic
nuts
psycho
silly
If I wanted a synonym, I wouldn't have used quotation marks.
Oh dear. Sorry for being playful.
Aww sorry for not realising. Must be your first attempt "See. You are totally in the right thread too. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"That's the nature of political debate. Water off a duck's back tbh. Indeed, you need a thick skin for political banter, there are so many with flawed and erroneous opinions, but ho-hum it's all part of free speech. "What I've witnessed isn't banter. Mostly, it's verbally attacking people rather than their opinions or sources. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It’s been easy for the Left. They have just been sitting at the back of the class moaning about the teacher and refusing to do any work. Now the new teacher they have appointed is in charge, and everyone can already see what a total shit show Labour is going to be, not to mention the panoply of lies that got them elected. Their only way of dealing with it will be through ad hominem attacks. I love to see a righteous righty giving the new govt a chance .
Btw if we of the left are loony, what is actually the "equivalent" for the right?
Synonyms . . .
Strongest matches
batty
crazed
kooky
nutty
screwball
wacky
Strong matches
ape
berserk
cuckoo
lunatic
nuts
psycho
silly
If I wanted a synonym, I wouldn't have used quotation marks.
Oh dear. Sorry for being playful.
Aww sorry for not realising. Must be your first attempt
See. You are totally in the right thread too. "But I was being playful. Did you not see the wink? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"That's the nature of political debate. Water off a duck's back tbh. Indeed, you need a thick skin for political banter, there are so many with flawed and erroneous opinions, but ho-hum it's all part of free speech.
What I've witnessed isn't banter.
Mostly, it's verbally attacking people rather than their opinions or sources. "Are you genuinely unaware that this is how you behave on the forums? As you mentioned I had to stop engaging with you. I'd asked you politely several times to stop the personal attacks. And the attacks intensified, rarely discussed the topic or what the person has posted, and just attacked the individual. So it's weird seeing you calling out the behaviour that you so often lead the charge on. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Not sure where to draw the line tbh. When someone says that right wingers are greedy or that left wingers are envious, we are indirectly attacking the individuals following either of the ideologies. But we know telling someone directly that he is a piece of shit is against forum rules. . So it's ok to attack a group but not the individual? " Why not just attack what people post, and not the person. That seems to be the best way. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Not sure where to draw the line tbh. When someone says that right wingers are greedy or that left wingers are envious, we are indirectly attacking the individuals following either of the ideologies. But we know telling someone directly that he is a piece of shit is against forum rules. . So it's ok to attack a group but not the individual? Why not just attack what people post, and not the person. That seems to be the best way." Not aimed at you BTW. Just a general comment. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Not sure where to draw the line tbh. When someone says that right wingers are greedy or that left wingers are envious, we are indirectly attacking the individuals following either of the ideologies. But we know telling someone directly that he is a piece of shit is against forum rules. . So it's ok to attack a group but not the individual? Why not just attack what people post, and not the person. That seems to be the best way." Political debates inevitably boil down to one's basic values which are different between left and right wingers. So there comes a point when you start attacking those values and the groups who have those values. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Not sure where to draw the line tbh. When someone says that right wingers are greedy or that left wingers are envious, we are indirectly attacking the individuals following either of the ideologies. But we know telling someone directly that he is a piece of shit is against forum rules. . So it's ok to attack a group but not the individual? Why not just attack what people post, and not the person. That seems to be the best way. Political debates inevitably boil down to one's basic values which are different between left and right wingers. So there comes a point when you start attacking those values and the groups who have those values. " Typical scenario is to post comments Then the other demands sources After providing sources those sources are attacked too | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Not sure where to draw the line tbh. When someone says that right wingers are greedy or that left wingers are envious, we are indirectly attacking the individuals following either of the ideologies. But we know telling someone directly that he is a piece of shit is against forum rules. . So it's ok to attack a group but not the individual? Why not just attack what people post, and not the person. That seems to be the best way. Political debates inevitably boil down to one's basic values which are different between left and right wingers. So there comes a point when you start attacking those values and the groups who have those values. Typical scenario is to post comments Then the other demands sources After providing sources those sources are attacked too " That's one of the numerous tactics that get frequently used in debates and it works. Every news website is run by people at the end of the day and people are biased. Also, we can't ever debate and prove a real life event to be 100% true. So it's easy to just say that something never happened because whatever source you used is biased and you can't really prove it happened. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Not sure where to draw the line tbh. When someone says that right wingers are greedy or that left wingers are envious, we are indirectly attacking the individuals following either of the ideologies. But we know telling someone directly that he is a piece of shit is against forum rules. . So it's ok to attack a group but not the individual? Why not just attack what people post, and not the person. That seems to be the best way. Political debates inevitably boil down to one's basic values which are different between left and right wingers. So there comes a point when you start attacking those values and the groups who have those values. Typical scenario is to post comments Then the other demands sources After providing sources those sources are attacked too " The issue with sources are their reliability. A source on Twitter, from Debbie the hairdresser from Littlehampton is not going to be as valuable as one from Wikipedia, which is not going to be as good as one from and academic source or a peer reviewed piece of academic work. It's the same with news. Certain news outlets are not independant and will report in such a way as to 'promote' their own ideology or agenda. You need to have a balanced view, from several reputable new sourced to gain more insight. This is why sources can be challenged as well as opinions that spring from them. Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Not sure where to draw the line tbh. When someone says that right wingers are greedy or that left wingers are envious, we are indirectly attacking the individuals following either of the ideologies. But we know telling someone directly that he is a piece of shit is against forum rules. . So it's ok to attack a group but not the individual? Why not just attack what people post, and not the person. That seems to be the best way. Political debates inevitably boil down to one's basic values which are different between left and right wingers. So there comes a point when you start attacking those values and the groups who have those values. Typical scenario is to post comments Then the other demands sources After providing sources those sources are attacked too That's one of the numerous tactics that get frequently used in debates and it works. Every news website is run by people at the end of the day and people are biased. Also, we can't ever debate and prove a real life event to be 100% true. So it's easy to just say that something never happened because whatever source you used is biased and you can't really prove it happened." If during a thread on here you mention an article from the likes of the daily mail etc it is attacked purely for the source. The fact that an article is accurate is overlooked and the only interest is in the source. In addition people insinuate anyone reading such publications or watching certain news channels are easily misled and manipulated. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Not sure where to draw the line tbh. When someone says that right wingers are greedy or that left wingers are envious, we are indirectly attacking the individuals following either of the ideologies. But we know telling someone directly that he is a piece of shit is against forum rules. . So it's ok to attack a group but not the individual? Why not just attack what people post, and not the person. That seems to be the best way. Political debates inevitably boil down to one's basic values which are different between left and right wingers. So there comes a point when you start attacking those values and the groups who have those values. Typical scenario is to post comments Then the other demands sources After providing sources those sources are attacked too That's one of the numerous tactics that get frequently used in debates and it works. Every news website is run by people at the end of the day and people are biased. Also, we can't ever debate and prove a real life event to be 100% true. So it's easy to just say that something never happened because whatever source you used is biased and you can't really prove it happened. If during a thread on here you mention an article from the likes of the daily mail etc it is attacked purely for the source. The fact that an article is accurate is overlooked and the only interest is in the source. In addition people insinuate anyone reading such publications or watching certain news channels are easily misled and manipulated. " Agree with that. It's not like dailymail employees wake up everyday to cook up a story at their homes, write them and go to sleep. Sure there have been instances when details in their articles have been misleading. But that doesn't mean you brush aside everything they write completely claiming they are all fake new. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Not sure where to draw the line tbh. When someone says that right wingers are greedy or that left wingers are envious, we are indirectly attacking the individuals following either of the ideologies. But we know telling someone directly that he is a piece of shit is against forum rules. . So it's ok to attack a group but not the individual? Why not just attack what people post, and not the person. That seems to be the best way. Political debates inevitably boil down to one's basic values which are different between left and right wingers. So there comes a point when you start attacking those values and the groups who have those values. Typical scenario is to post comments Then the other demands sources After providing sources those sources are attacked too That's one of the numerous tactics that get frequently used in debates and it works. Every news website is run by people at the end of the day and people are biased. Also, we can't ever debate and prove a real life event to be 100% true. So it's easy to just say that something never happened because whatever source you used is biased and you can't really prove it happened. If during a thread on here you mention an article from the likes of the daily mail etc it is attacked purely for the source. The fact that an article is accurate is overlooked and the only interest is in the source. In addition people insinuate anyone reading such publications or watching certain news channels are easily misled and manipulated. Agree with that. It's not like dailymail employees wake up everyday to cook up a story at their homes, write them and go to sleep. Sure there have been instances when details in their articles have been misleading. But that doesn't mean you brush aside everything they write completely claiming they are all fake new." This deserves a better more thoughtful response but I don’t have sufficient passion for it today. ALL media outlets have an editorial bias. ALL. What good journalists do is present articles in such a way as to include facts but ensure they reflect editorial requirements of the proprietor. A more emotive way of saying that is that they twist the facts (and leave out those that undermine their point) to suit their narrative. Regarding The Daily Mail, the main issue is that they try to present themselves as a serious newspaper but are actually just as much of a salacious gossip rag as the tabloid red tops. They just try to pretend they aren’t. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Thread after thread, in the last few days has been nothing but attacking opposing posters rather than their opinions or data/links. I know this has always happened, but it feels a lot fucking worse this past few days. Am I the only one seeing this?" Five forum bans to date for attaching links to substantiate anything I’ve posted. Tedious. Clearly mods gate never had to submit a piece of academic writing. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Not sure where to draw the line tbh. When someone says that right wingers are greedy or that left wingers are envious, we are indirectly attacking the individuals following either of the ideologies. But we know telling someone directly that he is a piece of shit is against forum rules. . So it's ok to attack a group but not the individual? Why not just attack what people post, and not the person. That seems to be the best way. Political debates inevitably boil down to one's basic values which are different between left and right wingers. So there comes a point when you start attacking those values and the groups who have those values. Typical scenario is to post comments Then the other demands sources After providing sources those sources are attacked too That's one of the numerous tactics that get frequently used in debates and it works. Every news website is run by people at the end of the day and people are biased. Also, we can't ever debate and prove a real life event to be 100% true. So it's easy to just say that something never happened because whatever source you used is biased and you can't really prove it happened. If during a thread on here you mention an article from the likes of the daily mail etc it is attacked purely for the source. The fact that an article is accurate is overlooked and the only interest is in the source. In addition people insinuate anyone reading such publications or watching certain news channels are easily misled and manipulated. Agree with that. It's not like dailymail employees wake up everyday to cook up a story at their homes, write them and go to sleep. Sure there have been instances when details in their articles have been misleading. But that doesn't mean you brush aside everything they write completely claiming they are all fake new. This deserves a better more thoughtful response but I don’t have sufficient passion for it today. ALL media outlets have an editorial bias. ALL. What good journalists do is present articles in such a way as to include facts but ensure they reflect editorial requirements of the proprietor. A more emotive way of saying that is that they twist the facts (and leave out those that undermine their point) to suit their narrative. Regarding The Daily Mail, the main issue is that they try to present themselves as a serious newspaper but are actually just as much of a salacious gossip rag as the tabloid red tops. They just try to pretend they aren’t." Sure, there isn't a single unbiased news media outlet and most other outlets do look a lot more professional compared to daily mail. But ignoring daily mail just for its name isn't constructive either. A better approach would be to find some other newspaper reporting the same news and compare it to see if there was anything that's blatantly wrong with daily mail reporting? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"That's the nature of political debate. Water off a duck's back tbh. Indeed, you need a thick skin for political banter, there are so many with flawed and erroneous opinions, but ho-hum it's all part of free speech.
What I've witnessed isn't banter.
Mostly, it's verbally attacking people rather than their opinions or sources.
Are you genuinely unaware that this is how you behave on the forums?
As you mentioned I had to stop engaging with you. I'd asked you politely several times to stop the personal attacks. And the attacks intensified, rarely discussed the topic or what the person has posted, and just attacked the individual.
So it's weird seeing you calling out the behaviour that you so often lead the charge on. "I am genuinely unaware yeah. I never set out to attack anyone personally. I actually thought you stopped engaging with me because you kept embarrassing yourself
As for attacking other people, not one other person has complained about how I've engaged with them. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"That's the nature of political debate. Water off a duck's back tbh. Indeed, you need a thick skin for political banter, there are so many with flawed and erroneous opinions, but ho-hum it's all part of free speech.
What I've witnessed isn't banter.
Mostly, it's verbally attacking people rather than their opinions or sources.
Are you genuinely unaware that this is how you behave on the forums?
As you mentioned I had to stop engaging with you. I'd asked you politely several times to stop the personal attacks. And the attacks intensified, rarely discussed the topic or what the person has posted, and just attacked the individual.
So it's weird seeing you calling out the behaviour that you so often lead the charge on.
