banned from politics

Chinafoot

Hehe had to laugh when I saw this on that thread before Earthman was simplifying things:

Commander Vimes wrote:

i was trying to dumb things down because you don't seem to understand the concept that if the govt takes less, they'll have less

Seems to me that you were the most condecending and aggressive one on that thread tbh.

*Shrug*

hullaballoo

Commander Vimes wrote:

thank you. i still disagree with you but i've seen what happens when i do that so i won't

lol

"I DISAGREE WITH YOU





no I don't, haha!"

Sam Vimes

peachypants wrote:

Hehe had to laugh when I saw this on that thread before Earthman was simplifying things:


Seems to me that you were the most condecending and aggressive one on that thread tbh.

*Shrug*

well he did call it "fairytale maths reminiscent of first class". i was explaining why it was so. he was trying to discount it by calling it juvenile even though it was supposed to appear juvenile

bonkey

Commander Vimes wrote:

well he did call it "fairytale maths reminiscent of first class".

And? He's attacking the argument and not the poster with a comment like that. Its the fine line that has always been drawn in Politics.

he was trying to discount it by calling it juvenile even though it was supposed to appear juvenile

So you wrote something which you intended to be taken as juvenille. and got offended when he called it (the argument - what he's supposed to attack) juvenile, and so you lost the rag at him????

Its looking like your logic is as shaky as your math.

jc

Sam Vimes

bonkey wrote:

And? He's attacking the argument and not the poster with a comment like that. Its the fine line that has always been drawn in Politics.


So you wrote something which you intended to be taken as juvenille. and got offended when he called it (the argument - what he's supposed to attack) juvenile, and so you lost the rag at him????

Its looking like your logic is as shaky as your math.

jc

i think i'll just avoid the politics forum from now on. people there seem to have a real talent for missing the point. i got offended when he said he was keeping things simple for me, not when he called my maths juvenile. calling it juvenile was an example of missing the point, not being offensive

i don't mind my posts being picked apart but if you're going to comment on my logic, at least be sure you understand what i'm saying

bonkey

Commander Vimes wrote:

i think i'll just avoid the politics forum from now on.

Fair 'nuff. Doesn't sound like your cup o' tea anyway.

people there seem to have a real talent for missing the point.

If you can't beat 'em....insult 'em....again.

This approach of yours is what got you banned in the first place. Apparently, you've no intention of changing, so I think you're doubly correct in deciding to stay away from politics.

i got offended when he said he was keeping things simple for me,

Its your perogative to be offended by whatever you choose to be offended by, but he neither attacked you nor broke any other rule by explaining to someone else why he had made the point simplistic after they pointed out that it was so.

Its telling that you only seemed to realise he was keeping things simple in his replies to you after he pointed it out to someone else who saw the complexities that he had omitted and how they were relevant and asked about them.

In other words, you couldn't tell from the argument itself that he was skipping over some (arguably important) complexities.....but got offended when he told somone that he had done so for your benefit.

Like I said...its still your perogative to get offended, but it was never going to offer you any sort of leeway to decide the rules don't apply to you, particularly in that forum.

jc

Sam Vimes

bonkey wrote:

Fair 'nuff. Doesn't sound like your cup o' tea anyway.


If you can't beat 'em....insult 'em....again.

you can say i insulted you by saying you missed the point. doesn't change the fact that you missed the point

bonkey wrote:

Its your perogative to be offended by whatever you choose to be offended by, but he neither attacked you nor broke any other rule by explaining to someone else why he had made the point simplistic after they pointed out that it was so.

i find it insulting when people way they're keeping things simple for me. maybe you don't. people are different.

bonkey wrote:

Its telling that you only seemed to realise he was keeping things simple in his replies to you after he pointed it out to someone else who saw the complexities that he had omitted and how they were relevant and asked about them.

to be honest, he seemed to me to be an idiot. he seemed to be attributing all good in the world to low taxes and all evils to high taxes. i did notice he was being simplistic. i just thought he was being simplistic because he was simple which is why i posted the afformentioned "first class maths". i didn't realise he was doing it "for my benefit" because i'm not used to being talked down to.

bonkey wrote:

Like I said...its still your perogative to get offended, but it was never going to offer you any sort of leeway to decide the rules don't apply to you, particularly in that forum.

i never said the rules don't apply to me. if you read back through this thread you'll realise that

bonkey

bonkey wrote:

Fair 'nuff. Doesn't sound like your cup o' tea anyway.


If you can't beat 'em....insult 'em....again.

This approach of yours is what got you banned in the first place. Apparently, you've no intention of changing, so I think you're doubly correct in deciding to stay away from politics.

Commander Vimes wrote:

to be honest, he seemed to me to be an idiot. he seemed to be attributing all good in the world to low taxes and all evils to high taxes. i did notice he was being simplistic. i just thought he was being simplistic because he was simple which is why i posted the afformentioned "first class maths". i didn't realise he was doing it "for my benefit" because i'm not used to being talked down to.

