For Twid

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Also, RE: the you and Nigel thing, as I had said I had only latched on to the idea that you were treating him unfairly. That's not a default position of guilt, it was in regards to him. I believe I expressed that in my response.

THEN WHAT THE FUCK IS IT?

Something that I felt only applied in this situation. It's not a thing where it's a born guilty thing.

Also, I'm not exactly sure what's up with the cassowary thing either.

It is essential that people be belittled during these sorts of things, you see.  It makes things all better.

The point is, the idea that Nigel & I - or anyone else - is guilty until proven innocent/at fault until you study the situation, is offensive as hell.  It says that we aren't actually people.  Less than 1st class citizens.

Doesn't matter who the fuck is doing it.

It's the real reason I hate Coyote's stinking fucking guts.  It's the reason I hate Captain Utopia, Lumberjim, the fuckwad over at FG, Khara, and that shitsack Charley.  I DO consider them all the same, because the behavior they have presented is all the fucking same:

1.  Get drunk.
2.  Screech incoherently about what a shit I am/Nigel is/both.
3.  Flounce.  Sort of.
4.  Come back and do it some more.
5.  Repeat steps 3 & 4 until liver failure ensues.

You haven't done this, by the way.  But it's pretty much a major slam when someone else does, and the automatic assumption is that I'm at fault unless I can prove that I am not at fault.  Then it's a major chore to look at the horrible fucking alcoholic punk that DID start the shit.

You know, the "solid dude".  The fucked up, wet-brained drunken shitbag that "always knew I was a shithead".

Fuck him.  In the heart.

Makes sense.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Also, RE: the you and Nigel thing, as I had said I had only latched on to the idea that you were treating him unfairly. That's not a default position of guilt, it was in regards to him. I believe I expressed that in my response.

THEN WHAT THE FUCK IS IT?

Something that I felt only applied in this situation. It's not a thing where it's a born guilty thing.

You didn't know what was going on, but "we" were being unfair.  NIGEL HADN'T EVEN SAID ANYTHING.  We were guilty when you didn't even know what had happened.  How is this different from what the fuck I've been talking about?

"I only mugged one old lady, your honor.  It's not like I made a habit of it."

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Also, RE: the you and Nigel thing, as I had said I had only latched on to the idea that you were treating him unfairly. That's not a default position of guilt, it was in regards to him. I believe I expressed that in my response.

THEN WHAT THE FUCK IS IT?

Something that I felt only applied in this situation. It's not a thing where it's a born guilty thing.

You didn't know what was going on, but "we" were being unfair.  NIGEL HADN'T EVEN SAID ANYTHING.  We were guilty when you didn't even know what had happened.  How is this different from what the fuck I've been talking about?

"I only mugged one old lady, your honor.  It's not like I made a habit of it."

In other words, I felt you were treating all the angry atheists unfairly by suggesting that they were sexist. That idea  gets attached specifically to Coyote because people like Hoopla and Vex stop being angry. Coyote's still angry. Thought of Coyote being treated unfairly persists whenever he's brought up. It's shown that his posts were pretty hostile at the time. I want to figure out why I'm getting mad about it so I know what to apologize for. I apologize for getting mad at you and Nigel for having legitimate reasons to be mad at him.

Sorry, you're right, it's just me looking at the idea of a pattern differently. I thought something else was being referred to. IT was a pattern in relation to Coyote, yes. Not a pattern in relation to every other board blow out, which is what the word pattern suggested to me.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

In other words, I felt you were treating all the angry atheists unfairly by suggesting that they were sexist.

The thread in question called off two varieties of atheists.  "Atheists" and "atheists".  A clear distinction was made.  Now, if you are claiming that there is no problem with misogyny in the Atheist community, I will be more than happy to demonstrate otherwise.

That idea  gets attached specifically to Coyote because people like Hoopla and Vex stop being angry. Coyote's still angry.

So, wait.  My motives are determined by whether or not a drunken fucktard stays mad?  REALLY?

Thought of Coyote being treated unfairly persists whenever he's brought up.

