Anything to promote the concept of innovation. In a great California tradition, I am will to try anything maybe.

Isn't 'virgin' a disease that must be cured? I know many people who would volunteer to cure such diseases. (Isn't that also called safe sex?)

OMG! tw - stick to politics, please.

Haven't I stuck it enough to George Jr? I'm good at sticking things.

Was it not the cherished student John "Bluto" Blutarsky who lead that famous chant ... "Virgin Virgin Virgin ..." So a party resulted.

lol - Yeh, why don't you get a head start on O8ama

As usual, the wacko extremist will promote for one whose campaign staff is dominated by George Jr extremists. classicman, your extremist politics makes you so predictable. You again want to turn a thread nasty.

All I was talking about was good clean sex. Oh. Wacko extremists also fear sex?

Sorry - my mind wasn't in the gutter like yours.

BTW - we don't fear sex buddy, we actually have it - - - and with other people too.
You should try it sometime - its pretty nice.
:moon:

It is my considered view that tw is indeed a virgin, one of some seniority, and likely to remain so. If he possesses any attractive traits, the Cellar has not seen them.

Nasty enough?

And Sheldon's a nicer guy than tw. By miles. By leagues, imperial or metric.

Hedoes not yet know how acidic and extremist you are. That will be obvious once he learns you have never been the brightest bulb on the tree. And that your deserve every insult you get.

UG spent 20 years in the military and never got promoted higher than Corporal. No wonder he can relate to George Jr.

Hmm I try to read this thread but it seems to basically repeat one thing:

"I know you are but what am I!?"[/end child's voice]

I find that I avoid any of the threads in politics as soon as TW or Radar post. Not because of what they post but because of the animosity that follows their posts. I understand that there is a history here, but its a shame that what could be a really interesting and informative read turns into drivel.

Its difficult to have a meaningful interaction with someone who is "always right" and has an opposing view or opinion to others. Once the mind is shut to new ideas or thoughts, the potential for actual interaction ends.

There will always be a problem when one posts only after learning the reasons why while another posts facetious personal attacks.

Well, poo-poo on you too.
Facetious attacks have less to do with the issues when ones mind is shut like a rusted old trap. There can be no true discussion when one side maintains a position of assumed knowledge and is not open to expanding their mind or altering their perspective or opinion. Basically if one acts/believes that they are a know-it-all, a discussion will be fruitless.

You believe because, well classicman, you only post ridicule. That is the extent of your knowledge. The topic In this thread is GM. When did you post a useful fact here? Never. You only have right wing political biases.

Rush Limbaugh has trained you well. Disparage those who learn before knowing. It works when others overlook that classicman never posts actual knowledge – the whats and whys. classicman instead does exactly what Limbaugh does. Belittle others rather than deal with the topic. classicman simply does this again.

You mustn't assume I was talking about you tw. Please show where my post that you quoted specifically references YOU? Nevermind save yourself the time, It doesn't. You assumed - again. It was actually meant as a general statement. There were no disparaging remarks nor belittling insults levied, unless they were in your emotional imagination - again.

Additionally, I do not have any "right wing political biases." In fact, if you looked at all the political compass tests that I've taken & results posted you will see PROOF that I am leaning far more liberal than anything else.

As far as Rush Limbaugh is concerned... I think he is an asshat with his own political agenda that differs GREATLY from mine. If you happened to notice through my recent posts, I am very torn as far as who to vote for in this election. That in itself displays my moderate stance.

Again you demonstrate my point. classicman is again posting without demonstrating knowledge. Somehow he assumed this is about me. classicman routinely has opinions based only on feeling - without demonstrating grasp of facts.

You may feel Rush is an asshat. But you routinely do what Rush also does.

What??? Geez man, you need to relax. I made a joke (note the poo poo) and you got all bent outta shape. I took your post directed at me, you even quoted me, and responded in kind. That's the way a conversation works.

I even went so far as to address your "points" from your last post, no matter how weak they were.

Now please share with the world which facts from the last 8 or 10 posts demonstrate anything at all about GM?

I just have to ask you, tw, one thing -

1) Do you try to be this rude and arrogant or does it come naturally?

