Palin's Emails Released.....

[Turtle]

Once again, you have made a thread soooo convoluted it is no longer about the issue that was originally posted and have made it about you and I. Nice job moderatoring

Sorry, but that's lame. Whenever people call you on something, you immediately try and turn it around on them. It's a classic troll tactic, and it rarely works. You did it (or tried) to OVM, Diva, Layout, and now me in this thread alone. It's amazing how things can go smoothly, right up until the point you have a response directed to an individual which contains the word "you" in it. If you weren't constantly trolling for confrontation, and paid more attention to the issues, you wouldn't look so lame. It gets particularly bad when you try and rewrite current history, rewriting what you and others have written in the same thread to mean something different. You do that a lot.

You started all of this with your hypothetical question, didn't like Layout's answer, and then proceeded to try and pigeonhole him into a specific answer with the "We'll put you down for a vote for Ms. Palin then." There was no need to do that at all. By doing so, you took a hypothetical and made it personal about Layout and his answer. You also decided to take it upon yourself to speak for the entire general audience within the Soapbox, and then later on clarified "we" to mean precisely that.

Then Diva answered Layout's question of "who is we?" with a funny comment that didn't mention you by name at all, but you took exception to it and whined about being disrespected. Well, here's a news flash for you, you've long ago burned all your bridges to respect, and you have some serious rebuilding to do before you get any of it back. Either get building, or get used to it.

Diva responded with "Respect is not given....it's earned," and you didn't like that, either, and tried to turn that one back on her, as well: "awwww......that old line of thinking, it actually says a lot about you." Well, no it doesn't, but there's that "you" again in a trolling confrontation. Initial civil respect is given, until someone shows they don't deserve it, which you have done over time, so if you want respect you'll have to earn it. That says more about you than about anyone who says it.

Then you have the gall to post, "I have always tried to go with; respect should always be given, but can be taken away after you have first shown it. Or, first you must give respect, to get it back. But hey, that's just me." But everyone in here knows better. It's massively hypocritical to the point of being hysterically funny.

Then we have OVM's comment that, "Ya know it gets old reading something from a person who doesn't contribute to the rest of the forum in any way..." which is true. Professional soapboxers tend to wear out their welcome, and it does get old reading posts from someone who doesn't contribute anything of substance to the community at large, and instead spends all their time trolling personalities and being confrontational.

Let's do this, lets go back to OVM's comments:

Yes, let's.

Originally Posted by witness23
awwww......that old line of thinking, it actually says a lot about you.

I have always tried to go with; respect should always be given, but can be taken away after you have first shown it. Or, first you must give respect, to get it back. But hey, that's just me.

The position alone doesn't demand respect from the peasants....a leader should give respect to the people who put him in that position....he has to EARN the respect by his deeds...and obvious by this audience here he has not done so....maybe in your circles...but that is just my opinion...

He quoted you, and made a comment about it. It was a general comment, and he didn't mention Obama even once.

Yes Turtle, he was obviously speaking of the President, but in the context and the flow of the thread it had nothing to do with Diesel or myself, which I'm still trying to figure out why he brought up Obama earning or giving respect?

What about it, exactly, makes it obvious he was talking about the president. "A leader" can be any number of leaders, elected or otherwise. And if it is so obvious, why did you ask, "What position? And who are you speaking of? Myself, Diesel or Obama?"

Then you said, "How did I know this was going to become about Obama." Well, gee, you're the one who came up with the "Palin or Obama" hypothetical, so since you made it about Obama, and despite having to ask that question, with it so obviously being about Obama, it shouldn't come as a surprise that it became about Obama.

Layout pointed out the equally obvious fact that you don't fit into the "we" expediting community very well, and you tried to turn that back on him, toooo. "What's the matter? Your wittle feewings been hurt?" Now look who's widdle feewings got hurt.

Look, I get it, you have a hard on for me, for whatever reason you do, jeolousy, you look at me as a worthy opponent, what ever game your playing it is only making you look bad.

