Does it bother you that Greg the Dogsitter is posting dumb threads while he should be working?

[mattkime]

I think what it comes down to here is that you see what she had to say as having a lot more value than what a couple of others around here think.

however, its not that i don't like what she's expressed. its that she repeats it over and over and over again.

>>And the solution is simple: don't read or respond.

if thats how you want to deal with it fine, but i disagree.

>> I want to emphasize that it's not just about swampy, and it's not just about one thread. Before this thread, it was a different thread. Before swampy, it was someone else.

well, for me it is just about that thread. you can make nebulous accusations about the past but i don't know what exactly you're talking about.

[davester]

kj wrote: It's not just swampy, as I've said above. Ok, I've about had it with the mocking, so should I now start posting childish repetitive B.S.? I think you guys deserve it. And as Davester notes, it has nothing to do with public discourse, and it even resembles the snarky nastiness of Al Franken, so I'm justified. kj.

Was my post that unclear? You certainly didn't understand what I intended to say. My point is that swampy was trolling by injecting partisan political trolling into a nonpolitical subject. My post was most definitely NOT directed at the folks here who were mocking him. Swampy does very little here but post ridiculous nonsense aimed at stirring the pot (i.e. trolling). That's the behaviour that has nothing to do with political discourse. He/she deserves to get slammed time and time again and I have no understanding of anyone who defends him/her.

Also, I completely agree with mattkime. These threads were about swampy's threads. Your generalized accusations about imagined past crimes, but no mention of specifics, are frankly annoying and smack of a conspiracy theory amongst a group of people who don't even know each other. Highly unlikely!

[Greg the dogsitter]

The funny thing is, I wouldn't talk this to Beerman, Paul F., billb, or the other conservatives.

Probably because they're men, I suppose.

As far as you judging my motives, you're wrong, but have at it. The last time I tried defending Swampy, you kept implying that I was doing the opposite. So that conversation is silly.

I like seeing viewpoints other than my own (I'm sure you'll disagree). I like the virtual and real friendships. I will respond, with an eye on the mods, the rules, and how I wish to carry myself. As far as NOT RESPONDING: No. You don't get to make that call.

Everyone else: I love you.

GtDS

Edit: And you never apologized for calling my writing tedious.

Edit 2: "way" (dammit)

[Gutenberg]

Well, nyah to you too, kj. As for not reading or responding, you don't get to tell me what to do. I will respond when I damned well feel like it, and I will respond in kind.

[kj]

>>He/she deserves to get slammed time and time again and I have no understanding of anyone who defends him/her.

Who decides whether someone deserves to get "slammed"? In this case, it's just one group deciding to gang up on someone. My point is that Greg has done what I think is just as bad as what Swampy does, and he's done it repeatedly. I think he deserves to get slammed. So should I start posting inane nonsense? In what way does that improve things here? Disagree with Swampy all you want, but I really dislike the mocking B.S. It makes what _might_ be bad, a lot worse. I'll stick with what I first said: It's childish and cowardly. kj.

[Greg the dogsitter]

I'll agree childish. I've been pulling silly stuff here for a long darned time.

"Cowardly." You ever post pictures of yourself here?

[kj]

Gutenberg wrote:
Well, nyah to you too, kj. As for not reading or responding, you don't get to tell me what to do. I will respond when I damned well feel like it, and I will respond in kind.

Did I ever say anyone has to do what I say? No, I did not, and I obviously know better. kj.

[Greg the dogsitter]

Gutenberg,

I don't think kj is talking to me any more.

Edit: My mistake; I apologize.

[kj]

>>As far as you judging my motives, you're wrong, but have at it.

Which motive am I judging, and how is it wrong? Did you not start the little "mock fest"? No one else has argued with my base assumptions here (that you are mocking swampy and want him/her to leave). They evidently find at least that part believable. kj.

edit: of course I am.

[Greg the dogsitter]

Okay, I'll talk with you straight.

The first post I made in that thread was not mocking. If Swampy was asking a straight question, I provided a straight answer. I would have said the exact same thing had we all been sitting around a table. After that, I followed with a few jokes, mostly alluding to earlier threads about different topics. I can't tell you how things appear, but at no point in that thread did I ever intend anything I wrote as mockery.

Mattkime then posted the first silly thread. In an attempt to garner the most shock value and kick mattkime's butt, I posted the "white Jew" thing, essentially throwing down all my humor/shock cards at once. Apparently, others followed the silliness, which pleases me more than it ought to.

I don't want Swampy to leave. I've even said as much to others in a pm or two. Swampy and I have had a few pleasant exchanges, and I value those.

However, the themes of "what you liberals think", etc., wear very, very thin. I see these, and feel that many of us are being insulted. "Here's what conservatives think" would sound just as stupid. I hate being told what my opinion must be.

Also, it's real hard to tone things down after being called cowardly. Just so you know.