Debate Now Is "Structured Debate" another Euphemism for Censorship?

[Gracie]

Having one member HAVE to go somewhere else in order to discuss is one member too many. This ain't the USMB it used to be with a lot of newbs joining. Well, a bunch did awhile back but they stick to their ONE thread and don't bother with the rest of the board. It's like a clique in there. They don't budge anywhere else. Its a thread that turned into a board within a board. Weird. And not very inviting to other newbs that stumble in here. Plus, newbs in the intro thread aren't supposed to be bashed but it happens most of the time. So they leave.
Nope. Things are not like they are. And money might be coming in with all the ad revenue, but the growth of the board itself is stagnating.

Just my take on it. Only my opinion. Which means squat in the grand scheme of things.

 

[Foxfyre]

Having one member HAVE to go somewhere else in order to discuss is one member too many. This ain't the USMB it used to be with a lot of newbs joining. Well, a bunch did awhile back but they stick to their ONE thread and don't bother with the rest of the board. It's like a clique in there. They don't budge anywhere else. Its a thread that turned into a board within a board. Weird. And not very inviting to other newbs that stumble in here. Plus, newbs in the intro thread aren't supposed to be bashed but it happens most of the time. So they leave.
Nope. Things are not like they are. And money might be coming in with all the ad revenue, but the growth of the board itself is stagnating.

Just my take on it. Only my opinion. Which means squat in the grand scheme of things.

We lost quite a few of our regular Coffee Shop folks due to those who hated the new software. I don't like it either but I've gotten used to it and it isn't the irritant that it was for quite awhile. But a lot of those folks were active elsewhere on the board too, and I don't how many who weren't Coffee Shoppers also left. Others hate not being able to neg rep or otherwise dis somebody's post without having to actually post to do it, and that took the fun out of it for them I suppose. Still others hate not having the comment feature that came with rep and think that has damaged the feeling of community. I don't know about that because I have no problem complimenting people publicly or, if that would be inappropriate, using the PM function. It is a lot more hassle using PMs than it was the comment feature though.

For me it isn't that the board has gotten meaner. I don't think it is because so many whose main stock in trade was stirring up shit aren't here any more.

But the quality of discussion could definitely be improved. Until the SDZ I had pretty well given up trying to have an intelligent discussion anywhere. If there was any disagreement at all, almost all eventually became a drive by bunch of nonsense or a food fight or an attack thread like this one has mostly become. And apparently some won't be happy if all the SDZ isn't the same.

But oh well. I'll stay with my active thread in the SDZ until the discussion fizzles out and then will stay away for awhile. Then everybody can be happy. No biggie.

 

[Gracie]

I hear ya, and admire your tenacity. I get fed up, have a hissy, leave for awhile and hunt for a new place just like this one but isn't just like this one, come back. Wash rinse repeat for ol Gracie.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Having one member HAVE to go somewhere else in order to discuss is one member too many. This ain't the USMB it used to be with a lot of newbs joining. Well, a bunch did awhile back but they stick to their ONE thread and don't bother with the rest of the board. It's like a clique in there. They don't budge anywhere else. Its a thread that turned into a board within a board. Weird. And not very inviting to other newbs that stumble in here. Plus, newbs in the intro thread aren't supposed to be bashed but it happens most of the time. So they leave.
Nope. Things are not like they are. And money might be coming in with all the ad revenue, but the growth of the board itself is stagnating.

Just my take on it. Only my opinion. Which means squat in the grand scheme of things.

Oh, you mean the group that I lovingly call the Andorian Mothershippers.

Yes, they are on a long journey, together, on one very compressed thread, and about every 30,000 postings or so I kick them into hyperdrive so that they one day will finally reach the Earth.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Color me confused but....isn't EVERYONE here arguing they are correct in their thinking and everyone else is wrong? Isn't that what "debate" is all about? Trying to convince others to think as yourself while the other person is doing the same thing and it all comes to naught except for a bruised forehead and ego?
Why yes. Yes it is! ......

