The pivot begins...

[dneal]

Edit to add preface: The best thing about not voting for federal offices and remaining apolitical, is that it's easier to observe society form into tribes and each party (and there's more than two) develop their political strategy - better known as planks in a platform. I have to lean toward each mob to catch what they're really saying, and sometimes I get too close and stumble upon the zealots. Some of each stripe are on this forum too. Society's polarized. That's interesting too.

The problem with leveraging the pandemic against the GOP is that it paints the Democrats into the opposite corner. All the impossible standards and demagoguery imposed to oust one executive left the successor burdened with the same. At some point that has to change.

So I found it surprising that The Atlantic of all places would I see the pivot. Apple news lets me browse back issues, The Atlantic is very left-leaning, so I digitally thumbed through the headlines of the last 18 months. Of course it's Trump sucks and Joe has a plan. I don't even say that to be snarky. They were playing their role in the system. Joe won, and here we are. But the party leadership is still saddled with the hysteria they whipped up.

I just was waiting to see what their strategy would be to get out of it.

Here's the pivot. (https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/11/americans-need-moving-next-phase-pandemic/620793/)


The Pandemic Is Ending With a Whimper

The decision to move on to the recovery phase needs to be made by politicians, not scientists.

Perhaps you’ve figured this out already: The pandemic will not have a discrete end. The coronavirus will not raise a white flag. There will be no peace treaty, no parade, no announcement from the CDC that the United States is done worrying about COVID. You will not get closure. The signs remain too mixed. The virus continues to spread, even as widening vaccine eligibility, booster shots, and improved medical treatments limit the damage the virus can do. The death rate has been declining since late September, but more than 1,000 Americans have perished each day for most of the past two weeks. A minority of Americans are still acting irresponsibly; a smattering of people would even prefer to lose their job than take a free, lifesaving vaccine.

But America remains in limbo for another reason: The Biden administration has yet to come out and say that the emergency is ending. To even contemplate it seems disrespectful to the nearly 800,000 dead. The Delta variant and vaccine resistance scuttled President Joe Biden’s hopes of declaring a “summer of joy” this past Fourth of July. Yet even though the threat still exists, the country needs to be nudged into the recovery phase—and only elected leaders can provide that nudge.

Biden and his party pledged to “follow the science” in dealing with the coronavirus. Their embrace of professionalism was a point of distinction between them and former President Donald Trump, who in the early days of the pandemic denied the seriousness of the viral threat and refused to help states acquire essential supplies.

Yet the question of when a crisis is over isn’t an objective matter that Anthony Fauci or any other scientific expert can decide. What is an acceptable trade-off between preventing infections and promoting the resumption of pre-pandemic routines? Should employers and school districts base their policies on the expectations of the most risk-averse people or those who have a higher tolerance?

Meanwhile, the perception that the emergency has not ended, and perhaps will never end, has consequences too. Some Americans who are acting cautiously—for instance, by routinely masking outdoors, even after being vaccinated—seem more worried than they should be. In areas with high vaccination rates, schools that extend mask mandates longer than necessary or reinstate rigid socializing rules after a few positive tests risk damaging students’ education with marginal benefit to public health. Americans need not throw out all precautions; indeed, efforts to promote vaccination, whether through gentle cajoling of vaccine refusers or overt pressure on employers, are essential to ending the emergency. We must focus urgently on our recovery—and assess how cautious we should be when the virus becomes endemic but widely available vaccines radically reduce the possibility of hospitalization and death.

In a normal disaster-management framework, an immediate harm—such as a terrorist attack, an ecological catastrophe, or an earthquake or a hurricane—triggers a multifaceted initial government response: search and rescue, mass sheltering, and emergency medical care. Firefighters, police, health officials, and other professionals step in to protect people who cannot protect themselves. But this period gives way to a recovery mode, in which the focus shifts to mourning the dead, rebuilding damaged physical and social infrastructures, and revitalizing the economy. The first responders who take command in the early days are replaced over time by builders and city planners who, in consultation with the public, chart a long-term plan to get systems running again. Many of the decisions that have to be made in a recovery are judgment calls—mere guesses about the best uses of resources. Indeed, one might call them political.

I was working at the Department of Homeland Security when a BP oil rig exploded in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010. The Coast Guard oversaw the immediate efforts to deal with the spill, America’s largest-ever marine oil disaster. But to oversee the recovery, President Barack Obama tapped a politician: the Navy secretary and former Mississippi governor Ray Mabus. Mabus’s job wasn’t to pick up tar balls on the seashore. It was to oversee the billions of dollars in recovery funds that BP had put up to support rebuilding efforts in the fishing and oil industries, the cleaning of marshlands and beaches, and the equitable distribution of funds to Native American and Black communities harmed by the spill.

Likewise, after Hurricane Sandy in 2012, Shaun Donovan, the secretary of housing and urban development, organized the government’s recovery efforts. He wasn’t saving people from drowning; other professionals had handled the initial phase. Donovan’s mandate was to distribute post-Sandy relief in order to better prepare communities for the future. These roles require not specialized technical expertise but an ability to mediate between competing values and priorities.

Similarly, the enormous challenges of America’s pandemic recovery—lost learning and lost staffing in schools, the great exodus from the workforce, and a profound disruption of office life—have no scientific solutions. We must own the political nature of this recovery, and it’s not anti-science to recognize that not all decisions are matters of science.

Elected officials do science no favors by putting fundamentally political decisions in the hands of technical experts. The recent local and state pushback against the federal government’s original limited guidance on eligibility for booster shots underscores the problem. Biden himself was pushing for boosters. He clearly understood that, in the face of organized vaccine resistance, many Americans who had been rigorously observing safety protocols for a year and a half would want to maximize their own immunity before resuming travel, in-person work, and other activities. Many public-health experts, in contrast, expressed skepticism about offering boosters to American adults rather than sending vaccine doses overseas. Two top FDA vaccine regulators resigned in protest over what Politico called “Biden’s top-down booster plan.”

In September, the FDA and the CDC authorized booster shots only for certain high-risk groups. But the agencies’ task arguably should have been limited to assessing whether boosters were safe and would help the people to whom they would be administered; the answer on both counts was obviously yes. After even Democratic mayors and governors balked at limitations on booster shots, the FDA and the CDC finally opened up boosters to all adults.

The muddle was avoidable. Elected officials must make political decisions without hiding behind scientific advisers’ white coats. Doing so forthrightly will, in the end, protect the integrity of science.

The coronavirus arrived like a tidal wave, but its worst effects are now ebbing, at least for vaccinated people. The United States has entered a phase that I have previously described as an adaptive recovery, a long period in which the virus persists but Americans figure out how best to manage it. The choice now facing the U.S. is whether to acknowledge the progress we’ve made—and the subjective, political, nonscientific nature of the value judgments that face us.

Juliette Kayyem, a former assistant secretary for homeland security under President Barack Obama, is the faculty chair of the homeland-security program at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government. She is the author of the forthcoming book The Devil Never Sleeps: Learning to Live in an Age of Disasters.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

I don't see anything here that wasn't already known before. To take just a single example, nobody in relevant science/health fields ever really believes that a pandemic has a discrete end. How the media and/or politicians and/or self-serving people portray this is another matter entirely. Furthermore, when talking about recoveries it needs to be kept in mind that the pandemic was a rapidly evolving situation without a clear solution, and the recovery will likely be the same. Again, we will no doubt be swamped with media expressions that are replete with spin.

The past couple of years have, for me, highlighted just how determined a lot of people are to point fingers instead of joining heads in an attempt to find better solutions.

[dneal]

Many of us have known this for some time, but this language is verboten in American left mainstream and social media. I bet if I shared it on Facebook it would get a generic Covid warning. The Atlantic is American left media. The narrative on that side is changing.

—edit—

An example as soon as I looked at FB. The Babylon Bee got a label for this piece of satire, for example, because it used a word on the “controlled” list.

65213

[Chuck Naill]

Being apolitical does not make one objective. Objectivity is a choice of how to think regardless of how you vote since the choices are only one or the other.

Being conservative doesn’t mean you like Reagan, Bush, or Trump equally. Some voted for Biden because the alternative was Trump.

I since a smugness here that is self perpetuating. If one chooses not to vote, whiles it’s their choice, they take themselves out of the process of freedom. It doesn’t make them more or less.

[Chuck Naill]

Sorry sense

[dneal]

Being apolitical does not make one objective. Objectivity is a choice of how to think regardless of how you vote since the choices are only one or the other.

Being conservative doesn’t mean you like Reagan, Bush, or Trump equally. Some voted for Biden because the alternative was Trump.

I since a smugness here that is self perpetuating. If one chooses not to vote, whiles it’s their choice, they take themselves out of the process of freedom. It doesn’t make them more or less.

It's less so now, but there used to be intense pressure for officers to join AUSA (the Association for the U.S. Army). It is primarily a lobbyist group. It holds powerful sway on the politics of the military. Defense funding, what programs get developed, etc... When I was a lieutenant, the brigade commander had a list of who was a member and who wasn't. He would have "OPD's" (Officer Professional Development) sessions with a guest speaker from AUSA, and a membership drive that followed. He directed battalion commanders to counsel their officers who hadn't joined.

I told my battalion commander (a fine man who respected my view) that I thought one of the biggest problems with politics was the lobbying, and I wouldn't be a part of it even when the lobbyist group had my interest (indirectly) in mind.

It's a point of integrity, for me. Yeah, that probably does come off as "smug" to those without it; but it is indeed a choice to remain objective. A conscious effort to recognize potential for bias and a conscious effort to not succumb - within the constraints of the human condition, of course.

I don't vote for federal office for similar reasons. I'll do what the country asks, within the context of the moral and legal. I won't put my thumb on the scale of what the country asks. You'll have to develop a more convincing argument than mockery to convince someone who gave 30+ years of their life to defending the process of freedom, that they've taken themself out of that process. I chose a different role within the process than you did. I don't judge you for the role you chose.

I'm trained to develop and evaluate courses of action, and to analyze and assess friendly and enemy action - although in some cases (like the Peloponnesian war, for example); there is no "friendly" and "enemy" side other than from the perspective of each. It's the same to me with D's, R's, Libertarians, Green Party, etc...

