Anger

[Werner]

A summary why I've chosen to spend my time away from the Pub. I've heard it all before - over and over again, and see nothing gained in the way of intelligent political discussion from the tone of thei board.

[Madame]

A summary why I've chosen to spend my time away from the Pub. I've heard it all before - over and over again, and see nothing gained in the way of intelligent political discussion from the tone of thei board.

I was thinking along those lines ... like, what if we had a thread called: What new thing did I learn today that I didn't know yesterday, in the Pub? (any topic) Sounds innocuous, doesn't it? I bet it could derail within 2 posts, when the 2nd poster didn't like what the first one had written. Or you couldnt understand the answer because of all the adjectives, adverbs, complex word crafting, and by the time you de-thesaurusized it, it said, "nothing".

[Madame]

Tsk, tsk, tsk, David (Ross), there you go again with your favorite word to end all arguments.
You do much better when you stick to your usually well-thought-out and documented points
of view. We could all do better if we did the same.

Who is we and what could we all do better if we do what the same as what?

[RebLem]

David (Ross), I too am amazed at your response. I don't believe it is your political persuasion
that offends me so much as your personal vitriol and anger against so many people. You say
that you insult no one, you only insult their beliefs and behavior. Is it not possible to see that
calling someone's beliefs and behavior by insulting words - especially that most heinous of
words in your vocabulary, "bigot" - is deeply offensive? If you can't see that, then look in the
mirror sometime and see the deep wrinkled scars of your anger against people who disagree
with you. Reread your history of responses and count the number of times you choose to use
words of anger, and multiply that by the times you use the word "bigot". It is really quite a
remarkable total. You obviously can't see yourself for what you truly are: just another smarmy
bigot. I have added you to my very short list of "foes" because I can no longer abide that word.

<psst ... you already added him > <now you have to foe yourself because you just called him a bigot>

Madame, perhaps he was reading David as quoted in other peoples' posts.

I do not use the foes feature. I know that many of the comments in this thread have been directed at me, even though I have not been specifically mentioned. I have felt chastened by the comments of some of the posters in the thread, though certainly not by DavidRoss, who seems totally and blissfully unaware that he has any faults at all, despite the efforts of many good people to tell him about them. I do not use the foes feature because, despite what many perceive as my arrogance, I have enough humility to realize that I am sometimes wrong and, even when right, excessive in the emotionality of my responses, and benefit from the feedback I get, sometimes even from people I continue to despise.

I think anyone who has paid attention to Teresa's posts in the past will understand that she is in transition between Tampa and North Carolina, and is offline for that reason. I think some of the people who have been pounding away at her in this thread realize that, and it seems to me particularly cowardly to attack her at a time when she is defenseless. You know who you are, I do not.

Please also see the Florida Senate race thread, which I revived last night for a further response on these issues.

[Madame]

David (Ross), I too am amazed at your response. I don't believe it is your political persuasion
that offends me so much as your personal vitriol and anger against so many people. You say
that you insult no one, you only insult their beliefs and behavior. Is it not possible to see that
calling someone's beliefs and behavior by insulting words - especially that most heinous of
words in your vocabulary, "bigot" - is deeply offensive? If you can't see that, then look in the
mirror sometime and see the deep wrinkled scars of your anger against people who disagree
with you. Reread your history of responses and count the number of times you choose to use
words of anger, and multiply that by the times you use the word "bigot". It is really quite a
remarkable total. You obviously can't see yourself for what you truly are: just another smarmy
bigot. I have added you to my very short list of "foes" because I can no longer abide that word.

<psst ... you already added him > <now you have to foe yourself because you just called him a bigot>

Madame, perhaps he was reading David as quoted in other peoples' posts.

Am I losing it? I don't understand what you are referring to? Maybe I was unclear. I was responding to the last 2 statements, period. I can't read minds beyond that.


I do not use the foes feature. I know that many of the comments in this thread have been directed at me, even though I have not been specifically mentioned. I have felt chastened by the comments of some of the posters in the thread, though certainly not by DavidRoss, who seems totally and blissfully unaware that he has any faults at all, despite the efforts of many good people to tell him about them. I do not use the foes feature because, despite what many perceive as my arrogance, I have enough humility to realize that I am sometimes wrong and, even when right, excessive in the emotionality of my responses, and benefit from the feedback I get, sometimes even from people I continue to despise.