Please explain to me which of these posts demonstrate EXACTLY that which you are demeaning and ridiculing me for?

I see nothing in any of them about GM. Please explain to me where I am wrong.

Look in the mirror, classicman. My posts to you will routinely be in the tone you set at least one year ago. Strange how you don't like posts that only duplicate your attitude.

You don't see me posting this way to others. Others at least posted supporting facts for their opinion. You post opinions laced in mockery and insult - in the tradition of Rush Limbaugh.

So you in turn are acting exactly the same way that you admonish others for posting. Hmm, seems very hypocritical. And yes you have acted this way to others. Please do not trot that horse out - he will not run this race. :headshake

You also conveniently avoided the reality of post #139

I've been using the ignore feature on UG for a while because his nonsense was getting reactions from me similar to what you merc and ug have whenever tw posts. There has been an unfortunate cost to this. The right wing nuts have ruled the board for quite some time. Reasonable opinions are lost in the smack downs. TW is not always on target but he has a perspective that we need. If you don't want to be considered part of a right wing enforcement squad quit the me too game and post your own opinions.

I happen to agree.

It's also useful to remember what happens when you wrestle with a pig. The recent petty sniping has really turned me off.

That's where my message gets lost - I'm interested in other peoples opinions yet his constant belittling, deservedly so, of the current administration for the last four years has been notably biased. From one who purports to be "unemotional" and simply interested in "facts" the reality is that he is apparently as far left as UG is far right. I even asked twice for his opinions on the liberals and his response said it all. He completely turned it into another conservative bashing - typical with his agenda. It simply amazes me that a guy who seems so intelligent can be so blind at the same time.
I've posted things I should probably not have - I thought I was trying to find some middle ground, but there doesn't seem to be any with him.

As far as your comment "The right wing nuts have ruled the board for quite some time." That is not something I have seen in my years of lurking or since joining the board.

Thanks for the advice though - I appreciate it and I apologize.

I simply saw reality before you did. When did you realize that Saddam's WMD claims were myths? (I believe you were not here when tw was so adamant about that.) When did you realize that George Jr would subvert the Oslo Accords? When did you realize that George Jr was making the world less stable by unilaterally canceling international treaties? When did you finally admit we were routinely torturing people - and denying it? When did you finally realize that George Jr's administration had violated most every requirement that justifies war - literally Pearl Harbored another nation? When did you finally realize that "Mission Accomplished" was an American created civil war; not a war against a mythical Al Qaeda in Iraq?

Biased is when another recognized reality before you did? Nonsense. tw identified George Jr early on when it was not popular and when George Jr even tried to restart confrontation with North Korea - literally trashed Carter's solution. What did George Jr eventually do because of pressure from S Korea, China, and others? George Jr finally reimplemented the Carter solution. Who saw this before you did? And that is called bias?

Meanwhile, your replies to these posts were to belittle this author. Your intelligence is now openly questioned because my posts to you are mirror images of what you posted for so long previously.

But again, tw posts “reasons why” in response to another classicman unsubstantiated accusation of bias. When do you post supporting facts for that accusation? But again, classicman posts without any supporting facts.

Biting tongue & smiling politely

Meanwhile you do the exact same attacks in If Moore's Law hits a sinkhole... . You even admit you know nothing about Quantum Computing but you post opinions of Radar anyway. That is an attack posted in a discussion you have no business even posting in. You know nothing useful. You admit you don't even know anything about the topic. But classicman again had to post *opinions* anyway.

No I am not smiling politely. I am being blunt honest about how classicman posts. How silly. When classicman gets treated as he treats other, then he complains? Meanwhile, classicman is still doing the same disparaging *opinions* (without any supporting facts) in a discussion about Quantum Computers. In short, classicman routinely belittles others especially when he does not understand the topic. He even admits he has nothing useful to offer – but posts belittlement anyway.

tw, he's trying to back off. Why don't you drop it too?

Let see. I treated him logically for about one year of his abuse. So maybe in another year, I will back off. Fair is fair. And being more of a hardass conservative then him, he should expect such treatment.