And now you try to turn it back on me. I don't consider you an opponent, worthy or otherwise. I consider you a professional soapboxer to be, at least for now, tolerated, until you've completely worn out your welcome by the community at large. It's an age-old story not unlike the old westerns were every town has the sheep herders being terrorized by the cattle ranchers, the local sheriff takes his orders from the cattle baron, the railroad is coming through, school is taught by a pretty but somehow asexual schoolmarm, the newspaper is run by an idealist who sold everything to buy his press, and the saloon hussy is a prostitute with a heart of gold who never actually has sex with anyone. Those stories, like professional soapboxers, are predictable, and always end the same way.

Apparently so, and another fine example of a moderator not doing their job or setting a good example.

Trying to make it about me still isn't working. I'm not here for your approval.

Then keep your arrogant comments and your nose out of other peoples conversations. You know, moderate.

I'm sorry if I'm cramping your style, but one, don't tell me what to do, and two, it's a public forum. If you don't want people encroaching on your private conversations, then don't have them in public.

I'm not sure why you think by pointing out an obvious double standard is whining? I just wish you'd stop whining about me pointing out the double standards that you are perpetuating.

I just with you'd quite being hypocritical and quit whining. It would be very easy to do if you could stick to the issue and not to the posters.

Turtle you can try and twist my words and try and tell me what I meant to say all you want. I was using it as a generality and you know it. "We" is one or more persons including the writer, since greg started the conversation about Obama or McCain, I simply asked the question, since the thread WAS about Palin: Obama or Palin?

No, you already explained precisely what "we" meant. Too late to change that now. And yes, you asked the question, and there was nothing wrong with asking it. But you didn't like where the answers went, so you took it where you wanted it to go. You do that a lot, and then whine when called on it. Stop that.

It was, until you came in and muddied up the thread. Seriously, just moderate and stop going to the rescue to those that you feel sorry for or feel that they can't stick up for themselves.

You really think I'm coming to the rescue of those I feel sorry for or feel they can't stick up for themselves? That's a good one. If you don't like the way I moderate, well, good. That means I'm doing it right.

You have twisted yourself into a pretzel so badly you don't even know why or what you are responding to anymore.

Incorrect.

You can call it anything you like turtle. It's funny that someone can point out an obvious personal attack and it's called whining. Then the moderator(that would be you) whines about the "so called" whiner, whining. Then the moderators(that would be you) whines about how people whine about the moderators(that would be you).

Whining about me being a moderator every time I call you on something or disagree with you will not change anything.

Chaps my butt?? I could care less if you are a moderator or not...

Yet you cannot keep from bring it up ad nauseum. What's up with that?

just do your job and moderate and maybe, just maybe set an example for everyone.

I'm doing my job. If I'm not doing it to your satisfaction, well, good.

It just "Chaps your butt"<sarcasm off> that you have to step in and defend the indefensible.

Sorry, wrong on both counts.

Sell out.

Oh that hurt. Seriously. What's next, you gonna stick your tongue out at me?

 

[witness23]

Sorry, but that's lame. Whenever people call you on something, you immediately try and turn it around on them. It's a classic troll tactic, and it rarely works.

Wow turtle, now you're just making things up to fit your argument. Typical tactic used by someone with an agenda. You want to call me out on something, call me out on something of substance and something that isn't done by other members as well. Your pettiness isn't very becoming of you.

You did it (or tried) to OVM, Diva, Layout, and now me in this thread alone. It's amazing how things can go smoothly, right up until the point you have a response directed to an individual which contains the word "you" in it.

"You" really do not like the word "you" do "you"? When having a conversation with someone, be it face to face or electronically the word "you" is typically used in normal conversation, sorry, that's just the way it is.

If you weren't constantly trolling for confrontation, and paid more attention to the issues, you wouldn't look so lame.

Really? That's friggen' hilarious right there turtle, yet you say it anyway. Just because I call people out when they make outrageous comments, I'm trolling for confrontation? Welcome to the soapbox.

It gets particularly bad when you try and rewrite current history, rewriting what you and others have written in the same thread to mean something different. You do that a lot.

