Vote you Section-Admins 2nd Round

kismet wrote:

Some people vote from the heart, some vote from the gut, some vote with absolutely no knowledge whatsoever....

This is the probelm with democracy. You only vote from your head. All others are only impulsive decisions.

Kenzu wrote:

I think she clearly stated why she thinks what she thinks. And I don't think her statements are unfounded. There is some truth about the description of both candidates.

It is unfounded for the lack of arguements sustained by evidence, besides her statements are absolutely rebuttable.

Wouldnt be supprised if its Melon. But seems to intelligent, and feminine.

Liche wrote:

Wouldnt be supprised if its Melon. But seems to intelligent, and feminine.

20-40% Positive. (This isnt an accusation.)

Free at last...

Quote :

God? Which god?

Wow, how... obvious.

kismet wrote:

Just my 2 cents and I'm sure I'll get censured or banned for this (especially from the 2nd candidate), but Liche changes political views often and Black_Cross seems to be so belligerent and a bully . That's from reading only a couple of threads.

Who was i bullying? Or do you just mean to say you don't like the way i speak? I'm generally pretty up front, and i'll call it as i see it. I don't see how this interferes with any administration responsibilities, or anything that i promised i'd attempt at the beginning of this election.

Quote :

I'd rather have someone who voices his change of heart than someone who is going to bully me into doing/thinking what he wants me to think.

And now i'm trying to coerce people? I think you're a little new to this forum to reach that conclusion, all things being considered.

Black_Cross wrote:

Free at last...

Quote :

God? Which god?

Wow, how... obvious.

kismet wrote:

Just my 2 cents and I'm sure I'll get censured or banned for this (especially from the 2nd candidate), but Liche changes political views often and Black_Cross seems to be so belligerent and a bully . That's from reading only a couple of threads.

Who was i bullying? Or do you just mean to say you don't like the way i speak? I'm generally pretty up front, and i'll call it as i see it. I don't see how this interferes with any administration responsibilities, or anything that i promised i'd attempt at the beginning of this election.

Quote :

I'd rather have someone who voices his change of heart than someone who is going to bully me into doing/thinking what he wants me to think.

And now i'm trying to coerce people? I think you're a little new to this forum to reach that conclusion, all things being considered.

I did not say you were trying to coerce. If you'd bothered to read before jumping to conclusions, you'd see who I was talking to. Instead, let's jump the gun and go on the offensive.

No, I don't care for the way you speak to people, specifically this post. You have done this on other occasions... please check your thousands of posts, I'm sure you yourself will find other occasions where you've bullied/belittled/beaten into submission or the other person decided to quit posting because of attacks.

Had it not been for Kenzu, I would not be posting now as he mailed me and tried to MSN me (different time zones I'm guessing). People are allowed opinions. If someone's opinion is so swayed by something *I* write here because it is MY opinion, then they are sheep and have no business voting. Nor have they bothered to read or post on their own without their own thoughts going into them.

I also do not appreciate being called someone else. I am kismet. Also known as mizaru on games such as tribalwars and the west and some FPS gaming when I'm smurfing (going incognito) because I'm a network admin for an IRC network and a lot of people worse than you want my IP for ddos'ing. I'm female; I'm intelligent. That doesn't mean I'm someone else. You wouldn't call Sara someone else just because she's female and intelligent would you?

kismet wrote:

did not say you were trying to coerce. If you'd bothered to read before jumping to conclusions, you'd see who I was talking to. Instead, let's jump the gun and go on the offensive.

If someone tries to "bully" someone "into doing/thinking" anything, than that is coercion, so yes, defacto, you are saying that. And i read everything i reply to, thanks.

Quote :

No, I don't care for the way you speak to people, specifically this post. You have done this on other occasions...

What do you mean by "you have done this"? I have done what? You're refering to, specifically, this post. If you mean to say that i've bullied you, already , then there's no way we'll reconcile this, cos this is just the way i speak.

