Shofercia wrote:I don't take directions from online posters, and I don't consider threads that are two-three week old, as dead threads. I go by the last post in the thread, not by one I respond. Life happens.
This makes no grammatical sense. Also, none of those were directions. They're reasons I disagree with your presentations of events.
To prevent you from claiming that I'm using your name to bait you, like you've done in the other thread I cited. I already explained this.
Yeah, but that didn't happen, did it?
If Nana asks Knask a question, Knask can answer it.
Or, instead, someone else can answer it like in literally
any other example.
Instead you saw an opportunity to trash me and jumped at the opportunity, which, again, shows your state of mind. This is similar to you following me into the thread where you baited me, even admitting: Look, I've only seized on this post to have something germane to the voting access conversation this thread...
Why would you say that, if your goal wasn't to enter the thread to bait me?
n.b. that post was after you'd tried to start a fight for the second time about
a post agreeing with you. As I have already explained, I was trying to exit a threadjack. As you alternatively suggested perhaps the goal was to hypocritically stop you from replying by saying doing so would be threadjacking. Neither explanation being, of course, baiting.
Once again, I don't view a two-three week thread as a gravedig
They always used to be. These days mods lock threads for gravedigging for less than two weeks, imo.
As for the accusation, the post was cited.
*lied about
Forsher wrote:And, incidentally, using names in that fashion is passive aggressive and patronising so, like, maybe, just use "they" if you're so concerned about misgendering people. Not that I tend to find much need for a pronoun other than "you" and its variants when talking to people. When I'm talking about people...
Some people might not be comfortable with the pronoun "they" and prefer he/him or she/her. Using names solves all problems.
read: creates an entirely new one because your fundamental misunderstanding of the misgendering rule causes you to believe that rather than showing the slightest respect for the humanity of your fellow posters, it's better to robotically refer to them by their name when you talk to them. You know, something that a well known sitcom literally suggests is just as dehumanising as not calling people by their name at all. I suggest you have absolutely no interest in understanding the meanest thing about people on this site but a great deal of interest in talking about them to third parties, thus necessitating an alternative to the third person pronouns you refuse to learn.
Frankly, I rather prefer the explanation where you are trying to needle people. At least that suggests you have some concern for fellow forumites on a personal level.
You've only made that post after I gave you something that you could report to moderation. Anyone can come up with an excuse.
Well, yes, I could only reply to your flamebaiting me to comment on how you flamebaited me after you decided to do so. Before you decided to flamebait me, this was not a possible endeavour.
Of course, the point is that you were trying to use that post to prove I didn't consider what I reported to be a personal attack, when I specifically called the comment a personal attack.
And now you're flaming in moderation. You're allowed to say "this is lying" but saying "my opponent is a liar" is the very definition of flaming. Speaking of lying, you claim that my bait, which was a sole and direct answer to your bait, was "utterly unprompted" even though it would not have existed without your bait. Calling it "utterly unprompted" is a bold faced lie.
Except saying something isn't an ad hominem isn't flamebaiting. At all.
Also, if calling someone a liar is inherently flaming, how is saying someone is lying not inherently flamebaiting? This is probably rules lawyering but that's exactly my point.
And I can easily find posters who called you out, if anyone's been long enough on NSG and engaged in heated political debate, they're going to be in heated exchanges with at least four posters, if not more. That's just common sense.
The difference is that you don't see me reporting Tarsonis, CTOAN, Nilokeras, yourself or, was it, Picairn? who cares, not getting a response and then following up on it. You and Tarsonis did get reported, of course, but that was unrelated.
You changed it after you had the ammunition to get me warned. That's like me coming up to two guys having a heated exchange in a bar and saying "hey, he slept with your wife" waiting for the fists to start flying, and then saying "changed my mind, wrong wife, wrong guy, sorry!"
The fuck is that analogy. What happened is more like if you said to one of the men, "Actually, that wasn't an ad hominem". You know, because that's what happened.
No, this is not at all the same. Because, you know, I changed my mind about it being an ad hominem, not about its being a personal attack. The whole point was that it was a personal attack not an ad hominem. But then it turned out Wikipedia says personal attacks are ad hominems (well, in the body of the article). Which, you know, you could've referred me to, but instead you decided to flamebait me.
Forsher wrote:And, by the way, Shofercia, this report had fuck all to do with you.
You reported me in the OP, I was warned as a result, over a post that wouldn't exist without your bait, and now you have the gall to say that it has nothing to do with me?!
It's not personal. There is nothing personal about reporting people for breaking rules.
I report me all the time. Including for what I think is flamebaiting. Sometimes it's for things I think might be against the rules. Other times it's like the liar thing above.. it's entirely deliberate.
The only lies I'm seeing in this thread is you claiming that you baiting me and then reporting me has "fuck all" to do with me, you claiming that my direct response to you, which wouldn't have existed had you not taken advantage of a heated political debate, was "utterly unprompted" and you calling a fellow poster, a liar.
Once again, saying something isn't an ad hominem
isn't flamebaiting. This entire time you've failed to articulate any mechanism by which it baited you. How it was, in any way, provocative. You've spent rather a lot of time trying to claim that it must've been some cunning trap because I was trying to exact revenge on you after you wrote a series of mind bogglingly stupid and absurdly arrogant posts (which you have repeatedly described here as "destroying" me) in a different thread. People who are confident in their position and think they are winning debates very rarely have to tell people they are winning a debate, let alone seek out opportunities to tell people in other threads that they're winning. I'd go as far to say they never do so. You see, I simply
don't believe you actually think you win debates on this forum... there are just too many lies, too many misrepresentations, too many instances where you go out of your way to avoid talking about the ostensible subject.
The hilarious thing is that I did say something that might actually be flamebaiting. I've even pointed it out in this thread. You don't care about it at all, however. The difference? You
didn't respond to that by flamebaiting anyone.
As for why it took me a month to respond in moderation. I left for a month due to RL issues. When I came back, I checked up on moderation, to see if there are any new rulings and rules that should be followed, and then I found this thread, so I asked for a ruling.
You ask for people to treat you as a human being in the same breath you refuse to learn pronouns. You disgust me.
That is personal.