quote: WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel will announce at 3 p.m. (1900 GMT) on Friday a plan to bolster U.S. missile defenses in Alaska to counter the growing North Korean threat, a U.S. defense official said. The official, who spoke to Reuters on condition of anonymity, did not offer additional details. But a top Pentagon official said on Tuesday the United States had the ability to swiftly deploy up to 14 additional ground-based missile interceptors, if needed, in Alaska.
I'm a little confused. How are we not already well defended? Other than a short period of time with Cuba in the 60's, hasn't every real threat from missiles come from that general area of the world anyways?
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
Not really. Most of the missile plans during the cold war planned for the majority of missiles flying over the Atlantic. Russia (and the old soviet union) spans about a quarter of the planet. Launches from Moscow would travel a much shorter distance over the Atlantic than the Pacific. Only bases in Eastern Russia would have been able to hit the US, and those still have to go about 6000 miles or more to hit any major metropolitan areas. Remember, the Pacific takes up almost half the planet. The Atlantic is much smaller.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm not sure what the rush is. Neither Iran nor North Korea are ready to launch nuclear tipped missiles at the mainland.
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I'm not sure what the rush is. Neither Iran nor North Korea are ready to launch nuclear tipped missiles at the mainland.
Didn't North Korea launch some test missles a few years back that landed off the coast of Alaska?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I'm not sure what the rush is. Neither Iran nor North Korea are ready to launch nuclear tipped missiles at the mainland.
Maybe they are (or will be soon), and the public is just ignorant of it. Besides those missile defense systems are not even close to perfect. I am definitely comfortable with having backups for our backups when it comes to the real possibility an unstable regime might throw a bunch of stuff our way to see if anything hits.
[ March 16, 2013, 06:55 PM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by stilesbn:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I'm not sure what the rush is. Neither Iran nor North Korea are ready to launch nuclear tipped missiles at the mainland.
Didn't North Korea launch some test missles a few years back that landed off the coast of Alaska?
Most experts think that North Korea is behind on two aspects: Miniaturization and guidance. Of course their most recent big missile test to launch a satellite was a total flop. But their nuclear technology needs to make another leap or two until they can make the nuke small enough to fit on the tip of a missile. They also don't have the guidance system ability or reliability to give it the sort of pinpoint accuracy you need for a city buster. ICBMs travel at tens of thousands of miles an hour and cross half the globe to hit their targets, and even with city busters you can't miss by more than a mile or two and still do your damage, which means you really need to be absolutely spot on. NK just isn't there yet. And for that matter, even their most advanced nukes can't even hit Seattle, the closest major city. With their current technology, even if you got over the miniaturization and guidance issues, the best they could do is Juneau or Fairbanks. Not something I'd be willing to part with, but it's also not really worth nuking.
Posted by Szymon (Member # 7103) on :
They don't have to hit a city. Unless they hit a desert or a middle of a forest, wherever the bomb goes off there will always be at least a hundred of fatalities, let alone radiation. I don't think Korea would care that much what they really hit.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
It's not as though a nuclear bomb makes an area an irradiated wasteland incapable of supporting life, Syzmon. There's no point in sending a nuke if you aren't targeting something significant.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
North Korea also has to hit something worth trading getting their whole country nuked like ten or twenty times over.
That said, I approve. This is probably the best case scenario for military spending, it will probably never be used, the money doesn't go into needlessly bombing people, it's hard to use a missile defence system in anger, etc. If the money has to be spent on weapons, let it be spent on this.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Szymon,
Yeah, what they said. They do in fact need to hit a city, but I think that's irrelevant. Your statement works from the expectation that North Korea is completely irrational. You think they would use a nuke to blow up nothing just for the hell of it, knowing we'd turn their country into a parking lot? Nope. Don't think so. North Korean leadership have been masters of manipulation for years. China uses them as a foil, albeit an annoying unpredictable one because they keep the Pacific Rim from focusing on China exclusively, they're a thorn in our side.
Whenever they provoke us, they get something. Either we buy them off with money or press or concessions or food shipments, or China rewards them for it. They're very calculating. They're neither suicidal or irrational.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I'm not convinced that if we were hit with a nuclear weapon, that we would send one let alone twenty back.
I'm sure we'd do something huge, but not necessarily nuclear.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think it would depend entirely on the situation. But US operational procedures call for a nuclear response for any weapon of mass destruction attack on a US geographic or strategic asset, which means it's US policy to do so.
The problem with North Korea is that we could blow their civilians out of the water with conventional weapons, we could probably kill all of them. But they have the most advanced extensive bunker system in the world. Killing the leadership and the military would require nuclear bunker busters.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Right. But lets say the nuke landed 30 miles South of LA, and detonated into the ocean. A few thousand folks in the water were killed, but the weapon clearly did not land where it was trying to go.
I don't think the response would be a nuclear bomb on Pyong-Yang. We'd send the navy to blockade the country, use our airforce to bomb all their facilities, and perhaps a ground army to invade through the ruins and hand Korea to the South Korean government. I'm not sure a nuclear weapon would be used. Now of course, us not being willing to use one might make us look weak, in which case I could be entirely wrong.
I just feel like Hiroshima and Nagasaki left a bad taste in our mouths, and sending another nuke to Asia, especially against an unstable crazy government would make a nuclear strike a hard sell.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Under those circumstances? I probably agree. Or maybe a series of very, very small tactical nukes to take out their main bases. But yeah, if the death toll is that low, I also doubt a major nuclear strike. We'd take them down conventionally.
I think the key phrase here is "proportional response."
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I feel like we'd probably disagree about what the American public would feel is a "proportional response." I think for rational people, what the two of you are saying would be perfectly reasonable.
However, after seeing the totally out of proportion national bloodlust invoked by 9/11, inflicted on many people not even related to the perpetrators of the crime, I'm not nearly as optimistic. Let's just say, I hope you're right but I wouldn't bet on it.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Any ground response in North Korea would be a disaster for everyone involved.
Japan is debatable.
Less lives would be lost with a couple of nukes in response to North Korea.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
The real problem with nuking North Korea, is how China would feel about it. Obviously they have a more rational leadership than NK does, but if we "turn NK into a parking lot", I don't think that would sit well with them. Even if it was a response to the US getting nuked ourselves.
And China has the capability to pretty much destroy the US with their 90+ ICBMs and MIRV technology. As far as I know, anyway.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
China knows that if they nuked us in response to us nuking NK, we'd nuke China as well. Is China willing to let themselves become parking lots as well just to avenge their annoying neighbor?
I think the answer is no.
If we nuked them capriciously, maybe, but if we answered nuke for nuke? They'd swallow it. They'd have to.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Would it even be consistent with China's no-first-use policy for them to attack the US in response to a US attack on NK?
Posted by Szymon (Member # 7103) on :
I can agree that NK is not entirely irrational, but the language their speaking right now is that of madmen. This is also sth that you can feel in the air when you talk to Chinese people, right here right now. That NK is so poor they'd like to die, killing as many with them as possible, like kamikaze. Nuking SK and Japan, and US if possible. That is the reason why I posted that I posted. Beccause Im surrounded by this opinion that NK is like a humiliated boy who will do whatever, kick and bite, in it's irrational frenzy.
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
It seems like Chinese relations with NK have been deteriorating lately anyway. They were never exactly a happy couple, but it looks like it's getting worse.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
NK's leadrship is not entirely crazy. They know that, one way or another, nuking us would mean the end of their government and their military, the deaths of their leader and higher military leaders, and automatic reunification (under south Korean rule) with South Korea.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
NK is crazy. Look at them over there, stirring up trouble, acting a fool.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote: The madman theory was a primary characteristic of the foreign policy conducted by U.S. President Richard Nixon. His administration, the executive branch of the federal government of the United States from 1969 to 1974, attempted to make the leaders of other countries think Nixon was mad, and that his behavior was irrational and volatile. Fearing an unpredictable American response, leaders of hostile Communist Bloc nations would avoid provoking the United States.
Nixon explained the strategy to his White House Chief of Staff, H. R. Haldeman:
I call it the Madman Theory, Bob. I want the North Vietnamese to believe I've reached the point where I might do anything to stop the war. We'll just slip the word to them that, "for God's sake, you know Nixon is obsessed about Communism. We can't restrain him when he's angry—and he has his hand on the nuclear button" and Ho Chi Minh himself will be in Paris in two days begging for peace.[1]
In October 1969, the Nixon administration indicated to the Soviet Union that "the madman was loose" when the United States military was ordered to full global war readiness alert (unbeknownst to the majority of the American population), and bombers armed with thermonuclear weapons flew patterns near the Soviet border for three consecutive days.[2]
I'm not saying its the same, but it is a known strategy.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Lyrhawn, and MacArthur and many others thought the Chinese wouldn't do anything when the US Army crossed the Parallel either; if the Chinese send their Ambassador to pressure the US to not use nuclear weapons beyond the minimum needed for bunker busting its something that I give a good likely hood as being listened to. Especially given that the South Koreans likely won't like seeing their northern brothers being nuked either; especially as the South might likely be performing occupation duty and reintegrating them.
quote: Killing the leadership and the military would require nuclear bunker busters.
From what I've read there's plenty of sub nuclear bunker busters in the US inventory that would likely do the job assuming complete air superiority. The problem with the current inventory is the lack of munitions that could be carried successfully over Tehran.
Regardless, I think North Korea's days are largely numbered, as I've said a few years back the Chinese want a united Korea under Seoul while the North is an increasing liability that could undermine their economic growth. A possibility I've seen from North Korean I've seen is a possible intervention by the PLA and setting up a puppet government in the North, almost gauranteed if North Korea does something to provoke a military regime change response from the US.
China isn't Breznev's USSR so they likely won't be keeping garrisons for very long; I don't think they'll be willing to perform a Hungary 1956 under any circumstances, handing it over to South Korea under their terms while reaping the benefits for minimal cost and effort. The US and South Korea spends the bombs to soften them up while Commander Zhang Youxia with the 16th, 39th and 40th Group Armies finish the job.
It would be interesting to see if North Korea breaks the peace in a serious way if the US and China cooperate for peacekeeping.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Lyrhawn, and MacArthur and many others thought the Chinese wouldn't do anything when the US Army crossed the Parallel either;
I don't think Lyrhawn was alive at the same time as MacArthur...
Also, MacArthur didn't think the Chinese to come, but he also believed if they did, we'd just use our nukes, which was why he operated the way he did. Unfortunately for him, Truman was not on the same page.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Obvious grammatical goof is obvious.
I do believe the historical record disagrees with that assessment, you're getting your events mixed up. Copying liberally from Wikipedia as I don't have my Korean War books at my apartment:
quote: On 27 September, MacArthur received the top secret National Security Council Memorandum 81/1 from Truman reminding him that operations north of the 38th parallel were authorized only if "at the time of such operation there was no entry into North Korea by major Soviet or Chinese Communist forces, no announcements of intended entry, nor a threat to counter our operations militarily..."[134] On 29 September MacArthur restored the government of the Republic of Korea under Syngman Rhee.[131] On 30 September, Defense Secretary George Marshall sent an eyes-only message to MacArthur: "We want you to feel unhampered tactically and strategically to proceed north of the 38th parallel."[134] During October, the ROK police executed people who were suspected to be sympathetic to North Korea,[135] and same massacre carried out until early 1951.[136] On 30 September, Zhou Enlai warned the United States that it was prepared to intervene in Korea if the United States crossed the 38th parallel. Zhou attempted to advise North Korean commanders on how to conduct a general withdrawal by using the same tactics which had allowed Chinese communist forces to successfully escape Chiang Kai-shek's Encirclement Campaigns in the 1930s. North Korean commanders did not utilize these tactics effectively.[137] By 1 October 1950, the UN Command repelled the KPA northwards, past the 38th parallel; the ROK Army crossed after them, into North Korea.[138] MacArthur made a statement demanding the KPA's unconditional surrender.[139] Six days later, on 7 October, with UN authorization, the UN Command forces followed the ROK forces northwards.[140] The X Corps landed at Wonsan (in southeastern North Korea) and Riwon (in northeastern North Korea), already captured by ROK forces.[141] The Eighth United States Army and the ROK Army drove up western Korea and captured Pyongyang city, the North Korean capital, on 19 October 1950.[142] The 187th Airborne Regimental Combat Team ("Rakkasans") made their first of two combat jumps during the Korean War on 20 October 1950 at Sunchon and Sukchon. The missions of the 187th were to cut the road north going to China, preventing North Korean leaders from escaping from Pyongyang; and to rescue American prisoners of war. At month's end, UN forces held 135,000 KPA prisoners of war. Taking advantage of the UN Command's strategic momentum against the communists, General MacArthur believed it necessary to extend the Korean War into China to destroy depots supplying the North Korean war effort. President Truman disagreed, and ordered caution at the Sino-Korean border.
Not only was Chinese intervention believed to be unlikely but it was actively planned by MacArthur to cross the Yalu.
quote: On 27 June 1950, two days after the KPA invaded and three months before the Chinese entered the war, President Truman dispatched the United States Seventh Fleet to the Taiwan Strait, to prevent hostilities between the Nationalist Republic of China (Taiwan) and the People's Republic of China (PRC).[144][145] On 4 August 1950, with the PRC invasion of Taiwan aborted, Mao Zedong reported to the Politburo that he would intervene in Korea when the People's Liberation Army's (PLA) Taiwan invasion force was reorganized into the PLA North East Frontier Force. China justified its entry into the war as a response to "American aggression in the guise of the UN".[146] On 20 August 1950, Premier Zhou Enlai informed the United Nations that "Korea is China's neighbor... The Chinese people cannot but be concerned about a solution of the Korean question". Thus, through neutral-country diplomats, China warned that in safeguarding Chinese national security, they would intervene against the UN Command in Korea.[143] President Truman interpreted the communication as "a bald attempt to blackmail the UN", and dismissed it.
quote: 1 October 1950, the day that UN troops crossed the 38th parallel, was also the first anniversary of the founding of the People's Republic of China. On that day the Soviet ambassador forwarded a telegram from Stalin to Mao and Zhou requesting that China send five to six divisions into Korea, and Kim Il-sung sent frantic appeals to Mao for Chinese military intervention. At the same time, Stalin made it clear that Soviet forces themselves would not directly intervene.[139] In a series of emergency meetings that lasted from 2–5 October, Chinese leaders debated whether to send Chinese troops into Korea. There was considerable resistance among many leaders, including senior military leaders, to confronting the United States in Korea. Mao strongly supported intervention, and Zhou was one of the few Chinese leaders who firmly supported him. After General Lin Biao refused Mao's offer to command Chinese forces in Korea (citing poor health), Mao called General Peng Dehuai to Beijing to hear his views. After listening to both sides' arguments, Peng supported Mao's position, and the Politburo agreed to intervene in Korea.[148] Later, the Chinese claimed that US bombers had violated PRC national airspace on three separate occasions and attacked Chinese targets before China intervened.[149][150] On 8 October 1950, Mao Zedong redesignated the PLA North East Frontier Force as the Chinese People's Volunteer Army (PVA).
Bolded part here is not impossible, and actually probable considering the history of the US air campaign in WWII saw US bombers frequently bombing the wrong targets in the wrong country (such as Switzerland). Between MacArthur's earlier intentions and human error this is not easily dismiss-able.
And finally:
quote: On 15 October 1950, President Truman and General MacArthur met at Wake Island in the mid-Pacific Ocean. This meeting was much publicized because of the General's discourteous refusal to meet the President on the continental US.[157] To President Truman, MacArthur speculated there was little risk of Chinese intervention in Korea,[158] and that the PRC's opportunity for aiding the KPA had lapsed. He believed the PRC had some 300,000 soldiers in Manchuria, and some 100,000–125,000 soldiers at the Yalu River. He further concluded that, although half of those forces might cross south, "if the Chinese tried to get down to Pyongyang, there would be the greatest slaughter" without air force protection.
Clearly the intention was not to use nuclear weapons to respond to a Chinese intervention, the feeling was clearly that MacArthur was convinced in US material and qualitative superiority and in American air assets would be sufficient to blunt and turn the tide.
quote: The Chinese New Year's Offensive overwhelmed UN forces, allowing the PVA and KPA to conquer Seoul for the second time on 4 January 1951.
These setbacks prompted General MacArthur to consider using nuclear weapons against the Chinese or North Korean interiors, with the intention that radioactive fallout zones would interrupt the Chinese supply chains.[174] However, upon the arrival of the charismatic General Ridgway, the esprit de corps of the bloodied Eighth Army immediately began to revive
This wasn't until January 51' after the Chinese intervention.