Quote :

please check your thousands of posts, I'm sure you yourself will find other occasions where you've bullied/belittled/beaten into submission or the other person decided to quit posting because of attacks.

That's quite something to ask. Instead of having me go through my arsenal of posts (as you said, there're thousands), why don't you quote something specific you had in mind?

Quote :

Had it not been for Kenzu, I would not be posting now as he mailed me and tried to MSN me (different time zones I'm guessing). People are allowed opinions. If someone's opinion is so swayed by something *I* write here because it is MY opinion, then they are sheep and have no business voting. Nor have they bothered to read or post on their own without their own thoughts going into them.

i don't understand what you're getting at with this.

Quote :

I also do not appreciate being called someone else. I am kismet.

Okay... you seem to be implying that i did this (otherwise, i see no relevance). I can't recall doing this, but if you quote me, i'll be sure to apologize.

Quote :

I'm female; I'm intelligent.

I don't know any intelligent people who bring attention to their own intellect.

Quote :

That doesn't mean I'm someone else. You wouldn't call Sara someone else just because she's female and intelligent would you?

...What are you talking about?

And i'd ask that you quote what you're going to respond to, as you left a lot of things unanswered.

kismet wrote:

No, I don't care for the way you speak to people, specifically this post. You have done this on other occasions... please check your thousands of posts, I'm sure you yourself will find other occasions where you've bullied/belittled/beaten into submission or the other person decided to quit posting because of attacks.

Since you're the one making the claim, the burden of bringing evidence is yours not BC's.

kismet wrote:

Had it not been for Kenzu, I would not be posting now as he mailed me and tried to MSN me (different time zones I'm guessing). People are allowed opinions. If someone's opinion is so swayed by something *I* write here because it is MY opinion, then they are sheep and have no business voting. Nor have they bothered to read or post on their own without their own thoughts going into them.

Now who's doing what others tell her to... You actually don't even care, you simply come here to support Kenzu, plain and simple.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

kismet wrote:

No, I don't care for the way you speak to people, specifically this post. You have done this on other occasions... please check your thousands of posts, I'm sure you yourself will find other occasions where you've bullied/belittled/beaten into submission or the other person decided to quit posting because of attacks.

Since you're the one making the claim, the burden of bringing evidence is yours not BC's.

kismet wrote:

Had it not been for Kenzu, I would not be posting now as he mailed me and tried to MSN me (different time zones I'm guessing). People are allowed opinions. If someone's opinion is so swayed by something *I* write here because it is MY opinion, then they are sheep and have no business voting. Nor have they bothered to read or post on their own without their own thoughts going into them.

Now who's doing what others tell her to... You actually don't even care, you simply come here to support Kenzu, plain and simple.

Not entirely. I was informed by Kenzu that you all seem to think I'm someone else, hence much of the hostility. The "I am female and I am intelligent" remarks go back to something someone else had said about "melon" (liche did specifically), the comment comrade110397 made about "20-40% Positive. (This isnt an accusation.)" is something I'm unsure of.... 20-40% positive I am or am not?

for liche changing his mind a lot wrote:

Liche wrote:

I believe in the Vanguard now.

Black_Cross wrote:

RichardCMongler wrote:

I thought you were an anarchist a few days ago. Why the change of heart? The vanguard only leads to corruption and eventually to counterrevolution.

His politics have been inconsistent in the past. Of course, you're correct in your assertion, but let's see what Liche has to say on the matter.

Quote :

government should control the army and any other national security related things, anythiong not directly related to the safty of the people shud be ran by the people with regulation were needed

Immidiately, i can assume there is a distinction between the 'people' and the 'government'. So we've ruled out democracy. And if i understand, when the people are threatened, their initiative is stunted (in your ideal). Why shouldn't the people be in control of their own defense when they're being directly threatened?