I think anyone who has paid attention to Teresa's posts in the past will understand that she is in transition between Tampa and North Carolina, and is offline for that reason. I think some of the people who have been pounding away at her in this thread realize that, and it seems to me particularly cowardly to attack her at a time when she is defenseless. You know who you are, I do not.

Please also see the Florida Senate race thread, which I revived last night for a further response on these issues.

I don't know what you're talking about in the subsequent paragraphs, assume you're not addressing me, rather saying something to others in the forum.

[RebLem]

Dear Colleen,

As I read your response to HoustonDavid, you were calling into question his previous statement that he had put DavidRoss on his foes list. Your evidence for this questioning, as I read your statement, at least, was that HoustonD seemed to keep on responding to DavidRoss posts which he should have been unaware of if he had really been added to HoustonD's foes list.

My statement provided an alternative explanation. I am not exactly sure how the Foes feature works, since I do not use it. However, there is a similar feature in Buzzen chatrooms, which I frequent, called "Ignore," which I do sometimes use. You can Ignore a particular chatter, but just for that session. There, he can defeat your resolve by simply leaving the chatroom and then returning. If you still don't want to listen to him, you have to put him on "Ignore" again. But other chatters whom you are not ignoring can also defeat your resolve by quoting him in one of their posts. If you are not also ignoring the quoter's posts, you will see the ignored poster's post in the quoter's post. I assume, perhaps wrongly, that our foes lists works in a similar fashion. I was suggesting that HoustonDavid was responding not to DavidRoss's original posts, which requires the asumption that HoustonD was lying about having put him on the Foes list, but that he was responding instead, to DavidRoss as quoted in the posts of people he was not ignoring.

Get it now?

[Madame]

Dear Colleen,

As I read your response to HoustonDavid, you were calling into question his previous statement that he had put DavidRoss on his foes list. Your evidence for this questioning, as I read your statement, at least, was that HoustonD seemed to keep on responding to DavidRoss posts which he should have been unaware of if he had really been added to HoustonD's foes list.

My statement provided an alternative explanation. I am not exactly sure how the Foes feature works, since I do not use it. However, there is a similar feature in Buzzen chatrooms, which I frequent, called "Ignore," which I do sometimes use. You can Ignore a particular chatter, but just for that session. There, he can defeat your resolve by simply leaving the chatroom and then returning. If you still don't want to listen to him, you have to put him on "Ignore" again. But other chatters whom you are not ignoring can also defeat your resolve by quoting him in one of their posts. If you are not also ignoring the quoter's posts, you will see the ignored poster's post in the quoter's post. I assume, perhaps wrongly, that our foes lists works in a similar fashion. I was suggesting that HoustonDavid was responding not to DavidRoss's original posts, which requires the asumption that HoustonD was lying about having put him on the Foes list, but that he was responding instead, to DavidRoss as quoted in the posts of people he was not ignoring.

Get it now?

And therein lies a huge part of the problem about posting in this forum ... wordy posts that are difficult to reply to in whole, because they are often about more than one thing, and which we then have to explain what we really meant or why, and 10 posts later, we MIGHT have straightened it out.

Mine was a 2 sentence (sorta) reply ... look where it led. And that doesn't count PM's that it might have generated.

Maybe I need to stop replying, period.

[RebLem]

Dear Colleen,

As I read your response to HoustonDavid, you were calling into question his previous statement that he had put DavidRoss on his foes list. Your evidence for this questioning, as I read your statement, at least, was that HoustonD seemed to keep on responding to DavidRoss posts which he should have been unaware of if he had really been added to HoustonD's foes list.