The only other reference:
quote: On 11 April 1951, Commander-in-Chief Truman relieved the controversial General MacArthur, the Supreme Commander in Korea.[182] There were several reasons for the dismissal. MacArthur had crossed the 38th parallel in the mistaken belief that the Chinese would not enter the war, leading to major allied losses. He believed that whether or not to use nuclear weapons should be his own decision, not the President's.[183] MacArthur threatened to destroy China unless it surrendered. While MacArthur felt total victory was the only honorable outcome, Truman was more pessimistic about his chances once involved in a land war in Asia, and felt a truce and orderly withdrawal from Korea could be a valid solution.[184] MacArthur was the subject of congressional hearings in May and June 1951, which determined that he had defied the orders of the President and thus had violated the US Constitution.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
You aren't proving me wrong. You are actually agreeing with me. The Chinese were openly stating their intention to be involved in Korea, MacArthur a top tier commander would have certainly been aware of this possibility. He may have gambled on it not happening, but to say he didn't even have a contingency plan for his contingency plan is to under estimate one history's brightest leaders.
Wikipedia saying "these events prompted MacArthur..." can mean one of two things.
1: MacArthur didn't even think about the concept of nuclear weapons until the Chinese got involved and there were setbacks in the ground invasion.
I'm gonna guess this is unlikely.
2: These setbacks prompted MacArthur to start looking logistically as to how to deploy our nuclear arsenal to ensure victory. An option he always had on the table as far as he was concerned. After all, we had used them to win a war less than 10 years ago.
This is what is likely, and what I already said was the case.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
The North Korean government is pure evil, so I appreciate that the chinese are starting to recognize they were idiots to cooperate with pyongyang in any way, I hope it follows through to completion, and I regret the extreme difficulty that south korea will have dealing with the extremely impoverished, stupefied, malnourished north and their complete lack of workable infrastructure.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: NK is crazy...acting a fool.
Kim gone make make act a fool, up in here, up in here...
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 12043) on :
quote: I regret the extreme difficulty that south korea will have dealing with the extremely impoverished, stupefied, malnourished north and their complete lack of workable infrastructure.
I'm sure the Koreans will find themselves drowning in offers of Chinese and American assistance following re-unification.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
My thoughts if NK thows a nuke at Alaska, Hawaii, Japan or Seoul.
A retaliatory nuclear strike is imperative in order to prove to all other nuclear nations that a nuclear attack will result in Assured Destruction. No matter who your allies or what your location, playing with nukes = devastation of your country. No quarter to that government would be given.
We want Iran, and Pakistan, and everyone else to know that even protected by China or whoever, use a nuke and you are ash.
The only limitations, other than a desire not to punish the people of NK more than necessary is the effect of nuclear fallout on nearby countries. China would be upset of we nuked NK in retaliation, but they would seek their own revenge if our Nukes killed thousands of their people with a deadly radioactive cloud.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by NobleHunter:
quote: I regret the extreme difficulty that south korea will have dealing with the extremely impoverished, stupefied, malnourished north and their complete lack of workable infrastructure.
I'm sure the Koreans will find themselves drowning in offers of Chinese and American assistance following re-unification.
it doesn't matter. the only likely outcome at the end of this is reunification of the koreas under seoul (with special super happy friend america™ right there!) and it's just legitimately impossible, no matter what probable resources are available, to expect the process not to be a horrific drain on south korea's resources.
north korea's recovery will be a disaster no matter what. it would be like an absolutely extreme version of the problems of the german reunification. that country still has problems related to the former east german zone.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: You aren't proving me wrong. You are actually agreeing with me. The Chinese were openly stating their intention to be involved in Korea, MacArthur a top tier commander would have certainly been aware of this possibility. He may have gambled on it not happening, but to say he didn't even have a contingency plan for his contingency plan is to under estimate one history's brightest leaders.
Wikipedia saying "these events prompted MacArthur..." can mean one of two things.
1: MacArthur didn't even think about the concept of nuclear weapons until the Chinese got involved and there were setbacks in the ground invasion.
I'm gonna guess this is unlikely.
2: These setbacks prompted MacArthur to start looking logistically as to how to deploy our nuclear arsenal to ensure victory. An option he always had on the table as far as he was concerned. After all, we had used them to win a war less than 10 years ago.
This is what is likely, and what I already said was the case.
No, you specifically claimed that MacArthur didn't suppose the Chinese would intervene due to an intention to use nuclear weapons in response.
quote: Also, MacArthur didn't think the Chinese to come, but he also believed if they did, we'd just use our nukes, which was why he operated the way he did. Unfortunately for him, Truman was not on the same page
The reality is entirely different 1) they, 'macarthur' (on laptop) or otherwise didn't believe they would intervene due to his own confidence in American conventional superiority; and 2) nuclear weapons didn't enter the narrative until [after the Americans were trounced by the PVA.
That MacArthur was dismissed by Truman was the culmination of an extended Chain of Command spats happened only significantly after Chinese intervention, not, when intervention first happened, and only after American set backs and only after MacArthur continuing to overstretch his designated command authority.
There is no historical record of MacArthur supposing that nuclear weapons are a deterrent to Chinese or Soviet intervention, your original post is factually incorrect and relies on a number of suppositions that is not born out by facts, we aren't agreeing on anything that I can see and I am confused how you can say so. Your (2) is not at all what you said.
The point is that Lyrhawn is assuming quite a few dangerous assumptions, which we know from history has led to tragic results and I hope the United States government isn't making the same assumption i.e: That the United States can freely nuke North Korea even with theatre-limited or tactical nuclear weapons as a proportional response or otherwise; but carefully study the diplomatic and geopolitical situation and respond with what is nessasary and internationally acceptable.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Blayne:
quote:No, you specifically claimed that MacArthur didn't suppose the Chinese would intervene due to an intention to use nuclear weapons in response
I did not say 'suppose' I chose my words carefully. MacArthur did not think the Chinese would come, but he certainly anticipated that possibility. That's what you do in war.
The fact that MacArthur was not actively pushing for nukes until late in the conflict, does not mean they weren't on the table. It just means he had several other strategies and options available to work through before he got to them.
Lyrhawn isn't making any dangerous assumptions. North Korea launching a nuke at the United States is an act of war. It's not anything less. The only thing that would save the North Koreans from us turning their country to ashes in that scenario is that the majority of the populace are slaves to a dictatorship, and don't have enough objectivity to stop such an attack.
It doesn't matter, they aren't going to launch a nuke at us, but they might very well sell one to one of our enemies. They should be crushed into submission until they stop trying to do that sort of thing.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Blayne,
Regardless of everything else, I think you're making a mistake by pretending nuclear war and conventional war are the same thing and require the same responses.
China responded to US crossing the Yalu by sending in troops as they threatened to, but it never really threatened the integrity of China itself, and they knew that. It was a proxy war on foreign territory. But nukes change the equation.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote: I did not say 'suppose' I chose my words carefully. MacArthur did not think the Chinese would come, but he certainly anticipated that possibility. That's what you do in war.
You do not actually know this, this is the definition of a supposition. You are assuming that MacArthur would've anticipated the possibility, because you are using the somewhat flawed predication that MacArthur was "one of the brightest commanders" hence it seems obviously reasonable to conclude he would obviously have anticipated Chinese intervention.
The fact is that he did not and made no operational or logistical preparations to account for a potential Chinese intervention, his forces were dangerously overstretched, there were no reserves for the possibility nor airforces allocated, the very reason MacArthur believed the Chinese would not intervene.
Are you claiming he *did* prepare but was defeated anyways? That's nonsense.
quote: The fact that MacArthur was not actively pushing for nukes until late in the conflict, does not mean they weren't on the table. It just means he had several other strategies and options available to work through before he got to them.
False. "Being on the table" implies that the United States policy on the deployment of nuclear weapons was of Truman explicitly giving MacArthur nuclear release to use nuclear weapons. There is no historical evidence to support this.
In fact the United States even at this time was fairly cautious in its nuclear policy, treating them as last resort strategic weapons that they were and keeping authorization clearly in the hands of the president of the united states.
As such it would've been impossible for nuclear weapons to have been on the table because MacArthur did not have the legal authority to use them unless specifically granted it by Truman, which did not and never happened hence therefore it has been shown that MacArthur did not dismiss the notion of Chinese intervention because of nuclear weapons hence your counter argument that China today would sit idly by while North Korea gets or is about to be nuked is nonsensical based on the historical record hence people should be wary of making assumption, especially when they seem to possess a mistaken understanding of history.
Hence even if it were true you still have to deal with the fact that they intervened anyways regardless of American nuclear superiority which should strongly inform you that maybe relying on nuclear deterrence is not the cure to all things.
quote: Lyrhawn isn't making any dangerous assumptions. North Korea launching a nuke at the United States is an act of war. It's not anything less. The only thing that would save the North Koreans from us turning their country to ashes in that scenario is that the majority of the populace are slaves to a dictatorship, and don't have enough objectivity to stop such an attack.
Totally wrong, check out MacNamara and his question about whether proportionality should be a guideline in war; the use of strategic WMD's on North Korea, even in response to a nuclear attack is a war crime.
Plus Chinese diplomatic objections, South Korean diplomatic objections, Japanese diplomatic objections, French diplomatic objections, British diplomatic objections, Russian diplomatic objects, (Vladivostok) and so on. The point is I don't think its going to happen because of a variety of reasons aside from where blame actually resides.
quote: It doesn't matter, they aren't going to launch a nuke at us, but they might very well sell one to one of our enemies. They should be crushed into submission until they stop trying to do that sort of thing.
You saying something factually incorrect predicated on assumptions you could not possibly know without evidence is what matters.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Blayne:
quote:You do not actually know this, this is the definition of a supposition.
Yes I do. MacArthur specifically warned that when Japan was defeated during WWII that Korea or China might invade the country in the short-term. Do you want me to believe he didn't consider the possibility that when he invaded North Korea that the Chinese would fight a proxy war there?
quote:The fact is that he did not and made no operational or logistical preparations to account for a potential Chinese intervention
Because when you fight a war in a Democratic nation or as part of the UN Blayne, you have to get approval for more troops to be sent, as well as material. You don't get to unilaterally send all legions.
quote:As such it would've been impossible for nuclear weapons to have been on the table because MacArthur did not have the legal authority to use them
. So? It's a small matter to pick up the phone and get in touch with the President when you are General MacArthur. He also viewed Truman as more a roadblock to be driven over.[/quote]
quote:Totally wrong, check out MacNamara and his question about whether proportionality should be a guideline in war; the use of strategic WMD's on North Korea, even in response to a nuclear attack is a war crime.
Please. MacNamara? The guy who left the cabinet during Vietnam? He's the one telling us what a war crime is? I feel like your biases are bleeding through. If NK threw a nuke at us, we'd be limited to one nuke in response, and no more? It sure is a good thing we weren't governed by proportionate response after Pearl Harbor.
quote:You saying something factually incorrect predicated on assumptions you could not possibly know without evidence is what matters.
Take your own advice, it sure would be nice about 99% of the time we discuss anything.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
You're just making up stuff now and not at really making a coherent point.
Look again at your original post, there is no way someone can reasonably conclude that what you said there, is equivalent to what you said further down.
Your argument, further down, is a very much different and "new" argument than your original one, you've changed your argument without acknowledging that this is the case.
Again, your original post:
quote: Also, MacArthur didn't think the Chinese to come, but he also believed if they did, we'd just use our nukes, which was why he operated the way he did. Unfortunately for him, Truman was not on the same page
I have shown that this to be demonstrably false according to the historical record, your arguments are predicated on flawed assumptions.
And so I actually went and contacted a Phd graduate student on history and here's his response:
quote: MacArthur didn't believe that the Chinese would invade because he "understood the Oriental mind" and knew that they ultimately wouldn't want to stand up to the might of the American army. He also ignored army intelligence, which was saying, "hey, there's an awful lot of Chinese soldiers in North Korea", army strategists who were saying "just stop at the bottleneck north of Pyongyang, those mountains are a bitch and winter's coming and we've just captured 3/4ths of the Korean population and industry" and also the Chinese themselves, who were saying (via the Indian ambassador) "we really really don't want the Americans on our border and we're gonna move to stop that if they keep advancing". But no, MacArthur just had to conquer Korea to use it (and Taiwan) as springboards to bring democracy and christianity back to China.
His reference is Halberstam, MacArthur ran his campaign in such a way as to allow his ego and racism to cloud solid military judgement.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Your PHD student just proved everything I was saying. MacArthur did not think the Chinese would come, but he felt ready for that eventuality. He ultimately wanted a land war with the Chinese.
That nuclear weapons were a part of his mental calculus cannot be disputed. He was fired over his disagreements with Truman on this point.
I don't know why you are trying to argue that MacArthur was just somehow ignorant of what nuclear weapons were, and that we had them, and had used them when he made decisions.
I'm not arguing that MacArthur had an ego or that racism could cloud his judgement. I have only said the entire time, that MacArthur did not think the Chinese would come, but that if they did, he had the means to deal with them to. Things went poorly, and we got pushed back, which was when he went to the last option, nuclear weapons, and the ensuing disagreement with Truman cost him his job.
Meanwhile, hats off to the Chinese for guaranteeing 60 more years (so far) of North Korean misery.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote: Your PHD student just proved everything I was saying. MacArthur did not think the Chinese would come, but he felt ready for that eventuality. He ultimately wanted a land war with the Chinese.
But *not* because of nuclear weapons, as that was a political decision not under his control.
quote: That nuclear weapons were a part of his mental calculus cannot be disputed. He was fired over his disagreements with Truman on this point.
I have disputed it very clearly with the historical record. There is no record it was a part of his mental calculus until after he started losing.
quote: I don't know why you are trying to argue that MacArthur was just somehow ignorant of what nuclear weapons were
Strawman.
quote: I'm not arguing that MacArthur had an ego or that racism could cloud his judgement. I have only said the entire time, that MacArthur did not think the Chinese would come, but that if they did, he had the means to deal with them to. Things went poorly, and we got pushed back, which was when he went to the last option, nuclear weapons, and the ensuing disagreement with Truman cost him his job.
Shifting the goalposts, your OP does not match this.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Here's me talking.
quote:Also, MacArthur didn't think the Chinese to come, but he also believed if they did, we'd just use our nukes, which was why he operated the way he did. Unfortunately for him, Truman was not on the same page.
More me talking.
quote:I have only said the entire time, that MacArthur did not think the Chinese would come, but that if they did, he had the means to deal with them to.(sic)"
That means was,
quote:nuclear weapons, and the ensuing disagreement with Truman cost him his job."
There's no group of strawmen coniving to move the goalposts with shouts of non-sequitors and ad-hominems.
quote:There is no record it was a part of his mental calculus until after he started losing.
OK. So you *are* arguing that MacArthur never once considered nuclear weapons to be one of the tools he could use in a military conflict with Korea or China? The thought never entered his mind until he started losing, and then he decided nuclear weapons were around waiting to be used?
Is that where you stand?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote: OK. So you *are* arguing that MacArthur never once considered nuclear weapons to be one of the tools he could use in a military conflict with Korea or China?
This is shifting the goalposts because your original post is that MacArthur believed he could use nuclear weapons to counter a possible Chinese intervention ergo why he felt they wouldn't attack. Not that it was somewhere vaguely in the back of his mind maybe something he could do once he started losing after exhausting all other options.
quote: More me talking.
Are you trying to claim that your posts were simply a "progression" from your original post to your other posts? That is clearly disingenuous because I called you on factual inaccuracies in that post and instead of addressing it you are raising entirely different arguments, there's no logical relation between them; additially your ignoring the testimony that says that MacArthur had a variety of (flawed) reasons to dismiss the possibility of Chinese intervention but nuclear weapons were never recorded as being one.
The point, is that you don't get to assume he was thinking it because that is not how history works.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
I Got A Bingo.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Blayne:
quote:This is shifting the goalposts because your original post is that MacArthur believed he could use nuclear weapons to counter a possible Chinese intervention ergo why he felt they wouldn't attack.
No. I never made that claim. I did not say that MacArthur believed nuclear weapons would prevent the Chinese from being involved in North Korea. Not one time.
I only said that he did not believe the Chinese would get involved, but if they did, he had a mechanism for responding.
That's it.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
When I was TAing for a pretty well-known military historian, he said that MacArthur had a plan to reach the Yalu and then seed the riverbed and shore with radioactive isotopes which would make it utterly impassable for decades. I can't remember why it wasn't implemented, probably because of Truman, but that's a pretty interesting plan.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
I'm exhausted just reading this conversation. Yikes.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Blayne:
quote:This is shifting the goalposts because your original post is that MacArthur believed he could use nuclear weapons to counter a possible Chinese intervention ergo why he felt they wouldn't attack.
No. I never made that claim. I did not say that MacArthur believed nuclear weapons would prevent the Chinese from being involved in North Korea. Not one time.
I only said that he did not believe the Chinese would get involved, but if they did, he had a mechanism for responding.
That's it.