Quote :

also i am all for (150%) for socilized health care ---> but i feel you should be able to pay for better (talk to me about the last part as im stil not shure)

So you've already ruled out the possibility of egality. Why? And what makes you think that this will positively affect society?

Quote :

the entire world also needs socilized education again with the opertunity to chose better programs

I re-assert my previous statement. Why inequality?

Quote :

freedom of speach is a must thats the only power the people truly have

My speech was free the day that my soul descended. This shouldn't be something written in law, because that's assuming that the government, again, seperate from 'people', has the right to take that freedom away, which, as far as i can tell, they do not.

Quote :

state government should devide on magor issues only as difrent people need difrent laws

local government should handle the little problems there are

This seems funny to me. It's true that different people want different things in life, but why should this be the job of the federal government, and not the municipalities? I mean, if you want people to craft their societies in a way that suits them, then society should be run from the bottom, up. Otherwise, there will always be some degree of dictation, which stunts initiative, and with it, self-determination (which is something you seem appreciate, given the end of that first statement).

And i'm not trying to pick on you or anything, i'm not like that. I just wanna get to the bottom of what brings you to the conclusions you've reached.

There's more than enough proof in ONE thread (https://worldrepublic.forumotion.com/political-profile-f58/october-17-edited-t2507.htm) about Liche changing ideals... it shows that Liche does that often enough. If you don't think that should be enough, I'm sure I can hunt for awhile and waste more of my own precious time finding posts I've read before when you yourself cannot argue with that considering more than one person posted regarding Liche's changes of allegiance.

I will do another post concerning BC as this one had nothing to do with what I consider "bullying" or basically just being rude.

On BC: ( and this could actually go for you as well)

Continually posting for someone to answer your questions when it's obvious after the 2nd time they won't/don't feel like it/don't feel like they have to answer to the person sounding like a broken record -- that is a sort of bullying.

Bully: a blustering, quarrelsome, overbearing person who habitually badgers and intimidates smaller or weaker people.

There are times when you cannot fully explain impressions. In that thread, October 17's political views thread, BC keeps badgering (or bullying) October 17 when he had stated that he was confused too. He has some issues (October 17) which he states at the end of the thread. Like it or not, there is a lot of racism in this world. I don't agree or understand why plack people (his word ) scare him, mexicans make him angry or why he really hates Jews. (again, all his words)... This has more to do with the social upbringing and he seems embarrassed about it, but BC continuously asks him to "answer the question" - much like what you've done. He badgers October 17 a lot in that thread alone.

Believe it or not, people CAN make statements of their beliefs without having to quote people.

Going back and looking for BC's posts and I'm finding more of yours:

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

obiwan wrote:

zelot you motherfucker. delete this and you die.

believing in rights is liberal. liberalism is the polar opposite of marxism.

I'm simply tired of your stupid spam posts with unfundamented statements. You better give some factual backup to your statements.

"unfundamented"?? Like the new words.. (unfounded? undocumented?) You seem to do this a lot to people, not just me. Everything has to have a quote or actually pull it out of a book... I'm guessing you don't believe in free thinkers, you know, those people who form impressions and take bits and pieces of things and form their own belief system. It's like the whole argument in other threads about "socialists" - "there are different levels of socialism working their way up to communism" I don't remember who posted that, but add in the anarchist point of view and suddenly you have a lot of subject matter to cover. Not everyone believes EXACTLY the same way. Men go more with straight quotes and facts, women go more on intuition. That has been psychologically proven. Men and women think differently and can view the same sentence and get different things out of it.

But back to BC: It's 5am and I haven't slept in 31 hours. Great deal of pain right now and I'm going to stand by the above for now. Didn't quite think it applied to you as well.

