I think Kiteman is correct as to the evolution of the topic at hand. Maybe not entirely correct (who can't find nits if they look hard enough) but in general that is the way I see how things have gone so far.
I must say that I did bring the topic up first in a fit of annoyance. I'm over it. I voted for NOTHING.
And you will note that even when I brought the topic up I wasn't entirely convinced of the position. And then I started the "Cabin Fever" thread.
Who Wants to Have Josh Banned?
Yeah, I thought it was a fit of pique.MSimon wrote:... I must say that I did bring the topic up first in a fit of annoyance. I'm over it. I voted for NOTHING.
I noticed that as well ... Josh shouldn't start randomly insulting people - it's such a poor debating position.MSimon wrote:And you will note that even when I brought the topic up I wasn't entirely convinced of the position. And then I started the "Cabin Fever" thread.
Ah, well.
Insanity Rules!
I maintain my vote for "nothing", though I guess "continue to talk to him" might fit under "other", but I don't consider it to be an answer to the question: thus "nothing".
I am more interested in helping Josh (become a better communicator) than doing anything about him. Thus my distinction between "nothing" and "other".
I am more interested in helping Josh (become a better communicator) than doing anything about him. Thus my distinction between "nothing" and "other".
Well, like the old Cletus Maggard Song "White Knight" says,KitemanSA wrote:Where do you draw the line between "hateful" and not? Does repeatedly calling someone and "idiot" and a "liar" begin to approach? Others may draw the line in closer or further. As I said above, this seems a very tolerant crowd.Diogenes wrote: As for Josh, he isn't bothering ME. I'm very much against the idea that anyone should be banned just for expressing their opinion. (even if it's a lunatic opinion, which i'm not saying josh's is, i'm just saying if it were.)
As long as people aren't being obscene or hateful, I have no problem with their input.
"You can say things about my wife or my religion but don't go gettin nasty about my rig... "
I guess it's in the eye of the beholder. While I wish people wouldn't refer to other people as "idiots", and "Liar" is far more objectionable, (I prefer the term misinformed
) I think we are all big enough not to take seriously stuff people say to us on the internet. It kinda reminds me of this.
Re: Who Wants to Have Josh Banned?
Nothing. Tho I now wonder what should be done about you. Take the infantile political squabbles somewhere else, this is Talk-Polywell, not Dictatorial Political Whiners Are Us.KitemanSA wrote:What Should Be Done About Josh Cryer?
And you know what's funny - when it comes to the politics, I agree with you and MSimon more than Josh. But the infantile incivility you illustrate by simply creating this thread disgusts me.
Vae Victis
"But the infantile incivility you illustrate by simply creating this thread disgusts me."
Lack of outward sympathy for the frustration KitesmanSA has for Josh Cryer, who really is a quite pigheaded and mendacious little #$%^(*&, this lack of sympathy disgusts me. (I have to remind myself, it is always possible he doesn't really understand what a lie is).
A catch phrase with the words "folks" and "strokes" comes to mind.
Lack of outward sympathy for the frustration KitesmanSA has for Josh Cryer, who really is a quite pigheaded and mendacious little #$%^(*&, this lack of sympathy disgusts me. (I have to remind myself, it is always possible he doesn't really understand what a lie is).
A catch phrase with the words "folks" and "strokes" comes to mind.
molon labe
montani semper liberi
para fides paternae patria
montani semper liberi
para fides paternae patria
Re: Who Wants to Have Josh Banned?
I don't recall having participating in any squabble with Josh, political, infantile or other. And my stance on AGW is not set, I don't know enough, but am not TRULY interested. I have been READING (on occasion) and offering a VERY occasional observation, but AGW is not one of my interests. I have found some data that peaks my neurons, but no passion. The one piece that interested me MOST was that graph showing LLOONNGG term CO2 and it's decline toward ZERO. We, humans, may be Gaia's method to INCREASE CO2 while doing something else to balance the long term solar increase. This whole AGW hypothesis may be ANTI-green. Hmmm.djolds1 wrote:Nothing. Tho I now wonder what should be done about you. Take the infantile political squabbles somewhere else, this is Talk-Polywell, not Dictatorial Political Whiners Are Us.KitemanSA wrote:What Should Be Done About Josh Cryer?