DONE HERE.

It's shown that his posts were pretty hostile at the time. I want to figure out why I'm getting mad about it so I know what to apologize for. I apologize for getting mad at you and Nigel for having legitimate reasons to be mad at him.

Sorry, you're right, it's just me looking at the idea of a pattern differently. I thought something else was being referred to. IT was a pattern in relation to Coyote, yes. Not a pattern in relation to every other board blow out, which is what the word pattern suggested to me.

No text.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

In other words, I felt you were treating all the angry atheists unfairly by suggesting that they were sexist.

The thread in question called off two varieties of atheists.  "Atheists" and "atheists".  A clear distinction was made.  Now, if you are claiming that there is no problem with misogyny in the Atheist community, I will be more than happy to demonstrate otherwise.

That idea  gets attached specifically to Coyote because people like Hoopla and Vex stop being angry. Coyote's still angry.

So, wait.  My motives are determined by whether or not a drunken fucktard stays mad?  REALLY?

Thought of Coyote being treated unfairly persists whenever he's brought up.

DONE HERE.

It's shown that his posts were pretty hostile at the time. I want to figure out why I'm getting mad about it so I know what to apologize for. I apologize for getting mad at you and Nigel for having legitimate reasons to be mad at him.

Sorry, you're right, it's just me looking at the idea of a pattern differently. I thought something else was being referred to. IT was a pattern in relation to Coyote, yes. Not a pattern in relation to every other board blow out, which is what the word pattern suggested to me.

No text.

No. Ugh. Dude, I'm having a lot of trouble organizing my thoughts. I'm having trouble understanding what is being said. Give me a moment.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

In other words, I felt you were treating all the angry atheists unfairly by suggesting that they were sexist.

The thread in question called off two varieties of atheists.  "Atheists" and "atheists".  A clear distinction was made.  Now, if you are claiming that there is no problem with misogyny in the Atheist community, I will be more than happy to demonstrate otherwise.

The atheists in question that I'm referring to here were the ones in the thread, not the larger community of Atheists who do have a problem with misogyny. What I'm talking about here was the implication that Nigel wasn't being listened to because she was a woman.

That idea  gets attached specifically to Coyote because people like Hoopla and Vex stop being angry. Coyote's still angry.

So, wait.  My motives are determined by whether or not a drunken fucktard stays mad?  REALLY?

[/quote]

It was not apparent to me that he was drunk when he was posting that. Indeed, seeing them out of context, and then putting them back into context show how unreasonable his statements were.

Thought of Coyote being treated unfairly persists whenever he's brought up.

DONE HERE.

Why? I admitted I was incorrect.

It's shown that his posts were pretty hostile at the time. I want to figure out why I'm getting mad about it so I know what to apologize for. I apologize for getting mad at you and Nigel for having legitimate reasons to be mad at him.

Sorry, you're right, it's just me looking at the idea of a pattern differently. I thought something else was being referred to. IT was a pattern in relation to Coyote, yes. Not a pattern in relation to every other board blow out, which is what the word pattern suggested to me.

No text.

[/quote]

Yeah, I figured that it was more or less a mistake to try and handle this right now, but I really didn't want to put it off any further.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Thought of Coyote being treated unfairly persists whenever he's brought up.

DONE HERE.

Why? I admitted I was incorrect.

Read the sentence you wrote again.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

That idea  gets attached specifically to Coyote because people like Hoopla and Vex stop being angry. Coyote's still angry.

So, wait.  My motives are determined by whether or not a drunken fucktard stays mad?  REALLY?

Why would your motives be determined by whether or not Coyote stays mad, since he more or less flounced afterward? I'm talking about the misogyny thing. What am I missing?

Thought of Coyote being treated unfairly persists whenever he's brought up.

DONE HERE.

I'm pretty sure a huge part of this shitstorm was my sentiment that I don't like what went down with Coyote.

It's shown that his posts were pretty hostile at the time. I want to figure out why I'm getting mad about it so I know what to apologize for. I apologize for getting mad at you and Nigel for having legitimate reasons to be mad at him.

