You're not going to get laid. Inspired by Rogers Libertain Flash thread.

[BillKauffman]

Joe-

For as many dust-ups as we have had and continue to have around these parts, as a native born yankee myself, you are spot on in response to Seth.

[Russell Kanning]

It's pretty clear the true split in the community continues to be those with social skills and those without.  Many of those without continue to insist they don't need them or want them.  Fine, but don't expect to get along with those of us who do.

BTW, that split overlaps with all of the other philosophical "splits" (minarch/anarch, insystem/out, Libertarian/Republican etc) and makes the task of education/change harder for all of us.  Of course, only those with social skills care about that task.

this is the split that actually matters, because it is how people actually treat others .... not their fake philosophies that don't match their actuans
i guess that is why most of us care about the "how you treat others" split
many of us have survived backstabbings also ... it is not necessarily fatal, even while you are in jail at the time

[Russell Kanning]

Ever notice that some folk never show up to just say hi or
anything positive.

yes i have
some people think of forums as places to argue ... some people just don't want to be nice to others on this forum
sometimes it is a rough crowd

maybe it is time for another karma free for all

[SethCohn]

Bill, Joe's response is the equivalent of "Raising the Flag and expecting folks to salute", in that he ignored the substance of was being discussed and focused on the bits he wanted to.

1) I asserted a right to me and mine.  Joe ignored that context, as if I was claiming something public, and then huffed about that.  He then complained that I didn't make that clear, but the original context was quite clear.  Of course I don't control the world, nor all venues.

2) He went after Tammy repeatedly.  yup, that's Yankee behavior.  Not.  He went after her, not vice versa.

3) He replied as if I was against polite neighborly behavior, which I'm in favor of...
So what exactly was he 'right about', that we disagree on?

[Sovereign Curtis]

It's also a poorly kept secret that certain individuals smite certain other individuals every time they log in.  The karma system, in its current state, should not be used to make judgments about people, IMO.

For further edification, if you go to your own profile, then click "modify profile" and "forum profile," you can see your positive and negative karma, under the box where you enter your signature.

For example, mine now stands at 3271 applauds, and 2319 smites.  That's a lot more informative than the sum of the two, as it will easily indicate which individuals may have been subject to karma manipulation.

I believe there's a way to set the forum to display that instead of the sum, under each individual's name.

Joe

hhhmmm, its not showing up for me

[SethCohn]

many of us have survived backstabbings also ... it is not necessarily fatal, even while you are in jail at the time

Russell, if you and Kat still harbor bad feelings about what I said during that time, I apologize.  My intention was never to backstab or hurt.  I write my opinions pretty freely, as everyone knows.  But I do respect you, even if we often disagree as to methods, as a comrade on the same side, and don't wish to see you and yours hurt.

Seth

[SethCohn]

Why, I used to have a negative rating here, and now look it's over +1000.  Somebody (many of them?) must like me and what I have to say here.

For the benefit of newcomers and intermittent comers, about a year ago J'Raxis wrote a script that punked the Underground's karma system by instantaneously adding over 1000 points to several people, among them yourself and MaineShark.

No, they like me, they really like me! Lies, lies, all lies! (wink)

No, I wasn't aware of the punking, but that explains it.  I knew something was wrong there. (grin)

[BillKauffman]

Bill, Joe's response is the equivalent of "Raising the Flag and expecting folks to salute", in that he ignored the substance of was being discussed and focused on the bits he wanted to.

1) I asserted a right to me and mine.  Joe ignored that context, as if I was claiming something public, and then huffed about that.  He then complained that I didn't make that clear, but the original context was quite clear.  Of course I don't control the world, nor all venues.

2) He went after Tammy repeatedly.  yup, that's Yankee behavior.  Not.  He went after her, not vice versa.

3) He replied as if I was against polite neighborly behavior, which I'm in favor of...
So what exactly was he 'right about', that we disagree on?

Sorry - I wasn't so much making an assertion of the specifics in this thread but more of a general agreement about damaging behavior and what may sink the FSP.

[MaineShark]

Bill, Joe's response is the equivalent of "Raising the Flag and expecting folks to salute", in that he ignored the substance of was being discussed and focused on the bits he wanted to.

Did I, really?  Behavior that offends natives and drives they away from supporting the FSP isn't the substance of this discussion?

1) I asserted a right to me and mine.  Joe ignored that context, as if I was claiming something public, and then huffed about that.  He then complained that I didn't make that clear, but the original context was quite clear.  Of course I don't control the world, nor all venues.

I didn't ignore any context.  I quoted you fully, and responded to that.  You may not like that someone called you on your nonsense, but that doesn't make it illegitimate to do so.

2) He went after Tammy repeatedly.  yup, that's Yankee behavior.  Not.  He went after her, not vice versa.

Holding such individuals accountable for their actions?  That's exactly what we do here.  She was one example, provided by another.  As I said, there are others like her.  I could post a list, but that's probably silly, given that there's one example who is so blatant that no reasonable individual could argue the point.