My statement provided an alternative explanation. I am not exactly sure how the Foes feature works, since I do not use it. However, there is a similar feature in Buzzen chatrooms, which I frequent, called "Ignore," which I do sometimes use. You can Ignore a particular chatter, but just for that session. There, he can defeat your resolve by simply leaving the chatroom and then returning. If you still don't want to listen to him, you have to put him on "Ignore" again. But other chatters whom you are not ignoring can also defeat your resolve by quoting him in one of their posts. If you are not also ignoring the quoter's posts, you will see the ignored poster's post in the quoter's post. I assume, perhaps wrongly, that our foes lists works in a similar fashion. I was suggesting that HoustonDavid was responding not to DavidRoss's original posts, which requires the asumption that HoustonD was lying about having put him on the Foes list, but that he was responding instead, to DavidRoss as quoted in the posts of people he was not ignoring.

Get it now?

And therein lies a huge part of the problem about posting in this forum ... wordy posts that are difficult to reply to in whole, because they are often about more than one thing, and which we then have to explain what we really meant or why, and 10 posts later, we MIGHT have straightened it out.

Mine was a 2 sentence (sorta) reply ... look where it led. And that doesn't count PM's that it might have generated.

Maybe I need to stop replying, period.

No, Colleen, I beg you, please don't do that. I know you are a person of good will. If there is any doubt in your mind, let me assure you I have never doubted that. If I have, I was wrong. If I have ever given you a different impression, I apologize. I have opposed, and will continue to oppose, some of your policy ideas, which I generally find too right wing. But your good will and good intentions, never, or, at least, never again.

[JackC]

I'm afraid I still disagree with your take on David's post, and I happen to know the other board moderator feels exactly as I do on blanket charges of racism against Obama opponents or even just tea partiers. I find that more insulting that the quote by David you posted. And the fact that it's directed at a large group of people who share many of my views and not at me personally doesn't lessen the impact of the insult.

If I came on here and said I've seen three stories a night on my local news involving violent crimes by African-Americans, so they must all by violent criminals or potential violent criminals, I'd be called out by the liberals on this board as a bigot. And I see no significant difference in those two sets of circumstances.

I was not addressing the reason for David's attack, only the way that it was worded, I did not read any of the T.E.A Party Threads and therefore I have no way of commenting on your charges of Teresa's racism, Teresa has the right to an opinion, and everyone has the right to object to it, that is not in dispute at all, I fail to see the reason why he felt the need to destroy a valuable poster with such a nasty and personalized response, even JackC was shocked by the vitriol contained therein, and he wrote a very kind and sympathetic post to Teresa which many people here appreciated because Jack is not one to mince words when posting on this Board, just because you disagree with somebody's viewpoint does not justify an attack so fierce that it make the person who's view you disagree with leave the Site...

Just to set the record straight, I remember writing a sympathetic post to Teresa because I know she did not INTEND to attack anyone here -- she is certainly NEVER mean-spirited -- and I thought the principal point she was making, that our own political biases affect how we perceive and analyze "facts", is valid and important.

I did explain why I thought her questioning about the degree of racism in the "tea bag" movement was offensive to many of us, even though she never intended it to be offensive. None of us who are strongly opposed to much of Obama's agenda appreciate having to defend ourselves against statements, suggestions or implication that our opposition may be grounded in racism. That is just a tactic that is used by some to try to delegitimize the opposition.

As far as the post by David that was put up again, I would not have used the word "vile" to describe Teresa's characterizations or questions about the degree of racism in the tea bag movement, because I would reserve that for someone who KNEW that the tea bag movement was not racist and who was intentionally playing the racism card in order to try to delegitimize opposition to Obama's policies. There ARE people out there doing that, but I certainly don't think Teresa is one of them. I also don't think David was calling Teresa herself "vile" in any sense. That label plainly doesn't fit.

Also, I think it is very clear that David was NOT calling Teresa a racist. If she left because she thought she was being called a racist, that is her mistake. Any suggestion that David called Teresa a racist seems to be to be FAR off the mark.

As to the level of "anger" on this board, there have always been flair-ups, and I do not believe it is significantly worse than it was for the 8 years when Bush was president. I agree 100% with Barry, that the fact that some people who were happy to "mix it up" when Bush was the subject to daily ridicule and attack may have chosen to leave shows only that they love to "dish it out" but just can't take it. Perhaps some just weary of the political fight, as I often do myself. But the attacks by conservatives posters here against Obama are not any worse than the attacks on this board against Bush.