I am genuinely unaware yeah. I never set out to attack anyone personally.
I actually thought you stopped engaging with me because you kept embarrassing yourself
As for attacking other people, not one other person has complained about how I've engaged with them. "Liar liar pants on fire | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"That's the nature of political debate. Water off a duck's back tbh. Indeed, you need a thick skin for political banter, there are so many with flawed and erroneous opinions, but ho-hum it's all part of free speech.
What I've witnessed isn't banter.
Mostly, it's verbally attacking people rather than their opinions or sources.
Are you genuinely unaware that this is how you behave on the forums?
As you mentioned I had to stop engaging with you. I'd asked you politely several times to stop the personal attacks. And the attacks intensified, rarely discussed the topic or what the person has posted, and just attacked the individual.
So it's weird seeing you calling out the behaviour that you so often lead the charge on.
I am genuinely unaware yeah. I never set out to attack anyone personally.
I actually thought you stopped engaging with me because you kept embarrassing yourself
As for attacking other people, not one other person has complained about how I've engaged with them.
Liar liar pants on fire "Have you made a complaint? Would you like to make one? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Thread after thread, in the last few days has been nothing but attacking opposing posters rather than their opinions or data/links. I know this has always happened, but it feels a lot fucking worse this past few days. Am I the only one seeing this? Five forum bans to date for attaching links to substantiate anything I’ve posted. Tedious. Clearly mods gate never had to submit a piece of academic writing. " just give the headline and source. We can find the rest. The barge one is a good example including Swedish sources ! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"That's the nature of political debate. Water off a duck's back tbh. Indeed, you need a thick skin for political banter, there are so many with flawed and erroneous opinions, but ho-hum it's all part of free speech.
What I've witnessed isn't banter.
Mostly, it's verbally attacking people rather than their opinions or sources.
Are you genuinely unaware that this is how you behave on the forums?
As you mentioned I had to stop engaging with you. I'd asked you politely several times to stop the personal attacks. And the attacks intensified, rarely discussed the topic or what the person has posted, and just attacked the individual.
So it's weird seeing you calling out the behaviour that you so often lead the charge on.
I am genuinely unaware yeah. I never set out to attack anyone personally.
I actually thought you stopped engaging with me because you kept embarrassing yourself
As for attacking other people, not one other person has complained about how I've engaged with them.
Liar liar pants on fire
Have you made a complaint? Would you like to make one?
"In the past I have had to moan at you. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"That's the nature of political debate. Water off a duck's back tbh. Indeed, you need a thick skin for political banter, there are so many with flawed and erroneous opinions, but ho-hum it's all part of free speech.
What I've witnessed isn't banter.
Mostly, it's verbally attacking people rather than their opinions or sources.
Are you genuinely unaware that this is how you behave on the forums?
As you mentioned I had to stop engaging with you. I'd asked you politely several times to stop the personal attacks. And the attacks intensified, rarely discussed the topic or what the person has posted, and just attacked the individual.
So it's weird seeing you calling out the behaviour that you so often lead the charge on.
I am genuinely unaware yeah. I never set out to attack anyone personally.
I actually thought you stopped engaging with me because you kept embarrassing yourself
As for attacking other people, not one other person has complained about how I've engaged with them. "Not strictly true Feisty. I have been on the receiving end more than once 
Generally when confronted with it you just beg to differ.
Not saying I have not done it from time to time too.
But you have definitely been guilty of ad hominem  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"That's the nature of political debate. Water off a duck's back tbh. Indeed, you need a thick skin for political banter, there are so many with flawed and erroneous opinions, but ho-hum it's all part of free speech.
What I've witnessed isn't banter.
Mostly, it's verbally attacking people rather than their opinions or sources.
Are you genuinely unaware that this is how you behave on the forums?
As you mentioned I had to stop engaging with you. I'd asked you politely several times to stop the personal attacks. And the attacks intensified, rarely discussed the topic or what the person has posted, and just attacked the individual.
So it's weird seeing you calling out the behaviour that you so often lead the charge on.
I am genuinely unaware yeah. I never set out to attack anyone personally.
I actually thought you stopped engaging with me because you kept embarrassing yourself
As for attacking other people, not one other person has complained about how I've engaged with them.
Not strictly true Feisty. I have been on the receiving end more than once
Generally when confronted with it you just beg to differ.
Not saying I have not done it from time to time too.
But you have definitely been guilty of ad hominem "We have attacked each other at times. I'm not saying I haven't done it, you're big enough to accept that it isn't one way, hence, not complaining. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"That's the nature of political debate. Water off a duck's back tbh. Indeed, you need a thick skin for political banter, there are so many with flawed and erroneous opinions, but ho-hum it's all part of free speech.
What I've witnessed isn't banter.
Mostly, it's verbally attacking people rather than their opinions or sources.
Are you genuinely unaware that this is how you behave on the forums?
As you mentioned I had to stop engaging with you. I'd asked you politely several times to stop the personal attacks. And the attacks intensified, rarely discussed the topic or what the person has posted, and just attacked the individual.
So it's weird seeing you calling out the behaviour that you so often lead the charge on.
I am genuinely unaware yeah. I never set out to attack anyone personally.
I actually thought you stopped engaging with me because you kept embarrassing yourself
As for attacking other people, not one other person has complained about how I've engaged with them.
Liar liar pants on fire
Have you made a complaint? Would you like to make one?
In the past I have had to moan at you. "Apparently | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"That's the nature of political debate. Water off a duck's back tbh. Indeed, you need a thick skin for political banter, there are so many with flawed and erroneous opinions, but ho-hum it's all part of free speech.
What I've witnessed isn't banter.
Mostly, it's verbally attacking people rather than their opinions or sources.
Are you genuinely unaware that this is how you behave on the forums?
As you mentioned I had to stop engaging with you. I'd asked you politely several times to stop the personal attacks. And the attacks intensified, rarely discussed the topic or what the person has posted, and just attacked the individual.
So it's weird seeing you calling out the behaviour that you so often lead the charge on.
I am genuinely unaware yeah. I never set out to attack anyone personally.
I actually thought you stopped engaging with me because you kept embarrassing yourself
As for attacking other people, not one other person has complained about how I've engaged with them.
Not strictly true Feisty. I have been on the receiving end more than once
Generally when confronted with it you just beg to differ.
Not saying I have not done it from time to time too.
But you have definitely been guilty of ad hominem
We have attacked each other at times. I'm not saying I haven't done it, you're big enough to accept that it isn't one way, hence, not complaining. "Yeah you and me have both been asshats from time-to-time (you more than me of course ) but your indignation and need to start a thread is rather ironic.
Saying that, it would be good to see a reduction in ad hominem but I doubt it will happen in these forums ever! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"That's the nature of political debate. Water off a duck's back tbh. Indeed, you need a thick skin for political banter, there are so many with flawed and erroneous opinions, but ho-hum it's all part of free speech.
What I've witnessed isn't banter.
Mostly, it's verbally attacking people rather than their opinions or sources.
Are you genuinely unaware that this is how you behave on the forums?
As you mentioned I had to stop engaging with you. I'd asked you politely several times to stop the personal attacks. And the attacks intensified, rarely discussed the topic or what the person has posted, and just attacked the individual.
So it's weird seeing you calling out the behaviour that you so often lead the charge on.
I am genuinely unaware yeah. I never set out to attack anyone personally.
I actually thought you stopped engaging with me because you kept embarrassing yourself
As for attacking other people, not one other person has complained about how I've engaged with them.
Not strictly true Feisty. I have been on the receiving end more than once
Generally when confronted with it you just beg to differ.
Not saying I have not done it from time to time too.
But you have definitely been guilty of ad hominem
We have attacked each other at times. I'm not saying I haven't done it, you're big enough to accept that it isn't one way, hence, not complaining.
Yeah you and me have both been asshats from time-to-time (you more than me of course ) but your indignation and need to start a thread is rather ironic.
Saying that, it would be good to see a reduction in ad hominem but I doubt it will happen in these forums ever!"My OP was quite specific in saying it has been thread after thread the last few days. Mainly by just 2 or 3 posters but I wasn't gonna call them out publicly, I'll get banned. I don't see any indignation (I'm not saying it's unfair) nor irony (I don't attack people thread after thread). | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"That's the nature of political debate. Water off a duck's back tbh. Indeed, you need a thick skin for political banter, there are so many with flawed and erroneous opinions, but ho-hum it's all part of free speech.
What I've witnessed isn't banter.
Mostly, it's verbally attacking people rather than their opinions or sources.
Are you genuinely unaware that this is how you behave on the forums?
As you mentioned I had to stop engaging with you. I'd asked you politely several times to stop the personal attacks. And the attacks intensified, rarely discussed the topic or what the person has posted, and just attacked the individual.
So it's weird seeing you calling out the behaviour that you so often lead the charge on.
I am genuinely unaware yeah. I never set out to attack anyone personally.
I actually thought you stopped engaging with me because you kept embarrassing yourself
As for attacking other people, not one other person has complained about how I've engaged with them.
Not strictly true Feisty. I have been on the receiving end more than once
Generally when confronted with it you just beg to differ.
Not saying I have not done it from time to time too.
But you have definitely been guilty of ad hominem
We have attacked each other at times. I'm not saying I haven't done it, you're big enough to accept that it isn't one way, hence, not complaining.
Yeah you and me have both been asshats from time-to-time (you more than me of course ) but your indignation and need to start a thread is rather ironic.
Saying that, it would be good to see a reduction in ad hominem but I doubt it will happen in these forums ever!
My OP was quite specific in saying it has been thread after thread the last few days. Mainly by just 2 or 3 posters but I wasn't gonna call them out publicly, I'll get banned.
I don't see any indignation (I'm not saying it's unfair) nor irony (I don't attack people thread after thread)."That’s you begging to differ | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" (I don't attack people thread after thread)." This has not been my experience. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"That's the nature of political debate. Water off a duck's back tbh. Indeed, you need a thick skin for political banter, there are so many with flawed and erroneous opinions, but ho-hum it's all part of free speech.
What I've witnessed isn't banter.
Mostly, it's verbally attacking people rather than their opinions or sources.
Are you genuinely unaware that this is how you behave on the forums?
As you mentioned I had to stop engaging with you. I'd asked you politely several times to stop the personal attacks. And the attacks intensified, rarely discussed the topic or what the person has posted, and just attacked the individual.
So it's weird seeing you calling out the behaviour that you so often lead the charge on.
I am genuinely unaware yeah. I never set out to attack anyone personally.
I actually thought you stopped engaging with me because you kept embarrassing yourself
As for attacking other people, not one other person has complained about how I've engaged with them.
Not strictly true Feisty. I have been on the receiving end more than once
Generally when confronted with it you just beg to differ.
Not saying I have not done it from time to time too.
But you have definitely been guilty of ad hominem
We have attacked each other at times. I'm not saying I haven't done it, you're big enough to accept that it isn't one way, hence, not complaining.
Yeah you and me have both been asshats from time-to-time (you more than me of course ) but your indignation and need to start a thread is rather ironic.
Saying that, it would be good to see a reduction in ad hominem but I doubt it will happen in these forums ever!
My OP was quite specific in saying it has been thread after thread the last few days. Mainly by just 2 or 3 posters but I wasn't gonna call them out publicly, I'll get banned.
I don't see any indignation (I'm not saying it's unfair) nor irony (I don't attack people thread after thread)."Have I missed some drama during my days away - cool | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" (I don't attack people thread after thread). This has not been my experience. " I think 'prove it' usually works here | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" (I don't attack people thread after thread). This has not been my experience. I think 'prove it' usually works here "Excuse me but you've constantly attacked me before. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" (I don't attack people thread after thread). This has not been my experience. I think 'prove it' usually works here
Excuse me but you've constantly attacked me before."Do that makes four so far! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" (I don't attack people thread after thread). This has not been my experience. I think 'prove it' usually works here "No need to prove it. We both know how you have behaved, even if we have different perspectives on it. Your posts are often the epitome of the theme of this thread. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"That's the nature of political debate. Water off a duck's back tbh. Indeed, you need a thick skin for political banter, there are so many with flawed and erroneous opinions, but ho-hum it's all part of free speech.
What I've witnessed isn't banter.
Mostly, it's verbally attacking people rather than their opinions or sources.
Are you genuinely unaware that this is how you behave on the forums?
As you mentioned I had to stop engaging with you. I'd asked you politely several times to stop the personal attacks. And the attacks intensified, rarely discussed the topic or what the person has posted, and just attacked the individual.
So it's weird seeing you calling out the behaviour that you so often lead the charge on. " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"That's the nature of political debate. Water off a duck's back tbh. Indeed, you need a thick skin for political banter, there are so many with flawed and erroneous opinions, but ho-hum it's all part of free speech.
What I've witnessed isn't banter.
Mostly, it's verbally attacking people rather than their opinions or sources.
Are you genuinely unaware that this is how you behave on the forums?