But that is not what you literally said. I can accept the fact that you misspoke and your later posts is your efforts at clarification but don't urinate on my leg and tell me its raining.
Again, lets be specific:
quote: MacArthur didn't think the Chinese to come, but he also believed if they did, we'd just use our nukes
Ergo why he didn't think they would intervene, otherwise there was no point to responding to my Original post.
Remember MacArthur *did* not believe or plan on using nuclear weapons (contradicting your statement), nor did he at all believe that the Chinese would intervene and there is no historical record of him making any contingencies in the possibility of a Chinese intervening and when it did happen he ignored Army intelligence to that effect.
quote: When I was TAing for a pretty well-known military historian, he said that MacArthur had a plan to reach the Yalu and then seed the riverbed and shore with radioactive isotopes which would make it utterly impassable for decades. I can't remember why it wasn't implemented, probably because of Truman, but that's a pretty interesting plan.
Again, this isn't factually correct, not in the context of initial intervention in 1950. The historical record is that MacArthur wanted to use Korea as a springboard to invade the PRC with the ROC to "liberate" it. Using nuclear weapons in the interior/border was only recorded after the Chinese took Seoul.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Blayne:
quote:But that is not what you literally said.
Yes it is. You need to accept that. Everything else you said is derivative of your unwillingness to accept that the point you are arguing against is not one I made.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: When I was TAing for a pretty well-known military historian, he said that MacArthur had a plan to reach the Yalu and then seed the riverbed and shore with radioactive isotopes which would make it utterly impassable for decades. I can't remember why it wasn't implemented, probably because of Truman, but that's a pretty interesting plan.
Good grief. That sounds, without exaggeration, like a plot device in the Fallout series. Heh. Didn't expect a reminder of how they modeled their setting after cultural ideas of the 1950s!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
how anyone is still this patient with blayne has come to amaze me
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
*shrug* BlackBlade's a thoroughly patient guy, and about as committed to the ideal of courteous conversation as can be found around here or on the Internet in general.
But the truth is most people, around here at least, aren't. There are at least half a dozen folks on HR who reliably enjoy these kinds of discussions and can be counted on to participate in them at length...but not very often at all with Blayne.
Which ain't meant as a shot, either, Blayne. Just...man, it'd be nice if you changed something so these discussions didn't feel so much like wars of attrition.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I was tempted to join this conversation...but I lack BB's godlike patience.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I am not taking back what I've insisted that I am arguing. But I have been a bit snippy with Blayne. For that I am sorry Blayne.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I think BB is trying for sainthood.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Well, I missed my chance at pope...
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
New guy is old. You'll have a shot again in a few years.
Posted by narrativium (Member # 3230) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: When I was TAing for a pretty well-known military historian, he said that MacArthur had a plan to reach the Yalu and then seed the riverbed and shore with radioactive isotopes which would make it utterly impassable for decades. I can't remember why it wasn't implemented, probably because of Truman, but that's a pretty interesting plan.
Good grief. That sounds, without exaggeration, like a plot device in the Fallout series. Heh. Didn't expect a reminder of how they modeled their setting after cultural ideas of the 1950s!
Haha, I just did that quest yesterday!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: *shrug* BlackBlade's a thoroughly patient guy, and about as committed to the ideal of courteous conversation as can be found around here or on the Internet in general.
But the truth is most people, around here at least, aren't. There are at least half a dozen folks on HR who reliably enjoy these kinds of discussions and can be counted on to participate in them at length...but not very often at all with Blayne.
There's another truth on the matter, though, that I think some people have gotten by now, and that's that at least in this case a well-meaning commitment to patience with him has taught him all the wrong lessons, soo
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
And what right lessons have your less patient but presumably just as well meaning approach taught him professor Samp?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote: When I was TAing for a pretty well-known military historian, he said that MacArthur had a plan to reach the Yalu and then seed the riverbed and shore with radioactive isotopes which would make it utterly impassable for decades. I can't remember why it wasn't implemented, probably because of Truman, but that's a pretty interesting plan.
quote:Again, this isn't factually correct, not in the context of initial intervention in 1950. The historical record is that MacArthur wanted to use Korea as a springboard to invade the PRC with the ROC to "liberate" it. Using nuclear weapons in the interior/border was only recorded after the Chinese took Seoul.
Sorry man, if I have to choose between the Blayne-Wikipedia team and the professor who's actually a famous, published military historian, I'm going with the historian. And I didn't say anything about nuclear weapons, just nuclear isotopes. I can't remember what specific elements, but I'm sure I have it in my notes somewhere.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: And what right lessons have your less patient but presumably just as well meaning approach taught him professor Samp?
That's an excellent question.
I personally have worried that Sam and Primal Curve were going to turn Blayne into a school shooter. Of course, Blayne appears to have much thicker skin than that, and is also a more peaceful person than that.
That's not to say he wasn't frustrating to deal with back when he didn't both with the whole "spelling and grammar" thing.
I do think, though, there's something to be said for the "dude, let it go. it's just an internet message board" approach, which several people here could take a page from. If Blayne's misspellings are driving you to personally insult him, maybe it's time to, emotionally-speaking, take a step back from the situation.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: And what right lessons have your less patient but presumably just as well meaning approach taught him professor Samp?
Nothing. I, like rakeesh, lyrhawn, tom, blackblade, mucus, dan frank, and countless others have offered the right lesson over and over again, but it's useless, and parks even caught on pretty quick to the fact that cutting him some slack was more harm than good and had taught him all the wrong lessons.
We even, you and me, specifically already talked about why blayne isn't cut more slack. I can only repeat what I provided as observation then.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Please refresh my memory what the "right lesson" is again?
Blayne goes overboard...clearly, but BB's commitment to patience and affiability are hardly a bad thing. Golly I wish I could do it. I'm too hot headed by far, even though I do try.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Yes, and I'm sure the Samprany-Orincolo team has done such a wonderful job at... Teaching me whatever lesson it was you people were intending to teach, I'm sure its led to the optimal result which was...?
Probably for me to stop posting here and post more at Sakeriver, only thing I can logically determine. Where I don't get any of this bullshit from the Troll Brigade.
You don't read what I write and I don't read what you write, what's the point of any engagement, just stop reading my posts, you never do anyways.
quote: Yes it is. You need to accept that. Everything else you said is derivative of your unwillingness to accept that the point you are arguing against is not one I made.
Except it is not, I've passed by other people at other forums and in real life, you are in fact changing your argument, this is a fact. You are saying two entirely different statements between your OP and your follow ups.
quote: Sorry man, if I have to choose between the Blayne-Wikipedia team and the professor who's actually a famous, published military historian, I'm going with the historian. And I didn't say anything about nuclear weapons, just nuclear isotopes. I can't remember what specific elements, but I'm sure I have it in my notes somewhere.
Something you clearly only sorta remember at best and have no evidence to support.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:radioactive isotopes which would make it utterly impassable for decades
That would be a damn good trick. With radioactivity used as a weapon you always have a tradeoff between deadliness and longevity, because by construction longer half-lives go with lower activities. Maybe MacArthur didn't understand what radio-isotopes can and can't do; maybe he was misunderstood or misquoted; but in any case such a plan is not practical. Make the river uncrossable for a month or two, perhaps, if you had a really enormous amount of a fast-decaying isotope. (Which does leave the question of distributing this horrendously nasty stuff, but I suppose MacArthur would just have ordered his soldiers to do it and damn the radiation poisoning.) But if it's that deadly it's going to decay fast - that's what makes it deadly in the first place. For something to be dead-in-a-few-days effective for decades, you'd basically have to replace the river water with whatever isotope you were using. At that point you might as well use nerve gas or petroleum or something.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Please refresh my memory what the "right lesson" is again?
Do you remember the last conversation people had specifically with you about Blayne in the last thread where you were wondering 'why not cut blayne some slack?' pretty much exactly during blayne requiring moderator intervention for something near the 40th time? We've already been here. I can dig up the relevant bits if you want.
quote:Yes, and I'm sure the Samprany-Orincolo team has done such a wonderful job at... Teaching me whatever lesson it was you people were intending to teach, I'm sure its led to the optimal result which was...?
Why are you asking, even sarcastically, about what's led to the optimal result? We're pretty specifically talking about how you haven't changed. You've even wantonly insulted and talked down to BlackBlade well beyond his patience threshold.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Blayne:
quote:Except it is not, I've passed by other people at other forums and in real life, you are in fact changing your argument, this is a fact. You are saying two entirely different statements between your OP and your follow ups.
I don't even know what to say to this. I mean, am I allowed to conjure up people outside the forum to back me up on this? The nice thing about forums is the text is there, for all to see. I've quoted from myself quite liberally, and told you multiple times what argument I am making. This is the last time.
BlackBlade's Argument as told by BlackBlade:
"MacArthur believed that he could successfully turn back the North Korean invasion. He believed that the Chinese most likely would not interfere with these plans, but he did not rule it out. In the event the Chinese did interfere, he had the unbeatable atomic bomb available to him."
Please, I am *begging* you. Can we stick to that argument, instead of endlessly talking about whether that's what I meant? You can even tell yourself I'm shifting the goal-posts, anything to get you to actually talk about what I actually think, instead of what *you* think I believe.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:I can dig up the relevant bits if you want.
If you like, or you could just answer the direct question, "What good lesson are you trying to teach Blayne with your impatience, and what is the bad lesson that BB is teaching with his patience?"
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
that's why there's relevant bits I'm talking about. like, discussion was already had with you specifically. The 'good patient' lesson that a lot of people tried was basically trying to lift him up positively and encouragingly the points at which he should not do the things that he does. For six years and change.. Lyrhawn, Rakeesh and I already pretty much explained it all out to you about this when you asked about it, which is why I ask if you remember. I'll, like, dredge that up later when i'm at home.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
On the other hand at Sakeriver I've seen people discuss at length at how your approach just made things worse and the only improvement came from those being patient, I guess the truth is somewhere in the middle.
quote: BlackBlade's Argument as told by BlackBlade:
"MacArthur believed that he could successfully turn back the North Korean invasion. He believed that the Chinese most likely would not interfere with these plans, but he did not rule it out. In the event the Chinese did interfere, he had the unbeatable atomic bomb available to him."
Okay whatever.
A) MacArthur did not believe or intend to turn back the North Koreans, he wanted to completely occupy North Korea in favor of his strongman candidate Syngman Rhee after the United States and the USSR stamped our Korean self determinism and then use it as a spring board to escalate the war and invade China. Using the pretense of needing to cross the Yalu to destroy supply dumps and the inevitable Chinese reprisals as a C.B to force Truman to escalate the war.
B) There is no "most likely" this is entirely supposition with no basis in historical evidence, he entirely dismissed army intelligence that the Chinese were actively engaging US soldiers.
C) He also did not "not rule it out" as you can tell that he made no military contingencies or held back the minimum reserves to deal with such a eventuality, this is on the same level of discredited conspiracy theories that said Hitler was simply striking first and that the Soviets were "really" preparing for the offencive for sometime in 1942. There is nothing** that supports the view point of MacArthur believing that the Chinese *might* attack and have contingencies.
Because, following from (B) if he *did* believe that the Chinese intervening was a however remote a possibility, the second he recieved reports of (i) the Chinese crossing the Yalu and (ii) actively engaging US Soldiers should have logically forced him to halt the US advance to reconsider his position (which was overstretched, exhausted, and under supplied outside of air support in bad weather). Since he didn't, and kept going anyways, either he is immensely incompetent or simply did not believe that the Chinese would intervene whatsoever (which isn't mutually exclusive now that I think about it with his incompetence).
D) "In the event the Chinese did interfere, he had the unbeatable atomic bomb available to him." This is false as in no way did US doctrine or policy at the time give macArthur Nuclear Release authority, it rested solely with the President. MacArthur could not have thought he had such an option until after his psycological breakdown and ego at losing Seoul. The only historical evidence of what MacArthur would due is to use conventional means, but otherwise entirely dismissed the possibility.
As MacArthur was quite overrated commander who lost the Philipines and botched his return it was only luck* that saved the Incheon landing with a history of bad strategic decisions saved only through the superior resources and logistics; nearly all of your arguments are predicated on the assumption that MacArthur was somehow a "skilled" or otherwise "gifted/bright" commander when this is contrary to his actual military record. Since your assumptions are incorrect, so are your arguments.
*The Chinese and the Soviets warned Kim il Sung that this was where the Americans were going to land; Kim il Sung felt that MacArthur would have to be an idiot to land there. Had they headed their advice the American landings would've been botched beyond recovery.
**An invasion of Germany of that magnitude would have had an impossible to hide level of paper trails similar to what the Germans had left lying around regarding the Final Solution; this paper trail simply does not exist and as such likely impossible for the Soviets to have been seriously considering an invasion of Germany for the indefinite future.
You *did* have a massive paper trail of the Soviets making efforts to prepare for the defencive such as Zhukov wargaming a German invasion from occupied Poland through the Kurland gap and the shifting of the Molotov Line forward.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:On the other hand at Sakeriver I've seen people discuss at length at how your approach just made things worse
you've pulled the 'well people at sakeriver back me up in this way ...' card a few times and each time I went over to said perfectly visible forum and looked at what was actually happening versus how you describe it and you were being majorly dishonest (I am not the first to call you out on this) so by now I am appropriately salting that assertion.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Blayne: Thank you for all your major points. Some of them were interesting.
Unfortunately I just don't feel like continuing at this point as I don't feel like even if I said something that was accurate, that you'd concede an inch.
quote:MacArthur did not believe or intend to turn back the North Koreans, he wanted to completely occupy North Korea in favor of his strongman candidate Syngman Rhee after the United States and the USSR stamped our Korean self determinism and then use it as a spring board to escalate the war and invade China.
Every single one of those actions would have to be preceded by MacArthur *turning back* the North Korean invasion, as that is what incited hostilities in the first place.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote: I don't feel like even if I said something that was accurate, that you'd say I said what I literally wrote
:B
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Blayne: Thank you for all your major points. Some of them were interesting.
quote:MacArthur did not believe or intend to turn back the North Koreans, he wanted to completely occupy North Korea in favor of his strongman candidate Syngman Rhee after the United States and the USSR stamped our Korean self determinism and then use it as a spring board to escalate the war and invade China.
Every single one of those actions would have to be preceded by MacArthur *turning back* the North Korean invasion, as that is what incited hostilities in the first place.
Your making it sound like MacArthur had at any point the intend to be contented with merely pushing the Norks back to the border and staying there, I am point out he never intended to be content with any such thing. Your coaching military and political actions and intentions together, in a discussion that requires a great deal of precision. Thus anything you say that you do not explicitly carefully describe knowing those differences is inaccurate at best.
There is a distinction between "Okay first we thing we need to do is stop them." Versus "We are going to stop them and then see what up." Because the first implies there are additional actions.
Besides its a derail anyways because again what matters is what is historically factual regarding your statement, you *added* in that line and it isn't relevant to the discussion to whether MacArthur had contingencies to deal with the PVA and thus why he didn't have contingencies to deal with the PVA, ergo why you are arguing he felt he had access to nukes...? Do you see why your arguments aren't making any sense?
quote: Unfortunately I just don't feel like continuing at this point as I don't feel like even if I said something that was accurate, that you'd concede an inch.
You haven't said anything accurate yet and haven't had a single valid argument, so yes, of course I am under no obligation to concede an "inch" because concession requires that I find your logic and evidence to be persuasive. Assumptions predicated on suppositions that conflict with the historical record coached in apologia are not the least bit persuasive.
You are free to abandon the discussion whenever, but it won't stop my feeling of disappointment in the fact that you asked me to compromise on an issue, which I did, but choosing to abandon the discussion regardless. Nor change the fact that it won't be because "I was unreasonable unable to be persuaded by sound arguments"; because again, if your assumptions are wrong (which I have shown they are) then so are your arguments so why is it unreasonable for me to not be convinced?
Since you broke our compromise I'll be remiss to not point out:
quote: MacArthur believed that he could successfully turn back the North Korean invasion.
Is not what you said originally here:
quote: You aren't proving me wrong. You are actually agreeing with me. The Chinese were openly stating their intention to be involved in Korea, MacArthur a top tier commander would have certainly been aware of this possibility. He may have gambled on it not happening, but to say he didn't even have a contingency plan for his contingency plan is to under estimate one history's brightest leaders.
You do not mention the North Koreans at all so how could it be your argument here:
quote: BlackBlade's Argument as told by BlackBlade:
"MacArthur believed that he could successfully turn back the North Korean invasion. He believed that the Chinese most likely would not interfere with these plans, but he did not rule it out. In the event the Chinese did interfere, he had the unbeatable atomic bomb available to him."
Ergo why I am saying you've changed your argument without acknowledging that you've done so, this is a really simple thing.
Has Tom read this thread? I'll believe his analysis as to what is going on.
