Waiting for Chris to delete the post below since it is about climate change denial
-
That question was part of a longer thread during which you were insulting and abusive. So much so that Alan told you to apologize to me and you refused. To single out four or five words from a series of posts in which you ranted and raved about my so-called hitlerian threats (i.e. warnings that your behavior was unacceptable) and refused to apologize for your personal insults to me is the kind of smarmy half-truth that you have used over and over again to conceal and justify your behavior.
"Repensum Est Canicula"
Oakman wrote:
That question was part of a longer thread during which you were insulting and abusive.
Apparently that's very much subject to interpretation.
Oakman wrote:
So much so that Alan told you to apologize to me and you refused.
Alan also got all precious and offended when I disagreed with him. He forfeited any influence he could have over any of my decisions at that point.
Oakman wrote:
To single out four or five words from a series of posts
Yeah, how could I not remember and quote verbatim from the entirety of a thread that I no longer have access to? And in fact no longer exists.
Oakman wrote:
raved about my so-called hitlerian threats
:laugh: Hitlerian? I may have only quoted comparatively small parts of the thread, but at least I didn't make up anything.
Oakman wrote:
and refused to apologize for your personal insults to me is the kind of smarmy half-truth that you have used over and over again to conceal and justify your behavior.
What were my personal insults to you? I disagree with you that it's reasonable to be insulted by them, or whether they were actual insults in any meaningful sense. Conceal and justify my behaviour? You're the one that redacted the thread. You're the one that refuses to talk about what happened in specific terms. I'm sorry, by the way. I'm sorry that your narcissism causes you to overreact to fanciful insults.
-
Apparently you want the world to think that you were banned for one specific post or thread. You weren't. That particular thread was deleted and the deletion could have been enough had it not been that your insults and your attitude were consistent with a pattern of behavior which you had been warned about, over and over again. You were on your last chance. You behaved in the same manner you had been warned about. You found out that your behavior had consequences. Live with it.
"Repensum Est Canicula"
Oakman wrote:
consistent with a pattern of behavior which you had been warned about, over and over again.
Well, why don't we discuss one specific instance that I recall of you warning me that my behaviour is unacceptable? It is, I think, a fairly typical one. We were talking about the Mexicans complaining that the US was sending violent Mexican criminals back to Mexico. I pointed out that even though their complaints are ridiculous, they're not wrong. You went off on a cascade of pedantry, and frustrated I said that your understanding of probability seems to be 'nothing is real'. This prompted a well-rehearsed warning from you, and caused Mike to say something like, "Jon, you're being a douche again to Ravel. What the kid said is perfectly reasonable. [...] What has he done to provoke such animosity from you?". You then deflected this question with a lame joke. So, that was one of the warnings you gave me. Maybe I'm just stupid, but I don't quite see the unanimity that you do amongst the members of SB1.0 that my behaviour was unacceptable.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Ah, how you lie.
Were you, or were you not warned, many times, that your behavior was going to get your banned from the forum? Did not Rob telling you that you were behaving badly? Did not Mike tell you that you were behaving badly? Did not Alan tell you you needed to apologize to me for what you had written? These are facts, Ravel, not lies. As to my deleting some of your threads - "Please do us the courtesy of not invoking the "you're oppressing our rights to free speech" argument, especially not in this day and age. I'm not oppressing you or crushing openness and liberty because while you have the right to stand on your front doorstep and spew forth whatever you wish, you do not have the right to enter anyone's home, anyone's business, or any online forum and hold court on whatever you feel will provoke the biggest response and give you the biggest and cheapest thrill." ~ Chris Maunder Just as Chris retains and exercises his right and responsibility to edit posts throughout CP, so do I retain and exercise my right and responsibility to edit posts in Soapbox 1.0. When you originally asked for membership, I extracted a promise from you that you would behave in an acceptable manner when posting there. You broke that promise over and over again. You were warned over and over again. You chose to ignore those warnings. Now you have discovered that your behavior has consequences. Live with it.
"Repensum Est Canicula"
Oakman wrote:
Did not Rob telling you that you were behaving badly?
No.
Oakman wrote:
Did not Mike tell you that you were behaving badly?
No. He called you a douche, though.
Oakman wrote:
Did not Alan tell you you needed to apologize to me for what you had written?
Yes, but that's meaningless.
Oakman wrote:
Just as Chris retains and exercises his right and responsibility to edit posts throughout CP, so do I retain and exercise my right and responsibility to edit posts in Soapbox 1.0. When you originally asked for membership, I extracted a promise from you that you would behave in an acceptable manner when posting there. You broke that promise over and over again. You were warned over and over again. You chose to ignore those warnings. Now you have discovered that your behavior has consequences. Live with it.
