Should someone be banned from the boards?

That first one was two years ago. Must have dug really deep to find that dirt.

Notice how these conversations didn't last very long probably because nobody felt they had been provoked enough to continue with a topic that wasn't that important anyways.

That first one was two years ago. Must have dug really deep to find that dirt.

I didn't "dig deep" at all. If you had remembered, I've been here since the very beginning and seen everything. Some of us can actually remember posts from a year or two ago. I just regret I read It a week too late to save that newbie.

Anyway, Nelson Cruz signed with the Mariners, and more trades are sure to come. I look forward to seeing what you have to say about baseball on the Hot Stove thread.

What is the statute of limitations on a post?

Personally I think if you are going back more than a couple weeks you are probably pulling quotes out of context to mislead. Or you are just trying to pick a fight. If you are going back a year or two who knows. You might be pulling a post that was made when a person was having a bad day or they posted something having misinterpreted what someone else had said. Or maybe they have just changed their mind on the subject. If someone wants to be argumentative enough to go back 2 years or whatever nothing you can do to stop them. My reaction is just to ignore people once I realize they are just wanting to pick a fight. That is a no win scenario.

As a general rule I only bother with what has been said within a specific thread and maybe even then sometimes just the last post or two someone has made. In other words I attempt to engage in conversations, not background checks. Conversations are usually interesting. Background checks should be left to the police. Of course there are a few individuals who have appointed themselves as policemen of the boards. Fortunately the forums have a feature for handling those.

I agree with what this person wrote:

Past posts can tell us:
1. How a poster has posted towards other people. This tells us what a poster is capable of posting to other posters. That's vital information.
...
3. What a poster has posted in the past. This allows us to address their inconsistencies and hypocrisy in discussions.

In fact, in September, I offered a post that showed how he responded in a single topic:

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=636512&start=60#p5498169

And how he tried to claim he might not have really said those things:

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=636512&start=70

Chutzpah = Lecturing others on board etiquette in the very thread that was created to get you banned!

And before he accuses me of being "creepy" for following him around or having some kind of obsession, I assure you that I normally have him on ignore. However, I couldn't resist seeing what he had to say on this thread. And while he can cite examples of worse posts made by others, they don't excuse his pattern of putdowns*, denials**, and name calling***.

If the community can assure me that he's cleaned up his act, I'd be happy to take him off my foe list and congratulate him for listening to all the community feedback that was directed toward him.

*e.g., "You know I don't respect you or think you're very bright..."
**e.g., "Coyote, those are all quotes that may or may not have come from my posts." (I'd love it if he says he didn't actually deny he said those things; it would be just another example!)
***e.g., "underdeveloped adolescent"

In fact, in September, I offered a post that showed how he responded in a single topic:
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=636512&start=60#p5498169
And how he tried to claim he might not have really said those things:
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=636512&start=70

Coyote, you're just adorable. Valen makes his post ridiculously condemning referring to posts two weeks old, and then you post two from September. According to him, you're just picking a fight:

Personally I think if you are going back more than a couple weeks you are probably pulling quotes out of context to mislead. Or you are just trying to pick a fight.

Now Valen's time limit on posts (and related points) is ridiculous. So, I have nothing against you for re-posting posts from two months ago. All posts are fair game. However, as we see from your posts, you didn't re-post any of my posts. You just cherry-picked various quotes that may have come from them. Until you do, those quotations are definitely out of context, possibly not mine, and pointless.

Chutzpah = Lecturing others on board etiquette in the very thread that was created to get you banned!

I'm part Jewish, Coy, so I appreciate the chutzpah usage. However, whoever started this "banning" thread didn't have the guts to identify who was to be banned, including me. So, it's too late to legitimately claim it's me now. I also wasn't lecturing on etiquette. I was commenting on it, and I can confidently say you need to work on yours.

