I wasn't part of that (another list I didn't make...), so I can't really speak directly to it or the level of seriousness involved. But I will repeat not as a joke this time, but a serious rejoinder - Did it work?
No, it didn't. Much like Beaker's dossier collecting, it all amounted to little. Whether you believe it or not, I don't want you banned. I'll even go so far as to say you have a right to post most of the stuff you do. But you also don't have a right to be so hurt when no one 'sides' with you. You apparently pissed off a bunch who organized against you. It didn't cause any real trouble for you, and if anything it gave you another gripe. So no, I don't think it is something for you to be concerned about. If you have to 'watch your behavior' so that you don't get tossed, that's a clue that your behavior might be an issue. I don't 'watch what I say', and I don't really worry about it. I do occasionally think something and maybe even type it in before thinking "nah, that's not worth saying/too mean/to whatever", but that's what we call politeness. It's not a sign of weakness or submission that we don't spout every thought that rolls through our head.
So you're saying that the FB thing was not real nor something for me to be legitimately concerned about ?
I see.
I wasn't part of that (another list I didn't make...), so I can't really speak directly to it or the level of seriousness involved. But I will repeat not as a joke this time, but a serious rejoinder - Did it work?
No, it didn't. Much like Beaker's dossier collecting, it all amounted to little. Whether you believe it or not, I don't want you banned. I'll even go so far as to say you have a right to post most of the stuff you do. But you also don't have a right to be so hurt when no one 'sides' with you. You apparently pissed off a bunch who organized against you. It didn't cause any real trouble for you, and if anything it gave you another gripe. So no, I don't think it is something for you to be concerned about. If you have to 'watch your behavior' so that you don't get tossed, that's a clue that your behavior might be an issue. I don't 'watch what I say', and I don't really worry about it. I do occasionally think something and maybe even type it in before thinking "nah, that's not worth saying/too mean/to whatever", but that's what we call politeness. It's not a sign of weakness or submission that we don't spout every thought that rolls through our head.
And once again, I repeat that I have never contacted management over any of these types of posts or for anything else posted here that could be questioned. They have much better and more important things to deal with. I have a thick skin and deal with these myself.
I wasnât initially going to respond to your silly post but there was some back and forth on it that compelled me to do so. Iâm also not going to kiss your perceived boo-boo to make it all better.
So in the spirit of the person you admire, I stand by my statement as written and double down on the message. In fact I triple and quadruple down on it. Anyone who voted for Trump will share responsibility for the destruction that he will cause. Yes, I invoked your name because you are one of the oldest and one of the more prolific pro-Trump posters on the thread. BTW, you have invoked my name when responding to others in the past.
Youâre a funny guy and I appreciate that you donât get why sometimes. In this case, you are funny in the hypocrisy you demonstrate on this issue. With Trump you managed to ignore/rationalize all of his lies and divisive/hateful rhetoric. But when it comes to a nobody like me and I write something that strikes a negative chord with you⦠well âthatâs a bridge too farâ. Apparently you apply a higher standard to me than you do for someone who has become the President of the United States.
I guess my statement hurt you. The truth always does.
that I am truly hated here and proceed accordingly.
Nobody here hates you specifically. When we talk about your ilk, then maybe you'll find someone with hate in their heart that applies equally to you. To me, you serve as a proxy for all of those, so I do apologize when I say "you" and mean "everyone who thinks and votes like you but is not specifically you although there is only one of you here so why bother with the more nuanced turn of phrase when everyone knows we're talking about you."
You do it too, every time (and it's frequent) that you tell me how I think or what my motivations are when you're actually talking about Democrats or RP or the Whole World.
And I assume it's a matter of principle with you, and me as well if I'm being honest, staying on the forum here at RP. It's rarely as rewarding as it once was; I doubt I'll make new friends here who I would want to meet up with in real life (although I did finally meet up with a few who I've known from here for decades, for the first time just this year.) But I don't feel hated. I cannot for one brief flickering instant imagine staying anywhere that truly hates me. Proceed accordingly. Or not, I don't care.
Re: self-deprecating :make it about you and then are upset when people continue to use you as an example.
Re: my workplace: what youâre describing isnât my attempt to mock them or demonstrate how clueless they are; that is self-evident. I mention how I am assumed to be MAGA just because of where I live more as a way to describe how frustratingly one sided things are here, and yet people are still obsessed with how they are being manipulated and treated and assume that I share their fears.
No it did not work because I found out about it and adjusted my behaviour so as not to overstep any boundaries that would be grounds to DD me. I found out how much I was hated here and the target that was put on my back. Ever since that event, I have acted as if that target is still on my back, that I am truly hated here and proceed accordingly. Can you blame me for thinking like that in light of the revelation of that campaign ? And the ongoing personal attacks based purely on my political beliefs ? No, not in your world. I'm just butt hurt, as you like to say.
One final thought.
You on more than one occasion have brought up situations where you work, where your associates think that you are "one of them" aka a Trump supporter because of where you live and work. You bring it up to mock them and demonstrate how clueless they are. Well I get the same thing, but from your side of the aisle. People will say all kinds of things about Trump because they assume that where I work, I must be one of them. I got much of the same at the record fair a couple of weeks ago.
It is a two way street. Just thought that you would need to know that as the possibility had never entered your head based upon how you relate the stories.
Back to you and anyone else who wants to opine ...
