She wasnt against tax cuts?Okay, you're either a poe or an asshole with that stupid argument.
No need for name calling Widdershins. Breaking the rules when telling someone they are breaking the rules is still breaking the rules.
If I thought anton was a Poe or a sock puppet or anything else, he’d be out of here. I think he believes he understands the topics and is making valid arguments. He definitely is not. He definitely is avoiding questions and changing the subject as soon as things get difficult. That’s troll behavior but I don’t think he is aware that it is. It doesn’t matter when it comes to me counting the number of rules violations he has amassed. Breaking the rules is breaking the rules. Not understanding the rules is not an excuse.
Oh, you’re going to hate me for this one. Please know it’s not personal, it’s not about weaseling out of a rules warning, it’s just my nature. The way I see it you are God here and the “rules” are really nothing more than simple guidelines to help keep me on your good side. You need no reason nor purpose nor explanation to chastise, suspend or ban me. In no way am I arguing against your authority to assert your authority, and yes, my argument is a bit of a technicality in places. But please understand that my first reaction was to apologize (and I do), but as I thought about it, I don’t see it the way you do. Nothing that follows is intended to prove me “right”. It’s still very wrong if you say it’s wrong, and you do, so it is. Make no mistake, I fully admit I was wrong because you said that I was and that’s all I need in order to know that I was when it comes to your administrative duties. We can argue all day long about psychology or philosophy and I’ll still think I’m right when it’s over. But there is no argument when it comes to administration here. I am not your equal on that ground. You say it, it is so, the end. That is how I sincerely see it. I am just compelled to correct what I see as inaccurate.
First, I wasn’t telling him he was breaking the rules. The rules never crossed my mind. A minor thing, but I try not to call people out for perceived rules violations. I am not an admin, so I see doing that as overstepping my bounds. Kind of like “tattling” to the grown up who already saw what happened right in front of them.
Second, not that it makes a difference, but I was not “name calling”, I was “labeling” (more on this in a bit). The word “an” in the sentence made it a label, not a name. Again, that makes no difference. An infraction is an infraction regardless the semantics.
Third, I was making an observation about his behavior as a possible poe, not an accusation I intended you to immediately investigate on my behalf or any claim that it was actually true. Again, I am not an administrator here. I am certain that you have access to logs and other information which I do not, allowing you to make informed judgements on these things. In no way was I assuming that I had anything approaching an informed accusation, nor did I intend to insinuate that I had any sort of evidence for this. I was making an accusation in the heat of the moment not at all intended to step on your toes or challenge any call you had already made on the matter, of which I was not aware anyway as, strangely, you don’t seem to have to explain to me all the decisions you make here. Maybe we can look into that 
Finally, the behavior I was responding to was unarguably trollish. Nobody is questioning that. Personally I see little difference between saying, “You are displaying trollish behavior” or “You are a troll” or “Troll!” except for the harshness of delivery and the semantics of the sentences, the first being the softest language, the second being labeling and the third being name calling, the harshest of the three. But all 3 mean exactly the same thing. If you are doing trollish things then you are a troll you troll (I got a 3fer there!). I was in the middle for harshness by labeling with extra points for using mildly offensive language.
In conclusion, my violation (as I see it, but only your call matters) wasn’t “name calling”, it was “an unacceptable level of offensiveness”. Had I used a software word like “jerk” you may not have taken exception to it. Had I instead said, “You are either messing with me or being intentionally contemptible” you would certainly not have taken exception, though that sentence does not change the meaning one bit from the sentence I used.
I do accept that it was a violation and I do apologize for it. I see your authority as absolute and unquestionable. You don’t have to explain yourself to me. It’s the other way around. This wasn’t about arguing, it was about correcting wrong information. If anything I said here was wrong, please set me straight. Again, I fully accept that your authority in administrative matters is absolute. A violation is a violation, regardless the technical reason for it.
I was making an accusation in the heat of the moment not at all intended to step on your toes or challenge any call you had already made on the matter, of which I was not aware anyway as, strangely, you don’t seem to have to explain to me all the decisions you make here. Maybe we can look into that --WDon’t know quite what you mean here, but if you want to discuss something, use the Issues and Complaints section.
