We are conservatives. We understand and believe in the Constitution. We support free speech.
Th point clearly went over your head. Let me try and make it more simple.
Why do you support MEMs free speech, but not mine? Why is it okay for him to suggest the use of violence or murder against leftist, but I am accused of "pure hatred" just for espousing peaceful political opinions.
Th point clearly went over your head. Let me try and make it more simple.
Again with the insults.
quote
Why do you support MEMs free speech, but not mine? Why is it okay for him to suggest the use of violence or murder against leftist, but I am accused of "pure hatred" just for espousing peaceful political opinions.
I am not trying to stop you from speaking. Quite to the contrary, I encourage you to demonstrate your true nature.
I am not trying to stop you from speaking. Quite to the contrary, I encourage you to demonstrate your true nature.
I don't understand what point you are trying to make. You jumped into the middle of a discussion I was having with TA82 where he was saying that my "pure hatred" was not acceptable here.
I then asked why MEM's promotion of violence and murder was acceptable while my peaceful disagreements with political issues were not?
Originally posted by fredtoast: If you oppose "pure hatred" then why do you tolerate MidengineManiac promoting physical violence and even murder of "leftist". Why does that not offend your sensitive, pacifistic nature? Because he is on YOUR SIDE.
Ahhh... I see you've been exchanging PMs with Patrick.
We don't agree on a lot, but he's fairly wise when it comes to dealing with individuals, and you should take his advice about not coming in so headstrong.
To answer your question propositioned to you... I like MidEnginedManiac because he's NOT a hateful person. He says what he wants, and has strong beliefs... but if you were walking down the street, he'd offer you a bear. There was an individual who was radical-right... his name was Sourmash. We collectively viewed him as actually pure hatred, and we voted him out.
quote
Originally posted by fredtoast: Why would this apply to me and not to you?
You are the one in torment because of your "difficulties in social interactions". I am not having any problems at all.
In fact your persistent, unfounded claim that I exhibit any symptoms of Aspergers proves MY point, not yours.
**Waits for TA82's typical "It is true just because I say it is true" responce.**
Because I actually KNOW that I do not have Asperger's syndrome. I do have ADHD, or at least childhood ADHD, but that's a completely separate fun attribute that I take pride in. I've gone through numerous psychological exams, tests, and evaluations as part of my prior career for different assignments. I'm proudly VERY type-A, VERY confident, but also considered "down to Earth." Not only as part of my psychological training, I'm also a good judge of character.
Being completely serious, you should consider maybe getting yourself evaluated.
quote
Originally posted by fredtoast: You are the one obsessed with stalking and insulting me. Your multiple post doing that is a "repetitive pattern of behavior". I am not doing anything like that to you. I never mention you unless it is a response to one of your posts.
Again, you obviously do not understand the dynamic of a message board. When someone responds to you... it's more than likely BECAUSE of something you say. You are not being targeted, but in fact the things you say are what lead people to respond to you.
I like MidEnginedManiac because he's NOT a hateful person.
He promotes acts of violence and even murder against "leftist".
How is that not "hatefuL"?
More proof that you define everything based on your political beliefs instead of actual facts. the ony reason you don't think murder and violebec are "hateful' is because you agree with MEMs political beliefs.
Again, you obviously do not understand the dynamic of a message board. When someone responds to you... it's more than likely BECAUSE of something you say. You are not being targeted, but in fact the things you say are what lead people to respond to you.
The posts I am talking about, and you know of them because you always acknowledged when I flagged one, were not in any way a response to me. They were addressed to other members and just insulted me. They had nothing to do with any of the subjects we were discussing. You would just drop in out of the blue and apropos of nothing make a post insulting me.
The posts I am talking about, and you know of them because you always acknowledged when I flagged one, were not in any way a response to me. They were addressed to other members and just insulted me. They had nothing to do with any of the subjects we were discussing. You would just drop in out of the blue and apropos of nothing make a post insulting me.
Do you mean, "Report This Post?" I do not see if / when you flag one of my posts. Only Cliff Pennock sees that.
Look, don't flatter yourself, if you think I'm targeting you in any way, it's your own paranoia. If I respond to something, it's because the content interests me. And I might respond in one of several ways:
- Elation - Agreement - Shock - Surprise - Inquisitive - Debate - So annoyed that the information posted is so completely wrong that I have to call it out.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Do you mean, "Report This Post?" I do not see if / when you flag one of my posts.
No. I mean when I make a post apologizing for taking the thread OT then point out how you just made a post that had nothing to do with the subject matter of the thread but whose sole purpose was to insult me.
I know you knw what I am talking about because you respond to them. I hat to start pulling stuff from other threads because it becomes a mess, but if you deny ever seeing any of these I will gladly post links to them so everyone can judge for themselves.