Are you sure you are not talking about yourself there turtle? Because that sounds an awful lot like what you do. Project much?

You started all of this with your hypothetical question,

No, actually I didn't, greg did with his question: McCain or Obama?

didn't like Layout's answer, and then proceeded to try and pigeonhole him into a specific answer with the "We'll put you down for a vote for Ms. Palin then."

It's not a matter if I liked layout's answer or not, he didn't give an answer. He did though give this statement:

Not much difference as far as experience, brain power etc. Both kinda dim bulbs. Palin would likely have less evil judge picks. Other than that, A dead bug would be better than either.

Now forgive me if I would come to the conclusion that he would vote for Palin after the above comment. For some reason layout took offense to my comment where I said, "we'll will put you down for a vote for Ms. Palin" .

Then we have this:

ONLY, and I stress ONLY, IF, I stress IF, she was running against Obama. Then I would vote AGAINST Obama, not FOR Palin.

He answered the question and as far as I was concerned that conversation was over. He didn't seem to have taken offense and the conversation was going along just fine, until.....this comment was made:

That would be him and his alter-ego Glenn.....

Talk about trolling in a confrontational manner....sheesh. Now the thread that was going along just fine, now has become about me and my alter ego Glenn Beck? Alrighty then. But you thought it was funny, and if you think its funny, then hey no problem.

There was no need to do that at all. By doing so, you took a hypothetical and made it personal about Layout and his answer.

Personal? You call that personal, hey whatever man, that's your perogative.

You also decided to take it upon yourself to speak for the entire general audience within the Soapbox, and then later on clarified "we" to mean precisely that.

Wow.....that word "we" really has you in a tizzy doesn't it?

Then Diva answered Layout's question of "who is we?" with a funny comment that didn't mention you by name at all, but you took exception to it and whined about being disrespected.

Seriously, quit whining about, what you consider, as me whining.

Well, here's a news flash for you, you've long ago burned all your bridges to respect, and you have some serious rebuilding to do before you get any of it back. Either get building, or get used to it.

Get used to it?

News Flash! It's been that way with the handful of those for a loooong time. I have no bridges to burn, so get used to that.

Diva responded with "Respect is not given....it's earned," and you didn't like that, either, and tried to turn that one back on her, as well: "awwww......that old line of thinking, it actually says a lot about you. "Well, no it doesn't

Well, I don't know what to tell ya, that's how I look at it.

And it does say a lot about a person, if you do not think it does, then that's your opinion.

Then you have the gall to post, "I have always tried to go with; respect should always be given, but can be taken away after you have first shown it. Or, first you must give respect, to get it back.

It's funny. If you care to take a look at those that have an issue with me, those few, are the same one's that you have seen complained about in the past by a number of other members. Kind of a common denominator thing going on, wouldn't you say?

But hey, that's just me." But everyone in here knows better. It's massively hypocritical to the point of being hysterically funny.

If you say so.

Then we have OVM's comment that, "Ya know it gets old reading something from a person who doesn't contribute to the rest of the forum in any way..." which is true.

I've never denied it either. I choose to spend my time here in the soapbox, so what? Do yourself a favor and take your own advice and quit whining about it.

What about it, exactly, makes it obvious he was talking about the president. "A leader" can be any number of leaders, elected or otherwise. And if it is so obvious, why did you ask, "What position? And who are you speaking of? Myself, Diesel or Obama?"

Just making sure. You know how things can be misconstrued when talking online. Again, not even sure why OVM brought Obama into a discussion between Diesel and I.

Then you said, "How did I know this was going to become about Obama." Well, gee, you're the one who came up with the "Palin or Obama" hypothetical, so since you made it about Obama, and despite having to ask that question, with it so obviously being about Obama, it shouldn't come as a surprise that it became about Obama.

Again, you are so wrapped up like a pretzel you have lost sight of the fact that nobody was talking about respecting or not respecting Obama. The respect comment was towards our Miss Diesel, and somehow it turned into respecting or not respecting Obama.

