Did OSC stop writing articles for the Mormon Times?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Yup.
Posted by SnuggleSmacks (Member # 12832) on :
Card still writes for the Rhinoceros Times, a local paper in his hometown Greensboro, NC. Unfortunately, lately a lot of what he has written has been homophobic rants against same-sex marriage equality. I am very disappoint.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Me too. I think there are bigger issues. Like being nice to spiders. And being compassionate to children.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I kill spiders and eat babies. Meh.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I like both of those...
Posted by Magson (Member # 2300) on :
quote:Originally posted by SnuggleSmacks: Card still writes for the Rhinoceros Times, a local paper in his hometown Greensboro, NC. Unfortunately, lately a lot of what he has written has been homophobic rants against same-sex marriage equality. I am very disappoint.
He wrote 1 column about gay marriage and that somehow made "a lot of what he's written lately" into homophobic rants? What planet are you living on?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Actually... He hasn't just written one column on the subject. I suggest looking them up because I don't feel like doing it. There's the one where he says sodomy laws should stay on the books to let gays know that society will not tolerate their gayness (But, straight people do that stuff too?), the one in 2004 where he compares gays to children playing dress up, there's one where he wants to overthrow the government. Then you have that rant in one of the shadow books. (But I don't see why gays CAN'T be apart of the web of life. Isn't it healthier to be open about who you are instead of lying and sneaking around? Plus, when I have kids and they are gay or bi I won't abandon them. I'm like partially lesbionic anyway. Why should I cut them off if they are mine?)
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Magson:
quote:Originally posted by SnuggleSmacks: Card still writes for the Rhinoceros Times, a local paper in his hometown Greensboro, NC. Unfortunately, lately a lot of what he has written has been homophobic rants against same-sex marriage equality. I am very disappoint.
He wrote 1 column about gay marriage and that somehow made "a lot of what he's written lately" into homophobic rants? What planet are you living on?
Magson, there have been lots of homophobic rants as well as Mr. Card working politically against the LGBT community. It is also a rather hefty thread that runs through his fiction.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Oh, yeah. He's one of the people on the board of NOM too.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I believe y'all may be talking about two separate things. Some seem to be discussing Card's columns in general, and others to be discussing the columns he's had published in that specific newspaper, for it.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
What Rakeesh said.
Very little of what Kate or Syn are talking about appeared in Card's column for the Rhino, which very rarely actually touches on gay marriage and is 99% reviews of movies, books, food, etc.
You should check them out, Minerva. They're usually reposted here on his site, as well. Eventually.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I'm guessing you missed his recent one about NC's Amendment One? It got national attention, and attracted quite a lot of blowback, including, I understand, a lot of personal attacks.
The column is not anti-gay, precisely. It is utterly dismissive of the needs of homosexuals, and it is sharply critical of the supposed left-wing attack against the family, and it contains nonstop assertions without proof (the same thing he accuses the lefties of doing).
"There are no laws left standing that discriminate against gay couples. They can visit each other in the hospital. They can benefit from each other's insurance."
Gay couples cannot file jointly. In states where gay marriage is not recognized, they do not receive any benefits of marriage and only receive insurance benefits if their specific employer and employer's insurance company permits it. They can visit each other in the hospital (thanks to a law passed in 2011 that affects hospitals which use Medicare and Medicaid) but only if the staff lets it happen.
And remember, this is in a column about Amendment One. According to the L.A. Times, "Family law experts say it will threaten domestic partnership health benefits for local government workers and strip unmarried couples, both gay and straight, of their rights to make financial or emergency medical decisions for an incapacitated partner."
So the logic seems to be that gays shouldn't worry about this bill because they already have all the rights they need, which this bill will remove.
There is a stated fact that the lefties will force sex ed (I assume that's what he means by "sexual and gender propaganda") on students. Actually 35 states and DC permit parents to opt out, 37 states require parental involvement in the curriculum, and many local districts have their own opt-out laws. I don't know offhand if any areas specifically ban parental opt-outs, and OSC doesn't provide links.