A quote, and a (actual) meme for your consideration; no mockery intended. They simply convey a couple of ideas, succinctly.

“He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion... Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them...he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.”

Consider that (from John Stuart Mill, btw) in the terms of the 'how to convince people Trump lost' thread. I can see both sides, because I am able to remain pretty objective. You've just never seen me argue the other side, against the "election was definitely stolen" people; because they don't post here. Instead, my experience becomes what this meme conveys:

65220

[Bold2013]

Babylon Bee is amazing stuff

[Chuck Naill]

"While in uniform" regarding voting that I found, but others encourage voting. You cannot be in the military without being a citizen and as a citizen you have responsibilites including voting.
https://www.armytimes.com/opinion/2016/10/19/get-out-and-vote-but-obey-your-oath-general-tells-officers/

If you express your opinions in your circle of influence as you do here, you should vote since you certainly do take a side.

[dneal]

I bet if I shared it on Facebook it would get a generic Covid warning.

11 hours later...

65221

[Chuck Naill]

Michgan is not whimpering. 3800 new cases with 20% ICU.

[dneal]

"While in uniform" regarding voting that I found, but others encourage voting. You cannot be in the military without being a citizen and as a citizen you have responsibilites including voting.
https://www.armytimes.com/opinion/2016/10/19/get-out-and-vote-but-obey-your-oath-general-tells-officers/

If you express your opinions in your circle of influence as you do here, you should vote since you certainly do take a side.

I notice you don't include the NYT article your Army Times article cites, nor the quote from it:

"Wednesday’s New York Times includes an opinion column suggesting military officers shouldn’t vote. It is good for the Army and for the nation to hear from its officers and enlisted service members. However, I could not disagree more strongly with the author.

While supporting officers’ constitutional right to vote, the column argues they shouldn’t exercise that right. It cites some notable senior officers who expressed that they chose not to vote while in uniform —Gens. Ulysses Grant, George Marshall, George Patton and Dwight Eisenhower among them. The column suggests that by voting for the winner, an officer is somehow beholden to that person. In contrast, those who vote for the loser will be against the new commander in chief."

General Ham is entitled to his opinion. I'm entitled to mine. It falls with the Generals listed, but is not made because they held that opinion. It is because I agree with the idea for its intrinsic value. Your argument is an appeal to authority (a logical fallacy). Mine is a conclusion reached through consideration. Like General Ham, I simply advocate why I make my choice. Again, I vote in every election except those for federal office (my representative, two senators and President). You will not likely change my choice, and certainly not with the continued fallacious methods of ad hominem / appeal to ridicule, or appeal to authority.

--edit--

Now perhaps you can address the topic, rather than diverting and focusing on me?

[dneal]

Michgan is not whimpering. 3800 new cases with 20% ICU.

Just wait Chuck. Your media overlords are changing the narrative. This will be acceptable.

I'm really just noting this for posterity. An experiment of sorts, although by posting it I am influencing the outcome. Will you follow the change in narrative, documenting my hypothesis? or will you now have to "stick to your guns" out of fear of documenting the change?

Last prediction: those who swing with the shift in narrative will argue they have always thought that ("that" being whatever the narrative changes to). I almost predicted the "this article tells us what we already know" comment correctly. I just thought it would be TSherbs instead of EoC.

--edit--

My (vaccinated) wife's comment: "Maybe Michigan should look into Ivermectin as a treatment..."

[Chuck Naill]

"While in uniform" regarding voting that I found, but others encourage voting. You cannot be in the military without being a citizen and as a citizen you have responsibilites including voting.
https://www.armytimes.com/opinion/2016/10/19/get-out-and-vote-but-obey-your-oath-general-tells-officers/

If you express your opinions in your circle of influence as you do here, you should vote since you certainly do take a side.

I notice you don't include the NYT article your Army Times article cites, nor the quote from it:

"Wednesday’s New York Times includes an opinion column suggesting military officers shouldn’t vote. It is good for the Army and for the nation to hear from its officers and enlisted service members. However, I could not disagree more strongly with the author.

While supporting officers’ constitutional right to vote, the column argues they shouldn’t exercise that right. It cites some notable senior officers who expressed that they chose not to vote while in uniform —Gens. Ulysses Grant, George Marshall, George Patton and Dwight Eisenhower among them. The column suggests that by voting for the winner, an officer is somehow beholden to that person. In contrast, those who vote for the loser will be against the new commander in chief."

General Ham is entitled to his opinion. I'm entitled to mine. It falls with the Generals listed, but is not made because they held that opinion. It is because I agree with the idea for its intrinsic value. Your argument is an appeal to authority (a logical fallacy). Mine is a conclusion reached through consideration. Like General Ham, I simply advocate why I make my choice. Again, I vote in every election except those for federal office (my representative, two senators and President). You will not likely change my choice, and certainly not with the continued fallacious methods of ad hominem / appeal to ridicule, or appeal to authority.

--edit--

Now perhaps you can address the topic, rather than diverting and focusing on me?

I just posted Ham to show that your practice is your practice and not some sort of honor code or suggestion that your're objective. It is just what you want to do, pure and simple. No need to hide behind the flag @dneal.

[Chuck Naill]

Michgan is not whimpering. 3800 new cases with 20% ICU.

Just wait Chuck. Your media overlords are changing the narrative. This will be acceptable.

I'm really just noting this for posterity. An experiment of sorts, although by posting it I am influencing the outcome. Will you follow the change in narrative, documenting my hypothesis? or will you now have to "stick to your guns" out of fear of documenting the change?

Last prediction: those who swing with the shift in narrative will argue they have always thought that ("that" being whatever the narrative changes to). I almost predicted the "this article tells us what we already know" comment correctly. I just thought it would be TSherbs instead of EoC.

Good dodge. LOL!! Don't let yourself be confused by the fact, @dneal.

[dneal]

More projection... Your Michigan post is a dodge. It confirms my point about narrative, and your full acceptance of it. The unsubstantiated rhetoric you use in #14 is the real dodge.

[dneal]

I just posted Ham to show that your practice is your practice and not some sort of honor code or suggestion that your're objective. It is just what you want to do, pure and simple. No need to hide behind the flag @dneal.

It's still a fallacious appeal to authority - i.e.: You're right and I'm wrong because General Ham said so.
You still ignore the other side of the coin - that other prominent generals chose otherwise.
You still think mocking through straw man is a rational argument.
I still maintain my position, for the reasons I have conveyed. I made an ethical decision on what I will and won't do. No hiding behind anything.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

Last prediction: those who swing with the shift in narrative will argue they have always thought that ("that" being whatever the narrative changes to). I almost predicted the "this article tells us what we already know" comment correctly. I just thought it would be TSherbs instead of EoC.

That's really funny because I totally predicted you would essay this line of argument.


The reality is that for those who work in related fields and/or are experts in related fields, the fuzziness of disease expression and course in populations has been known and understood for a very long time. Only people with the mindset of Trump (just as a convenient example) would publicly state that a pandemic would just stop or go away. While we may hope to eradicate a particular pathogen - smallpox comes to mind - the more pragmatic approach has been to mitigate effects and attempt to reduce the status of a pandemic (or any infectious disease). Spanish flu still exists, bubonic plague still exists, polio still exists, the list could go on and on. None of them just 'went away one day'. This is a matter of historical record.

So, no. From the general perspective of the relevant sciences what the article says does not represent a swing in the narrative. Where the narrative is swinging - and I am by no means being comprehensive here - is in the media, in politics, and among various activists.



Edited: to rephrase

[Chuck Naill]

I just posted Ham to show that your practice is your practice and not some sort of honor code or suggestion that your're objective. It is just what you want to do, pure and simple. No need to hide behind the flag @dneal.

It's still a fallacious appeal to authority - i.e.: You're right and I'm wrong because General Ham said so.
You still ignore the other side of the coin - that other prominent generals chose otherwise.
You still think mocking through straw man is a rational argument.
I still maintain my position, for the reasons I have conveyed. I made an ethical decision on what I will and won't do. No hiding behind anything.

Give it a rest, @dneal. You says something that unsupported just like your abstracted Sowell quotes. When you are found out you go off.

[dneal]

Last prediction: those who swing with the shift in narrative will argue they have always thought that ("that" being whatever the narrative changes to). I almost predicted the "this article tells us what we already know" comment correctly. I just thought it would be TSherbs instead of EoC.

That's really funny because I totally predicted you would essay this line of argument.


The reality is that for those who work in related fields and/or are experts in related fields, the fuzziness of disease expression and course in populations has been known and understood for a very long time. Only people with the mindset of Trump (just as a convenient example) would publicly state that a pandemic would just stop or go away. While we may hope to eradicate a particular pathogen - smallpox comes to mind - the more pragmatic approach has been to mitigate effects and attempt to reduce the status of a pandemic (or any infectious disease). Spanish flu still exists, bubonic plague still exists, polio still exists, the list could go on and on. None of them just 'went away one day'. This is a matter of historical record.

So, no. From the general perspective of the relevant sciences what the article says does not represent a swing in the narrative. Where the narrative is swinging - and I am by no means being comprehensive here - is in the media, in politics, and among various activists.



Edited: to rephrase

This is about American politics, not COVID science. I'm not arguing the science. I agree with the majority of the article. Science is argument. It is competing hypotheses being challenged and refined by experts intent on proving or disproving those hypotheses. I'm with you on that. That has been shut down in American media (because our politics are insane now), and it's dangerous to society. It also happens to be what much of what Dr. Bhattacharya said. I even typed it out in post #5 of the the "What Happened" thread (https://fpgeeks.com/forum/showthread.php/35675-What-Happened-Dr-Jay-Bhattacharya-on-19-Months-of-COVID): "Public health policy, he asserts, is political science. Politicians must weigh benefits and consequences within the totality of the circumstances, yet it was handed off to people who are paid to have a single focus. We should have a wider view in the future."

Look how Chuck reacts when the "I" word (sorry, horse-dewormer) comes up. Look how Facebook tagged my sharing of The Atlantic article with their "COVID resource" page or whatever "official" narrative they're pushing is.

The bolded sentence is the point. The Atlantic is part of "the media". The fact that it in particular (as a left-leaning publication who toes the line) is changing the narrative is what's significant. The content is only important in that they are saying it publicly.

