Inflammatory topic post

[Dr Lou Natic]

Note; "genuinely excited"
Does it not then naturally follow that this wasn't the thread I was expecting?
This is about as exciting as paying taxes(won't be surprised if you don't understand how that isn't exciting).

Mocking of my literary skills- is there something else you addressed in your original argument?
As far as I know there is nothing vulgar or obscene or hateful about not giving valid evidences for my 'thesis' or lacking in intellectual merit, you were grading my paper, not giving reasons why my post was in violation of site rules, you'd SAY it was in violation of site rules, and then point out flaws in paragraph structure, and then say it was in violation of site rules again and so on.
I understand you'd be hardpressed to find evidences of me needing to be banned, but whats the point of filling in time by "critiquing my work"?
Even if I was building a straw man or whatever the fuck, how would that be relevent? was I building a "nigger" straw man? Was the structure of my paragraphs set out in such a way that a swastika would appear if you stared at them for long enough?
You know none of that means shit untill you find evidence of me attacking someone for no reason.

And you could never make me upset tiassa, don't flatter yourself.
I don't need to be upset to spot the blinding irony of you starting an inflammatory topic on the subject of my non-inflamatory topic being inflamatory in your imagination.

I find this thread boring yes, but I'm still pleased with it because predictably everyone is just wondering what the hell your problem is. As any unbiased person would do after looking at this "issue" in its entirety.
You don't have a case and you never did. The real reasoning behind this episode remains a mystery.

 

[Tiassa]

Does it not then naturally follow that this wasn't the thread I was expecting?

Funny. I just asked you which discussion you wanted. I don't see that question answered.

Mocking of my literary skills- is there something else you addressed in your original argument?

In other words, you say it's so, so it must be? Please, Dr. Lou, present some evidence.

As far as I know there is nothing vulgar or obscene or hateful about not giving valid evidences for my 'thesis' or lacking in intellectual merit

But there is about intentionally posting something intended to be mean, as you admitted, and to make people feel stupid.

you were grading my paper, not giving reasons why my post was in violation of site rules

I, of course, see it differently:

So what we have for a post is a thesis that is in itself a fallacy, a mixture of a straw man and a description of composition , supported by a generalized personal attack and a series of straw men. Devoid in the topic is any foundation for profitable discussion (D); the topic itself is inane (B). Quite obviously, in undertaking the topic of evolution and creationism is nothing new (a two year-old topic on evolution and creation was recently revived, most likely through the Related Topics list) (C) . . . .

. . . . And so we arrive at point (A)-- In what way is this topic post hateful?

While it is true that simply because one stacks fallacies atop a personal attack and supports that combination with straw men does not necessarily mean one has acted in spite or hate, what if one does so simply because other people are not behaving according to one's prejudices? . . . .

. . . . The topic was not posted in any good faith. The topic was vindictive and spiteful, and based solely in the author's prejudices, and by this we might invoke the Site Rules and describe it as hateful.

Just for starters.

you'd SAY it was in violation of site rules, and then point out flaws in paragraph structure, and then say it was in violation of site rules again and so on.

I demonstrated a series of fallacies and then examined the conditions by which they violated the Site Rules.

I understand you'd be hardpressed to find evidences of me needing to be banned, but whats the point of filling in time by "critiquing my work"?

You're the only person here who thinks this is about banning; your question is answered in the course of the "First Argument" post:

Quite obviously, one of the challenges is to maintain a certain air of civility while allowing people the liberty of their passions. A perusal of topics in the Sciforums Open Government forum shows a series of Ban Wars as members proposed to ban one another. What is most interesting is people's criteria for wanting a ban. There was a proposal to ban Undecided for a week for "unprovoked personal insults and foul language" and "arguing an unsupported position ... when provided with ample references and citations [to the contrary]". One proposal sought to ban Wanderer for "being out of touch with reality . . . for at least a week." A proposal against Fluid1959 sought to ban him for cross-posting. Undecided sought action against EI Sparks in response to what he considered an offensive ban proposal.