Layout pointed out the equally obvious fact that you don't fit into the "we" expediting community very well, and you tried to turn that back on him, toooo. "What's the matter? Your wittle feewings been hurt?" Now look who's widdle feewings got hurt.

*sigh* I'm bored.

And now you try to turn it back on me. I don't consider you an opponent, worthy or otherwise. I consider you a professional soapboxer to be, at least for now, tolerated, until you've completely worn out your welcome by the community at large.

And that just "chaps your butt" doesn't it? <sarcasm off>

It's an age-old story not unlike the old westerns were every town has the sheep herders being terrorized by the cattle ranchers, the local sheriff takes his orders from the cattle baron, the railroad is coming through, school is taught by a pretty but somehow asexual schoolmarm, the newspaper is run by an idealist who sold everything to buy his press, and the saloon hussy is a prostitute with a heart of gold who never actually has sex with anyone. Those stories, like professional soapboxers, are predictable, and always end the same way.

How does it end? A shootout at high noon? Or the lone stranger that wondered into town helps the poor sheep herders? Or the "Three Amigos" that think they are filming a movie, but aren't, actually save the town against the "evil" railroad company without even knowing it? The suspense is killing me. Cute story.

Trying to make it about me still isn't working. I'm not here for your approval.

Sorry, you are the one making it about you. Quit whining about me and let others stick up for themselves. Ohhhhh.....I figured it out, your the sheriff of the poor towns people. oooohh....it usually doesn't turn out to well for the sheriff of the town. He's usually shot in cold blood early in the story.

I'm sorry if I'm cramping your style, but one, don't tell me what to do, and two, it's a public forum. If you don't want people encroaching on your private conversations, then don't have them in public.

No need to be sorry, and your not cramping my style by any means. Whoa......don't tell you what to do? Okay big man, I won't.

I just with you'd quite being hypocritical and quit whining. It would be very easy to do if you could stick to the issue and not to the posters.

Good advice for all, I'd say

No, you already explained precisely what "we" meant. Too late to change that now.

Your back to the "we" thing, for the love of God!

And yes, you asked the question, and there was nothing wrong with asking it.

Then shut up!

But you didn't like where the answers went, so you took it where you wanted it to go. You do that a lot, and then whine when called on it. Stop that.

No, I had no problem with the answer, you obviously think I did, and that my friend is the problem.

You really think I'm coming to the rescue of those I feel sorry for or feel they can't stick up for themselves? That's a good one. If you don't like the way I moderate, well, good. That means I'm doing it right.

That would be open for discussion.

Whining about me being a moderator every time I call you on something or disagree with you will not change anything.

I'd call it more, questioning your abilities as a moderator more than anything else. Whining? Not so much.

Yet you cannot keep from bring it up ad nauseum. What's up with that?

Again, more so, it is a questioning of your abilities to actually moderate.

I'm doing my job. If I'm not doing it to your satisfaction, well, good.

Your doing a bang up job, don't let anyone tell you different.

Oh that hurt. Seriously. What's next, you gonna stick your tongue out at me? [/QUOTE]

 

[layoutshooter]

"*sigh* I'm bored."

Go play "Pick up Sticks" then. That will take care of your boredumb!!

 

[Ragman]

I think it's time to hunker.

 

[EnglishLady]

I think it's time to hunker.

Oh no ... not again

 

[layoutshooter]

Yes, AGAIN!!! The two most damaging items EVER invented by man were chairs and air conditioning!!

 

[Turtle]

Wow turtle, now you're just making things up to fit your argument.

Hardly. The professional soapboxer is never wrong, they are pure as the driven snow. Whenever someone calls a soapboxer on something, the soapboxer immediately tries to turn it back on whoever called them on it, to make it their problem, often to make them the cause of the problem, as the soapboxer can never be the cause or any problems.

"You" really do not like the word "you" do "you"? When having a conversation with someone, be it face to face or electronically the word "you" is typically used in normal conversation, sorry, that's just the way it is.