There is mention of scientific studies (but no links) and a dire warning that acceptance of homosexual marriage will erode loyalty to the institution of marriage, which a) leaves out the fact that the institution of marriage has a lot more things to worry about than letting gays in, and b) dismisses those people who believe so much in the institution of marriage that they're willing to suffer public humiliation and endless sleepless night campaigning to get it.
Basically the article dismisses or is oblivious to the earnest desire of same-sex couples in love to want a recognized legal structure for their relationship, and attributes all pro-gay-marriage arguments as thinly veiled plots to maliciously destroy America. Can't imagine why people would take that personally.
(But the personal attacks were uncalled for. An argument is fair game, rip it up with evidence and wit, but always treat the person with respect, even -- especially -- if he or she is attacking you.)
Posted by Magson (Member # 2300) on :
I see now that we're using different definitions of the word "lately." I define it as "within the past month or so" and based on your examples, your definition is "within the past decade," which are both valid interpretations of that very vague word. I wil admit that I'm struggling to reconcile very rare columns (maybe once a year, if even that) to "a lot of what he's written lately," though.
Eta: fixed crappy spelling from my 1st ever post from a tablet.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
The column Chris references was May 3rd. Is that not "lately"? What has Mr. Card written more "lately"?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Chris: yeah, I hadn't seen that one yet. I only really follow the column when it's reposted here on hatrack.
Kate: Magson is referring to this:
quote:Originally posted by SnuggleSmacks: Card still writes for the Rhinoceros Times, a local paper in his hometown Greensboro, NC. Unfortunately, lately a lot of what he has written has been homophobic rants against same-sex marriage equality. I am very disappoint.
A single article recently and the last one before that being... how many months/years ago?... didn't seem like a a legitimate example "lately a lot..." to Magson. Card writes a regular column. To Magson's mind, "lately a lot of..." probably suggests that the column has begun to regularly delve into this topic.
It hasn't.
This is an understandable miscommunication, right? No big deal.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Magson's post seem to imply that the "one column" was an aberration. It is not. Mr. Card has a well established pattern of writing these screeds of which the most recent post was only the latest example.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
*shrug* My post was just technical, that's all. I haven't visited the Rhino Times website in ages-years ago, sometimes I would visit it early, actually, wanting to read his stuff before it hit this site.
In any event, I'm in agreement with Chris, and would take it a few steps further. At best, Card's rhetoric and his stated facts about homosexual rights are quite ignorant, literally. That's simply the only reasonable reading to take on it, even for people who get all awkward when it's pointed out.
As for the going further part, the 'is it hate' part, well. If the group he were castigating so routinely this way were Jews, or Methodists, or Shiite Muslims, or Zen Buddhists, or something, there wouldn't be much disagreement about whether some hate was involved. He wouldn't be able to hide behind this BS about loving everybody.
But they're not and he can, and it'll still be a generation or three I think, before our culture gets past this knee-jerk respect for faith-based positions like Card, and trust in the 'love the sinner, hate the sin' business.
These Methodists will destroy the institution of marriage, and if we let them have their way, they'll force children to learn only Methodist positions, and anyway even when these Methodists do get married in places too weak and stupid to stop them, they're only playacting. All of those things are ad-libbed straight out of Card's positions on gay marriage, but while there's a lot of hemming and hawing about how we don't KNOW that's hate and it's bad to assume it for gay marriage, I think very few people would read that ad lib and have much doubt.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Pretty much. Replace gays and the left with Mormons and his eyes would turn red and glow.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Synesthesia: That's ridiculous, there's already plenty of prejudice aimed at Mormonism from certain groups. Mr. Card has mentioned that in columns as well, and it's anything but vitriolic. If nothing else, it's tired and depressed.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I personally hope/doubt OSC hates gays.
Don't have to hate a group of people to try and oppress them.
Posted by DustinDopps (Member # 12640) on :
I know it's hard for those of you on the other side of the aisle to comprehend, but being against gay marriage and homosexuality does NOT equal hate.
Look at the definition of hate. "To dislike intensely or passionately; feel extreme aversion for or extreme hostility toward; detest: to hate the enemy; to hate bigotry."