The first thing we have to note is that none of these ban proposals were successful. Undecided won his vote, Porfiry offered rulings on cross-posting and being out of touch, and the counterproposal against Sparks was shut down for its admitted vindictiveness.

However, there is an important consideration to note: People were upset enough by what to propose a ban?

Unfortunately, our purpose here sets aside the cross-posting issue, which is an excellent example of how Sciforums Open Government can work. Because in the ban discussions arising from conflicts between members, the lack of a successful ban proposal indicates that the standards by which the complaining party sought action did not meet the necessary severity to convince a majority of voters, or, in some cases, administrative tolerance.

In the case of whether or not to ban Undecided, eight people were offended or annoyed enough to vote for his ouster.

So whether or not we agree with the ban proposals of the past, we can observe that people are upset by the state of discussion.

Moving through the more argumentative fora, we find a plethora of bad sentiment in a diverse variety of acrimonious topics. Some of this bad sentiment is an unfortunate result of posters trying to communicate with one another, but much of it is posters reaching out to zing one another, to needle and provoke.

How are the moderators, for instance, to handle this? The time commitment of "babysitting" certain fora to make sure absolutely no violations of Site Rules would be stupendous. It is obvious that the posters discussing certain topics choose a certain amount of distress between themselves, otherwise bad sentiment would be reserved to legitimate collapses of communication. Meanwhile, moderators are criticized both for overasserting themselves and also for not doing enough to calm the storm. Posters are left with the appearance of an inconsistent standard and often must choose between allowing perceived abuse to stand without response or risk sanction by moderators.

And,

And as much as Dr. Lou might wish a ban war, that is not our purpose today. Rather, all I ask is whether or not the jury agrees that the post in question is inflammatory.

Beyond that, we can figure out what to do. Because what I put before a jury of peers is, in its extended form, a rather simple decision: Is this what we want at Sciforums?

To find the post in question inflammatory will simply represent an attempt to declare a conventional standard. To find that the post in question is not inflammatory will be to license such topics in the future, and to leave a traditionally acrimonious body social to continue, potentially unabated.

Go ahead and put the specifics to it; they'll read like a shock liturgy. White supremacy, Muslim militancy, American warmongering, sexism, anti-Semitism--all will have a toehold, and a license to seek to offend for no better reason than seeking to offend.

Which, while it won't invalidate the Site Rules, will reduce them even further.

What do we want for our community? Put before you is an opportunity to make such a declaration.

If you still hold by your point that you do not understand the point of why we're going through this, could you at least examine that aspect in relation to the reasons already on the record?

Even if I was building a straw man or whatever the fuck, how would that be relevent? was I building a "nigger" straw man?

That it is intended to make people feel stupid, that it is intended to be mean.

You know none of that means shit untill you find evidence of me attacking someone for no reason.

Which you've kindly confirmed. Boasted, even.

I don't need to be upset to spot the blinding irony of you starting an inflammatory topic on the subject of my non-inflamatory topic being inflamatory in your imagination.

Gosh, Lou. Don't you think you're being a little bit dishonest here calling a topic inflammatory when you wanted it to happen?

I find this thread boring yes, but I'm still pleased with it because predictably everyone is just wondering what the hell your problem is. As any unbiased person would do after looking at this "issue" in its entirety.

I doubt your use of the word unbiased for obvious reasons. But people are welcome to give into the appeal to popularity.

You don't have a case and you never did.

So you say now. But you were happy enough then to boast of being mean, and of seeking to make people feel stupid.

The real reasoning behind this episode remains a mystery.

That's fine.

Eventually, people will vote, the results will be tallied, and I will have my answer. At that time I'll open the mayonnaise jar and we'll get to that.