"I'm allowed to ban whoever I want whenever I want and they're not allowed to know why."
-
Oakman wrote:
consistent with a pattern of behavior which you had been warned about, over and over again.
Well, why don't we discuss one specific instance that I recall of you warning me that my behaviour is unacceptable? It is, I think, a fairly typical one. We were talking about the Mexicans complaining that the US was sending violent Mexican criminals back to Mexico. I pointed out that even though their complaints are ridiculous, they're not wrong. You went off on a cascade of pedantry, and frustrated I said that your understanding of probability seems to be 'nothing is real'. This prompted a well-rehearsed warning from you, and caused Mike to say something like, "Jon, you're being a douche again to Ravel. What the kid said is perfectly reasonable. [...] What has he done to provoke such animosity from you?". You then deflected this question with a lame joke. So, that was one of the warnings you gave me. Maybe I'm just stupid, but I don't quite see the unanimity that you do amongst the members of SB1.0 that my behaviour was unacceptable.
-
I would point out that you are the one ranting.
Join the cool kids - Come fold with us[^]
Trollslayer wrote:
I would point out that you are the one ranting.
You would...if I were actually ranting? :) I'm obsessing, I concede that much, but I'm not ranting.
-
Oakman wrote:
But - thank the good Lord - he is not and, after giving him repeated warnings that his behavior was unacceptable, warnings also given by Rob, Mike, and Alan, I finally pulled the trigger.
I had hoped that simply deleting some of his posts which were personally insulting would serve as a last warning. Instead they seemed to encourage him to double his invective.
Ah, how you lie. You deleted a post of mine that said, "Is it just me, or is everyone acting weird around here?". You deleted posts that contained not one iota of an insult. You deleted your own vitriolic attacks on me, which by your own metric disqualifies you for membership far more than anything I ever did.
As I recall, it is not Jon that lies here...
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them." Eric Hoffer "The failure mode of 'clever' is 'asshole'" John Scalzi
-
As I recall, it is not Jon that lies here...
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them." Eric Hoffer "The failure mode of 'clever' is 'asshole'" John Scalzi
Rob Graham wrote:
As I recall, it is not Jon that lies here...
You recall incorrectly then. You should re-read the threa... Oh, wait...
-
Trollslayer wrote:
I would point out that you are the one ranting.
You would...if I were actually ranting? :) I'm obsessing, I concede that much, but I'm not ranting.
There comes a point where the adult way of doing things is just to let it go and move on with your life. Is this really worth obsessing over?
Forgive your enemies - it messes with their heads
My blog | My articles | MoXAML PowerToys | Mole 2010 - debugging made easier - my favourite utility
-
There comes a point where the adult way of doing things is just to let it go and move on with your life. Is this really worth obsessing over?
Forgive your enemies - it messes with their heads
My blog | My articles | MoXAML PowerToys | Mole 2010 - debugging made easier - my favourite utility
Pete O'Hanlon wrote:
There comes a point where the adult way of doing things is just to let it go and move on with your life. Is this really worth obsessing over?
:) You make it sound so straight-forward.
-
Come on Chris, if you are going to be evenhanded about this...
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
The post below is not about climate change. It uses Climate Change, as well as many other topics, to discuss the thesis, and is not about Climate change per se. You know the difference so please don't be cute about it.
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
-
The post below is not about climate change. It uses Climate Change, as well as many other topics, to discuss the thesis, and is not about Climate change per se. You know the difference so please don't be cute about it.
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
Bullshit Chris, and you know it. If you are going to be partisan at least have the balls to admit it. If you dont, I will feel justified in posting anything, anywhere, provided it contains a blend of GW and any other topic and doesnt directly discuss the effects of CO2, but the intent of the lying scientists behind it. :)
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
-
Bullshit Chris, and you know it. If you are going to be partisan at least have the balls to admit it. If you dont, I will feel justified in posting anything, anywhere, provided it contains a blend of GW and any other topic and doesnt directly discuss the effects of CO2, but the intent of the lying scientists behind it. :)
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
Explain how I'm being partisan, and you're not being a Troll? Actually don't. Please don't. I can't believe I just asked a troll to have an argument. Please just find a more appropriate site to flog that particular horse on. Let me help you: Google: Global+Climate+Skeptic[^]. There are tons of places to have some fun and try and sway the unwashed masses. Do not grind your axe on this site.