My issue is not with those who have differences of opinion. Never has been. Without differences of opinion, there wouldn't be much to discuss. I greatly appreciate those who can make a reasoned defense of their point of view without going ad hominem or personally insulting even if I disagree with them. And if their argument is better than mine, and sometimes that is the case, then good for them.

My issue is mostly with:
1. Those who want to see how quickly they can derail, disrupt, or shut down a thread.
2. Those who get their jollies by picking fights or using the anonymity of the board to insult others.
3. Those who have nothing to contribute but enjoy filling up threads with nonsense.
4. Those who seem determined into making a thread topic into something else it was not intended to be.
4. Those who are incapable or unwilling to direct their comments to a thread topic but instead want to make one or more other members the issue.

Which of course is why I think they hate the SDZ because the OP has a bit more control over the tactics they use to do all that.

Bears repeating. Yep. The Lounge serves for general chitchat without the bullshit too, thankfully. But it seems to be getting worse instead of better here. Can't discuss ANYTHING without it being about sex, body parts, who is a schmuck or just flat out deliberate derailing.

Again that is why I had high hopes for the SDZ once C_K put it together though it would be even better if he had taken my suggestions to heart which he didn't LOL. (I wasn't sure enough that I was right and he was wrong to challenge it though.) But unless all the discussions in the SDZ are structured, I really don't see a purpose or point in putting a thread in that forum rather than the CDZ or other forum. But that is for others to decide.

I do hope it does turn out to be successful. Obviously those who hate it don't intend to allow me the liberty to enjoy it without constant complaints and personal criticism, but that doesn't mean it can't work. I'll just back off and do my serious posting elsewhere for awhile and it's all good.

Just for clarity's sake, I know of not one single person who hates the SDZ, but the ability to make as many crazy rules as the OP desires is just, well, uhhh, interesting.

 

[RKMBrown]

No reason to make up lies Fox. I said nearly every one in which you and I argued. Then I pointed out this one as an example.

But you can't or won't pick any line or phrase or post in this thread or anywhere else that justifies what you are accusing me of. Just give me a phrase. . . any phrase. . .that supports your contention that: ". . .For example, you have turned this thread into a personal attack against your right to harm others. . ." whatever the hell that means. That should be really easy wouldn't you think?

I've already pointed out two. You even admitted yourself that you and I have disagreed... yet here you are claiming it has never happened. And you are claiming that I did not point any out. This is my issue with you. You make stuff up, you ignore on face every argument given to you.

Seriously you don't know what HARM MEANS?

No you haven't pointed out anything at all. If you cannot provide an example--a specific example--of your complaint, it is very difficult to take your complaint as anything other than personal meanness. If you have a valid complaint, however, then I would like to see it. If I am wrong I want to know how and when I was wrong so I can either make amends or at least not repeat the offense.

And yes, I do know what HARM means. And I am still asking for any specific post of mine that harmed anybody, suggested that anybody be harmed, or justified anybody being harmed.

I figure those who accuse me, if they have a leg to stand on, can point to the evidence.

As to the pointing out... yes I did. I pointed to this thread, and all others in which you and I have disagreed.

I'm not being mean. I'm just pointing out that you are correct when you yourself state that you are stubborn. You are not one to give others the time of day when it comes to actually listening to their arguments. Your debate style is fingers in your ears. No offense but it's true.

I almost never agree with the Derideo_Te, but in this case the main point of the OP is valid. Structured debates that are ruled by someone that only intends to insult others and/or to exclude any and all structured debate have in fact occurred. And this seems very ironic.

There are many forms of "harm." For example, taxing upper middle class at a higher tax rate is a harm on the upper middle class. As another example, having a voting system where the voter only gets to pick one of the people running and not say who he likes better then second best then third best is another type of harm. As another example, miss-stating what someone has said or done is another harm. As a further example, defending a law that harms people, such as prohibiting gays from being allowed to marry is a harm on those people every bit as harmful as if you had slapped them in the face yourself when they asked to be treated as equals. As still a further example, telling someone that they are derailing a thread because they disagree with the definitions of the terms that formed the basis of the thread is another type of harm. Sure some of these harms are minor jabs. Some are not minor.