So to restate my thesis: Democrats leveraged the pandemic to oust Trump. But they painted themselves into a corner by doing that, and have to figure a way out. They need the media that's on their side to do the lifting on the messaging. The Atlantic is on their side. If this article was on FoxNews, you would see a completely different response. It would be "dangerous". It would be "denying science" or "follow the science" and then "debunked". But it's not on Fox. It's in one of the most liberal magazines in the country, and that's significant. It is a pivot.

This is just a more complex version of liberals (like the current VP) declaring they didn't trust the "Trump Vaccine", but then advocating everyone get the "no-longer-Trump Vaccine" once they won the election. They have to pivot on a lot of issues.

Oil prices (and policy) is already doing the same thing. The inflation narrative is disastrous, and they'll pivot on that too. But all that (particularly the economy) hinges on changing the COVID narrative, because they're not going to eradicate it. They just got their asses handed to them in various elections (hello, Virginia). A truck driver bought a box of donuts and beat a multi-million dollar reelection campaign by the senior democrat in the New Jersey senate. They have to do something to keep from taking a worse beating in next year's midterm elections.

[dneal]

I just posted Ham to show that your practice is your practice and not some sort of honor code or suggestion that your're objective. It is just what you want to do, pure and simple. No need to hide behind the flag @dneal.

It's still a fallacious appeal to authority - i.e.: You're right and I'm wrong because General Ham said so.
You still ignore the other side of the coin - that other prominent generals chose otherwise.
You still think mocking through straw man is a rational argument.
I still maintain my position, for the reasons I have conveyed. I made an ethical decision on what I will and won't do. No hiding behind anything.

Give it a rest, @dneal. You says something that unsupported just like your abstracted Sowell quotes. When you are found out you go off.

You took Ham out of context, and ignored his reference to generals who present the opposing argument. Hypocrisy is your forte though…

[Chuck Naill]

I just posted Ham to show that your practice is your practice and not some sort of honor code or suggestion that your're objective. It is just what you want to do, pure and simple. No need to hide behind the flag @dneal.

It's still a fallacious appeal to authority - i.e.: You're right and I'm wrong because General Ham said so.
You still ignore the other side of the coin - that other prominent generals chose otherwise.
You still think mocking through straw man is a rational argument.
I still maintain my position, for the reasons I have conveyed. I made an ethical decision on what I will and won't do. No hiding behind anything.

Give it a rest, @dneal. You says something that unsupported just like your abstracted Sowell quotes. When you are found out you go off.

You took Ham out of context, and ignored his reference to generals who present the opposing argument. Hypocrisy is your forte though…

I provided a complete article. I could have provided others that do not follow your tactic to appear superior by not voting. Plus, former generals are serving in both Democrat and Republican administrations.

One thing I have noticed about your posts, you will try your best not to inform or discuss, you only intent appears to support your fringe position.

Yes, I tend to use examples from one topic to the other because with your posts, I must verify regardless of the topic. I am not saying you intentionally mislead. but you do seem to read with a subjective eye.

[Chuck Naill]

Last prediction: those who swing with the shift in narrative will argue they have always thought that ("that" being whatever the narrative changes to). I almost predicted the "this article tells us what we already know" comment correctly. I just thought it would be TSherbs instead of EoC.

That's really funny because I totally predicted you would essay this line of argument.


The reality is that for those who work in related fields and/or are experts in related fields, the fuzziness of disease expression and course in populations has been known and understood for a very long time. Only people with the mindset of Trump (just as a convenient example) would publicly state that a pandemic would just stop or go away. While we may hope to eradicate a particular pathogen - smallpox comes to mind - the more pragmatic approach has been to mitigate effects and attempt to reduce the status of a pandemic (or any infectious disease). Spanish flu still exists, bubonic plague still exists, polio still exists, the list could go on and on. None of them just 'went away one day'. This is a matter of historical record.

So, no. From the general perspective of the relevant sciences what the article says does not represent a swing in the narrative. Where the narrative is swinging - and I am by no means being comprehensive here - is in the media, in politics, and among various activists.



Edited: to rephrase

I had the same thought.

I doubt anyone keeping up with politics and/or medical science will change what they think about viruses and infectious disease in general. The greatest error was to try to deminish people who chose as their professions as servants in the area of the many facets of healthcare and instead supported know nothing politicans with one intent to be re-elected.

Nor will anyone think we should have drank bleach or other insane suggestions. Thank God that there are professionals that refused to bend and stayed in the job and suffer disrespect. It is a wonder some Jan 6 person didn't kill them.

[dneal]

Anyone keeping up with [American] politics should know who MSNBC’s prime time anchor is - the first African American woman to be one, by the way.

[dneal]

One thing I have noticed about your posts, you will try your best not to inform or discuss, you only intent appears to support your fringe position.

Irony, it’s what’s for breakfast.

[Chuck Naill]

At least you have the gumption not to deny. :)

[dneal]

At least you have the gumption not to deny. :)

Deny what? That you do the very thing you accuse others of? I'd label it accurately as projection, but some folks apparently are tired of me pointing that out.

Nope, I don't deny that.

[TSherbs]

Anyone keeping up with [American] politics should know who MSNBC’s prime time anchor is - the first African American woman to be one, by the way.

If by "one" you mean "prime time anchor," who is also African American, then, no. Gwen Ifill came before Reid and helped to pave the way for her.

[Chuck Naill]

Anyone keeping up with [American] politics should know who MSNBC’s prime time anchor is - the first African American woman to be one, by the way.

If by "one" you mean "prime time anchor," who is also African American, then, no. Gwen Ifill came before Reid and helped to pave the way for her.

He would not have ever heard of Ms. Ifill. She passed too soon.

[dneal]

Anyone keeping up with [American] politics should know who MSNBC’s prime time anchor is - the first African American woman to be one, by the way.

If by "one" you mean "prime time anchor," who is also African American, then, no. Gwen Ifill came before Reid and helped to pave the way for her.

I mean prime time anchor, without air-quotes. A major news network's 7pm slot. Gwen Ifill hosted a 30 minute weekly show on PBS. Not the same.

[Chuck Naill]

At least you have the gumption not to deny. :)

Deny what? That you do the very thing you accuse others of? I'd label it accurately as projection, but some folks apparently are tired of me pointing that out.

Nope, I don't deny that.

That the statement you posted reminded two of us of what we would have expected you to do was what you said others would do. Please keep up. It is like the time we all found out you didn't vote for Trump after supporting him for years. Your fake military thing lets you hide behind the flag, but we always knew you were the man behind the curtain.

You remind me of a member on another non moderated forum. This person was a flat earth theorist and Trump supporter. He didn't vote for him either. We discussed space and flat earth theory for what seemed like a decade. Funny thing, I dispelled his nonsense so much I learned a lot about space travel...LOL!! Don't ask me about the Van Allen Belt.....;)

[Chuck Naill]

Anyone keeping up with [American] politics should know who MSNBC’s prime time anchor is - the first African American woman to be one, by the way.

If by "one" you mean "prime time anchor," who is also African American, then, no. Gwen Ifill came before Reid and helped to pave the way for her.

I mean prime time anchor, without air-quotes. A major news network's 7pm slot. Gwen Ifill hosted a 30 minute weekly show on PBS. Not the same.

"On August 6, 2013, NewsHour named Ifill and Judy Woodruff as co-anchors and co-managing editors. They shared anchor duties Monday through Thursday; Woodruff was the sole anchor on Friday.[33] In November 2015, Ifill was the master of ceremonies at the 2015 LBJ Liberty & Justice For All Award ceremony.[34]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwen_Ifill

[dneal]

There's a lot of ad hominem and straw man in there Chuck.

If you want to make random assertions, that's ok with me. Let's take a moment and dissect these.


That the statement you posted reminded two of us of what we would have expected you to do was what you said others would do.

Not sure what statement you are referring to. I posted my prediction, and I noted another that I had not posted (sometimes I send them in a PM to another member). Here's an example:

65240

In the second (in this thread) I also admitted what I got wrong. I have no idea why you latched on to "predictions", but here we are.

Anyway, it's more diversion from the topic that you (and the other) habitually engage in.


It is like the time we all found out you didn't vote for Trump after supporting him for years.

Feel free to cite your evidence for that claim. I have stated that I think he's an obnoxious person, but I agree with many of his policies. I stated that I did not vote for him.

Right now, that's just a straw man, attempting to point out some invented hypocrisy.


Your fake military thing lets you hide behind the flag, but we always knew you were the man behind the curtain.

This doesn't even make any sense (man behind the curtain???) but is more straw man with a little ad hominem sprinkled in. Just more baseless accusations.


You remind me of a member on another non moderated forum. This person was a flat earth theorist and Trump supporter. He didn't vote for him either. We discussed space and flat earth theory for what seemed like a decade. Funny thing, I dispelled his nonsense so much I learned a lot about space travel...LOL!! Don't ask me about the Van Allen Belt.....

More straw man and ad hominem. It's getting a little pathetic. You have yet to dispel anything. You distract or run away when your nonsense is disproven. Still waiting for you to answer about that NIH article on ivermectin you posted. How's that foot doing?

SO BACK ON TOPIC:

I see the left-leaning media shift away from the "we have to do this list of things to end the pandemic" narrative. Do you need evidence that they held this position? I'll provide it. Do you deny that they are shifting their narrative?

[dneal]

Anyone keeping up with [American] politics should know who MSNBC’s prime time anchor is - the first African American woman to be one, by the way.

If by "one" you mean "prime time anchor," who is also African American, then, no. Gwen Ifill came before Reid and helped to pave the way for her.

I mean prime time anchor, without air-quotes. A major news network's 7pm slot. Gwen Ifill hosted a 30 minute weekly show on PBS. Not the same.

"On August 6, 2013, NewsHour named Ifill and Judy Woodruff as co-anchors and co-managing editors. They shared anchor duties Monday through Thursday; Woodruff was the sole anchor on Friday.[33] In November 2015, Ifill was the master of ceremonies at the 2015 LBJ Liberty & Justice For All Award ceremony.[34]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwen_Ifill

Judy Woodruff was the anchor. Gwen Ifill came on as the co-anchor. Gwen Ifill took over the Week in Review roundtable. All of that was on PBS.