BTW, if he was trying to backoff, then why is he posting same acidic remarks in If Moore's Law hits a sinkhole... ? Why more acidic posts even in a discussion he admits he knows nothing about? You call that backing off? Hardly.

classicman is but one example of the new posting style openly condoned in the Cellar. Once a published author named Barak hardly said anything, but inflamed others. So he was banned. Once a teenager named April was banned for simply posting as a teenager probably begging for help. Now posts from classicman and Urbane Guerrilla are condoned? When I simply do unto classicman as he does onto others, you would complain?

glatt - your very first post should have questioned why Urbane Guerrilla is routinely condoned. Why the double standard?

Meanwhile, classicman demonstrates no interest in apologizing for posting in the tradition of Rush Limbaugh. Suddenly he does not like it only when one mirrors his posting style. Maybe in about a year, I will change. But as I warned many months ago, this is the new posting standards now acceptable in the Cellar. Get used to it - or start with where these new standards are routinely encouraged - Urbane Guerrilla. I have no problem using classicman as the poster boy for our new posting standards. I don't recall you standing up months ago when this new Cellar standard was criticized by me? Or do you really like it when classicman belittles others?

If you look at the time stamps of the posts, you will see that you guys have been throwing mud at each other all over the Cellar in multiple threads, but classic stopped this morning. You are just now reading those other posts where he threw mud last night, so you think the mud is still flying.

I'm hoping you both stop, because I'm sick of it, but you both have free will, so it's up to you.

To answer your question about Urbane, I give his political posts exactly zero value, so I don't even read them. Maybe newcomers will give his posts weight, and that does disturb me a little, but I don't think any Dwellars who have been around for more than a few months give his posts any weight. He's like a tree falling in the forest with nobody around to witness.

You build your own reputation here with each post.

Bravo!!!

Seconded!!

third. motion carried

You get lipstick on it? ;)

Cool.

Good. If he becomes civil for one year, then I will do same. Only then we are even.

I announced this change months ago. Where were you when I defined what had happened to the Cellar's culture and how I was going to respond? You suddenly have an opinion? Bullshit. Too little, too late, and therefore it has near zero credibility. If glatt was responsible, then glatt would have spoken out those months ago when the problem was clearly defined. If glatt is responsible now, then glatt knows nothing has changed until classicman demonstrates civil behavior for months.

He did not murder anyone today. Therefore he has reformed? Nonsense. He was belittling others for years AND was doing so even yesterday. One day is reform? His apology only begins to have credibility when it is repeated for weeks. Oh. Apology? He did not even post an apology. So you know he has changed? I also have an East River bridge you might be interested in buying. Appreciate the concept - credibility.

Prove you are being sincere, glatt. Go after the worst offender here - Urbane Guerrilla. Otherwise you are wasting bandwidth. I am never politically correct. Are you adult enough to deal with the logic in this post or so childish as to be offended? Yes, your core is being tested. Statements are presented in the only way I know how - blunt and honest - and with no regard for emotionally based perceptions. If you are logical, then your next post viciously condemns the number one offender in the Cellar - Urbane Guerrilla. Otherwise we are simply wasting bandwidth.

When you decide to stop blaming the victims and instead identify the culprit, then I will know you are thinking logically. Again, I was blunt, honest, AND told you (and everyone) what I was going to do. I am also being blunt, honest and sincere here. Do you know anyone that honest? You want me to stop? Then let's see you go after the problem - not the victim.

Defined is what you must do to have credibility with me. Go after the Cellar's number one offender - Urbane Guerilla - in your very next post. Can I, as the victim of over a year of classicman belittlement, be any more honest here? Your only honest reply is, "No". Your choice. Blame the victim or address the Cellar's number one problem - Urbane Guerrilla.

You will observe my posts change only after the problem has been sufficiently solved long enough. Once I go to war, then (as defined in "Art of War") the resulting turmoil must be extreme. The Art of War is quite blunt about this basic principle. A dike has been busted. I resent blaming the victim AND posts that completely ignore the Cellar's number one problem: Urbane Guerrilla. Again, I told everyone what was going to happen. Nothing has yet changed. Don't blame me. Blame the problem.