As you mentioned I had to stop engaging with you. I'd asked you politely several times to stop the personal attacks. And the attacks intensified, rarely discussed the topic or what the person has posted, and just attacked the individual.
So it's weird seeing you calling out the behaviour that you so often lead the charge on.
I am genuinely unaware yeah. I never set out to attack anyone personally.
I actually thought you stopped engaging with me because you kept embarrassing yourself
As for attacking other people, not one other person has complained about how I've engaged with them. "Untrue. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"make it a BDSM orgy. that way everyone can keep attacking each other while they shag " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It looks like I have a lot of people who would like to complain about how I interact with then. All coming out of the woodwork together, where have you all been? " Crikey, short memory. Or is it a case of last memory in, first out? Alzheimer's. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It looks like I have a lot of people who would like to complain about how I interact with then. All coming out of the woodwork together, where have you all been? Crikey, short memory. Or is it a case of last memory in, first out? Alzheimer's." This is the kind of thing you would complain about. Imagine me speaking about a brain condition to you. Give your head a wobble. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It looks like I have a lot of people who would like to complain about how I interact with then. All coming out of the woodwork together, where have you all been? " Only because you started this thread. Pretty confident everyone who has picked you up on the irony has called you out across multiple threads in the past when you have done it to them. None of these posters come across as fragile wall flowers to me! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It looks like I have a lot of people who would like to complain about how I interact with then. All coming out of the woodwork together, where have you all been? Only because you started this thread. Pretty confident everyone who has picked you up on the irony has called you out across multiple threads in the past when you have done it to them. None of these posters come across as fragile wall flowers to me!" A couple of then are definitely fragile
As stated, I don't see the irony. This thread was very specific about it being almost every thread over the last few days.
I will give people shit and they will give it back. That isn't what the thread is about. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It looks like I have a lot of people who would like to complain about how I interact with then. All coming out of the woodwork together, where have you all been? Crikey, short memory. Or is it a case of last memory in, first out? Alzheimer's. This is the kind of thing you would complain about. Imagine me speaking about a brain condition to you. Give your head a wobble. " I call my disability a wobbly brain.
In the meantime, how can you think I'm insulting you personally when referencing a disease that has the exact symptoms I mentioned.
Are you choosing to be insulted where no insult exists?
I have many dementia in my family, both sides. I am incredibly high risk, so I do things that lower that risk. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It looks like I have a lot of people who would like to complain about how I interact with then. All coming out of the woodwork together, where have you all been? Crikey, short memory. Or is it a case of last memory in, first out? Alzheimer's. This is the kind of thing you would complain about. Imagine me speaking about a brain condition to you. Give your head a wobble. I call my disability a wobbly brain.
In the meantime, how can you think I'm insulting you personally when referencing a disease that has the exact symptoms I mentioned.
Are you choosing to be insulted where no insult exists?
I have many dementia in my family, both sides. I am incredibly high risk, so I do things that lower that risk. "And you do not know me well enough to know what I complain about.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It looks like I have a lot of people who would like to complain about how I interact with then. All coming out of the woodwork together, where have you all been? Crikey, short memory. Or is it a case of last memory in, first out? Alzheimer's. This is the kind of thing you would complain about. Imagine me speaking about a brain condition to you. Give your head a wobble. I call my disability a wobbly brain.
In the meantime, how can you think I'm insulting you personally when referencing a disease that has the exact symptoms I mentioned.
Are you choosing to be insulted where no insult exists?
I have many dementia in my family, both sides. I am incredibly high risk, so I do things that lower that risk. "I'm don't feel insulted. I'm glad you've confirmed we're allowed to call out brain issues though. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It looks like I have a lot of people who would like to complain about how I interact with then. All coming out of the woodwork together, where have you all been? Only because you started this thread. Pretty confident everyone who has picked you up on the irony has called you out across multiple threads in the past when you have done it to them. None of these posters come across as fragile wall flowers to me! A couple of then are definitely fragile
As stated, I don't see the irony. This thread was very specific about it being almost every thread over the last few days.
"Your behaviour has been like this for months, years, I don't know how long you've been on here. Much more than just the last few days. " I will give people shit and they will give it back. That isn't what the thread is about. " Your thread is about: "Thread after thread, in the last few days has been nothing but attacking opposing posters rather than their opinions or data/links.". Which is exactly your behaviour, to a T. Consistently for a longer period. No saying you're the only one btw, we all have our moments. But to call it out, and not see the irony is surprising. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It looks like I have a lot of people who would like to complain about how I interact with then. All coming out of the woodwork together, where have you all been? Only because you started this thread. Pretty confident everyone who has picked you up on the irony has called you out across multiple threads in the past when you have done it to them. None of these posters come across as fragile wall flowers to me! A couple of then are definitely fragile
As stated, I don't see the irony. This thread was very specific about it being almost every thread over the last few days.
Your behaviour has been like this for months, years, I don't know how long you've been on here. Much more than just the last few days.
I will give people shit and they will give it back. That isn't what the thread is about.
Your thread is about:
"Thread after thread, in the last few days has been nothing but attacking opposing posters rather than their opinions or data/links.".
Which is exactly your behaviour, to a T. Consistently for a longer period. No saying you're the only one btw, we all have our moments. But to call it out, and not see the irony is surprising. "To say that I attack people thread after thread is fucking nonsense. I certainly do attack your 'people who don't believe in science' bollocks. I've asked you on numerous occasions to discuss science but you just resort to 'I understand science'. Why don't we have a climate science discussion right now? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It looks like I have a lot of people who would like to complain about how I interact with then. All coming out of the woodwork together, where have you all been? Only because you started this thread. Pretty confident everyone who has picked you up on the irony has called you out across multiple threads in the past when you have done it to them. None of these posters come across as fragile wall flowers to me! A couple of then are definitely fragile
As stated, I don't see the irony. This thread was very specific about it being almost every thread over the last few days.
I will give people shit and they will give it back. That isn't what the thread is about. "You defo go down the ad hominem from time-to-time without a doubt. So starting a thread complaining others do it is completely ironic. You say/imply it has increased “thread after thread” but I am not sure that is the case. It has always been there. I can’t name names but dome posters were notorious for it. I freely admit on occasion I have done it. There is one poster (absent of late as they develop a new persona) who I regularly take the piss out of. You admit you have done it but now seems a bit butt hurt that a few people have said “well yeah actually you do it!” All you can do now is chuckle and roll with it and accept that it is possible within the complex human condition to be a contradiction snd hypocrite. It doesn’t make the point of your OP invalid. It is true. But there IS irony that YOU started it. Maybe embrace the irony | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It looks like I have a lot of people who would like to complain about how I interact with then. All coming out of the woodwork together, where have you all been? Only because you started this thread. Pretty confident everyone who has picked you up on the irony has called you out across multiple threads in the past when you have done it to them. None of these posters come across as fragile wall flowers to me! A couple of then are definitely fragile
As stated, I don't see the irony. This thread was very specific about it being almost every thread over the last few days.
Your behaviour has been like this for months, years, I don't know how long you've been on here. Much more than just the last few days.
I will give people shit and they will give it back. That isn't what the thread is about.
Your thread is about:
"Thread after thread, in the last few days has been nothing but attacking opposing posters rather than their opinions or data/links.".
Which is exactly your behaviour, to a T. Consistently for a longer period. No saying you're the only one btw, we all have our moments. But to call it out, and not see the irony is surprising.
To say that I attack people thread after thread is fucking nonsense. I certainly do attack your 'people who don't believe in science' bollocks. I've asked you on numerous occasions to discuss science but you just resort to 'I understand science'.
Why don't we have a climate science discussion right now?"Exhibit A. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Oceans of Hostile Attribution Bias here, lol. It's so like being back in year 6 Applied Sociology Lecture. "Are you saying resorting to ad hominem is not hostile intent? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It looks like I have a lot of people who would like to complain about how I interact with then. All coming out of the woodwork together, where have you all been? Only because you started this thread. Pretty confident everyone who has picked you up on the irony has called you out across multiple threads in the past when you have done it to them. None of these posters come across as fragile wall flowers to me! A couple of then are definitely fragile
As stated, I don't see the irony. This thread was very specific about it being almost every thread over the last few days.
I will give people shit and they will give it back. That isn't what the thread is about.
You defo go down the ad hominem from time-to-time without a doubt. So starting a thread complaining others do it is completely ironic.
You say/imply it has increased “thread after thread” but I am not sure that is the case. It has always been there. I can’t name names but dome posters were notorious for it.
I freely admit on occasion I have done it. There is one poster (absent of late as they develop a new persona) who I regularly take the piss out of.
You admit you have done it but now seems a bit butt hurt that a few people have said “well yeah actually you do it!”
All you can do now is chuckle and roll with it and accept that it is possible within the complex human condition to be a contradiction snd hypocrite. It doesn’t make the point of your OP invalid. It is true. But there IS irony that YOU started it. Maybe embrace the irony "This is fucking hard work. From time to time is not the same as thread after thread. I'm not butt hurt, I disagree with your understanding of a thread I started. Is butt hurt personal, I'm not sure? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It looks like I have a lot of people who would like to complain about how I interact with then. All coming out of the woodwork together, where have you all been? Only because you started this thread. Pretty confident everyone who has picked you up on the irony has called you out across multiple threads in the past when you have done it to them. None of these posters come across as fragile wall flowers to me! A couple of then are definitely fragile
As stated, I don't see the irony. This thread was very specific about it being almost every thread over the last few days.
Your behaviour has been like this for months, years, I don't know how long you've been on here. Much more than just the last few days.
I will give people shit and they will give it back. That isn't what the thread is about.
Your thread is about:
"Thread after thread, in the last few days has been nothing but attacking opposing posters rather than their opinions or data/links.".
Which is exactly your behaviour, to a T. Consistently for a longer period. No saying you're the only one btw, we all have our moments. But to call it out, and not see the irony is surprising.
To say that I attack people thread after thread is fucking nonsense. I certainly do attack your 'people who don't believe in science' bollocks. I've asked you on numerous occasions to discuss science but you just resort to 'I understand science'.
Why don't we have a climate science discussion right now?
Exhibit A.
"Thats not a personal attack Johnny, its attacking your stance, no exhibit. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Oceans of Hostile Attribution Bias here, lol. It's so like being back in year 6 Applied Sociology Lecture.
Are you saying resorting to ad hominem is not hostile intent? "I'm saying: Oceans of Hostile Attribution Bias here, lol. It's so like being back in year 6 Applied Sociology Lecture. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It looks like I have a lot of people who would like to complain about how I interact with then. All coming out of the woodwork together, where have you all been? Only because you started this thread. Pretty confident everyone who has picked you up on the irony has called you out across multiple threads in the past when you have done it to them. None of these posters come across as fragile wall flowers to me! A couple of then are definitely fragile
As stated, I don't see the irony. This thread was very specific about it being almost every thread over the last few days.
I will give people shit and they will give it back. That isn't what the thread is about.
You defo go down the ad hominem from time-to-time without a doubt. So starting a thread complaining others do it is completely ironic.
You say/imply it has increased “thread after thread” but I am not sure that is the case. It has always been there. I can’t name names but dome posters were notorious for it.
I freely admit on occasion I have done it. There is one poster (absent of late as they develop a new persona) who I regularly take the piss out of.
You admit you have done it but now seems a bit butt hurt that a few people have said “well yeah actually you do it!”
All you can do now is chuckle and roll with it and accept that it is possible within the complex human condition to be a contradiction snd hypocrite. It doesn’t make the point of your OP invalid. It is true. But there IS irony that YOU started it. Maybe embrace the irony
This is fucking hard work.
From time to time is not the same as thread after thread.
I'm not butt hurt, I disagree with your understanding of a thread I started. Is butt hurt personal, I'm not sure?"And there again is the “I beg to differ”. Five people, FIVE, have now pointed out that you are known to attack people/ad hominem. It doesn’t matter if it is time-to-time for it to still be ironic that you started this thread. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It looks like I have a lot of people who would like to complain about how I interact with then. All coming out of the woodwork together, where have you all been? Only because you started this thread. Pretty confident everyone who has picked you up on the irony has called you out across multiple threads in the past when you have done it to them. None of these posters come across as fragile wall flowers to me! A couple of then are definitely fragile
As stated, I don't see the irony. This thread was very specific about it being almost every thread over the last few days.
Your behaviour has been like this for months, years, I don't know how long you've been on here. Much more than just the last few days.
I will give people shit and they will give it back. That isn't what the thread is about.
Your thread is about:
"Thread after thread, in the last few days has been nothing but attacking opposing posters rather than their opinions or data/links.".
Which is exactly your behaviour, to a T. Consistently for a longer period. No saying you're the only one btw, we all have our moments. But to call it out, and not see the irony is surprising.