The word “an” in the sentence made it a label, not a name.I’m having trouble believing that you are not aware of the word I’m pointing out. Everything you said in this response is about the subtle difference between an ad-hominem and a counter argument. You dropped down to the bottom of this pyramid. You just can’t go any lower than a swear word. You can make a case for “Poe” or “stupid”, but there is no explanation for how someone is a body part!
@lausten I think I need to take some share in this, because all I said was anton was not a poe, thereby insinuating the other, which widdershins read rightly, I’m sure. While he said it, I insinuated, which probably makes me just as guilty. While I would not come right out and say it, insinuation might be just as bad.
That said, @widdershins no one on the forum is attempting to control you. The rules are for everyone and we don’t ban people for no reason.
Let me clear one thing up. IN NO WAY was I complaining. IN NO WAY was I suggesting calling me out was unwarranted. IN NO WAY was I defending myself. Lausten and I have disagreed hotly at times, but he has NEVER treated me unfairly and I was not insinuating otherwise. Lausten was within his rights, I was not, the end. That’s how I saw it before I wrote that.
This was a technical breakdown of the semantics of what I actually did wrong along with an assertion of what I believe the authority of the admins is, which is “absolute”. Nothing more. It was not written “in the heat of the moment”, it was written dispassionately and I think if you re-read it with that mindset it will sound a whole lot different. It was not my intent to even remotely suggest that Lausten did, or ever would, make any such administrative decision for any petty reason whatsoever. It was also not my intent to even remotely suggest it was undeserved. I was not whining about being treated unfairly. I have NEVER been treated unfairly here and don’t believe there is even the most remote possibility I ever will be. Read it again like you’re reading something a robot posted. I promise you, it will sound different.
Very clear Mr. Widders. Appreciate your candidness. I hope I didn’t have an air of threatening in my post. I shoot for “Grumpy Old Man”, being from Minnesota and all, don’t cha’ know?
“Why are Democrats such wimps?”
It’s a question worth asking. We have two main political parties in this country. One appeals to reason and logic and one appeals to passion. One is inclusive and egalitarian and one isn’t. One understands the need and desirability to lift all citizens by trying to ensure opportunity for as many as possible and one stresses the notion of individual drive and personal ambition. Which party a voter chooses to associate themselves with depends on the temperament of the individual. If someone is determined to get rich then it’s likely they’ll be a Republican. If someone else is determined to work for social justice they’re likely to be a Democrat. It’s largely human psychology that drives this choice.
I choose to be a Democrat but fully understand the frustration of some who wonder why a Democrat, any Democrat is so squeamish. There must be a secret law on the books somewhere that requires all Democrats to be ex-librarians who’ve had their spines surgically removed. If by some miraculous mass epiphany they began asserting themselves they’d very probably garner much more support from the American people.
“One appeals to reason and logic and one appeals to passion”
If the democrats are a party of reason and logic they would platform progressive policies that have popular public support such as GND, the extinction of the billionaire class through taxation, student debt forgiveness , medicare for all, eliminating money in politics and putting an end to capital flight/ tax havens.
Put they dont
Forgot to mention - end to imperialist wars.
@michaelmckinney1951 - Exactly. If they just spoke like Drumpf but believed in Bernie we’d be in business! This current kumbaya crap is making me sick. Biden said something that really stuck with me, and IMO is the core of the Dems problem. He said words to the affect “Just because we’re opponents doesn’t mean we’re enemies”. That’s the heart of the problem. The Dems think of the Cons as opponents and think that’s how we should all act. The Cons OTOH consider Dems the enemy, and therefore the ends justify the means. Until the Dems learn that, we’re going to be stuck with namby pambies.
Historically, I think Cuth and michael have it wrong here. In the 60’s, with cooperation, we created the civil rights act. That shifted much of the southern working class to Republicans because they just couldn’t handle it. I’m sure many felt they would come around. I still think they will, it just took longer than expected. Anyway, my point is, when there was more in the center, we got more done.
IMO, it’s Wall Street. They love gridlock, they love things staying the same, even if “the same” is people killing each other in the streets.
"Anyway, my point is, when there was more in the center, we got more done.
IMO, it’s Wall Street. They love gridlock, they love things staying the same, even if “the same” is people killing each other in the streets."
Yes a centrist really really wants to end money in politics!!!