posted
Tammy, take a stroll through some of the political threads.
I have to say, actually, (now that I've had two ranting posts born out of frustration), that Chad has been an ok hatracker (for the most part) in non-political threads. When they stay non-political, that is.
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Ok, I've made a decision. Before I was for giving Homosexuals equal rights along with Heterosexual couples in the form of a Union.
The comments on this thread have changed my mind.
I am now for the state and constitutional ammendments banning Gay marriage.
It has become clear that there are the minority of people in this country who don't give a rat's ____ what the majority of the people in this country want and are willing to abuse the judicial system in order to force their beliefs on the majority. If you are willing to compromise, but the other side is too pig headed to do so, then you go out and being the majority, you get what you want.
Just want to say thanks to all those who pushed me towards the banning of Gay Marriage from my previous view of equal rights for both.
But it has become evident that one side is really too stupid to realize that what they want is not what the majority of the people in this country want, but feel they have the right to force those views upon us.
So, ban gay marriage in all forms and the problem is solved. The rules will be clear, and the law will be one that the majority in the country will believe in and support, which is critical.
posted
hey chad how about addressing ANY of the other issues or concerns brought up in this thread or others...if it's not too much trouble.
Posts: 1572 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
For the last time, it ISN'T your views. It's HOW you post them.
Try to rein in the sarcasm. Try to behave as if the other people posting know what they're talking about. Most people here DO know what they're talking about, and phrase it cogently and politely and respond to others' posts with respect.
Eliminate comments such as this...
quote:that one side is really too stupid to realize that what they want is not what the majority of the people in this country want
Would you ever be that rude to anyone in person? I don't know you; maybe you would.
quote: I don't call anyone moron or nut job or any such names, although many do fit the bill to a "T".
quote: But it has become evident that one side is really too stupid to realize that what they want is not what the majority of the people in this country want, but feel they have the right to force those views upon us.
posted
I think the German Pansy dialogue was much more illustrative.
Wow, in checking the Debate #1 thread I noticed that Irami and I agreed on something- the debate was a tie.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well should I name call like you Ben? I really don't want to stoop to that level, so I'll just say, that if you wish to continue attacking me directly, go right ahead.
If it makes you feel better about yourself Ben to call people names directly, I'm glad I could help you out.
I'm just here for the enjoyment of the topics.
Oh and here's a hint or two that it's obvious some have a tough time dealing with. It's simple, but so hard for some to grasp.
You don't have to read something. There is no "force" here to make anyone read anything, or even respond for that matter other than one's own lack of self control.
Likewise, you don't have to respond. If you choose to, then be prepared to respond back as well.
Don't post something like "Two republican senators annouce Gay affair" and then be suprised if someone responds with Anti-Democrat or "liberal" quips as well.
When I think someone crosses the line is when you call someone directly "ignorant" or "pick your favorite name here". See there's thinking an idea is stupid, then there's actually calling another poster stupid directly.
So again, Ben, if you wish to continue posting "names" I hope your ego gets that little boost from it.
But alas, I won't bite your bait and do the same back.
I hope that answered your question.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:So Dagonee, what is the problem with that post?
For one, no one in that thread stated that they wanted to enforce gay marriage rights through the courts. So when you say "The comments on this thread have changed my mind" and "It has become clear that there are the minority of people ... willing to abuse the judicial system in order to force their beliefs on the majority," you mischaracterize the opinions of those opposing you.
If this happened once in a while, or if you apologized when it happened, this might be tolerable. But you do this very frequently, basically conflating the ideas of other people you've encountered or read about elsewhere with the ideas of the people you're engaged in discussion with.
Further, when you say, "But it has become evident that one side is really too stupid to realize that what they want is not what the majority of the people in this country want..." you are both name calling and ignoring the plain basic fact that this is a discussion board in which participants are trying to convince others what they think.
