Text 20685, 134 rader
Skriven 2011-07-12 23:30:17 av Lee Lofaso (2:203/2)
  Kommentar till text 20663 av Robert Bashe (2:2448/44)
Ärende: Vicious comments
========================
Hello Bob,

 RB>> Lee, you're quite a kook, and Ross let himself be baited.

 LL>> Excuse me?

RB>See above. You _do_ know what a "kook" is, don't you?

An individual who has an unhealthy obsession.  Such as a desire
to keep certain individuals from participating in this forum.

RB>Being an American, I assumed you would.

This Cajun madman just explained it to you.

RB>If not, see my message to Michiel defining the term.

I am Cajun, not American.
You are Texan, not American or German.

RB>It's not an insult, by the way.

If I know I'm nuts, I can't be nuts.
If I know I'm not, I must be nuts.
If I think I'm nuts, I might be nuts.

So who's the kook, Bob?  You tell me.

 RB>> A pity, but when you throw your lot in with unpleasant people, RB>you
 RB> tend to get tarred with the same brush.

I am not part of the conspiracy to keep me and others out of this echo.

 LL>> Ross does not give the appearance of being a pleasant person to be
 LL>> around, given the comments he has made in this forum and others. LL>And
 RB> yet you choose to defend the SOB?

RB>I choose to be neutral,

Seems you are extremely prejudiced against Björn Felten.
Probably a case a jealousy, wanting to be moderator yourself.
Which is quite understandable.

RB>but to condemn personal insults where I see them.

All acts of violence should be condemned.  Regardless of who
or what side commits those acts of violence.  The same can be
said of those who make personal insults.  Especially personal
insults that are vicious or malicious in nature.  However,
doing so in a selective manner is giving tacit approval to
continued use of personal insults.  Meaning you enjoy reading
personal insults made by certain folks.

RB>You apparently choose to defend personal insults when that
RB>fits your agenda.

Unlike Ross Cassell and Janis Kracht, I have no hidden agenda.
I condemn all personal insults, including those I make myself.
You, on the other hand...

 RB>> My tears are wetting my keyboard.

 LL>> They should.  Unless you enjoy a flame echo. Which is exactly what
 LL>> this echo is, and has been, for quite some time.

RB>Indeed, since there is no moderator to turn to, the person who
RB>claims the title being one of the main offenders.

I wrote a previous message to you in which you apparently thought
I was writing in jest.  I was being serious about you starting your
own edition of the Fidonews newsletter and appointing yourself as
editor/moderator of this forum.  Others are free to do the same.
Including me.  That is the way Tom Jennings set it up, and intended.

 RB>> I presume you didn't note what came before.

 LL>> Are you that ignorant?

 RB> Careful, Lee. You're doing precisely what you condemn in others.

Ignorance is bliss.  You have kept up with US politics.
Michele Bachmann is the odds-on-favorite to win the Republican
nomination (at least in Iowa).  And Barack Obama's popularity
is dropping like a rock...

 RB>> Incidentally, there is no moderator here.

 LL>> The Moderator claims to be The Moderator.

 RB> I can claim to be Jesus Christ, but that doesn't impress anyone either.

I met Jesus Christ.  In the flesh.  He was naked, standing at the
altar, drinking the wine, in the wee hours of the morning, as a nun
was praying in a pew.  The men in white coats had to take him away.
But at least they didn't crucify him.

 RB>> If there were, the person who calls himself moderator would himself
 RB>> be banned for a month for personal attacks.

 LL>> Actually not.

RB>Actually so. But naturally, without a moderator, anything goes.

Whether you choose to recognize a moderator is up to you.  Same with
others.  According to echopol1, there must be a moderator in order for
an echo to exist, or to continue in existence.  However, there is no
rule in echopol1 or in P4 that can force you, or anybody else, to
recognize any particular person as moderator of an echo.

 LL>> The Moderator has posted the Rules.

RB>"The moderator is excused from any sanctions regardless of his
RB>behavior."

You might want to read echopol1, which the Moderator invoked as
being the "law of the echo".  Within echopol1 are procedures as to
how to remove a moderator from an echo.

You also might want to read P4.  Not that it would make any difference,
as Ross Cassell and Janis Kracht freely ignore it for their own selfish
benefit.

RB>I can write stuff like that too. The only question is whether anyone
RB>takes me seriously.

I wish you would.  And I would be willing to help you do it.
Like Björn Felten, I am a bona fide political scientist.  Only
better.  Graduated from Harvard.  Harvard on the Bayou.

Ciao,
--Lee

--- MesNews/1.06.00.00-gb
 * Origin: news://felten.yi.org (2:203/2)