Using the power of popular opinion and/or shame and/or emotional pleas for ignorance in the face of clear facts is the same as putting your fingers in your ears and "attempting" to censure argument. Which is fine, if that's the point of the discussion. But not fine if the point of the discussion was reasoned debate.

Sorry but saying this entire thread as proof of your argument won't cut it. You either can give me a specific post of mine that justifies your criticism or you've got nothing and you owe me a huge apology.

Not only did I tell you what posts it was in, I quoted the posts. Not only did I quote every single one of the posts that I was talking about, I even explained to you what parts I'm talking about. Yet, here you are again with your fingers in your ears saying I see nothing.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

If people like the no-holds barred type of flame fest so common to political dialogue, they can go to the Politics section. Each thread eventaully devolves into a name calling contest.

 

[Dot Com]

If people like the no-holds barred type of flame fest so common to political dialogue, they can go to the Politics section. Each thread eventaully devolves into a name calling contest.

ummm..... no. ad homs are against the rules in the politics sub-forum but you're new so....

 

[Sun Devil 92]

If people like the no-holds barred type of flame fest so common to political dialogue, they can go to the Politics section. Each thread eventaully devolves into a name calling contest.

ummm..... no. ad homs are against the rules in the politics sub-forum but you're new so....

Uhmmmm.....those rules don't get enforced. For as long as I've watched this board the politics forum has been a flame-fest.

Here are some examples:

Police announce intent to remove the Baltimore Mayor US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

bernie sanders is a good man... US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Q. For Small Government Adherents US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Q. For Small Government Adherents Page 8 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

I'm not as new as you might think.

 

[Dot Com]

If people like the no-holds barred type of flame fest so common to political dialogue, they can go to the Politics section. Each thread eventaully devolves into a name calling contest.

ummm..... no. ad homs are against the rules in the politics sub-forum but you're new so....

Uhmmmm.....those rules don't get enforced. For as long as I've watched this board the politics forum has been a flame-fest.

Here are some examples:

Police announce intent to remove the Baltimore Mayor US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

bernie sanders is a good man... US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Q. For Small Government Adherents US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Q. For Small Government Adherents Page 8 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

I'm not as new as you might think.

"as long as you've watched this board"? You mean the whole 4 weeks of your membership?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

If people like the no-holds barred type of flame fest so common to political dialogue, they can go to the Politics section. Each thread eventaully devolves into a name calling contest.

ummm..... no. ad homs are against the rules in the politics sub-forum but you're new so....

Uhmmmm.....those rules don't get enforced. For as long as I've watched this board the politics forum has been a flame-fest.

Here are some examples:

Police announce intent to remove the Baltimore Mayor US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

bernie sanders is a good man... US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Q. For Small Government Adherents US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Q. For Small Government Adherents Page 8 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

I'm not as new as you might think.

"as long as you've watched this board"? You mean the whole 4 weeks of your membership?

Not going to address the examples...watched it long enough to know that is to be expected.

 

[Foxfyre]

But you can't or won't pick any line or phrase or post in this thread or anywhere else that justifies what you are accusing me of. Just give me a phrase. . . any phrase. . .that supports your contention that: ". . .For example, you have turned this thread into a personal attack against your right to harm others. . ." whatever the hell that means. That should be really easy wouldn't you think?

I've already pointed out two. You even admitted yourself that you and I have disagreed... yet here you are claiming it has never happened. And you are claiming that I did not point any out. This is my issue with you. You make stuff up, you ignore on face every argument given to you.

Seriously you don't know what HARM MEANS?

No you haven't pointed out anything at all. If you cannot provide an example--a specific example--of your complaint, it is very difficult to take your complaint as anything other than personal meanness. If you have a valid complaint, however, then I would like to see it. If I am wrong I want to know how and when I was wrong so I can either make amends or at least not repeat the offense.

And yes, I do know what HARM means. And I am still asking for any specific post of mine that harmed anybody, suggested that anybody be harmed, or justified anybody being harmed.

I figure those who accuse me, if they have a leg to stand on, can point to the evidence.

As to the pointing out... yes I did. I pointed to this thread, and all others in which you and I have disagreed.