In the meantime, I'm awaiting a response to the First Argument at least before calling a vote. I was hoping that you might have a stronger response than "because you say so even though it is at odds with what you've already said." As far as I know, Thefountainhed still intends to respond at some point. Additionally, the superficial and immediate reasons are spelled out in the "First Argument," in the opening (On Site Rules) and closing (Recap) sections, for instance, and also in the middle when I discuss Matters of Degrees.

I'm going to borrow a phrase from someone else: Did it at all occur to you, Dr. Lou, that the clincher for holding this topic in the first place was your encouragement? That's part of the reason it took longer than I expected; it's also the reason for the quasi-formal tone of this topic and the First Argument. With you hoping for a ban war, I took the time to make sure I was clear about things; we have better things to do than try to ban you.

It's almost funny--last night I was searching for an old topic about Gibson's movie that I thought I had posted, when I first heard about the film; it's not there, so apparently I only emailed some friends and then forgot about it. But while I was doing that, I came across an old bit from July, 2002 that seems relevant today:

• People aren't perfect. This we know. But for the life of me I can't figure out why this seems to be an excuse to stop trying.

It's an old piece that reflects my frustration with a certain brand of pretending to have a point. That particular aspect is actually irrelevant to the present. However, every once in a while, the atmosphere gets so thick around here that I go off and do something like this. Read through the first section of the First Argument. And the part about Appeal to Popularity. And the Matters of Degrees. And the Recap.

Between those points and your desire to have a topic to discuss the topic post, I figured it was as good a time as any.

 

[wesmorris]

People aren't perfect. This we know. But for the life of me I can't figure out why this seems to be an excuse to stop trying.

Have you figured it out yet?

 

[thefountainhed]

Yuck, fillibustering son of a twat. I still haven't managed to read through it.

 

[15ofthe19]

T. I mean this with all sincerity. This is not intended as a flame.

You have got to get a grip. This entire thread is an exercise in asshattishness. While it's probably been fun for you, considering your affinity for long, complex posts, it's not really effective. The thread in question was no big deal.

Ease up on the bong.

I couldn't possibly guess your intention here, but you're not coming off well.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Okay. Don't be dishonest. If you're having a bad day, don't take it out on me. Take your own advice and don't worry about it.

I won't message you anymore. I just thought I'd give you a chance to resolve this issue forthrightly, but I now have my answer.

Gosh...you think it is not 'dishonest' to complain about an inflammatory thread started by another member and at the same time send another member a PM in which you tell them to 'stick a shotgun in their mouth and do the right thing'???? That wouldn't be inflammatory? Would it even be worthy behavior of a moderator?

I never got this shit from Goofyfish for instance. He as always been neutral.

Or do you think what you said is on the same level of a public 'piss off' and 'get a life'???

Could you please respond in a message that is three pages long? (because everybody knows that the longer the message is the more true it is)

 

[Tiassa]

Gosh...you think it is not 'dishonest' to complain about an inflammatory thread started by another member and at the same time send another member a PM in which you tell them to 'stick a shotgun in their mouth and do the right thing'????

So disrespect is good enough for you to give, eh?

I see.

Noted.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

So disrespect is good enough for you to give, eh?

I see.

Noted.

You have to earn respect.

And goodbye to this discussion since it is not going anywhere.

 

[sweet Pentax]

You have to earn respect.

how true , how true .....

 

[wesmorris]

So disrespect is good enough for you to give, eh?

I see.

Noted.

What a piece of shit you are tiassa.

Everyone is a hypocrite, but you make it a hideous artform.

You tell a guy to put a shotgun in his mouth?

- you are unfit to moderate

- you want respect after you say some shit like that?

I believe I will now appeal to the popularity of the idea: FUCK YOU.

 

[Bells]

After wading through the diatribe in this thread, I now realise why I rarely participate in SFOG. The level of hypocrisy, backstabbing and bastardry is sickening.

 

[Tiassa]

You have to earn respect.

Then why cry in public about it, Spurious?

Answer the question: Is it good enough for you to give disrespect but demand that respect be given you?

