Replies

[AndrewC wrote:] I have asked you several times to keep me out of your discussion.

First, let me say that I'm sorry AndrewC has chosen to involve the moderators and Alamo-Girl by pinging them in his posts #991 and #487. You folks have better things to do than be called by him to fight his feuds for him. I hoped it would blow over after his first ping, but when he repeated it I realized that he's not going to stop. So please bear with me while I describe the full nature of the disagreement, since he has given you his version twice now, and most likely will again -- and it's not the whole story.

Second, I apologize to the participants of this thread, who have had to witness this food fight. Not that there aren't several others going on at the same time, but still...

I'm even sorrier that AndrewC did not accept my offer for us to let bygones be bygones and start fresh:

[My post #482:] "But I'll make you a deal -- unless I've used any other words you'd like to claim I don't understand, let's both sleep on it tonight and then start with a clean slate tomorrow."

Unfortunately, his response was to describe my suggestion of reconciliation as "intolerable", repeat his demand that I "not address him", and ping the moderators.

Incredibly, even though AndrewC had demanded that I "leave him out of my discussions" and obviously expected me to obey (both then and now), did he leave me out of his own discussions? No, he did not. Even while I was gone most of the next day and was not posting, he continued to include me in *his* discussions:

[AndrewC wrote in his post #506:] I'm not stooping to anything. I'm trying to get him to leave me out of his abusive discussions.

And:

[AndrewC wrote in his post #507:] Outmaneuvered me where? He began the same tack he did on the cubic circuit thread. As you can see he again became abusive.
The reason the discussion went down that road, was due to his gratuitous statement --->"If you're going to make an analogy, make sure it's a valid comparison."
That was unnecessary. Left out, the answer would have been---> Of course the erosion process has those three things. The wind never is constant in speed, direction, or the material it contains. The sandstone varies in hardness, composition and age. Selection is done by the cohesiveness of the sandstone when compared to the force of the wind. And there are many, many places that have various configurations of sandstone that are eventually exposed to the wind. Even now some are being built.

Note that not only was he continuing to make accusations against me (while demanding that I in no way respond) he even continued to carry on the conversation I had been having with him, by responding to a point I had made to him earlier in post #468 -- but only after he had tried to shut down my ability to respond to it. When he had the original opportunity to provide a substantive response, he instead chose to ignore the point and simply made an empty inflammatory insult. More on that below.

Here's the third instance of him continuing to "include me in his discussion" after he had demanded that I not include him in mine:

[AndrewC wrote in his post #514:] I said the original line was gratuitous. I find that post 474 was abusive. The fact that you do not understand that 474 is abusive reflects on you, not me. The original gratuitous line "If you're going to make an analogy, make sure it's a valid comparison.", had his word in it, not mine. He chose the word "comparison" and not "inference". He chose the words in post 474, after I wrote "your turn".

Horrors, I wrote "comparison" where AndrewC thought I should have written "inference". Well string me up, boys. Actually, when I wrote "comparison", I very well meant "comparison" and not "inference", but rebutting AndrewC's compulsion to quibble about words is a very minor issue at this point -- albeit a strangely large issue to him, apparently.

Getting back to the main issue, I find it astounding that he could think that it's proper to demand silence from me about him, and then continue to discuss me on the thread himself. The term "double standard" seems wildly inadequate for that sort of mindset.

Even so, I did not rise to the bait -- and there's a strong possibility it *was* bait, placed in order to try to get me to respond so he could ping the moderators (again) over my "noncompliance" with his "request" that I shut up while he continued to post and to denigrate me. I did not respond to those posts.

So what set him off? Heck if I know, but according to AndrewC himself it was this post #468 of mine (quoted in its entirety):

Wind and a little time turns sandstone into arches that resemble flying buttresses. It does not follow, to many people, that more time using the same process will result in the formation of Notre Dame Cathedral.
That's because "many people" fail to take into account why a process which includes variation, reproduction, and selection is very different from erosion, and is capable of much more.
If you're going to make an analogy, make sure it's a valid comparison.

AndrewC has since complained (multiple times) that this was "gratuitous", apparently some sort of grave transgression in his mind, since he makes a major issue of it here, and about two other posts on this thread alone (not mine) in: #93 and #96. But I don't see how it's gratuitous to point out that conclusions based on analogies are only valid if the things being compared are appropriately similar. Poor analogies lead to erroneous conclusions.

Nonetheless, this apparently infuriated him, because instead of responding to the actual point, or defending his example, he decided to make a juvenile sniping attack in his post #469:

If you're going to make an analogy, make sure it's a valid comparison.
If you're going to make a comment, make sure you understand the English language.
a·nal·o·gy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-nl-j)
n. pl. a·nal·o·gies

Similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar.
A comparison based on such similarity. See Synonyms at likeness.

As childish and insulting as this was (since I had used the word quite appropriately, and I certainly "understand the English language", *and* AndrewC had *left off* the definition entry which best matched the manner in which I was using the word), I nonetheless thought it only right to give AndrewC an opportunity to rethink the direction he had gone and try again. My post #470:

If you're going to make a comment, make sure you understand the English language.
You've retracted two of your hasty smartass remarks in this thread already, would you like to make it three?
Or shall I demonstrate that you have dishonestly left off the dictionary definition which encompasses the word as I was using it, and that I have hardly failed to understand the English language?
Your move.