I don't have a problem with asking for more information once. When you ask or find fifteen new ways to demand the information, you are bullying (badgering is more the word, I should have used it to begin with, but it amounts to the same as it makes the person you're doing it to feel very small and defensive). You've made me defensive on so many levels it's not funny. I don't appreciate it and I'm sure others don't either. obiwan was driving me crazy with some of his inarticulate posts, but you should either run this where people have a say or start deleting posts en masse. Long posts are not necessarily trolling nor are they spam. In many cases people have posted to explain things, however, others want more information when it's only a partial idea in their heads and they can't explain it fully. Or it's a feeling/intuition/impression of something (I'm talking political here) and those really are hard to explain.

When I told October 17 to go look it up instead of just taking someone's word for it on here (the difference between socialism and communism), I was being totally serious as views do differ widely. I'd rather someone make up their own minds from straight facts than from someone's opinion (even if those are simple definitions, which were not posted when he asked). Which is another reason why my posts in the voting threads should have made little difference to someone who is going to actually VOTE. My words should not sway someone's vote. They should be basing their opinions and voting on what they've seen of the people in question.

I do have a suggestion so it would make it easier in future votes on things. Post the rules for voting (2 months+ 50 posts and whatever else is required) in the first post with the candidates. That would solve a number of people who have below the 50 posts from trying to vote and having 3 people respond "you can't vote" in various forms. Moreover, telling someone that shouldn't involve calling them names. I am not pointing fingers, I'm merely stating that it shouldn't be done.

I am tired and I am going to sleep for a bit. It's 5:30am now. Good night.

kismet wrote:

On BC: ( and this could actually go for you as well)

Continually posting for someone to answer your questions when it's obvious after the 2nd time they won't/don't feel like it/don't feel like they have to answer to the person sounding like a broken record -- that is a sort of bullying.

Bully: a blustering, quarrelsome, overbearing person who habitually badgers and intimidates smaller or weaker people.

Asking and requesting answers to said questions is not bullying at all. That's how debates work: based on arguements, counterarguements, questions and replies. If such verbal exchanges are intimidating to you, why should you engage in debate in the first place?

kismet wrote:

There are times when you cannot fully explain impressions. In that thread, October 17's political views thread, BC keeps badgering (or bullying) October 17 when he had stated that he was confused too.He has some issues (October 17) which he states at the end of the thread.

Don't just make a reference to the thread, bring quotes as evidence.

kismet wrote:

Like it or not, there is a lot of racism in this world.

That doesn't make it rational. Racism is absolutely irrantional hence questionable so it should be questioned until even the racist himself understands the irrationality of racism.

kismet wrote:

I don't agree or understand why plack people (his word ) scare him, mexicans make him angry or why he really hates Jews. (again, all his words)... This has more to do with the social upbringing and he seems embarrassed about it, but BC continuously asks him to "answer the question" - much like what you've done. He badgers October 17 a lot in that thread alone.

We know it has to do with social upbringing and material conditions but that doesn't make it a rational status. It's something absurd, ridiculous and if he is racist he should be questione until either he understands the absurdity of racism or (in a quite unlikely scenario) provide a solid enough arguement justifying racism.

kismet wrote:

Believe it or not, people CAN make statements of their beliefs without having to quote people.

What does this have to do with anything?

I request quotes when people are replying to those quotes or when those quotes are relevant to the discussion be it that they serve as an arguement or as evidence to support a claim.

Going back and looking for BC's posts and I'm finding more of yours:

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

obiwan wrote:

zelot you motherfucker. delete this and you die.

believing in rights is liberal. liberalism is the polar opposite of marxism.

I'm simply tired of your stupid spam posts with unfundamented statements. You better give some factual backup to your statements.

kismet wrote:

"unfundamented"?? Like the new words.. (unfounded? undocumented?)

Yeah, "unfounded" regardless of its existance as word its meaning is quite clear. Irrelevant to any arguement here.

kismet wrote:

m to do this a lot to people, not just me. Everything has to have a quote or actually pull it out of a book...

No, I simply ask people to bring arguements to sustain their statements. It has absolutely nothing to do with quotes from books unless they're adressing something based on a book or, for that matte, on someone else's ideas.

kismet wrote:

I'm guessing you don't believe in free thinkers, you know, those people who form impressions and take bits and pieces of things and form their own belief system.