Ahhh... I see you've been exchanging PMs with Patrick.
I'm not sure what you might be inferring, Todd. Care to expand on that?
Full disclosure... There was a short PM exchange between fredtoast and myself about a month ago. As a friendly gesture towards a new member, I wanted to inform him that he had broken a forum rule. I didn't wish to see him potentially penalized over a very minor transgression. He thanked me for the information, and that was the total extent of our discussion.
quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
I like MidEnginedManiac because he's NOT a hateful person. He says what he wants, and has strong beliefs... but if you were walking down the street, he'd offer you a bear.
No one here is omniscient. Posts like "I know what you really think" or "I know what is really happening" are just signs of a narcissistic disorder. So no one should waste our time with stuff like that.
quote
Originally posted by fredtoast:
That is why I posts facts and links to support my position instead of just parroting speaking points without anything to support them.
I 100% agree that anyone who says "I know what you are really thinking" or "I know what is really happening" without posting anything to support their opinion is suffering from a narcissistic disorder.
Know anyone who makes posts like that?
Why yes, yes I do:
quote
Originally posted by fredtoast:
More proof that you define everything based on your political beliefs instead of actual facts. the ony reason you don't think murder and violebec are "hateful' is because you agree with MEMs political beliefs.
So, the obvious question is, when are you going to seek professional treatment for your narcissistic mental disorder?
I want to spotlight a glaring... wait a sec... did I just pun? Why yes, indeed. But it wasn't premeditated. Let me start over.
I want to spotlight what I believe is a glaring failure in the small discourse that is comprised by the remarks in the message that comes immediately before Patrick's message, which comes immediately before this message. So I am talking about Reply message #133.
Two remarks from forum member "fredtoast" are quoted, followed by a third remark from fredtoast.
According to the discourse, the third remark from fredtoast puts him in the unenviable position of having made an assertion of the very kind that he previously said would be evidence of a "narcissistic" psychological disorder—were anyone to assert something of that kind. So, according to this discourse, fredtoast has been hoisted by his own petard, because his third remark is evidence that he himself has a narcissistic psychological disorder.
Let's examine this more closely.
In what terms did fredtoast describe the kind of assertion that would mark someone as having a narcissistic psychological disorder?
He said, in so many words, that anyone who asserts that "I know what you really think," or "I know what's really happening," without providing any specific evidentiary support to confirm such an assertion, is, in effect, arguing as if they believe they are omniscient, and that would obviously be evidence of having a narcissistic psychological disorder.
But when fredtoast, in his third remark, asserts that 82-T/A's political leanings are blinding 82-T/A to reality, fredtoast does not stop there. He provides evidentiary support, when he says this:
quote
The only reason that 82-T/A thinks that approbation of murder and violence, as expressed by MidEngineManiac, is not hateful, is because 82-T/A agrees with MidEngineManiac's political leanings.
I have used the Quote format, to emphasize that this is a careful rewording of what fredtoast said, to render it grammatically and linguistically consistent with this current context, but without changing any of his meaning. I didn't want to "fuss around" with the square brackets convention that is ordinarily used when original text is being altered in this way.
What is the evidentiary support that fredtoast provides?
It's implicit. Anyone with even the smallest familiarity with 82-T/A and MidEngineManiac, as they are known by their remarks in this forum, is aware that they are markedly on the same page (so to speak) about their political leanings. They are on the same page, to the extent that they both consistently use language that favors a conservative attitude over a liberal or progressive attitude, in political terms. And who would fredtoast be addressing with his remarks, other than people with at least a small familiarity with 82-T/A and MidEngineManiac? No one! (That was a rhetorical question.)
Forum member 'toast (a small informality) also asserted that this was the only reason that 82-T/A thinks that approbation of murder and violence, as expressed by MidEngineManiac, is not hateful. What do we make of that?
I think it's self-evident that this would be the only reason that 82-T/A could have, for thinking that the approbation of murder and violence, as expressed by MidEngineManiac, is not hateful. What other reason could there be? Do we think that 82-T/A is himself a hateful person that is given to the approbation of murder and violence? No one with even a small familiarity with the voice of 82-T/A, as manifest on this forum, would characterize 82-T/A in such a way.
So fredtoast didn't just talk the talk with that third remark. He walked the walk. He provided evidentiary support for his assertions, and so he is clearly not staking a claim for himself as having omniscience. There is no way on God's green earth (an idiom favored by Andrew Weissmann) that fredtoast was making the kind of "omniscience" assertion that would mark him as having a narcissistic psychological disorder.
