see ya

[dave_a]

I don't normally post goodbye messages, but in this case I am making an exception.

Lately I have done nothing here except try and explain myself to a hostile administration that says I need to seek professional help.

Tonite I sign on to see Beth take my words from IIDB on a thread unrelated to any here and post them in a thread as if they are in the context of the FF thread. In response both VM and Liv tell me to seek professional help.

To say I don't need this shit is an understatement.

See ya.

[Goliath]

Good riddance, you horrible piece of human waste.

And for the record: I have no wish that you kill yourself. I just want you to live your hateful, miserable life far, far away from me or anyone that I care about.

[Nex]

Please don't leave, Dave. This hysterical mommy crap isn't worth that.

[viscousmemories]

I honestly can't think of a more reasonable explanation for your telling a man with a history of depression that he should kill himself and a mother of young girls with a history of abuse that she has "earned" having them raped and murdered than you need professional counselling. I apologize if anyone else thinks I'm being hysterical, but that's my opinion. If hearing it makes you not want to be a member here anymore so be it. I won't apologize for speaking up when I see someone being assaulted.

[Petra]

This hysterical mommy crap isn't worth that.

The what?

[Petra]

I honestly can't think of a more reasonable explanation for your telling a man with a history of depression that he should kill himself and a mother of young girls with a history of abuse that she has "earned" having them raped and murdered than you need professional counselling.

I don't think you are being hysterical. I also think some professional help might be in order.

I'm so fucking disgusted by the comments made. They're seriously beyond the pale.

[Nex]

... I won't apologize for speaking up when I see someone being assaulted.
You didn't speak up when someone was assaulted. Assault is a physical act, and this was verbal.

Verbal abuse, sure, but then in all fairness you would need to stand up to everyone who has verbally abused Dave.

[Petra]

assault, in law, an attempt or threat, going beyond mere words, to use violence, with the intent and the apparent ability to do harm to another. If violent contact actually occurs, the offense of battery has been committed; modern criminal statutes often combine assault and battery. An assault may be both a crime and a tort, for which the party assaulted may sue for damages; the victim's freedom, as to move or remain at peace, must have been impinged on. Modern criminal statutes recognize certain degrees of assault (e.g., with intent to kill, to do great bodily harm, to rape) as aggravated assaults and felonies, though simple assault remains, as at common law, a misdemeanor. Either malevolence or recklessness (as in driving a car in reckless disregard of human life) may constitute the intent necessary to assault in most jurisdictions.

[viscousmemories]

... I won't apologize for speaking up when I see someone being assaulted.
You didn't speak up when someone was assaulted. Assault is a physical act, and this was verbal.
Actually battery is a physical act. Assault is a threat of violence. I personally feel that verbal abuse taken to the extreme Dave has taken it to in his recent comments comes close enough to call it an assault. But that's really a semantic quibble. Whatever we call it, I think it was inexcusable.

Verbal abuse, sure, but then in all fairness you would need to stand up to everyone who has verbally abused Dave.
Besides Goliath (who in my opinion is understandably angry), who here has verbally abused Dave at all, much less to the degree which he has abused others? Can you provide some quotes?

Oops, crosspost with lunachick...

[seebs]

I think there's a certain amount of mutual bashing going on between Dave and a couple of other posters, only some of which I can make any sense of at all.

[Nex]

assault, in law, an attempt or threat, going beyond mere words, to use violence, with the intent and the apparent ability to do harm to another. If violent contact actually occurs, the offense of battery has been committed; modern criminal statutes often combine assault and battery. An assault may be both a crime and a tort, for which the party assaulted may sue for damages; the victim's freedom, as to move or remain at peace, must have been impinged on. Modern criminal statutes recognize certain degrees of assault (e.g., with intent to kill, to do great bodily harm, to rape) as aggravated assaults and felonies, though simple assault remains, as at common law, a misdemeanor. Either malevolence or recklessness (as in driving a car in reckless disregard of human life) may constitute the intent necessary to assault in most jurisdictions.
How did Dave's words go beyond words? And how does he have the apparent ability to do whatever it was he said?

It was verbal abuse, not assault.

[freemonkey]

I don't know if I should post here or in the other thread, but since I'm here....

I usually stay out of pedophelia threads, because I can't deal with them objectively. I was following this thread, though, because at first I thought that Dave was simply, as LadyShea has pointed out, talking through his shock at learning that a girl he found attractive was so young. Fair enough. I was thinking of jumping in to defend you, Dave. But then, it sounded like you were beginning to blame the girl and her parents for her sexiness. She just looks like a normal little girl to me. What's to blame?

Dave, you think Beth overeacted. But so have you, IMO. You think its irrelevant that she's linked to a thread on another board, are you saying that the discussion you've been having here hasn't colored the things you said to her there?

I feel sick at the way you've spoken to Beth, Goliath, liv & Tom, and anyone else who's strongly disagreed with you in that thread. I don't recall that being "like you".

[seebs]

Honestly, I don't think Dave was "blaming" the girl or her parents; he was trying to explain his reaction. And, to be fair, looking at the head (not the body below it), I could easily have been convinced that she was a young-looking 18-year-old, and therefore "hot".