[ March 25, 2013, 11:15 PM: Message edited by: Blayne Bradley ]
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Blayne:
quote:Your making it sound like MacArthur had at any point the intend to be contented with merely pushing the Norks back to the border and staying there, I am point out he never intended to be content with any such thing.
Nope. I never made that argument either, so I'm going to ignore the rest of your post.
quote:You haven't said anything accurate yet and haven't had a single valid argument, so yes, of course I am under no obligation to concede an "inch" because concession requires that I find your logic and evidence to be persuasive.
It also involves being able to be persuaded in the first place, which you have steadfastly refused to be. I can't persuade you, nobody on this board, or any other I'm aware of can persuade you. Either you are just flat out more correct than all those people on every single topic you choose to engage in, a feat of amazing prowess, or you are full of pride, and it precludes you from letting others correct your misconceptions as to do so would be weakness to you, a common human failing.
So, go ahead. Live in your world where the North Koreans were just trying to unite a weak South Korea that had to be propped up by the West, whereupon bumbling old MacArthur with his dastardly plans of total Asian dominance, just got lucky with his invasion spot in Korea because the Chinese had scouted him out, and tried their darndest to clue the North Koreans in. Finally as the UN forces pressed their advantage, the mighty Chinese army, like an unstoppable sea pushed stupid old MacArthur all the way back to the original boundary between the Koreas, then benevolently doffed their hats, and retreated back to China.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote: Nope. I never made that argument either, so I'm going to ignore the rest of your post.
The *rest* of the post provides context why because regardless of *why* you think it isn't what you said there is an obligation for me to respond to it. So go ahead ignoring it, doesn't change anything really.
quote: It also involves being able to be persuaded in the first place, which you have steadfastly refused to be.
We will never know. You don't get to *not* put up logical arguments under the assumption that the person you are arguing with won't agree; you put up a reasonable argument first, which you haven't.
Like not once have you actually responded to my criticism that your arguments have predications based on assumptions (except to say "Nuh-Uh!", you are only responding to the only the shallowest resemblance of what I am saying not to anything that actually structurally matters in context.
For example your counter argument to that MacArthur made no contingencies to deal with the PVA is that "Well MacArthur was a bright general so WHat Would MacArthur Do?" and then assumed everything out of thin air based on that assumption that MacArthur would've been "bright" enough to avoid falling into the very traps that he had fallen into anyways! With only the weakest rationalizations of "WELL HOW COULD HE HE DIDNT HAVE THE RESERVES! HE CANT PLAN WITH RESOURCES HE WASNT GIVEN!(sic.) http://i.somethingawful.com/forumsystem/emoticons/emot-saddowns.gif" To which to your egregiously unsound argument I counter argue with the obvious Military Truism of "Yes. Yes I can blame him for not coming up with a solution for that. Many other generals have pulled off more with less, why should I hold him to a lower standard when you obviously consider him to be very skilled? It is the least he should have considered and done, you say he did consider it, but obviously not to the point to actually DO anything about it but somehow he *must* have had contingencies that he never used or have any record of implementing?
Remember, if logically he made no conventional contingencies ergo he must have had planned for a nuclear initiation release. However since there is no historical evidence that he ever intended nuclear release in the event of China intervention until AFTER the fall of Seoul ergo it is logical to conclude he must have merely been incompetent hence why your original statement is historically inaccurate.
quote: ive in your world where the North Koreans were just trying to unite a weak South Korea
Lolz, like holy shit that's low, since I didn't actually say this its pretty immature of you.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Blayne Bradley just called BlackBlade immature, and if I'm not mistaken it was without a whiff of irony.
SW, in case you're wondering that right there is what we're talking about.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
When in doubt we should all ask ourselves: What would BlackBlade do?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Blayne you need to go through these posts and edit them. Forget arguments, even your basic readability is really lacking right now.
Like: "Your making it sound like MacArthur had at any point the intend to be contented with merely pushing the Norks back to the border and staying there, I am point out he never intended to be content with any such thing."
What?
"With only the weakest rationalizations of "WELL HOW COULD HE HE DIDNT HAVE THE RESERVES! HE CANT PLAN WITH RESOURCES HE WASNT GIVEN!(sic.) http://i.somethingawful.com/forumsystem/emoticons/emot-saddowns.gif" To which to your egregiously unsound argument I counter argue with the obvious Military Truism . . ."
Huh?
Take a freaking breath, man.
You're so incoherent I honestly can't even tell what your argument is. Are you saying Macarthur didn't want to use nukes to stop the Chinese from crossing the Yalu? Or that he didn't plan to do so earlier than that? Or... what?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: SW, in case you're wondering that right there is what we're talking about.
yesh.
to recap the essence of it, sw, from last time:
quote:You haven't spent sufficient time here to appreciate how the heart sinks when Blayne decides he's going to make a point on something. Or possibly to know the type of weary, deep regret that he has not grown up in all these years. Or to feel tired at the prospect of wading through a series of posts, never really knowing when the material will have been copy pasted from unknown and uncredited sources. Or to feel powerless and defeated at the prospect tht, should you engage with it at all, you will be the target of vociferous abuse and insinuations and paranoid persecution fantasies.
quote:. Slack, consider slack, copious amounts of slack, has been cut.
quote:Yeah, that's the essence of it, stone wolf. For five years now, probably more, this has been what Blayne has done. You disagree with one of his Trigger Issues, no matter what, you get a ceaseless slew of poorly-worded, pseudo-erudite garble that
(1) ceaselessly dismisses your position as just being prattle, and get subject to multiple comments where he decides your intent for you
(2) fails to or refuses to acknowledge your real position at all (see what he's doing to rakeesh) and gives no indication that he will ever try to
(3) is usually copy-pasted, in whole or in part, uncredited, from whoever Blayne is plagiarizing that week, and
(4) reliably expresses Blayne's ingrained tendency to never deviate from a given assurance of how true and right he is on his trigger issues, and to only get more crude and irrationally dismissive (see him in the China thread, or six billion other examples).
corollary is (5) that this always happens no matter as to whether someone's got him dead to rights on a subject that he is obsessed over.
quote:When are you people going to learn not to engage Blayne? He's never going to learn, and you people thought for years that you should nanny him and try to play nice and to "ease up" like Stone_Wolf_ suggests and all he did with this extra niceness and leniency was train himself to blame others for when he flips his lid in response to being called out for the way he uncontrollably acts.
He has done one smart thing, though. He has figured out what he did here? He's allowed to do it. that he can just keep hurling swear words and direct abuse towards other posters and just going ahead and violating the TOS blatantly whenever he really gets in a snit. You have all trained him that he gets to get away with it over and over and he has at least learned that lesson well.
quote:You know, BlackBlade treats you with remarkable respect given your not-uncommon descent into shrill tantrums, Blayne, and he is not exactly an ignorant provincial with respect to China either. Yet you sneer at him and suggest he's naive because he expresses confidence that something will happen that the very government you're defending is surely wary of too, popular discontent with its rule and a major political upheaval from the bottom up. You do it without batting an eye, either. Kind of pissed me off. Is he now another person whose opinions you get to just write off and roll your eyes at in your usual pompous, unjustified manner?
I don't speak for him, it was just intensely irritating to see someone who makes such a point of demanding apologies for slights and demands as much unwarranted respect as you sneer like that.
But I'm sure that as usual, your points and style scintillate while those who disagree are idiotic ignorant bullies.
quote:This is an honest not-joking not-snarky statement: I would be very appreciative for someone to take Blayne's post and essentially translate it to a pretty coherent version so that I am sure of what he is saying.
I mean, yeah.
I don't even have to say anything anymore. Look at all this text about how much this is all repetition of the same things.
There's your answer, stone wolf. There, and again here.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Pretty sure (3) Is an outright lie and at best references when I would simply quote Yahtzee or Jon Stewart to be witty.
That the whole spat with Orincoro started when he decided to insult me over me believing it isn't necessary to *live* in Russia to write a story with Russian characters prompted me to goad him to using reverse psychology by insinuating he never actually went to the Czech republic in a poorly thought out attempt to trick him into giving me advice is what started his vendetta is pretty hilarious in a sad little way in hindsight.
Much like how those posts are also rather sad and pathetic as the authors who wrote them.
I guess we have an answer as to how every single thread from here on out is going to end up.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Blayne you need to go through these posts and edit them. Forget arguments, even your basic readability is really lacking right now.
Like: "Your making it sound like MacArthur had at any point the intend to be contented with merely pushing the Norks back to the border and staying there, I am point out he never intended to be content with any such thing."
What?
Autocorrect for typo's: "Your making it sound like MacArthur had at any point the intended to be contented with merely pushing the Norks back to the border and staying there, I am pointing out he never intended to be content with any such thing."
That's plenty understandable.
quote:
"With only the weakest rationalizations of "WELL HOW COULD HE HE DIDNT HAVE THE RESERVES! HE CANT PLAN WITH RESOURCES HE WASNT GIVEN!(sic.) http://i.somethingawful.com/forumsystem/emoticons/emot-saddowns.gif" To which to your egregiously unsound argument I counter argue with the obvious Military Truism . . ."
Huh?
Take a freaking breath, man.
I'm mocking BB's argument which has been quite circular and inconsistent. Let me rephrase without the img url.
quote: With only the weakest rationalizations of:
"WELL HOW COULD HE HE DIDN'T HAVE THE RESERVES! HE CANT PLAN WITH RESOURCES HE WASN'T GIVEN!(sic.)"
To which to your egregiously unsound argument I counter argue with the obvious Military Truism . . .
Again, plenty readable.
quote:
You're so incoherent I honestly can't even tell what your argument is. Are you saying Macarthur didn't want to use nukes to stop the Chinese from crossing the Yalu? Or that he didn't plan to do so earlier than that? Or... what?
There's several posts where I restate my argument again and again, it isn't funny how it can be this badly misunderstood.
My argument comes from a few perspectives:
1) That history has a lot of "common conventional understandings" that have some level of value as a "short hand" for complex historical events. "Curtis LeMay was a crazy motherf*cker", "MacArthur wanted to nuke China", "The Holy Roman Empire was dominated by the Hapsburgs", "America won WWII" that seem true enough, but are far more complicated and actually require a lot of precision to be "accurate".
Thus, BB's OP that I quote below is one of those "truisms" that I merely point out isn't actually correct when properly studied.
2) That Blackblade's argument actually changes, he adds information to his argument in future posts, but insists that his original argument, and his clarification are the same and no new information was added. This is clearly false with even the most basic understanding of the english language. There's literally more words and new assertions are made, they are impossible to be the same.
3) That even if we agree, and let his argument be "consistent" for the purposes of discussion, it is still historically inaccurate, and his reasonings are predicated on assumptions about what macArthur would or would not do based on the supposition that he was a "bright commander".
The point, is that is not conventionally regarded as being true, it is at best personal opinion and not one widely held among military historians and if his predicate is incorrect so is his conclusion which is a mathematical proof in propositional formal logic.
To reiterate:
quote: WHAT BLACKBLADE ORIGINALLY SAID BY BLACKBLADE
Also, MacArthur didn't think the Chinese to come, but he also believed if they did, we'd just use our nukes, which was why he operated the way he did. Unfortunately for him, Truman was not on the same page.
Which I'll divide up:
quote: Also, MacArthur didn't think the Chinese to come,
So far, this is true. But understates the actual level of dismissal MacArthur felt.
quote: but he also believed if they did, we'd just use our nukes,
Here's where we swerve into fantasy land. Because:
i) Even if we grant "we" to be the US military as commanded by Truman as a whole there's no way he would have known if Truman would be willing to use nuclear weapons in Korea, not in 1950.
ii) He actually believed that American air superiority in the form of heavy bombers would be sufficient to carpet bomb exposed Chinese land forces.
iii) MacArthur only decided the need to use nuclear weapons after Seoul was lost a second time.
quote: which was why he operated the way he did.
Here's where the suppositions eventually come in, he operated as dictated by the historical record:
a) Overextended his supply lines, exhausted his troops and, b) ignored Army intelligence of PVA forces operating in Korea and engaging US troops. c) Made no contingencies to deal with or prepare for a Chinese intervention. d) Intended, by all accounts, to keep going and invade the PRC with land forces.
Blackblade assumes that because he felt that MacArthur was a "bright" General that MacArthur must have prepared contingencies, and yet when prompted about why these were never deployed he responds that MacArthur simply didn't have the troops or assets to do so.
This is a contradiction, when you make contingencies you find the assets and put them in reserve, even if it means being less effective in ongoing operations. If he did not have the assets, and did not act to organize his OOB to give him even the minimal reserves or assets to deal with a Chinese eventuality, then ergo he must not have had any actual contingencies, because a good commander would have managed something, not the "nothing" that MacArthur came up with.
What a "good" commander would do is also a supposition, but born out more times then not, by the historical record, then the supposition that MacArthur was a "bright" commander.
Additionally we know that if he *did* plan or have a contingency for Chinese intervention, he would logically not dismiss and ignore Army intelligence; a contingency to react to a threat is afterall, worthless if you ignore the threat.
This is behaviour consistent with someone whose Ego and racism clouded his military judgement, he believed he understood the "asian mind" and that the Chinese would not intervene for a "number of reasons" some of them maybe even valid, but none of these reasons translated into an actual contingency backup plan in case he was dead wrong.
The claim is that MacArthur did not even seriously think to use nuclear weapons to respond to the Chinese for a number of reasons born out by the historical record; not that MacArthur would not.
Because, this claim is a supposition which as previously pointed out is predicated on MacArthur being a in BB's words a "bright commander" and thus he must have "obviously" thought that he might need to use nuclear weapons to respond to China... If they invaded, thus why they would not invade.
Again, I repeat myself: Since MacArthur is NOT a bright commander, and because there is no historical record of him saying or planning for it at the time, it isn't reasonable to conclude that MacArthur believed that the United States would respond with nuclear initiation should the Chinese intervene in Korea.
Thus, MacArthur did not believe the Chinese would intervene for different reasons.
And because he did not believe the Chinese would invade, he made no preparations to deal with the eventuality; BB's assertion he MUST have made contingencies is contradicted by the historical fact that he did not act in a way that assumed he did.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Blayne...you could have skipped the last page and a half and simply said, "I disagree." and accomplished more.
Without a time machine AND a mind reader, there won't be a definitive, provable answer.
And antagonizing people here is not worth trying to prove the unprovable.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Oh, and to Samp: No need to dig, I get it now.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
not a dig, it just took me a while to find a smattering of quotes that were basically all about how history has been repeating itself for six years and all are known quantities here
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: .
That the whole spat with Orincoro started when he decided to insult me over me believing it isn't necessary to *live* in Russia to write a story with Russian characters prompted me to goad him to using reverse psychology by insinuating he never actually went to the Czech republic in a poorly thought out attempt to trick him into giving me advice is what started his vendetta is pretty hilarious in a sad little way in hindsight.
I can't speak to what *you* may think happened. I can only assure you, my objections were not to the idea of you writing a story about a place you have never been. That is not an undertaking I find objectionable.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Blayne...you could have skipped the last page and a half and simply said, "I disagree." and accomplished more.
Without a time machine AND a mind reader, there won't be a definitive, provable answer.
And antagonizing people here is not worth trying to prove the unprovable.
There is however a *more likely* answer and well this is a forum and I'm opinionated; do you actually expect me to *not* actively pursue and argue my position so long as I have valid grounds and warrant to stand on? Should we not have arguments at all? People are always going to be upset in a heated enough discussion as a byproduct no matter what steps you take to not step on peoples toes because popular topics of discussion are also the closest to peoples hearts.
This is just a bizarre situation of where what I am seeing if not conforming to reality and that's jarring. Two things that are equal to the same thing are equal to each other. BB's posts are neither equal to the point he is making, nor to each other. This is as clear as day and night to me and I cannot understand how he views them as equivalent. I had another friend look at it, his opinion is that we're talking past each other.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote: do you actually expect me to *not* actively pursue and argue my position so long as I have valid grounds and warrant to stand on?
Yes. It doesn't matter, and you are wasting your time.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
And I don't mean that in a "you're wasting your time on someone so foolish as..." I mean you're literally wasting your life away arguing over a small historical point.
You want to argue this, you go back to the sources, you tackle all the primary documents available and you write a blog post, a thesis or a book on what was going through MacArthur's mind and then you post your thesis, fully cited, to BlackBlade with clear indications of exactly what makes you think such and such and not the reverse, and with all the stacks of appropriate bibliography-- and at least get a freaking PhD out of it.
Otherwise, it's just another night in which you fight over WIkipedia's wording and some PhD friend that you may or may not have citing a book or other text that you may or may not have actually read.
Alternatively, askhistorians.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: .