Well when "free thinker" stands for someone that completely distorts the meanings of words to nulify communication I actually do have a problem.

As for "free thought" I don't have any problem so long as statements can be backed up by arguements.

kismet wrote:

It's like the whole argument in other threads about "socialists" - "there are different levels of socialism working their way up to communism" I don't remember who posted that, but add in the anarchist point of view and suddenly you have a lot of subject matter to cover. Not everyone believes EXACTLY the same way.

There are words that have a definition. Socialism has a definition that is not up to diferent interpretations.

kismet wrote:

Men go more with straight quotes and facts, women go more on intuition. That has been psychologically proven. Men and women think differently and can view the same sentence and get different things out of it.

I don't see what's the relevance of this statement given the fact that we're talking about the definition of words (as in the example of socialism) something that does not rely on intution but simple knowledge of the definition of the word.

If you're implying I say that everyone thinks or should think in the same way, then you're wrong. There are things that have definitions, consensual understandings and so forth and that is basic for proper communication. There are objective and subjective truths.

kismet wrote:

But back to BC: It's 5am and I haven't slept in 31 hours. Great deal of pain right now and I'm going to stand by the above for now. Didn't quite think it applied to you as well.

I don't have a problem with asking for more information once. When you ask or find fifteen new ways to demand the information, you are bullying (badgering is more the word, I should have used it to begin with, but it amounts to the same as it makes the person you're doing it to feel very small and defensive).

If your position is well founded then you can answer the questions and if you can't answer them or don't feel like answering it simply means your position, even to yourself, is not defensible and is subject to reconsideration for its questionalble validity. Again, that's how debate works.

kismet wrote:

You've made me defensive on so many levels it's not funny. I don't appreciate it and I'm sure others don't either.

You shouldn't have engaged in an offensive in the first place.

kismet wrote:

obiwan was driving me crazy with some of his inarticulate posts, but you should either run this where people have a say or start deleting posts en masse.

For you to understand obiwan, you should place yourself in the context: obiwan was a sockpuppet.

kismet wrote:

Long posts are not necessarily trolling nor are they spam.

And who ever said this? Plus I'm the one that writes the longest posts here, I got a couple of posts I had to split into two or three posts because they were to be posted in a single post.

kismet wrote:

In many cases people have posted to explain things, however, others want more information when it's only a partial idea in their heads and they can't explain it fully. Or it's a feeling/intuition/impression of something (I'm talking political here) and those really are hard to explain.

There are many things that can't be feelings or intuitions, for example, in regards to the definition of socialism. In regards to its manifestation, yes, there can be lots of impressions, intuitions and what not, but not in regards to its definition.

kismet wrote:

When I told October 17 to go look it up instead of just taking someone's word for it on here (the difference between socialism and communism), I was being totally serious as views do differ widely.

Something like this has been widely studied and debated from its very grassroots and it's clear as per evidence where the difference first came from and why said notion is not valid.

kismet wrote:

I'd rather someone make up their own minds from straight facts than from someone's opinion (even if those are simple definitions, which were not posted when he asked).

Which is why we ask people to back up their points.

kismet wrote:

Which is another reason why my posts in the voting threads should have made little difference to someone who is going to actually VOTE. My words should not sway someone's vote. They should be basing their opinions and voting on what they've seen of the people in question.

If your posts are unfounded opinions they deserve rebuttal or rather demands to be backed up. When I say your posts can be misguiding I'm simply refering to the fact that they're a lie that may negatively affect the impression anyone reading them might have about the the person you're talking about in your posts.

kismet wrote:

I do have a suggestion so it would make it easier in future votes on things. Post the rules for voting (2 months+ 50 posts and whatever else is required) in the first post with the candidates. That would solve a number of people who have below the 50 posts from trying to vote and having 3 people respond "you can't vote" in various forms. Moreover, telling someone that shouldn't involve calling them names. I am not pointing fingers, I'm merely stating that it shouldn't be done.