[Chalkperson]

Dear Colleen,

As I read your response to HoustonDavid, you were calling into question his previous statement that he had put DavidRoss on his foes list. Your evidence for this questioning, as I read your statement, at least, was that HoustonD seemed to keep on responding to DavidRoss posts which he should have been unaware of if he had really been added to HoustonD's foes list.

My statement provided an alternative explanation. I am not exactly sure how the Foes feature works, since I do not use it. However, there is a similar feature in Buzzen chatrooms, which I frequent, called "Ignore," which I do sometimes use. You can Ignore a particular chatter, but just for that session. There, he can defeat your resolve by simply leaving the chatroom and then returning. If you still don't want to listen to him, you have to put him on "Ignore" again. But other chatters whom you are not ignoring can also defeat your resolve by quoting him in one of their posts. If you are not also ignoring the quoter's posts, you will see the ignored poster's post in the quoter's post. I assume, perhaps wrongly, that our foes lists works in a similar fashion. I was suggesting that HoustonDavid was responding not to DavidRoss's original posts, which requires the asumption that HoustonD was lying about having put him on the Foes list, but that he was responding instead, to DavidRoss as quoted in the posts of people he was not ignoring.

Get it now?

If you use the Foe button you still see a single line of type that indicates a post from, in this case, David Ross, the other David is obviously checking all the posts in this Thread as he has been repeatedly insulted and sworn at by Ross, David is a 72 year old Marine Veteran, who loaded Nuclear Weapons onto Planes during the Cuban Missile Crisis, he is the kind of person who should be treated with respect, not abuse, the fact that Ross feel free to continually insult him is more proof of his incredible arrogance and disrespectful behavior to anybody on this Board that says even one word against his opinion, his behavior is, to be honest, bordering on Psychotic, hopefully Ross will see the way the other Members regard him and take another Sabbatical, hopefully this time a permanent one...

Here is another example of Ross's extremely paranoid attitude towards David...

The fonts you speak of David (Ross) are on English language based systems, and apostrophes
cannot be used as acute accents on these systems. On Spanish or French keyboards, the typist
has the choice of using the acute accent or the apostrophe. The answer to Neytiri's question,
from an Englsh speaker/typist is "I don't know why" French or Spanish typists choose one (the
acute accent) over the other (the apostrophe).

As an aside, when I was learning to type "cyrilic" on a standard English language-based typewriter,
we used extra characters to turn English letters into the five extra alphabet characters in the cyrilic
alphabet. It's complicated to explain, but we used all 26 letters of the English alphabet to represent
26 of the letters in cyrillic, then added a semi-colon in front of five regular Englsh letters to represent
the additional cyrilic characters. I suppose we did the same for any language containing non-English
characters when typing them on an English language typewriter. Probably did.

Ah, for the golden days of the purely mechanical, purely English language typewriters. How I miss 'em.

It's starting to look as if you're stalking me, looking for or even manufacturing something to try to pick some petty fight over and disrupt a thread. Look at Neytiri's post:

Why do people use the acute instead of the apostrophe?

Ie. ´ instead of '?

If for no other reasons, an acute is slightly harder to type on a keyboard than the plain apostrophe.

It's quite a pervasive practice, oddly.

If you read this post, then my response, and try to understand, it should not be too hard to figure out.

Now it's possible, of course, that I misread Neytiri, and that he really is asking why people writing in languages other than English use acute accents. That is not, however, how I read his question.

Since the acute accent isn't on the standard English keyboard, how could you read it any
other way? And I'm not trying to pick a fight with you. Read my initial response regarding
"whimsy". You could just as easily have been trying to pick a fight with me talking about
fonts. Let's just leave it alone for a change.

You are trying to pick a fight. I'm not having it. I'm not talking to you about fonts, but to the original poster, Neytiri, in reponse to his question.

[Madame]

Dear Colleen,

As I read your response to HoustonDavid, you were calling into question his previous statement that he had put DavidRoss on his foes list. Your evidence for this questioning, as I read your statement, at least, was that HoustonD seemed to keep on responding to DavidRoss posts which he should have been unaware of if he had really been added to HoustonD's foes list.