A sincere glatt will be demanding a solution to the Cellar's number one problem: Urbane Guerrilla. (Nothing from me ever implied that UG should be banned despite distortions posted by others.)

Oh. If you do finally decide to address the Cellar's number one problem, then you will be the first Cellar dweller I have observed doing so.

You must have DanaC on ignore. She's taken UG to task on countless occasions. And let's not forget that time I made fun of him for being a pyramid scheme knife salesman when he mocked the idea of being a professional engineer.

And that's it in a nutshell. A person earns credibility here with their posts. Both you and classiman have been throwing your credibility out the window with your childish mudslinging. UG has virtually no credibility with me as a result of his posts. You still have some with me. Classicman still has some as well.

You can choose to do what you will with the remainder of your credibility.

I'm not the Cellar cop. Sorry if that disappoints you. I spoke up this time because I hoped it might stop some of the mudslinging for a bit. I don't have the energy or desire to take on UG, even though he deserves to be taken on. Mostly I don't see the urgent need to take him on because I think nobody takes him seriously.

Do I have any left?

If so, I'd like to put it in a high interest account for a while, then squander it all one drunken night! Bwahahahahahahaha!

You could be president of the US with those economic policies!

Sorry to all, especially Tom who has borne the brunt of my ire. There are reasons, but none of them mean shit at this point - I'm done.

I am going to make a concerted effort to regain that which I've lost.

Now you are rewriting history. classicman was doing personal attacks without any mudsling response from me for over a year. You only noticed recently and now assume personal atacks from me have always existed? Well, you have lied even to yourself and owe me an apology for that accusation. Return insults started when I said the Cellar has changed and would reply in a new tone that you found previously acceptable. You ignored routine insults until I finally started replying in kind? Yes.

There were no personal attacks from me before then. You have simply ignored that I remained civil in response to a new Cellar where you too could now become the target (because you lied about my reponse to routine classicman personal attacks and you ddd not apologize for your false accusation).

One day of being nice says zero. If you don't like me, then shutup and go away. If being honest, then you know I was the victim here long ago when I formally announced I was changing how I would post. I still have no reason to change strategies and every reason to still maintain personal attacks on those who did so routinely. That new attitide will not change until I am convinced more than just DanaC has spoken out. You, on the other hand, still have said virtually nothing about how Urbane Guerrilla types have so changed the Cellar.

Credibility - I defined the problem months ago and announced a solution. You ignored the problem and then months later blame the victim. What does that say about your credibility when you lie about me posting personal attacks previously? You know exactly when I started posting personal attacks - well over a year after classicman was doing it routinely and you were ignoring it. You even downplay it by calling it mudslinging.

Meanwhile, DanaC apparently has credibility. She (I am informed) has gone after UG elsewhere. You, on the other hand, only took notice after I decided it was time to get your attention. So you blame me? Shame on you for blaming the victim and still not doing what only DanaC has done. Take comfort in doing only what the majority have done if that make you feel safe. This is also about glatt who has no problem blaming the victim and still has not requested a solution to the Cellar's number one problem - Urbane Guerrilla.

Where do I blame you? I don't think I have blamed you. Sorry if it came across that way. I'm just asking you to stop.

You are at your most credible when you post facts/opinions and leave the personal attacks out of it.

I agree. Tw's viewpoint needs to be heard, but it usually just gets drowned out when everyone starts sling poo at each other.

Classicman joined on 11/26/2007.

Your first post referencing him was 12/5/2007. Your first post insulting him was 12/9/2007, based on a misreading of his quote and a request by him for clarification. He responded by leaving the thread.

Your next post insulting him was 2/6/2008. He responded with graciousness.

Your next post insulting him was 4/4/2008, in a thread where you claimed that hair dryers have only one heat setting, and he called you on it. Before he responded, others called you deliberately provocative in the thread.

The post where you say "Replies are now in a tone that you understand - personal attack" occurred on 6/15/2008, a little more than three months ago, after he demanded that you offer proof of your claim that Merc lied about his service record.

A review of all these posts, and the threads that led to them, show fairly clearly that c-man generally demands that you unemotionally back up your claims or offer further explanation, or respond to the original question, and you generally respond by questioning his and others' intelligence.