[Nex]

Besides Goliath (who in my opinion is understandably angry), who here has verbally abused Dave at all, much less to the degree which he has abused others? Can you provide some quotes?...

http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1265&page=4&pp=25

Fuck you, you fucking pig.

And of course Goliath, who although is understandably angry, made a valiant effort at verbal abuse.

Neither of which is called for. Of course, the direction this seems to be heading tells me that we'll see a lot of rationalizing as to why Beth and Goliath's words are OK whereas Dave is the Ultimate Evil Incarnate™.

I am happy to be proven wrong, however.

[Nex]

Honestly, I don't think Dave was "blaming" the girl or her parents; he was trying to explain his reaction. And, to be fair, looking at the head (not the body below it), I could easily have been convinced that she was a young-looking 18-year-old, and therefore "hot".

My emphasis. :wink:

This really is the whole goddamn crux of the matter.

[viscousmemories]

Besides Goliath (who in my opinion is understandably angry), who here has verbally abused Dave at all, much less to the degree which he has abused others? Can you provide some quotes?...

http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1265&page=4&pp=25

Fuck you, you fucking pig.

And of course Goliath, who although is understandably angry, made a valiant effort at verbal abuse.

Neither of which is called for. Of course, the direction this seems to be heading tells me that we'll see a lot of rationalizing as to why Beth and Goliath's words are OK whereas Dave is the Ultimate Evil Incarnate™.

I am happy to be proven wrong, however.

Well I can't believe I have to point this out to you, but both of those examples of "verbal abuse" you have cited were direct responses to Dave's much longer and more personal vitriolic posts directed at them.

Feel free to think I'm on a mission to demonize Dave if you like, but in my book the person who posts the 500 word "I hope you die a horrible death and infected rats rape the corpses of your children" screed first might be expected to attract characterizations such as those you quoted from Beth and Goliath.

Let's recap, shall we?

Dave said to Beth:

If I were a real life sex offender I would target people like you with your hard hearted predjudice and make sure it was your kids I raped and killed. Your instinct to protect your children goes so far overboard that you appear to not care at all how many adults are wrongly accused or punished by the law or vigilantees so long as you get to go to bed at night with an illusion of safety for your own kids.

Honestly if there is any parent who deserves to suffer the torment of a child kidnapped, molested and murdered it would be you because of your predjudice and lack of concern for other human beings. Your child certainly wouldn't deserve it, but you may very well have earned it.

And Beth said to Dave:

Fuck you, you fucking pig.

Hmm. Exactly how is Beth's response "verbal abuse" in your book?

[freemonkey]

Honestly, I don't think Dave was "blaming" the girl or her parents; he was trying to explain his reaction.

Fair enough, "blame" is too strong a word. Here's what he said:
I cannot in a million years imagine allowing a 5 year old daughter doing her hair like in the pic, using makeup and all that. I also don't think I would be too quick to post a pic of a 5 year old who looked the way this girl does in the picture.

It just hit me in a way that left me feeling that he thought the girl was trying to make herself look sexy and that her parents were allowing it. :(

[Nex]

Well I can't believe I have to point this out to you, but both of those examples of "verbal abuse" you have cited were direct responses to Dave's much longer and more personal vitriolic posts directed at them.
Dammit. Sometimes I hate being right. You're rationalizing their verbal abuse.

So you're saying what they said was A-OK because someone else said something worse first? Kind of like little kids yelling: "He hit me!", "He hit me first!"

Feel free to think I'm on a mission to demonize Dave if you like
I don't think that. I think you're just being a bit irrational and/or overemotional.

but in my book the person who posts the 500 word "I hope you die a horrible death and infected rats rape the corpses of your children" screed first might be expected to attract characterizations such as those you quoted from Beth and Goliath.
True. I honestly don't care what they said. I'm pretty hard to offend these days. But verbal abuse is still verbal abuse.
Try saying what Goliath or Beth said on a public internet forum with a "no verbal abuse" rule like the JREF boards and see how far you get.

[viscousmemories]

Incidentally part of the confusion here is that the pedo thread was all but dead and buried as of this morning, with the last post being Dave's supposedly warm, heartfelt apology to Beth for his insensitivity. It was brought back to life when she responded to his "apology" by pasting part of a post from an II thread including the bit I quoted above.

As far as I'm concerned the pedo thread discussion itself has very little to do with everything that has transpired since.

[Nex]

It just hit me in a way that left me feeling that he thought the girl was trying to make herself look sexy and that her parents were allowing it. :(
Understandable, and at first that's what I thought. He did take that back later on though. Pardon me for not having a quote, I'm getting fucking tired of cruising the same thread over and over again.

[viscousmemories]

Dammit. Sometimes I hate being right. You're rationalizing their verbal abuse.
If what you're after is a rhetorical victory, congratulations. I slipped up and said that Goliath and Beth's comments weren't "verbal abuse" when in fact they clearly were. You got me. If there were gold stars for logic skillz I'd give you one right now. The fact remains that in my opinion Dave's behavior was far and away the more ethically inexcusable.