To say that I attack people thread after thread is fucking nonsense. I certainly do attack your 'people who don't believe in science' bollocks. I've asked you on numerous occasions to discuss science but you just resort to 'I understand science'.
Why don't we have a climate science discussion right now?
Exhibit A.
Thats not a personal attack Johnny, its attacking your stance, no exhibit. "You didn't like me pointing out that you're the biggest culprit of the behaviour described in the OP. So you got personal, brought up some old interaction I have no recollection of, and tried to paint me as something I'm not, put words in my mouth out of context. This is why I simply replied with "exhibit A". You really don't see the irony of your OP? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It looks like I have a lot of people who would like to complain about how I interact with then. All coming out of the woodwork together, where have you all been? Only because you started this thread. Pretty confident everyone who has picked you up on the irony has called you out across multiple threads in the past when you have done it to them. None of these posters come across as fragile wall flowers to me! A couple of then are definitely fragile
As stated, I don't see the irony. This thread was very specific about it being almost every thread over the last few days.
I will give people shit and they will give it back. That isn't what the thread is about.
You defo go down the ad hominem from time-to-time without a doubt. So starting a thread complaining others do it is completely ironic.
You say/imply it has increased “thread after thread” but I am not sure that is the case. It has always been there. I can’t name names but dome posters were notorious for it.
I freely admit on occasion I have done it. There is one poster (absent of late as they develop a new persona) who I regularly take the piss out of.
You admit you have done it but now seems a bit butt hurt that a few people have said “well yeah actually you do it!”
All you can do now is chuckle and roll with it and accept that it is possible within the complex human condition to be a contradiction snd hypocrite. It doesn’t make the point of your OP invalid. It is true. But there IS irony that YOU started it. Maybe embrace the irony
This is fucking hard work.
From time to time is not the same as thread after thread.
I'm not butt hurt, I disagree with your understanding of a thread I started. Is butt hurt personal, I'm not sure?
And there again is the “I beg to differ”.
Five people, FIVE, have now pointed out that you are known to attack people/ad hominem. It doesn’t matter if it is time-to-time for it to still be ironic that you started this thread. "So now I'm not allowed to beg to differ? Usually that's a way of saying we hold different opinions and neither will back down. That's not a bad thing. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Oceans of Hostile Attribution Bias here, lol. It's so like being back in year 6 Applied Sociology Lecture.
Are you saying resorting to ad hominem is not hostile intent?
I'm saying:
Oceans of Hostile Attribution Bias here, lol.
It's so like being back in year 6 Applied Sociology Lecture.
"But without further explanation that will only seem to mean something in your head then? Who is it in your opinion that is interpretting the behaviour of others in various situations as threatening, aggressive, or both, or who is wondering about the cause of other people's behaviours? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It looks like I have a lot of people who would like to complain about how I interact with then. All coming out of the woodwork together, where have you all been? Only because you started this thread. Pretty confident everyone who has picked you up on the irony has called you out across multiple threads in the past when you have done it to them. None of these posters come across as fragile wall flowers to me! A couple of then are definitely fragile
As stated, I don't see the irony. This thread was very specific about it being almost every thread over the last few days.
Your behaviour has been like this for months, years, I don't know how long you've been on here. Much more than just the last few days.
I will give people shit and they will give it back. That isn't what the thread is about.
Your thread is about:
"Thread after thread, in the last few days has been nothing but attacking opposing posters rather than their opinions or data/links.".
Which is exactly your behaviour, to a T. Consistently for a longer period. No saying you're the only one btw, we all have our moments. But to call it out, and not see the irony is surprising.
To say that I attack people thread after thread is fucking nonsense. I certainly do attack your 'people who don't believe in science' bollocks. I've asked you on numerous occasions to discuss science but you just resort to 'I understand science'.
Why don't we have a climate science discussion right now?
Exhibit A.
Thats not a personal attack Johnny, its attacking your stance, no exhibit.
You didn't like me pointing out that you're the biggest culprit of the behaviour described in the OP. So you got personal, brought up some old interaction I have no recollection of, and tried to paint me as something I'm not, put words in my mouth out of context.
This is why I simply replied with "exhibit A".
You really don't see the irony of your OP? "I haven't got personal nor tried to put words in your mouth. I'm the 'biggest culprit'? That one really is fucking hilarious | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It looks like I have a lot of people who would like to complain about how I interact with then. All coming out of the woodwork together, where have you all been? Only because you started this thread. Pretty confident everyone who has picked you up on the irony has called you out across multiple threads in the past when you have done it to them. None of these posters come across as fragile wall flowers to me! A couple of then are definitely fragile
As stated, I don't see the irony. This thread was very specific about it being almost every thread over the last few days.
I will give people shit and they will give it back. That isn't what the thread is about.
You defo go down the ad hominem from time-to-time without a doubt. So starting a thread complaining others do it is completely ironic.
You say/imply it has increased “thread after thread” but I am not sure that is the case. It has always been there. I can’t name names but dome posters were notorious for it.
I freely admit on occasion I have done it. There is one poster (absent of late as they develop a new persona) who I regularly take the piss out of.
You admit you have done it but now seems a bit butt hurt that a few people have said “well yeah actually you do it!”
All you can do now is chuckle and roll with it and accept that it is possible within the complex human condition to be a contradiction snd hypocrite. It doesn’t make the point of your OP invalid. It is true. But there IS irony that YOU started it. Maybe embrace the irony
This is fucking hard work.
From time to time is not the same as thread after thread.
I'm not butt hurt, I disagree with your understanding of a thread I started. Is butt hurt personal, I'm not sure?"As soon as I saw who the O.P is and the thread topic I almost spat out my cruncrynut. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It looks like I have a lot of people who would like to complain about how I interact with then. All coming out of the woodwork together, where have you all been? Only because you started this thread. Pretty confident everyone who has picked you up on the irony has called you out across multiple threads in the past when you have done it to them. None of these posters come across as fragile wall flowers to me! A couple of then are definitely fragile
As stated, I don't see the irony. This thread was very specific about it being almost every thread over the last few days.
I will give people shit and they will give it back. That isn't what the thread is about.
You defo go down the ad hominem from time-to-time without a doubt. So starting a thread complaining others do it is completely ironic.
You say/imply it has increased “thread after thread” but I am not sure that is the case. It has always been there. I can’t name names but dome posters were notorious for it.
I freely admit on occasion I have done it. There is one poster (absent of late as they develop a new persona) who I regularly take the piss out of.
You admit you have done it but now seems a bit butt hurt that a few people have said “well yeah actually you do it!”
All you can do now is chuckle and roll with it and accept that it is possible within the complex human condition to be a contradiction snd hypocrite. It doesn’t make the point of your OP invalid. It is true. But there IS irony that YOU started it. Maybe embrace the irony
This is fucking hard work.
From time to time is not the same as thread after thread.
I'm not butt hurt, I disagree with your understanding of a thread I started. Is butt hurt personal, I'm not sure?
And there again is the “I beg to differ”.
Five people, FIVE, have now pointed out that you are known to attack people/ad hominem. It doesn’t matter if it is time-to-time for it to still be ironic that you started this thread.
So now I'm not allowed to beg to differ? Usually that's a way of saying we hold different opinions and neither will back down. That's not a bad thing. "You’re getting defensive now. I wouldn’t dream of telling you how to behave or what you can and cannot do. Earlier in the thread I pointed out your modus operandi includes ad hominem, being called out, then a defence of a “I beg to differ”. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It looks like I have a lot of people who would like to complain about how I interact with then. All coming out of the woodwork together, where have you all been? Only because you started this thread. Pretty confident everyone who has picked you up on the irony has called you out across multiple threads in the past when you have done it to them. None of these posters come across as fragile wall flowers to me! A couple of then are definitely fragile
As stated, I don't see the irony. This thread was very specific about it being almost every thread over the last few days.
I will give people shit and they will give it back. That isn't what the thread is about.
You defo go down the ad hominem from time-to-time without a doubt. So starting a thread complaining others do it is completely ironic.
You say/imply it has increased “thread after thread” but I am not sure that is the case. It has always been there. I can’t name names but dome posters were notorious for it.
I freely admit on occasion I have done it. There is one poster (absent of late as they develop a new persona) who I regularly take the piss out of.
You admit you have done it but now seems a bit butt hurt that a few people have said “well yeah actually you do it!”
All you can do now is chuckle and roll with it and accept that it is possible within the complex human condition to be a contradiction snd hypocrite. It doesn’t make the point of your OP invalid. It is true. But there IS irony that YOU started it. Maybe embrace the irony
This is fucking hard work.
From time to time is not the same as thread after thread.
I'm not butt hurt, I disagree with your understanding of a thread I started. Is butt hurt personal, I'm not sure?
And there again is the “I beg to differ”.
Five people, FIVE, have now pointed out that you are known to attack people/ad hominem. It doesn’t matter if it is time-to-time for it to still be ironic that you started this thread.
So now I'm not allowed to beg to differ? Usually that's a way of saying we hold different opinions and neither will back down. That's not a bad thing.
You’re getting defensive now. I wouldn’t dream of telling you how to behave or what you can and cannot do. Earlier in the thread I pointed out your modus operandi includes ad hominem, being called out, then a defence of a “I beg to differ”. "I'm not getting defensive, you're using 'I beg to differ' as a way to close me down. I said in the OP 'I know this has always happened but it feels worse' People are free to disagree and say it isn't any worse, you know, actually answer the question posed. It turns out a few have just used the thread to attack me instead. Surprise that. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Oceans of Hostile Attribution Bias here, lol. It's so like being back in year 6 Applied Sociology Lecture.
Are you saying resorting to ad hominem is not hostile intent?
I'm saying:
Oceans of Hostile Attribution Bias here, lol.
It's so like being back in year 6 Applied Sociology Lecture.
But without further explanation that will only seem to mean something in your head then?
Who is it in your opinion that is interpretting the behaviour of others in various situations as threatening, aggressive, or both, or who is wondering about the cause of other people's behaviours?"Hostile Attribution Bias has a particular and well understood sociological meaning. As I passed Sociology to a national standard. I'm happy that my understanding is in concert with that of those who qualified my tested understanding of it. Concordia fulfilled. As the forum doesn't allow for calling people out - I'll leave the second part of your question to you to decide. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It looks like I have a lot of people who would like to complain about how I interact with then. All coming out of the woodwork together, where have you all been? Only because you started this thread. Pretty confident everyone who has picked you up on the irony has called you out across multiple threads in the past when you have done it to them. None of these posters come across as fragile wall flowers to me! A couple of then are definitely fragile
As stated, I don't see the irony. This thread was very specific about it being almost every thread over the last few days.
I will give people shit and they will give it back. That isn't what the thread is about.
You defo go down the ad hominem from time-to-time without a doubt. So starting a thread complaining others do it is completely ironic.
You say/imply it has increased “thread after thread” but I am not sure that is the case. It has always been there. I can’t name names but dome posters were notorious for it.
I freely admit on occasion I have done it. There is one poster (absent of late as they develop a new persona) who I regularly take the piss out of.
You admit you have done it but now seems a bit butt hurt that a few people have said “well yeah actually you do it!”
All you can do now is chuckle and roll with it and accept that it is possible within the complex human condition to be a contradiction snd hypocrite. It doesn’t make the point of your OP invalid. It is true. But there IS irony that YOU started it. Maybe embrace the irony
This is fucking hard work.
From time to time is not the same as thread after thread.
I'm not butt hurt, I disagree with your understanding of a thread I started. Is butt hurt personal, I'm not sure?
And there again is the “I beg to differ”.
Five people, FIVE, have now pointed out that you are known to attack people/ad hominem. It doesn’t matter if it is time-to-time for it to still be ironic that you started this thread.
So now I'm not allowed to beg to differ? Usually that's a way of saying we hold different opinions and neither will back down. That's not a bad thing.
You’re getting defensive now. I wouldn’t dream of telling you how to behave or what you can and cannot do. Earlier in the thread I pointed out your modus operandi includes ad hominem, being called out, then a defence of a “I beg to differ”.
I'm not getting defensive, you're using 'I beg to differ' as a way to close me down.
I said in the OP 'I know this has always happened but it feels worse'
People are free to disagree and say it isn't any worse, you know, actually answer the question posed. It turns out a few have just used the thread to attack me instead. Surprise that. "Hmmm a bit like when a certain poster (me) complained about pile ons then got called out by another poster (you) for sometimes being part of a pile on which them led to an extensive discussion about what actually constituted a pile on. I think I begged to differ with you LOL
You can’t start a thread complaining about certain behaviour (or an increase in said behaviour) and then get upset when five people (so far) point out that the behaviour you are complaining about is something you regularly do yourself.
Just accept and admit to the irony and say “but nonetheless, should we blah blah?”
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It looks like I have a lot of people who would like to complain about how I interact with then. All coming out of the woodwork together, where have you all been? Crikey, short memory. Or is it a case of last memory in, first out? Alzheimer's. This is the kind of thing you would complain about. Imagine me speaking about a brain condition to you. Give your head a wobble. I call my disability a wobbly brain.