Most religious people who are against homosexuality - whether Mormon or Catholic or Protestant - do not hate gay people. They don't dislike them passionately. They don't feel aversion or hostility toward them.
Most religious people view it as a moral transgression and are fine with homosexuals as people, they just disapprove of specific behaviors. I believe that Mr. Card is in this camp. I honestly believe he has gay friends and because of the way he treats them, these friends know that he doesn't hate them.
You can point out people in the news who literally hate gays. They beat them up, ridicule them, drive them to suicide, and even kill them. But those are outliers - in the same way that gay pedophiles are. They aren't representative of the whole group.
I don't want to have a full discussion on the issue. I just wanted to point out that assuming religious people are full of hate is bigotry of its own kind. After all, a bigot is "a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one who exhibits intolerance or animosity toward members of a group." If you are showing animosity toward people who think like Mr. Card does, you are a bigot by definition.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I know it's hard for those of you on the other side of the aisle to comprehend, but being against gay marriage and homosexuality does NOT equal hate.
Heh. I know it's hard for those of you on your side of the aisle to confine yourself to rebutting arguments that are actually made rather than the ones you put in other people's mouths, because then things get kind of...awkward when it comes to opposing SSM.
Anyway, here's the thing: nobody (with the possible exception of Synesthesia) would say that to oppose SSM is to hate homosexuals. I didn't say or suggest that it was, actually, if you read carefully.
What I was pointing out is that opposition to SSM gets a pass re: hostility towards homosexuals that other kinds of opposition don't get. Hence my example about ad-libbing. If Card were to publish essays about how Methodists were out to destroy families, and how Methodists hate the institution of marriage, and how Methodists who marry are only playacting at real, complete adult relationships, people would (rightly) get angry pretty quick and start wondering, "Huh. Does Card hate Methodists or something?"
Not just Methodists or friends or family members of Methodists, either, but live-and-let-live people all over the place. But somehow, when Card agitates and lobbies with those kinds of claims about homosexuals-or when anyone else does, for that matter-when people get upset about it (for some strange reason), there's an immediate pushback from that side of the aisle about, "Hey, whoa! You can't say we hate homosexuals, or even have anything against them."
quote:Most religious people who are against homosexuality - whether Mormon or Catholic or Protestant - do not hate gay people. They don't dislike them passionately. They don't feel aversion or hostility toward them.
Really. I'm wondering how committed you are to this statement-I'll grant that the first part is probably true, and the second part as well-when they are actually compelled by circumstances to come to know open homosexuals, that is. But don't feel aversion? Seriously, Dustin, would you like to stick to that? This hypothetical person who for religious reasons (and I do appreciate you tacitly acknowledging that that's the only real reason to oppose SSM), how do you imagine they would react if they discovered their child or their sibling or their parent was gay? 'Aversion' would certainly be included in any realistic imagination of the initial reaction. C'mon. Be serious.
quote:Most religious people view it as a moral transgression and are fine with homosexuals as people, they just disapprove of specific behaviors. I believe that Mr. Card is in this camp. I honestly believe he has gay friends and because of the way he treats them, these friends know that he doesn't hate them.
No, it's not the same thing, however passionately you or others on your side of the aisle claim. See, because when 'religious people' view something as a moral transgression, they generally (in this country at least, thanks to our secular background) don't attempt to ensure it's illegal. Adultery, drinking, smoking, dancing, blasphemy, Buddhism, Islam, atheist, Halloween, condums, birth control, what have you, there are innumerable examples. All of these examples have a sect somewhere in this country-in some cases very large sects-and generally they don't try and make sure that behavior is illegal. They either don't or they can't, thanks to the framework we've got set up here. When they do, it will often make the news and render the state or town a figure of fun.
With SSM, for some reason, it's different. The real root reason is the same-God says don't do it-but somehow, in this case, it needs to be illegal. It shouldn't be illegal for people to smoke among themselves, or have a beer with dinner, or cheat on their spouses-we oughtn't involve the criminal justice system with that, because it's important we mind our own business. But not with gay marriage.