If I felt it was my obligation to spank everyone on the wrist for every "verbal abuse" around here I'd be a busy guy. So I reserve my comments for the people who go "above and beyond" what I consider vile before I speak up. And in my view Dave's comments qualified and Goliath and Beth's did not. Of course the beauty of free speech is you are free to disagree.

[Petra]

Try saying what Goliath or Beth said on a public internet forum with a "no verbal abuse" rule like the JREF boards and see how far you get.

And Dave's comments? How far would he have got at JREF with what he posted to them?

[HelenM]

I don't normally post goodbye messages, but in this case I am making an exception.

Lately I have done nothing here except try and explain myself to a hostile administration that says I need to seek professional help.

I saw a few other things, myself.

I hope your wife and child don't have to put up with the nastiness you've expressed towards a few posters here, followed by the plea "I didn't do anything - I'm innocent - it's all your fault!"

Helen

[HelenM]

Neither of which is called for. Of course, the direction this seems to be heading tells me that we'll see a lot of rationalizing as to why Beth and Goliath's words are OK whereas Dave is the Ultimate Evil Incarnate™.

I am happy to be proven wrong, however.

When you claim Dave's nasty comments weren't serious, isn't that rationalizing? Do you have any proof that they weren't serious?

Helen

[livius drusus]

JREF doesn't edit people telling each other to fuck off; they just asterisk the word, is all. The do edit suggestions of suicide, however, and in fact consider that a suspend on sight offense. IOW, JREF, like everywhere else, measures comments on a scale of abusiveness. F*ck you, you idiotic moronic piece of sh*t = fine. Why don't you just kill yourself = not fine.

I have no desire to see dave run away. I'd rather see him explain where he gets off talking to people the way he does when something gets his juices flowing without using "they asked for it" as his justification. I don't have a problem with people telling each other to fuck off. I have a problem with someone wishing death and torture on a person or his loved ones.

It's a personal ethical boundary, sure, which is why I haven't made it a law here. That means, however, that I'm going to say something if my boundary is crossed. If dave can't take that, I don't really know what to say except that for someone who demands thick skins, he sure has a thin one of his own.

I'm sorry to him go. I'm sorry to see Beth go. If anyone has any ideas how to structure this forum to avoid this kind of shitstorm, I would be extremely grateful to hear them.

[ceptimus]

If anyone has any ideas how to structure this forum to avoid this kind of shitstorm, I would be extremely grateful to hear them.
If you ever find and implement such a structure, then I will leave on general principle. :P But since you already have all sorts of fancy-schmancy ignore facilities, and posters still insist on tearing each other to pieces, I don't think I've got much to worry about. :giggle:

[livius drusus]

Don't make me have to hug you, cep. :hug: Oops. Too late.

[Clutch Munny]

Beth and Goliath's words are OK whereas Dave is the Ultimate Evil Incarnate™.

I am happy to be proven wrong, however.


Okay.

Nobody has said that Dave is Ultimate Evil Incarnate. Quite the opposite, in fact; even the suggestion that he seeks professional help imputes disturbance and confusion rather than evil -- still less Ultimate Incarnate evil.

So, you're wrong. Not merely wrong, but hysterically, over-emotionally wrong in choosing this bizarrely over-hyped way of characterizing extant responses to Dave's hope that Beth's family suffer rape and murder.

Be happy!

[LadyShea]

Okay, well I think I am all caught up on this issue, now. I am addressing my post to dave, even though he has said he is leaving the forum, assuming he is still reading.

dave, I defended you because I have had "first glance" wrong impressions before. I think the way the brain processes information leaves us open to that kind of thing, and thought that exploring it was worthwhile. I wish you hadn't gotten into defense mode when people were understandably upset at the subject in this case, but you did. I also wish you hadn't cropped the picture, as I felt it was a post hoc justification of your reaction rather than an attempt to understand it. The full picture is obviously a child. BUT, I still believed you were working through the initial sexual response by rationalizig it...and I was trying to steer you towards introspection/analysis of brain fallibility because I felt your method of trying to get others to perceive what you did was the wrong way to go.

Now, I do understand Beth's reactions as well. I believe she overreacted, but only because she read and perceived your unfortunate choice of words and methods differently than I did. That's okay, she and I are different people with different experiences so of course we filter things differently.

Moving on. You keep saying that your comments on the II thread aren't fair game and were taken out of context. I read that thread too and your comments were way out of line. Beth is a real person, the same person here as at II. How can you apologize to her one minute and wish harm to her children the next? Would you do that in a face to face conversation after a topic switch?

I have a problem with sex offender registries for the same reason others have problems with the death penalty; the chance that innocent people may be listed and mistaken identity...however, I do NOT think that people who support them deserve bad things to happen to them. The rest of your posts on that thread were reasonable, and some lurker undecided on the issuse may have been swayed in your direction until you completely blew it with that paragraph.

I suggest you really think about all that has haeppened, and consider that maybe your defense reactions too violent and extreme.

[davidm]

See ya.

:wave:

Door, ass, etc...