I'm not being mean. I'm just pointing out that you are correct when you yourself state that you are stubborn. You are not one to give others the time of day when it comes to actually listening to their arguments. Your debate style is fingers in your ears. No offense but it's true.

I almost never agree with the Derideo_Te, but in this case the main point of the OP is valid. Structured debates that are ruled by someone that only intends to insult others and/or to exclude any and all structured debate have in fact occurred. And this seems very ironic.

There are many forms of "harm." For example, taxing upper middle class at a higher tax rate is a harm on the upper middle class. As another example, having a voting system where the voter only gets to pick one of the people running and not say who he likes better then second best then third best is another type of harm. As another example, miss-stating what someone has said or done is another harm. As a further example, defending a law that harms people, such as prohibiting gays from being allowed to marry is a harm on those people every bit as harmful as if you had slapped them in the face yourself when they asked to be treated as equals. As still a further example, telling someone that they are derailing a thread because they disagree with the definitions of the terms that formed the basis of the thread is another type of harm. Sure some of these harms are minor jabs. Some are not minor.

Using the power of popular opinion and/or shame and/or emotional pleas for ignorance in the face of clear facts is the same as putting your fingers in your ears and "attempting" to censure argument. Which is fine, if that's the point of the discussion. But not fine if the point of the discussion was reasoned debate.

Sorry but saying this entire thread as proof of your argument won't cut it. You either can give me a specific post of mine that justifies your criticism or you've got nothing and you owe me a huge apology.

Not only did I tell you what posts it was in, I quoted the posts. Not only did I quote every single one of the posts that I was talking about, I even explained to you what parts I'm talking about. Yet, here you are again with your fingers in your ears saying I see nothing.

Then give me the post numbers in which you did that because I can't find them. And unless you can quote the specific phrases you are accusing me of in context, you've got nothing and you have falsely accused and mischaracterized me. I expect that of some. I didn't expect that of you, but oh well. Now we know you will do it.

 

[Dot Com]

Not going to address the examples...watched it long enough to know that is to be expected.

all 32 days of it You realize that your join date is visible right? You really don't have a leg to stand on in this discussion newbie

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Not going to address the examples...watched it long enough to know that is to be expected.

all 32 days of it You realize that your join date is visible right? You really don't have a leg to stand on in this discussion newbie

You realize that someone does not have to join to view the board...right ?

I have been watching this thing for some time. It was only when I saw the Clean Discussion Zone show up that I decided to join.

And I pointed out to you examples of personal attacks in the Politics Board. Those are just the most blatant. There are plenty of posts in there that are much more "mild" in their violation of the forum rules. You simply chose to ignore them ? Or did you miss them. I can bring that post forward again if you like.

As for legs to stand on, your track record is stellar. You consistently provide no information to back up your claims.

End of discussion.

 

[RKMBrown]

I've already pointed out two. You even admitted yourself that you and I have disagreed... yet here you are claiming it has never happened. And you are claiming that I did not point any out. This is my issue with you. You make stuff up, you ignore on face every argument given to you.

Seriously you don't know what HARM MEANS?

No you haven't pointed out anything at all. If you cannot provide an example--a specific example--of your complaint, it is very difficult to take your complaint as anything other than personal meanness. If you have a valid complaint, however, then I would like to see it. If I am wrong I want to know how and when I was wrong so I can either make amends or at least not repeat the offense.

And yes, I do know what HARM means. And I am still asking for any specific post of mine that harmed anybody, suggested that anybody be harmed, or justified anybody being harmed.

I figure those who accuse me, if they have a leg to stand on, can point to the evidence.

As to the pointing out... yes I did. I pointed to this thread, and all others in which you and I have disagreed.

I'm not being mean. I'm just pointing out that you are correct when you yourself state that you are stubborn. You are not one to give others the time of day when it comes to actually listening to their arguments. Your debate style is fingers in your ears. No offense but it's true.

I almost never agree with the Derideo_Te, but in this case the main point of the OP is valid. Structured debates that are ruled by someone that only intends to insult others and/or to exclude any and all structured debate have in fact occurred. And this seems very ironic.

