OFF TOPIC

[monkers]

I have no idea who you refering to but I've never contacted you by pm. I suggest you inform the site owner if you are dissatisfied by other's pms. Anybody reading the Gender thread can make their own mind up about which members have tried to bully people from the platform with verbal abuse.

I neither said that any person had or hadn't, so why the need to question it? I'm just stating the obvious, that not all communication on this site is necessarily in sight.

And yes, people are free to make their own minds up on the record - but first they need to read it!

 

[CXRAndy]

Monkers PM'd me.

I was shocked, humiliated, offended.......I just didn't like it

What can I do

 

[Ianonabike]

You choose your facts to make your case.

A pithy and logical summary of how one goes about debating. Feel free to arm yourself to deploy any facts you think I'm ignoring.

Would being told to wear your balaclava the next time you go count as evidence for you.*

Basically if you disagree with her, your on the totally opposite side to her. Clearly evidenced by her many off topic rants, when fact based evidence is presented to her.

*You'd need to read the posts preceding the one above to get an idea of what was being claimed.

I'll accept that as evidence of a long-running feud. Further down from your link:

So Classic is allowed to be snarky about me but I'm not allowed to return the favour? Sounds about right.

I see you say that you haven't read the threads.

Then your eyesight is better than mine. Or perhaps not, as you remain mystified about what I'm hoping to achieve, when my reasons for starting this thread are laid out very simply on the first page. It would be nice to not have to repeat myself.

You talk ominously of dog whistles, yet employ similar tactics, such as this business about Private Messages. "I'm just stating the obvious," you claim, after implanting the suggestion that you're in receipt of bullying PM's, as could we all be.

That the person who made the remarks isn't here to answer to them is of course debatable; for the sake of argument and taking you at your word, you still said "but then I read some of the nasty stuff being said to her", which a reasonable person can interpret as meaning you felt the language justified.

A recurring theme around here is for free speech with many (but not me) saying that this encompasses the right to be offensive - that there is no right not to be offended. These are not my views and I made a recent post unconnected to this situation saying as much.

Is repeatedly calling someone a cunt offensive? Perhaps I should start a poll.

 

[CXRAndy]

Classic will claim you were on some other sites, being mean and nasty and the PMs will never likely appear.

Although I did post mine from Monkers which I did find odd, as they were announcing privately something they had announced publicly about placing me on ignore, which lasted about a week if I remember correctly

 

[monkers]

Then your eyesight is better than mine. Or perhaps not, as you remain mystified about what I'm hoping to achieve, when my reasons for starting this thread are laid out very simply on the first page. It would be nice to not have to repeat myself.

You talk ominously of dog whistles, yet employ similar tactics, such as this business about Private Messages. "I'm just stating the obvious," you claim, after implanting the suggestion that you're in receipt of bullying PM's, as could we all be.

That the person who made the remarks isn't here to answer to them is of course debatable; for the sake of argument and taking you at your word, you still said "but then I read some of the nasty stuff being said to her", which a reasonable person can interpret as meaning you felt the language justified.

Ah I see we now have a self-appointed forum moderator.

The bolded part of this post is doing all the work here ...''for the sake of argument''.

You're just another professional petty squabbler with fanciful ideas, pompous self-importance, and over-developed hyperbole - one who is taking offence about something one person said to another back in time, and loading it on to me when I am neither person. So I'll just make a point of ignoring your tediousness from this point on.

 

[Ianonabike]

The bolded part of this post is doing all the work here ...''for the sake of argument''.

Working overtime.

 

[CXRAndy]

Ah I see we now have a self-appointed forum moderator

You're mistaken

Brian is the head chair, with a committee of nodding dogs

 

[monkers]

Working overtime.

View attachment 10588

arguing for the sake of arguing​

Continuing a disagreement solely out of obstinacy.

Let it go.

 

[Ianonabike]

arguing for the sake of arguing​

Continuing a disagreement solely out of obstinacy.

Let it go.

Last word syndrome. The only winning move is not to play. You promised! (I didn't.)

So I'll just make a point of ignoring your tediousness from this point on.

 

[briantrumpet]

Last word syndrome. The only winning move is not to play. You promised! (I didn't.)

To be fair, you probably aren't surprised that your thread got hijacked, given previous form on this particular topic.

 

[Ianonabike]

To be fair, you probably aren't surprised that your thread got hijacked, given previous form on this particular topic.

Wherever it goes is fine. Its purpose is exploration of tangents.

 

[briantrumpet]

Wherever it goes is fine. Its purpose is exploration of tangents.

Indeed, but it's annoying when multiple discussions end up on the same subject and with the same arguments from the same people.

 

[monkers]

Indeed, but it's annoying when multiple discussions end up on the same subject and with the same arguments from the same people.

Agree. However it is an important principle that people have a right to reply.

 

[spen666]

Agree. However it is an important principle that people have a right to reply.

Having a right to do something doesn't mean that the right always has to be exercised.

With rights come responsibilities

 

[monkers]

Having a right to do something doesn't mean that the right always has to be exercised.

With rights come responsibilities

We agree. We have some right to speak about other people, but it is not free of consequence, exactly because people have a right to reply.