Re: CHALLENGE FOR T.R. REGULARS

On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 06:45:27 +0100, "David Lee Kollberg"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>"Cele" wrote:
>> Sky King wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>> >> Please do. I have not seen Ann call you names, but I may have missed
>> >> it. Ann does not typically use name calling as a strategy.
>> >
>> >Here is a conversation between cele and ann.  You missed it.:)
>>
>> And again, you don't know who you're talking to here.....[sigh]
>
>So? He's been doing this "replying to several people at once" and "replying
>to the wrong people" for ages. Do you think he's going to stop doing it just
>by constantly reminding him he's doing it? This all seems like a waste of
>time and effort to me.

No I don't. I have other reasons which I have already discussed. Your
repeated posts of the same one liners strike me as a waste of time
too, but you'll note that I didn't say a word about them. I figured
they did something for you, and they didn't much interfere with my own
reading, so I left each to his own. 

>> This link goes to a list of posts. If you wish to have your cite
>> considered, you'll need to select the post you intend to present and
>> then give *that* URL. Otherwise this link doesn't give the information
>> you appear to intend to present.
>
>Now then, without following the link of Sky (or any other that might be
>submitted) I can say without hesitation that *everyone* who's been posting
>here regularly can be found guilty of calling someone names, on the odd
>occasion. What's the big deal, anyway?

Well you'd be wrong. Baba has without question never, ever called
people  names. Never. I invite you to prove me wrong.

As to the 'big deal', there isn't one. You're seeing what's not there.
I've been yanking Sky's chain for awhile, he's been responding, and
that's the whole, entire, 'big deal.'

>> >And a quote:
>> >"I think at the same time I called you a fucktard.  If I'd been
>> >> bothered about calling you a derogatory term I'd have hardly have
>> >> done that would I.......
>> >>
>> >> Ann
>>
>> I'm sorry, Sky, but your history of deliberate forgery makes quotes
>> untrustworthy. I'll certainly consider the linked message if you post
>> it, though.
>
>Again, it doesn't matter if Sky's telling lies, or calling you names, or is
>comporting himself in a primitive way, I'm sure a quote could be found where
>Ann (or anyone else here) calls him (or someone else) names. We're all human
>after all. We should sweep before our own door first (I don't know this
>expression exists in English).

My point was that if Sky wishes to convince me of something he will
have to post a message link. I provided my reasons why.

>> >Fine Ann but after a while folks will see that I am not playing your
>> >game.  Call me names all day if you like.  sky
>>
>> Ummmm...are you quoting Ann and then replying to her quote? Or did you
>> think you were talking to Ann? What's up here?
>
>Sky's funny. Sometimes without intent. Is that a crime?

Do you see an accusation of criminal intent somewhere?

>[...]
>
>> >This is not about caring or sharing..its about debate.  I have had
>> >debates here with many with no name calling.
>>
>> You've snipped the context, in which your character was being
>> discussed by Ellen and Daran. Daran was pointing out, with a typical
>> cite, the reason you are disliked by pretty much all of the talk.rape
>> regulars.
>
>As if it needs pointing out that most of the talk.rape regulars dislike Sky.
>
>BTW: why don't you all ignore him (like I do, most of the time), if he
>indeed *is* disliked so much?

I can't speak for 'all'.*I* do ignore him sometimes....didn't post
once to him between January 1 and April 28 this year. In any case,
David, it's a safe bet that we don't 'all' behave as you do because
we're not you. I myself don't post repetitive one liners, and you do,
but I don't hold myself up to you as a model to emulate. You post your
way and I'll post mine and we'll just keep our day jobs, shall we?

>> Your debating style is another matter. Historically, you tend to
>> either call people names or state that you 'win' regardless of
>> progress or outcome. This is verifiable with minimal googling.
>
>And, again, this is a bit beside the point. By now we all know 100% sure
>that Sky is somewhat of a bastard. There's no real need to go into an
>argument about that fact every fucking day, is there?

Wow. Are you ever angry. Earlier on, you've had your fun trashing Sky.
Suddenly poking fun at him is a problem for you. I don't think this is
about me or about Sky. 

>Having said that, why are you (several people, if not *all* T.R. regs) not
>dealing with Ellen in the same severe way as you treat Sky? Is it because
>she *sounds* somewhat smarter (slightly more upper class) than him? Is that
>all a troll needs to make sure of (to seem clever and above all give the
>impression like having had a good upbringing) to deceive you people? What's
>up with that?