So no, it's not simply a matter of disapproving of specific behaviors. We know it's not because we know what it looks like in this country when a religious group disapproves of specific behaviors, and that's as far as it goes: they preach against it, they try and reinforce the belief that it's bad amongst themselves, and that's about it.
quote:You can point out people in the news who literally hate gays. They beat them up, ridicule them, drive them to suicide, and even kill them. But those are outliers - in the same way that gay pedophiles are. They aren't representative of the whole group.
Just to highlight how woefully out of touch you are, I'd like to inquire whether or not you actually meant to suggest that pedophiles occur at roughly the same rate among homosexuals as does ridiculers among opponents of SSM?
quote:I don't want to have a full discussion on the issue. I just wanted to point out that assuming religious people are full of hate is bigotry of its own kind. After all, a bigot is "a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one who exhibits intolerance or animosity toward members of a group." If you are showing animosity toward people who think like Mr. Card does, you are a bigot by definition.
Another argument nobody made: noone has said 'religious people are full of hate'. It's quite a lot more specific than that. Now I realize you 'don't want to have a full discussion of the issue', so perhaps you'll just dip in and out, as though your thoughts were somehow conclusive. But if you've actually the nerve, I'd be interested to hear your response to even some of the things in this post of mine.
But I won't hold my breath. I remember your style of discussion when you make claims that can't be supported except by faith, and you've already set yourself up here to take exactly the same route.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by DustinDopps: Most religious people who are against homosexuality - whether Mormon or Catholic or Protestant - do not hate gay people. They don't dislike them passionately. They don't feel aversion or hostility toward them.
As long as they know their place and are properly ashamed of who they are and appropriately filled with doubt and self-loathing. As long as they don't want actual families or spouses like we have.
As long as we get to feel that we are superior to them we aren't hostile at all.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
RE: Rakeesh to DustinDopps
Religious people's aversion to homosexuals: +1
Religious opposition of specific behaviors vs making them illegal: +1
Assuming that Dustin won't respond & rudely saying so: -1
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Thanks for that, Stone_Wolf. Your ratings are valued.
Though one thing to add into your computations, he suggested right up front he wouldn't respond, and he has a history of failing to respond.
I'm on the edge of my seat with anticipation as to what sort of change this makes in the scoring people solicited!
Posted by DustinDopps (Member # 12640) on :
Rakeesh - As usual when I dip my toes in the water here, I appreciate the fact that you keep a civil tone. That is something lacking in these kinds of discussions online and I appreciate it.
The problem with "having a full discussion" on this kind of topic is simply one of scope. I say my piece, you respond to my ideas, I respond to your responses, and it grows to be huge. Add in the fact that multiple people respond to the same post and it just gets unwieldy. In fact, there are five specific points you made in your post and if I responded to each, I'd probably have to make 8 new points. It just gets old. I'd rather put my point out and have it be discussed by everyone than respond to each criticism.
Especially since nobody's mind really changes much on these topics. :-)
I will say this, though: I'm definitely not saying there is a higher percentage of homosexual pedophiles. My point was the opposite, actually: that the actual pedophiles are outliers that make the entire group look bad.
And this to kmbboots: I don't feel superior at all. *If* what I believe is true, then I have no choice but to grieve for all sins, including my own. And trust me - my sins (at least to me) are far worse than anything I would accuse anyone else of.
And this to Stone: I think I might be referring to aversion in a different way than you are. I believe Christians try to avoid things they consider sin, and since they consider homosexuality a sin, they avoid anything to do with that lifestyle. (Which is annoying when compared to other sins - like gossip - that run rampant in churches, but I digress...) However, none of the people I grew up with would say "Ooooh! An icky gay person!" For example, my dad is a chiropractor. He has no problem treating gay patients, and he doesn't try to preach to them while doing so. They're people just like everyone else.
In short - it is entirely possible to disapprove of a lifestyle without condemning the person who practices it. Most Christians I know live that way.