There are many forms of "harm." For example, taxing upper middle class at a higher tax rate is a harm on the upper middle class. As another example, having a voting system where the voter only gets to pick one of the people running and not say who he likes better then second best then third best is another type of harm. As another example, miss-stating what someone has said or done is another harm. As a further example, defending a law that harms people, such as prohibiting gays from being allowed to marry is a harm on those people every bit as harmful as if you had slapped them in the face yourself when they asked to be treated as equals. As still a further example, telling someone that they are derailing a thread because they disagree with the definitions of the terms that formed the basis of the thread is another type of harm. Sure some of these harms are minor jabs. Some are not minor.

Using the power of popular opinion and/or shame and/or emotional pleas for ignorance in the face of clear facts is the same as putting your fingers in your ears and "attempting" to censure argument. Which is fine, if that's the point of the discussion. But not fine if the point of the discussion was reasoned debate.

Sorry but saying this entire thread as proof of your argument won't cut it. You either can give me a specific post of mine that justifies your criticism or you've got nothing and you owe me a huge apology.

Not only did I tell you what posts it was in, I quoted the posts. Not only did I quote every single one of the posts that I was talking about, I even explained to you what parts I'm talking about. Yet, here you are again with your fingers in your ears saying I see nothing.

Then give me the post numbers in which you did that because I can't find them. And unless you can quote the specific phrases you are accusing me of in context, you've got nothing and you have falsely accused and mischaracterized me. I expect that of some. I didn't expect that of you, but oh well. Now we know you will do it.

You seriously can't see what I wrote in the posts that you quoted above? Again, I quoted the posts I was talking about when I talked about them. Just as you subsequently quoted my posts and said that my posts don't include examples... Yet, clearly my posts included quotes of your posts above and addressed your text. Yet, each time you repeatedly said provide an example. Here's how this sequence of quoting works, and I'm not sure why it's confusing you.

You make a statement (post 1).
I quote your statement making remarks about your statement (post 2 (this post includes post 1 as a quote)).
You quote my statement ask for me to provide you an example (post 3 (this post includes post 2 as a quote (which in turn includes post 1 as a quote)))
I quote your response in which you state that I did not provide you an example by pointing out that I quoted the example in the posts above (post 4 (this post includes post 3 as a quote (which in turn includes post 2 as a quote (which in turn includes post 1 as a quote)))).

 

[Foxfyre]

No you haven't pointed out anything at all. If you cannot provide an example--a specific example--of your complaint, it is very difficult to take your complaint as anything other than personal meanness. If you have a valid complaint, however, then I would like to see it. If I am wrong I want to know how and when I was wrong so I can either make amends or at least not repeat the offense.

And yes, I do know what HARM means. And I am still asking for any specific post of mine that harmed anybody, suggested that anybody be harmed, or justified anybody being harmed.

I figure those who accuse me, if they have a leg to stand on, can point to the evidence.

As to the pointing out... yes I did. I pointed to this thread, and all others in which you and I have disagreed.

I'm not being mean. I'm just pointing out that you are correct when you yourself state that you are stubborn. You are not one to give others the time of day when it comes to actually listening to their arguments. Your debate style is fingers in your ears. No offense but it's true.

I almost never agree with the Derideo_Te, but in this case the main point of the OP is valid. Structured debates that are ruled by someone that only intends to insult others and/or to exclude any and all structured debate have in fact occurred. And this seems very ironic.

There are many forms of "harm." For example, taxing upper middle class at a higher tax rate is a harm on the upper middle class. As another example, having a voting system where the voter only gets to pick one of the people running and not say who he likes better then second best then third best is another type of harm. As another example, miss-stating what someone has said or done is another harm. As a further example, defending a law that harms people, such as prohibiting gays from being allowed to marry is a harm on those people every bit as harmful as if you had slapped them in the face yourself when they asked to be treated as equals. As still a further example, telling someone that they are derailing a thread because they disagree with the definitions of the terms that formed the basis of the thread is another type of harm. Sure some of these harms are minor jabs. Some are not minor.

