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

[Gutenberg]

Childish? No. BS? No. It's a great way of diluting the vitriol that gets poured around in fora like these.

kj, you are essentially saying we should have to accept whatever the conservatives put up on the forum and just nod and smile. We are not going to do that.

[Greg the dogsitter]

Gutenberg wrote:
Childish? No. BS? No. It's a great way of diluting the vitriol that gets poured around in fora like these.

kj, you are essentially saying we should have to accept whatever the conservatives put up on the forum and just nod and smile. We are not going to do that.

Okay, while normally I just do disagreements like this in my head, I'll make a point of mentioning it out loud.

I don't agree on the use of "conservatives" in the above; conservative views are welcome, vitriol ain't.

[kj]

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

Child-like can be good, and bad. If you're child-like, that may be 99% good, but in this particular case I think it might be the 1%.

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

I think I posted a link to pics of me, but I don't remember feeling it took a lot of courage. Cowardly is too strong a word, but I do think you're trashing Swampy, and hiding behind "humor". In that regard, at least Davester commits. kj.

[Greg the dogsitter]

That's what I mean about evaluating motive. I know you think the subsequent threads were trying to trash Swampy, even if I say I was trying to get yuks after mattkime's post. It's just forum riffing. It's a playground. Sometimes, I act like it's my playground. If I get complaints, that will change.

I may be silly, but I'm a sincere silly. If you don't believe me when I describe why I wrote something, or how I feel regarding whether someone should be kicked off the forum, or whether I'm defending Swampy when you keep saying I'm trying to imply something about her argument, then I've got nothing left to say here.

[kj]

>>It's a great way of diluting the vitriol that gets poured around in fora like these.

I'm really serious that I see it as vitriol hidden behind humor. It's just my preference, but I'd rather see straight up vitriol. I know from experience that being on the receiving end of humor like that doesn't feel great, hence my classification of it as vitriol. I can't imagine none of you think it wouldn't be perceived negatively by swampy (or someone else).

>>kj, you are essentially saying we should have to accept whatever the conservatives put up on the forum and just nod and smile. We are not going to do that.

I wouldn't bother coming here if you guys did that. kj.

[Gutenberg]

Well, what exactly does "don't read or respond" mean, then? To me at least it's saying "like it or lump it." The libbies could just as easily say the same thing to the cons.

[Black Landlord]

Allright folks, you've said your piece, I'm closing this thread now.

[Greg the dogsitter]

Black Landlord wrote:
Allright folks, you've said your piece, I'm closing this thread now.

That would bother me.

Thank you.

Don't forget to tip your waitress.

[laarree]

Black Landlord wrote:
Allright folks, you've said your piece, I'm closing this thread now.

Your assertion of power impresses of me.

Oh wait, I just posted...

[kj]

Gutenberg wrote:
Well, what exactly does "don't read or respond" mean, then? To me at least it's saying "like it or lump it." The libbies could just as easily say the same thing to the cons.

I think you guys' arguments in that thread made perfect sense. Why not just leave it at that? That's basically my only point.

I can't stand it when people gang up on someone. I don't care who they are, it just drives me nuts. kj.