And before he accuses me of being "creepy" for following him around or having some kind of obsession, I assure you that I normally have him on ignore. However, I couldn't resist seeing what he had to say on this thread. And while he can cite examples of worse posts made by others, they don't excuse his pattern of putdowns*, denials**, and name calling***.

So, you have me on ignore, but you "can't resist what I had to say on this thread." That is obsessive, laughable, and ridiculous all at once. That's quite a trifecta... . As to my "pattern" you allege: no posts make it just that, a lame allegation.

If the community can assure me that he's cleaned up his act, I'd be happy to take him off my foe list and congratulate him for listening to all the community feedback that was directed toward him.

That's very sweet of you. However, nobody had the guts or character to direct any constructive feedback towards me, including you. So, you'll just have to take your chances. As to those quotes I may have said. They clearly hurt your feelings and still haunt you. I truly hope you get over them.

Finally, I showed everyone on this thread how Valen shamelessly lied about me and revealed much about his "character." I will now show how you did the same. After Turtle speculated I was the topic of the forum, you directly responded with this:

However, that being said, I might do exactly that (use foe option). While sometimes this person's posts have been laugh out loud funny (bashing someone because there are better 18th century poets than the one he quoted?!)

That was a blatant lie, since I never "bashed" (severely criticized) anyone about 18t c. poets. This was my post on 18th c. poets that lightly (and cogently) critiqued, not bashed, the poster:

Robert Burns, Mesquiton, really? If you're going to quote a poet of that era, make it an excellent one like Byron, Shelley, or Blake. You can really critique somebody with their complex works, whomever you are critiquing.

I'll tell you what Chutzpah is, it's whining about the behavior of another poster, before taking his quotes out of context and actually lying about him on a public forum as you did. That makes your fallacious sanctimony in your post above truly absurd.

I can't speak for the op or anyone else but I try to avoid calling out specific individuals. On some sites that is against TOS.

Hopefully, nobody will find a past thread where I called someone out.

Let's take a look at my last post and compare it someone else's last post:

Mine:

I agreed with the poster that past posts are relevant. I offered a link that showed a pattern of putdowns and name calling. I offered another link that showed his denial. And then I suggested he had nerve lecturing others about board etiquette. He had posted how past posts can show hypocrisy. Again, since I agreed with him, I did just that.

Anticipating a tactic he has used on more than one occasion when someone confronted his bad behavior, I explained that I "don't follow him around." (He still used the tactic anyway, but I'm getting ahead of myself.) I also mentioned that because someone is worse, it doesn't excuse bad behavior, which is merely stating the obvious.

I offered the olive branch if the community could tell me he cleaned up his act. And finally I closed with some footnotes citing some examples backing up a statement I said.

In conclusion, I did make one judgmental statement when I "defined" chutzpah; however, I believe the rest of my post backs up that conclusion.

His:

There are over a dozen putdowns, condescending remarks, and personal attacks--some fairly tame (e.g., "you're so adorable") to not-so-tame (e.g., "[you're] lying"). Most of them are directed toward me, but he takes shots at others as well.

He denies this banning thread was originally about him. (It's "too late" is his argument it's not him?) However, I will concede he has a right to believe that.

He makes a poor argument that my quoting of his bad remarks doesn't count because I didn't quote his entire posts (for one thing, 14 of his posts would not fit!) and they were out of context. However, nothing I quoted would be in the least bit mitigated if they were read in full context.

He even suggests that he may not have written the things I quoted (i.e., more denial) even though they were cut and pasted directly from his posts and the original posts are still out there. Can he at least admit he said the things I quoted? Apparently, with his pattern of denial, the answer is no.

And finally he twisted something I said to conclude that I'm a liar. I said he bashed someone for his choice of poet. He said he hadn't but was kind enough to quote himself: "Robert Burns, Mesquiton, really?..." This is condescending, so I stand by my statement. But as is often the case with someone who uses his tactics, there is a shred of truth to what he says. In other words, does his condescending remark merit the word "bash"? Maybe, maybe not. However, I hardly think it makes me a liar.