I disagree with pretty much EVERYONE on this board on some substantive matter or another. I know I've sometimes pissed people off and not always acted perfectly. I've generally apologized, and I've always been forgiven when I have. Why? Partly because Hatrack is generally very forgiving, and partly because I generally treat other posters' ideas with respect, even while vociferously disagreeing with many of them.
Finally, deciding to publicly announce your change of heart because people on this board disagree with you and have the nerve to give reasons why is about the most childish thing I've witnessed on this board.
quote:Please elaborate how I should change my views to make you happy.
See, this is a perfect example of your mischaracterization of others. Nowhere did I say you should change your views to make me happy.
posted
Chad: Do you have any response to numerous posts asking you to address your level of civility?
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The illicit gay affair thread was Idemonsthenes. I don't think that is the same person as Ben, though I have been known to be wrong.
The arguments on gay marriage have had an effect on my view, though they didn't make me more conservative. They just helped me to clarify in my head why I believe as I do. But we almost certainly read different gay marriage threads. So I'm inclined to believe maybe you are going through a similar process, but you just aren't articulating it.
The idea (insert: that I am hearing from several people) that hatrack elevates style over substance is not entirely right, I hope.
posted
That's your opinion Ben. Perhaps if you could tell me the response you want or are fishing for, I could be more obliging since you didn't like the one I gave.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: The illicit gay affair thread was Idemonsthenes. I don't think that is the same person as Ben, though I have been known to be wrong.
I never claimed it was Ben's. It part of the "trolling/fishing" threads started on the forum that want to say "look at me bash republicans" then get all pouty and whiney when someone bashes democrats.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
many people have expressed disdain with your approach and/or delivery regarding civility. there is a start chad.
and in many threads people have made valid arguments for not supporting the war or president's decison in going to war and asked you why their ideas were so off base and you didn't even give them the time of day. you DID however find time to post in those same threads about the ridiculous nature of kerry and any of his supporters.
[ October 12, 2004, 06:45 PM: Message edited by: Ben ]
Posts: 1572 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pooka, I think hatrack values respectful and thoughtful discussion. It isn't so much style over substance as..."We'll be more inclined to listen to your substance if you present it in a way that doesn't treat the person you're responding to as if they were brainless."
That said, I think it is also inevitable that people respond at some level to the articulateness (is that a word?) of a post. Right or wrong, we tend to respond to style in addition to substance. I'm reminded of a quote from bash.org:
quote: <h|tler> HOW THE **** CAN YOU TELL THAT I'M 13 BY LOOKING AT WHAT I'M WRITEING?????????????????????????????????????????????????????
quote:and in many threads people have made valid arguments for not supporting the war or president's decison in going to war and asked you why their ideas were so off base and you didn't even give them the time of day. you DID however find time to post in those same threads about the ridiculous nature of kerry and any of his supporters.
I've posted valid responses to the way I see it and fact sources that back it up, and they have been attacked in response.
Are you saying that something I believe in as false I should just let hang out there?
Ditto right back at you and MANY MANY others.
I have valid reasons for my views on John Kerry and I post them. I don't get all tissy when someone responds that they don't like them. Good for them.
So if you want me to raise the "level of civility" of political threads, you can start with yourself as well, because I can't do it alone and you and others have made no effort to do the same.
When you call President Bush a liar, I question those reasons and have done so. There's nothing wrong with that.
If you base your claim on a German book written by a German who has no inside intelligence on the Bush Administration, then why should that not be called into question.
From what I can gather Ben, it appears that people want to be able to say "Bush lied" to their hearts content, but don't want to be disproved or challenged on that.
My advice, don't post "Bush Lied" unless you want it to be responded to.
And I have responded and said what I think of those conspiracy theories and my reasons.
If you are talking about "indirect" references, then others are far more guilty than I am.
Because Calling bush a Liar automatically blankets those who support him as well.
I don't see why one should be allowed and then have people get tissy when Kerry is called the same.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Chad, do you plan to respond at all to any of the posts that address your lack of civility?