Do you claim that PBS is equivalent to the major news networks? Fox/CNN/Newsmax/MSNBC (not to mention the broadcast networks ABC/NBC/CBS)?

Do you claim that being added as a co-host, or getting a one-day a week show is equivalent to getting your own prime-time show (The ReidOut, which replaced Chris Matthews' Hardball)?

Are you (and TSherbs) that desperate to score a "win", no matter how pedantic or disingenuous?

Is there some reason you guys are incapable of following an OP topic?

[Chuck Naill]

A co-anchor position is an anchor.

Oh hell yes, for vetted information PBS is as good as it gets. I’m smart enough to listen .

I stopped listening to Rush et al by the late ‘90’s.

Don’t listen to NPR or PBS if you are looking for a source to tell you what you want to hear. And learn to read why people think as they do that don’t agree with your world view.

[dneal]

False equivalency, parsing, introduction of the irrelevant (Rush), and admonition with a little ad hominem. Simply more deflection from the topic of the thread.

It's amazing that you can expend this much effort on the diversions, but not the topics themselves. Perhaps I have discovered what is consuming your time, which you repeatedly claim to not want to waste.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

Small apology to dneal about focussing on the science aspects of the OP. Being in various related fields over my entire working lifetime it was natural for me to respond to it that way. Of course, I agree from the other perspectives that the narrative is changing, but suggest that this - as a behaviour - is not at all uncommon in politics.

[dneal]

Small apology to dneal about focussing on the science aspects of the OP. Being in various related fields over my entire working lifetime it was natural for me to respond to it that way. Of course, I agree from the other perspectives that the narrative is changing, but suggest that this - as a behaviour - is not at all uncommon in politics.

Thanks. I agree it’s typical politics (well, “typical” in the context of today’s politics). If one compares it to a game (not to diminish the seriousness of it), it’s interesting to watch the choice of plays.

[TSherbs]

Are you (and TSherbs) that desperate to score a "win", no matter how pedantic or disingenuous?


No Winners In These Back Pages

[Chip]

Curious that someone who claims not to vote thinks in political terms of winners and losers.

How do you keep score?

[dneal]

Easy. Every time you post an off topic, pathetic attempt at insult; I deduct a point.

[TSherbs]

No Winners In These Back Pages

rinse repeat

[calamus]

Just wait Chuck. Your media overlords are changing the narrative. This will be acceptable.

I'm really just noting this for posterity. An experiment of sorts, although by posting it I am influencing the outcome. Will you follow the change in narrative, documenting my hypothesis? or will you now have to "stick to your guns" out of fear of documenting the change?

Last prediction: those who swing with the shift in narrative will argue they have always thought that ("that" being whatever the narrative changes to).

Eastasia is Oceania's ally. It has always been Oceania's ally.

[Chuck Naill]

Curious that someone who claims not to vote thinks in political terms of winners and losers.

How do you keep score?

Easy, they are simply trolling.

[kazoolaw]

Statistical pivoting:

A significant proportion of people hospitalized with COVID-19 in recent weeks were admitted for other reasons, according to health officials and government data.

The exact scale of the phenomenon in the US is not recorded in federal statistics, but has been noted anecdotally.

Since all hospital admissions are tested for COVID-19, Fauci said, many are "hospitalized with COVID, as opposed to because of COVID."

"

Odd that now Fauci concedes that the tracking of Covid hospitalizations produces inflated numbers. Can we expect the numbers to be recalculated to show a decline as we near the mid-term elections?

[dneal]

@kazoolaw - The discovery of Covid, particularly the Omicron variant, after being admitted for other things; is a common thing when evaluating the South African and UK data.

[Chuck Naill]

Statistical pivoting:

A significant proportion of people hospitalized with COVID-19 in recent weeks were admitted for other reasons, according to health officials and government data.

The exact scale of the phenomenon in the US is not recorded in federal statistics, but has been noted anecdotally.

Since all hospital admissions are tested for COVID-19, Fauci said, many are "hospitalized with COVID, as opposed to because of COVID."

"

Odd that now Fauci concedes that the tracking of Covid hospitalizations produces inflated numbers. Can we expect the numbers to be recalculated to show a decline as we near the mid-term elections?


In England and South Africa. It is called Incidental Covid-19. Shouldn't be a surprise to admit somone with cardiovascular disease or diabetes with mild Covid.

[dneal]

Chuck, Fauci was noting that children with a broken bone were found to have Covid. People in the hospital for a whole host of reasons are testing positive. It's not just cardiovascular disease or diabetes.

And "mild Covid"? You're the guy that seems fond of citing the latest number of people dead or in ICU, and every anomalous incident of some however-old person dying of Covid. Now you want to characterize the deadly disease of death as "mild Covid"?

That's progress, I suppose...

[Chuck Naill]

Chuck, Fauci was noting that children with a broken bone were found to have Covid. People in the hospital for a whole host of reasons are testing positive. It's not just cardiovascular disease or diabetes.

And "mild Covid"? You're the guy that seems fond of citing the latest number of people dead or in ICU, and every anomalous incident of some however-old person dying of Covid. Now you want to characterize the deadly disease of death as "mild Covid"?

That's progress, I suppose...

I don't know that he did.

If you have a broken bone and infected, are you less infected? No!! Those children could worsen or infect others. I might have mild and could infect you and you have a severe reaction. When I was bitten by the tick, I had a reaction that is not the norm. Who can say who will and will not get very sick?

Listen to those involved in the ICU's. Then you'll have a different perspective, I trust. Fauci is not perfect and neither are you. Writing books to damage him is the work of people with an agenda that is not in the best interests of their neighbors.

[dneal]

Chuck, perhaps you should scrutinize your own opinions and words as thoroughly as you do others.

[Chuck Naill]

Sure thing @dneal, but when is the last time I insulted a healcare worker regarding the vaccine and measures to help others? One member said they were a doctor and didn't think much could be done to combat the virus. Since this is not a view from the experts, I did take issue. However, a doctor who thinks this way was a complete surprise.

[kazoolaw]

In England and South Africa. It is called Incidental Covid-19. Shouldn't be a surprise to admit somone with cardiovascular disease or diabetes with mild Covid.

Do you know that it's significant whether someone is hospitalized because of Covid as opposed to the reason for hospitalization being something else and the Covid diagnosis is incidental?

Because if you don't differentiate between the two, and lump both together in one number, the seriousness of Covid is inflated. Now, if you differentiate between the two the apparent seriousness goes down, allowing a politician to take credit for lowering the rate of infection, counting on some people not to notice that all that happened was the way the statistics were generated and not wondering "Gee, should we go back an recalculate all the statistics?"

[Chuck Naill]

In England and South Africa. It is called Incidental Covid-19. Shouldn't be a surprise to admit somone with cardiovascular disease or diabetes with mild Covid.

Do you know that it's significant whether someone is hospitalized because of Covid as opposed to the reason for hospitalization being something else and the Covid diagnosis is incidental?

Because if you don't differentiate between the two, and lump both together in one number, the seriousness of Covid is inflated. Now, if you differentiate between the two the apparent seriousness goes down, allowing a politician to take credit for lowering the rate of infection, counting on some people not to notice that all that happened was the way the statistics were generated and not wondering "Gee, should we go back an recalculate all the statistics?"


I do know.

I’m concerned that you don’t understand healthcare.

[kazoolaw]

In England and South Africa. It is called Incidental Covid-19. Shouldn't be a surprise to admit somone with cardiovascular disease or diabetes with mild Covid.

Do you know that it's significant whether someone is hospitalized because of Covid as opposed to the reason for hospitalization being something else and the Covid diagnosis is incidental?

Because if you don't differentiate between the two, and lump both together in one number, the seriousness of Covid is inflated. Now, if you differentiate between the two the apparent seriousness goes down, allowing a politician to take credit for lowering the rate of infection, counting on some people not to notice that all that happened was the way the statistics were generated and not wondering "Gee, should we go back an recalculate all the statistics?"


I do know.

I’m concerned that you don’t understand healthcare.

Glad you engaged and agree that health statistics can be manipulated for political gain.

[Chuck Naill]

You’re an idiot.

[kazoolaw]

Opinions vary, to coin a phrase.

[Chuck Naill]

I don’t quote you with interpretations that were never implied or said. That’s why you’re a troll.

[kazoolaw]

"Now, if you differentiate between the two the apparent seriousness goes down, allowing a politician to take credit for lowering the rate of infection, counting on some people not to notice..." said I.

"I do know," said Chuck.

[Chuck Naill]

You’re challenged with making a coherent post💞

[kazoolaw]

NY Governor Hochul:
"I have always wondered: When we're looking at the hospitalizations of people testing positive in a hospital, is that person in the hospital because of COVID, or did they show up there and are routinely tested and showing positive, and they may have been asymptomatic or even just had the sniffles?" the governor said."
https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/public-health/governor-asks-new-york-hospitals-for-greater-detail-in-covid-19-inpatient-reports.html

Second year of pandemic and now we're curious.

[dneal]

The pivot continues. Big Pharma and their minions sold a lie, and the truth is coming out. (https://www.newsweek.com/cdc-rochelle-walensky-tweets-backlash-comments-omicron-death-comorbidities-1667329)


The overwhelming number of deaths, over 75 per cent, occurred in people who had at least four comorbidities, So really these are people who were unwell to begin with and yes, really encouraging news in the context of Omicron.

[dneal]

And from The Atlantic Why More Americans Are Saying They’re ‘Vaxxed and Done’ (https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/01/covid-omicron-vaccination-rashomon/621199/)


To understand how ideologically scrambling the Omicron wave has been, consider this: Some 2022 Democrats are sounding like 2020 Republicans. In spring 2020, many Republicans, including President Donald Trump, insisted that COVID was hardly worse than the flu; that its fatality risk was comparable to an everyday activity, like driving in a car; and that an obsessive focus on cases wouldn’t give an accurate picture of what was going on in the pandemic.

In the current Omicron wave, these Republican talking points seem to have mostly come true—for most vaccinated non-senior adults, who are disproportionately Democrats.

