Appropriate Communication for a Spirituality Forum

@fmf said
Of course he is. No one is suggesting otherwise. Just as petewxyz is free to post whatever he likes and engage whoever he likes.

So what you make of BigDoggProblem's take on petewxyz and his OP is something you are choosing to keep secret?

I said I understood his point about censorship. Were you looking for a full critique?

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Hopefully people acclimatise to the fact that the forums are all the more healthier due to the freedom of expression they allow, while filtering out the more extreme stuff that nobody wants to see.

petewxyz is perhaps making his pitch to the likes of Kegge, KingDavid403, SecondSon and Suzianne who - unlike me, and I know you agree because we have talked about it, are responsible for much of the scornful, abusive and more extreme stuff that nobody wants to see here - wouldn't it be "healthier" if he just talked to THEM ~ while ignoring people whose "ethics" he questions.

Wouldn't that be better than cluttering up the forum with self-pitying appeals for censorship and conformity, and starting threads like this one, which, up until a few weeks ago, as we both know, you would have taken issue with - unless it was aimed at the likes of chaney3, Eladar, dj2becker and caesar salad?

@petewxyz said
Well you have made a decision about what you consider my goal so by all means stick with that if you so desire.

My goal was in fact to take issue with @Divegeester & @FMF's style of questioning. Since they have been reduced to posh playground name calling 'cry baby' 'pompous foul' etc I think I am finished here.

The OP didn't mention either of those two by name. It was written, quite clearly in my opinion, as a proposed new TOS, with the word "should" substituted for "must".

I've had my disagreements with those two as well. Recently Dive said he "knew I programmed for RHP, and convinced Russ to hamstring the search engine", two absurdly false claims. I contented myself with a single mocking reply, then ignored further posts on the topic. Easy peasy. That's all you have to do: just stop replying when you feel the conversation is no longer productive.

Maybe it is best that you take a break from this forum. Don't feel too bad about it. In the past, I've been burned a few times here. It happens to the best.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
I said I understood his point about censorship. Were you looking for a full critique?

Is your own point of view on his "point about censorship" a secret? I wasn't questioning you about whether or not you understood it.

@fmf said
I think you were intellectually dishonest

You and DG share notes?

@bigdoggproblem said
I've had my disagreements with those two as well.

The only thing I remember you disagreeing with me over was when I took dasa to task for advocating the extermination of all Muslim males in the world. Have we had other disagreements?

Edit: or rather the WAY I took him to task. I think it's a bit fairer to you to put it this way.

@fmf said
Is your own point of view on his "point about censorship" a secret? I wasn't questioning you about whether or not you understood it.

He made a good point. I tend to agree with good points.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
He made a good point. I tend to agree with good points.

You could have said you agreed with it up front.

@bigdoggproblem said
Maybe it is best that you take a break from this forum. Don't feel too bad about it. In the past, I've been burned a few times here. It happens to the best.

He could instead just address himself to those who like his posts but do so without actually wanting to discuss them with him or to express disagreement.

@fmf said
You could have said you agreed with it up front.

I did.

He made a valid point.

@fmf said
He could instead just address himself to those who like his posts but do so without actually wanting to discuss them with him or to express disagreement.

I don't think it was unreasonable for Pete to have expected other posters to want to ascertain what he actually meant. That is after all what happens in most real world interactions. If I go into Gregg's and accidentally order a cauliflower and then acknowledge I have used the wrong terminology, the salesperson will generally accept that and ask what I actually meant to order, not spend the next hour questioning me about cauliflowers.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
I did.

He made a valid point.

What you said, in actual fact, was:

"I think BigDoggProblem is free to post whatever he likes and understand his point about censorship."

@ghost-of-a-duke said
I don't think it was unreasonable for Pete to have expected other posters to want to ascertain what he actually meant.

So why didn't he continue that thread. Why this browbeating miffed-fest? Up until a few weeks ago, you'd have had this kind of bleating thread in your sights.

@bigdoggproblem said
The OP didn't mention either of those two by name. It was written, quite clearly in my opinion, as a proposed new TOS, with the word "should" substituted for "must".

I've had my disagreements with those two as well. Recently Dive said he "knew I programmed for RHP, and convinced Russ to hamstring the search engine", two absurdly false claims. I contented myself with ...[text shortened]... Don't feel too bad about it. In the past, I've been burned a few times here. It happens to the best.

Completely fair point. I should have been more direct and made it clear I was commenting on @FMF and @Divegeester's style of posting from the start.

No burns here. I won't bore you with how I acquired the thickness of my skin, but thanks for your concern.

@fmf said
What you said, in actual fact, was:

"I think BigDoggProblem is free to post whatever he likes and understand his point about censorship."

I understood his point because it was valid. I tend to agree with things that I find valid.

Not sure why that needed explaining.