On Substance ... Or Lack Thereof ...
- Thread starter RLENT
- Start date
- Status
All you have are assumptions too. And you based all of your accusations of avoiding a specific question on an assumption .That's your assumption ...
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
You might wanna rethink the syntax and construction there ... it reads much better like this:
"Wow, to get an answer from someone that has had you on ignore for years...."
Like I said before: I don't know that he does actually have me on ignore.
Wouldn't be the first time I've run into someone online asserting a falsehood ...
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Not really ... I make no assumption as to whether or not I am actually on "ignore" ...
Further:
No ... I base my accusation on the fact that he has avoided answering the question ...
What the reasons for, or mechanics of, that avoidance are, is really irrelevant ...
People are certainly free to answer a question, or not, as they wish. All I wanted was either an answer to the question, or a clarification as to whether his statements implied what was inferred. Since he's done that, and the inference was incorrect, continuing to demand an answer to the same question in effect turns the question into a "When did you stop beating your wife?" type of loaded question.
Just to clarify this point - after doing a little research, it appears I put this guy on "Ignore" sometime in early 2010. Although I didn't make any public notice at that time, he was certainly reminded in a post by Aristotle addressed to him on Sept 10, 2010: in case you or anyone else is interested, refer back to the "Imam Rauf" thread, post #17. Some might want to read his comments quoted in Aristotle's post - especially the ones about crapping on the American Flag, the Bible and the graves of military veterans; maybe that might help explain my reasoning behind using the "Ignore" feature for someone that's been banned multiple times from this site for personal insults, ad hominem attacks and generally crude behavior.
"A man's character may be learned from the adjectives which he habitually uses in conversation."
- Mark Twain
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Yup ... and in this case it's clearly: ... or not ...
Actually, I don't believe he's addressed the question as it was posed:
Were those going to war in Iraq "defending the Constitution" ?
It's a simple yes or no question, relatively easy to answer I would think ...
Unless of course one believes the answer is in some way problematic ...
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Oh ... I'll go you one better:
Rather than only reading aristotle's quotation of my comments - which would have the effect of obscuring your comments that I was replying to - I suggest reading them in my original post itself - which was in reply to your OP ...
You know: the one in which you engaged in selective omission - in order to obscure the fact that the guy you were so busy trying to smear actually had a niece in the Army who had served in Iraq:
What I really said and to whom
Further, I would suggest that anyone who is really interested might want read the rather excellent technical analysis by another EO member of your original post which started the thread:
Logical fallacy, thy name is ...
As you are not, and never have been, a moderator/admin here, you have no knowledge of why RLENT was banned, except for 'gossip' and/or your own assumptions.
If namecalling and/or personal insults are sufficient grounds, YOU should be banned, for repeatedly calling him a troll.
You can add me to your 'ignore' list - I'd consider it an honor. The rationale for refusing to respond to a straightforward question ["nowhere is it written that we have to respond'] is at best, lame. Of course you don't have to respond, you could just air your own views and refuse to engage when questioned, but you know what that makes you, right? A TROLL.
PS you were correct about my not knowing how the 'ignore' feature works - I don't ignore people. [Call it a character defect.]
Cheri, Pilgrim responds to other members' posts. He shouldn't be lambasted for choosing to excercise the ignore button on one member. By the way, he had him on ignore. So he wasn't able to see his 'straight forward question'.
I think he should be lambasted [another great word - you doing the 'new word a day' vocab thing?
] for proclaiming the 'reason' RLENT was banned, [something he can't know, unless RLENT told him, and somehow, I'm not seeing that happening] and for repeatedly calling him a troll. He clearly disagrees with the opinions and style of expressing them, but that doesn't give him license to describe someone as a troll. Even if the opinions inflame the bejeebers out of him.And he could too see it, when it was reposted as a quote. He didn't want to answer it.
I only addressed lambasting in regards to having him on ignore. Why don't you give me an example what you are talking about. The thread in question doesn't have any responses from Pilgrim to Rlent. Because he had him on ignore. For kicks and giggles, go and find it in the thread. It isn't there. Sorry, but your boat is sunk on this one. (You can use that last sentence too. Hehe)I think he should be lambasted [another great word - you doing the 'new word a day' vocab thing?
And he could too see it, when it was reposted as a quote. He didn't want to answer it.
I didn't lambaste him for ignoring someone, I merely maligned him for that. What I lambasted him for is proclaiming 'facts' he is assuming [the reason for banning], and calling his opponent a troll.
What you don't seem to get about the 'ignore' thing is, you still see the 'ignored' person's words, when they're quoted by someone else. If Pilgrim didn't see it back then he's certainly seen it now - and still, no answer.
My boat is floating - it's your battleship that's sunk, lol.
Yes, this is what I was referring to. A definite 'smoking gun' post #25.
Last edited:
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
ROTFLMAO ...
A 'smoking gun' eh ?
What ... a 'reminder' from a guy that has publicly stated, and is on record as supporting government propaganda - which lies to and misleads the citizenry - as 'necessary' ?
A guy who attempted to smear two members by (falsely) implying that they were making harassing phone calls to his wife while he was away from home ?
Sorry ... but one can't embrace amorality with open arms and expect any decent person to take one the least bit seriously ... it just don't work that way.
Tis - and you shot yourself with it, lol.
Even if you never see someone's posts when you put them on ignore, [and I believe RLENT mentioned ways you can], and even if you don't see them quoted in replies to them by other people, the question was repeated twice by Turtle, and still not answered.
You'll have to do some first aid, now, and I have to get some sleep - g'night, Barkly - er, Muttly.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Oh yes ! ... and we all know that mean old Trayvon beat up poor little Georgie ... because, you know: ... little Georgie told us all that it was so ...
- Status