Conclusion:

Any careful reader will see why I have refused to debate this person since our initial debate. (Someone will claim it's because he's such a great debater and he has hurt my feelings.) As Dale Carnegie once wrote, there are certain people you are best to avoid.* So, why did I jump into this thread? Now that is a question I have no good answer to!

*Carnegie had a much more eloquent way of putting it, but I'm afraid it would come across as a personal attack.

Yes, let's look at your misinterpretations of both posts, Coy, as well as your terrible pattern of denial.

Yours:
1. You didn't post past posts to prove anything; you posted a collection of random quotes that may have been mine and prove (or show) nothing.

2. The only thing you "anticipated" was your revealing your obsession with me and my posts. Your revealed it when you said, "I normally have him on ignore. However, I couldn't resist seeing what he had to say on this thread." That clearly revealed your obsession; so, I used no "tactic" on you.

3. You offered no "olive branch" to me; an olive branch has to be offered directly. You didn't have the class to do that. Also, the only thing you proved about "Chutzpah" is you have a lot of it. And you really need to look-up "footnotes.'' Random quotations (with symbols) that can come from anywhere or anyone don't qualify.

Mine:
1. There were no "putdowns, condescending remarks, or personal attacks." You are clearly too sensitive, and your considering the sarcastic "adorable" a putdown proves it. I also took no "shots." i showed very clearly how you lied about me as I showed Valen did earlier in the thread. Those aren't "shots;" they're facts.

2. I also never "denied" nor accepted the banning thread was about me. You really do--don't get sensitive now--have to read better. I correctly said "whoever started this "banning" thread didn't have the guts to identify who was to be banned, including me. So, it's too late to legitimately claim it's me now." And I was right.

3. As to my quotes and posts, the only one who makes a poor argument is you. Some have mistakenly complained about using entire posts because they could be taken out of context. So, we definitely can't allow just quotations already taken out of context from the posts themselves. So, until you provide my actual posts, those quotes prove nothing, and nobody (including me) can know if they are mine.

4. Finally, "bash" means "severely criticize." In no way can the incredulous use of "really?" constitute severe criticism. So, you absolutely lied about me when you said I "bashed" that poster. Your sad denial of that fact shows how deep your pattern of denial is.

Conclusion:
What you expect "any careful reader' to see just further confirms that pattern, just as your other "points" confirmed your hypersensitivity and poor grasp of logic. Even worse, you expect them to see past your blatant lie, which was shameful.

Now, here's an actual olive branch. I suggest you move on with your life, Coy, and try to actually "resist" following me around. I'm sure that would be best for you, me, and the rest of the forum.

You are clearly too sensitive,...

...don't get sensitive now...

"If you've heard, 'You're Too Sensitive' you've heard verbal abuse." --author Patricia Evans

http://www.verbalabuse.com/page3/page3.html

Fortunately, the verbal abuse in this case is easily avoided and has no impact on my life. However, if anyone is in a real life relationship where they have been accused of "being too sensitive" or told "I didn't say that" (when you know they did) or get called names or put down or have things they said badly twisted, you may be a victim of verbal abuse.

The reason I say this is that you--or someone you know--may not realize you/they are in such a relationship. Many years ago, I had a friend loan me her Patricia Evans book The Verbally Abusive Relationship, and it probably saved my life.

Fortunately, the discourse on this forum is (thankfully) not a relationship, so I will accept someone's "olive branch" and move on. However, I urge everyone to become aware of exactly what verbal abuse is (and how it is so often disguised) so you will never fall victim to it when it matters. At the very least, read the linked page. Thank you for reading this far.

If the light bulb goes off for just one person out there, then this discussion has been worthwhile.

"If you've heard, 'You're Too Sensitive' you've heard verbal abuse." --author Patricia Evans

If that's your response to my last post, and you want to buy into that flawed logic, knock yourself out.

I truly hope you get over feeling "abused," and I'm glad you're moving on.