Using the power of popular opinion and/or shame and/or emotional pleas for ignorance in the face of clear facts is the same as putting your fingers in your ears and "attempting" to censure argument. Which is fine, if that's the point of the discussion. But not fine if the point of the discussion was reasoned debate.

Sorry but saying this entire thread as proof of your argument won't cut it. You either can give me a specific post of mine that justifies your criticism or you've got nothing and you owe me a huge apology.

Not only did I tell you what posts it was in, I quoted the posts. Not only did I quote every single one of the posts that I was talking about, I even explained to you what parts I'm talking about. Yet, here you are again with your fingers in your ears saying I see nothing.

Then give me the post numbers in which you did that because I can't find them. And unless you can quote the specific phrases you are accusing me of in context, you've got nothing and you have falsely accused and mischaracterized me. I expect that of some. I didn't expect that of you, but oh well. Now we know you will do it.

You seriously can't see what I wrote in the posts that you quoted above? Again, I quoted the posts I was talking about when I talked about them. Just as you subsequently quoted my posts and said that my posts don't include examples... Yet, clearly my posts included quotes of your posts above and addressed your text. Yet, each time you repeatedly said provide an example. Here's how this sequence of quoting works, and I'm not sure why it's confusing you.

You make a statement (post 1).
I quote your statement making remarks about your statement (post 2 (this post includes post 1 as a quote)).
You quote my statement ask for me to provide you an example (post 3 (this post includes post 2 as a quote (which in turn includes post 1 as a quote)))
I quote your response in which you state that I did not provide you an example by pointing out that I quoted the example in the posts above (post 4 (this post includes post 3 as a quote (which in turn includes post 2 as a quote (which in turn includes post 1 as a quote)))).

The posts you have quoted do not in any way address what your posts have accused me. I have asked you to provide specific posts of mine that prove your accusations. You haven't done that. And even though I have been at USMB a long time now and have made many many posts, most of which I don't remember, I suspect you will not be able to find a single example to post for what you have accused me. To continue to say that you have is dishonest.

 

[Foxfyre]

As to the pointing out... yes I did. I pointed to this thread, and all others in which you and I have disagreed.

I'm not being mean. I'm just pointing out that you are correct when you yourself state that you are stubborn. You are not one to give others the time of day when it comes to actually listening to their arguments. Your debate style is fingers in your ears. No offense but it's true.

I almost never agree with the Derideo_Te, but in this case the main point of the OP is valid. Structured debates that are ruled by someone that only intends to insult others and/or to exclude any and all structured debate have in fact occurred. And this seems very ironic.

There are many forms of "harm." For example, taxing upper middle class at a higher tax rate is a harm on the upper middle class. As another example, having a voting system where the voter only gets to pick one of the people running and not say who he likes better then second best then third best is another type of harm. As another example, miss-stating what someone has said or done is another harm. As a further example, defending a law that harms people, such as prohibiting gays from being allowed to marry is a harm on those people every bit as harmful as if you had slapped them in the face yourself when they asked to be treated as equals. As still a further example, telling someone that they are derailing a thread because they disagree with the definitions of the terms that formed the basis of the thread is another type of harm. Sure some of these harms are minor jabs. Some are not minor.

Using the power of popular opinion and/or shame and/or emotional pleas for ignorance in the face of clear facts is the same as putting your fingers in your ears and "attempting" to censure argument. Which is fine, if that's the point of the discussion. But not fine if the point of the discussion was reasoned debate.

Sorry but saying this entire thread as proof of your argument won't cut it. You either can give me a specific post of mine that justifies your criticism or you've got nothing and you owe me a huge apology.

Not only did I tell you what posts it was in, I quoted the posts. Not only did I quote every single one of the posts that I was talking about, I even explained to you what parts I'm talking about. Yet, here you are again with your fingers in your ears saying I see nothing.

Then give me the post numbers in which you did that because I can't find them. And unless you can quote the specific phrases you are accusing me of in context, you've got nothing and you have falsely accused and mischaracterized me. I expect that of some. I didn't expect that of you, but oh well. Now we know you will do it.

