No, the resignations are not normal. Yes, I know. I was being diplomatic and presenting the other side of the argument. Trying to make my point without offending those on the other side of the argument.
It's how I get down (sometime).
To me, it's abundantly clear re: resignations and indictments. Without question. I agree with your position 188%
But we don't have to have animosity toward each other in making out points. I hated to see you and Cboldt going at it. I quite enjoyed the intellectual repartee and information exchange, but the anger and animosity bothered me. I hope you two can mend your fences. We need both your big brains around here. Remember. Q also said,
Stay UNITED!
Bagster
> “ I hated to see you and ****** going at it.”
Well here’s a long explanation so that you might learn not to let yourself get wrapped up in superfluous, extraneous matters (IMO):
****** came at me saying the oaths of FBI personnel were not important, that oaths are hollow. He/She did not understand the legal basis and liability that an oath transfers and bonds to the oath taker.
I responded civilly through three responses to his assertions, each response with educational value to other viewers, until he/she went and found a case that he/she thought would prove me wrong (the Cramer case) and left a link but with an attitude that I am some sort of boob. But ****** failed. Why did he/she feel the need to take that approach?
I looked at the Cramer case at the link posted and immediately saw that Cramer was naturalized and immediately suspected that ****** did not know that Naturalized Citizens must take oaths of allegiance. So I responded pointing this out and leaving a link to the oath of allegiance required by Naturalized Citizens to take. But I decided to be strict with ****** because although he/she can bring good information on many issues, in this, ******’s information was misapplied, with a conclusion that was false, and the only reason he/she did this is due to his/her ego. That kind of behavior needs a smackdown. So I blasted *** and later apologized. Having a big ego is Ok (sufferable) if the communication is useful, having a big ego that spreads false info is not Ok.
If I did the same, letting my ego get in the way, I would expect and deserve to be smacked down. But one will never see me put my ego before bringing true and sufficiently complete information. If I don’t know something, I say I don’t know. I try to bring information that is complementary and educational. The only time I tout my background and credentials is when someone posts to me in a tone as if I am some boob that fell off the turnip truck. But even then, before I reveal my background, I gently ask questions or make statements that hopefully will make the poser’s wayward ego back down or adjust. I really am uninterested in engaging in a clash of egos unless it’s absolutely necessary and has an educational effect.
Certain posters need a smackdown IMO. There are those that let their egos get in the way of information flow. They end up bullying others unless they get some pushback. Others are welcome to push back against me if they don’t like my style but they better be ready to take return fire because 99.999% of the time I make factual statements and 90%+ of my inferences are accurate. That’s a result of my training. And when I am wrong I quickly announce it and make corrections.
I don’t care if someone brags about their life’s achievements. I don’t have to listen to it if I choose not to. There’s one Q decoder with a YT channel that is excellent but occasionally will start sermonizing and I am like “STOP IT! GET BACK TO THE INFORMATION!”. It’s all about faithful information exchange. If someone is unpopular personally but executes useful and accurate information, I will ignore their personal attri8butes and just absorb and distill the information content. Rush Limbaugh comes off to many new listeners as an obnoxious pr*ck, but I tell them “Listen for the content, the information, not to the personality!”.
The takeaway for people trying to learn from this is that it is important to always approach another person civilly, with respect, and with humility. That approach is very difficult whe confronted with people whose egos take over and decide to attack others using false pretexts, especially if such false info is a result of ignorance. Such people need a dressing down and rap on the knuckles. Those that are aware they are using false info, they are lost. I don’t give them the time of day.
That said, it’s Ok to have a big ego if the information is useful and truthful. God knows I have suffered difficult people but still managed to get a lot out of what they had to say. It’s better to have a humble spirit and be a purveyor of useful, accurate information. But often such humble persons are run over by others. Not so with me. I fight back. But with humble respectful people, I act civilly and strive for humility. I adjust my attitude to the person I am addressing.
Hopefully, this will help new viewers understand how they can participate in forum discussions without fearing to get blasted. Just be humble!
Just today I had a poster respond to a post I made telling me that Trump’s SCOTUS pick was a sure thing because there were “54 GOP Senators”.
So how did I respond?
Did I respond by saying:
“Why you nincompoop, dimwit, half-brained pissant, a few French fries short of a Happy Meal! Do you know you are engaging with? Me? God’s greatest gift to this forum?”
No, I didn’t even think that, not even an iota of it. I responded:
“The Senate has 51 GOP Senators.”
Maybe that response appears to some as smug and snobbish, I don’t care much. It’s a true statement, at least as true as I can transmit it.