you guys are ok.

[Neverfly]

@Neverfly

LOL! The Marquis belongs those rare members of the long long ago that actually added some spice to this place

Spice?

But I don't understand you're reasoning. Your main complaint is that logic and reason surface on 'OTHER' forums, but not here. I am curious as to why you bother spending your time here?

Because I choose to.
I also take part elsewhere. Is that a problem?

Also I find it curious that as a new member you have been in 1/12 flames neither of which you were able to extricate yourself from.

This is an inaccurate portrayal.
I extricated myself quite well thanks.

That I didn't just keep flaming on and on like a schoolyard brawl does NOT mean I was unable to extricate myself.

In both situations you wrote in large caps, called foul and no fair play and allowed others to drag you further and further into the mire. Why was that?

Allowed others. Interesting. So it's OK for others to drag me into the mire if I allow it?
What kind of double standard is that?

Not having the capacity to withdraw from an 'illogical' flame war doesn't make you look anymore 'reasonable' than the brawlers you accuse of being brawlers.

I have used that capacity more than once.

Your inability to separate immature brawling from logic and reason does not, in any way, support this claim.

I have to admit, that started off as amusing. The whole losing the plot thing. But then it became annoying. As soon as one turns the heat up, even just a little bit, he falls apart and the caps and accusations of abuse and misrepresentation starts to flow.

Bells, I have repeatedly clarified, over and over and over again (The latest was you "Happy to delegate" comment) how you DO play people into your little game.

Furthermore, many other people around here see it clearly and are well aware of it.

Feinting at innocent denial only makes you dishonest.

If you want to flame people-- fine. At least be open and honest about it.

Someone should give him a good hard shake and tell him that he's a 31 year old man. Not an emo teenager with bad hair and eyeliner.

Such characterizations are irrelevant to who or what I actually am.

You use such characterizations, such as
Net whackjob
bad parent and so on - on and on of long strings of verbal abuse, slander and ad hom attacks to support yourself and your claims.

That is unimpressive at best.

If you cannot argue your position from logic, what makes you think you have a position worth defending?

Even more amusing is how you use these techniques while trying to persuade people on how to properly reach troubled children!

How hypocritical.

Okay. I have to say it.

What is with the caps?

The caps are a lazy approach to emphasizing words.
Since you seem to read that as shouting, I will try to remember to Bold, italicize or underscore words in the future. Will that help?

And that's the thing for you, isn't it? You are not influencing that many people here. More to the point, people are directly challenging you on this forum.

Very few people are challenging me, actually.
You are one of the most frequent challengers and you strike me as one with a desire to flame a character you have invented off the top of your head.

Sometimes the schoolyard brawl is the most fun and one just needs to know how to take the most efficient jabs to bring the other undone. You should learn or try to learn to do that.

I learned how to do that in grade school.

I learned how to be an adult, later.

I suggest, instead of me learning to act childishly again, that you learn how to grow up, instead.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

No its not a problem but it seems you prefer the logic of other sites so I was curious as to why you post here and then complain that its not quite up to your standards in regards to etiquette and 'logic'.

You extricated yourself out of those threads? Not! You engaged in it for pages even after it was obvious that there would be no reconciliation between you and the other member(s). So you did flame on, you even brought it to a second thread and brought posted comments made by those who were not even registered members, as if it was somehow relevant. It was hardly dispassionate behaviour on your part. Though you did show more self restraint in the 2nd mini flame.

As far as other's dragging you into the mire, they can bait but you don't have to go there, but you did indeed not only go there but entrenched yourself. Is it acceptable for others to drag you into the mire? Sure, why not. But if you go there yourself then don't pretend that you are somehow above said behaviour. Its just not sportsman like.

Oh yeah. The Marquis indeed knows how to add a little spice into the discussion. Word of advice though, if you don't like hot curry don't go to an Indian restaurant.

 

[Neverfly]

No its not a problem but it seems you prefer the logic of other sites so I was curious as to why you post here and then complain that its not quite up to your standards in regards to etiquette and 'logic'.

You extricated yourself out of those threads? Not! You engaged in it for pages even after it was obvious that there would be no reconciliation between you and the other member(s). So you did flame on, you even brought it to a second thread and brought posted comments made by those who were not even registered members, as if it was somehow relevant. It was hardly dispassionate behaviour on your part. Though you did show more self restraint in the 2nd mini flame.

As far as other's dragging you into the mire, they can bait but you don't have to go there, but you did indeed not only go there but entrenched yourself. Is it acceptable for others to drag you into the mire? Sure, why not. But if you go there yourself then don't pretend that you are somehow above said behaviour. Its just not sportsman like.

Oh yeah. The Marquis indeed knows how to add a little spice into the discussion. Word of advice though, if you don't like hot curry don't go to an Indian restaurant.

Bullshit.

It's not my responsibility if another person acts like a slandering asshole.
If, initially, I seek to dispute or correct that, it's understandable. Anyone would defend themselves.