[Nex]

...So, you're wrong. Not merely wrong, but hysterically, over-emotionally wrong in choosing this bizarrely over-hyped way of characterizing extant responses to Dave's hope that Beth's family suffer rape and murder.
Or... I was being silly. I like to add ™ to things to make them silly. It was done on purpose for levity in such an over-fucking-blown topic.
Sorry, I forgot I was too new here for other members to know that about my posting style... my bad.

As for Dave's comments... everyone's taking them too seriously. People say things when they're mad that they don't really mean. Is this a newsflash or something?

[Nex]

When you claim Dave's nasty comments weren't serious, isn't that rationalizing? Do you have any proof that they weren't serious?

Helen
Well, I can't prove a negative, but I can go on simple knowledge of the internet.

On message boards, when someone is backed into a corner, angry, feeling vulnerable, and there's no let up, many times they strike out and say a lot of things they don't mean. It doesn't make it OK, doesn't make it acceptable, but it happens. Often.

It's extremely plausible to assume that that is exactly what happened. It is not plausible to assume he sincerely meant every word he said. Take your pick, or feel free to supply an alternative.

[Nex]

And Dave's comments? How far would he have got at JREF with what he posted to them?
Probably would have gotten him suspended, I'm guessing. Tu quoque-style arguments aren't very good though.

I'm not defending what he said, I thought it was funny but I also know it wasn't exactly nice. However, I really think y'all are making a mountain range out of a gravel pile here.

[Adora]

Oh for fuck's sake...

[viscousmemories]

I'm not defending what he said, I thought it was funny but I also know it wasn't exactly nice. However, I really think y'all are making a mountain range out of a gravel pile here.
So you think it's funny to exploit someone's deeply personal revelations to hurt and humilate them. Fair enough, you and I have a very different moral yardstick.

Still Dave has not retracted or apologized for a single word of what he said, so I would be very interested to see your argument for your unwavering belief that he merely spoke out of anger and didn't mean it.

Hint: That it seems like the most plausible explanation won't fly with me. I believe I've known Dave a while longer than you and I've interacted with him on these issues before, so I disagree that your assessment is the most plausible.

[Clutch Munny]

...So, you're wrong. Not merely wrong, but hysterically, over-emotionally wrong in choosing this bizarrely over-hyped way of characterizing extant responses to Dave's hope that Beth's family suffer rape and murder.
Or... I was being silly.

You were joking about being happy to be proved wrong? Your utter mischaracterization of the depiction of dave_a seemed to do most of the work in your post. Maybe you could carefully explain what point you actually wanted to make, and would actually be happy to have proved wrong.

[godfry n. glad]

:qsigh:

...and my ISP was wacked yesterday.

Well, it all seems it's done and over and everything.

First thing, then: I agree with ceptimus. Everything that has happened is fine. Occasional shitstorms are the human condition....a series of unfortunate incidents.

So... My wish for former Attorney General Ashcroft upon his resignation and his commitment to carrying forward the agenda to rescind Oregon's Death with Dignity law, was beyond the pale?

Then, since I cannot connect to any posting from IIDB, I have no idea what was posted in the link. I assume it was a link to the entire thread. If that was the case, then most here would have had access to the entire context in which the subquoted text was lifted? Is my guess right?

That would mean that dave's claim of being taken out of context was not true, wouldn't it? What concerns me, though, is the chronological placement of the two statements...the dave's seemingly sincere apology...and dave's alleged "threat" about Beth's children. When was that "lifted" quote of dave's that was placed in the response from Beth made? I don't know how old dave's comment is...Is it something stupid he said months ago in a very different conversation and context? Or, did he post the threat within the last 48 hours (i.e., after the apology)?

You see, I agree that his commentary elsewhere, in other public forms is applicable here....provided that there has not been some kind of apology or public recantation of that statement. The point is, I don't know how the two posts are time related....'cause I can't access IIDB.

Lastly... There seems to be some desire to reduce verbal abuse. I'm pretty sure that I can be one of the occasional transgressors. I'm giving you all license now...if you think I'm out of line, PM me, and tell me. Or, since this is an open forum where one should be able to speak one's mind, say it here.

godfry

[Nex]

So you think it's funny to exploit someone's deeply personal revelations to hurt and humilate them. Fair enough, you and I have a very different moral yardstick.
Hmmm... no. You've misunderstood me. I found the diatribe itself funny. However Beth took it, and however anyone else takes it, is an aside to that.
Perhaps my sense of humor is simply different. I'm used to that.

Still Dave has not retracted or apologized for a single word of what he said, so I would be very interested to see your argument for your unwavering belief that he merely spoke out of anger and didn't mean it.
Unless I totally misunderstood the OP here, Dave won't be back. That means he's probably not going to bother apologizing. Perhaps it's a pride thing-- I've blown up like that before and left in a huff, and never bothered to apologize even though every word I had said was in anger and not serious.

Hint: That it seems like the most plausible explanation won't fly with me. I believe I've known Dave a while longer than you and I've interacted with him on these issues before, so I disagree that your assessment is the most plausible.
It's a free Internet. Disagree all you want. Perhaps I just think that because Dave was very obviously trying to work out something about himself that really creeped him out, and was beginning to get dogpiled on, that maybe, just maybe, in his vulnerability he lost his temper. Maybe my view of the human race in general is too rosy, but I don't believe that he seriously meant all that.

