Brent, your petulance did not move the argument forward.

[Charles]

Brent,

Judging from your peevish response, it is obvious that my comments touched a raw nerve. That is perhaps a positive sign, since your defensiveness appears to indicate that you recognize that some of your more inflammatory postings may have indeed crossed the line into poor taste. Unfortunately, some of your arguments of rebuttal similarly crossed that line. I suspect that was simply the result of your "playing to the audience."

I have noted one positive consequence of the proceedings though. While attempting to compile a list of some of your most inappropriate posts (mostly from the forum "Father's Issues") to send to you as you requested, I discovered that you (by my assumption) had edited out most of the distasteful commentary that you had interjected at places within the articles you posted over the past six months. There are a sizeable number of objectionable comments still remaining in your responses to other board members, but those appear to be outbursts of temper rather than maliciousness. Your purging of the inflammatory, sexist comments, while perhaps prompted partially by my post, was equally likely the result of Waylon's prior reprimand for driving away potential supporters with your insensitive commentaries.

Attempting to respond point-by-point to your reply would be tedious and unfruitful, since your diatribe was a mass of logical fallacies, specious arguments, [EM]non sequiturs[/EM], and other attempted diversions. Your attempt to advance your argument by [EM]"failure to state"[/EM] (i.e., asking enough questions and making enough attacks to avoid addressing the issues) did nothing to promote rational discourse. And with your entire argument constructed around a framework of [EM]ad hominem[/EM] attacks that served no reasonable purpose initially, revisiting them would be doubly unproductive. Such attacks are efforts to side-step debate by attacking the person instead of addressing the issues, and they usually indicate a failure of intellect or the absence of an argument of integrity.  Name-calling, crude language, and verbal bullying, while a characteristic of barroom brawls, have no place in intellectual debate.

One relevant issue that should be addressed is your attempted [EM]"argument from undefined authority"[/EM] intimating that you have some unannounced level of authority or responsibility that extends beyond the role defined by SPARC for its moderators. Since you provided no insight into what that special authority might be, the lack of specificity leaves us to wonder if your allusion to power is valid or simply a "red herring". If you have been granted special administrative authority that allows you to violate SPARC's published standards of behavior and AUP ([EM]"Moderators may not knowingly promote behavior intended to annoy, inflame or incense users"; "Vulgar, Abusive, Racist, and Sexist Language will not be tolerated."[/EM]), then that authority should be publicly stated so as not to mislead readers.

None-the-less, as I indicated initially, in spite of your failure to effectively defend your position relative to my original proposal, progress has been made. I accept your editing of your previous posts by deleting some of the excesses as your concession that moderation in tone and language is always the best approach for avoiding contentiousness. I commend you for that recognition.

With that said, I shall now retire to my other discussion boards where the intellectual exchange is more rewarding. Frankly, dealing daily with counseling and academic issues as I do, I find discussing such topics as "science versus mysticism", "legal aspects of cloning", and "the nature of Dark Energy" far more productive than debating "the usefulness of hostility and sexist propaganda in promoting gender equity and improving family values." The latter topic is a no-brainer.

It is not our abilities that show what we truly are. It is our choices.
>A. Dumbledore<

[richiejay]

Charlie baby,

  I have found a mission in my life.  I wanna be just like you! Imagine, spending countless hours on discussion boards (thesaurus in hand) trying hopelessly to prove that I am smaht (sorry, Boston accent).  I could use words like diatribe, fallacies, and other latin words that no one really cares about.  On top of that I could use flawed logic simply to win an argument!  Imagine (oops, used that one twice) the glory and fame bestowed upon me by..well, I'll think of someone who will appreciate it.  And, oh, the condescending demeanor I could use to prove my smahtness even further..after all, discussions boards about the "legal aspects of cloning" are much more rewarding than offering real people help with real problems. I wanna be a counselor just like you! Thanks, Charlie baby for leading me in the right direction.  I don't know what I would have done without you. Where should I send the money?

P.S.  Could you send me a quote that I could use of ANOTHER ficticious character?

[Brent]

>Judging from your peevish response, it is obvious that my
>comments touched a raw nerve.

No, but you gave me gas. Does that count?



>Unfortunately,
>some of your arguments of rebuttal similarly crossed that
>line. I suspect that was simply the result of your "playing to
>the audience."

I really don't care about crossing your imaginary "line". I speak and post as I see fit, and I don't let self-righteous boobs like you tell me what to do. Sorry to burst your bubble.




> ...I discovered that
>you (by my assumption) had edited out most of the distasteful
>commentary that you had interjected at places within the
>articles you posted over the past six months.

100% wrong, but I'm amused you would dare to try and tell a lie this big. I haven't gone back and edited any of my posts, with one exception. That was yeaterday, when I worried that my "Dr. Kevorkian" comment might send your mentally disturbed wife over the edge. Other than that, I haven't edited anything. I really don't have the time or the interest to do that.

But here's the real curious thing: these message boards have only been up since Nov 21st. That's just over 2 months, charles, so how could you go back 6 months and see anything? Hmmm?

Lol, you are such a liar- and now everyone can see the proof for themselves. :)


> Your purging of
>the inflammatory, sexist comments, while perhaps prompted
>partially by my post, was equally likely the result of
>Waylon's prior reprimand for driving away potential supporters
>with your insensitive commentaries.