You seriously can't see what I wrote in the posts that you quoted above? Again, I quoted the posts I was talking about when I talked about them. Just as you subsequently quoted my posts and said that my posts don't include examples... Yet, clearly my posts included quotes of your posts above and addressed your text. Yet, each time you repeatedly said provide an example. Here's how this sequence of quoting works, and I'm not sure why it's confusing you.

You make a statement (post 1).
I quote your statement making remarks about your statement (post 2 (this post includes post 1 as a quote)).
You quote my statement ask for me to provide you an example (post 3 (this post includes post 2 as a quote (which in turn includes post 1 as a quote)))
I quote your response in which you state that I did not provide you an example by pointing out that I quoted the example in the posts above (post 4 (this post includes post 3 as a quote (which in turn includes post 2 as a quote (which in turn includes post 1 as a quote)))).

Apparently she's just like PoliticalChic in this regard- she's never, EVER wrong The mark of an adult is when they can admit a mistake. Even I've been known to admit a mistake or two on this board in the past.

I have admitted plenty of mistakes. He is not accusing me of mistakes. He is accusing me of specific things that I do not believe I have done. If I have, then he should be able to show it with specific statement from specific posts. He hasn't done that. Nor have you. You both throw a lot of ugly, hateful shit, but you don't seem to be able to back it up. I've called him on it and so far he has been unable to back it up.

I don't enjoy being nasty and hateful to people, I do not respect nasty and hateful people, and I become very frustrated by those who deliberately try to derail discussions. I appreciated a forum that allowed some control to shut people like that down. But the nasty and hateful folks can't have that can they. It might gain enough legs to spoil their fun.

So far not one person has said how or why the SDZ has harmed or hurt them in any way--how it has diminished their ability to enjoy USMB as they did before. So the only reason for a thread like this one is for those who don't want to participate in a SDZ to make sure nobody else has that ability either.

And that is just wrong.

 

[Dot Com]

ummm..... he quoted you.

Looks like someone thinks denial is a river in Egypt.

 

[RKMBrown]

As to the pointing out... yes I did. I pointed to this thread, and all others in which you and I have disagreed.

I'm not being mean. I'm just pointing out that you are correct when you yourself state that you are stubborn. You are not one to give others the time of day when it comes to actually listening to their arguments. Your debate style is fingers in your ears. No offense but it's true.

I almost never agree with the Derideo_Te, but in this case the main point of the OP is valid. Structured debates that are ruled by someone that only intends to insult others and/or to exclude any and all structured debate have in fact occurred. And this seems very ironic.

There are many forms of "harm." For example, taxing upper middle class at a higher tax rate is a harm on the upper middle class. As another example, having a voting system where the voter only gets to pick one of the people running and not say who he likes better then second best then third best is another type of harm. As another example, miss-stating what someone has said or done is another harm. As a further example, defending a law that harms people, such as prohibiting gays from being allowed to marry is a harm on those people every bit as harmful as if you had slapped them in the face yourself when they asked to be treated as equals. As still a further example, telling someone that they are derailing a thread because they disagree with the definitions of the terms that formed the basis of the thread is another type of harm. Sure some of these harms are minor jabs. Some are not minor.

Using the power of popular opinion and/or shame and/or emotional pleas for ignorance in the face of clear facts is the same as putting your fingers in your ears and "attempting" to censure argument. Which is fine, if that's the point of the discussion. But not fine if the point of the discussion was reasoned debate.

Sorry but saying this entire thread as proof of your argument won't cut it. You either can give me a specific post of mine that justifies your criticism or you've got nothing and you owe me a huge apology.

Not only did I tell you what posts it was in, I quoted the posts. Not only did I quote every single one of the posts that I was talking about, I even explained to you what parts I'm talking about. Yet, here you are again with your fingers in your ears saying I see nothing.

Then give me the post numbers in which you did that because I can't find them. And unless you can quote the specific phrases you are accusing me of in context, you've got nothing and you have falsely accused and mischaracterized me. I expect that of some. I didn't expect that of you, but oh well. Now we know you will do it.