That should go for the starter of said thread. I often try to include the rules of such thread within the first post even though theoretically we had been defining said rules in the "WR Constitution" section.

kismet wrote:

I am tired and I am going to sleep for a bit. It's 5:30am now. Good night.

May you have rested well.

Quote :

On BC: ( and this could actually go for you as well)

Continually posting for someone to answer your questions when it's obvious after the 2nd time they won't/don't feel like it/don't feel like they have to answer to the person sounding like a broken record -- that is a sort of bullying.

Bully: a blustering, quarrelsome, overbearing person who habitually badgers and intimidates smaller or weaker people.

Ouch... that's quite an insult. I never saw october17 as smaller or weaker. I have other thoughts about him (as he does of me), but that's irrelevant here.

Quote :

There are times when you cannot fully explain impressions. In that thread, October 17's political views thread, BC keeps badgering (or bullying) October 17 when he had stated that he was confused too. He has some issues (October 17) which he states at the end of the thread. Like it or not, there is a lot of racism in this world. I don't agree or understand why plack people (his word ) scare him, mexicans make him angry or why he really hates Jews. (again, all his words)... This has more to do with the social upbringing and he seems embarrassed about it, but BC continuously asks him to "answer the question" - much like what you've done.

Christ, if you're going to claim intelligence (a lot...), please intelligently interperet my posts, or allow me to do so for you, before jumping to your farfetched conclusion that i'm bullying october17 cos he's racist. That's ludicrous.

Notice that i only asked him to answer my questions (PLURAL. I was not just refering to the racism one, and he coulda easily skipped that one if he'd wanted.) only after he had stated something about the thread being full of spam and being off topic (I was suggesting that debating the points i gave would give the thread contiguity, understand?).

Quote :

He badgers October 17 a lot in that thread alone

Well, i didn't, but even still, where else is there any semblence of badgering?

Quote :

Believe it or not, people CAN make statements of their beliefs without having to quote people.

You weren't simply stating a belief, you were accusing me of bullying, which i take seriously. So if you would like your view to be taken seriously, maybe you should show some actual evidence of bullying.

Quote :

You've made me defensive on so many levels it's not funny.

Que? You initiated this with your blind-side assault on my character, completely unfounded based on the slender evidence you gave. Maybe if you're feeling defensive, it's because of your lack of reasoning which brought you to what is obviously erronious.

Kenzu wrote:

Maybe the problem is that when you talk to others you aren't friendly enough. And this is not the first time. I told it to you countless times. When so many people say it, there must be some truth to it. Don't you think BC?

*sigh* I don't deny that i may come off as abrasive every once in a while. I stated this when i was nominated as why i didn't think i'd get the votes necessary to win. THE POINT IS *cough* that i'm being personally attacked because of a thread in which i was as persistent as the OP was (He was just apparently dodging some question about racism, if kismet is actually representing october17's opinion).

And as far as "not being nice enough", i think all of the people i'm nice with will vouch that i'm quite pleasant as long as i'm not provoked in some way. Beyond this, if you do feel i'm abrasive, it's because there's no emotion over a computer, so you're supplanting mine with one straight from your imagination (you can't possibly blame me for this). I'll be assertive, but i'll never be aggressive. So if you don't like the way the letters are organized within my post, i'm sorry, but i can't help you. And again i'll assert that this is no hindrance to my ability to administrate a web-site.

Kenzu wrote:

Maybe the problem is that when you talk to others you aren't friendly enough. And this is not the first time. I told it to you countless times. When so many people say it, there must be some truth to it. Don't you think BC?

Since I'm an outside observer I can say BC is not rude at all. That's just his way of talking and his way to debate is rather correct, actually exemplar.