(Earlier in the thread AndrewC had stated, concerning an agreement among Freepers: "I think that the agreement is insane and appears to have been fashioned by drunks", and asked another poster, "That is allowed here, or do you wish to silence others?" He later retracted both.)

Rather than take advantage of the invitation to retract his childish and abusively false claim that I did not "understand the English language", AndrewC decided that he'd rather have something to fight about and issued his post #472:

You've retracted two of your hasty smartass remarks in this thread already, would you like to make it three?
No, your move.

Sigh.

At that point I wrote my lengthy post #474, which explained in detail why AndrewC's snipe was baseless, juvenile, and dishonest. It concluded with:

So rather than deal with the substance of my post, you chose to go off on a classicly childish and completely unfounded "dictionary flame" (2), one of the lowest forms of cheap shots.
I even gave you an opportunity to reconsider and retract it, and you refused. This is, I must say, typical of you.
Now -- would you care to retract your trollish implication that *I'm* the one who needs to "make sure [they] understand the English language"? Or are you going to continue to act like an ass?

This is the post which AndrewC piously declares to be my sin of being "abusive". But note a) who threw the first flame, b) I believe I made a pretty good case in that post that he was, indeed, acting like an ass by doing a "dictionary flame" in a dishonest manner.

Now personally I think the foregoing is pretty small potatoes on the Abuse-O-Meter (on both sides). I think AndrewC is being foolish for trying to escalate it to something so heinous that I Must Be Silenced Forevermore or turn it into a Let's Have The Moderators Decide This.

But he has chosen to, and thus here we are.

So what to do? One option, of course, would be for me to just obey his commands and never again post anything about anything he writes. But I don't see that as a workable option. Over the past few months, we have debated a number of topics on opposing sides, and this latest seems primarily a ploy to try to silence me from continuing to point out when he is in error, being inconsistent, employing a double-standard, making unfair accusations, or behaving badly.

That is further supported by the post he actually replied to in order to first declare that I must never speak to him again. It was *not* the "are you going to stop behaving like an ass" post. No, to that one he merely replied "Your abusive language has been noted" (without, unfortunately, addressing the point I was making about how he should stop flaming).

What's quite illuminating is that he finally declared that I should never speak to him again in response to a *later* post of mine, #478. This one was too long to include here, but it was on another topic entirely -- it asked him several pointed questions about why he spent many, many posts accusing certain posters in the thread (his philosophical opponents) of "abuse" over mild perceived transgressions, and had appointed himself "behavior monitor" of the thread (most of AndrewC's posts on the thread dealt with accusations of alleged "uncivil" behavior), and yet had failed to utter a single disapproving word about truly abusive posts from his philosophical friends, such as calling people on the thread, "fanatics", "raving lunatics", "the retarded - infantile", "crippled minds", and telling a Freeper, "He was doing the devil's work so that is why you approve of his actions", etc.

Rather than answer questions about the blatant inconsistency of his targets, *that* is when AndrewC suddenly decided it was time to tell me to shut up and stop talking to him. Interesting, is it not?

The final irony/hypocrisy is that earlier, discussing something else with another person, AndrewC had declared that everyone has a right to speak here:

[AndrewC wrote in his #287:] And my pointing that out to others does not require me to be anything but a member of this forum. You do not own this place nor do your words in anyway possess the imagined force you seem to think are behind them. You are the hypocrite.

Also:

[AndrewC wrote in his #785:] I'm not enforcing anything. I'm using my God-given right to express myself.

And most ironically:

[AndrewC wrote in his #156:] I suggest you go elsewhere than a conservative site to discuss something non-conservative when you desire to squelch input from others.

Now he seeks to squelch input from me. Should he go elsewhere, by his own advice?

Furthermore, it is simply intolerable for one Freeper to be able to declare that another "must not" speak to him or address his posts. The public forums are just that -- public. Anyone member can comment, and any other member can remark upon those comments if he wishes. To allow AndrewC's "hands off me" policy just because he declares it and threatens to invoke the moderators to enforce it would have a hugely chaotic effect on this forum. How many people would begin to invoke it in order to silence their critics or those with opposing views or simply those they don't like? It's a weapon, it's a cheap trick, it's censorship -- it's not a reasonable request.

If I'm ever truly abusive, anyone -- including AndrewC -- can press the Abuse button on the offending post. He doesn't have to read my posts and he doesn't have to respond to them. But it's an attempt to stifle Freedom of Speech for him to try to bar me from ever commenting on his posts, and to try to get the moderators to enforce his protective shell for him.

That's my view, anyway. If I'm wrong, let me know or suspend me or whatever, because otherwise I'm not going to stop commenting on AndrewC's posts if I see something I'd like to reply to. But if I'm right, could the moderators please ask him to knock it off and stop bothering them (and complaining on the thread) every time his sensibilities are offended by a reminder that I still exist and often don't agree with him?

Thank you.