wagglebee: Your response is insulting to my intelligence at best.
I wouldn't have thought that possible.
This thread has been going all week, yet you didn't post on it until it had well over 10,000 posts. And your first post happens to be in defense of another Darwin Central member who was banned for his repeated harrassment of T'wit.
Is there some new rule about not posting to a thread of "well over 10,000 posts" unless you'd posted before? What's the magic cut-off number? In case anyone needs to know.
But, to give you the benefit of the doubt, why did you stumble onto this thread? And did you read through the 10,000+ other posts before you found the first one you wanted to respond to?
It's hard to miss.
I've been lurking for days. I didn't feel the need to respond until T'wit's post. Here's why: I thought the post was low, even by current standards. RadioAstronomer isn't here to defend himself anymore. In addition, not that you need to know this (or have any right to), when I lost my job in 2003, RA went out of his way to be encouraging, helpful, and extend the warm hand of friendship. He was a friend when I really needed one, and he is a friend today. If that offends you (singular or plural), you are deserving of the contempt any sentient being would feel. (Not that it's likely to impress anyone, but that sentence was in the conditional).
RadioAstronomer made a gesture towards me I will never forget. He is my friend.
Go ahead and sneer.
“There was a time when I proudly told people I was a FReeper and invited like-minded individuals to this site.
That time is now past.”
Well isnt that special. You evolved above us, we are not worthy to have you here.
Then, I retract my previous assertion that you did this at RA's behest. Obviously, you feel some animosity toward T'wit for his role in having RA banned (plus his recent suspension); if you had just said that in the first place, I never would have made my initial post to you.
I liked Radio Astronomer, too.
I liked King Prout, Peach and several other of those who left or threw themselves upon the thorns of life. I’m sorry their viewpoints are such as they really don’t fit in any more.
I am extra sad they didn’t have the graciousness, some of them, to stop trying to make a privately owned place fit their views instead of the mission statement of the owner.
But this is life. Jim says “We believe in Pro-life, pro-guns, pro-God, fiscal responsibility, fighting against the creeping socialism in our nation, against the gay agenda and pc views of what we should be.” People who have decided that a person who matches that description in most ways of what Jim is fighting against is someone they need to pound down people’s throats, and to do it, they badmouth various people, refuse to take no for an answer and get upset when told they aren’t welcome.
Their goals and agenda’s aren’t Jim’s. But this place is a place for those whose goals and agendas DO match with Jim’s. If they find themselves unwelcome, it’s because they have overstepped his hospitality.
That's because he was thrown out for bad behavior.