Hit dis hand - c'mon, hit dis hand!

[Crackpot]

Seiosy show me one case where I or Jim for that Matter have acted like rube you're lending this moral equivelence to calling someone out on thier bullshit which is dishonest at best and Orwellian at worst.

I ex elect better from you buy an sadly not surprised.

[Big RR]

Moral equivalence? Show me one place where I am even mentioning moral equivalence or trying to equate actions morally. Personally, I don't give a damn who is right or wrong; I just like the interaction with others about the topics, and all the flaming distracts from that. I'm not criticizing anyone; I'm just saying what I come here for. If you want to go forward with your current behavior, go right ahead.

edited to add: Perhaps you viewed my "responding in kind" as asserting some sort of moral equivalence. No such comparison was intended. By using that phrase, I meant a response which doesn't address the issues raised by anyone but is directed at a poster him or herself. While everyone of us does get drawn into such flame wars now and then, I think it in the interest of the discussions to try and avoid such posts. Again, no moral equivalence intended or implied, just an interest to keep discussing the issues.

[Sue U]

I have always believed that everyone should have the right to post what they want, and others can read it or not, and respond or not. We're all supposedly adults here. I can only conclude that those who participate in these feuds and flame wars must be getting something out of their participation, otherwise they wouldn't do it. If people want to shit all over each other all the time all around the board, that's their business, and as a rule I'm happy to stay out of it since I don't come here for that. However, when the shit-flinging spreads to a wide number of threads and becomes their dominant interaction, I am less and less inclined to wade through the accumulating shit to find some nugget of interest.

It seems to me that for years, rubato has been fine-tuning his skills in saying what he has to say in the most cunty manner possible -- but whatever, that's his preferred mode of expression, and it hasn't cost anyone else a nickel or a drop of blood. And few of us can claim to be innocent of doing the same from time to time. But none of us actually needs to be informed when someone is being an asshole on the interwebs; we're all perfectly capable of making our own determinations without being required to publicly vilify the offender for every every perceived offense -- followed by running through a litany of every past offense. And even an asshole might have something to contribute to a discussion -- even when done in an insulting or obnoxious or insensitive way.

But from my perspective, the worst part of the constant "calling out" business is that it's boring, repetitive, predictable, uninformative and of no entertainment value. And that makes it a colossal waste of time and effort. Don't you people have anything better to do with your limited time on this planet?

[Joe Guy]

Don't you people have anything better to do with your limited time on this planet?

Um... no.

I come here for breaks from my job writing children's books while working on a cure for cancer.

[Gob]

Don't you people have anything better to do with your limited time on this planet?

There's not always a cricket match on...

[Sue U]

There's not always a cricket match on...

You wouldn't know it from the posts here!

[Lord Jim]

I had really wanted to make an end of this discussion, but since you insist:

Did you think that I and others would now suddenly say, "Well golly, you're absolutely right. The guy who starts all the shit isn't the problem; we are"

That is a blatantly false misrepresention of anything that can legitimately be concluded from anything I have stated in this thread or in any other. It is however consistent with many other false statements.

Like hell it is:

Don't you think it possible that there's a perceived dissonance between your demands that rubato be called to task for an unpleasant post and your incredulous response when anyone else dare opine that yours may be even more unpleasant?

There is no "moral equivalence" issue here. Other than in some mutual pissing-contest threads, rubato is most often quite content to put in his one offensive remark and then let others rant and rave in post after post about how evil he is.

Small wonder rube concluded you were coming to his defense...

(Of course what you describe is not really the typical pattern anyway. The typical pattern is what we have seen in @W's thread; rube tosses out an obnoxious and inappropriate and/or insulting comment, and if he is ignored, he ups the ante with something even more obnoxious. Then, if he receives rebuke, once it looks like the thread might get back on track, he comes in with another shot. Rinse and repeat.)

I repeat the question you have thus far not answered in the hope that you now will do so:

(a) What do you call it when rubato claims someone has posted exactly the opposite of what they actually did post?

I've ignored that question, because it's clearly not a straight forward question; there's an obvious agenda behind it. If you insist on pursuing this, why don't you go ahead and state the agenda, and I'll respond to that rather than the phony question? (Or alternatively, you can simply drop it.)

There is no equivalence.

A comment when added to your others indicates that by "no equivalence" you mean that you actually consider those who respond to the shit starter to be worse than the shit starter...

(A position, which as far as I can tell from the comments in this most unnecessary and unfortunate thread, you are alone in holding. Others seem to recognize that rube's behavior is the source of the problem but they wish other people would be "good" enough to ignore him...some even seem to buying into the "equivalence' thing...You're the only one who seems to be taking the truly outlandish position that the people responding are actually behaving worse than rube...)

Now that I've addressed your questions, perhaps you would be good enough to address mine:

I remain completely and totally flummoxed as to why you started this thread. It's not like this is the first time we've discussed this; you had to know what the responses would be, on both sides. What possible "good" could you conceivably have imagined would come from this?

How could you possibly not have realized that the only results that would come from this thread would be that some people would get pissed off, (on both sides) and the real source of the problem would view it as validation? These were the completely predictable outcomes. What were you thinking?