If I extricate myself upon the realization that they are not interested in reality, but instead interested only in childish one-upping, that hardly means that I entrenched myself.

You cannot claim that defense is a crime but being attacked is not.

 

[Bells]

Spice?

Oh god!

:bawl:

Bells, I have repeatedly clarified, over and over and over again (The latest was you "Happy to delegate" comment) how you DO play people into your little game.

Again with the caps.

What little game do you think I am playing with you Neverfly?

As I explained to you previously, when I address you, I address you as I would an adult. What I do not expect to get in return is over emotional hand wringing, where you are not only quite abusive, but also rude and condescending. When I reply in kind, you cry abuse. It's a two way street. I have a tendency to speak to people in the same tone of voice as they use with me. I do that when I post as well.

Furthermore, many other people around here see it clearly and are well aware of it.

Really? Been PM'ing about big bad Bells have you?

Or are you about to drag someone else in to attempt to clean up your mess? Remember how well that went last time?

Feinting at innocent denial only makes you dishonest.

I have said repeatedly. I don't do nice. I am not nice. I have never once attempted to deny or do so innocently.

If you want to flame people-- fine. At least be open and honest about it.

You see, if I were flaming you, I would do so in a manner that you'd know I was flaming you.

Such characterizations are irrelevant to who or what I actually am.

Oh poor you. You left out the "I am a human beeeiinnggg".

You use such characterizations, such as
Net whackjob
bad parent and so on - on and on of long strings of verbal abuse, slander and ad hom attacks to support yourself and your claims.

I did call you a net whackjob. I freely admit that. I believe I also referred to you as a twat in a round about fashion. But where did I call you a bad parent? And slander? Verbal abuse? Links?

But should we look at your behaviour? You become over emotional, you completely fail to support any claims you make, you are lazy and do not read what has been posted and accuse others when you are unable to support your own claims, you run to others and get them to join to support you when the heat gets turned up, you whine about misrepresentation if anyone so much as challenges you on any point, you are also abusive and rude. And that is just off the top of my head. If anyone wants to see yoy in action, they only have to look round about here and here.

That is unimpressive at best.

Just as unimpressed when you called me "bonehead". I was also unimpressed when you saw fit to drag another person down into a quagmire because you simply cannot stand up for yourself.

If you cannot argue your position from logic, what makes you think you have a position worth defending?

I think that is something you need to discuss with yourself. Any time that any person challenges you on this board, you become illogical.

Even more amusing is how you use these techniques while trying to persuade people on how to properly reach troubled children!

You mean when I questioned you about why you would not hit your son but would delegate others to do it for you? Is your son troubled? No, I would assume not. Or do you mean when I questioned the use of violence to apparently reach troubled children and you came out with some excuse that sometimes it takes violence against a child to actually reach them? Please tell me the logic behind that? Tell me the logic behind "spanking" a child because said child hit another person? How exactly is that going to teach the child that hitting is bad?

How hypocritical.

Not as hypocritical as someone who has said that they would allow another person to hit their child and then say that they didn't think they could hit their child themselves. Not as hypocritical as someone who drags their child into a debate and then gets angry and upset when you are questioned about the choices you exhibited on this forum. I could go on.

The caps are a lazy approach to emphasizing words.
Since you seem to read that as shouting, I will try to remember to Bold, italicize or underscore words in the future. Will that help?

Hey, whatever rocks your boat. You tend to do it when anyone challenges you on anything. Pretty soon we get whole sentences. By this point, it is obvious that you are no longer calm or logical.

Very few people are challenging me, actually.
You are one of the most frequent challengers and you strike me as one with a desire to flame a character you have invented off the top of your head.

Of course, anyone who speaks to you and actually dares disagree with you or question you is flaming you. Do we also misrepresent you? Abuse you? Poor didums.. *Hugs*..

I learned how to do that in grade school.

I learned how to be an adult, later.

I suggest, instead of me learning to act childishly again, that you learn how to grow up, instead.

Here is something my boss used to say to people all the time when they first started working.. "Here's a cup of cement.. Drink it and toughen the fuck up".

 

[John99]

whoa, what the hell has gotten into these women?

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Bullshit.

It's not my responsibility if another person acts like a slandering asshole.
If, initially, I seek to dispute or correct that, it's understandable. Anyone would defend themselves.

If I extricate myself upon the realization that they are not interested in reality, but instead interested only in childish one-upping, that hardly means that I entrenched myself.

You cannot claim that defense is a crime but being attacked is not.

But you didn't extricate yourself that's my point, you went on and on for pages and even continued it in another thread. That's not extricating yourself you embedded yourself in it. To say you were slandered is sheer hyperbole and completely out of proportion what took place. Even now you speak in terms of 'crime'! I didn't suggest you shouldn't 'defend' yourself or your argument I am saying that you cannot claim you were any less into the throes of a good row than your opponent. You one upped too, remember? So to now claim you are above such 'childish' behaviour after that thread is disingenuous.

