Re: Why was Steve Emerson banned form Kapitan's Kirk's Fourth Reich?

On 2009-06-10 14:58:47 -0400, WQGT447 <bpnjensen@xxxxxxxxx> said:

On Jun 10, 9:05 am, Tom Deacon <tomdea...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On 2009-06-10 10:39:53 -0400, WQGT447 <bpnjen...@xxxxxxxxx> said:





On Jun 9, 3:59 pm, Tom Deacon <tomdea...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On 2009-06-09 16:33:39 -0400, WQGT447 <bpnjen...@xxxxxxxxx> said:

On Jun 9, 11:16 am, Tom Deacon <tomdea...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On 2009-06-09 13:32:00 -0400, WQGT447 <bpnjen...@xxxxxxxxx> said:

On Jun 9, 9:58 am, ansermetniac <ansermetn...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, 9 Jun 2009 09:46:47 -0700 (PDT), WQGT447 <bpnjen...@yahoo.
co
m>
wrote:

On Jun 9, 9:44 am, weary flake <wearyfl...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"HvT" <hvtu...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
td wrote:
On Jun 9, 8:52 am, ansermetniac <ansermetn...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wro
te
:
??????

Steve Emerson?

Unbelievable.

This place would seem to resemble a restrictive golf club in
Westchester, New York.

TD

Steve seems to have been banned for what he posted on RMCR. Thi
s
is
odd - even if Steve had been uncivil here. What makes it odder
is
 t
h
e
fact that Steve couldn't be uncivil even if he tried very hard
..
.

How is it even known that he is banned?  Was it announced?  
Di
d
he
say so?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

According to some messages from the mods, the dust-up has been se
tt
le
d
and Steve is readmitted.

Bruce Jensen

And I?????????

Selective prosecution  as their rules vary depending on the pers
on

Do you really want to be in a group where you can't discuss classi
ca
l
Music passionately nor say anything bad about the group in other
forums

Freedom of spech is only stifled by scared weasels

Abbedd- Hide quoted text -

There are other reasons for what you incorrectly refer to as stifli
ng
of free speech.  Your authoritarian way of saying this does not
automatically make you right, any more than it makes *** Cheney ri
gh
t
when he does it.  Obviously, you will disagree with this, but tha
t'
s
beside the point.  Until you change your attitude, you will conti
nu
e
to run up against a brick wall of indifference and ridicule and
ostracization.  Understand or perish, your choice.

Wrong.

On this point Jeffrey was right on the mark.

Nobody can remain indifferent to the truth and anyone who ridicules
it
is no better than a holocaust denier.

TD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Tom, you're the same damned way - stubborn, arrogant and authoritaria
n
to the core.  Jeffrey is wrong, and so are you.  There are good
reasons why you two are both personae non gratae, both here and at
Kirk's group, and if you think it's because anyone is scared of you,
you greatly flatter yourself.

The nice thing about this group is that EVERYONE is welcome to post.

Just because everyone physically CAN post does not mean they are
WELCOME.  Once again, you flatter yourself.

"personae non grata(your Latin sucks)"

I never claimed to be a Latin scholar ~

would imply that people are here
to please. I am not here to please. Indeed, I don't give a flying ***
what you or anyone else thinks of anything I say or do.

That is blatantly obvious.  Your MO is to be as obnoxious as
possible.  You can scarcely post anything without insulting someone.

Scared?

HA HA HA HA HA

These little chickens would be frightened if they saw a rabbit crossin
g
the street.

Then I am afraid that you are not as frightening as that rabbit.  You
are, however, far more hateful.

If hate is in your emotional quiver, than I can only feel sorry you.

"Hateful" refers to you, not me. I hate nobody.

Glad to hear that, although I have no indication of that in what you write. Indeed, quite the opposite.

Neither do I hate anybody, as I have repeated many times here before, although you may choose, hatefully I might add, to disagree.


  That, and the fact that you are an authoritarian coward, is the
reason you are reviled.

Revulsion also seems part of your make-up.

When it comes to you, yes, mine and everyone else's.

I do bellieve you should allow "everyone else" to speak for him or herself. It does you no favours to try to cloak your feelings in a collective embrace.

This is
different from hate.

Really, I do think you
should start to examine your responses to other people.

There are only three people out of thousands on this planet to whom I
respond this way - you, Jeffrey and a nut on the shortwave radio
usenet group who shares many common traits with you two.

Perhaps you should examine your responses. I know I always do mine. Besides your name, I know nothing about you. I do not harbour any ill feelings about you, but will always stand and counter any inane comments.


A shrink might help. I say that not as an authoritarian, but simply as so
meone
offering advice to someone whose emotional balance is out of kilter.

No, actually, you say it as an authoritarian, who once again assumes
that any hokey conclusion he comes to is the right one, just because
*he* came to it.

Sorry. I cannot speak for anyone else BUT myself. Nor can you, frankly, although you have (see above) attempted to gather others in your revulsion, hatred, and other negative sentiments.


It is your destiny, just as it is George Bush's and
*** Cheney's - the same character wrapped up in a different package.

also say it without the slightest hesitation, thus putting the lie to
your "coward" designation.

The "coward" designation comes from your unwillingness to meet the
challenge of your own obvious sociological disorder head on.

Here is a man who suggests that I am being authoritarian suggesting that HE knows better than I how I should treat my "obvious sociological disorder".

This is quite rich and very hypocritical.



You
acting as though you are doing me a favor by recommending a "shrink",
and then making believe that it signifies courage on your part, is
disingenuous and silly.

Just trying to help you through your emotional turmoil. You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink.

Clearly you are not sufficiently thirsty.



Perhaps that was intended as an "insult"? If
so, you might try stopping insulting people, and try addressing the
question at hand.

Ain't that the pot calling the kettle black!

Yes. Specifically. And it serves to highlight the fact that the kettle is black, if the pot is.


It is only a real insult when it is not true; otherwise it is a fact.

Facts?

We are not discussing facts. We are discussing your emotional turmoil which results in the use of words like hateful, etc. (see above)

You will need to look very hard to find insults from me to anyone else
(with a few exceptions regarding politics) on this group.

Is this your excuse? You only insult people sometimes, only selectively?


So, what *is* the question at hand to which you refer, Tom, which I
have not addressed? Backing up a few steps, it was whether or not
people wish to see you out of the Yahoo group because they are afraid
of you, or because they're just sick of arrogant vituperation. I have
responded directly to each statement, unlike you and Jeffrey who are
prone to changing the subject to fit your agenda. Are you making
believe it is something that was not there?

The point is one of "free speech" and the lack of it elsewhere and the existence of it here.


Or, ignore my posts.

Agreed, except for purely musical matters, they are worth ignoring

Oh, go ahead, Bruce. Be big about it. Just ignore them all.

But you are free to do what you like, to post or not post. Just don't whine about it. Please. It is very, very, very tiresome.

TD


.

Loading