I'm looking for love

["couldbecousin"]

Yes the multi pronged response might really fuck them up. 

  That's how this Weeble wobbles! 

["couldbecousin"]

Back to the tanning bed with you bro.

  Tanning beds are not good, they make you leathery and they can give you skin cancer. 

[odeon]

Must there? I dunno mate? Is that asking "Will Ricky always say silly shit that begs a ribbing or insult?" If that is what you are asking then, probably yes. I do not respond to everything he says. In fact I have been known to agree or plus him on occasion. Can't ask for fairer than that. I do think I have been a lot more severe on others in the past.

Yes, I would agree.

But I'm not singling you out, I'm observing a behaviour and asking if that behaviour should be the norm.

McJ pointed out (later in this thread) that it's getting harder to defend him. Maybe. But reading yesterday's posts, I realised that while it may be getting harder (he isn't silent, exactly), he is the one to be made the target, not, for example, DFG who was just as reactive as he was and took every opportunity just as he did.

And this is not to attack DFG, btw. Again, it's observing a behaviour.

As for being above that sort of thing, I judge each thread and each post in a thread by its own. some I will respond to and some not. Some to agree and some to condemn. Some to expand on or do a silly rejoinder to. At the end of it all I honestly do not know how others post on here? What interests them in a thread or a post? What drive them to respond and in what way? I am likely to see the same sort of value in posts as I always have and respond as I always have for the same reasons. If something makes no sense i will generally say it doesn't and why. If something is shitty I will call it. If something is representing a value system completely misaligned to mine, I will call it. If something is funny I will laugh at or with it.

So here's a question for you: looking at yesterday's posts, why Richard and not DFG?

In all of this, you would probably not see anything wrong with in general terms (people reacting naturally and honestly on posts is all good) and that it is logical and rational to do so. But in this instance and with Ricky, you find a problem. You see it as a problem that I ought to rise above.

I think we need to define the problem and why in fact it is  problem in the first place.

But they react differently. Well, to me it certainly looks like it and no one has denied it yet, and I am asking why that may be. Is it a problem? I don't know. Is it an anomaly? Yes, and as such it's worth looking at. Most of us are spazzes and know from experience what it is like to be treated as the odd one out (and that's a mild way to put it). Why do we repeat that behaviour here?

[odeon]

It getting harder and harder to defend him.
I'm wondering if its because he has gone back to a place he feels safe because of all the poking.
...tell a kid enough times that they are bad or stupid and they will start acting accordingly.

I thought Richard was acting better (from what I remember), now he is reverting back.


And al, it is not a problem.  If Richard doesn't like it he is free to leave.  We are just wondering  why he has become the resident soazztard.

To be honest, I was kind of hoping Butterflies or Buttcoffee would show up and they would take the title.

You are right, he was (around time that he first changed his username to Niles) posting very well. Now not so much. He is not a kid though. He is only 10 years younger than us.

I do not even want him to leave. I am not angry or upset by him. I do not think he has done anything lately that would make the place better with his absence.

BC is not the same at all. He is basically an imbecile, a feeble-minded troll. Butterflies--well, opinions vary, but I would say she did whatever she did with a definitive intent--is not someone I would compare to Richard either.

My impression is that Richard as Niles is not different from other spazzes here, not worse, not better. He is treated differently, though.

[odeon]

I never asked anyone to defend me, I'm not leaving, etc. I'm not cycling back to anything. I have always been this way
The thing is I was pointing out what someone else was trying to do to me. If you don't like the way I respond, then I seriously don't know what to tell you. trying to figure me out? its the same thing I did to girl. so is it ok for you to do it? but not me?
Interesting.

Yes I have stopped drinking. Its been 9months, haha. And Casssnova you are correct. I have thought about rewarding myself because of all this success. 

I will remember though not to reward myself with drugs or alcohol. I have had a few close calls, But I'm learning to control my AV
(Alcoholic Voice) its working quite well for me.

I was sincere in my motives in making this topic. What happened was, all my ususal enemies new and old got there little talking points in so I responded. what was I suppose to do? not respond? Oh you don't like the way I respond? well fuck you.

Not about to defend you, just observing a behaviour and asking questions. McJ likes defending whomever he perceives as the underdog, I focus more on people's behaviour patterns.

[odeon]

Oh, FFS. Try saying something worth our while once in a while.

[odeon]

I wouldn't get your hopes up for here, I mean these are aspies we are talking about. There is no theory of mind, they just can't feel. I suggest the administrators delete this thread.  Sorry if I sound mean, but its the truth  They want to have children, and fucked up ones, already started trouble with love, should just give up and quite while your ahead.  I badly want children, and don't feel badly disabled.  I would love to give another person free sugar from fluorescent lights

And this posts started out so well. You should have hit Post after the first three sentences.