But Democratic talking points about the severity of COVID and the need for commensurate caution remain valid and not only for the sick and elderly. Ironically, they are especially true for the unvaccinated—a disproportionately Republican group that has seen their hospitalization rates soar this winter to all-time highs. About 9,000 Americans are dying of COVID every week. Preliminary state data suggest that more than 90 percent of today’s deaths are still among unvaccinated people. This year, COVID is on pace to kill more than 300,000 unvaccinated people who would, quite likely, avoid death by getting two or three shots.

The messiness of Omicron data—record-high cases! but much milder illness!—has deepened our COVID Rashomon, in which different communities are telling themselves different stories about what’s going on, and coming to different conclusions about how to lead their lives. That’s true even within populations that, a year ago, were united in their desire to take the pandemic seriously and were outraged by those who refused to do so.

A virus that seems both pervasive and mild offers an opening to people who are, let’s call them, “vaxxed and done.” The attitude of the VADs is this:


For more than a year, I did everything that public-health authorities told me to do. I wore masks. I canceled vacations. I made sacrifices. I got vaccinated. I got boosted. I’m happy to get boosted again. But this virus doesn’t stop. Year over year, the infections don’t decrease. Instead, virulence for people like me is decreasing, either because the virus is changing, or because of growing population immunity, or both. Americans should stop pointlessly guilting themselves about all these cases. In the past week, daily confirmed COVID cases per capita were higher than the U.S. in Ireland, Greece, Iceland, Denmark, France, the U.K., Spain, Portugal, Italy, Switzerland, and even Australia, one of the most COVID-cautious countries in the world. As the coronavirus continues its unstoppable march toward endemicity, our attitude toward the virus should follow a similar path toward stoicism. COVID is becoming something like the seasonal flu for most people who keep up with their shots, so I’m prepared to treat this like I’ve treated the flu: by basically not worrying about it and living my life normally.

It’s hard to put a number on how many people are in this group, but we have some hard data to prove that their ranks are growing. This past December, airports processed twice as many travelers compared with the same period in 2020, despite many flights being canceled. On several days, TSA-checkpoint numbers exceeded their totals from pre-pandemic 2019. This is not the picture of a country that is hunkering down for Omicron. It is the limited snapshot of a mostly vaccinated population with millions of people who are eager to move on.

I have a lot of sympathy for this group’s case, especially as it relates to schools. The risk of COVID to vaccinated teachers and even unvaccinated students seems lower than we initially thought. Meanwhile, the costs of remote schooling seem higher than we feared. The White House and Education Secretary Miguel Cardona have come out strongly in support of keeping schools open. Other Democratic leaders, like Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot, are fighting reluctant teachers to keep school in person. Even among pro-vaccine Americans, a growing number of people seem to be saying they are done with remote school as a baseline COVID policy.

But there is an opposing group. Let’s call them the “vaxxed and cautious.” Here’s my best summary of their perspective:

Why on earth would we suddenly relax measures now, during the largest statistical wave of COVID ever recorded in the U.S.? We shouldn’t treat Omicron like any old seasonal flu, because it’s not like any old seasonal flu. It’s likely deadlier for those without immunity and almost certainly several times more transmissible for everybody else. We have no idea what the effects of Omicron on long COVID will be, but evidence of lingering symptoms should make us wary of just letting tens of millions of people get needlessly infected. Moreover, the health-care system is already worn down and at risk of being overloaded. Record-high caseloads are societally debilitating, creating long chains of infections that are bound to reach some immunocompromised people and the elderly, thus causing needless death. For all these reasons, we should take individual measures to throttle the spread of this virus.

If you feel a bit torn between these ideologies, I understand. I’m a bit torn myself.

In the past few weeks, several people have told me that they feel extremely safe personally but remain worried about passing along the virus to vulnerable people in their networks. So what should they do? This is not a problem with an easy answer, because the gap between individual risk and societal risk in this pandemic has never been wider. The risk of death from Omicron for boosted, healthy adults under 50 seems to be somewhere between that of riding a bike and going on an airplane. In isolation, this statistic makes the vaxxed-and-done perspective a no-brainer: Nobody consults the CDC website to decide if it’s safe to bike down the street.

But a pandemic is more than the sum of individual healthy-adult experiences. Viruses are societal multiplication problems. When a double-digit share of a public-school system comes down with Omicron, school is out, and the effects ripple through local families. When a double-digit share of a medical system comes down with Omicron, doctor and nurse availability plummets, and the effect ripples through the hospital. With workers out across industries, entire cities stop functioning. In Washington, D.C., last week, some schools had to delay opening not because of the virus but because snowplows couldn’t make the roads safe enough to get there—too many snowplow drivers were out sick.

My synthesis view is that we should start with the obvious. If I were COVID czar, my rules for early 2022 would be to try desperately to keep schools open and in person, follow through on vaccine mandates for nursing homes, distribute free rapid tests to allow people to identify their own infectiousness when they mix households with vulnerable people, and expand vaccine PSA programs, since the vaccines seem by far the most effective intervention against the virus. If we’re lucky, on the other side of this Omicron wave, “vaccinated and done” won’t be one of many viewpoints in an unfolding COVID Rashomon. It will be something like reality.

[Chuck Naill]

From your sourced article, "since the vaccines seem by far the most effective intervention against the virus". Why aren't you vaccinated?

[dneal]

From your cite: "seem".

But that's not the point of the article, nor the thread.

[Chuck Naill]

From your cite: "seem".

But that's not the point of the article, nor the thread.

It was the author's concluding comments, "My synthesis view is that we should start with the obvious."

Reminds me of the comments regarding Thomas Sowell. If you can't find someone to agree, just make something up.

[dneal]

You’re the expert on making things up. Commonly understood to be: a liar. Or snake oil salesman / pharma rep.

[Chuck Naill]

You are tiresome @dneal, but I do enjoy reading your nonsense and inaccuracies. It tells me how the Trumpians/radicalized right think. Please continue to post.

[dneal]

Since you don’t care about little girls, I suppose your abortion stance will change once Pfizer makes an abortion drug? Good for your profit, after all.

[Chuck Naill]

Your very post recommended vaccines.

[dneal]

Yes Chuck, it does. You miss the larger point (on his and many other things). I’ll add that to the list. Sowell, sarcasm, quotes, and “the point”.

[Chuck Naill]

Yes Chuck, it does. You miss the larger point (on his and many other things). I’ll add that to the list. Sowell, sarcasm, quotes, and “the point”.

It was the person's summation which would be the "larger point".

[dneal]

"The Pivot Begins" is the larger point. You'll be pivoting too. It's just a matter of time.

Maybe not though, every 6 month old that gets stuck is money in your pocket. I see why you're "against" abortion. Bad for the bottom line.

[Chuck Naill]

You always have an excuse. You were just kidding and I don't understand it. You quote Sowell out of context, and you say many children are being harmed by vaccines. What else will be next?

[dneal]

I didn't quote Sowell out of context. Simply another example of your poor reading comprehension. I didn't say many children were harmed by vaccines. Yet another.

Maybe it's not reading comprehension. Maybe it's capability. Maybe it's covid fog. Maybe it's age. Maybe you're just a liar.

Should I start a new thread on something so you can disrupt it too with your off-topic, inane ramblings?

[kazoolaw]

Setting up to complain if the Democrats lose a number of Congressional seats in the mid-terms:

"Oh, yeah, I think it could easily be illegitimate ... The increase in the prospect of being illegitimate is in proportion to not being able to get these reforms passed."
-Biden, though articulating the phrase after the elipse is impressive.

[dneal]

Back on topic…

This article was released today.

The Atlantic: LET’S DECLARE A PANDEMIC AMNESTY (www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/10/covid-response-forgiveness/671879/?utm_source=apple_news)


We need to forgive one another for what we did and said when we were in the dark about COVID.

In April 2020, with nothing else to do, my family took an enormous number of hikes. We all wore cloth masks that I had made myself. We had a family hand signal, which the person in the front would use if someone was approaching on the trail and we needed to put on our masks.* Once, when another child got too close to my then-4-year-old son on a bridge, he yelled at her “SOCIAL DISTANCING!”

These precautions were totally misguided. In April 2020, no one got the coronavirus from passing someone else hiking. Outdoor transmission was vanishingly rare. Our cloth masks made out of old bandanas wouldn’t have done anything, anyway. But the thing is: We didn’t know.

I have been reflecting on this lack of knowledge thanks to a class I’m co-teaching at Brown University on COVID. We’ve spent several lectures reliving the first year of the pandemic, discussing the many important choices we had to make under conditions of tremendous uncertainty.

Some of these choices turned out better than others. To take an example close to my own work, there is an emerging (if not universal) consensus that schools in the U.S. were closed for too long: The health risks of in-school spread were relatively low, whereas the costs to students’ well-being and educational progress were high. The latest figures on learning loss are alarming.* But in spring and summer 2020, we had only glimmers of information. Reasonable people—people who cared about children and teachers—advocated on both sides of the reopening debate.

Another example: When the vaccines came out, we lacked definitive data on the relative efficacies of the Johnson & Johnson shot versus the mRNA options from Pfizer and Moderna. The mRNA vaccines have won out. But at the time, many people in public health were either neutral or expressed a J&J preference. This misstep wasn’t nefarious. It was the result of uncertainty.

Obviously some people intended to mislead and made wildly irresponsible claims. Remember when the public-health community had to spend a lot of time and resources urging Americans not to inject themselves with bleach? That was bad. Misinformation was, and remains, a huge problem. But most errors were made by people who were working in earnest for the good of society.

Given the amount of uncertainty, almost every position was taken on every topic. And on every topic, someone was eventually proved right, and someone else was proved wrong. In some instances, the right people were right for the wrong reasons. In other instances, they had a prescient understanding of the available information.

The people who got it right, for whatever reason, may want to gloat. Those who got it wrong, for whatever reason, may feel defensive and retrench into a position that doesn’t accord with the facts. All of this gloating and defensiveness continues to gobble up a lot of social energy and to drive the culture wars, especially on the internet. These discussions are heated, unpleasant and, ultimately, unproductive. In the face of so much uncertainty, getting something right had a hefty element of luck. And, similarly, getting something wrong wasn’t a moral failing. Treating pandemic choices as a scorecard on which some people racked up more points than others is preventing us from moving forward.