That the whole spat with Orincoro started when he decided to insult me over me believing it isn't necessary to *live* in Russia to write a story with Russian characters prompted me to goad him to using reverse psychology by insinuating he never actually went to the Czech republic in a poorly thought out attempt to trick him into giving me advice is what started his vendetta is pretty hilarious in a sad little way in hindsight.
I can't speak to what *you* may think happened. I can only assure you, my objections were not to the idea of you writing a story about a place you have never been. That is not an undertaking I find objectionable.
Do you think you can find the argument he's talking about? Because I would like to see how different what you were actually arguing was.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Teshi:
quote: do you actually expect me to *not* actively pursue and argue my position so long as I have valid grounds and warrant to stand on?
Yes. It doesn't matter, and you are wasting your time.
Then forums should not exist by your definition. It's dumb because you're limiting the scope of what is "acceptable" based on whether you get a discreet result, that's madness.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I think it's fine to argue for a short while. If agreement is not forthcoming, I don't see the point of torturing yourself over trying to get someone to agree, especially over the internet.
For example, I could post another post after this, and another, way into the middle of my night and long after my delirious brain makes any sense. However, I have made my argument and apparently it is both "dumb" and "madness" according to you. I, of course, do not agree with this assessment.
So, in my view, with this kind of start, there is little point in me pushing the point further. If you wish to come back to my argument later, you may, but unless you have something new to say there is no point in me using up further time.
And now I get to sleep at a reasonable hour and use the remaining time to accomplish various things. Ta-daa.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Your point was absolutist in nature, as such your assessment was objectionable.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: .
That the whole spat with Orincoro started when he decided to insult me over me believing it isn't necessary to *live* in Russia to write a story with Russian characters prompted me to goad him to using reverse psychology by insinuating he never actually went to the Czech republic in a poorly thought out attempt to trick him into giving me advice is what started his vendetta is pretty hilarious in a sad little way in hindsight.
I can't speak to what *you* may think happened. I can only assure you, my objections were not to the idea of you writing a story about a place you have never been. That is not an undertaking I find objectionable.
Do you think you can find the argument he's talking about? Because I would like to see how different what you were actually arguing was.
I found the thread after some googling, he starts out with some good advice that I should've responded better and in a less aggressive way; but very quickly abandons constructive criticism to criticising my life choices and states flat out that I should not bother writing at all while being judgemental about my personal life or 'lack thereof'.
Obviously I got angry and said somethings I shouldn't have but I was less mature then. The tangent drops and an interesting discussion on physics starts up and then a little later (a few months to a year?) I post a bunch of world building ideas I've had that was distracting me from writing and developing any one idea.
A side note, I've actually written several tens of thousands of words since then.
Then Orincoro said he was going to deliberately withhold information, he really shouldn't have said that, or even posted. So I posted an angry post, which Orincoro escalates from there. "And I love that you think your now an expert in slavic languages", and Orincoro just looses his shit and flips out.
Such as glorious tidbits like "No Blayne, I would like you to go away." Plus other direct insults, and hey look, more insults, and some more insults, lets see if we can fit some patronizing derision, yup, there it is.
Then he looses his shit again, and it just escalates and escalates until Blackblade intervenes because well my behavior was unacceptable but Orincoro's was worse, he got email warnings after all.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I found the thread after some googling, he starts out with some good advice that I should've responded better and in a less aggressive way; but very quickly abandons constructive criticism to criticising my life choices and states flat out that I should not bother writing at all while being judgemental about my personal life or 'lack thereof'.
Obviously I got angry and said somethings I shouldn't have but I was less mature then. The tangent drops and an interesting discussion on physics starts up and then a little later (a few months to a year?) I post a bunch of world building ideas I've had that was distracting me from writing and developing any one idea.
A side note, I've actually written several tens of thousands of words since then.
Then Orincoro said he was going to deliberately withhold information, he really shouldn't have said that, or even posted. So I posted an angry post, which Orincoro escalates from there. "And I love that you think your now an expert in slavic languages", and Orincoro just looses his shit and flips out.
Such as glorious tidbits like "No Blayne, I would like you to go away." Plus other direct insults, and hey look, more insults, and some more insults, lets see if we can fit some patronizing derision, yup, there it is.
Then he looses his shit again, and it just escalates and escalates until Blackblade intervenes because well my behavior was unacceptable but Orincoro's was worse, he got email warnings after all.
if you found it you can link me to it.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
For the record, since its propably a good idea to take the initiative, I do largely disavow most of my terrible responses in that thread and for whatever its worth I'm sorry. But Orincoro did say various horrible things to another poster that he had no right or standing to say and ultimately should apologize for. No one should have said the things he did.
For the record, say please, or "can you link it to me."
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
My first thought at reading that thread was "Well, couldn't the Russian just be...drunk? 'Cause, you know...".
Also, Blayne, I'm curious, did you ever actually write that novel, or even start on it? Have you even written anything that you've let other people read? Apologies if you've started threads about it, etc., I lurk pretty infrequently here.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:Your point was absolutist in nature
No it wasn't. It was specific and particular to you, yesterday. And still today, incidentally. You asked a specific question, I gave you a specific answer. If you're not happy continuing this argument, stop.
If you're happy arguing in this way and this is the way you'd rather do it, then be happy. Otherwise, my advice for improvement of your argument is to go forth and find more information. You could plot your arguments like this:
- Some basic substantiation, like Wikipedia - More Wikipedia referencing in counter to your argument
- Other websites on the internet with relevant information, your friends, reddit. - More countering.
Now here's where we cross over into new territory. If you have not resolved your argument and you still feel you have one, repeating your data, now is the time to do serious research such as read a book or an article on the subject that you can directly cite. If you've already read a book or an article on the subject (as I presume you have in order to make a confident assertion) go and GET the book and start quoting. If that book's not enough, get another book.
If this is too much time, drop the argument. If it's not too much time, go and do it cheerfully. You might learn some interesting stuff in the process that you didn't know before.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: There is however a *more likely* answer and well this is a forum and I'm opinionated; do you actually expect me to *not* actively pursue and argue my position so long as I have valid grounds and warrant to stand on?
A large part of the problem is that you don't possess the critical reasoning skills yet to determine the difference between valid and invalid, nor are you EVER open to being swayed from whichever end of an argument you start from. You think you're arguing logically, but logic never enters into it, so it obviously has no choice but to devolve into namecalling.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Blayne, I posted this around four years ago in that thread you linked. I very much doubt you'll listen to it now any more than you did then, but here you go:
quote:
quote:You don't frequent Sakeriver right? Right, so you wouldn't know then that I I've been recently diagnosed with PDD-NOS, I'm incapable of having a normal social life.
If your therapist told you that you are incapable of having a normal social life because he diagnosed you with PDD-NOS, I would strongly recommend seeing a different therapist.
PDD-NOS is diagnosed primarily in childhood and even then is sort of a cath-all for things that don't fit elsewhere (which is why the NOS means Not Otherwise Specified). As I understand it, it may be inferred in adulthood, but this is less a full diagnosis and more and indication that this may be the case.
Regardless, the therapist's job would not be to slap a label on you and say "You can't have a normal social life." but instead to work with you, using the potential PDD-NOS as a guide for where your impairments might be, so that you can develop as normal a social life as possible.
PDD-NOS is often a mild condition and the social impairments that it introduces can, in many cases, be managed or even overcome.
Being diagnosed with a mental disorder is not primarily about an excuse for your poor behavior or a way to get free money from the government, which seems to me to be the way you have treated it. It is the first step in working with a competent psychological professional to overcome or manage the disorder. I may be wrong about this, but I'm pretty sure you haven't been to a mental health professional for that purpose since you got your diagnosis.
If you want your life to get better, this would be a big step towards pursuing that.
You have a choice now. You can either ignore me or commence cursing at me. (I mean, there's pretty much no chance you'll actually listen to me.)
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Easy on the dogpile guys.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
It's a bit surreal to go back in that old thread and see the 2009-era Dan comment on people treating Blayne harshly.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
man I think I reported that thread and got the hell out of it early
quote:It's a bit surreal to go back in that old thread and see the 2009-era Dan comment on people treating Blayne harshly.
why
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Just because I'm pretty sure Blayne considers me one of the mean unfair nasties these days. At least that's the impression I get.
I mean, I knew I'd stuck up for Blayne on occasion (and still do, even, when I have a reason to). But I don't usually have cause to see those instances years later. In this case, looking back, I think that I was wrong to scold JT for not giving Blayne more benefit of the doubt.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
What? No, I feel your opinions are wrong and destined for the trashbin of history and this has nothing to do with you as a person; otherwise why would I be playing Pathfinder with you?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Oh, fair enough then!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
wow
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: My first thought at reading that thread was "Well, couldn't the Russian just be...drunk? 'Cause, you know...".
Also, Blayne, I'm curious, did you ever actually write that novel, or even start on it? Have you even written anything that you've let other people read? Apologies if you've started threads about it, etc., I lurk pretty infrequently here.
I've been in a process of working to reconcile creative differences with a friend of mine who also wrote a scifi concept but his is Babylon 5ish far future (a few hundred years from now).
I thought it would be interesting if we merged them, my story could be the "prequel" and his can be what happens after--allowing us to split up writing duties and share.
Its an obviously difficult process but I feel a worthwhile one and a good experience with working with people. His issue is that mine is alternate history with its first major point of divergence in 1955. His story originally invisioned things being 'accurate' OTL until we meet aliens in the future.
He also envisions China being the major world power while I stuck with the USSR through the actions of its crypto-jew genius who took control after Stalin died. Nothing is truly mutually exclusive per se, I never actually decided who would win WWIII, so I've suggested it does collapse, NATO is exhausted and China forges on ahead.
For me I felt I could more consistently write a accurate seeming Russian narrative than Chinese, and he's Russian so I'm loling on the inside.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
All three take place in the same long-running multiplayer game as Children of the Fatherland, to which Blayne also contributed with "The Rise and Fall of Grigorii Rasputin" (a comic), and The Komneniad. Earlier he contributed to the later parts of The Great Game and to There Will Be War, although unfortunately you have to dig through a lot of comments to find the meaty AAR posts in these old forum threads. The index posts help somewhat but are not quite complete. There may be other Blayne AARs as well, but those are the ones I'm aware of since I wrote AARs for the same games. At any rate one can't accuse Blayne of not sharing his writing with the world.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I've also done a lot of learning to draw art over at Sakeriver in my Blogthread.
Can someone give me, like, the cliffs notes version of this
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
It's a story where I follow the POV of different characters serving in the armed forces of the country I was in charge of, I also have Isaac Asimov invent powered armour in science fiction and is charge of the Russian rocket program.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: In this case, looking back, I think that I was wrong to scold JT for not giving Blayne more benefit of the doubt.
Boom!
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Lots of blasts from the past today. Where's Samprany of Orincolo? I feel like it's time to hear from him.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I think Blayne actually said "Samprany-Orincolo team" earlier in this thread.
I still think Samprany of Orincolo is a fantastic name for a character.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I think Blayne actually said "Samprany-Orincolo team" earlier in this thread.
I still think Samprany of Orincolo is a fantastic name for a character.
Yeah, he did. Got a good laugh out of me. Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
It would have to have a low charisma score.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
as Samprany of Orinoclo I have for years been defending our borders from the savage Lithawns and the cunning Ralkeshans.
But name a gaming system and I'll make the Samprany for the setting.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I'm fairly certain that Orincoro spells his name with no "L".
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
WHOOOOOOOOOOOOSH
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I'm fairly certain that Orincoro spells his name with no "L".
What you are missing is all in the first sentence of Blayne's post, and in the subsequent responses.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I mix my l's and my r's.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
No, you misspell my username intentionally.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Would that make me "Stone_Worf_"?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
./
quote:No, you misspell my username intentionally.
i doubt it.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: No, you misspell my username intentionally.
Proof?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: because well my behavior was unacceptable but Orincoro's was worse, he got email warnings after all.
News to me. I don't know what you were told.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: ./
quote:No, you misspell my username intentionally.
i doubt it.
Really?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: ./
quote:No, you misspell my username intentionally.
i doubt it.
Really?
I do. I think that especially in long posts, Blayne doesn't bother to go back over and correct spellings.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: I mix my l's and my r's.
I'm pretty sure that's wrong. From what I've observed, you mix your r's and your l's. :nods:
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
how about Samprany of shadowrun.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: No, you misspell my username intentionally.
Proof?
Do you really think mine is an assertion that demands proof? Alternatively, do you actually think that demanding proof of a subjective assertion disproves it? Tell us about "objective," again Blayne. I so enjoy that one when you do it.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
So, did anybody notice North Korea has officially put us on notice, by pointing missiles at our stuff?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
you mean by saying they were pointing missiles at our stuff
even the stuff they can't hit
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I personally like the lengthy list of all the things they were pointing their missiles at.
Meanwhile we point our missiles at one place, and we've pretty much got all their stuff in our sights.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
I think the only reason China support North Korea is because NK makes the Chinese government look like human rights paragons, in comparison.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: No, you misspell my username intentionally.
Proof?
Do you really think mine is an assertion that demands proof? Alternatively, do you actually think that demanding proof of a subjective assertion disproves it? Tell us about "objective," again Blayne. I so enjoy that one when you do it.
You are clearly an aggrieved party with some form of grievance, this only becomes 'reasonable' if there is evidence to support the assertion.
Otherwise it is "just making stuff up" or "lying through ones teeth" to make oneself feel good, such as your accusation of plagarism.
Maybe you have some other reasonable grievance, it doesn't make making up grievances reasonable and I'll just make fun of you for it.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
It wasn't a grievance Blayne. You only make yourself look childish by doing things like this. And more so by blowing up a comment into a "grievance," or an "accusation." I'm perfectly within my rights to suppose that you insult me intentionally. You have only to deny it- I do not need to "win," as I don't feel particularly aggrieved.
That this grandiosity suites your ego is clear. But I am not impressed.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I personally like the lengthy list of all the things they were pointing their missiles at.
Meanwhile we point our missiles at one place, and we've pretty much got all their stuff in our sights.
north korea makes a quite notable claim about turning seoul into a "sea of fire" and they can't even do that. I mean they can definitely kill a lot of civilians, but the end result would be the absolute destruction of their entire military structure in 48 hours, simply by cutting off the leadership and/or killing it.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: It wasn't a grievance Blayne. You only make yourself look childish by doing things like this. And more so by blowing up a comment into a "grievance," or an "accusation." I'm perfectly within my rights to suppose that you insult me intentionally. You have only to deny it- I do not need to "win," as I don't feel particularly aggrieved.
That this grandiosity suites your ego is clear. But I am not impressed.
You are within your "right" to suppose so, to the same degree you can suppose the world is flat; it just makes you silly for insisting on something you refuse to give evidence for.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Ok. Anything else Blayne?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Concession accepted.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Labeling that a concession explains so much!
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Posted by Parsimony (Member # 8140) on :
This is an excellent example of people who like to argue on the Internet. The goal is to just keep posting, never admit that there was any chance you could be wrong, until the opposing Internet person stops talking.
As long as you were the last person talking, it means you were righter and smarter and more awesomer than the other guy, because if he were right, he would have had more to say about it, right? Which only makes the "winner" that much more confident, which often crosses the line into obnoxiously belligerent, the next time.
Bravo, Internet.
Posted by Tittles (Member # 12939) on :
I would pay cash money to see Blayne work customer service somewhere.
"NO sir it is an OBJECTIVE FACT that this item is not in resalable condition. Anyone interested in being intellectually honest could see this. Fine if you never come back to this store that will obviously be you conceding."
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
i say it every time i can: Don't engage Blayne. Hopefully more people see why as time goes on.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Labeling that a concession explains so much!
I think he thinks we were arguing about something.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
i say it every time i can: Don't engage Blayne. Hopefully more people see why as time goes on.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I disagree...Blayne has something to offer to discussion. But I do feel that there comes a time to disengage the conversation when and if the discussion turns into an circular, painful argument. But that is hardly specific to Blayne.
One thing I can say for Blayne, that if one can be judged by your enemies, Blayne is top notch stuff.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
then you obviously can't be judged by your enemies.
seriously.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Yeah, that doesn't exactly make sense. Anyway, SW, Blayne is not my enemy. I have no enemies that I know of. Perhaps he thinks he is, but really, Blayne would have to level up several classes to engage on a level with many of the people who post here, and though I am not modest, I need not even mention myself.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Oh, I don't know. There's a good bit of 'effing with Blayne because he's Blayne' entrenched. I don't try hard enough to avoid that as I should, but I do succeed sometimes...but then, even though that's a factor, it's also tied up into...well...Blayne again.
This conversation ended up with Blayne smugly sneering at and mocking *BlackBlade*, Stone_Wolf. I can see why you'd be prone to sympathize with him as he is often antagonized by two people you're hardly fond of (seriously, man, the enemies bit, I'm not sure if you wanted anyone else to notice it was a shot as well as a compliment, or what), but it's not just the people you don't like.