You seriously can't see what I wrote in the posts that you quoted above? Again, I quoted the posts I was talking about when I talked about them. Just as you subsequently quoted my posts and said that my posts don't include examples... Yet, clearly my posts included quotes of your posts above and addressed your text. Yet, each time you repeatedly said provide an example. Here's how this sequence of quoting works, and I'm not sure why it's confusing you.

You make a statement (post 1).
I quote your statement making remarks about your statement (post 2 (this post includes post 1 as a quote)).
You quote my statement ask for me to provide you an example (post 3 (this post includes post 2 as a quote (which in turn includes post 1 as a quote)))
I quote your response in which you state that I did not provide you an example by pointing out that I quoted the example in the posts above (post 4 (this post includes post 3 as a quote (which in turn includes post 2 as a quote (which in turn includes post 1 as a quote)))).

The posts you have quoted do not in any way address what your posts have accused me. I have asked you to provide specific posts of mine that prove your accusations. You haven't done that. And even though I have been at USMB a long time now and have made many many posts, most of which I don't remember, I suspect you will not be able to find a single example to post for what you have accused me. To continue to say that you have is dishonest.

Incorrect. My posts most certainly did address the point, and cited examples of the point. You chose to ignore the cited examples and claim, repeatedly, that I'm not providing them. Hello!! You provided the examples, all I did was quote them. If you have a question about my statements and how they applied to something you said, feel free to go back up to an earlier post and ask for a further explanation.

Now my posts have to prove your meaning and intent? Heh, that's funny.

Saying my posts did not provide examples is a lie, perhaps not intentional. Perhaps you are having a mental block. Or perhaps my statements were not clear.

 

[Foxfyre]

Sorry but saying this entire thread as proof of your argument won't cut it. You either can give me a specific post of mine that justifies your criticism or you've got nothing and you owe me a huge apology.

Not only did I tell you what posts it was in, I quoted the posts. Not only did I quote every single one of the posts that I was talking about, I even explained to you what parts I'm talking about. Yet, here you are again with your fingers in your ears saying I see nothing.

Then give me the post numbers in which you did that because I can't find them. And unless you can quote the specific phrases you are accusing me of in context, you've got nothing and you have falsely accused and mischaracterized me. I expect that of some. I didn't expect that of you, but oh well. Now we know you will do it.

You seriously can't see what I wrote in the posts that you quoted above? Again, I quoted the posts I was talking about when I talked about them. Just as you subsequently quoted my posts and said that my posts don't include examples... Yet, clearly my posts included quotes of your posts above and addressed your text. Yet, each time you repeatedly said provide an example. Here's how this sequence of quoting works, and I'm not sure why it's confusing you.

You make a statement (post 1).
I quote your statement making remarks about your statement (post 2 (this post includes post 1 as a quote)).
You quote my statement ask for me to provide you an example (post 3 (this post includes post 2 as a quote (which in turn includes post 1 as a quote)))
I quote your response in which you state that I did not provide you an example by pointing out that I quoted the example in the posts above (post 4 (this post includes post 3 as a quote (which in turn includes post 2 as a quote (which in turn includes post 1 as a quote)))).

The posts you have quoted do not in any way address what your posts have accused me. I have asked you to provide specific posts of mine that prove your accusations. You haven't done that. And even though I have been at USMB a long time now and have made many many posts, most of which I don't remember, I suspect you will not be able to find a single example to post for what you have accused me. To continue to say that you have is dishonest.

Incorrect. My posts most certainly did address the point, and cited examples of the point. You chose to ignore the cited examples and claim, repeatedly, that I'm not providing them. Hello!! You provided the examples, all I did was quote them. If you have a question about my statements and how they applied to something you said, feel free to go back up to an earlier post and ask for a further explanation.

Now my posts have to prove your meaning and intent? Heh, that's funny.

Saying my posts did not provide examples is a lie, perhaps not intentional. Perhaps you are having a mental block. Or perhaps my statements were not clear.

Give me the post numbers then. And show me HOW the posts you quoted addressed the specific accusations that I say you have not proved. Give me the specific statements in context that show that you have a leg to stand on.