Please, let's not discuss the issues in this thread... this is for planning the "Fine Focus" initiative.
Thanks.
The ATS "9/11 Fine Focus" Initiative, page 2
privacy
reply posted on 13-1-2006 @ 11:12 PM by Majic
Unpopular Perception
If you are capable of forming such conclusions based only on the exchange we have had so far, then I recommend avoiding unnecessary embarrassment by pursuing broader understanding.
If on the other hand your perception is based on more than this exchange, I recommend educating yourself on my actual positions on the issue, since you are clearly misinformed about them.
Insulting me as a consequence of your own ignorance diminishes only yourself.
Reciprocity Disagreement
It depends on how they treat me.
In your first post to this thread, you posted off-topic, and had apparently not read what the thread was actually about.
No worries, we're only human.
In your second post, after being informed of this by SO, you politely apologized and resolved to get “up to par”.
All fine and good, I do respect that.
In your third post, in response to another member, HowardRoark, who said nothing that could reasonably be construed as offensive to you, you accused him of being “not interested in an objective debate” and made some suggestions about how the staff should deal with a banned member.
Puzzling and a bit abrasive, but still not alarming.
Then, in your fourth post – the post I responded to – you stated your opinions about how first-time members should be evaluated.
Again no problem there, but I thought it would be helpful to point out that SkepticOverlord did speak to that issue in the first post, and I suggested contacting the staff via U2U.
If doing so somehow offended you, it was not because I intended it to.
Then, in your fifth post, you apparently took my comments as an affront and proceeded to flame away, hurling your own “polyglot” brand of insults and passive-aggressive sniping, and here we are.
If you think you're going to somehow convince me of your competence or virtue by behaving this way, you are mistaken.
I'm sorry I tried to help.
Fear Itself
I see nothing to fear.
Except perhaps an unnecessary disruption where there might otherwise be intelligent discussion.
Please, don't refrain from pursuing the latter on my account.
Now, if we may both be so considerate as to return the thread to discussion of the ATS "9/11 Fine Focus" Initiative rather than each other, I think we'll both feel better for it.
Regards,
Majic
P.S. If you don't feel you've said enough about me, there is a thread for that purpose. In that thread, I'm always the topic, and I encourage anyone who is so inclined to comment about me there, instead of other threads. Doing so promotes more coherent topical discussion.
P.P.S. By the way, that thread could use some well-crafted flames, and if you don't mind my saying so, I do admire your style.
P.P.P.S. Sorry, I can't resist making one last clarification. I object to being labeled “sycophantic”, because I consider that designation incorrect. Instead, I would prefer something more along the lines of “arrogant”, “smarmy”, “loquacious”, “narcissistic”, “ostentatious”, “pompous”, “bombastic”, “pretentious” and/or perhaps “garrulous”, but I've knocked heads too many times with too many different staff members to allow insinuations of sycophancy to go unanswered. The example in my vanity thread (which also catapulted me to drama queen stardom) is only one among many – much of them behind the scenes. Just sayin'.
[edit on 1/14/2006 by Majic]
Originally posted by Archon
And relating my concerns to theatrics instead of dealing with them in a direct sense is likely to further substantiate my sincere perception of your sycophantic role on the issue.
If you are capable of forming such conclusions based only on the exchange we have had so far, then I recommend avoiding unnecessary embarrassment by pursuing broader understanding.
If on the other hand your perception is based on more than this exchange, I recommend educating yourself on my actual positions on the issue, since you are clearly misinformed about them.
Insulting me as a consequence of your own ignorance diminishes only yourself.
Reciprocity Disagreement
Originally posted by Archon
Is this how you treat new members?
It depends on how they treat me.
In your first post to this thread, you posted off-topic, and had apparently not read what the thread was actually about.
No worries, we're only human.
In your second post, after being informed of this by SO, you politely apologized and resolved to get “up to par”.
All fine and good, I do respect that.