Please feel free not to answer that question. (I'd be perfectly happy with no response at all.) But I would ask you to at least not continue to insult my intelligence by trying to draw me into responding to an obvious set-up question, or by claiming that you can't imagine how anyone could possibly think you were trying to blame the people who have rebuked the asshole for being more responsible for the problem than the asshole. Go back and re-read your own words.

This thread was really a great idea, wasn't it?

[MajGenl.Meade]

I had really wanted to make an end of this discussion, but since you insist:

Did you think that I and others would now suddenly say, "Well golly, you're absolutely right. The guy who starts all the shit isn't the problem; we are"

That is a blatantly false misrepresention of anything that can legitimately be concluded from anything I have stated in this thread or in any other. It is however consistent with many other false statements.

Like hell it is:

Don't you think it possible that there's a perceived dissonance between your demands that rubato be called to task for an unpleasant post and your incredulous response when anyone else dare opine that yours may be even more unpleasant?

There is no "moral equivalence" issue here. Other than in some mutual pissing-contest threads, rubato is most often quite content to put in his one offensive remark and then let others rant and rave in post after post about how evil he is.

Equivalence indicates an equal quantity or quality. I suggested that your posts vs. rubato are often more unpleasant - not equally unpleasant. Partly it's because you should be the better man - always instead of occasionally.

So let's see:
I say that rubato (a) is unpleasant and offensive (though not always of course) (b) that he indulges in mutual pissing-contests (mostly with you but others as well) and (c) he often posts one appalling thing and then sits back to watch post after post after post of nothing much more than invective and abuse. I suppose it amuses him; perverse fellow and (d) I wish you would be content to "call him" for his awful remarks without all the ad hominems which do make you appear rather like a mouth-foamer. (Note: I write "appear", not that you are any such thing).

You translate that to mean:
(a) I think rubato is not a problem at all (b) I have said that he should not be challenged for his offensiveness (c) I have defended rubato and (d) you have no idea why I started this thread.

Your unwillingess to answer the question then suggests that I should answer it

If rubato posted false representations of what people had written, you would call him ignorant, stupid, vicious, mean, dog-vomit and many other cleverly worded arguments to make the point. I would not (although loathesome and dishonest are allowed but only once and then don't do it again, Meade you old hypocrite. ) (Edited to point out that I actually didn't call rubato loathesome and dishonest - I referred to his post as those things)

Let me try to make this clear - the problem that concerns me here is not what rubato posts - which is often nasty enough. That's one problem and I have stated clearly and repeatedly that he should be challenged when that is the case. Go ahead - argue with him, correct him and point out where he's wrong. Or ignore him as you wish.

The other problem (and it really is nothing to do with rubato) LJ is that you don't just "challenge" him - you also descend into some mental gutter where insulting rubato is more important than countering him. If you are honest, you'd at least admit to yourself that you do it because you find it fun.

Here's another question: are you a Christian and do you believe the Bible is God's word? I am well aware of my own failure to live up to the precepts that I am assured are 100% correct. Sometimes it's because I think a thing is funny and it really isn't - but I just blurt it out and then regret it. Once in a while I get really angry and want very much to use terrible language - sometimes my nasty side comes through in "passive-aggressive" ways (I can be really sarcastic - shock, I know). But I do know that I'm wrong at those times.

So in clear words - and I apologise for inducing any apoplexy - I started this thread in the faint hope that you will evaluate and modify your behaviour. The risk that you would get "pissed off" was not a risk at all - it was a certainty. That rubato thought I was defending HIM is total bollocks but that's in your blind spot so you'll never see it.

I am sorry for the apparent lack of success (although it's OK with me if you dismiss my remarks in public but your behaviour quietly changes)
Meade

[Beer Sponge]

If it helps, I think you're all assholes, except for Gob. He's a douchebag.

[Joe Guy]

If it helps, I think you're all assholes, except for Gob. He's a douchebag.

I certainly appreciate that, Mr Sponge.

It's the reason many of us are here. Each of us attempt to be a perfect asshole.

[oldr_n_wsr]

Each of us attempt to be a perfect asshole.

Progress, not perfection.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Ah but it's lonely seeking such progress

[oldr_n_wsr]

Ah but it's lonely seeking such progress

Not if we're all headed toward the same goal. We can help each other become progressively better assholes. Always knowing that we can never attain perfect assholiness.

[Lord Jim]

I hold you in higher esteem Jim thus to a higher standard. I read a good bit more of what you write than many on here

I don't want to revive this discussion, but I did want to thank Bette for that compliment. (I mean that sincerely, no sarcasm. That really was a very nice thing to say, and I appreciate it.)

[TPFKA@W]

I hold you in higher esteem Jim thus to a higher standard. I read a good bit more of what you write than many on here

I don't want to revive this discussion, but I did want to thank Bette for that compliment. (I mean that sincerely, no sarcasm. That really was a very nice thing to say, and I appreciate it.)

It was offered sincerely. So don't let Rubato make you look like a putz.

Rubato, for the record, your shit is really not appreciated. Knock it the hell off and quit derailing threads. Oh and should I ever encounter you, I will smack you upside your nasty little face for implying that my niece is a whore. I promise. Now I will go back to ignoring your crap.