In the meantime, how can you think I'm insulting you personally when referencing a disease that has the exact symptoms I mentioned.
Are you choosing to be insulted where no insult exists?
I have many dementia in my family, both sides. I am incredibly high risk, so I do things that lower that risk.
I'm don't feel insulted. I'm glad you've confirmed we're allowed to call out brain issues though. "Not if the intention is a personal attack. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Oceans of Hostile Attribution Bias here, lol. It's so like being back in year 6 Applied Sociology Lecture.
Are you saying resorting to ad hominem is not hostile intent?
I'm saying:
Oceans of Hostile Attribution Bias here, lol.
It's so like being back in year 6 Applied Sociology Lecture.
But without further explanation that will only seem to mean something in your head then?
Who is it in your opinion that is interpretting the behaviour of others in various situations as threatening, aggressive, or both, or who is wondering about the cause of other people's behaviours?
Hostile Attribution Bias has a particular and well understood sociological meaning. As I passed Sociology to a national standard. I'm happy that my understanding is in concert with that of those who qualified my tested understanding of it. Concordia fulfilled.
As the forum doesn't allow for calling people out - I'll leave the second part of your question to you to decide.
"Oh you misunderstand my intent (ironically )
Was a genuine question to understand your point because I didn’t see what you were saying so wanted to understand. I never dispute anyone’s claimed credentials | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It looks like I have a lot of people who would like to complain about how I interact with then. All coming out of the woodwork together, where have you all been? Only because you started this thread. Pretty confident everyone who has picked you up on the irony has called you out across multiple threads in the past when you have done it to them. None of these posters come across as fragile wall flowers to me! A couple of then are definitely fragile
As stated, I don't see the irony. This thread was very specific about it being almost every thread over the last few days.
I will give people shit and they will give it back. That isn't what the thread is about.
You defo go down the ad hominem from time-to-time without a doubt. So starting a thread complaining others do it is completely ironic.
You say/imply it has increased “thread after thread” but I am not sure that is the case. It has always been there. I can’t name names but dome posters were notorious for it.
I freely admit on occasion I have done it. There is one poster (absent of late as they develop a new persona) who I regularly take the piss out of.
You admit you have done it but now seems a bit butt hurt that a few people have said “well yeah actually you do it!”
All you can do now is chuckle and roll with it and accept that it is possible within the complex human condition to be a contradiction snd hypocrite. It doesn’t make the point of your OP invalid. It is true. But there IS irony that YOU started it. Maybe embrace the irony
This is fucking hard work.
From time to time is not the same as thread after thread.
I'm not butt hurt, I disagree with your understanding of a thread I started. Is butt hurt personal, I'm not sure?
And there again is the “I beg to differ”.
Five people, FIVE, have now pointed out that you are known to attack people/ad hominem. It doesn’t matter if it is time-to-time for it to still be ironic that you started this thread.
So now I'm not allowed to beg to differ? Usually that's a way of saying we hold different opinions and neither will back down. That's not a bad thing.
You’re getting defensive now. I wouldn’t dream of telling you how to behave or what you can and cannot do. Earlier in the thread I pointed out your modus operandi includes ad hominem, being called out, then a defence of a “I beg to differ”.
I'm not getting defensive, you're using 'I beg to differ' as a way to close me down.
I said in the OP 'I know this has always happened but it feels worse'
People are free to disagree and say it isn't any worse, you know, actually answer the question posed. It turns out a few have just used the thread to attack me instead. Surprise that.
Hmmm a bit like when a certain poster (me) complained about pile ons then got called out by another poster (you) for sometimes being part of a pile on which them led to an extensive discussion about what actually constituted a pile on. I think I begged to differ with you LOL
You can’t start a thread complaining about certain behaviour (or an increase in said behaviour) and then get upset when five people (so far) point out that the behaviour you are complaining about is something you regularly do yourself.
Just accept and admit to the irony and say “but nonetheless, should we blah blah?”
"As I've already said, I'm not complaining. Nor am I upset. Nor am I butt hurt. Nor am I saying I've never done it. You seem to have made an awful lot of assumptions. I wrote a small synopsis and then asked a question. Not one person has answered the question. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It looks like I have a lot of people who would like to complain about how I interact with then. All coming out of the woodwork together, where have you all been? Crikey, short memory. Or is it a case of last memory in, first out? Alzheimer's. This is the kind of thing you would complain about. Imagine me speaking about a brain condition to you. Give your head a wobble. I call my disability a wobbly brain.
In the meantime, how can you think I'm insulting you personally when referencing a disease that has the exact symptoms I mentioned.
Are you choosing to be insulted where no insult exists?
I have many dementia in my family, both sides. I am incredibly high risk, so I do things that lower that risk.
I'm don't feel insulted. I'm glad you've confirmed we're allowed to call out brain issues though.
Not if the intention is a personal attack."Fair's fair | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Oceans of Hostile Attribution Bias here, lol. It's so like being back in year 6 Applied Sociology Lecture.
Are you saying resorting to ad hominem is not hostile intent?
I'm saying:
Oceans of Hostile Attribution Bias here, lol.
It's so like being back in year 6 Applied Sociology Lecture.
But without further explanation that will only seem to mean something in your head then?
Who is it in your opinion that is interpretting the behaviour of others in various situations as threatening, aggressive, or both, or who is wondering about the cause of other people's behaviours?
Hostile Attribution Bias has a particular and well understood sociological meaning. As I passed Sociology to a national standard. I'm happy that my understanding is in concert with that of those who qualified my tested understanding of it. Concordia fulfilled.
As the forum doesn't allow for calling people out - I'll leave the second part of your question to you to decide.
Oh you misunderstand my intent (ironically )
Was a genuine question to understand your point because I didn’t see what you were saying so wanted to understand. I never dispute anyone’s claimed credentials "******But without further explanation that will only seem to mean something in your head then?****** What I was saying, perhaps a little long-windedly, is that Hostile Attribution Bias means the same in my head as it would in the majority of people who know it's meaning - my bad, I suppose, for not accepting that a good many people wouldn't. As I know what it means - I would assume that others who know what it means, do too, lol. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It looks like I have a lot of people who would like to complain about how I interact with then. All coming out of the woodwork together, where have you all been? Only because you started this thread. Pretty confident everyone who has picked you up on the irony has called you out across multiple threads in the past when you have done it to them. None of these posters come across as fragile wall flowers to me! A couple of then are definitely fragile
As stated, I don't see the irony. This thread was very specific about it being almost every thread over the last few days.
I will give people shit and they will give it back. That isn't what the thread is about.
You defo go down the ad hominem from time-to-time without a doubt. So starting a thread complaining others do it is completely ironic.
You say/imply it has increased “thread after thread” but I am not sure that is the case. It has always been there. I can’t name names but dome posters were notorious for it.
I freely admit on occasion I have done it. There is one poster (absent of late as they develop a new persona) who I regularly take the piss out of.
You admit you have done it but now seems a bit butt hurt that a few people have said “well yeah actually you do it!”
All you can do now is chuckle and roll with it and accept that it is possible within the complex human condition to be a contradiction snd hypocrite. It doesn’t make the point of your OP invalid. It is true. But there IS irony that YOU started it. Maybe embrace the irony
This is fucking hard work.
From time to time is not the same as thread after thread.
I'm not butt hurt, I disagree with your understanding of a thread I started. Is butt hurt personal, I'm not sure?
And there again is the “I beg to differ”.
Five people, FIVE, have now pointed out that you are known to attack people/ad hominem. It doesn’t matter if it is time-to-time for it to still be ironic that you started this thread.
So now I'm not allowed to beg to differ? Usually that's a way of saying we hold different opinions and neither will back down. That's not a bad thing.
You’re getting defensive now. I wouldn’t dream of telling you how to behave or what you can and cannot do. Earlier in the thread I pointed out your modus operandi includes ad hominem, being called out, then a defence of a “I beg to differ”.
I'm not getting defensive, you're using 'I beg to differ' as a way to close me down.
I said in the OP 'I know this has always happened but it feels worse'
People are free to disagree and say it isn't any worse, you know, actually answer the question posed. It turns out a few have just used the thread to attack me instead. Surprise that.
Hmmm a bit like when a certain poster (me) complained about pile ons then got called out by another poster (you) for sometimes being part of a pile on which them led to an extensive discussion about what actually constituted a pile on. I think I begged to differ with you LOL
You can’t start a thread complaining about certain behaviour (or an increase in said behaviour) and then get upset when five people (so far) point out that the behaviour you are complaining about is something you regularly do yourself.
Just accept and admit to the irony and say “but nonetheless, should we blah blah?”
As I've already said, I'm not complaining. Nor am I upset. Nor am I butt hurt. Nor am I saying I've never done it.
You seem to have made an awful lot of assumptions.
I wrote a small synopsis and then asked a question. Not one person has answered the question.
"Okey dokey, you aren’t/weren’t upset. Cool. Love the irony of the thread. Actually one person did answer the OP in amongst all this. Me! I said I don’t see this as being particularly worse than in the past and it has always happened. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It looks like I have a lot of people who would like to complain about how I interact with then. All coming out of the woodwork together, where have you all been? Only because you started this thread. Pretty confident everyone who has picked you up on the irony has called you out across multiple threads in the past when you have done it to them. None of these posters come across as fragile wall flowers to me! A couple of then are definitely fragile
As stated, I don't see the irony. This thread was very specific about it being almost every thread over the last few days.
I will give people shit and they will give it back. That isn't what the thread is about.
You defo go down the ad hominem from time-to-time without a doubt. So starting a thread complaining others do it is completely ironic.
You say/imply it has increased “thread after thread” but I am not sure that is the case. It has always been there. I can’t name names but dome posters were notorious for it.
I freely admit on occasion I have done it. There is one poster (absent of late as they develop a new persona) who I regularly take the piss out of.
You admit you have done it but now seems a bit butt hurt that a few people have said “well yeah actually you do it!”
All you can do now is chuckle and roll with it and accept that it is possible within the complex human condition to be a contradiction snd hypocrite. It doesn’t make the point of your OP invalid. It is true. But there IS irony that YOU started it. Maybe embrace the irony
This is fucking hard work.
From time to time is not the same as thread after thread.
I'm not butt hurt, I disagree with your understanding of a thread I started. Is butt hurt personal, I'm not sure?
And there again is the “I beg to differ”.
Five people, FIVE, have now pointed out that you are known to attack people/ad hominem. It doesn’t matter if it is time-to-time for it to still be ironic that you started this thread.
So now I'm not allowed to beg to differ? Usually that's a way of saying we hold different opinions and neither will back down. That's not a bad thing.
You’re getting defensive now. I wouldn’t dream of telling you how to behave or what you can and cannot do. Earlier in the thread I pointed out your modus operandi includes ad hominem, being called out, then a defence of a “I beg to differ”.
I'm not getting defensive, you're using 'I beg to differ' as a way to close me down.
I said in the OP 'I know this has always happened but it feels worse'
People are free to disagree and say it isn't any worse, you know, actually answer the question posed. It turns out a few have just used the thread to attack me instead. Surprise that. "You are not being attacked, I just and others pointed out the irony of this thread. You tried to say it is not so but 5 thus far have called you out. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Oceans of Hostile Attribution Bias here, lol. It's so like being back in year 6 Applied Sociology Lecture.
Are you saying resorting to ad hominem is not hostile intent?
I'm saying:
Oceans of Hostile Attribution Bias here, lol.
It's so like being back in year 6 Applied Sociology Lecture.
But without further explanation that will only seem to mean something in your head then?
Who is it in your opinion that is interpretting the behaviour of others in various situations as threatening, aggressive, or both, or who is wondering about the cause of other people's behaviours?
Hostile Attribution Bias has a particular and well understood sociological meaning. As I passed Sociology to a national standard. I'm happy that my understanding is in concert with that of those who qualified my tested understanding of it. Concordia fulfilled.
As the forum doesn't allow for calling people out - I'll leave the second part of your question to you to decide.
Oh you misunderstand my intent (ironically )
Was a genuine question to understand your point because I didn’t see what you were saying so wanted to understand. I never dispute anyone’s claimed credentials
******But without further explanation that will only seem to mean something in your head then?******
What I was saying, perhaps a little long-windedly, is that Hostile Attribution Bias means the same in my head as it would in the majority of people who know it's meaning - my bad, I suppose, for not accepting that a good many people wouldn't.
As I know what it means - I would assume that others who know what it means, do too, lol.
"Never assume. You studied sociology. I didn’t | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It looks like I have a lot of people who would like to complain about how I interact with then. All coming out of the woodwork together, where have you all been? Only because you started this thread. Pretty confident everyone who has picked you up on the irony has called you out across multiple threads in the past when you have done it to them. None of these posters come across as fragile wall flowers to me! A couple of then are definitely fragile
As stated, I don't see the irony. This thread was very specific about it being almost every thread over the last few days.