 

[soullust]

Ha Ha Ha.

you guys must have gotten borred did, you..

thanks for the welcome guys, and continue on with what ever yall are talking about

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Ha Ha Ha.

you guys must have gotten borred did, you..

thanks for the welcome guys, and continue on with what ever yall are talking about

Velcome! Velcome!

And don't forget to sharpen ye claws

 

[Neverfly]

Bells, learn how to not lie.

You believe that painting inaccurate images helps your case. It doesn't. It only demonstrates your mentality.

<Extricating myself - again>
Y'all can keep on posting your crap, I'll just ignore it.

 

[Tiassa]

This and that

Wow. Why do I feel like Soullust's topic post has just been blown all to Hell?

• • •​

Bells, learn how to not lie.

I would simply note that Bells works logic with the best of them. And yes, that does mean she reaches from time to time. Who doesn't? But, having battled with her over such dimensions before, and knowing her persona for as long as I have, I can assure you, sir, that you have no goddamn clue under the sun how ridiculous that charge is.

 

[Bells]

Bells, learn how to not lie.

You believe that painting inaccurate images helps your case. It doesn't. It only demonstrates your mentality.

<Extricating myself - again>
Y'all can keep on posting your crap, I'll just ignore it.

Ho ho!

Now we get to the 'liar liar, pants on fire' argument!

I posted the threads in full. People can judge for themselves. And before you accuse me of lying, Neverfly, I would suggest you back it up.

You have thrown wild accusations against me in the past and when asked to back it up, you have retreated like a puppy with its tail between its legs. So I will ask you now. Back up and show me where I have lied.

Learn how to use the god damn link button and start linking you little coward.

 

[sandy]

whoa, what the hell has gotten into these women?

Liberalism.

 

[Bells]

Liberalism.

I shall embrace conservatism and be manly like you Sandy.

 

[Gustav]

whoa, what the hell has gotten into these women?

atheism

these abominations will burn in hell for going against the divine law. god's law.

matthew 10.4: thou shall be subservient to a man's desires
luke 5.33: thou shall be nekkid in the hearth cooking gourmet chow
leroy 13.34: thou shall service man at the drop of a hat
jeremiah 12.45: thou shall speak only when spoken to
micheal 69.69: thou shall be the toilet of man

let us pray now for their damned souls for god's vengeance will surely be swift and merciless

/prays

 

[Gustav]

sandy is divine in all ways
she knows her god given role....

...and reaps the rewards of following our lord

/pant

 

[Gustav]

Lucysnow and Bells​

​

EWWWWWWWWWWWWW!!​

 

[Neverfly]

Bells Charge of Lying:

ONE quote:

Or are you about to drag someone else in to attempt to clean up your mess?

It's crap like that that Bells repeatedly pulls-- Over and Over...
That causes me to charge her as lying.

No matter how often something is refuted, she will continue to accuse her same bullshit assumptions as if fact.

THAT is dishonest and therefor-- lying.

 

[Bells]

No matter how often something is refuted, she will continue to accuse her same bullshit assumptions as if fact.

Probably because that is exactly what you did.

You brought someone to this forum to help you.. to help you win the argument.. to get them to tell me just how wrong I was and how I was misrepresenting you.. In short, you brought someone in to clean up your mess.

EWWWWWWWWWWWWW!!

Aww.. homophobic chihuahua.

 

[Neverfly]

Probably because that is exactly what you did.

You brought someone to this forum to help you.. to help you win the argument.. to get them to tell me just how wrong I was and how I was misrepresenting you.. In short, you brought someone in to clean up your mess.

Incorrect and comes across as lying-- considering that You Were There. You Took Part.
You should Know Better.

What I claimed was that Others reading along agreed with my take.
You invited me to invite them to the forum to "prove" that I had not lied, that I had not claimed fictitious people.

I did so and you seized upon that to claim I used them as attack dogs.

Stop Lying Bells.

 

[Bells]

Incorrect and comes across as lying-- considering that You Were There. You Took Part.
You should Know Better.

What I claimed was that Others reading along agreed with my take.
You invited me to invite them to the forum to "prove" that I had not lied, that I had not claimed fictitious people.

I did so and you seized upon that to claim I used them as attack dogs.

Stop Lying Bells.

The thread is there for people to see for themselves Neverfly.

When you claimed that you were showing others the thread and my posts, and how they were agreeing with you, I said well ask them to join if they have questions or wish to discuss it with me. But you were showing it to so many people, it's a bit hard to keep up. It seems you're the type who needs validation from others. So be it.

You claimed yourself, one joined on the basis of that spat. And within 5 posts, she was coming after me like your little attack dog, virtually begging for people (me) to divert attention from you and onto her. She even did it in this current issue.

I think it is you who should know better.