And you know what's funny - when it comes to the politics, I agree with you and MSimon more than Josh. But the infantile incivility you illustrate by simply creating this thread disgusts me.
But Josh's behavior reminds me of that other guy just before he started spewing those atrocious pictures on us that got him banned. I was curious if anyone else saw the same thing.
"Infantile incivility" that I illustrate...? How can asking a simple question illustrate incivility? I suppose if I had put an incivil harangue in the lead message, that could apply, but I was STUDIOUSLY neutral in my poll. Any "incivility" you detect must be inferred because it wasn't stated or implied.
Re: Who Wants to Have Josh Banned?
"Hey, I've disagreed about politics (on a science/technology board) with this guy for a long time. Let's vote on kicking him out so I don't have to tolerate his disagreement on the politics any more. Here, I've created a poll."KitemanSA wrote:"Infantile incivility" that I illustrate...? How can asking a simple question illustrate incivility?
Appears to be pretty uncivil.
Possibly. I am militant about keeping all perspectives available on discussion lists and boards I run and/or belong to. Echo chambers are f**king useless for learning anything new, be it technical or political.KitemanSA wrote:I suppose if I had put an incivil harangue in the lead message, that could apply, but I was STUDIOUSLY neutral in my poll. Any "incivility" you detect must be inferred because it wasn't stated or implied.
Apologies if I over reacted.
Vae Victis
Re: Who Wants to Have Josh Banned?
You have a... lets say "inventive" way of reading.djolds1 wrote:"Hey, I've disagreed about politics (on a science/technology board) with this guy for a long time. Let's vote on kicking him out so I don't have to tolerate his disagreement on the politics any more. Here, I've created a poll."KitemanSA wrote:"Infantile incivility" that I illustrate...? How can asking a simple question illustrate incivility?
Appears to be pretty uncivil.
Having just stated rather plainly that I have no squabble with Josh other than "behavior", you invent a political disagreement, nea a "long time" political disagreement. Interesting. Inaccurate, but interesting.
Re: Who Wants to Have Josh Banned?
I have to say I'd be in djolds1 camp on this one. Posting a poll like this is a banner ad saying 'let's get rid of ....'. It's odd that you don't see it that way.KitemanSA wrote:You have a... lets say "inventive" way of reading.djolds1 wrote:"Hey, I've disagreed about politics (on a science/technology board) with this guy for a long time. Let's vote on kicking him out so I don't have to tolerate his disagreement on the politics any more. Here, I've created a poll."KitemanSA wrote:"Infantile incivility" that I illustrate...? How can asking a simple question illustrate incivility?
Appears to be pretty uncivil.
Having just stated rather plainly that I have no squabble with Josh other than "behavior", you invent a political disagreement, nea a "long time" political disagreement. Interesting. Inaccurate, but interesting.
I only read the one AGW thread in this forum, and I can see that the guy maybe plays loose with facts and could use a few tips in measured response, but I didn't see anything in that thread that rose to the level necessary to ban someone.
Re: Who Wants to Have Josh Banned?
Interesting. I think it odd that you do. Perhaps if I had listed a liteny of reasons TO get rid of him, I would agree. But I listed none until others misconstrued my intent.vankirkc wrote: I have to say I'd be in djolds1 camp on this one. Posting a poll like this is a banner ad saying 'let's get rid of ....'. It's odd that you don't see it that way.
That is what I wanted to find out, whether anyone would say that anything had risen to that level. At least one poster had previosly mentioned it (pique or not) and I was curious.I only read the one AGW thread in this forum, and I can see that the guy maybe plays loose with facts and could use a few tips in measured response, but I didn't see anything in that thread that rose to the level necessary to ban someone.