Or I'm just really naive'.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I don't know if it's so much hate, but it's a total lack of understanding based on a small handful of verses. I don't understand the obsession with focusing on gays. There is a cruel undertone to it. I grew up with this, folks who were religious throwing around various not very nice words about gay people. Just because they are not using slurs, doesn't mean there's not an undercurrent of hate. It makes no sense to me to harp on something as trivial as two consenting same-sex adults being together when there's bigger issues that don't get nearly this much griping. Especially when Jesus can't even celebrate his birthday at anyone's house since they will have HAM on Christmas.
Also, it's all well and good if people have religious rules, but you cannot impose them on the rest of society. Otherwise I'd ban gum and gum popping. Just because YOU can't drink tea, or eat ham or drink alcohol or have a lesbian relationship doesn't mean I can't do those things.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Rakeesh: Thanks! The reason I gave the thumbs down on the last was that DD saying "I don't want to get into a full discussion" is a fair warning of the depth of his involvement (not entirely fair, but still in good faith warning of soon to follow unfairness, if you see what I mean) where as the assumption he won't answer -any- criticisms seems like bad faith to me. (Plus phrases like "if you have the nerve" are just impolite.)
DD: I get where you are coming from, but there is a big disconnect from "live and let live, we are all sinners" and using your clout to openly campaign for the oppression of the gays and assigning such paranoid and negative motivations to the other side as OSC is.
I fully respect people of conviction who feel some action is "bad" or "sinful" for them and try and avoid it, and live virtuous lives, and promote that ideal in their community. This is not what OSC is doing. So while I still believe/hope there is not hate in his heart for gays, I won't fault people if they think so, as his actions reasonably lead people to that conclusion.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Especially since nobody's mind really changes much on these topics. :-)
Provably untrue, unfortunately for opponents of SSM. People change their minds to support SSM at a much greater rate than they do the other way around.
quote:And this to Stone: I think I might be referring to aversion in a different way than you are. I believe Christians try to avoid things they consider sin, and since they consider homosexuality a sin, they avoid anything to do with that lifestyle. (Which is annoying when compared to other sins - like gossip - that run rampant in churches, but I digress...) However, none of the people I grew up with would say "Ooooh! An icky gay person!" For example, my dad is a chiropractor. He has no problem treating gay patients, and he doesn't try to preach to them while doing so. They're people just like everyone else.
Except Christians in general (as far as such a large group can be generalized) don't simply avoid sin and sinners. Divorce rates and teen pregnancy rates aren't wildly different among Christians and non-Christians, or even between one sect and another. There are of course tens of thousands of Christians who smoke too much, who are too violent or unfriendly, who drink too much or use the Lord's name in vain too often, so on and so forth. But they're not regarded as contemptible girly men, they don't get singled out on field trips for extra scrutiny in case they're a danger to the children, they don't get told, "No more marriage for you, you've cheated and divorced too many times." No. While scripturally, all of those behaviors are criticized, out here in the actual world everyone lives in, homosexuality is unquestionably considered worse.
If you want to say it shouldn't be, that's fine. But you're going on to argue it's not treated any worse, in any special way,, and no one can seriously, rationally make that claim. It just falls straight to pieces after even a casual examination of the way our society and the Christians in it actually treat 'sin'.
But in any event, even if your claim was accurate, well that's fine. Christians may go ahead to their heart's content treating homosexuality as a sin to be avoided. But keep it out of the lawbooks, or else simply own up to the belief that 'God says so, therefore everyone else needs to toe the line'.
quote:In short - it is entirely possible to disapprove of a lifestyle without condemning the person who practices it. Most Christians I know live that way.
Really. Then I'm sure you can regale us with anecdotes of Christian friends of yours, and family members, who know homosexuals and invite them to social functions as much as their other friends and family. Because I guarantee you, unless you're a serious introvert, you know or are separated by only a degree at least several homosexuals. Therefore you know and associate in a friendly way with those homosexuals-they attend church with you, or babysit for you, or are dating someone you know, or you go to a football game with them, or they were best man at a wedding you attended (not their own of course, good heavens!), so on and so forth. These things either apply to you, or a friend or family member of yours-there are several open homosexuals you either know or in your circle of friends, coworkers, or acquaintances, who are treated exactly as heterosexuals are.