I don't think anything needs to be deleted here, Randy. It's an honest discussion and I'm glad people aren't simply ignoring it.

[Bastet]

Must there? I dunno mate? Is that asking "Will Ricky always say silly shit that begs a ribbing or insult?" If that is what you are asking then, probably yes. I do not respond to everything he says. In fact I have been known to agree or plus him on occasion. Can't ask for fairer than that. I do think I have been a lot more severe on others in the past.

Yes, I would agree.

But I'm not singling you out, I'm observing a behaviour and asking if that behaviour should be the norm.

McJ pointed out (later in this thread) that it's getting harder to defend him. Maybe. But reading yesterday's posts, I realised that while it may be getting harder (he isn't silent, exactly), he is the one to be made the target, not, for example, DFG who was just as reactive as he was and took every opportunity just as he did.

And this is not to attack DFG, btw. Again, it's observing a behaviour.

As for being above that sort of thing, I judge each thread and each post in a thread by its own. some I will respond to and some not. Some to agree and some to condemn. Some to expand on or do a silly rejoinder to. At the end of it all I honestly do not know how others post on here? What interests them in a thread or a post? What drive them to respond and in what way? I am likely to see the same sort of value in posts as I always have and respond as I always have for the same reasons. If something makes no sense i will generally say it doesn't and why. If something is shitty I will call it. If something is representing a value system completely misaligned to mine, I will call it. If something is funny I will laugh at or with it.

So here's a question for you: looking at yesterday's posts, why Richard and not DFG?

In all of this, you would probably not see anything wrong with in general terms (people reacting naturally and honestly on posts is all good) and that it is logical and rational to do so. But in this instance and with Ricky, you find a problem. You see it as a problem that I ought to rise above.

I think we need to define the problem and why in fact it is  problem in the first place.

But they react differently. Well, to me it certainly looks like it and no one has denied it yet, and I am asking why that may be. Is it a problem? I don't know. Is it an anomaly? Yes, and as such it's worth looking at. Most of us are spazzes and know from experience what it is like to be treated as the odd one out (and that's a mild way to put it). Why do we repeat that behaviour here?

I noticed it too and felt bad which is why I stopped a couple of times. But i have very little self control when the temptation is so big. It's like a delicious slice of chocolate cake just sitting there and anyone can eat it if they want. I'd wolf it down. Im not good at ignoring stuff.

[Al Swearegen]

Must there? I dunno mate? Is that asking "Will Ricky always say silly shit that begs a ribbing or insult?" If that is what you are asking then, probably yes. I do not respond to everything he says. In fact I have been known to agree or plus him on occasion. Can't ask for fairer than that. I do think I have been a lot more severe on others in the past.

Yes, I would agree.

But I'm not singling you out, I'm observing a behaviour and asking if that behaviour should be the norm.

McJ pointed out (later in this thread) that it's getting harder to defend him. Maybe. But reading yesterday's posts, I realised that while it may be getting harder (he isn't silent, exactly), he is the one to be made the target, not, for example, DFG who was just as reactive as he was and took every opportunity just as he did.

And this is not to attack DFG, btw. Again, it's observing a behaviour.

As for being above that sort of thing, I judge each thread and each post in a thread by its own. some I will respond to and some not. Some to agree and some to condemn. Some to expand on or do a silly rejoinder to. At the end of it all I honestly do not know how others post on here? What interests them in a thread or a post? What drive them to respond and in what way? I am likely to see the same sort of value in posts as I always have and respond as I always have for the same reasons. If something makes no sense i will generally say it doesn't and why. If something is shitty I will call it. If something is representing a value system completely misaligned to mine, I will call it. If something is funny I will laugh at or with it.

So here's a question for you: looking at yesterday's posts, why Richard and not DFG?

In all of this, you would probably not see anything wrong with in general terms (people reacting naturally and honestly on posts is all good) and that it is logical and rational to do so. But in this instance and with Ricky, you find a problem. You see it as a problem that I ought to rise above.

I think we need to define the problem and why in fact it is  problem in the first place.

But they react differently. Well, to me it certainly looks like it and no one has denied it yet, and I am asking why that may be. Is it a problem? I don't know. Is it an anomaly? Yes, and as such it's worth looking at. Most of us are spazzes and know from experience what it is like to be treated as the odd one out (and that's a mild way to put it). Why do we repeat that behaviour here?

A number of reasons.
Firstly I like DFG. I don't like Ricky. Not saying I particularly dislike Ricky. I do dislike a number of those names on that list but Ricky I do not particularly dislike. But I do like DFG.
Secondly, Ricky has a bit of a history of this and other things said and done that i guess mean my tolerance with him is not that high.
Do not have that with DFG.
You know that i will go anyone here depending on how strongly I object to their position. If what she says or does really rankles me, I will have a go. A few members here recently i have really disagreed with and had a go at though they are not people i previously had any real issue with.
Thirdly, I did not see who started the fight with Ricky and DFG but I came into things with him hammering away at her textually and her deflecting.
Fourthly, Ricky is a bit of a known. I can fall into a set em up and knock em down routine pretty easily. I do not know DFG that well. For easy laughs or passing time, throwing in the odd comeback is pretty easy, but with DFG it would require more effort
Fifthly......nah I think I am done.