I would ask you privately about your serious problems with honesty and fact, Spuriousmonkey, but you've demonstrated yourself incapable of handling things that way.

 

[Tiassa]

You tell a guy to put a shotgun in his mouth?

No, not exactly.

See, that's the problem with folks who like to complain about stuff but don't ever want to say what they're complaining about.

Specifically, I told him that suicide was a better alternative to going out of his way to be a jerk.

But you wouldn't know that, would you, because Spurious would like to simply complain and hope that there's someone there who doesn't need anything more than a complaint to compel them to rash action. You stepped up for him, Wes.

Look, it's real simple: Take a look around - people are repulsed by fact.

We'll call a vote, soon. As far as I can tell, there is still some response yet to come from people alleging to wish to discuss the issues put forth, so it's a little early for a vote.

Consider your assertion, Wes: How can it be "fascist" to call the post in question inflammatory?

I don't know why people object so much to the idea that intentionally being mean, that setting out to make people feel stupid is inflammatory.

But that's sort of the point that isn't addressed very well by the responses. Like you, for instance. I know how you feel, especially as you're willing to be so clear about that, but since I don't see what you see, should I think on your behalf and presume some set of ridiculous circumstances that allows me to see a route from A to B and simply assign it to you in order to respond? Or would it be better to find out how you get from A to B and have something to respond to?

Since you find these considerations fascist and inflammatory, Wes, and since you're willing to offer theories in contradiction of fact, how about one that's based a little more in reality: What are your thoughts on the first section of the "First Argument" post?

 

[wesmorris]

tiassa is a cyborg, like lou said.

No, not exactly.

Perhaps you'll write an encyclopedia about it to explain?

See, that's the problem with folks who like to complain about stuff but don't ever want to say what they're complaining about.

Surely you can't be serious. I could stand right in front of you and say "your shoes stink like shit, I don't like that"... and you'd come up with a volume for your encylopedia about why my sense of smell is fucked up. I'd say, "but that's how it smelled to me" and then you'd complain about how I never said what I was complaining about. I don't know about the rest of the croud, but the popularity of the idea "fuck you" when it comes to YOU, is like, of rockstar proportions. I judge you a piece of shit and I don't care if you don't like it.

Specifically, I told him that suicide was a better alternative to going out of his way to be a jerk.

Ever noticed how everyone but you is a jerk to you, you fucking dipshit? (i mean except for those who kiss your ass or who have something you want)

But you wouldn't know that, would you, because Spurious would like to simply complain and hope that there's someone there who doesn't need anything more than a complaint to compel them to rash action.

I saw it in another thread actually, found it annoying there, assumed it was your sorry pretentious pompous ass he was referring to and then he confirmed it. That along with all of the other shit you've pulled here is just too much to contain myself anymore. i'm sick of your bullshit you dirty fucking bitch.

You stepped up for him, Wes.

no, I stepped up to your bullshit. i'm not the lawyer you are tiassa. i keep my points as short and simple as I can for the most part. for idiots like yourself however I end up having to repeat myself over and over, because your thick skull is basically impenatrable to perspectives that don't align with your own, regardless of validity. so here it is: fuck you, you're a piece of shit.

Look, it's real simple: Take a look around - people are repulsed by fact.

I thikn it's more that people are repulsed by sorry cunts like yourself.

Consider your assertion, Wes: How can it be "fascist" to call the post in question inflammatory?

To me, it seems part of your ploy to control the information flow on this site. You are a verbal bully, you bury people under more of your diatribe and horeshit that they could possibly sort out for you, and then you call them stupid because they can't sort out the mess you made. that pisses you off and so you bury them further. IMO, you're a fucking fascist bitch, not sharing, but IMPOSING your paranoid retardation and reflected self-hate on anyone who would question it. Plainly, you suck.

I don't know why people object so much to the idea that intentionally being mean, that setting out to make people feel stupid is inflammatory.