It's apparent that the discourse in Reply message 133, which attempts to hoist fredtoast on his own petard, falls flat on its face. It fails to hoist fredtoast on his own petard. Reply message 133 has just been given the widely advertised "Servpro" treatment... "like it never even happened."
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 08-13-2023).]
Originally posted by fredtoast: Thoughts and opinions never clog up a thread AS LONG AS THEY HAVE SOMETHING TO DO WITH THE SUBJECT OF THE THREAD. The only thing I am complaining about are random posts that have nothing to do with the subject matter, but are instead just personal attacka against another member.
quote
Originally posted by fredtoast: I have no problem with people citing personal experience as a basis for their beliefs. But if they are going to post in a forum debate they should realize that they are wasting everyone's time with posts that basically say "This is true because I believe it is true".
Who are you to decide if everyone's time is wasted.
When people say "This is true because I believe it is true" it invites discussion about what one thinks. It can also change the thoughts of some one whom thinks he knows, what is true.[/quote]
quote
Originally posted by fredtoast: No one here is omniscient. Posts like "I know what you really think" or "I know what is really happening" are just signs of a narcissistic disorder. So no one should waste our time with stuff like that.
I think you have a narcissistic personality disorder. Citing personal experience.
Sarcasm refers to the use of words that mean the opposite of what you really want to say just to be funny. For example, saying "they're really on top of things" to describe a group of people who are very disorganized is using sarcasm.
I might believe that from someone I know can be sarcastic. That is not you.
Instead of sarcasm, tell us what you really think !
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: MidEnginedManiac because he's NOT a hateful person. He says what he wants, and has strong beliefs... but if you were walking down the street, he'd offer you a bear.
More proof that you define everything based on your political beliefs instead of actual facts. the ony reason you don't think murder and violebec are "hateful' is because you agree with MEMs political beliefs.[QUOTE]
So, the obvious question is, when are you going to seek professional treatment for your narcissistic mental disorder?
Wow, Can't believe how far my point went over your head. The quote you posted from me was supported by FACTS. You just deleted that part of the post to make it look like an opinion with nothing to back it up.
I never propose violence or murder be committed against my political opposition. TA82 calls me full of "pure hatred". . . FACT
MEM proposes violence and murder be committed against his political opposition. TA82 says MEM is NOT full of pure hatred . . . FACT
Cet it now? I post FACTS to back up my comments. They are not just baseless opinion.
Todd, I would still appreciate it if you would elaborate on this comment made to fredtoast.
Fredtoast is repeating some very unique language, which I know you've stated in the past.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:
I think it's self-evident that this would be the only reason that 82-T/A could have, for thinking that the approbation of murder and violence, as expressed by MidEngineManiac, is not hateful. What other reason could there be? Do we think that 82-T/A is himself a hateful person that is given to the approbation of murder and violence? No one with even a small familiarity with the voice of 82-T/A, as manifest on this forum, would characterize 82-T/A in such a way.
So fredtoast didn't just talk the talk with that third remark. He walked the walk. He provided evidentiary support for his assertions, and so he is clearly not staking a claim for himself as having omniscience. There is no way on God's green earth (an idiom favored by Andrew Weissmann) that fredtoast was making the kind of "omniscience" assertion that would mark him as having a narcissistic psychological disorder.
RayB has, on many occasions, said things that were just as bad as MEM has, and I do not think RayB is a hateful person, or someone who would actually go through with the things he's said over the years. I have discussions and disagree with RayB, but you won't see me attack him, any more than I would MEM. To be honest, I'm kind of done talking about Fred's problems with people. This is a Fred problem, and he'll eventually get the hang of it, or he'll become bitter and leave. Either option is a solution.
Leftist are ungrateful and cowardest people. They don't want anyone to point out their lies and grifts.
Leftist want to steal from you and control you. There is a reason why prisons exists for violent leftist. They don't fit in peaceful society.
But if you let them have the helms of government like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot.... the list goes on. They slaughter innocent people, imprison people for opposing political views, destroy science and the free press and the list goes on. History repeats.
Leftist are ungrateful and cowardest people. They don't want anyone to point out their lies and grifts.
Leftist want to steal from you and control you. There is a reason why prisons exists for violent leftist. They don't fit in peaceful society.
But if you let them have the helms of government like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot.... the list goes on. They slaughter innocent people, imprison people for opposing political views, destroy science and the free press and the list goes on. History repeats.
Leftist are not good people.
"Terra sapidum creat homines."
The Gorn are an ungrateful and cowardest species. They don't want humans to point out their lies and grifts.
The Gorn want to devour you. There is a reason why prisons exists for all Gorn. They don't fit in human society.
But if you let them have just a little nibble... they slaughter innocent humans, imprison humans to consume at a later date. Gastronomy repeats.
.