Ah. You want me to trash Ellen. Gee, *Ellen* is pretty sure I'm evil
incarnate...I've apparently hurled, um, I think it's spite and ?venom?
(not sure, but I know spite's in there) at her. Like you, apparently,I
thought I was being rather reasonable with her. I guess I'm just not
going to be able to please everyone. Maybe I'll just stick with my own
posting style, then.

>[...]
>
>> >> >No she is rejecting your claim that there is data worth looking up.
>> >>
>> >> Regardless, she is also rejecting available data.
>> >
>> >No she is rejecting what you consider data.
>>
>> Data are just points of information. Facts. She's making comments
>> about people's posting style, and there is ample and complete archival
>> information available. She refuses to look at it. She is rejecting
>> facts. She is rejecting available data.
>
>And she should. Forget about the data and take a good look at yourself, I
>say.

Interesting approach. Are they mutually exclusive?

>[...]
>
>> >> Not true at all. I have never once called you a vulgar or sexual name,
>> >> and my comments have been about  your abilities rather than your value
>> >> as a human being. As such they are at least to some degree evidence
>> >> based.  I have not attacked your family members. All of these are
>> >> things you have done to me, repeatedly, and to others here as well. In
>> >> fact, these things characterise your posting style as demonstrated
>> >> here in talk.rape.
>> >
>> >
>> >An outright lie.  You have resorted to name calling many times.
>>
>> As I said, you are invited to provide message IDs to prove this. I
>> deny the assertion. I stand by my statements. If you wish to prove me
>> wrong, feel free to do so. I challenge you to find a post in which I
>> have done any of the things that I state above I have not.
>
>Common Cele, be honest. If you wouldn't have called Sky a name that wasn't
>"evidence based", every so often, you wouldn't be human, in my opinion. 

I frankly don't have each and every one of my posts to Sky committed
to memory. However, I have trashed him for his demonstrated lack of
intelligence, unwillingness to attempt any but his own narrow
perspective, vitriolic attacking behaviour and foul intent. These are
all evidence based. I have not, however, called him anything based on
traits about which I know nothing, to the very best of my
recollection. 

As for my humanity, I see by your other posts today that you appear to
have appointed yourself arbiter of this trait, however I don't share
your confidence in  your own infallibility in this regard.

>Sky
>has been dealing with you in a very nasty way (IOW he's asked for it) and as
>a consequence you *have* called him names (sometimes even gratuitously). It'
>s nothing to be ashamed about, when you take into account that Sky's conduct
>is often scandalous. You don't have to dispense with you being pitiless
>towards Sky at times, because it's all totally understandable.

Then why are you hassling me about it?

And for the record, I'm not saying I haven't called him what I haven't
called him because of shame. I've said it because it's accurate to the
best of my recollection. I may flame Sky routinely, but I have some
standards and they are quite different from yours and from his.

>[...]
>
>> >No they have not.  I have not called them names.  Only two people that I
>> >know of took me up on my offer to stop the name calling.  YOU are not
>> >one of them.
>>
>> That's true, I'm not. But you have messed up with the two who did.
>
>In fact at least three people took up Sky's offer; Neil, Daran and me. Of
>course it could be that I'm not regarded as a real person.

I miscounted, then. I have never stated nor implied that I don't think
you are a real person. I wouldn't do that, and I don't think that. My
recall tells me that my interactions with you have been entirely
supportive during your difficult times. I can't imagine why you would
suggest that I don't regard you as a real person, given our
interactions prior to today.

>BTW: conceivably Sky has indeed messed up with Neil and Daran (I don't
>know), but he certainly didn't mess up with me (so far). He's been obnoxious
>to me, I give you that, but he hasn't called me a single name since. I think
>that is pretty remarkable.

It is indeed. Of course, I don't see any debate between you either. I
believe the challenge was to actually *interact* without calling
names.

>[...]
>
>> >> Yet you feel entirely free to decide what someone else should consider
>> >> name calling. It cuts both ways, Sky. If I don't get to decide whether
>> >> my own words are attack, you don't get to decide whether your words
>> >> are name calling.
>> >
>> >
>> >That is fine.  You can take it anyway you like.
>>
>> You're missing the point. The point was about the inconsistency of
>> your claim that when *you* feel attacked, that defines an attack, yet
>> with all other posters, it's your intent rather than their reception
>> which determines the nature of the post. My impression is that you
>> don't understand that point.
>
>What if he doesn't understand it? What if Sky's an obnoxious jerk? You could
>stop talking to him (there's a "block sender" feature in every newsreader)
>at any time. Why don't you stop talking to him, Cele? He certainly has done
>enough to deserve your eternal indifference, but you keep going at it, as if
>you get a high out of it, or something. I think it is kind of odd, to say
>the least.