I can't wait to hear this one. What the fuck? Okay, being a stupid bitch is inflammatory, that's a free clue for you. You're welcome. You're the stupidest bitch around. Got it? You seriously don't see what you do eh?

You hold everyone responsible to your shallow little world, and if you think they don't fall into it, you try to force them into it by weight of word. You weave such a tapestry of horseshit it's fucking overwhelming to most, not in nobility, not in wisdom, but in sheer fucking volume. One day I assure you if you don't cut it out, that thing is going to smother you.

But that's sort of the point that isn't addressed very well by the responses.

As if you would know? You don't understand that other people use words differently than you. That will kind of make communication impossible. You obviously don't care though, and if you would read your posts with any attempt at objectivity at all, you'd see it. You don't, you can't, I'm done with it, I judge you, fuck off asshole.

Like you, for instance. I know how you feel, especially as you're willing to be so clear about that, but since I don't see what you see, should I think on your behalf and presume some set of ridiculous circumstances that allows me to see a route from A to B and simply assign it to you in order to respond?

No, you SHOULD however, give me the credit for having come to a reasonable conclusion from my perspective and try to understand it such that we can actually communicate (or not bother trying to communicate at all). After all, that's how communication actually works. Since you don't get that and presume you're the authority on all perspectives, you can get judged and fuck off.

Or would it be better to find out how you get from A to B and have something to respond to?

It would just be better if you were to fuck off.

Since you find these considerations fascist and inflammatory, Wes, and since you're willing to offer theories in contradiction of fact, how about one that's based a little more in reality: What are your thoughts on the first section of the "First Argument" post?

I think that you are a fascist as you mischaracterize just about everything I ever see you characterize. You call me a liar. You call lou inflammatory. You say the monkey: "Specifically, I told him that suicide was a better alternative to going out of his way to be a jerk."

From that advice, YOU HAVE NO FUCKING EXCUSE BUT TO KILL YOURSELF OR ACCEPT THE LABEL OF HYPOCRITICAL PIECE OF SHIT... and then try to stop being that way.

So to recap:

I judge you.

You're a piece of shit.

Accept that you're a piece of shit such that you can stop it; or kill yourself per your own advice.

Here is the fact about your hypocracy:

I don't know why people object so much to the idea that intentionally being mean, that setting out to make people feel stupid is inflammatory.

IMO, that fits the definition of jerk pretty well. "I want you to feel stupid". "I will be cruel to you". WTF?

JERK.

 

[Tiassa]

Surely you can't be serious. I could stand right in front of you and say "your shoes stink like shit, I don't like that"... and you'd come up with a volume for your encylopedia about why my sense of smell is fucked up.

Actually, I would rather that you check again, whereupon you will discover that I am barefoot. Quit asking me to take off my shoes when I'm not wearing any.

I judge you a piece of shit and I don't care if you don't like it.

This isn't a new judgment, Wes. Am I supposed to feel any worse about it this time than any of the previous times?

Ever noticed how everyone but you is a jerk to you, you fucking dipshit?

If you're going to go to the point to call me a fucking dipshit, at least use the word "everyone" responsibly.

I saw it in another thread actually, found it annoying there, assumed it was your sorry pretentious pompous ass he was referring to and then he confirmed it.

That's a set of "facts" that really pares it down.

What are you talking about, Wes?

That along with all of the other shit you've pulled here is just too much to contain myself anymore. i'm sick of your bullshit you dirty fucking bitch.

That's hardly news, Wes. You've been aiming for my head for a while, now.

no, I stepped up to your bullshit

Wrong. You stepped up and acted on a notion not supported by fact.

i keep my points as short and simple as I can for the most part. for idiots like yourself however I end up having to repeat myself over and over, because your thick skull is basically impenatrable to perspectives that don't align with your own, regardless of validity. so here it is: fuck you, you're a piece of shit.

Short and simple and ... what? Devoid of substance?

Really, Wes ... all you're showing is that you have no real care for what's actually taking place here but are just seeking to pick a fight with me. Why you go from topic to topic behaving like this is beyond me.