Your behaviour has been like this for months, years, I don't know how long you've been on here. Much more than just the last few days.
I will give people shit and they will give it back. That isn't what the thread is about.
Your thread is about:
"Thread after thread, in the last few days has been nothing but attacking opposing posters rather than their opinions or data/links.".
Which is exactly your behaviour, to a T. Consistently for a longer period. No saying you're the only one btw, we all have our moments. But to call it out, and not see the irony is surprising.
To say that I attack people thread after thread is fucking nonsense. I certainly do attack your 'people who don't believe in science' bollocks. I've asked you on numerous occasions to discuss science but you just resort to 'I understand science'.
Why don't we have a climate science discussion right now?
Exhibit A.
Thats not a personal attack Johnny, its attacking your stance, no exhibit.
You didn't like me pointing out that you're the biggest culprit of the behaviour described in the OP. So you got personal, brought up some old interaction I have no recollection of, and tried to paint me as something I'm not, put words in my mouth out of context.
This is why I simply replied with "exhibit A".
You really don't see the irony of your OP?
I haven't got personal nor tried to put words in your mouth."You have misquoted me and tried to take my comments out of context to discredit me or to somehow divert from the point being made. It is personal because at a point in the past it got so bad I had to just completely stop reading or replying to your posts. As mentioned I had asked politely several times to ease off the personal attacks and insults, but they only intensified. " I'm the 'biggest culprit'? That one really is fucking hilarious "Is there anyone else as consistently bad as you? Maybe, not that I've noticed. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It looks like I have a lot of people who would like to complain about how I interact with then. All coming out of the woodwork together, where have you all been? Only because you started this thread. Pretty confident everyone who has picked you up on the irony has called you out across multiple threads in the past when you have done it to them. None of these posters come across as fragile wall flowers to me! A couple of then are definitely fragile
As stated, I don't see the irony. This thread was very specific about it being almost every thread over the last few days.
I will give people shit and they will give it back. That isn't what the thread is about.
You defo go down the ad hominem from time-to-time without a doubt. So starting a thread complaining others do it is completely ironic.
You say/imply it has increased “thread after thread” but I am not sure that is the case. It has always been there. I can’t name names but dome posters were notorious for it.
I freely admit on occasion I have done it. There is one poster (absent of late as they develop a new persona) who I regularly take the piss out of.
You admit you have done it but now seems a bit butt hurt that a few people have said “well yeah actually you do it!”
All you can do now is chuckle and roll with it and accept that it is possible within the complex human condition to be a contradiction snd hypocrite. It doesn’t make the point of your OP invalid. It is true. But there IS irony that YOU started it. Maybe embrace the irony
This is fucking hard work.
From time to time is not the same as thread after thread.
I'm not butt hurt, I disagree with your understanding of a thread I started. Is butt hurt personal, I'm not sure?
And there again is the “I beg to differ”.
Five people, FIVE, have now pointed out that you are known to attack people/ad hominem. It doesn’t matter if it is time-to-time for it to still be ironic that you started this thread.
So now I'm not allowed to beg to differ? Usually that's a way of saying we hold different opinions and neither will back down. That's not a bad thing.
You’re getting defensive now. I wouldn’t dream of telling you how to behave or what you can and cannot do. Earlier in the thread I pointed out your modus operandi includes ad hominem, being called out, then a defence of a “I beg to differ”.
I'm not getting defensive, you're using 'I beg to differ' as a way to close me down.
I said in the OP 'I know this has always happened but it feels worse'
People are free to disagree and say it isn't any worse, you know, actually answer the question posed. It turns out a few have just used the thread to attack me instead. Surprise that.
Hmmm a bit like when a certain poster (me) complained about pile ons then got called out by another poster (you) for sometimes being part of a pile on which them led to an extensive discussion about what actually constituted a pile on. I think I begged to differ with you LOL
You can’t start a thread complaining about certain behaviour (or an increase in said behaviour) and then get upset when five people (so far) point out that the behaviour you are complaining about is something you regularly do yourself.
Just accept and admit to the irony and say “but nonetheless, should we blah blah?”
As I've already said, I'm not complaining. Nor am I upset. Nor am I butt hurt. Nor am I saying I've never done it.
You seem to have made an awful lot of assumptions.
I wrote a small synopsis and then asked a question. Not one person has answered the question.
Okey dokey, you aren’t/weren’t upset. Cool. Love the irony of the thread.
Actually one person did answer the OP in amongst all this. Me! I said I don’t see this as being particularly worse than in the past and it has always happened. "My apologies, you have answered. Now if you could lose the sarcasm, that would be great | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It looks like I have a lot of people who would like to complain about how I interact with then. All coming out of the woodwork together, where have you all been? Only because you started this thread. Pretty confident everyone who has picked you up on the irony has called you out across multiple threads in the past when you have done it to them. None of these posters come across as fragile wall flowers to me! A couple of then are definitely fragile
As stated, I don't see the irony. This thread was very specific about it being almost every thread over the last few days.
Your behaviour has been like this for months, years, I don't know how long you've been on here. Much more than just the last few days.
I will give people shit and they will give it back. That isn't what the thread is about.
Your thread is about:
"Thread after thread, in the last few days has been nothing but attacking opposing posters rather than their opinions or data/links.".
Which is exactly your behaviour, to a T. Consistently for a longer period. No saying you're the only one btw, we all have our moments. But to call it out, and not see the irony is surprising.
To say that I attack people thread after thread is fucking nonsense. I certainly do attack your 'people who don't believe in science' bollocks. I've asked you on numerous occasions to discuss science but you just resort to 'I understand science'.
Why don't we have a climate science discussion right now?
Exhibit A.
Thats not a personal attack Johnny, its attacking your stance, no exhibit.
You didn't like me pointing out that you're the biggest culprit of the behaviour described in the OP. So you got personal, brought up some old interaction I have no recollection of, and tried to paint me as something I'm not, put words in my mouth out of context.
This is why I simply replied with "exhibit A".
You really don't see the irony of your OP?
I haven't got personal nor tried to put words in your mouth.
You have misquoted me and tried to take my comments out of context to discredit me or to somehow divert from the point being made. It is personal because at a point in the past it got so bad I had to just completely stop reading or replying to your posts.
As mentioned I had asked politely several times to ease off the personal attacks and insults, but they only intensified.
I'm the 'biggest culprit'? That one really is fucking hilarious
Is there anyone else as consistently bad as you? Maybe, not that I've noticed. "Where have I misquoted you? If you can answer that, I'll gladly provide receipts | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It looks like I have a lot of people who would like to complain about how I interact with then. All coming out of the woodwork together, where have you all been? Only because you started this thread. Pretty confident everyone who has picked you up on the irony has called you out across multiple threads in the past when you have done it to them. None of these posters come across as fragile wall flowers to me! A couple of then are definitely fragile
As stated, I don't see the irony. This thread was very specific about it being almost every thread over the last few days.
Your behaviour has been like this for months, years, I don't know how long you've been on here. Much more than just the last few days.
I will give people shit and they will give it back. That isn't what the thread is about.
Your thread is about:
"Thread after thread, in the last few days has been nothing but attacking opposing posters rather than their opinions or data/links.".
Which is exactly your behaviour, to a T. Consistently for a longer period. No saying you're the only one btw, we all have our moments. But to call it out, and not see the irony is surprising.
To say that I attack people thread after thread is fucking nonsense. I certainly do attack your 'people who don't believe in science' bollocks. I've asked you on numerous occasions to discuss science but you just resort to 'I understand science'.
Why don't we have a climate science discussion right now?
Exhibit A.
Thats not a personal attack Johnny, its attacking your stance, no exhibit.
You didn't like me pointing out that you're the biggest culprit of the behaviour described in the OP. So you got personal, brought up some old interaction I have no recollection of, and tried to paint me as something I'm not, put words in my mouth out of context.
This is why I simply replied with "exhibit A".
You really don't see the irony of your OP?
I haven't got personal nor tried to put words in your mouth.
You have misquoted me and tried to take my comments out of context to discredit me or to somehow divert from the point being made. It is personal because at a point in the past it got so bad I had to just completely stop reading or replying to your posts.
As mentioned I had asked politely several times to ease off the personal attacks and insults, but they only intensified.
I'm the 'biggest culprit'? That one really is fucking hilarious
Is there anyone else as consistently bad as you? Maybe, not that I've noticed.
Where have I misquoted you? If you can answer that, I'll gladly provide receipts "Okay, I checked, you didn't use quotation marks, so weren't quoting me. The rest of my comments stand, you're trying to misrepresent something I've said somewhere previously, taking it out of charge next, as a personal dig that has absolutely nothing to do with this thread. None of this changes the perception people have of you being the main, or one of the main culprits for personal attacks, for as long as I can remember you being on here. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It looks like I have a lot of people who would like to complain about how I interact with then. All coming out of the woodwork together, where have you all been? Only because you started this thread. Pretty confident everyone who has picked you up on the irony has called you out across multiple threads in the past when you have done it to them. None of these posters come across as fragile wall flowers to me! A couple of then are definitely fragile
As stated, I don't see the irony. This thread was very specific about it being almost every thread over the last few days.
Your behaviour has been like this for months, years, I don't know how long you've been on here. Much more than just the last few days.
I will give people shit and they will give it back. That isn't what the thread is about.
Your thread is about:
"Thread after thread, in the last few days has been nothing but attacking opposing posters rather than their opinions or data/links.".
Which is exactly your behaviour, to a T. Consistently for a longer period. No saying you're the only one btw, we all have our moments. But to call it out, and not see the irony is surprising.
To say that I attack people thread after thread is fucking nonsense. I certainly do attack your 'people who don't believe in science' bollocks. I've asked you on numerous occasions to discuss science but you just resort to 'I understand science'.
Why don't we have a climate science discussion right now?
Exhibit A.
Thats not a personal attack Johnny, its attacking your stance, no exhibit.
You didn't like me pointing out that you're the biggest culprit of the behaviour described in the OP. So you got personal, brought up some old interaction I have no recollection of, and tried to paint me as something I'm not, put words in my mouth out of context.
This is why I simply replied with "exhibit A".
You really don't see the irony of your OP?
I haven't got personal nor tried to put words in your mouth.
You have misquoted me and tried to take my comments out of context to discredit me or to somehow divert from the point being made. It is personal because at a point in the past it got so bad I had to just completely stop reading or replying to your posts.
As mentioned I had asked politely several times to ease off the personal attacks and insults, but they only intensified.
I'm the 'biggest culprit'? That one really is fucking hilarious
Is there anyone else as consistently bad as you? Maybe, not that I've noticed.
Where have I misquoted you? If you can answer that, I'll gladly provide receipts "OP.. why have you posted this thread in the first place? You may not realise it but you regularly use personal slights to me and others. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It looks like I have a lot of people who would like to complain about how I interact with then. All coming out of the woodwork together, where have you all been? Only because you started this thread. Pretty confident everyone who has picked you up on the irony has called you out across multiple threads in the past when you have done it to them. None of these posters come across as fragile wall flowers to me! A couple of then are definitely fragile
As stated, I don't see the irony. This thread was very specific about it being almost every thread over the last few days.
Your behaviour has been like this for months, years, I don't know how long you've been on here. Much more than just the last few days.
I will give people shit and they will give it back. That isn't what the thread is about.
Your thread is about:
"Thread after thread, in the last few days has been nothing but attacking opposing posters rather than their opinions or data/links.".
Which is exactly your behaviour, to a T. Consistently for a longer period. No saying you're the only one btw, we all have our moments. But to call it out, and not see the irony is surprising.
To say that I attack people thread after thread is fucking nonsense. I certainly do attack your 'people who don't believe in science' bollocks. I've asked you on numerous occasions to discuss science but you just resort to 'I understand science'.
Why don't we have a climate science discussion right now?
Exhibit A.
Thats not a personal attack Johnny, its attacking your stance, no exhibit.
You didn't like me pointing out that you're the biggest culprit of the behaviour described in the OP. So you got personal, brought up some old interaction I have no recollection of, and tried to paint me as something I'm not, put words in my mouth out of context.
This is why I simply replied with "exhibit A".
You really don't see the irony of your OP?
I haven't got personal nor tried to put words in your mouth.
You have misquoted me and tried to take my comments out of context to discredit me or to somehow divert from the point being made. It is personal because at a point in the past it got so bad I had to just completely stop reading or replying to your posts.
As mentioned I had asked politely several times to ease off the personal attacks and insults, but they only intensified.
I'm the 'biggest culprit'? That one really is fucking hilarious
Is there anyone else as consistently bad as you? Maybe, not that I've noticed.
