alex maiolo wrote:The thread is awesome.

So, who here likes Ron Paul?

-A

I hope he gets raped, somewhat.



















I mean electorally.

Now you've given me an election.

Rick Reuben wrote:I don't regard any part of Paul's domestic policies as morally abhorrent or impractical

Then I regard you as morally abhorrent and impractical.

Antero wrote:

Rick Reuben wrote:I don't regard any part of Paul's domestic policies as morally abhorrent or impractical

Then I regard you as morally abhorrent and impractical.

Ditto. I think Rick is much less morally abhorrent than he is just plain dumb.

I wish the name-calling would stop, but here you go:

Rick Reuben wrote:

Johnny C wrote:P.S. The NY Times weighs in but I know this thread doesn't care much for the Liberal Jew-Run Media.

Watch your ad hominems here, please. Unless you can post evidence of anyone in this thread calling the MSM 'the liberal jew-run media', then don't make references as though anyone has.

Up until the post I just quoted, Skronk, Alex and I were having a rational, measured discussion that - gasp! - came to mutual understanding. The name calling started immediately after this post.

Here's the page of the thread. For those of you counting, Rick has been calling people rude words for about six weeks now!

This thread took a hell of a turn about four pages back. I dunno what happened there but like Marsup said dropping is the best idea. We all know where the line is there.

- Marsup is the voice of reason

- Ron Paul raises lots of money and is actually kinda popular

- EA buys Pro Tools



Just waiting for everyone to pop out with hidden cameras now and yell "surprise!"

Rick Reuben wrote:You implied that the media was run by Jews. I asked you to prove it. You didn't. There was no name calling between us there.

I didn't imply anything. I made a joke which I clarified two posts down from that.

Our settings must be different; the first post on my version of that page is a list of different reasons not to like Ron Paul.

OK, Dave made a joke and it fell flat - really flat.

It just as easily could have been "when did you first realize you liked having sex with goats?"
The old "joke" is that there is no answer that doesn't damn the answerer.
I think that's what Dave was trying to say, in response to the damned if you do/damned if you don't set up.
Easy to get.
In fact, some other posters got it.

Obviously the guy isn't advocating or laughing at rape - I mean please everyone, can we just agree about that?
The fact is, he picked the wrong subject matter in which to encase his point. Holocaust, spouse abuse, child abuse, etc - taboo. Probably best to steer clear. Hot button issues, these things.
Bad choice, Dave, because people don't like to make light of these things and they will always think the worst, no matter what your intent is.

Absolutely a bad idea to push it once Nina spoke up. Right or wrong, she took it personally and that should have been a sign.

In a forum where I regularly see completely inappropriate comments about women that make me wince a little bit, but I get past it, I'm a little surprised that such a firestorm has errupted.
Four pages over a gaff? Really?
Plus, he apologized, I think.
It's funny to say this considering how crazy this thread is, but haven't we completely lost the plot over this? What little plot there was...
Chet seems to be the only one staying on course, actually.

The best policy when this happens is to examine what the intent of the joke was - in this case it was to point out that there was no safe answer to the question posed - perhaps decide that the comment chosen wasn't the best choice due to how others might take it, and then all of us should move on.

It's not a defense or an apology, it's an appeal to reason. How many more pages can people spend arguing about this?
At this point it's become worthless and nothing is going to get solved.

This is where Rick spins this into calling me an apologist for someone's bad behavior.
Countdown begins now:
4, 3, 2, 1...

-A

Rick Reuben wrote:

alex maiolo wrote:-A

Forget it. If you're going to appoint yourself as the school marm in these threads and run around whacking people on the hands with a ruler because you don't like the way they debate ( which you do ), then be consistent. You are not. Dave is a troll and an asshole, and you keep him as an ally because of your grudge against me.

Exactly (p)Rick, it's all about you. It's always about you. All anyone ever thinks about is you. We spend all of our waking, and most of our sleeping hours wondering what you think and plotting our next grudge move.
Your paranoia is NOT unfounded.

And I agree with Johnny C. You did start the name calling in this thread.
In fact, you pretty much started it in the entire forum.
On the days this board sucks ass, you are usually to blame.

-A

Rick Reuben wrote:If some of you folks want to continue to treat Dave as a valued contributor to this forum, then you're all in support of trolling and name calling, because that's Dave's game. The history of this thread proves it. The jerk makes an ass out of himself until someone wastes time on him.
.

I did a copy paste of my own on the second page, and you responded with "bullshit", "dummy" and "troll". Those were the first insults on the page. And not just the first insults, the first unfunny and childish insults.

None of my original posts in this thread were directed at anyone in particular, and my conspiracy theory/appeals to inevitability jibes were aimed at Paul's fanbase in general and not you in particular.

I posted later on in the thread that I find Paul's internet cult fascinating, simply because to someone from the UK, it seems as alien and ludicrous as French support for Le Pen or Irish support for Ian Paisley. Two right wing figures that also have a strong conspiracy-theory/obsessive backing and whose following fascinates me also.

I know this is very easy to for me to say, but don't be paranoid. On the other hand that "you're either for us or against us" post made feel like the Osama Bin Laden of the board, awesome.