My statement provided an alternative explanation. I am not exactly sure how the Foes feature works, since I do not use it. However, there is a similar feature in Buzzen chatrooms, which I frequent, called "Ignore," which I do sometimes use. You can Ignore a particular chatter, but just for that session. There, he can defeat your resolve by simply leaving the chatroom and then returning. If you still don't want to listen to him, you have to put him on "Ignore" again. But other chatters whom you are not ignoring can also defeat your resolve by quoting him in one of their posts. If you are not also ignoring the quoter's posts, you will see the ignored poster's post in the quoter's post. I assume, perhaps wrongly, that our foes lists works in a similar fashion. I was suggesting that HoustonDavid was responding not to DavidRoss's original posts, which requires the asumption that HoustonD was lying about having put him on the Foes list, but that he was responding instead, to DavidRoss as quoted in the posts of people he was not ignoring.

Get it now?

And therein lies a huge part of the problem about posting in this forum ... wordy posts that are difficult to reply to in whole, because they are often about more than one thing, and which we then have to explain what we really meant or why, and 10 posts later, we MIGHT have straightened it out.

Mine was a 2 sentence (sorta) reply ... look where it led. And that doesn't count PM's that it might have generated.

Maybe I need to stop replying, period.

No, Colleen, I beg you, please don't do that. I know you are a person of good will. If there is any doubt in your mind, let me assure you I have never doubted that. If I have, I was wrong. If I have ever given you a different impression, I apologize. I have opposed, and will continue to oppose, some of your policy ideas, which I generally find too right wing. But your good will and good intentions, never, or, at least, never again.

My policy ideas? Right wing? Where in the world do you get that? I'm all over the map on opinions. See, how little we really know about one another, so often it's just assumption based on words and association with what someone else says. This is funny, though, I've always been labeled as liberal by some, and conservative by others, when I differ on specific issues (including, when I don't respond at all.)

I was just thinking about communication as a whole, and right now I am convinced that communication is the LAST thing that is happening on CMG. And the little (and ever declining) energy I spend is far more than it's worth.

I feel grief over the loss of what was once here (or perhaps what I perceived was once here). Ever stay in a relationship long after it was over? That's how I feel right now.

No, what I really want to do is throw up.

[HoustonDavid]

Colleen and Rob and David (Ross):

I apologize for mistakenly placing David (Ross) on my "foes" list twice. The first time was a while
back, and the waters smoothed for a while, so I occasionaly lifted the veil to see what he had to
say. In order to do that, the CMG system allows you to "Display this post" on a case-by-case
basis. I also noted quotes from him in others posts, of course.

After a while, I began keeping track of his posts again, especially after the dust-up with Teresa and
the blatantly obvious desertion of the Corner Pub by so many interesting and important (to me, at
least) members. It became obvious that he and a few others were largely the reason for said
desertions, and this "Anger" thread brought it into the open.

I have stated many times on many threads, which you may have missed during your hiatus Colleen,
that the David Ross who uses facts and clear presentations of his opinions is a worthy opponent in
an exchange of opinions, and I appreciate that very much. When he descends into stereotyping,
anger, and vitriol, he is irksome and irresponsible.

In my opinion, he cannot personally take criticism and disagreement with anything he says, and
responds in a particularly ugly way. Apparently, I am not alone in believing this. Unfortunately, Corlyss
is not around to be the ultimate arbiter of his behavior toward others on this Forum. It is certainly not
always civil (Rule 1).

Colleen, to translate my sometimes awkward writing style (at least for some people), I told David Ross
"You do much better when you stick to your usually well-thought-out and documented points of view.
We could all do better if we did the same."

What I meant by "we" is other members here at CMG, and "could all do better" is "we" (should all stick
to our well-thought-out and documented points), which is what we could all learn from the absent Corlyss.

I hope I did a good job of further complicating how I feel about Mr. Ross. It is a complex issue, and I already
regret using the dreaded "bigot" word.

[Madame]

Colleen and Rob and David (Ross):

I apologize for mistakenly placing David (Ross) on my "foes" list twice. The first time was a while
back, and the waters smoothed for a while, so I occasionaly lifted the veil to see what he had to
say. In order to do that, the CMG system allows you to "Display this post" on a case-by-case
basis. I also noted quotes from him in others posts, of course.