[viscousmemories]

Then, since I cannot connect to any posting from IIDB, I have no idea what was posted in the link. I assume it was a link to the entire thread. If that was the case, then most here would have had access to the entire context in which the subquoted text was lifted? Is my guess right?
Yes, I saw the comments in context before they were deleted by the moderators, and my assessment that they were grossly over the line was relative to that context.

When was that "lifted" quote of dave's that was placed in the response from Beth.
Approximately 24 hours after he posted the apology to her here.

[Nex]

You were joking about being happy to be proved wrong? Your utter mischaracterization of the depiction of dave_a seemed to do most of the work in your post. Maybe you could carefully explain what point you actually wanted to make, and would actually be happy to have proved wrong.
I said my bolded, red words with the ™ afterwards were an attempt at levity that obviously was lost. Did you miss that?

I said I was happy to be proven wrong about rationalizations for Beth and Goliath. Then we saw one.

Whatever. This has gone far past ridiculous. The humor in it is waning.

[viscousmemories]

Hmmm... no. You've misunderstood me. I found the diatribe itself funny. However Beth took it, and however anyone else takes it, is an aside to that.
Perhaps my sense of humor is simply different. I'm used to that.
I'm afraid I'm still not following your logic. The diatribe itself was Dave exploiting Beth's deeply personal revelations to hurt and humiliate her, and you found that funny. What do you mean how she took it is an aside? Did you think his comments were "unacceptable", as you have said in one post, or "funny", as you have said in another. If both, what does "unacceptable" mean to you?

Still Dave has not retracted or apologized for a single word of what he said, so I would be very interested to see your argument for your unwavering belief that he merely spoke out of anger and didn't mean it.
Unless I totally misunderstood the OP here, Dave won't be back. That means he's probably not going to bother apologizing. Perhaps it's a pride thing-- I've blown up like that before and left in a huff, and never bothered to apologize even though every word I had said was in anger and not serious.
If all you have is an argument from autobiography, I would think you'd be open to the possibility that my interpretation - based on actual experience with Dave over a longer period of time - is just as valid as yours.

Perhaps I just think that because Dave was very obviously trying to work out something about himself that really creeped him out, and was beginning to get dogpiled on, that maybe, just maybe, in his vulnerability he lost his temper. Maybe my view of the human race in general is too rosy, but I don't believe that he seriously meant all that.
I'm sure that explains his outburst here last night. However all of my criticisms have been about his outburst to Goliath a week or so ago during a one-on-one argument, and his outburst at Beth yesterday over at IIDB where he also wasn't being dogpiled or even expressing a minority view. So the whole "he was backed into a corner" thing just isn't working for me. I agree that he was angry and that he lashed out and said cruel and vicious things that he might not have meant. But that's my whole point. He has a habit of doing that and I think he should stop it.

[Nex]

Obviously, this is going nowhere. I resign because I no longer find this amusing.

Oh, and I win this debate due to Almighty Turnipness. :giggle:

[godfry n. glad]

Then, since I cannot connect to any posting from IIDB, I have no idea what was posted in the link. I assume it was a link to the entire thread. If that was the case, then most here would have had access to the entire context in which the subquoted text was lifted? Is my guess right?
Yes, I saw the comments in context before they were deleted by the moderators, and my assessment that they were grossly over the line was relative to that context.

When was that "lifted" quote of dave's that was placed in the response from Beth.
Approximately 24 hours after he posted the apology to her here.

'Nuff said.

godfry

[viscousmemories]

Obviously, this is going nowhere. I resign because I no longer find this amusing.

Oh, and I win this debate due to Almighty Turnipness. :giggle:
Well it's good of you to admit you were only in it for the amusement, and not because you actually had an argument you intended to defend. Otherwise I'd say you lost.

[Petra]

Perhaps my sense of humor is simply different.

Yeah. Some people even get off on "Bum Fights". They like nothing more than watching someone else's pain and adding to it to see how far they can go before the object of their disdain and twisted sense of "humour" breaks. Hey, it's all entertainment, right? Funny as hell.


What I'd like to know is why you aren't seeing the humour in dave_a being painted into a corner and stomping off in a self-righteous, juvenile huff?

Why is dave_a's pain and anger not as funny to you as Beth's is? What makes Beth's pain funnier?

[seebs]

So you think it's funny to exploit someone's deeply personal revelations to hurt and humilate them. Fair enough, you and I have a very different moral yardstick.

I wouldn't say it's funny, but... I would say that Dave was being attacked; he made a personal revelation, that he was bothered by this, and was trying to explore it, and I think the responses to it pretty much guaranteed a hostile and defensive response.

[Petra]

Obviously, this is going nowhere. I resign because I no longer find this amusing.




Right. Nex is no longer amused, and therefore the discussion is going nowhere. Not enough schadenfreude for you, huh?

What a stupid bitch. Complete and utter fuckwit.


Hahahahahahahahaha.


*groan*

[viscousmemories]

So you think it's funny to exploit someone's deeply personal revelations to hurt and humilate them. Fair enough, you and I have a very different moral yardstick.