Tammy, I think it's mainly because a lot of us see Chad's responses as not just opinionated, but downright rude and insulting. Just being opinionated is one thing; but to me, it seems like Chad falls into that "mean person" category. All I'd like to see from him is a little bit of respect for everyone else on the board.
And, now, "Respect" will be in my head for the rest of the night.
posted
Chad, I posted a response to your explicit request. You've responded to three posts posted after my response. Are you going to have the courtesy to respond?
posted
Tammy, I posted a sample in response to your request. I can recall very few posts that match up to the level of contempt in that post. The ones I can recall I have responded to.
Do you think that kind of thing is very common around here?
quote: You can do as I and not call ANYONE names, and still be unacceptable
Yup, that must have been someone else who called a bunch of posters stupid in that post Dag quoted. Certainly wasn't you. Poor, innocent little Chad. Nobody understands him.
Posts: 3956 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dagonee, my post was my views. I never claimed they were others. I simply claimed a conclusion I had arrived to due to the 4 page thread in which I posted.
What is your problem with that? That I have to arrive at some pre-determined view because other posters decide what my views are for me?
No, my views changed while reading those threads. I posted why they changed. I never posted anything about anyone in that thread directly or indirectly.
I posted how I perceived the people (in general) opposed to my arrangement of compromise would use the legal system to turn it down or run it into the ground, and force their beliefs on the majority.
I never once said that you or anyone else was that opposition directly.
If you don't like my views then say so. But if you have a problem with my views, then that is your problem.
Also, dagonee, I am only one person and cannot answer every request made on this forum.
If you can't have some patience, and demand an answer, then again, that is your problem.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Chad, do you realize how many of the people that would otherwise agree with you philisophically are disagreeing with your tone? When those who would be your friends because of shared beliefs can't stand you maybe you should re-evaluate. Considering how many of the people that I seriously disagree with on this forum ARE my friends I think that says a lot. It's at the point where I'm trying to figure out one person on Hatrack who hasn't got ticked off or frustrated with you.
quote: Yup, that must have been someone else who called a bunch of posters stupid in that post Dag quoted. Certainly wasn't you. Poor, innocent little Chad. Nobody understands him.
Celia, tell me who I directly called stupid.
I'll give you a hint. No one. I don't do that.
Name one person on this thread that I have said directly "You're stupid".
And if you try to say, "well I am opposed to you so that means I must be stupid". That is YOUR assumption of your own choice by association. I don't tell anyone to believe anything. If you choose to believe something, then you are responsible for your choices.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
People can't always tell when I'm being serious or not, so I'll say that I'm being 100% serious, CStroman. I realize we keep asking you to stop being uncivil, and you apparently don't know what we mean.
Lumping all the liberals together is uncivil. Refusing to apologize when you have been shown wrong is uncivil (referencing the German contributions). Calling your opponent "stupid" is uncivil.
"I am the all powerful Chad. I can force you to READ my posts and respond. You can try to hold back, but My mind control is greater! I will force you to read my posts...yes...I have power over the weak minded to make them read...yes...you must now post...yes....You will post.....The all powerful Chad has spoken!"
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not really trying to defend you Chad, you're more than capable of fighting your own battles, and I’m just trying to understand why they allow you to personally get under their skin?
They're asking questions. Maybe you should individually address them to clarify some issues.
To my knowledge, Ben doesn’t usually go for the juggler. Obviously some lines have been crossed. You’ve got Dag and Megan AND Celia calling you out….answer their questions. *shrugs*
I'm not sure why I'm even in this debate. I suppose it's because I've felt that Chad got picked on from post one, and it's confused me.
You all have your reasons…I hope.
I’m outta this thread. Not my style. Posts: 3771 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
So you're claiming that 3 pages of people disagreeing with you, none of whom wanted to use the judicial system, somehow made you aware of all those other people out there who do want to use the judicial system to accomplish their goals?
If that's the case, what did you mean by "Just want to say thanks to all those who pushed me towards the banning of Gay Marriage from my previous view of equal rights for both"? Were you referring to the participants in that discussion that disagreed with you? Or do you often talk to people who aren't participating in the discussion?