We have to put these fights aside and declare a pandemic amnesty. We can leave out the willful purveyors of actual misinformation while forgiving the hard calls that people had no choice but to make with imperfect knowledge. Los Angeles County closed its beaches in summer 2020. Ex post facto, this makes no more sense than my family’s masked hiking trips. But we need to learn from our mistakes and then let them go. We need to forgive the attacks, too. Because I thought schools should reopen and argued that kids as a group were not at high risk, I was called a “teacher killer” and a “génocidaire.” It wasn’t pleasant, but feelings were high. And I certainly don’t need to dissect and rehash that time for the rest of my days.

Moving on is crucial now, because the pandemic created many problems that we still need to solve.

Student test scores have shown historic declines, more so in math than in reading, and more so for students who were disadvantaged at the start. We need to collect data, experiment, and invest. Is high-dosage tutoring more or less cost-effective than extended school years? Why have some states recovered faster than others? We should focus on questions like these, because answering them is how we will help our children recover.

Many people have neglected their health care over the past several years. Notably, routine vaccination rates for children (for measles, pertussis, etc.) are way down. Rather than debating the role that messaging about COVID vaccines had in this decline, we need to put all our energy into bringing these rates back up. Pediatricians and public-health officials will need to work together on community outreach, and politicians will need to consider school mandates.

The standard saying is that those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. But dwelling on the mistakes of history can lead to a repetitive doom loop as well. Let’s acknowledge that we made complicated choices in the face of deep uncertainty, and then try to work together to build back and move forward.

[Chuck Naill]

I am the sort that would rather be prepared than assume I won’t need. This is what most of us did between 2020-2022.

As I told you, If you choose not to prepare yourself, don’t ask others to risk their well being. That said, I don’t need to provide you with amnesty since I’ve never held a grudge, just reminded you where you are wrong with your posts. If I had it to do over, I wouldn’t change a thing. I’d still follow the science an evidence where it led. I never vilified Fauci.

Masks and distancing made since if you listened to Michael Osterholm as I did around April 2020.

I got my first dose on January 6, 2021.

I got omicron from the children last Spring.

I got another booster when they returned to school after Summer break.

[dneal]

More deflection.

[Chuck Naill]

You’re a confounding person. What was or is your intent is posting?

It appears to be some odd self vindication, for which, the Atlantic articles cannot support.

Are you seeking amnesty?

[dneal]

I'm sure I am confounding to one who has bought completely into a narrative.

I need no vindication nor "amnesty", because unlike you I have made no assertions about what works and what doesn't. I simply ask questions and present opposing points of view. I expressed concern with medicine being made partisan. I expressed concern with bureaucrats. I threw in a little hyperbole to poke you, like "Fauci lied, people died". That joke might turn out to be more true than we would like to believe.

Would you like me to cite numerous posts of "wear a mask, get vaxxed, distance, etc..."? I know you will not find me posting "don't wear a mask, don't get vaxxed, don't distance, etc...". You'll still make your ludicrous claims though, with no evidence to support them. Knock yourself out.

Anyway, I find narratives interesting, and the absolute "follow the science" nonsense as one of many narratives. In the initial post, I pointed out that it would work against the Democrats politically, and they would need to find a way out. The Atlantic, as a left-leaning outlet, is a good indicator. Now it's not just the politics. Most of that narrative, which you zealously shrieked repeatedly here, appears to be collapsing. Mask efficacy, vaccine efficacy, vaccine transmission, myocarditis, excess deaths, inexplicable deaths, etc... Should the "red wave" take place, it will be entertaining to watch the "eye doctor" and his fellows wield the congressional subpoena power and see what they dig up (and un-redact).

The author recognizes this too, and attempts to excuse it all with "we didn't know". If that is the case, it might have something to do with shouting down "fringe" epidemiologists and any point of view not aligned with the narrative. It might have something to do with scientists offering differing opinions being labeled or censored.

Cue your nonsensical meltdown in 3, 2, 1... I suspect we're in for a lot of that in the coming days.

[Chuck Naill]

Okay, I was correct, this thread is a passive aggressive attempt to self-vindicate by posting something that you think appears to discredit the people you vilified like Anthony Fauci for simply trying to do his job dealing with a virus that was killing millions. You ego is showing.

Of course, we didn't know. When you don't know you take precautions that later you realize may not have been necessary. It is like thinking it is going to rain and taking an umbrella. You don't beat yourself up or criticize others for carrying one.

If you know the virus is of an aerosolized nature, distancing and masking is common sense. What you don't do is make wearing a mask and distancing an act of disloyalty toward an ideology.

If however, your sole purpose in posting is to say you were right after all, you failed. No one that knows anything would agree. You were either lucky or you hibernated.

[dneal]

Okay, I was correct, this thread is a passive aggressive attempt to self-vindicate by posting something that you think appears to discredit the people you vilified like Anthony Fauci for simply trying to do his job dealing with a virus that was killing millions. You ego is showing.

Of course, we didn't know. When you don't know you take precautions that later you realize may not have been necessary. It is like thinking it is going to rain and taking an umbrella. You don't beat yourself up or criticize others for carrying one.

If you know the virus is of an aerosolized nature, distancing and masking is common sense. What you don't do is make wearing a mask and distancing an act of disloyalty toward an ideology.

If however, your sole purpose in posting is to say you were right after all, you failed. No one that knows anything would agree. You were either lucky or you hibernated.


That's quite the narrative you've invented for me (not to mention for yourself). Can you substantiate any of it?

I'm not sure what you are saying I think I'm right about, but it sounds like an admission that you were wrong - or as close to one that we'll ever get.

My purpose in all this is consistent, and in the OP. The narrative had to shift, simply as a matter of political strategy. We're watching that happen.

[Chuck Naill]

I’m not arguing , just observing @dneal. You’re intent, per your post, is to attempt to justify your words and actions. I’m happy your survived.

[dneal]

More unsubstantiated internal narrative. Feel free to cite the post.

[Chuck Naill]

I did in 2020…..to late now.

[dneal]

More dodging...

[Chuck Naill]

You appear as someone with a grievance that needs attention.

[dneal]

You appear as someone with a grievance that needs attention.

Projection?

[Chuck Naill]

You appear as someone with a grievance that needs attention.

Projection?

It is more of an observation and your stated intent, for which I took note. The grievance comes from a post you made in which you suggested you were shaking off your bonds of kindness to attack others without restraint. I admit to making an interpretation. Correct me if I have misinterpreted.

I think over the past several years you have posted incorrect information and attempted to discredit those with the responsibility to protect Americans. Your post have fought any attempt to follow best practices or any gold standard.

[dneal]

Is there a point to this, Chuck? If I tell you again what my purpose is, cite numerous examples of posts and threads to substantiate it, will you be convinced?

Survey says: Not a fucking chance.

You can do your own research. Simply browse the threads in this section before and after your arrival. Look at the threads pre and post 2016 election. I've been here from the beginning, and this section is what prompted me to join the forum.

[Chuck Naill]

@dneal, nothing you posted means anything substantial. It’s your attempt to self vindicate as you admitted. Stop being the swarm of locust you accuse others of being. You know as much about virology as you do rotary mowers.

[dneal]

Confession through projection, and it appears the survey was correct.

If post #90 is an example of the discourse you desire, perhaps you should investigate Twitter as an outlet for your nonsensical vitriol and pathetic trolling.

[Chuck Naill]

I do not use Twitter or YouTube as a resource.Since you so, this might explain the problem. Consider other options.

[dneal]

Chuck, good trolls come up with new material; and aren't so obvious or predictable. Yours are the garden-variety, which (to bring this back on topic) might explain your fondness for garden gnomes.

--edit--

Inquiring minds want to know...

73214

[Chuck Naill]

Ha ha, that was circa 2014.

[Chuck Naill]

I’d go more easy in you, but after your PM, I’ll just be to the point with you. You’re wrong on many topics. Verifiably wrong, but if that’s the way you want to live, it’s your choice. Thing is, misleading or false healthcare information is serious and it needs to be addressed.

[dneal]

So you are on Twitter, just like you watch YouTube.

LMAO!!!

-edit-

Just to keep your lies together for future reference.






Mr. Davenport
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HnhJiRHi7Kc

Mr. Horner ( luthier I have one fiddle and one mandolion)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0AvaD5-7BA

Mr.Green (fiddle maker, I have two)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTihFt9uFsE

John Arnold (luthier, I have a 1989 commission. He is a life long friend and hiking buddy)
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=john+arnold+guitar&view=detail&mid=FE6C353AB3F893AA5399FE6C353AB3F893AA5399&FORM=VIRE

LMFAO!!!

Who wrote this (https://fpgeeks.com/forum/showthread.php/35784-Interesting-Video?p=342923&viewfull=1#post342923)???


Somebody has time to sit around and watch YouTube all day. LOL!! Funny how many old men spend their lives this way. @tsherbs, just don't do this when you retire.

So YOU'RE the guy that has time to sit around and watch YouTube all day!!! LOL!!! Funny how many old men confess their guilty consciences by projecting it on other people!!! ROFL!!!

[dneal]

I’d go more easy in you, but after your PM, I’ll just be to the point with you. You’re wrong on many topics. Verifiably wrong, but if that’s the way you want to live, it’s your choice. Thing is, misleading or false healthcare information is serious and it needs to be addressed.

Mantras are better if you keep them more simple.

Here's an example you can use:

You were wrong...

I was right...

I got the shot and then got Covid...

--edit--

p.s. You sent the PM to me, trying to start some debate through that outlet. I replied with why I wasn't interested (because you are a one-man plague of locusts), and asked you to not PM me again.

[724Seney]

Thing is, misleading or false healthcare information is serious and it needs to be addressed.

Here, folks, we have the MOTHER of all hypocrisy.

You made a living doing this Chuck. You were compensated........ and then provided with added incentive bonuses........ to effectively disseminate non-evidence based healthcare information.

Every time I think you have gone as low as a human being can go, you find a way to prove me wrong and go even lower.

[Chuck Naill]

I’d go more easy in you, but after your PM, I’ll just be to the point with you. You’re wrong on many topics. Verifiably wrong, but if that’s the way you want to live, it’s your choice. Thing is, misleading or false healthcare information is serious and it needs to be addressed.