Politics, current events, military discussions and history, economics, they're all topics where it is *really tough* to maintain a lengthy discussion with Blayne and dispute something without having it descend to an unpleasant level, and if you throw in China or Russia it becomes effectively impossible. It's not just the people you already don't like. BlackBlade isn't just known for being a nice guy, he has actually posted about his philosophy about even small courtesies making the world a better place-to you and I, no less, and you disagreed with him too!
So I suppose my thought is this: if you feel bad Blayne might be getting dogpiled, maybe tell him-not that it's done much good-not to treat even the nicest people like they're jackasses if they dare to disagree on a sacred subject.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote: Blayne smugly sneering at and mocking *BlackBlade*
I took up a deliberate mocking tone for specific portions of his argument which is a valid part of argumentation as its meant to provide emphasis and highlight logical inconsistencies. But I dispute "sneering" that's a complete fabrication.
quote: Politics, current events, military discussions and history, economics, they're all topics where it is *really tough* to maintain a lengthy discussion with Blayne and dispute something without having it descend to an unpleasant level, and if you throw in China or Russia it becomes effectively impossible.
This isn't the whole story, if people gave a reasoned argument and then I just randomly snap at people this may resemble what happens, can you show a recent example of where this happens?
quote: So I suppose my thought is this: if you feel bad Blayne might be getting dogpiled, maybe tell him-not that it's done much good-not to treat even the nicest people like they're jackasses if they dare to disagree on a sacred subject.
I've never "snapped" or whatever or said anything of the sort for "disagreeing", again, can you show me when this happens?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tittles: I would pay cash money to see Blayne work customer service somewhere.
"NO sir it is an OBJECTIVE FACT that this item is not in resalable condition. Anyone interested in being intellectually honest could see this. Fine if you never come back to this store that will obviously be you conceding."
I did work with Rogers Canada for a while and was very good at my job at helping people with their problems, just not very good at shilling for Rogers and selling their products.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: [QB] I took up a deliberate mocking tone for specific portions of his argument which is a valid part of argumentation...
Ok. There are reasons to disagree with your reasoning here, but it's what you believe.
quote: But I dispute "sneering" that's a complete fabrication.
A complete fabrication? You mocked him, by your admission, but the idea that you sneered (and textually speaking, this is just a semantic quibble about the degree and flavor of mocking involved here, as is the difference between mocking someone and his arguments- particularly in this case, as you made no substantive difference between argument and person in your comments), is a complete fabrication? Complete? As in total? As in based in no part on reality? Really?
I understand that this is you back talking your way out of having crossed over into behavior you perhaps regret, by making yourself appear to have only been trying to express yourself, and making your behavior, and the way it appears to others, to have been deliberate, is a way of doing this. But please, know that we know you're doing it. Know that this is not difficult to understand for anyone else here. That you regret, if not what you said, then at least the consequences of having said it; thus the weird non-apology mea culpa of admitted you mocked someone, while also claiming that mockery is part of argument. A claim you would *never* make if you hadn't already been called out for mocking someone.
quote: I took up a deliberate mocking tone for specific portions of his argument which is a valid part of argumentation
For a person sensitive to mockery, as I think you often demonstrate yourself to be, I wonder that the irony of your saying this doesn't occur to you, in saying it. And I wonder that you do not worry that this gives license to anyone here, who you view as your tormentor, a free hand to use a mocking tone with you, given that doing so is apparently valid, as an argumentative strategy.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I took up a deliberate mocking tone for specific portions of his argument which is a valid part of argumentation as its meant to provide emphasis and highlight logical inconsistencies. But I dispute "sneering" that's a complete fabrication.
Alright, this first bit is flat-out wrong. I don't even believe you believe it's true, that deliberate mockery is a tool of 'valid argumentation'. If someone told you that, they lied. The second bit as has been noted...well I'm not sure how anyone can be expected to see the difference between deliberate mocking and sneering.
quote:This isn't the whole story, if people gave a reasoned argument and then I just randomly snap at people this may resemble what happens, can you show a recent example of where this happens?
This thread is amply supplied with examples of both, towards both BlackBlade and Lyrhawn. They were pointed out-politely and at length-by them when they happened. You denied all accusations repeatedly and continued with your 'valid argumentation' of sneering mockery. In years of HR, I don't believe anyone has ever been able to convince you that you were wrong on an idea or a tone in one of your sacred topics. If you object to this, don't just demand an example-offer one yourself where you DID cop to a mistake or apologize for an insult on one of these topics. I'd be surprised if you even tried at this point, and didn't just assert that without an example you don't hafta.
quote:I've never "snapped" or whatever or said anything of the sort for "disagreeing", again, can you show me when this happens?
This is what I'm talking about. *Never*? I can't think of anyone who has never snapped at someone for disagreeing with them on am important topic. I'm not sure if you actually believe this about yourself, or if it's not just another bit of 'valid argumentation', to start high and come down as time passes.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I need to make my position clear.
I have been defending Blayne in this and other threads not because I believe him to be right. Blayne I believe you go off and depart from reasonable discussion into hostile argument much too easily and often. That is on you.
But, everyone here knows it, and several people here have been taunting Blayne and provoking him, with the thin veneer of "for his own good." And this behavior I have a problem with. One person might be able to make this argument, but add in a dog pile, and even further that those dogpiling have a less then perfect rep and it all adds up to bullying.
Props to Rakeesh for not.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Blayne: I must say whoever gave you the notion that mocking is just a standard tool in a discussion to emphasize logical inconsistencies, doesn't know what they're talking about.
Perhaps if we were rival attorneys trying to defeat the other, that might be an acceptable way to secure victory. But I don't look at a discussion a chance to win or lose, I look at it as a way to exchange ideas and perhaps leave smarter, or at least more informed.
I would still engage you in conversation if you mocked me, so long as you backed off from doing it and recognized it as a mistake. I won't if it's a standard tool in your kit.
This would probably only serve to reinforce your, "I'm always right attitude" but I did my own research and MacArthur himself denies ever considering nukes as something he would use against the Chinese. He felt nukes should only be used against conventional military targets. Truman insisted that MacArthur had asked for nuclear authorization, but admitted to having no evidence to support his claim.
So already I am less comfortable with my initial claim, but not entirely dissuaded. I hope you learn one day that people who can do that are actually better people than those who *know* they are right all the time.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote: I would still engage you in conversation if you mocked me, so long as you backed off from doing it and recognized it as a mistake. I won't if it's a standard tool in your kit.
After thinking on it the last couple of days, and considering your high reasonableness I do agree that in hindsight it is not the best option, I am sorry for taking that tone and apologize and I won't do it again.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:But, everyone here knows it, and several people here have been taunting Blayne and provoking him, with the thin veneer of "for his own good." And this behavior I have a problem with. One person might be able to make this argument, but add in a dog pile, and even further that those dogpiling have a less then perfect rep and it all adds up to bullying.
Yeah, that's well and good, but I hope you realize your inclusion of a shot to the people *you* don't like (the enemies bit) mitigates your claim to being concerned with bullying?
Why is it bullying? We're all equal here, yes? No one can shove someone into the dirt and take their lunch money here. Shoulders can't be clipped. It's words. If the 'bullying' takes the form of plinking at Blayne until he flips out, well, sure, the guys plinking should stop but who is really being helped by not saying 'dude stop flipping out!' I dont claim they're actually trying to help, and admit to some skepticism that your defense might not have as much to do with disliking them as it does helping him. But there's the guys being jerks, and there's a guy being a jerk to everone, even the people who are famously not jerks.
---------
quote:After thinking on it the last couple of days, and considering your high reasonableness I do agree that in hindsight it is not the best option, I am sorry for taking that tone and apologize and I won't do it again.
Good on you man. Props. I know it's not easy saying that on this constellation of topics, with the people watching who are watching. Respect.
That said...seriously, you'll be held to that, and if you think jerks are being jerky now, well, that's probably not much compared to what would result if direct mockery were an argumentation tool again.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote: Why is it bullying? We're all equal here, yes? No one can shove someone into the dirt and take their lunch money here. Shoulders can't be clipped. It's words.
And people on facebook have committed suicide due to "just words" I'm sure you'll realize that this isn't a very thoroughly thought out line of reasoning.
quote: That said...seriously, you'll be held to that, and if you think jerks are being jerky now, well, that's probably not much compared to what would result if direct mockery were an argumentation tool again.
Likewise while I understand that you're probably saying this as a hypothetical if/maybe whatever, I do kinda sorta roll my eyes at the notion that good behavior should be predicated on something vaguely resembling a vague threat depending on the tone, time of day and the fluctuations of the universal constant.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I must be misunderstanding you, as it seems as you are saying that only assault can be bullying, and that is so clearly not true, I must have missed something.
As to your assertion that this is less about Blayne and more about my own axes to grind...you are partially correct, and partially incorrect. If you read my landmark, you know I was bullied my entire time in school, so, as such I have a particular sensitivity to it. So I tend to stand up when I perceive bullying. So more about my issues then any real solidarity with Blayne. But to the assertion that I'm just taking shots at ny enemies list, I am not.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:And people on facebook have committed suicide due to "just words" I'm sure you'll realize that this isn't a very thoroughly thought out line of reasoning.
Well if you could link me to even a single instance of someone committing suicide over back and forth trades of insults over current events discussions, then I'll cheerfully withdraw that remark.
Until then, though, perhaps you ought to reconsider just who might not have thought carefully on that matter.
quote:Likewise while I understand that you're probably saying this as a hypothetical if/maybe whatever, I do kinda sorta roll my eyes at the notion that good behavior should be predicated on something vaguely resembling a vague threat depending on the tone, time of day and the fluctuations of the universal constant.
That was as much a threat as what Orincoro did earlier was a concession. But since it wasn't clear: I have more than a little doubt this resolution not to turn to direct mockery as an argumentation tool will have much staying power. In an effort to give it more stamina I alluded to what you claim to wish to avoid. As for me it's about 6:5 weary annoyance and resigned amusement.
-----
quote:I must be misunderstanding you, as it seems as you are saying that only assault can be bullying, and that is so clearly not true, I must have missed something.
In order to reach that conclusion, you'd need to think my remarks were the sum total of my thoughts on the question 'what is bullying?' I don't believe I said or suggested anything that would point to that. The dirt and shoulders bit were only common, easy examples, not an exhaustive list.
quote:As to your assertion that this is less about Blayne and more about my own axes to grind...you are partially correct, and partially incorrect. If you read my landmark, you know I was bullied my entire time in school, so, as such I have a particular sensitivity to it. So I tend to stand up when I perceive bullying. So more about my issues then any real solidarity with Blayne. But to the assertion that I'm just taking shots at ny enemies list, I am not.
I didn't assert you were only taking shots at your enemies. I don't think I even used the word enemies, except in reference to your own remarks. I only pointed out that the aside to pause to take a shot at the people you didn't like sort of weakened your claim to a high-minded defense against bullying. But anyway, how is what's happened here bullying? Is it because multiple people were being critical of Blayne? Or what, exactly? I mean, have you read the thread? Does context count for nothing, or is all that's necessary for the word bullying to apply is for Samprimary or Orincorono to appear to he mean to someone? This isn't your school, and you aren't the only one with a history on the wrong side of bullying. You're cheapening the term, and the not uncommon suggestion that you're standing up against bullies is...irksome.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote: Well if you could link me to even a single instance of someone committing suicide over back and forth trades of insults over current events discussions, then I'll cheerfully withdraw that remark.
quote: Why is it bullying? We're all equal here, yes? No one can shove someone into the dirt and take their lunch money here. Shoulders can't be clipped. It's words.
"It's Words."
quote: In order to reach that conclusion, you'd need to think my remarks were the sum total of my thoughts on the question 'what is bullying?' I don't believe I said or suggested anything that would point to that. The dirt and shoulders bit were only common, easy examples, not an exhaustive list.
You clearly made a certain claim, if you had more thoughts that might better clarify your point that may otherwise lead to an entirely different conclusion than the one you intended, than you need to be upfront and write the claim you mean to make, not the one that only partially upholds what you mean but can be easily seen to mean something else.
Whether you feel I bring it on myself, or the conversation is deserving of the label of bullying isn't entirely relevant, here's the definition from wikipedia:
quote: Cyberbullying is defined in legal glossaries as actions that use information and communication technologies to support deliberate, repeated, and hostile behavior by an individual or group, that is intended to harm another or others. use of communication technologies for the intention of harming another person use of internet service and mobile technologies such as web pages and discussion groups as well as instant messaging or SMS text messaging with the intention of harming another person. Examples of what constitutes cyberbullying include communications that seek to intimidate, control, manipulate, put down, falsely discredit, or humiliate the recipient. The actions are deliberate, repeated, and hostile behavior intended to harm another. Cyberbullying has been defined by The National Crime Prevention Council: “When the Internet, cell phones or other devices are used to send or post text or images intended to hurt or embarrass another person."
And,
quote: Cyberbullying is perpetrated through Harassment, Cyberstalking, Denigration (sending or posting cruel rumors and falsehoods to damage reputation and friendships), Impersonation, Exclusion (intentionally and cruelly excluding someone from an online group)
Going into varying threads just to negatively engage a certain poster with a clear grudge, is bannable on several forums if I may mention.
[ April 01, 2013, 03:57 AM: Message edited by: Blayne Bradley ]
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Rakeeeh...I want to sat that I have noted and appreciated your efforts to be civil and positive...not just with me, but in general. That being said, all I can do is disagree with your assessment. You note that "jerks are being jerky" but think that calling it bullying "lessons the word"...well golly gee...what line must be crossed in your book that turns jerkiness in "real" bullying?
As to this...
quote:In order to reach that conclusion, you'd need to think my remarks were the sum total of my thoughts on the question 'what is bullying?' I don't believe I said or suggested anything that would point to that. The dirt and shoulders bit were only common, easy examples, not an exhaustive list.
I...shoot man...I'm having trouble here. I tried really hard not to simply point out how wrong you were last round...please don't dig in as if I was the one who said something undefendable here.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
S_W, perhaps you should stop using Blayne, as you so often do, as a proxy for your discontent with other people. You frequently "defend" him, without offering any defense of anything he does, because you don't like others whom he argues with. This does him no favors.
Posted by Tittles (Member # 12939) on :
I think an important aspect to consider is that we're better off without a person who would kill themselves over a mean Facebook posting.
So there's that.
Orincoro you gonna get thrown in the can, you keep talking to Judge Wolf like that.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Blayne, did you even read the story you linked? About the only thing it has in common with what is happening here is that both involved the Internet.
Now, I can see how what I said might-might-lead someone to conclude that I was saying 'the only way bullying can happen is through physical violence'. Frankly that interpretation smacks of looking for something and seizing on it, but I'll admit it wasn't well communicated. At this point all I can say is that no, I don't think that bullying cannot take place verbally and point out that I didn't say so.
quote:You clearly made a certain claim, if you had more thoughts that might better clarify your point that may otherwise lead to an entirely different conclusion than the one you intended, than you need to be upfront and write the claim you mean to make, not the one that only partially upholds what you mean but can be easily seen to mean something else.
The claim I made was that this here isn't bullying. You took my reasons-one of which you completely, unsurprisingly omitted (that is the utter equality here)-and turned it into a blanket statement on bullying in general.
quote:Going into varying threads just to negatively engage a certain poster with a clear grudge, is bannable on several forums if I may mention.
Blayne, to what extent to you really wish to discuss which posters are doing what bannable things, exactly? Or are we just supposed to forget about the not-unheard-of shouting, profanity-laden posts of yours? As for various threads...I don't understand. Do you own discussions on China and North Korea, or something?
Here's the thing: you've chased away most of the people who might otherwise be willing to engage in conversation on a variety of topics, leaving you with the people that are left. Yeah, they do like busting on you. I wonder to what extent that has *anything at all* to do with your own behavior too?
------------
Stone_Wolf,
quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rakeeeh...I want to sat that I have noted and appreciated your efforts to be civil and positive...not just with me, but in general. That being said, all I can do is disagree with your assessment. You note that "jerks are being jerky" but think that calling it bullying "lessons the word"...well golly gee...what line must be crossed in your book that turns jerkiness in "real" bullying?
...meaning what, exactly? That before I wasn't civil and positive in general? That's the kind of remark I'm talking about, right alongside the 'Blayne's enemies' bit.
As for what I meant about bullying, I was referring to your willingness to throw that word out there very, very quickly. But if you're defining bullying as someone being a jerk, then yes, I absolutely do think you're diminishing the word to the point where it loses most of its meaning.
