“Truth? You can't handle the truth!”

[The Legendary Shark]

Polite skeptisism is all well and good, hell I know we need more of it, but if your spouting paranoid fantasy that sounds like it's ripped straight out of an Orson Scott Card novel as well as being incredibly rude and aggressive towards fellow firumites themselves, then expect a retaliation if the aging goth northerner variety.

We all make mistakes when we first fetch up here. Hell, I made loads (and still do, from time to time).

Apoceclipse; Posts - 21
Jim_Campbell; Posts - 11003

Which one should know better?

[Jim_Campbell]

Apoceclipse; Posts - 21
Jim_Campbell; Posts - 11003

Which one should know better?

If you're killfiling people after 19 posts, I'd respectfully submit that you're Doing It Wrong.

[Hawkmumbler]

Polite skeptisism is all well and good, hell I know we need more of it, but if your spouting paranoid fantasy that sounds like it's ripped straight out of an Orson Scott Card novel as well as being incredibly rude and aggressive towards fellow firumites themselves, then expect a retaliation if the aging goth northerner variety.

We all make mistakes when we first fetch up here. Hell, I made loads (and still do, from time to time).

Apoceclipse; Posts - 21
Jim_Campbell; Posts - 11003

Which one should know better?

Pressuming both are responsible, reasonable adults then thats utterly redundant. Posts count =/= sensability. Thats a straw man argument.

[Grugz]

I

Harvest's due, Shark.

I don't doubt it.

I'm just fed up with Jim steaming in simply to call people names and then flounce off like some spoilt five year old in the playground.

It adds nothing to the conversation except ill-will and, honestly, what's the point?

Apoceclipse has posted in exactly the correct thread for this kind of thing and if Jim doesn't believe it he should either make a case or shut up, to be frank. "Nyaa-nyaa-nya-nyaa-na" is neither helpful nor worthy.

Tordels contributes to the conversation in the perfect way, showing skepticism without hostility and offering advice to boot.

I myself am ambivalent about the topic under discussion. Whilst several high profile assassins have claimed not to have been in control of their actions it does seem hard to believe that governments would condone such practices. It conjours up images of the whole senate/parliament discussing whether or not to send out mind-controlled assassins to do their bidding, which is clearly ludicrous - such a debate would appear in Hansard after all. Rogue elements of the security services, working in compartmentalised secrecy without the direct knowledge or consent of governments seems more plausible and there is precedent in such things as Operation Gladio.

The facts that operations like MKUltra have been well documented and researched and that children go missing on a worryingly regular basis also add fuel to the fire. Yet all these facts may or may not be linked as causality does not prove causation. Like most people, I suspect, I don't want to believe this kind of thing could be going on but what I do or do not want to believe is irrelevant.

If Apoceclipse wants to research and talk about these things, especially on this thread, then he should be allowed to do so without having to suffer childish Jimisms.

well said sir.

[The Legendary Shark]

If you're killfiling people after 19 posts, I'd respectfully submit that you're Doing It Wrong.

Welcome to my 'ignore' list.

Guess doing it wrong works only one way, huh?

Pressuming both are responsible, reasonable adults then thats utterly redundant. Posts count =/= sensability. Thats a straw man argument.

Many forums on the net are way more insulting than this one. This forum has its own ways (like all others) and is an overwhelmingly friendly place. Jim's number of posts indicates that he should know this by now, Apoceclipse's small count indicates that he has yet to get into the swing of this particular interweb nook. The straw man argument is yours as it takes what I said and adds presumptions of responsibility and reasonableness, which you then attack. That's the textbook definition of a straw man argument.

[TordelBack]

All that said, Sharky, Jim knows what sets his black blood simmering by now, so pre-emptive kill-filing is a sensible reaction. He knows and we know that Apoceclipse's (really like that name) style of post  is going to drive him batty, best not to even start. He can always change his mind later. Or not.

[Hawkmumbler]

If presuming a fully grown adult is both reasonable and responsible for there actions is a straw man then i'm worried for how many reactionaries can get away with being dicks because no one expects them to act in a reasonable fashion.

[sheridan]

Personally I feel it's one thing to killfile somebody (not something I've ever done), but another to publicly announce it.

[TordelBack]

Personally I feel it's one thing to killfile somebody (not something I've ever done), but another to publicly announce it.

It is, of course, a different thing. But I don't see a problem with Jim registering his disapproval publicly either, if he choose to do so.

[The Legendary Shark]

Tordels - you're the voice of reason, as always. If I was Captain Kirk (ha ha, yeah right, as if!), I'd want you as my Spock.

Hawkie, people need to be given time to learn, I feel. Apoceclipse (yeah, great name) deserves that chance - as do we all. Even Jim.

Sheridan, I agree - but this was worse. Jim publicly called Apoceclipse names and then killfiled him, which I think is unacceptable in civilized company. You don't like someone's attitude or message, fair enough; either pull them up and explain yourself or butt out. What Jim did was the virtual equivalent of punching someone in the face then running off.

[Definitely Not Mister Pops]

Who said that?

/obligatorycliche

[Jim_Campbell]

Personally I feel it's one thing to killfile somebody (not something I've ever done), but another to publicly announce it.

You noticed I did that in response to Apoceclipse publicly announcing that he killfiled someone, right? I await your condemnation of his breach of netiquette, although my copy of the 'rules' must be out of date, because I've always thought the reverse was true, since it prevents the other party becoming frustrated with the lack of response, should they address posts to someone who has them on 'ignore'.

[The Legendary Shark]

So, you called him a "Grade-A nutcase and a colossal arse" before killfiling him to be polite?

Oh, puh-lease.

[M.I.K.]

What Jim did was the virtual equivalent of punching someone in the face then running off.

Perhaps it's because I'm Scottish, and thus more desensitised to instances of verbal aggression, but I think that's overstating the metaphorical violence levels by quite a degree.

[Jim_Campbell]

So, you called him a "Grade-A nutcase and a colossal arse" before killfiling him to be polite?

No. The insult was a different thing. Sheridan pulled me up on the right/wrongness of telling someone you've killfiled them, whilst failing to chastise Apoceclipse for the exact same thing.

I'm not sure how many forum members have been practically libelled on here, or how many have been harassed in personal messages and threatened with physical violence, but I've been subjected to both those things in the past. No one on the 'friendliest place on the internet' had my back on either of those occasions but, apparently, it's much worse to be mildly irritated with someone who announces that they're killfiling people after only 19 posts on the forum.