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
-
Explain how I'm being partisan, and you're not being a Troll? Actually don't. Please don't. I can't believe I just asked a troll to have an argument. Please just find a more appropriate site to flog that particular horse on. Let me help you: Google: Global+Climate+Skeptic[^]. There are tons of places to have some fun and try and sway the unwashed masses. Do not grind your axe on this site.
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
Chris Maunder wrote:
Explain how I'm being partisan, and you're not being a Troll?
So if I am a Troll you are alowed to be Partisan? Come on Chris, since when was the truth an eye for an eye? As for Partisan, in the US GW is generally split along Democrat Republican lines. If you are to allow the slandering of GW sceptics as in the post below, likening them to alien reincarnationalists, then I can only assume that this kind of very obvious pro AGW stance of yours is due to bias. Hence the use of the term Partisan. Of course its entirely possible you arent being Partisan, and that your bias is due to another reason. Perhaps even due to to agreeing with AGW. I would also like to point out that given the rules of this forum, "The SoapBox is not for flame wars, personal vendettas, or endless debate about climate change, religion and US politics. Anything inappropriate for this forum will be deleted immediately." then pretty much all of the posts in this thread, being a personal vendetta / flame war between Ravel and Oakman should also be deleted. Waiting for you to enforce your laws with an even hand... In fact, if I dont debate GW, just rant about it. ie, I post something but dont respond to any respondees, then I am entitled to post here? SInce this seems to fit with the above stated riles in that it would not be 'an endless debate about GW'. :)
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
-
The post below is not about climate change. It uses Climate Change, as well as many other topics, to discuss the thesis, and is not about Climate change per se. You know the difference so please don't be cute about it.
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
Thank you for recognizing the difference.
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
-
Pete O'Hanlon wrote:
There comes a point where the adult way of doing things is just to let it go and move on with your life. Is this really worth obsessing over?
:) You make it sound so straight-forward.
It is. There's nothing complicated about it. Just ask yourself if somebody else's opinion of you affects who you are.
Forgive your enemies - it messes with their heads
My blog | My articles | MoXAML PowerToys | Mole 2010 - debugging made easier - my favourite utility
-
It is. There's nothing complicated about it. Just ask yourself if somebody else's opinion of you affects who you are.
Forgive your enemies - it messes with their heads
My blog | My articles | MoXAML PowerToys | Mole 2010 - debugging made easier - my favourite utility
It doesn't. It's just that Oakman is a petty tyrant and I feel compelled to expose him. ;P
-
It doesn't. It's just that Oakman is a petty tyrant and I feel compelled to expose him. ;P
You've just entered a battle of he said, she said though. And neither side is coming out particularly well right now. As a neutral bystander, I'm asking you if it's worth pursuing a petty vendetta, or actually being able to take the moral high ground here. The view's a hell of a lot better there.
Forgive your enemies - it messes with their heads
My blog | My articles | MoXAML PowerToys | Mole 2010 - debugging made easier - my favourite utility
-
You've just entered a battle of he said, she said though. And neither side is coming out particularly well right now. As a neutral bystander, I'm asking you if it's worth pursuing a petty vendetta, or actually being able to take the moral high ground here. The view's a hell of a lot better there.
Forgive your enemies - it messes with their heads
My blog | My articles | MoXAML PowerToys | Mole 2010 - debugging made easier - my favourite utility
Pete O'Hanlon wrote:
You've just entered a battle of he said, she said though.
Oh, I dunno. Some of the conversation still exists in a tangible, examinable form, assuming that one hasn't yet attracted the arbitrary and pious condemnation of Oakman.
Pete O'Hanlon wrote:
I'm asking you if it's worth pursuing a petty vendetta
Do I have anything to lose?
Pete O'Hanlon wrote:
or actually being able to take the moral high ground here. The view's a hell of a lot better there.
If I did, I'd never come back.
-
Pete O'Hanlon wrote:
You've just entered a battle of he said, she said though.
Oh, I dunno. Some of the conversation still exists in a tangible, examinable form, assuming that one hasn't yet attracted the arbitrary and pious condemnation of Oakman.
Pete O'Hanlon wrote:
I'm asking you if it's worth pursuing a petty vendetta
Do I have anything to lose?
Pete O'Hanlon wrote:
or actually being able to take the moral high ground here. The view's a hell of a lot better there.
If I did, I'd never come back.
-
Ignore me, I am just determining how much indentation this forum will take. :)
Everybody is elitist to a certain extent; except me - I'm better than that. Micah
This is about as far as it goes... A few more posts, and they'll be indented so little that you won't be able to tell which posts reply to which.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)