I wouldn't say it's funny, but... I would say that Dave was being attacked; he made a personal revelation, that he was bothered by this, and was trying to explore it, and I think the responses to it pretty much guaranteed a hostile and defensive response.
I don't think anyone attacked him until he attacked Beth at IIDB and she reposted his comments on his thread here. The only possible exception I can think of is Beth's attempt to have the thread censored and her reference to various comments of his as "pedophiliac". But even then she went out of her way to state that she wasn't accusing him of being a pedophile.

[Petra]

...and was trying to explore it,...

I'm not so convinced that he was trying to 'explore' it.

But I'll have to elaborate on that later - I got some family stuff to do right now...

[seebs]

Approximately 24 hours after he posted the apology to her here.

IMHO, this leaves open the possibility that his apology to her here was sincere, but later events angered him so that he said something very inappropriate.

[Nex]

Well it's good of you to admit you were only in it for the amusement, and not because you actually had an argument you intended to defend. Otherwise I'd say you lost.
Actually, I was defending Dave because I sincerely do believe you're all being unfair.

Then, it became a flamewar. I remained because A) my defense of Dave, and B) flamewars are always funny.

Now, it's simply becoming stupid. No longer amusing, and obviously no matter what I say you won't listen, so why should I stay and fight?

Fling poo on yourselves, my Almighty Turnipness can be bestowed elsewhere.

[Adora]

I can't believe this thread is still going...

*heads desk*

[lisarea]

I can't believe this thread is still going...

*heads desk*

I think we should all do this.

From now on, if you get tired of a thread or think it's outlived its usefulness, instead of just not reading it anymore, stick around and make sure everyone knows that you don't like it!

It's a much more amusing alternative than finding something else to do and letting the grownups talk, don't you think?

[viscousmemories]

Approximately 24 hours after he posted the apology to her here.

IMHO, this leaves open the possibility that his apology to her here was sincere, but later events angered him so that he said something very inappropriate.
I agree, and despite my comments to the contrary yesterday I accept his claim that his apology was sincere when he gave it.

[Ymir's blood]

So you think it's funny to exploit someone's deeply personal revelations to hurt and humilate them. Fair enough, you and I have a very different moral yardstick.

I wouldn't say it's funny, but... I would say that Dave was being attacked; he made a personal revelation, that he was bothered by this, and was trying to explore it, and I think the responses to it pretty much guaranteed a hostile and defensive response.
I had avoided the whole pedo thread, knowing how they almost always turn out, until Dave started this thread. My reaction upon reading it pretty much falls in line with what seebs says. ymmv

[Nex]

Yeah. Some people even get off on "Bum Fights". They like nothing more than watching someone else's pain and adding to it to see how far they can go before the object of their disdain and twisted sense of "humour" breaks. Hey, it's all entertainment, right? Funny as hell.
You've totally misunderstood. I can see from your following post you're also not very interested in understanding.
However, the reason I found Dave's diatribe so amusing was because, by itself, it was simply hilarious. Again, all feelings of everyone involved aside, it was funny. Worded well, outrageously caustic and venomous, almost poetic. Also obviously meant only to piss Beth off, which was very successful. That's the point of a flame, to piss someone off.
However, since I don't know Beth, how was I to know it was so incredibly hurtful that she must flee the wilds of the 'Net for safety? I didn't. When I first read it, all I knew was she was mad. I also knew that had it been directed at me, I'd have laughed my ass off at him.
All we have to go on is our own perceptions of the incident. Mine is far different from yours.

What I'd like to know is why you aren't seeing the humour in dave_a being painted into a corner and stomping off in a self-righteous, juvenile huff?
I did think it was funny, though in a different way. However, the topic of humor in Dave's resignation wasn't really brought up, so I didn't bother to mention it.

I see why he left, because he's right in that he was attacked unfairly. After his flame on Beth, of course, he was attacked fairly, though I don't think Beth's dragging it here was exactly fair either. Unfairness all around, but it began against Dave.

Why is dave_a's pain and anger not as funny to you as Beth's is? What makes Beth's pain funnier?
Because in the beginning Beth's was totally out of the blue, from my perspective-- it made little to no sense. Dave was kind of dogpiled on, so I saw why he was so upset.

[viscousmemories]

Actually, I was defending Dave because I sincerely do believe you're all being unfair.
Yes, but unfortunately you haven't been able to demonstrate through rational argumentation (for example in responses to points made by me, livius and Clutch) how it is that we have all been unfair to Dave. And given your accusations that we have been 'hysterical', 'over-emotional', and 'irrational' throughout, I expected you to at least give it a try.

Then, it became a flamewar. I remained because A) my defense of Dave, and B) flamewars are always funny.
Whatever floats your boat. I hate flamewars, personally.

Now, it's simply becoming stupid. No longer amusing, and obviously no matter what I say you won't listen, so why should I stay and fight?
I have listened and responded to everything you've said, as have others. But I agree that your apparent unwillingness to admit when you're wrong and/or come up with better arguments to support your claims does make this seem like a stupid discussion.

