Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: ### (Closed) Discussion to create a process to un-ban members ### [View all]AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)59. If you don't understand,
First, if and when I disagree with you I'll let you know.
I obviously did not disagree with your statement as reflected in your sentence.
I don't need your permission to agree or disagree with you.
In your post, you also said something that I agree with:
When Krispos42 made his initial decision, he did not have addition information of our additional input and the view from at least some of us that rDigital's post was based on sarcasm or satire in response to an earlier post. What I have said while agreeing with your thoughts is that, in mho, Krispos42 should consider that additional information. If you don't want to do that, fine. That's up to you.
Since I did not say anything in my response to you about my perception of your intent, "sincere" or otherwise, you have no basis to say:
Second, the heading for the OP clearly indicates that it is about a "Discussion to create a process to un-ban members." It says so right in the title. Your statement about your belief that your post may have been alerted has nothing to do with me. I did not click on the alert button. If someone did, it may be because you stated in an over-the-top way with respect to rDigital that:
Third, once again, heading for the OP clearly indicates that it is about a "Discussion to create a process to un-ban members." My response is exactly on point. I did not make an ad hominem attack, nor did I claim that your post was "vulgar, repugnant, offensive, vile, hateful, hurtful, arrogant, obnoxious, dishonest, and insensitive." I did not alert on your post.
Fourth, you say, "I'll defend your right to say ..." Really?
I obviously did not disagree with your statement as reflected in your sentence.
I don't need your permission to agree or disagree with you.
In your post, you also said something that I agree with:
"Krispos42, I applaud your attempt at fairness and hope we become better at truly attempting to listen and have empathy for those we disagree with."
When Krispos42 made his initial decision, he did not have addition information of our additional input and the view from at least some of us that rDigital's post was based on sarcasm or satire in response to an earlier post. What I have said while agreeing with your thoughts is that, in mho, Krispos42 should consider that additional information. If you don't want to do that, fine. That's up to you.
Since I did not say anything in my response to you about my perception of your intent, "sincere" or otherwise, you have no basis to say:
"it's hard to believe you honestly don't think that those of us who support gun control do so with the sincere intent of reducing crime."
Second, the heading for the OP clearly indicates that it is about a "Discussion to create a process to un-ban members." It says so right in the title. Your statement about your belief that your post may have been alerted has nothing to do with me. I did not click on the alert button. If someone did, it may be because you stated in an over-the-top way with respect to rDigital that:
"his post was vulgar, repugnant, offensive, vile, hateful, hurtful, arrogant, obnoxious, dishonest, and insensitive."
Third, once again, heading for the OP clearly indicates that it is about a "Discussion to create a process to un-ban members." My response is exactly on point. I did not make an ad hominem attack, nor did I claim that your post was "vulgar, repugnant, offensive, vile, hateful, hurtful, arrogant, obnoxious, dishonest, and insensitive." I did not alert on your post.
Fourth, you say, "I'll defend your right to say ..." Really?
TopBack to the top of the page
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
ShareGet links to this post
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
Cannot edit, recommend, or reply in locked discussions
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
91 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
The biggest lie is saying the holocaust would have been avoided if Jews became monsters
graham4anything
Nov 2012
#4
I am not a group member as I never signed up. So it's not my place to yea or nay
graham4anything
Nov 2012
#9
I don't believe in censorship, so that would be a bring the poster back vote
graham4anything
Nov 2012
#11
You say, "The biggest lie is saying the holocaust would have been avoided if Jews became monsters"
AnotherMcIntosh
Nov 2012
#19
Huh? I am arguing the post not the person. And I would not censor anyone.
graham4anything
Nov 2012
#20
rDigital is the subject of the OP. Your post #4 is either related or unrelated to rDigital.
AnotherMcIntosh
Nov 2012
#29
My vote and opinion is that there should be no formalized standards, rules, procedures,
petronius
Nov 2012
#7
so then, are you saying that all previously blocked DUers should be reinstated?
Tuesday Afternoon
Nov 2012
#43
Yes. I think we all have the tools to personalize our own DU experiences, and if
petronius
Nov 2012
#48
No, I think it makes more sense to discuss Group stuff within the particular Group
petronius
Nov 2012
#50
so, if One is unhappy with what goes on here One should be able to start a thread about it rather
Tuesday Afternoon
Nov 2012
#51
Given the timing and context of another post (identified at #30), I agree.
AnotherMcIntosh
Nov 2012
#32
Respectfully, I don't know exactly what "rightwing nonsense" that WStupidity is referring to so
AnotherMcIntosh
Nov 2012
#37
Hoyt has not stopped making unfounded associations/accusations about gun owners...
PavePusher
Nov 2012
#34
In contrast to your claim, rDigital never indicated that he agreed with the rw nonsense.
AnotherMcIntosh
Nov 2012
#35
What you say is not only unresponsive but it is veritably untrue. Those who look can see this.
AnotherMcIntosh
Nov 2012
#75
No he did not. You cannot point to where he "made a broad brush attack of virulent anti-semitic
AnotherMcIntosh
Nov 2012
#38
You said, "I can understand that a reasonable person would conclude the ban was justifiable ..."
AnotherMcIntosh
Nov 2012
#55