The problem is, you want to take most issues and turn them into personal conversations, and most often do so using ad hominem attacks to be confrontational. With you it's not about an exchange of ideas and soliciting varying opinions about an issue, you want to know what particular individuals think about an issue. It's not the opinion that matters, it's who has that opinion that matters. You can, and I'm sure will, deny that, but your actions confirm this. See if you can go a couple of weeks without posting a reply that is directed to an individual by using the word "you".

Really? That's friggen' hilarious right there turtle, yet you say it anyway. Just because I call people out when they make outrageous comments, I'm trolling for confrontation? Welcome to the soapbox.

Yes, you are, because you are unable to address the outrageous comments without attacking the commenter. The more outrageous the comment, the quicker you will use "you" in your reply.

How does it end? A shootout at high noon? Or the lone stranger that wondered into town helps the poor sheep herders? Or the "Three Amigos" that think they are filming a movie, but aren't, actually save the town against the "evil" railroad company without even knowing it? The suspense is killing me. Cute story.

The only similarities between the western cliché story and the professional soapboxer cliché story is their utter predictability, not their story lines.

Sorry, you are the one making it about you. Quit whining about me and let others stick up for themselves.

No. The Soapbox isn't a free-for-all where you can draw people into sticking up for themselves, because it always ends up being an exchange of personal attacks, especially when you start out by nudging people in that direction. They shouldn't have to stick up for themselves in the first place, because they should only have to stick up for their ideas and opinions. Like it or not, the job of a moderator is to try and keep things to those ideas and opinions, and prevent them from becoming personal. If you have a problem with that, well, I don't really care care. As long as you can stick to the issues, there won't be any problems at all.

Ohhhhh.....I figured it out, your the sheriff of the poor towns people. oooohh....it usually doesn't turn out to well for the sheriff of the town. He's usually shot in cold blood early in the story.

Yeah, that's it.

Then shut up!

You're a real classy guy.

Again, more so, it is a questioning of your abilities to actually moderate.

No, it's an attempt to attack me personally because you don't like what I say. The only way I could ever hope to moderate in a manner in which you approve would be to leave you alone and let you run roughshot over the Soapbox. Not gonna happen.

 

[Ragman]

Yes, AGAIN!!! The two most damaging items EVER invented by man were chairs and air conditioning!!

I was going to add the wheel, pizza and beer, but then I realized you need wheels to pickup the pizza and beer in order to hunker.

I read that in a Palin e-mail.
(needed to keep on topic)

 

[layoutshooter]

I was going to add the wheel, pizza and beer, but then I realized you need wheels to pickup the pizza and beer in order to hunker.

I read that in a Palin e-mail.
(needed to keep on topic)

Large amounts of beer are required for hunkering. Pizza is optional. Large hunks of red meat on sticks IS required.

That is known in Alaska. Palin knows it too. I am sure she as talked about it from time to time.

 

[witness23]

Hardly. The professional soapboxer is never wrong, they are pure as the driven snow. Whenever someone calls a soapboxer on something, the soapboxer immediately tries to turn it back on whoever called them on it, to make it their problem, often to make them the cause of the problem, as the soapboxer can never be the cause or any problems..

So say's the man with an agenda.

The problem is, you want to take most issues and turn them into personal conversations, and most often do so using ad hominem attacks to be confrontational. With you it's not about an exchange of ideas and soliciting varying opinions about an issue, you want to know what particular individuals think about an issue. It's not the opinion that matters, it's who has that opinion that matters. You can, and I'm sure will, deny that, but your actions confirm this. See if you can go a couple of weeks without posting a reply that is directed to an individual by using the word "you".

Alrighty, if you say so. Darn, I used that word "you".

Yes, you are, because you are unable to address the outrageous comments without attacking the commenter. The more outrageous the comment, the quicker you will use "you" in your reply.

Yep.

The only similarities between the western cliché story and the professional soapboxer cliché story is their utter predictability, not their story lines.

I liked my version better.

No. The Soapbox isn't a free-for-all where you can draw people into sticking up for themselves, because it always ends up being an exchange of personal attacks, especially when you start out by nudging people in that direction.

nudge, nudge.