Fling poo on yourselves, my Almighty Turnipness can be bestowed elsewhere.
Please tell me you're not going to make a drama queen exit just hours after you implored us all to grow some skin. That would be just too rich for words.

[livius drusus]

So you think it's funny to exploit someone's deeply personal revelations to hurt and humilate them. Fair enough, you and I have a very different moral yardstick.

I wouldn't say it's funny, but... I would say that Dave was being attacked; he made a personal revelation, that he was bothered by this, and was trying to explore it, and I think the responses to it pretty much guaranteed a hostile and defensive response.

I don't see that seebs. If you'd be interested I'd like to see some quotes of what you mean. As vm said, dave wasn't attacked at all that I can see in the original thread unless you count Beth's "pedophiliac" descriptions and complaint thread. Both vm and I disagreed with her openly and repeatedly; dave was engaged reasonably and in detail with no aspersions cast on his character by several people.

It was only last night that he can be said to have been "attacked" and since that came after and in response to his vicious hostility, I just don't see how you can call it defensive. His OP here is hostile and defensive; his reply to Beth on the original thread retracting his apology and reiterating the grievous danger to civil liberties he felt she posed in order to justify his child rape/torture comments was hostile and defensive, but not the comment itself, imo.

[Adora]

From now on, if you get tired of a thread or think it's outlived its usefulness, instead of just not reading it anymore, stick around and make sure everyone knows that you don't like it!
Sorry? What was the name of this site again? Freethought? Or should we change it to Freewank to fit in with the new style the board has taken?

Cos Lis, really, if this is what you call "grown up 'talk'", then it's obvious the fucking "grown ups" on this board have that whole "Mouth opens- brain stops" problem so much of the world suffers from. But as a sufferer, I'm sure you understand this deeply. Or maybe some of the "grown ups" around here just need lives, so they stop sitting around and wanking over issues long-dead, just because they can. But y'know, I'm just a poor widdle kiddie, who isn't allowed a freethought or two inbetween the buckets of spooge being thrown about here.

PS: If you feel like making like the other righteous femmes on this board and disappearing into random & sporadic posting mixed with a good deal of lurking, I'm sure it could possibly help that whole Cranial Rectum Displacement Syndrome you've got going on.

[viscousmemories]

Sorry? What was the name of this site again? Freethought? Or should we change it to Freewank to fit in with the new style the board has taken?

<snip> Or maybe some of the "grown ups" around here just need lives, so they stop sitting around and wanking over issues long-dead, just because they can.
What "new style" are you talking about and what long-dead issues are people sitting around wanking about here? I'm so sick of the tired old bullshit about how anyone who takes an online discussion seriously must not have a life. Sorry Adora but I think lisa's got a point. If you don't want to participate in a particular thread then don't, why jump in just to criticize everyone who is actually interested in the topic?

[pescifish]

PS: If you feel like making like the other righteous femmes on this board and disappearing into random & sporadic posting mixed with a good deal of lurking, What does this mean, Adora? What are you talking about here?

I don't care if you back your shit up or I agree with it or not, but I sure wish I could understand what the fuck you say half the time. For all I know, I do agree about some things -- if only I knew what you meant.

[lisarea]

.

Oh, my. Let's see. A "yer not a freethinkur" flame, some kind of strange misogynistic generalization I can only assume is a projection of some kind of self-loathing or something, the always hilarious faux medical term for head-up-your-ass, and, as always, insightful analogies to masturbation, uh, all over your screen, um, like SPOOGE or something.

I will, of course, take your recommendations under advisement.

Oh, MAN, just wait for my aggressive boredom policy to kick in the next time you losers try talking about Star Trek or some other dull-assed shit like that!

Woo HOO!

[pescifish]

some kind of strange misogynistic generalization I can only assume is a projection of some kind of self-loathing or something,Okay, I'll buy that as a translation.

/me runs off to watch this week's episode of Enterprise

[freemonkey]

PS: If you feel like making like the other righteous femmes on this board and disappearing into random & sporadic posting mixed with a good deal of lurking......
Seriously. W. T. F.?

[Nex]

Sorry? What was the name of this site again? Freethought? Or should we change it to Freewank to fit in with the new style the board has taken?

Cos Lis, really, if this is what you call "grown up 'talk'", then it's obvious the fucking "grown ups" on this board have that whole "Mouth opens- brain stops" problem so much of the world suffers from. But as a sufferer, I'm sure you understand this deeply. Or maybe some of the "grown ups" around here just need lives, so they stop sitting around and wanking over issues long-dead, just because they can. But y'know, I'm just a poor widdle kiddie, who isn't allowed a freethought or two inbetween the buckets of spooge being thrown about here.

PS: If you feel like making like the other righteous femmes on this board and disappearing into random & sporadic posting mixed with a good deal of lurking, I'm sure it could possibly help that whole Cranial Rectum Displacement Syndrome you've got going on.
Now that's a good flame! :super:

[Bella]

Can you guys - er, ladies - please start your own thread?