That would have to be true, if what you say about condemn the sin but not the sinner were true, yes? But I'm going to make a prediction: it's not. Either you don't know many or any open homosexuals at all, or if you do they're not close personal friends of you or your circle. Which is fine, btw (but wrong), you're entitled to exclude anyone you like from your social circle. But when you do, don't then also claim they aren't condemned.
All of this, by the way, without even touching on the notion that it's not condeming someone to tell them they shoudn't marry, or adopt, or have kids, or be troop leaders, or soldiers, or politicians, etc etc.
-----
Stone_Wolf,
Man, which is it? Are you speaking to me or nor? I forget-there have been so many switches it's tough to keep track. Your ratings are neither needed, nor wanted, and Dustin is a big boy, more than capable of handling aggressive criticism on his own, I don't doubt.
So if you're going to post scores like that, I would very much appreciate it if almost inevitably I didn't have to hear later about how you wish I would do you the courtesy of not addressing you, or bullying you, or whatever.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
You can't have it both ways. You address me directly in a another thread, and when I reply, no big deal, and then later when I address you, it's this whole big drama.
If I choose to speak to you, I choose to speak to you.
And for the very last time, I only have ever accused one person of bullying, and it weren't you.
You don't wanna talk to me, don't talk to me, you don't like what I have to say about your posts, ignore it, or comment about, or whatever, but I will remind you of one thing:
I haven't asked anything of you in a very long time. Anything.
Edited to removed a humorously self conflicting statement.
[ May 21, 2012, 05:18 PM: Message edited by: Stone_Wolf_ ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
*snort* You misunderstood, which isn't surprising. I didn't ask you not to speak to me-I said that if you were going to, then it'd be great if eventually I didn't have to hear the usual litany of martyrdom from you later.
That said, your stoic 'ignore, reply, whatever' is fun considering some of your other responses to unwanted addresses-I guess your opinion changed? Good! It was a silly one anyway, in need of revision.
Anyway, listen, I'll be sure to pop into discussions you're having with other people in the future (after asking you not to talk to me, skipped that part) and rate your validity and courtesy. I'm sure you'll accept that cheerfully and without complaint!
Keep on believing what you like about what you said or suggested about who was a bully. And dude, when you make a point as you have of whining and playing the victim when I'm mean to you, and insisting I shouldn't talk to you, it's only fair to expect mockery and scorn when you go back on that.
Just remember, though, you were the one who asked and then changed his mind.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Blah blah blah.
I did change my stance...publicly...about a year ago, but considering you are utterly and completely stuck in your own remembered assumptions about people and not much on actually listening to what they are saying, it's not surprising that you don't remember.
Feel free to do was you wish, I can hold my own with you, and always have been able to. And when I get so disgusted with your snarly little barbs and general crappy attitude, I'll say I won't reply, and then you will likely say some ridiculously easy to refute BS trying to pull me back in (I never reworded my statement!) and then take it as a "win" when I don't say anything.
Whatever, boooooriiiing.
Get a hobby already.
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
quote:Originally posted by DustinDopps: Especially since nobody's mind really changes much on these topics. :-)
I can personally attest that at least one person's mind has been changed about SSM due directly to discussion of it on Hatrack.
Posted by moonbeam4281 (Member # 12123) on :
Back to the original question:
quote:Originally posted by Minerva: Did OSC stop writing articles for the Mormon Times?
He did for a while, but there is a website that appears to be brand new - Nauvoo Times It has Card's 'In the Village' columns, as well as columns by a few other LDS writers. There is a new column just posted today.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Oh, yes, you are known for holding your own-and protecting others from bullies, of course;)
As for getting a hobby...exactly who began this conversation by scoring who's post? Heh. As much as you continually assert your own victimhood (you're doing it again, btw, mean old dumb Rakeesh is sniping at you!), it's not about that. It's not even about 'easily refuted BS' (which you're welcome at your leisure to point to even a single instance of, which you won't, of course). It's about determining whether or not you actually mean your 'please don't talk to me' whining, or not.
Clearly you don't. The last time we rode this merry go round, I remember how it was resolved, don't you? Moderation, whining about meanness, followed by an eventual breaking of your own request of silence on your end?