Bonkey I think you've called this one right.
If all else fails he'll insult them again....

I'll make it easy for CV then by reinstating the permanancy of the ban.

Sam Vimes

Earthman wrote:

Bonkey I think you've called this one right.
If all else fails he'll insult them again....

I'll make it easy for CV then by reinstating the permanancy of the ban.

i wasn't insulting you in that last post. i said you SEEMED (past tense) stupid because what you were saying was so simplistic. i didn't realise you were purposely being simplistic.

yeah right :rolleyes:

bonkey

Commander Vimes wrote:

you can say i insulted you by saying you missed the point. doesn't change the fact that you missed the point

Except you didn't say that I missed the point. You generalised on to politics posters in general. Thats shifting from making a comment about what I said to be an ad hominem attack on a bunch of people.

i find it insulting when people way they're keeping things simple for me. maybe you don't.

Unless I know I'm up to the more complex stuff, no I don't. If I knew that, the first thing I'd do is ask them to stop simplifying rather than blowing my top and insulting them. Its only if they continued that I might get annoyed.

people are different.

Indeed. Thats why I don't explode at them for not behaving in a manner identical to how I'd like.....why I'd ask them reasonably to adjust first. You obviously don't believe in that approach, which leads me back to believing I'm right in saying the politics forum wouldn't be your cup of tea.

to be honest, he seemed to me to be an idiot. he seemed to be attributing all good in the world to low taxes and all evils to high taxes.

Further demonstrating your lack of understanding of what he was saying only serves to suggest that he was right in simplifying things for you. Insulting him while doing so, then as you do now once again, only serves to suggest that he was right in banning you.

i didn't realise he was doing it "for my benefit" because i'm not used to being talked down to.

i never said the rules don't apply to me. if you read back through this thread you'll realise that

Really? From your original post:

either we should both be banned or neither of us should.

personally i think that only he should because i was just responding to an insult.

Now, here's an extract from the rules of the politics form that covers this event:

If you have a problem with a post, complain to the mods. Do not respond to the post in question.

Seems pretty much to me that you're saying you don't believe you should be punished for doing something the rules explicitly tell you not to.

See, I used to moderate that forum, and reactions like yours are exactly why I put that rule in the original charter, and my guess is that the current moderators keep it there for exactly the same reason - dealing with people who believe that as long as they can claim provocation, they have some sort of excuse for unacceptable behaviour.

jc

Sam Vimes

bonkey wrote:

Except you didn't say that I missed the point. You generalised on to politics posters in general. Thats shifting from making a comment about what I said to be an ad hominem attack on a bunch of people.

i don't think generalisations are against the rules. (i may be wrong). i'd go as far as to say that the majority of what i wrote in the original thread and large parts of what i wrote here were misinterpretted and i found myself defending things i didn't say. i realise that not all people in politics do that.

bonkey wrote:

Unless I know I'm up to the more complex stuff, no I don't. If I knew that, the first thing I'd do is ask them to stop simplifying rather than blowing my top and insulting them. Its only if they continued that I might get annoyed.

as i've said several times in this thread, i didn't realise that. i'm not accustomed to people dumbing things down for me and so didn't realise that's what they were doing.

bonkey wrote:

Indeed. Thats why I don't explode at them for not behaving in a manner identical to how I'd like

i "exploded" because i was insulted, not "for not behaving in a manner identical to how I'd like".
this is an example of trying to defend something i didn't say

bonkey wrote:

Further demonstrating your lack of understanding of what he was saying only serves to suggest that he was right in simplifying things for you.

he literally said "people emigrated because taxes were too high" (paraphrased). i understood what he was saying, but he left out large, very important parts. i didn't understand his MEANING because he wasn't exaplaining fully what he meant. he was "simplifying"

bonkey wrote:

Insulting him while doing so, then as you do now once again, only serves to suggest that he was right in banning you.

i agreed he was right in banning me.

bonkey wrote:

Really? From your original post:

either we should both be banned or neither of us should.

personally i think that only he should because i was just responding to an insult.

if its in the charter that responding to an insult isn't an excuse i can accept that point

Ivan

Bonkey, you continue to be one of my favourite ever posters on boards. Keep it up Though I didnt realise you stopped modding the politics forum... its been a while since I posted there last

Anyway, for a bit of on-topic love I'd just like to say to Commander Vimes, to just give it up. I, and many others, believe you were wrong and your ban was justified. That much alone, should be reason to give up but the simple fact is, you arent helping your situation. So, just put down your shovel and quit digging.

Glad to be of service

sceptre

Commander Vimes wrote:

if its in the charter that responding to an insult isn't an excuse i can accept that point

Not impressed. Bonkey went and quoted bits and there's still an "if" above. The charter doesn't very specifically list specific instances where X and Y are specifically prohibited while allowing Z under specific circumstances because there would be people who get banned for piss-poor behaviour due in part to not bothering their asses reading the charter prior to the event taking the step of reading the charter after and saying "if it's in the charter..." or "blah isn't banned by the charter"

I generally don't see very many cases where "I exploded because" if followed by anything worth reading.