Where have I misquoted you? If you can answer that, I'll gladly provide receipts
Okay, I checked, you didn't use quotation marks, so weren't quoting me. The rest of my comments stand, you're trying to misrepresent something I've said somewhere previously, taking it out of charge next, as a personal dig that has absolutely nothing to do with this thread.
None of this changes the perception people have of you being the main, or one of the main culprits for personal attacks, for as long as I can remember you being on here. "So who was doing the misquoting? WhT have I tried to misrepresent? I'm still happy to provide receipts. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It looks like I have a lot of people who would like to complain about how I interact with then. All coming out of the woodwork together, where have you all been? Only because you started this thread. Pretty confident everyone who has picked you up on the irony has called you out across multiple threads in the past when you have done it to them. None of these posters come across as fragile wall flowers to me! A couple of then are definitely fragile
As stated, I don't see the irony. This thread was very specific about it being almost every thread over the last few days.
Your behaviour has been like this for months, years, I don't know how long you've been on here. Much more than just the last few days.
I will give people shit and they will give it back. That isn't what the thread is about.
Your thread is about:
"Thread after thread, in the last few days has been nothing but attacking opposing posters rather than their opinions or data/links.".
Which is exactly your behaviour, to a T. Consistently for a longer period. No saying you're the only one btw, we all have our moments. But to call it out, and not see the irony is surprising.
To say that I attack people thread after thread is fucking nonsense. I certainly do attack your 'people who don't believe in science' bollocks. I've asked you on numerous occasions to discuss science but you just resort to 'I understand science'.
Why don't we have a climate science discussion right now?
Exhibit A.
Thats not a personal attack Johnny, its attacking your stance, no exhibit.
You didn't like me pointing out that you're the biggest culprit of the behaviour described in the OP. So you got personal, brought up some old interaction I have no recollection of, and tried to paint me as something I'm not, put words in my mouth out of context.
This is why I simply replied with "exhibit A".
You really don't see the irony of your OP?
I haven't got personal nor tried to put words in your mouth.
You have misquoted me and tried to take my comments out of context to discredit me or to somehow divert from the point being made. It is personal because at a point in the past it got so bad I had to just completely stop reading or replying to your posts.
As mentioned I had asked politely several times to ease off the personal attacks and insults, but they only intensified.
I'm the 'biggest culprit'? That one really is fucking hilarious
Is there anyone else as consistently bad as you? Maybe, not that I've noticed.
Where have I misquoted you? If you can answer that, I'll gladly provide receipts
OP.. why have you posted this thread in the first place?
You may not realise it but you regularly use personal slights to me and others."If you read the thread, you'll understand I was asking if others had noticed. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" If you read the thread, you'll understand I was asking if others had noticed. " In answer just to that part of your post - Yes. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just to be clear: Hostile Attribution Bias Definition: This is the tendency to interpret others' behaviours as having hostile intent. Behaviour: They are likely to interpret neutral or ambiguous actions by others as hostile. For example, if someone disagrees with them, they might see it as a personal attack rather than a simple difference of opinion. Awww! And now I can smell polish on oak tables." When my brain is not wobbly, I tend to prefer the well known sociological term of Incombative attribution bias (there may be a real one )
Definition: suspect hostile intent
Behaviour: act like it's the opposite in the hope of not being provoked, causes provocation  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It looks like I have a lot of people who would like to complain about how I interact with then. All coming out of the woodwork together, where have you all been? Only because you started this thread. Pretty confident everyone who has picked you up on the irony has called you out across multiple threads in the past when you have done it to them. None of these posters come across as fragile wall flowers to me! A couple of then are definitely fragile
As stated, I don't see the irony. This thread was very specific about it being almost every thread over the last few days.
Your behaviour has been like this for months, years, I don't know how long you've been on here. Much more than just the last few days.
I will give people shit and they will give it back. That isn't what the thread is about.
Your thread is about:
"Thread after thread, in the last few days has been nothing but attacking opposing posters rather than their opinions or data/links.".
Which is exactly your behaviour, to a T. Consistently for a longer period. No saying you're the only one btw, we all have our moments. But to call it out, and not see the irony is surprising.
To say that I attack people thread after thread is fucking nonsense. I certainly do attack your 'people who don't believe in science' bollocks. I've asked you on numerous occasions to discuss science but you just resort to 'I understand science'.
Why don't we have a climate science discussion right now?
Exhibit A.
Thats not a personal attack Johnny, its attacking your stance, no exhibit.
You didn't like me pointing out that you're the biggest culprit of the behaviour described in the OP. So you got personal, brought up some old interaction I have no recollection of, and tried to paint me as something I'm not, put words in my mouth out of context.
This is why I simply replied with "exhibit A".
You really don't see the irony of your OP?
I haven't got personal nor tried to put words in your mouth.
You have misquoted me and tried to take my comments out of context to discredit me or to somehow divert from the point being made. It is personal because at a point in the past it got so bad I had to just completely stop reading or replying to your posts.
As mentioned I had asked politely several times to ease off the personal attacks and insults, but they only intensified.
I'm the 'biggest culprit'? That one really is fucking hilarious
Is there anyone else as consistently bad as you? Maybe, not that I've noticed.
Where have I misquoted you? If you can answer that, I'll gladly provide receipts
Okay, I checked, you didn't use quotation marks, so weren't quoting me. The rest of my comments stand, you're trying to misrepresent something I've said somewhere previously, taking it out of charge next, as a personal dig that has absolutely nothing to do with this thread.
None of this changes the perception people have of you being the main, or one of the main culprits for personal attacks, for as long as I can remember you being on here.
So who was doing the misquoting?"No one. I misread the ' as a ". " WhT have I tried to misrepresent? I'm still happy to provide receipts. " My arguments to climate change deniers. Anyway, not sure how this is related to the thread. Let's get back on topic. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" If you read the thread, you'll understand I was asking if others had noticed. In answer just to that part of your post - Yes." Definitely yes | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It looks like I have a lot of people who would like to complain about how I interact with then. All coming out of the woodwork together, where have you all been? Only because you started this thread. Pretty confident everyone who has picked you up on the irony has called you out across multiple threads in the past when you have done it to them. None of these posters come across as fragile wall flowers to me! A couple of then are definitely fragile
As stated, I don't see the irony. This thread was very specific about it being almost every thread over the last few days.
Your behaviour has been like this for months, years, I don't know how long you've been on here. Much more than just the last few days.
I will give people shit and they will give it back. That isn't what the thread is about.
Your thread is about:
"Thread after thread, in the last few days has been nothing but attacking opposing posters rather than their opinions or data/links.".
Which is exactly your behaviour, to a T. Consistently for a longer period. No saying you're the only one btw, we all have our moments. But to call it out, and not see the irony is surprising.
To say that I attack people thread after thread is fucking nonsense. I certainly do attack your 'people who don't believe in science' bollocks. I've asked you on numerous occasions to discuss science but you just resort to 'I understand science'.
Why don't we have a climate science discussion right now?
Exhibit A.
Thats not a personal attack Johnny, its attacking your stance, no exhibit.
You didn't like me pointing out that you're the biggest culprit of the behaviour described in the OP. So you got personal, brought up some old interaction I have no recollection of, and tried to paint me as something I'm not, put words in my mouth out of context.
This is why I simply replied with "exhibit A".
You really don't see the irony of your OP?
I haven't got personal nor tried to put words in your mouth.
You have misquoted me and tried to take my comments out of context to discredit me or to somehow divert from the point being made. It is personal because at a point in the past it got so bad I had to just completely stop reading or replying to your posts.
As mentioned I had asked politely several times to ease off the personal attacks and insults, but they only intensified.
I'm the 'biggest culprit'? That one really is fucking hilarious
Is there anyone else as consistently bad as you? Maybe, not that I've noticed.
Where have I misquoted you? If you can answer that, I'll gladly provide receipts
Okay, I checked, you didn't use quotation marks, so weren't quoting me. The rest of my comments stand, you're trying to misrepresent something I've said somewhere previously, taking it out of charge next, as a personal dig that has absolutely nothing to do with this thread.
None of this changes the perception people have of you being the main, or one of the main culprits for personal attacks, for as long as I can remember you being on here.
So who was doing the misquoting?
No one. I misread the ' as a ".
WhT have I tried to misrepresent? I'm still happy to provide receipts.
My arguments to climate change deniers.
Anyway, not sure how this is related to the thread. Let's get back on topic."Why don't you want to discuss it? Are you suggesting that you don't regularly refer to 'people who don't understand science'. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It looks like I have a lot of people who would like to complain about how I interact with then. All coming out of the woodwork together, where have you all been? Only because you started this thread. Pretty confident everyone who has picked you up on the irony has called you out across multiple threads in the past when you have done it to them. None of these posters come across as fragile wall flowers to me! A couple of then are definitely fragile
As stated, I don't see the irony. This thread was very specific about it being almost every thread over the last few days.
I will give people shit and they will give it back. That isn't what the thread is about.
You defo go down the ad hominem from time-to-time without a doubt. So starting a thread complaining others do it is completely ironic.
You say/imply it has increased “thread after thread” but I am not sure that is the case. It has always been there. I can’t name names but dome posters were notorious for it.
I freely admit on occasion I have done it. There is one poster (absent of late as they develop a new persona) who I regularly take the piss out of.
You admit you have done it but now seems a bit butt hurt that a few people have said “well yeah actually you do it!”
All you can do now is chuckle and roll with it and accept that it is possible within the complex human condition to be a contradiction snd hypocrite. It doesn’t make the point of your OP invalid. It is true. But there IS irony that YOU started it. Maybe embrace the irony
This is fucking hard work.
From time to time is not the same as thread after thread.
I'm not butt hurt, I disagree with your understanding of a thread I started. Is butt hurt personal, I'm not sure?
And there again is the “I beg to differ”.
Five people, FIVE, have now pointed out that you are known to attack people/ad hominem. It doesn’t matter if it is time-to-time for it to still be ironic that you started this thread.
So now I'm not allowed to beg to differ? Usually that's a way of saying we hold different opinions and neither will back down. That's not a bad thing.
You’re getting defensive now. I wouldn’t dream of telling you how to behave or what you can and cannot do. Earlier in the thread I pointed out your modus operandi includes ad hominem, being called out, then a defence of a “I beg to differ”.
I'm not getting defensive, you're using 'I beg to differ' as a way to close me down.
I said in the OP 'I know this has always happened but it feels worse'
People are free to disagree and say it isn't any worse, you know, actually answer the question posed. It turns out a few have just used the thread to attack me instead. Surprise that.
Hmmm a bit like when a certain poster (me) complained about pile ons then got called out by another poster (you) for sometimes being part of a pile on which them led to an extensive discussion about what actually constituted a pile on. I think I begged to differ with you LOL
You can’t start a thread complaining about certain behaviour (or an increase in said behaviour) and then get upset when five people (so far) point out that the behaviour you are complaining about is something you regularly do yourself.
Just accept and admit to the irony and say “but nonetheless, should we blah blah?”
As I've already said, I'm not complaining. Nor am I upset. Nor am I butt hurt. Nor am I saying I've never done it.
You seem to have made an awful lot of assumptions.
I wrote a small synopsis and then asked a question. Not one person has answered the question.
Okey dokey, you aren’t/weren’t upset. Cool. Love the irony of the thread.
Actually one person did answer the OP in amongst all this. Me! I said I don’t see this as being particularly worse than in the past and it has always happened.
My apologies, you have answered. Now if you could lose the sarcasm, that would be great "Sarcastic moi? I am shocked I tell you. Shocked! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It looks like I have a lot of people who would like to complain about how I interact with then. All coming out of the woodwork together, where have you all been? Only because you started this thread. Pretty confident everyone who has picked you up on the irony has called you out across multiple threads in the past when you have done it to them. None of these posters come across as fragile wall flowers to me! A couple of then are definitely fragile
As stated, I don't see the irony. This thread was very specific about it being almost every thread over the last few days.
Your behaviour has been like this for months, years, I don't know how long you've been on here. Much more than just the last few days.
I will give people shit and they will give it back. That isn't what the thread is about.
Your thread is about:
"Thread after thread, in the last few days has been nothing but attacking opposing posters rather than their opinions or data/links.".
Which is exactly your behaviour, to a T. Consistently for a longer period. No saying you're the only one btw, we all have our moments. But to call it out, and not see the irony is surprising.
To say that I attack people thread after thread is fucking nonsense. I certainly do attack your 'people who don't believe in science' bollocks. I've asked you on numerous occasions to discuss science but you just resort to 'I understand science'.
Why don't we have a climate science discussion right now?
Exhibit A.
Thats not a personal attack Johnny, its attacking your stance, no exhibit.
You didn't like me pointing out that you're the biggest culprit of the behaviour described in the OP. So you got personal, brought up some old interaction I have no recollection of, and tried to paint me as something I'm not, put words in my mouth out of context.
This is why I simply replied with "exhibit A".
You really don't see the irony of your OP?
I haven't got personal nor tried to put words in your mouth.