Where is the insult? I remember that discussion without even reading it. You did not hyperlink the entire discussion meaning that important context is ignored. classicman, with mockery, accused me of stating what was instead only a requote. Where is this reply insulting to classicman? Where is the insult?

In fact, he and I both agreed that Cheney's "Mission Accomplished" claims were delusional. But somehow classicman assumed otherwise, as if I was attributing Cheney's mindset to him. IOW classicman was mistaken by misreading the requote.

classicman's misread was so contrary to what I posted that, at that point, I was seriously wondering if classicman was Urbane Guerilla posting in a new mantra. Somehow UT perverts that into insults? Obviously it is not. UT – is this the best you can do? Well, yes, because tw did not post insults. He posted conclusions with supporting facts. And he posted those conclusions harshly when replying to obvious mockery.

UT's second citation again forgets to include the snippy classicman post that preceded it. UT again forgetting a fact distorts context and create a lie. classicman posted: The tw reply to that snippy post: UT calls it insulting. The statement was made WITH supporting facts in response to obvious mockery. Again, the topic was addressed; classicman was not attacked. The topic was classicman not reading what was posted – and asks why he did not read it.

tw's second post replies with supporting facts for why that conclusion is drawn. A legitimate question since classicman never posts any reasons supporting his “knowledge” and obviously did not exist then. So classicman tells me I (who was there) did not know what I was posting? Nonsense.

"Oh please do. I need to know this before the election" is classic classicman mockery. UT calls that gracious? Where? Oh. After my post, classicman all but apologized for his snippy reply. UT also ignored that classicman admission. Indignant. An accurate description and what should be expected from a snippy post that says nothing and reeks of mockery. Not insulting. So indignant as to terminate any more classicman mockery.

See that word, UT? "AFTER". The post you quoted was in response to classicman mockery - and posted with logic and supporting facts. And AFTER that, classicman all but apologized for posting in haste. UT, however, calls an appropriate reply “insulting"? Where? UT, again you are desperate to find insults that do not exist. Even classicman admits his post was in haste and not properly thought out.

As a result of that terse reply, a later classicman post ask questions without mockery or insults: Since this is the best you can do, well, UT instead proved my point. I did not discuss classicman’s little dic that does thinking for him; until after noting how the Cellar has changed. If posted, now that would be an insult. UT. Where does that sentence provide supporting facts for its conclusion? Why is it relevant? It does neither. Therefore it examples an insult. Find where I posted that at classicman – and good look. UT has no examples of such insult because tw never posted insults. UT’s examples, at best, only display justified indignant; always posted with supporting facts for a logical conclusion.

Your examples only demonstrate that tw only started posting insults after noting the new Cellar - which UT even denies has changed. OK UT. Prove me wrong. Why do you so approve of the so many Urbane Guerrilla personal attacks when neither April nor Barak did anything near that anti-social. You banned those others for far less (obviously I am not even impling a call for banning despite how others will foolishly and have previously assumed).

http://cellar.org/showthread.php?p=414922#post414922

Read it and please tell me which of his posts are mockery. The posts are numbered, you can just state which numbers.

The numbers of the posts where you insult him are #9, #12 and #14.

http://cellar.org/showthread.php?p=430446#post430446

I didn't write that he was gracious. What I wrote was "He responded with graciousness." His admission was gracious. He apologized - he complimented you (he actually wanted your input) and regretted the turn of the discussion.

Meanwhile, "Gimme gimme gimme" - that's your big insult? Are you fucking kidding me? If you can't stand "gimme gimme gimme", if that sets you off enough to start some sort of Major Big Dic Cellar Feud, then you really should unplug the Internet and take up a different hobby. Perhaps bowling.

Okay, number 1, your reading comprehension is not strong enough to understand what happened in the Barak / April cases.

But more importantly, there's no rule against personal attacks on the Cellar. The rule is, Don't Be Intolerably Annoying. Of what constitutes that level, someone has to be arbiter, and that's me and the elected moderators. If you don't like what we do, perhaps the Cellar is not the forum for you. There are 100,000 other forums for you to choose from.