I thikn it's more that people are repulsed by sorry cunts like yourself.

What does that say about them if they're willing to exist according to such thick spite instead of, oh, say, reality?

To me, it seems part of your ploy to control the information flow on this site.

I see.

You are a verbal bully, you bury people under more of your diatribe and horeshit that they could possibly sort out for you, and then you call them stupid because they can't sort out the mess you made. that pisses you off and so you bury them further.

It's a coin-flip, Wes. The way I figure it, if I'm going to bother with a point in the first place, I ought to consider the value of covering as many bases as possible.

Take as an example, from Dr. Lou's topic, my first input to the topic at all. It was a wisecrack about heroin and obesity. A poster with whom I've had some nasty fights in the past noted the point and discussed the shortcomings of its presumptions. That, actually, speaks much to me inasmuch as I think it answers the contextually-inappropriate charge that comes with listing an excerpt as an example of an inflammatory post. More relevantly, however, am I somehow upset at GB-Gil for assuming that I wasn't aware of those factors? Hardly. And here's the thing: to cover all of those points in order to keep the focus on the backdoor point, that we didn't know enough about the formerly obese man's partner, the post would have been ... well, lots more information. I chose not to. Am I actually annoyed at Dr. Lou for rightfully pointing out the degree to which the fallacy I noted in his topic was answered by his other topics decrying similarly mythical institutions? Hardly. He had to make a whole second post just to start to annoy me.

Now, does any of this change the fact that Dr. Lou's topic post was intended to make people feel stupid? That it was intended to be mean? Not in the slightest. Go follow the development of the discussion of this topic in Dr. Lou's. Especially where Flores and I exchange a couple of posts.

IMO, you're a fucking fascist bitch, not sharing, but IMPOSING your paranoid retardation and reflected self-hate on anyone who would question it. Plainly, you suck.

And you're welcome to that opinion, Wes. Just as you always have been.

I can't wait to hear this one. What the fuck? Okay, being a stupid bitch is inflammatory, that's a free clue for you. You're welcome. You're the stupidest bitch around. Got it? You seriously don't see what you do eh?

You hold everyone responsible to your shallow little world, and if you think they don't fall into it, you try to force them into it by weight of word. You weave such a tapestry of horseshit it's fucking overwhelming to most, not in nobility, not in wisdom, but in sheer fucking volume. One day I assure you if you don't cut it out, that thing is going to smother you.

That sounds like brilliant insight, but it's mere hyperbole. If just once you had bothered to support.

See, the thing is that I wouldn't consider it inflammatory if you, finally having more than you can take, finally decided to hold a similar topic about me. I would, however, find it inflammatory if, unlike me, you were to continue to tell me all about your judgment without ever establishing the basis of it. Saying, "Look, I have an interpretation," isn't helpful to me or you unless you can explain to me the basis of that interpretation.

Something goes here about how communication actually works, but you might find it inflammatory.

Since you don't get that and presume you're the authority on all perspectives, you can get judged and fuck off.

That's really a substantial argument, Wes. Why are you avoiding the idea of providing a basis for your anger?

It would just be better if you were to fuck off.

I'll file that one under "unwilling."

I think that you are a fascist as you mischaracterize just about everything I ever see you characterize.

If only you could show why that is, we might find some profit in your hatred.

From that advice, YOU HAVE NO FUCKING EXCUSE BUT TO KILL YOURSELF OR ACCEPT THE LABEL OF HYPOCRITICAL PIECE OF SHIT... and then try to stop being that way.

Forgot one: it's easier to simply operate with some integrity.

So to recap:

I judge you.

You're a piece of shit.

Nothing new here. Of course, that's why it's a recap.

Accept that you're a piece of shit such that you can stop it; or kill yourself per your own advice.

Establish your opinion with some fact and I'll consider it.