Perhaps we can skip that step this time, and I'll just have fun with you? Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
You don't listen at all...just blather on no mater how inaccurate or silly, totally in love with sound of your own vomit.
Bla bla bla.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Yeah, didn't listen at all except for that pointed, topical response to your scoring which started this. Man! I am such a bad listener.
I am, though, absolutely listening when you declare you're 'over it' just a few short minutes before you respond within five minutes of another post of mine. I'm hearing your words, anyway, but for some reason the message is garbled! Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Slick...I feel confident you are impressed with yourself.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Not really, actually, and if I were it wouldn't be for this. But that's another topic entirely!
Anyway, back to you affirming how full of crap you were with declarations of being over it and such: can I get some maple syrup to go with these smooth, rich buttered pancakes? That's about all that's missing. Perhaps some sausage links, but I have little doubt that'll come too.
(If you just admitted, "Man, I really don't like you, Rakeesh, and I don't mind saying so," I could respect that. It has the virtue of honesty and not actually caring;) But until then, as long as you continue to suggest a veneer of virtue and justified anger, well then. I'll keep having fun! At least until you decide to actually stop again, and then if history holds true, it'll be awhile before you just...can't...stand...not letting me know what a jerk I am, and we can go round some more!)
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
You don't need me to let you know you are a jerk, you are smart enough to have figured that out on your own.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Oh and just for the record, I have said "I really don't like you." at least once, but I think more like two or three times.
But hey, let's make it even more official.
I really don't like you Rakeesh. I never really have. You act like a self righteous, argumentative, assumptive, rude, disingenuous, sanctimonious charlatan, more interested in appearing to have substance while flinging excrement from a tower made of veneer then to actually discuss anything with anyone ever.
But other then that, I think you are all aces son, all aces.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Oh, yes, you can clearly see looking back at my posts how little I'm interested in actually discussing an issue. Man, multiple pointed responses inviting responses in turn is, like, an indicator of that!
But, listen, you haven't actually said that before. You're always the victim. Someone is bullying you. Someone isn't responding to your points (even when they are). Someone is just being too mean, *sniffle*, and it's so uncalled for!
It's never, "Ugh, man, don't be a jackass," it's always, "Don't be a jackass, and I shall now proceed to lecture you in the ways you're deficient, implying that I am not." It's transparent. You make a habit of asserting moral authority around here you haven't earned-in this thread, with the baffling hubris to actually score other people's posts-and while it is a lighthearted or straightforward way to express approval ordinarily, when you get specific and begin to actually thumbs down stuff?
You ain't an editor. You make a habit of behaving as if you were, with people who are just to *lip wobble* mean, but you're not. I would ask you to actually reply to points made, but almost invariably if there's a difficult thorny problem presented to you, but presented in a 'rude' way, you seize on the rudeness and refuse to respond to the meat.
This, too, is transparent. It's happened in this very thread, and it's happening over on the other thread too. Instead of replying to the clear and in some cases explicitly stated words of a post, you respond to tone. You're welcome to change that anytime you like, but until you do, the people who's disrespect you would so very like to avoid won't change.
(Hee, now go on, reply within a matter of minutes again, asserting you don't care. Perhaps again this time, you'll get moderation in your favor and then take shots from behind it?)
----
These pancakes I'm eating are slathered in decidedly unethically produced butter and made with the most awfully farmed eggs. I am just that mean. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Now, this has been fun for awhile, but the thread is past cluttered. You're free to tout your victimhood as you like, Stone_Wolf, but in the infrequent instances you actually make or reply to a direct, relevant statement not related to how nice someone is, I'll continue to respond with the respect your thoughts deserve.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Oh come on.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Yeah, I know, gone on long enough, right? In fact one or two posts was long enough. *shrug* Perfectly true. I did mean what I said, though, re: not responding to remarks on courtesy from SW.
Posted by DustinDopps (Member # 12640) on :
People sure can be close-minded. Or, as the Bible would say, stiff-necked.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I wonder what the origin of that phrase, 'stiff-necked', is...
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Maybe because stubborn people wouldn't bow their head to the king/boss person type.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)