As for what might cross the line, well 'golly gee' there are a variety of ways that could happen, and many of them could take place in a text format. But it hasn't happened here. Calling it bullying here actually diminishes Blayne, because he is an equal here. If he doesn't like what Samprimary or Orincoro are saying to him, he could in short order see to it that it doesn't happen here. He could even get the public disapproval of them that he seems to want quite a lot, and that wouldn't be hard either. But he won't drop that 'you said something I didn't like, so I get to fly off the handle' ideology, or at least he hasn't yet.
quote:I...shoot man...I'm having trouble here. I tried really hard not to simply point out how wrong you were last round...please don't dig in as if I was the one who said something undefendable here.
By all means, please do. 'Undefendable'? Goodness.
---------
quote:S_W, perhaps you should stop using Blayne, as you so often do, as a proxy for your discontent with other people. You frequently "defend" him, without offering any defense of anything he does, because you don't like others whom he argues with. This does him no favors.
This right here. Frankly I don't often even see you participating in a discussion on North Korea, or China, or Russia, but that is only an impression. What I did see here was you labeling Blayne 'top notch stuff' on account of who his 'enemies' are.
Now I suppose it's possible you meant that his enemies (such a silly word in this context) were really high-quality dudes and it reflected well on Blayne for being their opponents, but given that you were clearly speaking of Samprimary and Orincoro and potentially myself, I have a difficult time believing it was anything other than 'man, those guys are such freakin' jerks, Blayne, I'm right there with you'. I still don't understand how you think you can toss that sort of remark in there and still be taken seriously as a committed defender against bullying.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote: This right here. Frankly I don't often even see you participating in a discussion on North Korea, or China, or Russia, but that is only an impression. What I did see here was you labeling Blayne 'top notch stuff' on account of who his 'enemies' are.
If the standard of who should be allowed to defend me within the context of the thread is limited to those who partake in the discussion, shouldn't that also reflect a certain something on individuals whose purpose to join the fray is not to partake in the discussion?
quote: At this point all I can say is that no, I don't think that bullying cannot take place verbally and point out that I didn't say so.
Okay, then lets look at below:
quote: The claim I made was that this here isn't bullying. You took my reasons-one of which you completely, unsurprisingly omitted (that is the utter equality here)-and turned it into a blanket statement on bullying in general.
How does the equality matter? You never substantiated this except through "but what's going on isn't physical" as supporting evidence, which you just agreed isn't relevant as to what constitutes bullying. I don't see a lack of equality being the key distinguishing factor in any of the psych journals I've looked up, or in the definition I've posted; I didn't omit it, but included it just had no bearing on what is actually being discussed.
If we agree that bullying may be non physical than it must be possible for bullying to be psychological and if bullying may be psychological how does equal standing mitigate that the actions are still intended to harass, to cause harm, to denigrate, to embarrass, to put down, to false discredit, spreading slander, to troll, to exclude, to humiliate and more?
Are you saying that even these actions can and do happen, that because in your mind there is equal standing (being an online forum?) that this precludes the above to be bullying?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Orincoro...I may be defending Blayne for my own sensitivities, but I assure you that I am not using him as a foil. I am very out spoken and when I have something to say to you or Samp, or El Jay or Rakeeeh or Parkour, or Tittles I bloody well say it! I get why people are down on Blayne, but messing with him will not help, only hurt him. I was there myself.
Rakeeeh...I meant, with the enemies comment that all the HR jerks were circling, taking shots. And I wasn't including you in that btw. Again, it's not about my sympathizing, or singing my own praises but simply pointing out that those acting like jerks...are.
As to my compliment...damn straight that's what I meant. Just as yours to Blayne did. That being said I meant it (as I assume you did to Blayne) as a pat on the back for good work.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote: I would still engage you in conversation if you mocked me, so long as you backed off from doing it and recognized it as a mistake. I won't if it's a standard tool in your kit.
After thinking on it the last couple of days, and considering your high reasonableness I do agree that in hindsight it is not the best option, I am sorry for taking that tone and apologize and I won't do it again.
I appreciate that. Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Stone Wolf has also been pretty consistent in his advice to me in that I need to be doing a lot more to not get as bothered to imagined slights.
In unrelated news, Stone Wolf have you ever considered as alternative nicknames for MMO's or whatever Canine McGranite? I'm looking at your name and I just can't get it out of my head. Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
No, I had never considered that one. My old nick was "Ranger".
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Rakeeeh...I meant, with the enemies comment that all the HR jerks were circling, taking shots.
I think it was scumbags actually. That's what you called us. Yep. Scumbags.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I own a thesaurus. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:As to my compliment...damn straight that's what I meant. Just as yours to Blayne did. That being said I meant it (as I assume you did to Blayne) as a pat on the back for good work.
One compliment also contained a sharp insult, and one didn't. Which was my point.'
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I bet if you ask Blayne he would disagree that only -one- contained an insult.
As to if it was sharp...I find it strange that a group of guys saying how pointless it is to even talk to Blayne isn't bullying, but me saying to you that I think you were uncivil is a "sharp insult"? You had the admin forbid me from talking to you! Exactly what did you imagine my opinion of was that this little attempt at a compliment comes as shocking news to you?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I own a thesaurus.
And you abuse it by searching for words that you don't understand, and then using them... don't you?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Abuse? Well my thesaurus has never complained. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I bet if you ask Blayne he would disagree that only -one- contained an insult.
As to if it was sharp...I find it strange that a group of guys saying how pointless it is to even talk to Blayne isn't bullying, but me saying to you that I think you were uncivil is a "sharp insult"? You had the admin forbid me from talking to you! Exactly what did you imagine my opinion of was that this little attempt at a compliment comes as shocking news to you?
Some clarification: I wasn't referring to my entire post, but rather to the paragraph. Second, I think we may be getting confused as to what each other is talking about. The remark of yours I refer to as a sharp insult is the one in which you praised Blayne because of the 'enemies' he had. I interpreted that to be a rather scathing attack on Orincoro and Samprimary, possibly myself as well but I'm not so sure. Am I mistaken in that? Was that remark not intended as an attack on those people? It also read as distinctly passive aggressive, to layer an insult in the midst of praise for someone else.
As to it being pointless to talk to Blayne, if that were an accurate characterization of what happened here, all of this would be layered in page one, not page four. Now you're just whitewashing, and I'm not really sure why.
As to your opinion of me, yes, Stone_Wolf, I remember what it is quite well. It's not the first time you've asked me that question, in fact. I'm not sure why you keep making that inquiry-is it supposed to sting, or do you think I need a reminder, or what?
Finally, 'I had the admin forbid you from talking to me' is, shall we say, a very incomplete description. That said, I'll happily drop the matter. Actually drop it, I mean, without any thinly veiled attacks in the guise of praise of Blayne.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
There seems to be lots of confusion, as most of the points you brought up were specifically addressed earlier...
quote:Actually drop it, I mean, without any thinly veiled attacks in the guise of praise of Blayne.
No, your praise of Blayne comes with thinly veiled threats.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
If that's how you want to read it, there's little that can be said. If it had actually been a threat, I wouldn't consider that thinly veiled at all, really.
What it actually was, were the weary remarks of someone who hopes but doesn't expect 'direct mocking as valid argumentation' won't happen again, and not just to 'the bullies', either. What it was was me expecting that some point in the not too distant future, one of the sacred topics will come up and someone-not just 'the bullies'-will say something seems so wrong and/or offensive that direct mockery will again become a valid tool. That's when 'the bullies' will (with some cheerfulness) remember this conversation. I'd rather none of that happen, not just for my sake, but because it's not fun for anyone.
But believing that would smack of possibly agreeing that maybe it's not as simple as bullies and victim here, so I don't think it's likely.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Well I'm sorry that my insult to the jerks here had a thinly veiled complement to Blayne...as I explained.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
This thread has taken on the diplomatic spirit of its subject matter. It's kinda meta. But not in a good way.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Well I'm sorry that my insult to the jerks here had a thinly veiled complement to Blayne...as I explained.
I'm not sure if you're being intentionally ironic here or not.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Not ironic at all.
Did you even read this?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Ah, I didn't think so. Serious question: do you realize, or simply not care, how grating the passive-aggression in that apology and the 'Blayne is top notch judging by his enemies' can be?
I say that because I seriously can't tell: do you think it's going unnoticed, that you're sneaking something in under the radar? Because that treats people like they're stupid. Or do you realize it will be noticed, and convey the sort of insult or attack that is comprehended? Or do you not intend an insult at all? I really can't tell. I'm not just bitching at you.
Yeah, I did read that post. I guess I come away with a response of: if 'bullying' (which I still maintain you haven't made a good case for, but that's subjective) is such a big deal to you and it's so important to stand up against it, why do you so commonly do so in a passive aggressive way?
Because there are people who say 'hey, guys, lay off Blayne' without slipping in the shots. I really don't know how to interpret it when you do, though. What it reads like is that it's as much about taking swipes of your own as it is about speaking up against bullying.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I don't know what to tell you...I calls 'em like I sees 'em. I don't flinch away from calling someone's behavior jerky or inappropriate or hurtful or whatever. So if I'm "passive aggressive" then the unintentional part is the "passive".
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
On a semi interesting note, I would appreciate it if people didn't use my real name from now onwards and edit your recent posts, I greatly appreciate it.
Erz is also a pretty acceptable short hand Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
That's a neat trick.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar: On a semi interesting note, I would appreciate it if people didn't use my real name...
Cat's out of the bag on that one. What's your motive? Are you worried that people will Google you and find your posts here? It's going to be awfully hard to completely get all Hatrack posts out of Google results for your real name.
I'm kind of entertained by the idea that you might be thinking about one day applying for a job where such search results could hurt your chances for getting the job. That seems so far away from where you are right now, recently fired from a cell phone support call center.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I don't know what to tell you...I calls 'em like I sees 'em. I don't flinch away from calling someone's behavior jerky or inappropriate or hurtful or whatever. So if I'm "passive aggressive" then the unintentional part is the "passive".
I believe you think that you do. "Calls 'em like I sees 'em" people, though, don't make such a habit of sticking insults in the midst of praise, or make as much of a habit of concealing their antagonism for their 'enemies' with defense of a third party.
I know what 'concern for Blayne' looks like, and I know what 'excuse to take shots at people I don't like' looks like. Your last post perhaps unintentionally acknowledges which one this actually is. There's a reason you're so much quicker to note the bad behavior of Samprimary and Orincoro over others here-or even over Blayne himself, earlier in this thread. You can have whatever narrative about that that you like, and no one can stop you, but that's not what you put out into the world.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Forgive me if I take your assessment of me with a grain or two of salt.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Also he has asked to no longer referred to by his real name.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
I am confident that Blayne is not Blayne's real name. I think it's Charlie, or Chuck or something.
Posted by Parsimony (Member # 8140) on :
Just a helpful suggestion: if you want to transition away from using your real name on a forum you have frequented for years, maybe think about making your new name shorter and less complicated. If you make it something at least as easy to type and think as "Blayne," you might stand a better chance of getting others to call you by your new moniker.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Well...he did suggest "Erz" as a short hand
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'd go with "Eli" or "Sal" first, I think.
Posted by vegimo (Member # 12618) on :
ElSa?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
ERSa?
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by vegimo: ElSa?
And then when, one day, BB is a blushing bride, the processional can be "ElSa's Procession to the Cathedrral".
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:S_W, perhaps you should stop using Blayne, as you so often do, as a proxy for your discontent with other people.
yeah the "if one can be judged by your enemies, Blayne is top notch stuff" was piling it on real thick
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Good thing I clarified myself within a couple of posts, otherwise we might still be talking about it a whole page later!
[ April 04, 2013, 03:07 AM: Message edited by: Stone_Wolf_ ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
well I mean this really sums it up
quote:There's a reason you're so much quicker to note the bad behavior of Samprimary and Orincoro over others here-or even over Blayne himself, earlier in this thread. You can have whatever narrative about that that you like, and no one can stop you
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
My post was wry and droll.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Stephan needs to rename this thread title. It's not even close to accurate anymore.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Funny how yall seem to think that blade has only one edge...Rakeesh and Samp being hypercrirical of me...-that- has never happened before!
Your opinion on the situation has been duly noted.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
Thread drift happens.
Posted by Tittles (Member # 12939) on :
Lol at Blayne deleting his username so people can no longer search for his asinine previous posts to rub his nose in them.
Posted by Tittles (Member # 12939) on :
Because if he thinks we can't just because the forum search won't work, his google-fu is weak indeed.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
*shrug* If he wants to do an image makeover, go for it, anyone should be allowed to do so.
But by all means, Tittles, continue attempting to substitute overt mean-spirited trolling for wit, and perhaps we'll be rid of you that much sooner.
Posted by Tittles (Member # 12939) on :
1) I don't troll.
2) Hahaha should I mutter something about really just trying to help him? Will that make it witty again?
Posted by Tittles (Member # 12939) on :
And image makeover? His "new" handle has 12k posts on it.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
I vaguely wonder why you would even care if you were a "new" account, but that is distinctly unlikely.
Posted by Tittles (Member # 12939) on :
You start to annoy people really, really fast is all.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
I think several participants in this thread would desist if they knew just how much entertainment I'm getting out of it.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Stephan needs to rename this thread title. It's not even close to accurate anymore.
the real world situation has many astute parallels
Posted by Tittles (Member # 12939) on :
Can I be China? I've always wanted to be a worthless totalitarian dictatorship.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
One out of three ain't bad Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: I think several participants in this thread would desist if they knew just how much entertainment I'm getting out of it.
I'm betting it wouldn't change their behaviour one iota.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tittles: Can I be China? I've always wanted to be a worthless totalitarian dictatorship.
What you're doing there... I see it...
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tittles: You start to annoy people really, really fast is all.
With great power comes great amusement.
Posted by Tittles (Member # 12939) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar:
quote:Originally posted by Tittles: You start to annoy people really, really fast is all.
With great power comes great amusement.
Sounds like a troll to me.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
And trust me he would know!
Posted by Tittles (Member # 12939) on :
Well yeah ever since I started reading this board I've watched you follow Sam and Rakeesh from thread to thread in order to throw in your little non-sequitorial jabs whenever you think they leave an opening, so I've definitely seen them at work before.
eta - trolls, i mean.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
As opposed to Ogres or Owlbears, trolls require acid or fire to kill off forever.
*lights tinder*
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I've always seen myself more as an ogre.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
I can actually see what you are doing, stonewolf, even if you can't. You might need to recognize that you have many parallels with Blayne, even if you are unwilling to recognize them. You act up, and you often require a lot of patience. you are also bad at compartmentalizing your grievances, so it becomes really easy to see where you are trying to get your wounded licks in where you can. Maybe don't make a habit out of it, for when this thread is no longer tittles latest trollslum.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
*shrug* I don't know about all of that. What I do know is that earlier in the thread, when other people were criticizing Blayne, Stone_Wolf was on that side of the fence. When that group shifted to be largely 'enemies', abruptly he was on Blayne's side of the fence.
Coupled with some specific remarks the math on that is pretty easy. It doesn't have to be about any impossible-to-substantiate psychoanalysis.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by jebus202:
quote:Originally posted by steven: I think several participants in this thread would desist if they knew just how much entertainment I'm getting out of it.
I'm betting it wouldn't change their behaviour one iota.
maybe. But the enjoyment level keeps rising.
Rakeesh, I don't want to be a douche to you, but...do you ever just take a step back from the whole hatrackosphere and say to yourself "wow...tempest in a teapot"? There's an xkcd that really made me think of your approach here... here is that xkcd I mentioned
Of course, in that case, the "box" is Hatrack, and you, among all other people IN the box, have the least awareness of the larger world OUTSIDE of it. Not that you couldn't get that.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
the last thing i want to do right now is revisit stone_wolf psychoanalysis, but yeah. SW, your habits in this regard are practically palpable and are pretty much like rakeesh describes, whether or not you are consciously aware of the habit so
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Heh, Steven, there are a number of people who could pin that on me and not be laughably hypocritical, but you're not one of them. There's a good grain of truth there, but seriously, who do you imagine you're fooling being the one to offer it? Over in another thread you got invested and grandiose in your claims (doesn't know film, indeed) only to-when you were on the ropes-flip the table and announce how silly it all was.
That is often one of your concluding points, but hardly ever one of those you start with.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Heh, Steven, there are a number of people who could pin that on me and not be laughably hypocritical, but you're not one of them. There's a good grain of truth there, but seriously, who do you imagine you're fooling being the one to offer it? Over in another thread you got invested and grandiose in your claims (doesn't know film, indeed) only to-when you were on the ropes-flip the table and announce how silly it all was.
That is often one of your concluding points, but hardly ever one of those you start with.
IIRC, Sam was the one who got all butthurt first, and my entire POINT was that the feminist angle was dead in the water compared to the overall-quality-of-the-film, but...whatever, sure, if it makes you happy.
But as far as the xkcd thing, I honestly thought of you IMMEDIATELY, the very first time I read it. You were literally the first person who came to mind. I didn't even try to think about "who is someone who acts like those people in the box?" I just immediately, unbidden, thought of you. Sorry, and I not trying to bust your chops, but that's just how it went down.