After a while, I began keeping track of his posts again, especially after the dust-up with Teresa and
the blatantly obvious desertion of the Corner Pub by so many interesting and important (to me, at
least) members. It became obvious that he and a few others were largely the reason for said
desertions, and this "Anger" thread brought it into the open.

I have stated many times on many threads, which you may have missed during your hiatus Colleen,
that the David Ross who uses facts and clear presentations of his opinions is a worthy opponent in
an exchange of opinions, and I appreciate that very much. When he descends into stereotyping,
anger, and vitriol, he is irksome and irresponsible.

In my opinion, he cannot personally take criticism and disagreement with anything he says, and
responds in a particularly ugly way. Apparently, I am not alone in believing this. Unfortunately, Corlyss
is not around to be the ultimate arbiter of his behavior toward others on this Forum. It is certainly not
always civil (Rule 1).

Colleen, to translate my sometimes awkward writing style (at least for some people), I told David Ross
"You do much better when you stick to your usually well-thought-out and documented points of view.
We could all do better if we did the same."

What I meant by "we" is other members here at CMG, and "could all do better" is "we" (should all stick
to our well-thought-out and documented points), which is what we could all learn from the absent Corlyss.

I hope I did a good job of further complicating how I feel about Mr. Ross. It is a complex issue, and I already
regret using the dreaded "bigot" word.

David, I really don't care how you or anyone else feels about David Ross, and I don't really care who you do or do not foe. My two-sentence post was simply a sardonic response to your comments, as was my 'what you mean we', question. I believe it would have been understood as intended, sans emoticons, in a healthier environment.

My personal opinion of David Ross has always been that he is an intelligent man of depth and dimension, beyond his political opinions or whatever credentials he might have. Period. His interactions with others don't make a whit of difference.

I'm not trying to influence your opinion of David, you've been fairly clear how you feel and why. I'm only one person, and I'd respect you less if you gave mine too much weight.

And you don't need to explain anything else to me, I really don't care.

[JackC]

Colleen and Rob and David (Ross):

I apologize for mistakenly placing David (Ross) on my "foes" list twice. The first time was a while
back, and the waters smoothed for a while, so I occasionaly lifted the veil to see what he had to
say. In order to do that, the CMG system allows you to "Display this post" on a case-by-case
basis. I also noted quotes from him in others posts, of course.

After a while, I began keeping track of his posts again, especially after the dust-up with Teresa and
the blatantly obvious desertion of the Corner Pub by so many interesting and important (to me, at
least) members. It became obvious that he and a few others were largely the reason for said
desertions, and this "Anger" thread brought it into the open.

I have stated many times on many threads, which you may have missed during your hiatus Colleen,
that the David Ross who uses facts and clear presentations of his opinions is a worthy opponent in
an exchange of opinions, and I appreciate that very much. When he descends into stereotyping,
anger, and vitriol, he is irksome and irresponsible.

In my opinion, he cannot personally take criticism and disagreement with anything he says, and
responds in a particularly ugly way. Apparently, I am not alone in believing this. Unfortunately, Corlyss
is not around to be the ultimate arbiter of his behavior toward others on this Forum. It is certainly not
always civil (Rule 1).

Colleen, to translate my sometimes awkward writing style (at least for some people), I told David Ross
"You do much better when you stick to your usually well-thought-out and documented points of view.
We could all do better if we did the same."

What I meant by "we" is other members here at CMG, and "could all do better" is "we" (should all stick
to our well-thought-out and documented points), which is what we could all learn from the absent Corlyss.

I hope I did a good job of further complicating how I feel about Mr. Ross. It is a complex issue, and I already
regret using the dreaded "bigot" word.

Is this supposed to help anything?????

Is is really necessary for people to start posting here about their own analyses of other posters, and how they FEEL about other posters here???

It seems to me that you have taken a very nasty stab at David Ross. I'm sure he could give a long comeback about his analysis of you and how he feels about you. Who cares.

[RebLem]

Dear HoustonD:

Just in case you had the impression that your clarifying statement had met with universal disapproval, I want to assure you I do not share the opinions of DavidRoss, Jack C, or Colleen in this matter. They are entitled to their opinions, of course (well, at least the last two are), but I want you to know I appreciated the clarification.