You have misquoted me and tried to take my comments out of context to discredit me or to somehow divert from the point being made. It is personal because at a point in the past it got so bad I had to just completely stop reading or replying to your posts.
As mentioned I had asked politely several times to ease off the personal attacks and insults, but they only intensified.
I'm the 'biggest culprit'? That one really is fucking hilarious
Is there anyone else as consistently bad as you? Maybe, not that I've noticed.
Where have I misquoted you? If you can answer that, I'll gladly provide receipts
Okay, I checked, you didn't use quotation marks, so weren't quoting me. The rest of my comments stand, you're trying to misrepresent something I've said somewhere previously, taking it out of charge next, as a personal dig that has absolutely nothing to do with this thread.
None of this changes the perception people have of you being the main, or one of the main culprits for personal attacks, for as long as I can remember you being on here.
So who was doing the misquoting?
No one. I misread the ' as a ".
WhT have I tried to misrepresent? I'm still happy to provide receipts.
My arguments to climate change deniers.
Anyway, not sure how this is related to the thread. Let's get back on topic.
Why don't you want to discuss it?
Are you suggesting that you don't regularly refer to 'people who don't understand science'."I don't want to discuss your attempt a a personal slight because it's not related to the topic. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It looks like I have a lot of people who would like to complain about how I interact with then. All coming out of the woodwork together, where have you all been? Only because you started this thread. Pretty confident everyone who has picked you up on the irony has called you out across multiple threads in the past when you have done it to them. None of these posters come across as fragile wall flowers to me! A couple of then are definitely fragile
As stated, I don't see the irony. This thread was very specific about it being almost every thread over the last few days.
Your behaviour has been like this for months, years, I don't know how long you've been on here. Much more than just the last few days.
I will give people shit and they will give it back. That isn't what the thread is about.
Your thread is about:
"Thread after thread, in the last few days has been nothing but attacking opposing posters rather than their opinions or data/links.".
Which is exactly your behaviour, to a T. Consistently for a longer period. No saying you're the only one btw, we all have our moments. But to call it out, and not see the irony is surprising.
To say that I attack people thread after thread is fucking nonsense. I certainly do attack your 'people who don't believe in science' bollocks. I've asked you on numerous occasions to discuss science but you just resort to 'I understand science'.
Why don't we have a climate science discussion right now?
Exhibit A.
Thats not a personal attack Johnny, its attacking your stance, no exhibit.
You didn't like me pointing out that you're the biggest culprit of the behaviour described in the OP. So you got personal, brought up some old interaction I have no recollection of, and tried to paint me as something I'm not, put words in my mouth out of context.
This is why I simply replied with "exhibit A".
You really don't see the irony of your OP?
I haven't got personal nor tried to put words in your mouth.
You have misquoted me and tried to take my comments out of context to discredit me or to somehow divert from the point being made. It is personal because at a point in the past it got so bad I had to just completely stop reading or replying to your posts.
As mentioned I had asked politely several times to ease off the personal attacks and insults, but they only intensified.
I'm the 'biggest culprit'? That one really is fucking hilarious
Is there anyone else as consistently bad as you? Maybe, not that I've noticed.
Where have I misquoted you? If you can answer that, I'll gladly provide receipts
Okay, I checked, you didn't use quotation marks, so weren't quoting me. The rest of my comments stand, you're trying to misrepresent something I've said somewhere previously, taking it out of charge next, as a personal dig that has absolutely nothing to do with this thread.
None of this changes the perception people have of you being the main, or one of the main culprits for personal attacks, for as long as I can remember you being on here.
So who was doing the misquoting?
No one. I misread the ' as a ".
WhT have I tried to misrepresent? I'm still happy to provide receipts.
My arguments to climate change deniers.
Anyway, not sure how this is related to the thread. Let's get back on topic.
Why don't you want to discuss it?
Are you suggesting that you don't regularly refer to 'people who don't understand science'.
I don't want to discuss your attempt a a personal slight because it's not related to the topic.
"There is no attempt Johnny. You ignored the rest of it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It looks like I have a lot of people who would like to complain about how I interact with then. All coming out of the woodwork together, where have you all been? Only because you started this thread. Pretty confident everyone who has picked you up on the irony has called you out across multiple threads in the past when you have done it to them. None of these posters come across as fragile wall flowers to me! A couple of then are definitely fragile
As stated, I don't see the irony. This thread was very specific about it being almost every thread over the last few days.
Your behaviour has been like this for months, years, I don't know how long you've been on here. Much more than just the last few days.
I will give people shit and they will give it back. That isn't what the thread is about.
Your thread is about:
"Thread after thread, in the last few days has been nothing but attacking opposing posters rather than their opinions or data/links.".
Which is exactly your behaviour, to a T. Consistently for a longer period. No saying you're the only one btw, we all have our moments. But to call it out, and not see the irony is surprising.
To say that I attack people thread after thread is fucking nonsense. I certainly do attack your 'people who don't believe in science' bollocks. I've asked you on numerous occasions to discuss science but you just resort to 'I understand science'.
Why don't we have a climate science discussion right now?
Exhibit A.
Thats not a personal attack Johnny, its attacking your stance, no exhibit.
You didn't like me pointing out that you're the biggest culprit of the behaviour described in the OP. So you got personal, brought up some old interaction I have no recollection of, and tried to paint me as something I'm not, put words in my mouth out of context.
This is why I simply replied with "exhibit A".
You really don't see the irony of your OP?
I haven't got personal nor tried to put words in your mouth.
You have misquoted me and tried to take my comments out of context to discredit me or to somehow divert from the point being made. It is personal because at a point in the past it got so bad I had to just completely stop reading or replying to your posts.
As mentioned I had asked politely several times to ease off the personal attacks and insults, but they only intensified.
I'm the 'biggest culprit'? That one really is fucking hilarious
Is there anyone else as consistently bad as you? Maybe, not that I've noticed.
Where have I misquoted you? If you can answer that, I'll gladly provide receipts
Okay, I checked, you didn't use quotation marks, so weren't quoting me. The rest of my comments stand, you're trying to misrepresent something I've said somewhere previously, taking it out of charge next, as a personal dig that has absolutely nothing to do with this thread.
None of this changes the perception people have of you being the main, or one of the main culprits for personal attacks, for as long as I can remember you being on here.
So who was doing the misquoting?
No one. I misread the ' as a ".
WhT have I tried to misrepresent? I'm still happy to provide receipts.
My arguments to climate change deniers.
Anyway, not sure how this is related to the thread. Let's get back on topic.
Why don't you want to discuss it?
Are you suggesting that you don't regularly refer to 'people who don't understand science'.
I don't want to discuss your attempt a a personal slight because it's not related to the topic.
There is no attempt Johnny. You ignored the rest of it. "I feel like this thread could have been an opportunity to see how your posts come across to other forum users, but I assume nothing will change. So I'll go back to not reading or responding to you. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Back to topic. Has this worsening of behaviour been in certain topics ? I avoid the Middle east ones as these tend to be more ideology based (and also I have little knowledge and the threads don't add to that !!)" Those threads are super depressing and super brutal. I try to stay out of them. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Back to topic. Has this worsening of behaviour been in certain topics ? I avoid the Middle east ones as these tend to be more ideology based (and also I have little knowledge and the threads don't add to that !!)" Yep, I steer clear of those ones, one of the very rare occasions I keep my views to myself. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Back to topic. Has this worsening of behaviour been in certain topics ? I avoid the Middle east ones as these tend to be more ideology based (and also I have little knowledge and the threads don't add to that !!)" You are absolutely correct. It's a subject where people without generations of direct experience in the region generally say the most damnedest things... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Thread after thread, in the last few days has been nothing but attacking opposing posters rather than their opinions or data/links. I know this has always happened, but it feels a lot fucking worse this past few days. Am I the only one seeing this?" its childish people / keyboard warriors every one has a view and a rights to be heard thats life thats how we learn things rather than silence them how about heathy debate | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Thread after thread, in the last few days has been nothing but attacking opposing posters rather than their opinions or data/links. I know this has always happened, but it feels a lot fucking worse this past few days. Am I the only one seeing this? its childish people / keyboard warriors every one has a view and a rights to be heard thats life thats how we learn things rather than silence them how about heathy debate"
It's good to learn and it's good to learn what others are thinking. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have also noticed that, especially if you have another view than the narratives, like the hamas, israel war. " I stay out of those threads. Awful. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have also noticed that, especially if you have another view than the narratives, like the hamas, israel war. I stay out of those threads. Awful." Oops!, Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yes. Really tiresome of threads being hi-jacked just so people can argue with each other. At the bottom of every OP there is a button you can press: ************ Reply privately ********** Go argue with the person there. "Oooh no we don't..... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's getting way worse on here the last few days. Two of the main culprits are going at it hard. Takes all the fun out of discussion opposing views if people only go after the person, and don't even bother discussing the point. " 100% agreed. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
Just pelt me now!!!! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well I am glad I missed this thread….. I am just an equal opportunity grumpy old man!!!!
Just pelt me now!!!! "Nothing wrong with being a grumpy old man. It is the natural order of things and an anthropological certainty | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well I am glad I missed this thread….. I am just an equal opportunity grumpy old man!!!!
Just pelt me now!!!!
Nothing wrong with being a grumpy old man. It is the natural order of things and an anthropological certainty "aw your definitely that lol | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well I am glad I missed this thread….. I am just an equal opportunity grumpy old man!!!!
Just pelt me now!!!!
Nothing wrong with being a grumpy old man. It is the natural order of things and an anthropological certainty aw your definitely that lol"I am for sure. No argument there | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It might help if people stopped using multiple accounts and mods banned vpn imho" Why would they ban van's? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Vpns " Vagina Penis Norks Sex | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Vpns Vagina Penis Norks Sex " Come on no jokes I'm looking for his answer | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It might help if people stopped using multiple accounts and mods banned vpn imho" Seriously how could they ban VPNs? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It might help if people stopped using multiple accounts and mods banned vpn imho Seriously how could they ban VPNs?" Why would you use them? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It might help if people stopped using multiple accounts and mods banned vpn imho Seriously how could they ban VPNs? Why would you use them? " I use nord VPN for extra security, I can't be tracked online, steal my passwords or use tracking cookies for planting ads and it ads another layer of protection against malware, trogens, virues etc. Sound sensible? So why should fan ban them? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It might help if people stopped using multiple accounts and mods banned vpn imho Seriously how could they ban VPNs? Why would you use them? I use nord VPN for extra security, I can't be tracked online, steal my passwords or use tracking cookies for planting ads and it ads another layer of protection against malware, trogens, virues etc. Sound sensible? So why should fan ban them?" Part of the verification process | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It might help if people stopped using multiple accounts and mods banned vpn imho Seriously how could they ban VPNs? Why would you use them? I use nord VPN for extra security, I can't be tracked online, steal my passwords or use tracking cookies for planting ads and it ads another layer of protection against malware, trogens, virues etc. Sound sensible? So why should fan ban them? Part of the verification process " You had me at "why use a vpn" which means you don't actually know what they are or how they work or exactly how IP addresses work for that matter??? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It might help if people stopped using multiple accounts and mods banned vpn imho" "Seriously how could they ban VPNs?" "Why would you use them?" I use them because I spend a lot of time in hotels and B&Bs, and many of them have filters on their WiFi portals that don't allow adult content. Turning on the VPN allows me to skate past those restrictions and read this forum. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It might help if people stopped using multiple accounts and mods banned vpn imho Seriously how could they ban VPNs? Why would you use them? I use them because I spend a lot of time in hotels and B&Bs, and many of them have filters on their WiFi portals that don't allow adult content. Turning on the VPN allows me to skate past those restrictions and read this forum." Yeah forgot that you somes need them for porn! very important | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Also I very much doubt that this site is behind a firewall that is capable of "blanket banning" vpn traffic and this is very costly and its only usualy streaming companies that have them. " Express VPN gets around most blockers, including Netflix (95% of the time), Amazon, etc. Almost every medium to large sized company uses a VPN. We can even VPN to our home router, to appear as if we're on that network. Blocking VPNs is almost impossible for the determined. Pretty much all you can do to block them is to identify commonly used addresses and block those. Which is pretty ineffective. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Also I very much doubt that this site is behind a firewall that is capable of "blanket banning" vpn traffic and this is very costly and its only usualy streaming companies that have them. Express VPN gets around most blockers, including Netflix (95% of the time), Amazon, etc. Almost every medium to large sized company uses a VPN. We can even VPN to our home router, to appear as if we're on that network. Blocking VPNs is almost impossible for the determined. Pretty much all you can do to block them is to identify commonly used addresses and block those. Which is pretty ineffective." well yes I get all that but still rate Nord as the best but that whole netflix thing thing I hope you aren;t using your vpn to you can access netflix in other countries like the USA???? Whilst not illegal it violates your T's&C's which I would never do as I have high morals | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