Seriously, I would bet that everyone here agrees that you are the Hatracker MOST like those people in the box. And that's not necessarily entirely a bad thing. To some degree, it just is what it is. You have a personality characteristic. It has features and flaws both.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Yeah, Rakeesh kind of has a point: you get on the ropes, and default to a pretty trolly "I'm going to sit over here and laugh and look down on you" posting tone and mentality. Moreso the more your position becomes challenged.
I'm glad we are providing you such amusement, but it only really reinforces that you aren't a person who can be expected to argue in good faith. Especially by people like me who can flip over to this thread while the discussion is literally still taking place and see I am being described as ~gettin all butthurt~ or whatever.
Like, and yes, it's a habit. Your response can at this point be patterned based off of your increasingly flippant response to being challenged!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
*quietly piles steven into the list of people sam has ended up armchair poster-analyzing over the course of this thread*
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Yeah, Rakeesh kind of has a point: you get on the ropes, and default to a pretty trolly "I'm going to sit over here and laugh and look down on you" posting tone and mentality. Moreso the more your position becomes challenged.
I'm glad we are providing you such amusement, but it only really reinforces that you aren't a person who can be expected to argue in good faith. Especially by people like me who can flip over to this thread while the discussion is literally still taking place and see I am being described as ~gettin all butthurt~ or whatever.
Like, and yes, it's a habit. Your response can at this point be patterned based off of your increasingly flippant response to being challenged!
I never said you were in the box with Rakeesh, Sam. In the majority of cases, you're actually pretty detached. It almost throws me for a loop sometimes. However, on the Blayne issue, we both know you own real estate there. If it were a college, half the buildings would be named "Samp" or "Sampri" or whatever, etc.. The rest would be named after Rakeesh and Orincoro. ROFL
I'm just messing with you, man.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: What I do know is that earlier in the thread, when other people were criticizing Blayne, Stone_Wolf was on that side of the fence. When that group shifted to be largely 'enemies', abruptly he was on Blayne's side of the fence.
Except for a compliment for BlackBlade's patience, I come out swinging, and haven't stopped.
My third post in this thread:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: And what right lessons have your less patient but presumably just as well meaning approach taught him professor Samp?
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Please refresh my memory what the "right lesson" is again?
Blayne goes overboard...clearly, but BB's commitment to patience and affiability are hardly a bad thing. Golly I wish I could do it. I'm too hot headed by far, even though I do try.
Clearly, I'm on Blayne's side...oh wait, no I'm just against Samp...as I have made perfectly clear.
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Blayne...you could have skipped the last page and a half and simply said, "I disagree." and accomplished more.
Without a time machine AND a mind reader, there won't be a definitive, provable answer.
And antagonizing people here is not worth trying to prove the unprovable.
Oh yea, pro Blayne all the way.
I could go on...but to this:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Heh, Steven, there are a number of people who could pin that on me and not be laughably hypocritical, but you're not one of them. There's a good grain of truth there, but seriously, who do you imagine you're fooling being the one to offer it?
I could belabor my point here, but instead I'm simply going to do this:
Heh, Rakeesh, there are a number of people who could pin that on me and not be laughably hypocritical, but you're not one of them. There's a good grain of truth there, but seriously, who do you imagine you're fooling being the one to offer it?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I never said you were in the box with Rakeesh, Sam. In the majority of cases, you're actually pretty detached. It almost throws me for a loop sometimes. However, on the Blayne issue, we both know you own real estate there. If it were a college, half the buildings would be named "Samp" or "Sampri" or whatever, etc.. The rest would be named after Rakeesh and Orincoro. ROFL
This to me is the exact same as saying "We both know you are very consistent in calling Blayne out during his long history of a very patterned repetition of inappropriate habits"
Oh, yes. I frequently commented.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
I feel like this is good webcomic material.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Stone_Wold, I was pointing out that you *weren't* defending Blayne or taking his part earlier in the thread, but when your 'enemies' (the bullies, yes) were the ones talking rather quickly your posts became about them, and decidedly more mean spirited, while still insisting otherwise. Now you're taking *steven's* side, and are you really going to suggest he's being bullied or whatever excuse necessary to take shots at folks you don't like?
Look, I offered to drop this awhile ago and you batted it aside. I glossed over your...less than complete recount of past moderator involvement. I didn't made a post or maybe two when you alluded, again, to your 'opinion of me' wherein you get to resay that particular post without having to do so. I would be happy, still, to drop it but if you're going to continue treating me as though I'm a fool and don't see these frequent swipes of yours I'm not going to pretend I don't see them.
So. Wanna drop it? Or keep taking shots...in Blayne's defense, or in opposition to bullies, or whichever pretext? And before you become offended at that characterization, do recall some of the characterizations you've made yourself and please skip over that part.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Rakeesh, tell us about the inside of the box.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Steven, tell us some more about how above it all you are, about how you're totes not intending to be insulting but by the way guys here's how ridiculous you are, about how meaningful and worthwhile your pursuits are, and while you're at it could you 'splain why it is if your posts are to be any indicator, you haven't changed very much from the guy who tried to destroy a community because he didn't like its sponsor?
That's what I'm talking about. If you wanna put up this kind of gimmick, Steven, you need to change your screen name or something. Or at least your style.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Speaking of which, I kind of wonder what shigs/tittles next screen name is going to be
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
And my point, which because I'm the one making it, you can't seem to get, is I was -never- on Elison's side, I was against the dogpile that the hatrack jerks (your words, not mine) where piling.
And how in the heck can you possibly think I'm on steven's side, for quoting you to you. My point, which you also missed, is that it is hypocritical of you to tell steven that his opinion is biased of you, but somehow your opinion of me isn't. You want to drop it, then drop it. Offering to drop it and then putting down (another) three paragraphs of merde is not dropping it. And I am fully aware of your opinion, as I am of Samp's that I am just taking shots, but I don't agree at all. So you can keep saying that as if it were true, it won't effect anything, because no matter how often you repeat that snow job, it doesn't change that I have been very consistent in what I have said here.
Elison needs to work on not being so thin skinned and immobile (which it seems he is). And those who are jumping all over his stuff are not in the slightest bit trying to help him, no matter how they rationalize their behavior to themselves.
I have also been very consistent that I am not doing this *for* Elison either, but because of my own sensitivities. I also never called these people "bullies" I said their behavior amounts to bullying. In the end, you see me how you see me, and that's fine, but don't ride in on a high horse as if you are going to enlighten me.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Steven, tell us some more about how above it all you are, about how you're totes not intending to be insulting but by the way guys here's how ridiculous you are, about how meaningful and worthwhile your pursuits are, and while you're at it could you 'splain why it is if your posts are to be any indicator, you haven't changed very much from the guy who tried to destroy a community because he didn't like its sponsor?
That's what I'm talking about. If you wanna put up this kind of gimmick, Steven, you need to change your screen name or something. Or at least your style.
What, you can't take a little ribbing? Seriously, boss, I KNOW you must have known this about yourself. Have none of your lifelong friends ever mentioned such to you? What about other forum members? Anyone? No one? Don't tell me this is the first inkling you've had that you have this tendency.
I'm actually curious how it plays out IRL. I, for some reason, thought you had converted to Mormonism years ago, and I imagined you earnestly talking to teenagers at Mormon youth group meetings, trying to keep them on the straight and narrow, using the same tactics that you use to argue here.
It's odd what we imagine about people from forums.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:What, you can't take a little ribbing? Seriously, boss, I KNOW you must have known this about yourself. Have none of your lifelong friends ever mentioned such to you? What about other forum members? Anyone? No one? Don't tell me this is the first inkling you've had that you have this tendency.
I still don't completely understand what salient interpretation of how he posts you are trying to ascribe to him. Is it supposed to mean that after posting here for so long he can easily dissect a lot of hatrack interrelational issues, drama, or what, I don't know, rakeesh are you in a box? are you a shade of blue? are you the crushing lightness of being? what is this I don't even
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:What, you can't take a little ribbing? Seriously, boss, I KNOW you must have known this about yourself. Have none of your lifelong friends ever mentioned such to you? What about other forum members? Anyone? No one? Don't tell me this is the first inkling you've had that you have this tendency.
I still don't completely understand what salient interpretation of how he posts you are trying to ascribe to him. Is it supposed to mean that after posting here for so long he can easily dissect a lot of hatrack interrelational issues, drama, or what, I don't know, rakeesh are you in a box? are you a shade of blue? are you the crushing lightness of being? what is this I don't even
Dude, your posts often read like my 14-year-old daughter's do, this one in particular, especially the last sentence. Are you immature, or is she mature beyond her years?
Did you even read the comic, though? Read it, please, it's short. I'm curious. What person in your life, on forums, etc. would you say comes to mind first when you read the dialogue from the "in-the-box" people? Anyone in particular? If it's not Rakeesh, or you think his approach to discussions doesn't remind you of that, fine. It was just something that struck me the first time I read it.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Dude, your posts often read like my 14-year-old daughter's do, this one in particular, especially the last sentence. Are you immature, or is she mature beyond her years?
I ... sincerely thank you for unwittingly playing a straight man to wry memes. And please congratulate your daughter for me.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
Why am I still reading this thread? It's a cesspit. Plus it's a complete mismatch, Samp&Co and Rakeesh can surely find less tiresome and more rewarding discussions.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Dude, your posts often read like my 14-year-old daughter's do, this one in particular, especially the last sentence. Are you immature, or is she mature beyond her years?
I ... sincerely thank you for unwittingly playing a straight man to wry memes. And please congratulate your daughter for me.
So which is it? You think like a 14-year-old, or my kid thinks like a man-child?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I think it's more likely that they're both more familiar with the Internet and its crazy ways than you are.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I think it's more likely that they're both more familiar with the Internet and its crazy ways than you are.
Yes, 4chan is teh awesomez.
See, I knows a meme.
Guess what else I know? Stuff the internet doesn't teach.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
How's that box, steven?
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by jebus202: How's that box, steven?
I proudly am a part-time denizen of the box. It isn't a studied criticism of Rakeesh. It just struck me as funny. Like I said, I don't necessarily think it's a flaw.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
Wow what happened to this thread?
Posted by Ben (Member # 6117) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: Wow what happened to this thread?
Somehow YOU broke it.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I think it's more likely that they're both more familiar with the Internet and its crazy ways than you are.
Yes, 4chan is teh awesomez.
See, I knows a meme.
*blink*
No, you threw some words together in a way which resembles a meme to you?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I mean I guess you can consider teh and awesomez to be meme spelling habits, but
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You left that sentence incomplete just to rub it in, Samp. Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
I think its a reference to the cat cheeseburger meme thingy.
Posted by Misha McBride (Member # 6578) on :
If he's trying to speak in LOLcat he's failing horribly; "teh" and using z as a plural on adjectives has been around on the internet since dialup. The fact that he thinks typing like that is definitive of 4chan or current online culture in general makes him sound out of touch, like an old white guy trying to "rap".
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I actually googled "4chan is teh awesomez" and it was said precisely once unironically by a gaia online user
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Misha McBride: If he's trying to speak in LOLcat he's failing horribly; "teh" and using z as a plural on adjectives has been around on the internet since dialup. The fact that he thinks typing like that is definitive of 4chan or current online culture in general makes him sound out of touch, like an old white guy trying to "rap".
Now *this* hilariously enough, perfectly warrants the XKCD comic reference regarding 'the box' Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Misha McBride: If he's trying to speak in LOLcat he's failing horribly; "teh" and using z as a plural on adjectives has been around on the internet since dialup. The fact that he thinks typing like that is definitive of 4chan or current online culture in general makes him sound out of touch, like an old white guy trying to "rap".
I was listening to rap before you were born, no doubt. It did exist before people rapped about shooting cops and white people.
Everybody gets old and out of touch sooner or later. It's just a question of when. Posted by Misha McBride (Member # 6578) on :
You have no idea how old I am do you? Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Misha, I think you may be missing a layer of irony. Although really I suspect part of the schtick when Samprimary gabs that way is that the mockery can be retroactively tailored to fit the situation.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
You'll have to explain my schtick to me then.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Misha McBride: You have no idea how old I am do you?
No, I have no idea. Making a joke about my age, though...doesn't make you sound super-old.
and I'm currently resisting the temptation to be immature and post another tongue-smilie.
Are you an interesting enough person to bother asking your age?
Posted by Misha McBride (Member # 6578) on :
no i'm very boring
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
This is Peak Hatrack.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Misha McBride: no i'm very boring
yeah, I read a few of your old posts, to get a feel for the person who was attempting to insult me, and I agree with your assessment. I don't mean that in a bad way, it just looked like a lot of one-liners.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
And yet, she still manages to be so much more likeable than you are, stevo.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by jebus202: And yet, she still manages to be so much more likeable than you are, stevo.
So would most people that post mainly one-liners.
Well, except for you. But hey, you're trolling on purpose like I do, right?
Posted by Misha McBride (Member # 6578) on :
I registered to read the discussions and post to make quick observations that don't reveal much about myself. There are worse reasons to register at Hatrack and make posts, like trolling to intentionally ruin the forums so they get shut down. Compared to that, you say the ironic posts Samprimary makes are juvenile? Please.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
Heh, yep like me, stevo, except you're not as bad, because you're a troll out of necessity not choice, since you have an unalterably unlikeable character it's the only internet forum role left for you. Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Is steven's behavior now supposed to be differentiated from when he was purposefully trying to degrade forum discussions? Or, at least, was that what is claimed?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I've never for a moment believed that steven was trying to bring down the forum through sheer unpleasantness. I think he just goes through moody cycles when he gets depressed and craves attention and recognition, and lashes out when people aren't as receptive as he'd like.
Posted by Misha McBride (Member # 6578) on :
He came right out and admitted doing it intentionally on sakeriver, go look at his post history.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Yeah, but he's a liar, and I strongly suspect that he's lying about that. It's the old "Oh, you thought I was wrong? Nah, I was just trolling!"
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I see. The Masterminding.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
how eerily applicable in pretty much every way but 6
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
So... word is DPRK is going to do something tomorrow. (the 10th over there, 9th here) Or in the handful of days following. I won't lie and say I'm not somewhat nervous - I'm not all that confident in their sanity, so statements like "they'd have to be crazy start a war!" aren't completely reassuring to me.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Also, your* all a bunch of nerds.
*"What about my bunch of nerds?", you may ask. Well, theirs this candy...
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
yeah they're probably going to threaten to toss a test missile over japan, and japan has already informed the dprk they are going to shoot any missile down that comes towards them.
so, hoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Wars have started for sillier reasons.
Though I'm pretty sure this is just KJU flexing nuts, so to speak. Maybe to reassure the world, or his people, that he's just as batshit crazy as his predecessor, and that any fears of North Korea losing that charmingly schizophrenic quality we've come to know and love is unfounded.
There's another part of me that thinks people who, at best, have the emotional stability of a bratty 3 year old, and at worst, are FREAKING CRAZY having control of weapons that can kill millions of people is absolutely insane. I mean, seriously. This guy could at least kill off a substantial part of the population of S. Korea just for shits and giggles, and I'm not entirely confident it won't happen. I guess I don't even have a point to make, really, and there's nothing I or we can really do to change any of it. I just feel sometimes the absurdity is lost on us as a people, because we've been used to it happening for so long.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I've never for a moment believed that steven was trying to bring down the forum through sheer unpleasantness. I think he just goes through moody cycles when he gets depressed and craves attention and recognition, and lashes out when people aren't as receptive as he'd like.
No, I assure you, that was my goal from the start. Hilariously, I'm so distractable (bad family history of ADHD--I'm not as bad as some in family, but I definitely have it) that my first posts, 12 years ago, were a discussion about crystallization in raw versus cooked honey, with CT and ScottR.
So basically, my intent was to troll it up like crazy. However, I kept getting distracted (I mean, first POST was distracted, it's pitiful), so I told myself that my REAL intent, deep down, must have been to post substantively, but be an active dissenter, and never bend to social pressure. Hee hee, revisionist history.
And I still keep getting distracted. The non-trolls of you should be glad of my ADHD. At least you get some substantive posts out of me. You just don't get a very nice guy when there's a disagreement.
But the Hatrackosphere is the only place I've ever trolled. All the other forums I've ever posted in are subject-based forums, for music, nutrition, yoga, etc., etc.. They are not social forums like Hatrack. I've made a couple of lifelong friends on those forums, but more by accident than design. I'm glad of the friends I've made on other forums, but I never approach forums hoping to make social connections. That's always beside the point.
Posted by Tittles (Member # 12939) on :
At least I'm willing to admit that I'm just an asshole.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Yeah, everyone was on pins and needles on that one.
Posted by Tittles (Member # 12939) on :
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)