IMO, that fits the definition of jerk pretty well. "I want you to feel stupid". "I will be cruel to you". WTF?

So why are you taking that up with me?

After all, it's Dr. Lou who boasted that his post was mean, that he sought to make people feel stupid.

JERK.

So in other words you have nothing to actually contribute to the discussion of whether or not Dr. Lou's topic post was inflammatory?

You've told us plenty about your opinion, Wes. Perhaps you might grace us with a few facts at some point?

Like that last one of yours. Great. So you think that's the definition of a jerk. Now ... why are you taking that point up with me?

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Then why cry in public about it, Spurious?

Answer the question: Is it good enough for you to give disrespect but demand that respect be given you?

I would ask you privately about your serious problems with honesty and fact, Spuriousmonkey, but you've demonstrated yourself incapable of handling things that way.

I don't believe in privacy on a public forum anymore. Not since they put my identity and personal information on this forum for everybody to see.

Don't expect me to send shit like that through a PM and think I would keep it private. I am an asshole after all. I don't think I ever hid that fact. That's probably why I never get PMs.

I'm crying about it in public because you crying in public about your high morals, but it is all just a show. apparently You feel no hesitation to insult people in private (well at least me). As long as the public doesn't know about it; isn't that what you are thinking? You trying to control the damage to your precious reputation by trying to look reasonable now. Let me tell you, honest people tell the truth and they do it openly. You would make a good politician. At least I am honest about being an asshole.

And I am not interested in talking privately with you. You bore me and your silly imaginary problems. Nobody seems to know what your problem is but yourself.

 

[Tiassa]

You feel no hesitation to insult people in private (well at least me). As long as the public doesn't know about it; isn't that what you are thinking?

Obviously not, as I corrected Wes on his error. If you're going to address me in such a rude manner, at least do so for a legitimate reason. If you're going to be rude to me without regard to certain issues which undermine the basis of your rudeness, what, really, do you expect?

You can believe in privacy or not; I just wanted to give you a chance to apologize without making a public issue of it.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Obviously not, as I corrected Wes on his error. If you're going to address me in such a rude manner, at least do so for a legitimate reason. If you're going to be rude to me without regard to certain issues which undermine the basis of your rudeness, what, really, do you expect?

You can believe in privacy or not; I just wanted to give you a chance to apologize without making a public issue of it.

I don't really expect anything from you but some backstabbing to be honest.

I was under the impression that it was already a public issue.

And why did you think you deserve an apology? Because you can't help your own behaviour?

 

[Tiassa]

And why did you think you deserve an apology?

You're welcome to tell me to piss off and get a life, Spurious, but at least base that jab in fact. When you found your attitude problem on a falsehood, you can expect to offend me.

So, would you please be so kind, then, since you're unwilling to discuss the issues at hand in this topic, to at least explain how it is inflammatory to accommodate Dr. Lou's desire to see this topic happen.

I mean, I can't figure out why you're asking a question like that, Spurious. Like I told you in that message you complained about, if you're going to go out of your way to be a prig, at least have your facts straight.

And frankly, I don't think that's asking a hell of a lot.

But I know how it goes, Spurious. Honesty is a hard thing to sell yourself when you can be rude instead. I suggest you spend some time making the pitch again.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

You're welcome to tell me to piss off and get a life, Spurious, but at least base that jab in fact. When you found your attitude problem on a falsehood, you can expect to offend me.

So, would you please be so kind, then, since you're unwilling to discuss the issues at hand in this topic, to at least explain how it is inflammatory to accommodate Dr. Lou's desire to see this topic happen.

I mean, I can't figure out why you're asking a question like that, Spurious. Like I told you in that message you complained about, if you're going to go out of your way to be a prig, at least have your facts straight.

And frankly, I don't think that's asking a hell of a lot.

But I know how it goes, Spurious. Honesty is a hard thing to sell yourself when you can be rude instead. I suggest you spend some time making the pitch again.

I tried to process your message with my universal translator, but it exploded.