When so many people say it it just means a lot of people are not interested enough in te debate to put the ammount of attention necesary to properly understand BC.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Kenzu wrote:

Maybe the problem is that when you talk to others you aren't friendly enough. And this is not the first time. I told it to you countless times. When so many people say it, there must be some truth to it. Don't you think BC?

Since I'm an outside observer I can say BC is not rude at all. That's just his way of talking and his way to debate is rather correct, actually exemplar.

When so many people say it it just means a lot of people are not interested enough in te debate to put the ammount of attention necesary to properly understand BC.

Amusing. I do note that you did stop the questions about my statements about Liche.

However, I gave a link to the topic because there's enough there for you to read for yourself. If you want quotes on *every* post made, there'd be no reason for the thread itself.

BTW, Liche changing his mind a lot in my opinion makes him a bit weaker. He could merely be searching for his own niche. I don't consider him a weak person, but it makes his arguments weaker until he does find his own niche

On BC, if you want specific quotes, read that thread. I'm not going to do all the work here when I have given sufficient proof. I know, you're going to say otherwise. I didn't indulge myself and start off aggressive. It was simply a post made and then found myself harangued over it. (another word for badgering) It is not that I found myself in an indefensible position. However, I do not see any reason that one person's opinion should be constantly questioned when others are not.

BC: asking him as often as you did would be considered badgering. He has his own doubts; he has his own questions. The quest for who you are and who you will become with knowledge is a lifetime journey. Some things just *are* and asking once or twice would be expected, but how many times in that thread alone did you ask him to answer your questions?

Zealot: As for racism being ignorant; agreed. It's something that people have to realize of themselves and claim it. October 17 has realized it and I'm sure will be proactive about changing that about himself. Do I defend him? Yes, to a degree. I don't believe in racism personally; I do believe it exists. We don't live in Utopia unfortunately. My Utopia may not be your Utopia though What makes people happy/content and agreeable in a community differ. Your idea of a debate is flawed: debates give sides, not badgering people "answer my question or you're invalid" People have basic rights. One of them is their use of their intelligence. Sometimes people feel they shouldn't stoop so low as to respond to you repeatedly with the *same* answers over and over as I've done.

This is pretty much all I'm going to say on these subjects. You want to talk quantum physics I'll be up for it.

Quote :

On BC, if you want specific quotes, read that thread. I'm not going to do all the work here when I have given sufficient proof.

... I don't need to re-read over again a thread which i myself posted in (i tend to read what i respond to). You, on the other hand, refuse to respond to my points, so i can only assume it's you not sufficiently reading. Also, if you think one thread, in which i merely responded to the OP's desire to keep the thread relevant, is sufficient proof of my belligerence, you have very low evidential standards, especially for someone so intelligent.

Quote :

I know, you're going to say otherwise.

Really...

Quote :

I didn't indulge myself and start off aggressive. It was simply a post made and then found myself harangued over it. (another word for badgering)

Here, i'll make you more intelligent. The parentheses should be before the period. And harangue is not synonymous with badgering. In fact, they could barely be called similar in definition.

Quote :

It is not that I found myself in an indefensible position. However, I do not see any reason that one person's opinion should be constantly questioned when others are not.

Dear lord... It was his thread... about his politics, about which i had questions. If he had some aversion to answering them, he could have easily said so instead of ignoring the questions and assuming they would go away.

Quote :

BC: asking him as often as you did would be considered badgering.

I've made my case, you've brought limited evidence, i see no reason to defend myself further.

Quote :

He has his own doubts; he has his own questions. The quest for who you are and who you will become with knowledge is a lifetime journey. Some things just *are* and asking once or twice would be expected, but how many times in that thread alone did you ask him to answer your questions?

Not once. I never asked him to answer anything. Every time he said something about spam and the thread being off topic i offered him another opportunity to answer my original questions, but i never simply asked him to answer my questions, and surely not in a bullying way, by any reasonable definition.

kismet wrote:

Amusing. I do note that you did stop the questions about my statements about Liche.