Re: self-deprecating :make it about you and then are upset when people continue to use you as an example.
Re: my workplace: what youâre describing isnât my attempt to mock them or demonstrate how clueless they are; that is self-evident. I mention how I am assumed to be MAGA just because of where I live more as a way to describe how frustratingly one sided things are here, and yet people are still obsessed with how they are being manipulated and treated and assume that I share their fears.
Yeah - - - yer diffusing (gas-lighting) won't help at all.
Perpetrators find their passively enscripted records in the Akasha chronicles glaringly readable for all their offspring and beyond our galaxy in general.
That is meant to be offensive. The association of me with the inferred ilk.
The Compact Oxford says (ilk): a type of person or thing similar to one already referred to. So whether ilk is pejorative, neutral or complimentary will depend on the type of person just referred to.
An eye roll to most of your regular persecution complex bit. But you continue to grab one particular and uncommon use of ilk improperly. It just means same or a grouping. OED, and MW both note it that way and don't even mention the negative connotation. You had to go hunt that one up - see point a) your persecution complex.
Don't remember when I first registered on this board, nor the moniker. It's been decades.
The "conservative" has changed to the "progressive" in my lifetime, completely over.
Nowadays they're called Nazis by the true Nazis.
Kurt is and has been a victim throughout the decades I were here. Under clouds of laughter.
If we'd all met in High School I'd a kicked yo asses big time!°
I don’t think that’s true. Even this post is you feeling hurt. But why should VV dress up his comments when he is in fact talking about you (since, as you constantly claim, you’re the only person here who fits the description)?
That you do not see my point is proof, to me, of my point.
You love to say that I am playing butt hurt. No, that is never the case regardless of how much you insist.
Self-deprecation is the act of reprimanding oneself by belittling, undervaluing, disparaging oneself, ... It can be used as a way to make complaints ... invoke optimal reactions or add humour.
No matter how often I say this it is ignored. I use it to steal the thunder of the poster and to state the thoughts or motives behind the post that go unsaid. I say these thoughts out loud to express what I see behind the post(er).
Whether or not I fit the description is no justification to make it personal. That is my point.
Well articulated but will fall on deaf ears such as Kurtster and his ilk who pushed all their chips in to be a party to the destruction of America.
Well articulated but will fall on deaf ears of those who pushed all their chips in to be a party to the destruction of America.
So in review, you (and everyone else here) see no differences between the two ways to express a POV. You see no reason for me to react at all, and especially in the context of this thread. Am I getting that right ?
Kurtster and his ilk
That is meant to be offensive. The association of me with the inferred ilk.
The Compact Oxford says (ilk): a type of person or thing similar to one already referred to. So whether ilk is pejorative, neutral or complimentary will depend on the type of person just referred to.
I was not already referred to in the post that VV was responding to, yet he took free license to be offensive, because he (and others) can and do get away with it all the time. This is not said in the Talk Behind Their Back Forum thread where snark and sarcasm is used and ok because of the context of that thread.
I'll keep going ...
islander wrote:
kurtster wrote:
Then explain about the Facebook campaign to have me DD'd.
So far no one has had the guts to speak up about that. And many of the participants are still here.
Did it work?
No it did not work because I found out about it and adjusted my behaviour so as not to overstep any boundaries that would be grounds to DD me. I found out how much I was hated here and the target that was put on my back. Ever since that event, I have acted as if that target is still on my back, that I am truly hated here and proceed accordingly. Can you blame me for thinking like that in light of the revelation of that campaign ? And the ongoing personal attacks based purely on my political beliefs ? No, not in your world. I'm just butt hurt, as you like to say.
One final thought.
You on more than one occasion have brought up situations where you work, where your associates think that you are "one of them" aka a Trump supporter because of where you live and work. You bring it up to mock them and demonstrate how clueless they are. Well I get the same thing, but from your side of the aisle. People will say all kinds of things about Trump because they assume that where I work, I must be one of them. I got much of the same at the record fair a couple of weeks ago.
It is a two way street. Just thought that you would need to know that as the possibility had never entered your head based upon how you relate the stories.
Back to you and anyone else who wants to opine ...
I donât think thatâs true. Even this post is you feeling hurt. But why should VV dress up his comments when he is in fact talking about you (since, as you constantly claim, youâre the only person here who fits the description)?
Well articulated but will fall on deaf ears such as Kurtster and his ilk who pushed all their chips in to be a party to the destruction of America.
So is this not an example of the subject matter of this thread ?
Invoking my name out of the blue and linking it with "his ilk" "to be a party to the destruction of America."
This is if nothing else, clearly a personal and hate motivated attack on me. Why else would it be expressed this way ?
It could have been expressed like this and there would be nothing for me to go out of my way to address :
Well articulated but will fall on deaf ears of those who pushed all their chips in to be a party to the destruction of America.
This is the difference from posting an opinion and making a personal attack.
Ordinarily I would just ignore this but since this thread started up and this post was made just less than 24 hours ago, I brought it here for parsing.
Yet this is what I must put up with all the time because as we all know but won't admit, it is always open season on kurtster because of his political beliefs.
This post is not a one off. They are very common in fact from many posters who I will not name at this time, but they certainly know who they are.
And once again, I repeat that I have never contacted management over any of these types of posts or for anything else posted here that could be questioned. They have much better and more important things to deal with. I have a thick skin and deal with these myself. .
