5 years of internet posting has offered up this interesting observation

[BlueHair]

Originally Posted by Tex

Indeed, debates here are not "friendly sparing" in the bar after hours, but more like cross-examinations on the witness stand.

That's bullshit and you know it. You stupid bastard!

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

Unfortunately, you were not one of them.



Reviewing that thread, it is remarkable how adamantly I was attacked for offering an alternative course of action. And quite calmly, I might add. All-American and creekster, while not agreeing with me, at least conversed in civil tones.

SIEQ and Waters on the other hand ...

Tex you do know that Lebowski can't see you, don't you?

Did you forget this post of Lebowski's?

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showthr...595#post107595

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Tex you do know that Lebowski can't see you, don't you?

Yes.

Originally Posted by Archaea

Did you forget this post of Lebowski's?

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showthr...595#post107595

I must've missed it while I was in the middle of denying SU's claim (ironically supported by Lebowski, despite his "ignore") that I think black spiritual music chases the spirit away.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Tex you do know that Lebowski can't see you, don't you?

Did you forget this post of Lebowski's?

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showthr...595#post107595

Tex........ You slippery, sneaky devil.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by Tex

Unfortunately, you were not one of them.



Reviewing that thread, it is remarkable how adamantly I was attacked for offering an alternative course of action. And quite calmly, I might add. All-American and creekster, while not agreeing with me, at least conversed in civil tones.

SIEQ and Waters on the other hand ...

Tex tactic #316G: Make the argument about the people who disagree with you instead of about the issues.

#673R: Construe "inaction" as "alternative action" and privelige official authority at every step, and even to the point of suggesting inaction because an SP might also react badly.

#115C: Ignore that the implications of your statements are racist on the face, and insist that you can't be racist because you don't intend to be racist.

#46A: Say that you aren't a company man, even as you do nothing but toe the company line.

#8876D: Talk out of both sides of your mouth.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

Tex tactic #316G: Make the argument about the people who disagree with you instead of about the issues.

#673R: Construe "inaction" as "alternative action" and privelige official authority at every step, and even to the point of suggesting inaction because an SP might also react badly.

#115C: Ignore that the implications of your statements are racist on the face, and insist that you can't be racist because you don't intend to be racist.

#46A: Say that you aren't a company man, even as you do nothing but toe the company line.

#8876D: Talk out of both sides of your mouth.

This is all false.

But it's truly interesting, isn't it, that in that thread All-American and creekster learned how to disagree peacefully, and yet somehow you can't? Did you happen to notice they were able to say "I don't think Tex's recommendation is the right one" without rancor?

Here's a couple of examples:

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showpos...8&postcount=53
http://cougarguard.com/forum/showpos...7&postcount=47

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by Tex

This is all false.

But it's truly interesting, isn't it, that in that thread All-American and creekster learned how to disagree peacefully, and yet somehow you can't? Did you happen to notice they were able to say "I don't think Tex's recommendation is the right one" without rancor?

Here's a couple of examples:

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showpos...8&postcount=53
http://cougarguard.com/forum/showpos...7&postcount=47

I have no rancor toward you. I really don't. That doesn't mean I can't call you out on your obfuscation, dissembling, and shifting of disagreements onto persons themselves.

I'm curious as to whether you've reconsidered your position as articulated in Requiem's thread the other day.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

I have no rancor toward you. I really don't. That doesn't mean I can't call you out on your obfuscation, dissembling, and shifting of disagreements onto persons themselves.

*Tex rolls his eyes.*

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

I'm curious as to whether you've reconsidered your position as articulated in Requiem's thread the other day.

My fundamental premise, that the bishop was quite clumsy but escalation is overkill, has not changed. If you have a specific question about it, feel free to ask.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by Tex

My fundamental premise, that the bishop was quite clumsy but escalation is overkill, has not changed. If you have a specific question about it, feel free to ask.

You see the action available to concerned Church members as "escalation," but you're not privileging official power.

Right.

Have you considered that your comments and/or the Bishop's actions were racist, whether intentionally or not?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

You see the action available to concerned Church members as "escalation," but you're not privileging official power.

Right.

Oh stop with the melodrama already. This isn't about "privileging official power." It's about a human being who made a stupid mistake, but was probably trying to do what he thought was best. Have you ever made one in your life?

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

Have you considered that your comments and/or the Bishop's actions were racist, whether intentionally or not?

Yes. They're not. Not even unintentionally.