Mantras are better if you keep them more simple.

Here's an example you can use:

You were wrong...

I was right...

I got the shot and then got Covid...

--edit--

p.s. You sent the PM to me, trying to start some debate through that outlet. I replied with why I wasn't interested (because you are a one-man plague of locusts), and asked you to not PM me again.

No, I sent you simply a quote by someone you have quoted. If figured you’d appreciate. I didn’t expect your poor sport attitude, but now I know.

When I first came here a member told me to ignore you. I understand why now. If there is a swarm, it’s you. You are a plague of trolling topics and begging for attention. Seriously, sometimes I read and post and it screams, “look at me” or “listen to what I think”.

And now you want to define those that chose to vaccinate. Many were involved in healthcare when vaccines were not yet available. They were trying to protect themselves, their families, and patients.

If a virus is aerosolized, masking and distance is intuitive the same as you don’t sniff glue, smoke, bathroom odors from defecation, etc.

Your strategy throughout has been to put out false and dangerous information and to support those that do. Look up my LinkedIn profile If it makes you feel more like a man.

[dneal]

Chuck, again those mantras are too complex and won't prevent your cognitive dissonance when this all comes crashing down.

What have we learned about the actual mortality rate for covid? Was it inflated, even if innocently? Did an actual epidemiologist warn us about that in the beginning of the pandemic?

You can keep repeating I was wrong, although I just posted countering opinions; but those countering opinions appear to be more correct every day. Want to talk about wet-market vs lab-leak origins?

And to bring that all back on topic: The Democrat narrative was rooted in pandemic claims that are collapsing. They have to get out of it, and the way to do that is by pivoting. The left-leaning media must carry a lot of that water for them, and The Atlantic is left-leaning - making it a good bellwether. The "amnesty" choice turned out to be a poor one, and the left (and the author) are being excoriated for it.

[TSherbs]

Thing is, misleading or false healthcare information is serious and it needs to be addressed.

Here, folks, we have the MOTHER of all hypocrisy.

You made a living doing this Chuck. You were compensated........ and then provided with added incentive bonuses........ to effectively disseminate non-evidence based healthcare information.

Every time I think you have gone as low as a human being can go, you find a way to prove me wrong and go even lower.

Shut the fuck up with these bullshit attacks on someone's ex-livelihood. It's totally irrelevant to the thread and just your way of trying to score a cheap smear.

[724Seney]

Thing is, misleading or false healthcare information is serious and it needs to be addressed.

Here, folks, we have the MOTHER of all hypocrisy.

You made a living doing this Chuck. You were compensated........ and then provided with added incentive bonuses........ to effectively disseminate non-evidence based healthcare information.

Every time I think you have gone as low as a human being can go, you find a way to prove me wrong and go even lower.

Shut the fuck up with these bullshit attacks on someone's ex-livelihood. It's totally irrelevant to the thread and just your way of trying to score a cheap smear.

Ah, our learned educator, role model for our children returns with his professional approach to problem solving.
C'mon Teddy, use your words.

To your point, this was not an attack, it is a data based fact.
And, as a data based fact, it is relevant to both his comment and the thread.

The only smear here is your unbecoming stink.

[dneal]

Thing is, misleading or false healthcare information is serious and it needs to be addressed.

Here, folks, we have the MOTHER of all hypocrisy.

You made a living doing this Chuck. You were compensated........ and then provided with added incentive bonuses........ to effectively disseminate non-evidence based healthcare information.

Every time I think you have gone as low as a human being can go, you find a way to prove me wrong and go even lower.

Shut the fuck up with these bullshit attacks on someone's ex-livelihood. It's totally irrelevant to the thread and just your way of trying to score a cheap smear.

After the bullshit Chuck has said about Bold? Yeah, fuck that and the high-horse you rode in on.

Just one example…


Don’t go to a doctor like Bold. It could be lethal.

[TSherbs]

So that's what this has become? A shit hole of men acting like aggrieved dicks, unwilling to rise above? Nothing more than the petty, "You did it first"?

Seney, you said you started this after I did it first. I called you a liar for that. You got anything more to say on that? You have anywhere that I have mocked, ridiculed, or disparaged the work of another member here? Or are you just going to resent forever that I once called one of your rants racist?

[TSherbs]

Thing is, misleading or false healthcare information is serious and it needs to be addressed.

Here, folks, we have the MOTHER of all hypocrisy.

You made a living doing this Chuck. You were compensated........ and then provided with added incentive bonuses........ to effectively disseminate non-evidence based healthcare information.

Every time I think you have gone as low as a human being can go, you find a way to prove me wrong and go even lower.

Shut the fuck up with these bullshit attacks on someone's ex-livelihood. It's totally irrelevant to the thread and just your way of trying to score a cheap smear.

After the bullshit Chuck has said about Bold? Yeah, fuck that and the high-horse you rode in on.

Just one example…


Don’t go to a doctor like Bold. It could be lethal.

It's not a high horse, asshole. It's simply a standard about something's that only a few of you ever do here, and it shouldn't be tolerated. So absent a moderator, I am calling you out on it. You can pout and deride all you want, but neither of you (nor Chuck) should ever do it, regardless of whether anyone else has. It's just petty bullshit of the lowest order.

[TSherbs]

Even Lloyd has left the room, after trying for months to elevate the conversation. Look at the shit you guys gave him at times. Only the sickos are left, me included. Do you really think that you are "normal" for tolerating and/or dishing out this level of toxicity? Really? Don't we each know that the problem is each of us as much as the other guy? And shouldn't that mute our pieholes?

The only answer is yes.

[dneal]

Curiously, you don't seem to chime in when Chuck does it. Probably because you're a fucking hypocrite, asshole.

Here's one from 27 Oct.


I’m looking forward to the mid term election and all the post election hysteria/rhetoric.


Yes, when everyone except over paid physicians lose their freedoms. Most don't or aren't taking this election with the seriousness it deserves. I have only to assume they didn't pass or have to take American History in HS.

------

Then there's this:


Even Lloyd has left the room, after trying for months to elevate the conversation. Look at the shit you guys gave him at times. Only the sickos are left, me included. Do you really think that you are "normal" for tolerating and/or dishing out this level of toxicity? Really? Don't we each know that the problem is each of us as much as the other guy? And shouldn't that mute our pieholes?

The only answer is yes.

You're bemoaning Lloyd leaving? I don't mind him but he's hardly some paragon to exemplify. Why aren't you bemoaning Mhosea's absence? What about Dreck? Ethernautrix? Dave? Manouever? All the people who used to civilly discuss topics until you and your fellow partisan shitheads showed up?

Aside from your bipolar waffling between concerned participant and obnoxious prick, what have you done to try to get this sub back to where it was? I've offered contrition several times. I've started threads trying to reconcile. I've also pointed out logical fallacies, and mimicked to demonstrate how stupid you assholes sound. What the hell do you think those "lol!!!" responses to Chuck were for?

I've made my position clear. I have zero tolerance for any of it anymore. I have absolutely zero problem pissing any of you off, and I haven't even put any effort into it yet.

Chip's whining about his thread "turning nasty" (and are you fucking kidding me? The overwhelming majority of it is nasty, from the first post, but I digress...). What's apparent is that none of you can take what you're happy to dish out.

Want civility? Be fucking civil instead of jumping in an telling people to "fucking shut up" or "go away".

[Empty_of_Clouds]

I've offered contrition several times. I've started threads trying to reconcile.

But never actually followed through with any sincerity. I think that would be a good start, but it requires sustained application. If I can do it, being a substandard human in some members eyes, I am sure you can.


I have absolutely zero problem pissing any of you off, and I haven't even put any effort into it yet.

One does not have to put effort into a default position.


As I said quite a while back, taking the attitude of 'I'll do it if someone else goes first' doesn't really cut it. Better to be a pioneer.


Note: I started my change in attitude on 27th June, so I am now into my 5th month. Give it a try! :)

[dneal]

EoC - you really don't want to get involved in this. You're going to get piled on by everyone else that has a beef with you, but normally don't post in this sub. It will get very ugly without my needing to type a thing, and then you'll delete all your posts.

--edit--

I'll stay up for another 15 or 20 minutes. If you want to delete your post above, I'll delete this one; and we can all pretend it never happened.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

That may be true, but the pile-on people will get no response from me; they'll be creating an echo chamber of their own devising. I only delete posts that are no longer needed or whose message has expired.

To be better, to at least have civil conversations, and to refrain from simply insulting other members should be the least standard that we can aspire to. Others, like myself, may want to go further. Good. Some will no doubt find such suggestions are challenging and perhaps a bit scary. Good. Nothing will change without people being proactive. Don't wait for the other guy to start. As I've quoted before:

“We but mirror the world. All the tendencies present in the outer world are to be found in the world of our body. If we could change ourselves, the tendencies in the world would also change. As a man changes his own nature, so does the attitude of the world change towards him. This is the divine mystery supreme. A wonderful thing it is and the source of our happiness. We need not wait to see what others do.” – Mahatma Gandhi

[dneal]

EoC - I think your view is skewed. Feel free to browse the threads I've started in the last 12 months or so, and see who put forth the good faith effort (or 'sincerity', to use your term) and who didn't. I frequently note where they go wrong, the post number, and the poster responsible.

I have had my fill of unsubstantiated accusations, and I view your assertion that I'll be nice if someone else goes first to be one of those. Show your work, so to speak, and do it fairly; and I'll consider it fairly.

My position remains zero tolerance for bullshit, which includes duplicity or disingenuousness; and I will respond to it as I like.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

Sustained good faith effort is the key.


I have had my fill of unsubstantiated accusations, and I view your assertion that I'll be nice if someone else goes first to be one of those.

That wasn't aimed at you specifically, although it does relate to a specific member, but was rather a suggestion simply for us all to effect this change rather than waiting on others. Lead rather than follow. Sorry if you thought that was a personal remark, wasn't intended to be, more just hasty writing on my part and failing to be as accurate as I should be.


My position remains zero tolerance for bullshit, which includes duplicity or disingenuousness; and I will respond to it as I like.

If you respond with insult, rudeness and so on, then you are helping to create the poor quality of the environment. Rise above it, be an example! :)

[dneal]

If you respond with insult, rudeness and so on, then you are helping to create the poor quality of the environment. Rise above it, be an example!