The plain meaning of your post is that 1) people in the thread were advocating using the judicial system to enact gay marriage rights; 2) these people are stupid; and 3) it's the comments in the thread that made you come to the realization that "compromising" is fruitless.
I note that you, of course, ignored the discussion of you calling people stupid, and of your mischaracterization of my post in this thread.
posted
Apparently if he doesn't say a name he hasn't called someone a name.
Just saying that lots of people posting in the thread are stupid isn't calling anyone stupid.
I guess if I said that anyone spending most of this thread arguing Chad wasn't being insulting was a homophobic nazi necrophiliac bigot I wouldn't be calling Chad such a thing, because I never named him, merely alluded to him in a way which could not be misconstrued.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: "I am the all powerful Chad. I can force you to READ my posts and respond. You can try to hold back, but My mind control is greater! I will force you to read my posts...yes...I have power over the weak minded to make them read...yes...you must now post...yes....You will post.....The all powerful Chad has spoken!"
quote: Celia, tell me who I directly called stupid.
I'll give you a hint. No one. I don't do that.
Name one person on this thread that I have said directly "You're stupid".
And if you try to say, "well I am opposed to you so that means I must be stupid". That is YOUR assumption of your own choice by association. I don't tell anyone to believe anything. If you choose to believe something, then you are responsible for your choices.
You said, “The comments on this thread have changed my mind.” Then you said, “it has become evident that one side is really too stupid…” You presented no intervening circumstance or cause between the two sentences.
The implications are clear. And you are showing your dishonesty more and more.
quote: I'm not really trying to defend you Chad, you're more than capable of fighting your own battles, and I’m just trying to understand why they allow you to personally get under their skin?
It's because I am all powerful! I can make them read! I can make them post! They can't help themselves. I really shouldn't flex my all powerful self at them as much as I do, but if you read my threads, you know who my victims are!
They truly, and honestly can't NOT post. They have to. Don't blame them. I force them with my powers!
See I made the people in this thread call me names!
quote: Oh and here's a hint or two that it's obvious some have a tough time dealing with. It's simple, but so hard for some to grasp.
You don't have to read something. There is no "force" here to make anyone read anything, or even respond for that matter other than one's own lack of self control.
Chad, the last time this came up, I pointed out that the defense "I'm just speaking my mind; you don't have to read it" has never worked for anyone on Hatrack who's ever tried it. In fact, universally, everyone who's ever resorted to that lack bit of desperate justification has been banned within weeks.
You seem to draw a distinction between calling me a jerk, saying that anyone who believes something I believe is a jerk, and saying that I am -- for the following three reasons -- a jerk, in a manner you are not. I say this because you seem to think that only the first is out of line, and that only the first is technically a personal insult; you certainly engage in the other two forms of insult fairly regularly, and I'd like to think that you are not unconscious of your behavior. The thing is, all three of those behaviors are equally insulting; all three of them, in essence, call me a jerk. Dagonee's been upset in the past -- to the point that I've wondered, idly, whether he meant me when he mentioned his struggle against the Secret Lying Poster, but for the fact that I'm not exactly known for my dishonesty -- when I've made the argument that an entire belief system is dangerous or stupid, precisely because he rightly understands that the implication is that I am insulting the people who adhere to that belif system.
You ARE insulting, Chad. Every time that you call someone who supports Kerry "uninformed," you are calling half this board uninformed. Every time you say that people who disagree with you are nattering, negative nabobs who want to be ruled by the French and are secretly friends with Saddam Hussein, you are accusing people of being traitors and betrayers. And you are doing it deliberately.
I think, quite frankly, you do not know any other way to argue. I fear you were raised in another part of the Internet, where this kind of thing is what passes for argument. But rest assured that you will not ever be embraced by this community unless that deliberately confrontational and offensive behavior stops.
Posts: 1777 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
disagreeing with many of them.![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