Because I haven't felt like stopping talking to him in awhile. I did
earlier this year, but it doesn't appear to be my mood of the moment.
You, too, have a 'block sender' feature, do you not? 

>[...]
>
>> >> >> I will agree that I have some disdain for your behaviour thus far. I
>> >> >> am willing to have my opinion changed, though am growing less
>> >> >> optimistic with each post. I do genuinely entertain the possibility
>> >> >> that you are a skillful troll.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >See...just more name calling.
>> >>
>> >> This is one of your problems, Sky. You decide that I am name calling
>> >> when I am actually making a statement of fact.
>> >
>> >
>> >No..a statement in fact stands on its own without different
>interpretations.
>> >Others may not see her as a skillful troll or any type of troll.
>
>For myself Ellen is a true troll, but Sky is not (and that is something to
>be slightly alarmed about.) Whatever the case may be, it's not bad to admit
>you're calling each other names, once you understand that there are degrees
>in what is appropriate. Sky is more often than not out of line (to cite
>Heater) while Cele *almost* never lets herself be tempted to end up flaming
>someone. It's all a matter of style, if you ask me, but we're all at fault
>at some point and to some level.

Okay, so?

>> It is a statement of fact that I am considering it possible she is a
>> skillful troll. I *am* considering the possibility. You are in no
>> position to refute this fact.
>
>No he isn't, and he knows that. He's just jerking your chain and you're
>showing your teeth. It's all part of the game that you two are playing.

So?

>> >> It is a statement of
>> >> fact that I consider it possible that Ellen is trolling, and is good
>> >> at it. I did not say she *is* a skillful troll. I said I think she
>> >> could be.
>
>Ellen *is* undoubtedly a troll. Just Google her, and you'll be astonished
>about all the things she's written (and in such a short period of time). 

Why would I google her? I've been here.

>So why is it that you (and I'm addressing almost all T.R. regs here) don't deal
>with her in the same way as you treat Sky, I wonder. I don't see any
>difference between Sky's obnoxiousness and that of the so-called
>sophisticated Ellen.

Sky had a LOT of chances to redeem himself. I personally refrained
from ANY posting to him for months, while watching his interactions
with others. As far as I remember, every regular here has tried civil
discourse with Sky, and been attacked for it.

Ellen is brand new. She may prove to be a troll. She may turn out to
have something to offer, although my own personal hope in that regard
is fading. She may, like Sky, become a pebble in the shoe, to which my
own response is sometimes react, sometimes ignore. In any case, she
has not yet achieved Sky's consistency because she hasn't been here
long enough.

You're sounding just a bit like a child saying, "I won't be friends
with you if you're gonna be friends with *her*!" And saying it to me,
when I'm the top of her latest list of evildoers on talk.rape, is
really one for the irony metres, David.

>> >> That is not name calling. It's me musing about her motive.
>
>Okay. Why are you (in spite of everything she's said) still "musing about
>Ellen's motive" and why don't you simply stop talking to Sky, if you've
>established *his* intentions beyond a doubt? I mean, what is the inherent
>reason that you find joy in this stupid game you play with Sky? To be frank,
>I wouldn't want to be your therapist, because I suppose we would be in for a
>very long ride ;-).

What a snotty thing to say to me. No form of smiley face makes that in
any way amusing or benign. It's a nasty thing to say and I can't
imagine what I've ever said to you that warrants it. Unless, of
course, you are referring not to my mental health but rather to your
predicted skill as a therapist.

>> >> Such distinctions being lost on you are one reason you struggle so
>> >> with debate.
>> >
>> >No...its word games.  I could say that I think you could be a shiteating
>pig.
>> >Does it make it better because I said I THINK you could be......?
>>
>> My statement of fact is a description of an opinion I have formed
>> based on available evidence. There is no evidence at all that I am a
>> "shiteating pig", and since I am literate, and pigs are not, there is
>> considerable evidence to the contrary. No rational person would form
>> the opinion that I am in *fact* a shiteating pig based on the
>> available evidence. Therefore, you are not stating a fact about your
>> reasoned opinion. You are name calling.
>
>All right. I think we've established that Sky doesn't know the difference
>between name calling and reasoned opinion. What we *haven't* established is
>why some of you keep engaging in this fairly stupid game with him? Maybe it
>was fun for a while, but what are your motives at this point in time?

I described my motives in a post just last month. Google me if you
like. You have presented your questions in a way that most certainly
does not motivate me to explain my thinking to you.

Cele