Nope. I've purged nothing with the exception of that one comment yesterday, and we both know it. In fact, everyone knows you're lying now, because this board keeps all the posts ever made on it....and people can go right back to November 21st, 2003 and see for themselves.

You must be feeling kinda  dumb right now, huh? Claiming that you've reviewed the posts back 6 months, when these boards have only been up for less than 3.

And no, Waylon hasn't said one word to me about my posts, nor has he asked me to change anything I do. You can email him if you don't believe me: [email protected].

Waylon likes what I do here, and he wouldn't be shy about reprimanding me publicly if he had a problem with anything I've posted. You obviously don't know him, or how he thinks. Maybe you "missed" his comment to you where (as the admin) he basically told you to shutup. Here's his comment to you:

http://www.deltabravo.net/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=625&mesg_id=645&page=

He was awfully diplomatic, but clearly he doesn't give a damn for you or your non-stop whining.



>Name-calling, crude language, and verbal
>bullying, while a characteristic of barroom brawls, have no
>place in intellectual debate.

You must be referring to the comments your supposed "wife" made to numerous people here. She was the only one having a hissy fit.



>I accept your editing of your previous posts by
>deleting some of the excesses

Nice try, but no cigar. :) And every time you say that, I'll remind you of what a blatant liar you are, "charles". Ummm, tell me again- how many months did you go back and view posts on this board?



>as your concession that moderation in tone and
>language is always the best approach for avoiding
>contentiousness. I commend you for that recognition.

Don't watse your time. I don't accept compliments from petulant little blowhards like you. But I'll take it as a concession that you admit you were wrong, and that you lied in a crude attempt at character assasination.



>With that said, I shall now retire to my other discussion
>boards where the intellectual exchange is more rewarding.

Thank goodness, you're finally going to shut your mouth and stop lying? Are you going back to the NOW boards or the singlemomz boards? Whichever it is, don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out, you pompous twit.


>Frankly, dealing daily with counseling and academic issues as
>I do, I find discussing such topics as "science versus
>mysticism", "legal aspects of cloning", and "the nature of
>Dark Energy" far more productive than debating "the usefulness
>of hostility and sexist propaganda in promoting gender equity
>and improving family values." The latter topic is a
>no-brainer.

Well, you'd be the authority on things that were "no brainers", I'll give you that. And your "wife" is the expert on sexist propaganda, as anyone here can attest to.


>It is not our abilities that show what we truly are. It is our
>choices.

It's just a damn shame that you have no clue as to what that statement means.

[richiejay]

Thank you Brent...that was refreshing....6 months!  LMAO!

[Brent]

>Thank you Brent...that was refreshing....6 months!  LMAO!

Yes, in addition to having a lifetime subscription at Thesaurus.com,  "charles" is also apparently an accomplished time-traveler. :)

[MKx2]

I have to admit that when I read the "six months" I really wondered ... we can't even GET to the old boards now - can we?  Unless there's some magical URL that has been devined by the powers that be and distributed to a select few ....

Six months?????

What really made me chuckle was you, Brent - editing your "old" posts (with the one exception) - now if that really happened, I would be SERIOUSLY worried about you!  Unless you had the flu and were in a delerious state of mind, I have sincere doubts that would happen.

[Brent]

>I have to admit that when I read the "six months" I really
>wondered ... we can't even GET to the old boards now - can we?
> Unless there's some magical URL that has been devined by the
>powers that be and distributed to a select few ....

You can get to extracts of the old state boards, but there aren't any posts there by me. I almost never posted on the state boards. The old main boards are are still there, but I don't think they're accessible. I could be wrong, but I don't see any links on the site to them.




>What really made me chuckle was you, Brent - editing your
>"old" posts (with the one exception) - now if that really
>happened, I would be SERIOUSLY worried about you!  Unless you
>had the flu and were in a delerious state of mind, I have
>sincere doubts that would happen.

Nope, for better or worse, I rarely edit my posts (other than correcting typos and stuff when I'm actually making them). Charles busted himself bigtime there.

In fact, all the posts on the new boards show exactly when they were last edited, there's a red date and time at the top of the post when the last edit was made. The proof is there for all to see- all people have to do is page back through them and look for themselves.


>

I know- it's funny. He was in such a hurry to tell that whopper that he never noticed that there are no posts older than November 21st, 2003 on any of the new boards.

[Indigo Mom]

In a tall cool can of shut the f*ck up?  



Let's talk Albus, shall we?  Can you imagine Mr. Dumbledore insisting that the young Mr. Potter return to Privet Drive each summer and starting shit?  Nah...I can't either...so why do you insist on coming back to this site with your petty rants?????  You're making more problems for yourself!!!!  Why would one do that?

Simply put, you and nerd are trolls.  Big, HUGE ones that drip with troll bogies!

[joni]

...find another on-line community to abuse.  There are plenty out there.  The internet is a plethora of useless information....such as yours.

The beauty about America, if you don't like what you see on TV, change the channel.  I have 900 channels on my cable.

If you don't like what you read, don't read it.  CLOSE YOUR BROWSER WINDOW AND GO AWAY.

[MYSONSDAD]

Charlie, You made mention several times of 'so called' veiled threats.
What you are doing now, leans more toward harassment.
We're all here to help each other. This type of thing, 'DOES NOT HELP ANYONE'.

You appear to be some what educated. But, APPEARANCES CAN BE DISCEIVING. Continuing this farse, is STUPID. AND YOU, MY FRIEND, NEED TO 'GET A LIFE' and leave us be.