3) He replied as if I was against polite neighborly behavior, which I'm in favor of...

Are you?  The last time you made a substantive post (ie, not just the two intervening party invites) here was the end of May.  After six months of silence, you started posting again to defend someone who epitomizes the opposite of "polite, neighborly behavior."  The opportunity to defend an impolite, un-neighborly individual is what called you back, after half a year, apparently.  Can you imagine why others might decide that you are also opposed to "polite, neighborly behavior?"

Or did you mean to condemn her for her behavior, and just got confused?

Joe

[Sovereign Curtis]

Seriously Seth, you want to ostracize me for calling Tammy out (or is its seriously due to the spelling correction?), then in later posts proceed to encourage the open discussion of "problem people", and extol (your own) virtue of speaking your mind.

Two sets of rules here?

[SethCohn]

Seriously Seth, you want to ostracize me for calling Tammy out (or is its seriously due to the spelling correction?),

No, it was more than spelling, it was more than calling Tammy a c---, it was the entire thread of conversation, for me to seriously consider ostracizing.

then in later posts proceed to encourage the open discussion of "problem people", and extol (your own) virtue of speaking your mind.

Two sets of rules here?

When Tammy borrows large sums of money and doesn't pay her debts to people, lies repeatedly, steals, etc, let me know.  Funny, I don't think that's going to happen. anytime soon.  The problem people I'm talking about did things like that.  Just because you don't like someone that's not them being a problem.

[Sovereign Curtis]

Seriously Seth, you want to ostracize me for calling Tammy out (or is its seriously due to the spelling correction?),

No, it was more than spelling, it was more than calling Tammy a c---, it was the entire thread of conversation, for me to seriously consider ostracizing.

The entire thread of conversation? You mean my posts on the first few pages? If not, then you're basing this "entire thread of conversation" on TWO posts I made. One calling Tammy out for being what she works so hard to be, the second correcting your syntax (showed -> shown). It was just after post#2 that you flipped out. After post one, you "you know who you are"'ed me, but once I pointed out you should have used shown instead of showed and you decided you very publicly wanted to ostracize me.

Ok. So you're not flipping out after all my posts, plus the c-bomb. But you ARE flipping out after I shown->showed you? If it REALLY was ALL of my earlier posts, plus the c-bomb post, why did you wait to freak until after the syntax correction? How come you've not quoted or addressed ANYTHING I've said, save for the c-bomb post and later???

[SethCohn]

...The last time you made a substantive post (ie, not just the two intervening party invites) here was the end of May.  After six months of silence, you started posting again to defend someone who epitomizes the opposite of "polite, neighborly behavior."

Um, I wasn't defending _you_... I was defending Tammy, whom I'd rather have on my side than half a dozen Joes and Curtises.  Tammy is way more polite and neighborly than either of you, that's for sure.  But considering the old threads where she questioned Ivy's behavior(s) and you two attacked her repeatedly, it's clear why you dislike her.  Add me to that list, I guess.

As for my own silence, perhaps I've been busy, and thanks to the "recovering" economy, finally have way too much free time to allow things like read this forum.

And no, Curtis, you idgit, it wasn't the spelling.  Nor just this thread.... it was this thread on top of many others.  I replied after you outted yourself (with the 'shown') as if you were quite proud of yourself for being censored.  I was careful not to name names, but both of you not only id-ed yourselves but clearly intended to stand by your deleted posts.  Ok, fine.  As we used to say, oh so many years ago on Usenet, 'plonk'

[SethCohn]

'plonk' #fail.

Hey, what happened to the 'ignore'?

[Sovereign Curtis]

Tammy is way more polite and neighborly than either of you, that's for sure.

Really? Online shes a bigger troll than I've ever aspired to be. Offline? Idk, I was polite to you at PorcFest. I was polite to you at Kevin Roll's 4th party. I was polite to you at your party (nice house, pleasant convo, remember any of that?) Beyond that, I think I've maybe seen you in public once or twice at some event, but I'm quite sure I've not been a bad neighbor to you...

And no, Curtis, you idgit, it wasn't the spelling.  Nor just this thread.... it was this thread on top of many others.  I replied after you outted yourself (with the 'shown') as if you were quite proud of yourself for being censored.  I was careful not to name names, but both of you not only id-ed yourselves but clearly intended to stand by your deleted posts.  Ok, fine.  As we used to say, oh so many years ago on Usenet, 'plonk'

tits or gtfo. Seriously, highlight some posts not of this thread that justifies your position, or let me believe your decision was knee-jerk reactionary (as it appears to be).

And why would I be ashamed of what I said? I didnt censor myself. I thought out what I was posting, before I posted, weighed the perceived pros n cons of such strong wording, and went ahead with it anyway. I made a choice, I'm not going to shrink from that choice just because Seth Cohn, White Knight, comes riding in.