In your third post, in response to another member, HowardRoark, who said nothing that could reasonably be construed as offensive to you, you accused him of being “not interested in an objective debate” and made some suggestions about how the staff should deal with a banned member.
Puzzling and a bit abrasive, but still not alarming.
Then, in your fourth post – the post I responded to – you stated your opinions about how first-time members should be evaluated.
Again no problem there, but I thought it would be helpful to point out that SkepticOverlord did speak to that issue in the first post, and I suggested contacting the staff via U2U.
If doing so somehow offended you, it was not because I intended it to.
Then, in your fifth post, you apparently took my comments as an affront and proceeded to flame away, hurling your own “polyglot” brand of insults and passive-aggressive sniping, and here we are.
If you think you're going to somehow convince me of your competence or virtue by behaving this way, you are mistaken.
I'm sorry I tried to help.
Fear Itself
Originally posted by Archon
Don't be afraid.
I see nothing to fear.
Except perhaps an unnecessary disruption where there might otherwise be intelligent discussion.
Please, don't refrain from pursuing the latter on my account.
Now, if we may both be so considerate as to return the thread to discussion of the ATS "9/11 Fine Focus" Initiative rather than each other, I think we'll both feel better for it.
Regards,
Majic
P.S. If you don't feel you've said enough about me, there is a thread for that purpose. In that thread, I'm always the topic, and I encourage anyone who is so inclined to comment about me there, instead of other threads. Doing so promotes more coherent topical discussion.
P.P.S. By the way, that thread could use some well-crafted flames, and if you don't mind my saying so, I do admire your style.
P.P.P.S. Sorry, I can't resist making one last clarification. I object to being labeled “sycophantic”, because I consider that designation incorrect. Instead, I would prefer something more along the lines of “arrogant”, “smarmy”, “loquacious”, “narcissistic”, “ostentatious”, “pompous”, “bombastic”, “pretentious” and/or perhaps “garrulous”, but I've knocked heads too many times with too many different staff members to allow insinuations of sycophancy to go unanswered. The example in my vanity thread (which also catapulted me to drama queen stardom) is only one among many – much of them behind the scenes. Just sayin'.
[edit on 1/14/2006 by Majic]
reply posted on 13-1-2006 @ 11:38 PM by Majic
Microphone Toss
I would like to add that only a tiny fraction of the board's 50,000+ members (or member accounts, anyway) will be participating in the “fine focus” experiment.
It is exclusive because there has already been so much discussion about the issue. It is the subject of the #1 thread, after all.
As noted above, I don't expect to be one of participants in the new initiative. However, like every other member regardless of join date, I am still free to discuss this topic in any related thread I please -- and start new ones if I wish to explore specific aspects of the issue.
In other words, this initiative is supplementary to ongoing discussion of the 9-11 Pentagon Attack, not a replacement or substitute for it.
So I suggest not thinking that non-participation in this event amounts to “censorship” or an inability to discuss the matter in the hundreds of threads on the Pentagon Attack already in existence.
Last I checked, the “Post Reply” buttons were still working.
Originally posted by HowardRoark
While I don't want to get into a thread where we rehash what was said on page 25, or 69, or 104 of the existing 911 thread, there is something to be said about extracting the key and best arguments for both sides as long as they remain focused on the specific topic and not let it wander about.
I would like to add that only a tiny fraction of the board's 50,000+ members (or member accounts, anyway) will be participating in the “fine focus” experiment.
It is exclusive because there has already been so much discussion about the issue. It is the subject of the #1 thread, after all.
As noted above, I don't expect to be one of participants in the new initiative. However, like every other member regardless of join date, I am still free to discuss this topic in any related thread I please -- and start new ones if I wish to explore specific aspects of the issue.
In other words, this initiative is supplementary to ongoing discussion of the 9-11 Pentagon Attack, not a replacement or substitute for it.
So I suggest not thinking that non-participation in this event amounts to “censorship” or an inability to discuss the matter in the hundreds of threads on the Pentagon Attack already in existence.
Last I checked, the “Post Reply” buttons were still working.