They shouldn't have to stick up for themselves in the first place, because they should only have to stick up for their ideas and opinions.

Really? Then maybe they should phrase their idea's and opinions in a non-controversial sort of way. You know, without the nudging.

Sorry, I calls them as I see's them.

Like it or not, the job of a moderator is to try and keep things to those ideas and opinions, and prevent them from becoming personal.

Again, I don't see that job being done properly. But hey, It's all about you, and if you think your doing a good job, then that's all that matters.

If you have a problem with that, well, I don't really care care.

And all this time I thought you did care.

As long as you can stick to the issues, there won't be any problems at all.

I'll try.

Yeah, that's it.

I knew it!

You're a real classy guy.

Right back at ya.

 

[layoutshooter]

Reminds me of one of my favorite songs:

"May the bird of paradise fly up your nose"

"May an elephant caress you with it's toes"

"May your wife be plagued with runners in her hose"

"May the bird of paradise fly up your nose" !!


YouTube - ‪Little Jimmy Dickens - "May The Bird Of Paradise" at the Grand Ole Opry‬&rlm;

 

[Turtle]

Again, I don't see that job being done properly.

Well, of course you don't.

 

[OntarioVanMan]

Well, of course you don't.

Turtle..you get a PM from Witness too...? Just wondering?.....

He just does not know the gates of He l l he just opened by telling me to BACK OFF or else....

 

[dieseldiva]

Turtle..you get a threatening PM from Witness too...? Just wondering?.....

He just does not know the gates of He l l he just opened by telling me to BACK OFF or else....

Really??......How interesting is that??

 

[chefdennis]

He threatened you?? And he is still on the board!?!?

 

[OntarioVanMan]

He threatened you?? And he is still on the board!?!?

I softened that up some....I got excited...LOL....

 

[witness23]

Turtle..you get a PM from Witness too...? Just wondering?.....

He just does not know the gates of He l l he just opened by telling me to BACK OFF or else....

Wow.....the gates of, H-e-double hockey sticks? oooooo...

BACK OFF or else? Really? That's how you want to describe what I said to you privately, in a PM? Either have the balls to show the PM in it's entirety and in the context of why it was sent, or don't say anything at all. I didn't know it was okay to release messages that are sent privately by PM into the open forum. Good to know, I'll keep that in mind. Wow, your new status surely has gone to your head.

Code of Conduct:

10. Private communications
Private communication between the moderators, administrators and other forum members is not to be made public on these forums or by any other venue. You are not permitted to publicize any private correspondence received from any of the aforementioned.

I guess this rule only pertains to us lowly peeons.

 

[OntarioVanMan]

Wow.....the gates of, H-e-double hockey sticks? oooooo...

BACK OFF or else? Really? That's how you want to describe what I said to you privately, in a PM? Either have the balls to show the PM in it's entirety and in the context of why it was sent, or don't say anything at all. I didn't know it was okay to release messages that are sent privately by PM into the open forum. Good to know, I'll keep that in mind. Wow, your new status surely has gone to your head.

Code of Conduct:



I guess this rule only pertains to us lowly peeons.

I did NOT release any details at all...just said i got one..and my opinion of it....so there...

BTW..I do NOT consider you a forum member..you contribute nothing, zero...nada..to the expediting forums....

 

[witness23]

I did NOT release any details at all...just said i got one..and my opinion of it....so there...

So there? What are you 10?

You said you got a PM from me and in that PM I told you to BACK OFF. So are you now saying that I didn't say that? Because if you are, you are now being slanderious. So, releasing information sent by PM's is okay now? Good to know. You really stepped in it this time.

BTW..I do NOT consider you a forum member..you contribute nothing, zero...nada..to the expediting forums....

And yet I have a membership.

 

[Turtle]

He didn't release the contents of a PM, and what he said wasn't slanderous, even if he had said you told him to hack off or else. One, there had to be real, actual damages, and two, the written word is libel, not slander. So quit yer whining.