Kill the Messenger - this time the LA Times

[BigV]

Originally Posted by glatt

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

Bravo!!!

Seconded!!

[Griff]

third. motion carried

[Griff]

Originally Posted by glatt

It's also useful to remember what happens when you wrestle with a pig.

You get lipstick on it?

Originally Posted by classicman

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

Cool.

[tw]

Originally Posted by glatt

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.

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.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by tw

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.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by tw

Defined is what you must do to have credibility with me.

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.

[Sundae]

Originally Posted by glatt

A person earns credibility here with their 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.

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!

[Shawnee123]

Originally Posted by Sundae Girl

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!

[classicman]

Originally Posted by glatt

A person earns credibility here with their posts. Both you and Classicman have been throwing your credibility out the window with your childish mudslinging.

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

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.

[tw]

Originally Posted by glatt

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.

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.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by tw

You ignored the problem and then months later blame the victim.

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.

[Pico and ME]

Originally Posted by glatt

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.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by tw

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.

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.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

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.

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?

What part of "requoted" don't you understand. Are you really Urbane Guerrilla? The 'requote' and the expression embedded in double quotes ALSO came with a hyperlink so that others could see exactly what was posted. How many times over could it be that simple - and still classicman is confused?

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:

Oh please do tell. I need to know this before the election. C'mon -gimme, gimme, gimme.

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.

As usual, classicman knows because he was there in 1959. Oh. He need not be there. Extremist conservative bias is enough to know.
…. Classicman's post is a blunt obvious insult. Being a moderate means learning facts before knowing. But classicman knows all about Kennedy because he were there. Did god tell you how to know?

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.

I was in a rush to post. Now I'm sorry I posted in haste and got nothing more than another indignant response

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:

Why don't you agree? Are your politics morwe in-line with hers? Does she excite you in some fashion? What is it about her that you like?

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).

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by tw

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?

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.

UT's second citation again forgets to include the snippy classicman post that preceded it.

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

"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.

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.

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).

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.