[viscousmemories]

Now that's a good flame!
See now, I disagree. I thought it was mostly just a disjointed and nonsensical ramble with a few playground taunts for lisa and generalized insults for some others of us thrown in. Now that's over-emotional irrationality if you ask me. Adora can be much more amusingly assholish when she's not even trying. :yup:

[Nex]

Now that's a good flame!
See now, I disagree. I thought it was mostly just a disjointed and nonsensical ramble with a few playground taunts for lisa and generalized insults for some others of us thrown in. Now that's over-emotional irrationality if you ask me. Adora can be much more amusingly assholish when she's not even trying. :yup:
Hehehe... good flames ALWAYS have gibberish in there somewhere. Bonus points for poor spelling, grammar, or punctuation.

I'll admit, it would have been better if it were in neon colors, or ALL IN CAPS AND HAD LOTS OF EXCLAMATION POINTS!!!!!!!1111oneone

[seebs]

I don't see that seebs. If you'd be interested I'd like to see some quotes of what you mean. As vm said, dave wasn't attacked at all that I can see in the original thread unless you count Beth's "pedophiliac" descriptions and complaint thread. Both vm and I disagreed with her openly and repeatedly; dave was engaged reasonably and in detail with no aspersions cast on his character by several people.

I agree. But... I think he was in a fairly precarious spot to begin with, so it was unusually easy for him to start to feel defensive.

There's a definite change in the tone of debate, around the time we start hearing about the kid's parents being called and warned.

[Brimshack]

I don't think attacked is the right word. I think the focus of the discussion stayed (rightly or wrongly) on the propriety of his own actions a bit longer than many could take. I think its reasonable to expect that a person who has been accused of inappopropriate behavior would feel threatened by that accusation. Coupled with overt attempts to have something done about his posts, I think it is fair to suggest he must have felt cornered. What he chose to do about that is another matter entirely.

[D. Scarlatti]

Oh, MAN, just wait for my aggressive boredom policy to kick in the next time you losers try talking about Star Trek or some other dull-assed shit like that!

Hahaha.

Incidentally, did someone actually try to make some suggestion of moral equivalence between dantonac's little death wish and beth's reply to it? That's a bit of a stretch, don't you think? "Fucking pig" is getting off lightly.

By the way it's not like dantonac thought he was talking to some other beth on the infidels board. "Context" is one hell of a lame defense in this instance.

[Adora]

some kind of strange misogynistic generalization I can only assume is a projection of some kind of self-loathing or something
Looks like someone got into Sweetie's stash.

but I sure wish I could understand what the fuck you say half the time.
Your stupid is not my problem.

I'm so sick of the tired old bullshit about how anyone who takes an online discussion seriously must not have a life.
VM, if you can't work out the difference between taking an online discussion seriously, and the perfect example you gave in your most recent post of pointless wanky commentary that seems to be your modus operandi around here, then you do need a life.

[viscousmemories]

VM, if you can't work out the difference between taking an online discussion seriously, and the perfect example you gave in your most recent post of pointless wanky commentary that seems to be your modus operandi around here, then you do need a life.
If I ever need your help distinguishing between a serious discussion and a pointless wanky commentary I'll let you know. My "modus operandi" around here is to be myself, and just like everyone else I think some issues are very important and others not so much. Comparing the topics you and I generally get heavily involved in it's obvious we have very different priorities. Once again, that you might think something isn't worth talking about doesn't make it so.

[livius drusus]

Thread Tools - Ignore This Thread. And like magic, anybody incapable of staying out of a thread they don't like can make it disappear.

[Clutch Chatty]

Well it's good of you to admit you were only in it for the amusement, and not because you actually had an argument you intended to defend. Otherwise I'd say you lost.
Actually, I was defending Dave because I sincerely do believe you're all being unfair.

I guiltily confess to being a bit entertained by the very selective occurrence of this dewy-eyed sincerity and love of fairness.

And then, of course, you've been entirely unable to produce any coherent argument for this interpretation.

I agree that fleeing under the cover of hysterical accusations was your best available option -- that is, given your clear rejection of the best overall option: defending your claims rationally.

[Clutch Munny]

And a big board welcome to "Clutch Chatty".

If Clutch Munny can keep his own shit together, we may never hear from this shady goppeldanger again...

[livius drusus]

:giggle:

[D. Scarlatti]

If pescifish is stupid then I must be microhydroencephalic.

[Petra]

Aww, man. You made me look up a word that doesn't exist. That's so mean. :blush:

[pescifish]

but I sure wish I could understand what the fuck you say half the time.
Your stupid is not my problem. :mock:

Adora, you got that right, 'cuz I ain't stupid. So, I guess that means you better keep looking, 'cuz you obviously still need to find out what your problem is.

Thanks D.Scarlatti! :brain: That's a mighty big compliment coming from you. :blush:

[freemonkey]

but I sure wish I could understand what the fuck you say half the time.
Your stupid is not my problem. :mock:

Adora, you got that right, 'cuz I ain't stupid. So, I guess that means you better keep looking, 'cuz you obviously still need to find out what your problem is.

Thanks D.Scarlatti! :brain: That's a mighty big compliment coming from you. :blush:
touché :touche: nicely done.

[Petra]

<edited assholish crap>

http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/assets/Rabid.jpg

[Adora]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again.

Awh. How cute.