As for Ivan's post I'm only speaking for myself but I suspect the other mods would agree that any time bonkey wants his old job back we could find another seat at the virtual table.

Sam Vimes

Ivan wrote:

Bonkey, you continue to be one of my favourite ever posters on boards. Keep it up Though I didnt realise you stopped modding the politics forum... its been a while since I posted there last

Anyway, for a bit of on-topic love I'd just like to say to Commander Vimes, to just give it up. I, and many others, believe you were wrong and your ban was justified. That much alone, should be reason to give up but the simple fact is, you arent helping your situation. So, just put down your shovel and quit digging.

Glad to be of service

how many times do i have to say that the ban was justified? i think a one month ban was justified, which is what i was given. however, its just been commuted to a permanent ban for no other reason than earthman misread my post. i did pm him about it but he doesn't seem to be replying.

can you tell me what's insulting about:

i formed a derogatory opinion while i was not in possession of all the facts and when presented with the facts, i changed that opinion.

i can't see the insulting bit

that's what i meant. that's what i said



for people who don't feel like turning back, here's the bit with some excess cut out:

Commander Vimes wrote:

to be honest, he seemed to me to be an idiot.
i did notice he was being simplistic. i just thought he was being simplistic because he was simple.

note i'm speaking in the past tense. now here's the important bit:

Commander Vimes wrote:

I DIDN'T REALISE HE WAS DOING IT "FOR MY BENEFIT" BECAUSE I'M NOT USED TO BEING TALKED DOWN TO.

in other words, i thought he was an idiot because of something i didn't realise and when i did realise it, i changed my opinion. what i said does not reflect on him in any way. it reflects on me for not realising his intention


i don't know how i can make it any more clear than that. i did not insult earthman. period.


edit: i think people will be happy to know i won a bet with myself. i bet that at least one person would say i insulted him when it was clearly not my intention. its an example of "missing the point" that i've mentioned. i just hoped it wouldn't be earthman

Sam Vimes

sceptre wrote:

I generally don't see very many cases where "I exploded because" if followed by anything worth reading.

that's a generalisation. apparently they're not allowed. besides the fact that in this case i think there is something worth reading following it. he said i exploded because they didn't behave in a manner identical to how I'd like. this is clearly untrue

Dirk Gently

commander vimes, why did you feel the need to keep this thread alive after you got your ban reduced down to one month.

I regret now posting earlier, arguing on your behalf to get the ban reduced. You should have been happy with that decision and left it at that.
The ban was deserved but it was a bit severe and a one month ban was a resonable result for you. You've since shot yourself in the foot again.:rolleyes:

sceptre

Commander Vimes wrote:

that's a generalisation.

Obviously. I didn't put in the word "generally" because I liked the sound of it.

apparently they're not allowed.

That's something you just made up or carefully drew an inference that suited you from something someone half-said. Unnecessary for a rational discussion.

besides the fact that in this case i think there is something worth reading following it.

I'll disagree from my point of view and say there's nothing in the last post I've taken the time to read that contained anything interesting either. I'm afraid you've blown your chance to have me take more time to consider the issue by reading any additions.

oscarBravo

Commander Vimes wrote:

i did not insult earthman. period.

Hm...

Commander Vimes (directed at Earthman) wrote:

at this point, i'm prepared to say f uck you you little p rick.

Maybe I'm missing the point.

Sam Vimes

oscarBravo wrote:

Hm... Maybe I'm missing the point.

yes, you are. i'm not talking about that one. i was given a one month ban for that one. however i was given a permanent ban for:

i thought you were stupid but i was wrong

can someone please explain the insulting bit? i can't see it

clown bag wrote:

commander vimes, why did you feel the need to keep this thread alive after you got your ban reduced down to one month.

I regret now posting earlier, arguing on your behalf to get the ban reduced. You should have been happy with that decision and left it at that.
The ban was deserved but it was a bit severe and a one month ban was a resonable result for you. You've since shot yourself in the foot again.:rolleyes:

clown bag, i wish the thread had just gone away but it was kept alive and people kept on saying incorrect things about what i said like mr bravo there and i felt the need to correct them.

i didn't shoot myself in the foot. somebody said i didn't notice he was being simplistic (incorrect), and used that incorrect fact to say i should stay away from the politics forum.
i explained that i did realise he was being simplistic but didn't realise he was doing it PURPOSELY and earthman took it as an insult. that's not my fault




can people please stop looking at my post with their "commander vimes is stupid" glasses on and read what i wrote? i did not insult him. why the hell would i insult him? what would i have to gain besides another ban?

Commander Vimes

Commander Vimes wrote:

snip.....

Oh I'd taken the view that you were just bored and have nothing better to do than rant on pointlessly here.
Well the rest of us do have other things to do and we do have better ways to spend time than read more patent waggon circling gibberish .