As for you not singling me out, I know mate. I am just giving you my perspective as it affects me. I am not part of a concerted "pick on Ricky " collective (and if there was one, I would not join) and so I dunno what others reasons are. I can't answer for them. I can only answer for me. I think my reasons are fairly reasonable. Though they may be fickle or not nice or whatever, they are honest.

[McGiver]

Not about to defend you, just observing a behaviour and asking questions. McJ likes defending whomever he perceives as the underdog, I focus more on people's behaviour patterns.

And I was just interested in the back and forth between you and DFG as I thought it was funny.  But when I felt that it became a gang up against Richard, I no longer found it amusing

[McGiver]

Albert:

You know that i will go anyone here depending on how strongly I object to their position.

It's true. And you are consistent.
I think you like to joust with words.  This is fine.  I learn a lot.

You've gone after me.  And the difference, I think, between Richard and myself is that I'm not interested in winning, or having the last word.  I like to challenge people.  And I like the idle banter. 
In a debate I've learned that you won't change another persons mind.  So my tactic us to get in there with a few emotional or logical points (I rarely offer evidence, because I think most of non scientific evidence is impartial) and get out.
I ask leading, innocent questions because I am interested in someone else's thoughts. I am not interested in forcing them to see it my way.
Well, Walmart and labor are the exception. I feel strongly about those two. They are 'my issues.'

[Al Swearegen]

Albert:

You know that i will go anyone here depending on how strongly I object to their position.

It's true. And you are consistent.
I think you like to joust with words.  This is fine.  I learn a lot.

You've gone after me.  And the difference, I think, between Richard and myself is that I'm not interested in winning, or having the last word.  I like to challenge people.  And I like the idle banter. 
In a debate I've learned that you won't change another persons mind.  So my tactic us to get in there with a few emotional or logical points (I rarely offer evidence, because I think most of non scientific evidence is impartial) and get out.
I ask leading, innocent questions because I am interested in someone else's thoughts. I am not interested in forcing them to see it my way.
Well, Walmart and labor are the exception. I feel strongly about those two. They are 'my issues.'

I think that the thing is that I have strong positions on things, true. I am stubborn, arrogant, opinionated - no contest. But not completely close-minded. I am happy learning and I do listen and critically examine what is said. I may not seem it but i am.
For instance, I say that Goid does not exist. I am sure of it. It is my belief. I have great reason to believe this. If god suddenly appeared from the skies and rolled out a row of steps from which a Second coming of Jesus walked down, majestically......I would probably say "Well....ok....guess i was wrong all along. My bad. There we go. He does exist"
Failing that, if I say he does not exist, i am set in my opinion but very receptive to what is said that may shake my foundation.

I lie to go hard against an opposing point. If i believe I am not beating a point into submission, I think and evaluate it. Why is this? Is it because the other person is simply better at arguing? Is it a harder point for me to make? (not enough collaborating evidence?) is it that the point is actually better made on its own merit? If so why not consider those merits and whether they are compatible to your point or not and whether in fact your pov worth holding on to?

[McGiver]

If god exists, is both all powerful and benevolent, then he is a god I refuse to worship.  All the bad in this worth.  All the defenseless victims!
If I'm god I'm stepping in and stopping some of the shit that happens. Especially the shit that happens to kids.
The mere fact that god does nothing proves to me that god must be bad at his job.
And the free choice argument is invalid.  That poor five year old that was sold to have sex to a 50 year old man so mom can acquire some drugs, had no choice.

[RageBeoulve]

I wouldn't get your hopes up for here, I mean these are aspies we are talking about. There is no theory of mind, they just can't feel. I suggest the administrators delete this thread.  Sorry if I sound mean, but its the truth  They want to have children, and fucked up ones, already started trouble with love, should just give up and quite while your ahead.  I badly want children, and don't feel badly disabled.  I would love to give another person free sugar from fluorescent lights

You are god, man.

[Al Swearegen]

If god exists, is both all powerful and benevolent, then he is a god I refuse to worship.  All the bad in this worth.  All the defenseless victims!
If I'm god I'm stepping in and stopping some of the shit that happens. Especially the shit that happens to kids.
The mere fact that god does nothing proves to me that god must be bad at his job.
And the free choice argument is invalid.  That poor five year old that was sold to have sex to a 50 year old man so mom can acquire some drugs, had no choice.

I will do one better.

Satan is claimed to be teh cause of suffering and god the good.

Is God too weak to correct this horrific being or does he simply not want to?