I never cared on your statements about Liche, it's strange that you got that impression though.

kismet wrote:

However, I gave a link to the topic because there's enough there for you to read for yourself. If you want quotes on *every* post made, there'd be no reason for the thread itself.

I'm sorry but that's not how it works. Or you present evidence within this debate or your statements won't be backed up. Considering you have a rather original understanding of "bullying" you must quote what you consider examples of bullying and explain with arguements why it is "bullying".

kismet wrote:

On BC, if you want specific quotes, read that thread. I'm not going to do all the work here when I have given sufficient proof.

Since your "proof" has been debunked you ought to bring new one.

kismet wrote:

I know, you're going to say otherwise. I didn't indulge myself and start off aggressive.

An accusation of bullying is an agression specially when unfounded.

kismet wrote:

It was simply a post made and then found myself harangued over it. (another word for badgering) It is not that I found myself in an indefensible position. However, I do not see any reason that one person's opinion should be constantly questioned when others are not.

Accusations are not opinions. You accused BC of peer pressuring people into changing their minds through "bullying" or as you say now "badgering". That accusation is questionable.

Else, opinions are questionable when based on insufficent or rather unexistant knowledge about the object of said opinion.

kismet wrote:

BC: asking him as often as you did would be considered badgering. He has his own doubts; he has his own questions. The quest for who you are and who you will become with knowledge is a lifetime journey. Some things just *are* and asking once or twice would be expected, but how many times in that thread alone did you ask him to answer your questions?

Everything has a reason to it and said reason should be found, specially in the case of such irrational attitudes such as racism. Constant questioning is natural in a debate.

kismet wrote:

Zealot: As for racism being ignorant; agreed. It's something that people have to realize of themselves and claim it. October 17 has realized it and I'm sure will be proactive about changing that about himself. Do I defend him? Yes, to a degree.

No one was attacking him. What was being attacked was his racism.

kismet wrote:

I don't believe in racism personally; I do believe it exists. We don't live in Utopia unfortunately. My Utopia may not be your Utopia though

Yeah, what's the relevance of this?

kismet wrote:

What makes people happy/content and agreeable in a community differ.

Again, yeah, what's the relevance of this to the discussion?

kismet wrote:

Your idea of a debate is flawed: debates give sides, not badgering people "answer my question or you're invalid" People have basic rights. One of them is their use of their intelligence. Sometimes people feel they shouldn't stoop so low as to respond to you repeatedly with the *same* answers over and over as I've done.

It isn't flawed. Nor I ever stated that not answering questions invalidates any party's position, what I asserted is that a position that cannot be backed up is invalid. A way to find out wether a position is valid or not is through questions about the foundations of that position. If they can't be asnwered then the position is invalid, if they're based on false information they're invalid, if they're based on lack of knowledge, they're invalid.

Repeating answers doesn't make them valid, and in several cases may even be the mere manifestation of a dodge.

kismet wrote:

This is pretty much all I'm going to say on these subjects. You want to talk quantum physics I'll be up for it.

Debunked and left.

no body cares about liche

do you guys still think this is Melon?

(because its not)

and yes, I think she is very accurate on her statements.

Liche wrote:

no body cares about liche

There's just no problem with you Liche; we all know how you are and as you see WR is fine with it.

Liche wrote:

do you guys still think this is Melon?

Don't think so...

Liche wrote:

(because its not)

and yes, I think she is very accurate on her statements.

Then she fails to defend them properly.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Then she fails to defend them properly.

It dosent seem so to me, can you define "fail"

Liche wrote:

It dosent seem so to me, can you define "fail"

She is unable to present evidence to back up her statements and dodges or misunderstands others' posts.

BC
BC
BC
BC
BC
BC
BC
BC
BC
BC
BC


we cant elect liche, then his offspring would have to be mods too.... seeing as he's a monarchist and all...