Sorry, you're right, it's just me looking at the idea of a pattern differently. I thought something else was being referred to. IT was a pattern in relation to Coyote, yes. Not a pattern in relation to every other board blow out, which is what the word pattern suggested to me.

No text.
[/quote]

If the posts are shown to be hostile on a second showing, shouldn't I take another closer look at them in context to see why I didn't see them as that hostile while it was all happening and where I started operating on bad signal?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

If the posts are shown to be hostile on a second showing, shouldn't I take another closer look at them in context to see why I didn't see them as that hostile while it was all happening and where I started operating on bad signal?

From Roger's Ironclad Rules for Thinking for Yourself:

"It is dangerous to operate on incomplete information unless you are on fire."

[Nephew Twiddleton]

If the posts are shown to be hostile on a second showing, shouldn't I take another closer look at them in context to see why I didn't see them as that hostile while it was all happening and where I started operating on bad signal?

From Roger's Ironclad Rules for Thinking for Yourself:

"It is dangerous to operate on incomplete information unless you are on fire."

Indeed.

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

It was not apparent to me that he was drunk when he was posting that. Indeed, seeing them out of context, and then putting them back into context show how unreasonable his statements were.

Fuck this place.
I don't even remember if spine out against peny being an edgy ass for the billionth time in a way pissed Nigel off.

so fuck you and Nigel

[Nephew Twiddleton]

It was not apparent to me that he was drunk when he was posting that. Indeed, seeing them out of context, and then putting them back into context show how unreasonable his statements were.

Fuck this place.
I don't even remember if spine out against peny being an edgy ass for the billionth time in a way pissed Nigel off.

so fuck you and Nigel

Phone. I have the same problems. Though rereading that, I still have no idea what it means.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Also, RE: the you and Nigel thing, as I had said I had only latched on to the idea that you were treating him unfairly. That's not a default position of guilt, it was in regards to him. I believe I expressed that in my response.

Does this somehow make sense to you? You latched onto the idea that we were treating him unfairly, yet somehow that isn't a default position of guilt? 

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Also, I'm not exactly sure what's up with the cassowary thing either.

It is essential that people be belittled during these sorts of things, you see.  It makes things all better.

The point is, the idea that Nigel & I - or anyone else - is guilty until proven innocent/at fault until you study the situation, is offensive as hell.  It says that we aren't actually people.  Less than 1st class citizens.

Doesn't matter who the fuck is doing it.

It's the real reason I hate Coyote's stinking fucking guts.  It's the reason I hate Captain Utopia, Lumberjim, the fuckwad over at FG, Khara, and that shitsack Charley.  I DO consider them all the same, because the behavior they have presented is all the fucking same:

1.  Get drunk.
2.  Screech incoherently about what a shit I am/Nigel is/both.
3.  Flounce.  Sort of.
4.  Come back and do it some more.
5.  Repeat steps 3 & 4 until liver failure ensues.

You haven't done this, by the way.  But it's pretty much a major slam when someone else does, and the automatic assumption is that I'm at fault unless I can prove that I am not at fault.  Then it's a major chore to look at the horrible fucking alcoholic punk that DID start the shit.

You know, the "solid dude".  The fucked up, wet-brained drunken shitbag that "always knew I was a shithead".

Fuck him.  In the heart.

Pretty much this.

The thing about drunks is, they don't make any sense, and they aren't really capable of analyzing their own actions and responses because they don't spend enough time outside of the irrational drunk state to be able to do so. I strongly suspect from Coyote's irrational overreactions and lack of coherent follow-through that that's what's going on with him.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Also, RE: the you and Nigel thing, as I had said I had only latched on to the idea that you were treating him unfairly. That's not a default position of guilt, it was in regards to him. I believe I expressed that in my response.

THEN WHAT THE FUCK IS IT?

Something that I felt only applied in this situation. It's not a thing where it's a born guilty thing.

Oh, just "something".

Some vague thing. No real idea, really.

Ok then.