Bold has been a shining example of the approach you advocate. How has that worked out for him?

No need to respond. Not only have you not offered any substantiation, you're already backtracking on your assertions, which unambiguously referred to me.



I've offered contrition several times. I've started threads trying to reconcile.
But never actually followed through with any sincerity. I think that would be a good start, but it requires sustained application.

So thanks for your input, but the time for the approach you are advocating has long passed.

[724Seney]

So that's what this has become? A shit hole of men acting like aggrieved dicks, unwilling to rise above? Nothing more than the petty, "You did it first"?

Seney, you said you started this after I did it first. I called you a liar for that. You got anything more to say on that? You have anywhere that I have mocked, ridiculed, or disparaged the work of another member here? Or are you just going to resent forever that I once called one of your rants racist?

That's a great question Teddy. Let me try to answer it for you as simply as I can. That way maybe even you can understand..........

I've tired of the challenges from you and the other Stooges to "produce" something to back up my claim. See, the thing is, I dutifully did as you requested on repeated occasions without even so much as an acknowledgement that I did so or an apology (Heaven forbid) after realizing my claim was valid. All I got were pivots, deflections and (from you) a litany of profanity.

So, I'm done with all that......when dealing with you Stooges, the time I put into it is just a fool's errand.

Ok, got it??

[724Seney]

Note: I started my change in attitude on 27th June, so I am now into my 5th month. Give it a try! :)

Wait?? What???

This is BEYOND delirious!! It reflects exactly how far out of touch with reality you are EoC. It's hard to believe that even you can make a "look at me, I'm so wonderful" statement like that with a straight face.

Do you think that because you have deleted the 40 -50 "classic" EoC flames which you have posted over the past month or two that they are gone and forgotten?? What am I talking about?? Well why don't we check with @bunnspecial to see if he recalls your rant in the For Sale subforum which then spilled over into this subforum?? Or similar flaming, classic EoC posts you made and subsequently deleted in at least two other threads. I have screen shots of them all; care to view them?

[kazoolaw]

That may be true, but the pile-on people will get no response from me... I only delete posts that are no longer needed or whose message has expired.

To be better, to at least have civil conversations, and to refrain from simply insulting other members should be the least standard that we can aspire to. Others, like myself, may want to go further. Good. Some will no doubt find such suggestions are challenging and perhaps a bit scary. Good. Nothing will change without people being proactive. Don't wait for the other guy to start....(emphasis added)

The reason EoC's deleted posts are no longer needed is because they document past behavior which is no longer expedient for him. Likewise, those which have "expired." Remember the pens for sale dispute with bunnspecial? Go back now and only bunnspecial's posts remain. Remember the computer persona? How many remain? So, some will be copied, as a record of EoC in his own words, to let future readers draw their own conclusions about his latest re-invention from posts he has not disappeared.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

@724Seney and @kazoolaw

A more appropriate question for you to ask yourselves is 'how have my (as in yours) recent posts in this thread improved the cordiality and mutual understanding and respect between participants?'

If you want the environment here to be better, then you have to try to be better too. This is an approach I have endorsed and represent. If someone who is seen in such a poor light as me can walk a path of self-improvement over 5 months (and counting), then I cannot believe it would be beyond the capabilities of members with your obvious intelligence.

I will keep putting out my message, and you most likely will do the same. Perhaps in time you may come to see that an arena of respect and understanding is far more pleasant and productive than one of constant conflict. Perhaps it may take more than a single lifetime for this to reveal itself. Who can say?



A Buddhist approach to conflict transformation requires an integrated social process in which conflict parties must strive to overcome the roots of their suffering from within, while simultaneously transforming their relationships with adversaries.

Reference

Arai, Tatsushi (2017) "Toward a Buddhist Theory of Conflict Transformation: From Simple Actor-Oriented Conflict to Complex Structural Conflict," Peace and Conflict Studies: Vol. 24 : No. 2 , Article 5. DOI: 10.46743/1082-7307/2017.1450 Available at: https://nsuworks.nova.edu/pcs/vol24/iss2/5

[dneal]

@ EoC

That's all about as believable as your claim to have written an AI bot, or any of your claims to leave. Now you've added the 'depth of [your] resolve and breadth of [your] resources'?

We all know how this plays out - including you.

--edit--

and this is why we quote your posts (which I didn't this time). You've edited twice as I typed the first response.

[dneal]

And the "back" button to the rescue.

73219

[kazoolaw]

@724Seney and @kazoolaw

A more appropriate question for you to ask yourselves is 'how have my (as in yours) recent posts in this thread improved the cordiality and mutual understanding and respect between participants?'

If you want the environment here to be better, then you have to try to be better too. This is an approach I have endorsed and represent. If someone who is seen in such a poor light as me can walk a path of self-improvement over 5 months (and counting), then I cannot believe it would be beyond the capabilities of members with your obvious intelligence.

I will keep putting out my message, and you most likely will do the same. Perhaps in time you may come to see that an arena of respect and understanding is far more pleasant and productive than one of constant conflict. Perhaps it may take more than a single lifetime for this to reveal itself. Who can say?



A Buddhist approach to conflict transformation requires an integrated social process in which conflict parties must strive to overcome the roots of their suffering from within, while simultaneously transforming their relationships with adversaries.

Reference

Arai, Tatsushi (2017) "Toward a Buddhist Theory of Conflict Transformation: From Simple Actor-Oriented Conflict to Complex Structural Conflict," Peace and Conflict Studies: Vol. 24 : No. 2 , Article 5. DOI: 10.46743/1082-7307/2017.1450 Available at: https://nsuworks.nova.edu/pcs/vol24/iss2/5

Noted.
Best wishes with the suffering within.

[724Seney]

@724Seney and @kazoolaw

A more appropriate question for you to ask yourselves is 'how have my (as in yours) recent posts in this thread improved the cordiality and mutual understanding and respect between participants?'

If you want the environment here to be better, then you have to try to be better too. This is an approach I have endorsed and represent. If someone who is seen in such a poor light as me can walk a path of self-improvement over 5 months (and counting), then I cannot believe it would be beyond the capabilities of members with your obvious intelligence.

Further, if you think such predictable personal attacks will dissuade me... well, the simple truth is that nobody here really knows anyone else. The depths of my resolve and breadth of my resources are an unknown to the members here. I will keep putting out my message, and you most likely will do the same. Perhaps in time you may come to see that an arena of respect and understanding is far more pleasant and productive than one of constant conflict. Perhaps it may take more than a single lifetime for this to reveal itself to you. Who can say?

Your condescending, self righteous "lecture" is enough to make a stone puke. :puke:

Once again you are portraying yourself as the perpetual victim. Nothing new or different here.

The point of our posts was to expose your comments in posts #108, 110 & 112 as just more in your ongoing series of personal attacks, insults and pathological lies all of which are liberally mixed within your ever present good byes. Ours were not personal attacks upon you as much as they were trying to set the record straight given your ongoing attempts to whitewash complete threads here & elsewhere via your deletions and edits. You delete your caustic posts and then deny your boorish behavior but please don't think you are fooling anyone but yourself.

For someone who needs so much help, I recommend that you begin at home and work on helping yourself as opposed to trying to lecture others. You can "talk the talk," let's see you "walk the walk."

[Chuck Naill]

Wow… cut him a new one!! 😂😂😂😂

[Empty_of_Clouds]

@ EoC

That's all about as believable as your claim to have written an AI bot, or any of your claims to leave. Now you've added the 'depth of [your] resolve and breadth of [your] resources'?

We all know how this plays out - including you.

--edit--

and this is why we quote your posts (which I didn't this time). You've edited twice as I typed the first response.


Edited for clarity and to remove superfluous material. Apparently that's not allowed now, who knew. :)

The removal of posts elsewhere was part of a requirement for me to try and reduce dukkha (suffering). If you have some unstated need not to believe this, that is your choice, but it doesn't change the truth of my statement or of my message.

I appreciate that much of modern Western society, particularly in the US but by no means limited to it, is dominated by a desperate need to keep score. It stands in the way of contentment, and it poisons interpersonal relationships.



For the pilers-on: I read what you write for me and I feel compassion because you are unable to let go of your hate and desire for conflict. Beyond that I can only point to the path, I cannot (and would not try) to compel you to step onto it. Encourage only, and lead by example. (5 months so far without a single deliberately or intentionally insulting post. As you like to keep score, how does your own record stack up?)

[724Seney]

5 months so far without a single deliberately or intentionally insulting post.

This comment is beyond stunning.
The only "example" it provides is a vivid demonstration of just how far beyond hope (and help) one can progress within their delusion of grandeur.
I wish you the best..............

[dneal]

I thought it was kind of clever the way he couches his instigation under the guise of being compassionate.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

5 months so far without a single deliberately or intentionally insulting post.

This comment is beyond stunning.
The only "example" it provides is a vivid demonstration of just how far beyond hope (and help) one can progress within their delusion of grandeur.
I wish you the best..............

Point me toward an intentionally insulting post I've made in the last 5 months please.

[724Seney]

5 months so far without a single deliberately or intentionally insulting post.

This comment is beyond stunning.
The only "example" it provides is a vivid demonstration of just how far beyond hope (and help) one can progress within their delusion of grandeur.
I wish you the best..............

Point me toward an intentionally insulting post I've made in the last 5 months please.

Ah! You think that because you have deleted them they no longer exist!!
How pathetic...................

[Empty_of_Clouds]

5 months so far without a single deliberately or intentionally insulting post.

This comment is beyond stunning.
The only "example" it provides is a vivid demonstration of just how far beyond hope (and help) one can progress within their delusion of grandeur.
I wish you the best..............

Point me toward an intentionally insulting post I've made in the last 5 months please.

Ah! You think that because you have deleted them they no longer exist!!
How pathetic...................



I have screen shots of them all; care to view them?

Then the request shouldn't have been hard to satisfy?


“For things to reveal themselves to us, we need to be ready to abandon our views about them.” Thich Nhat Hanh

[kazoolaw]

Edited for clarity and to remove superfluous material. Apparently that's not allowed now, who knew. :)
The removal of posts elsewhere was part of a requirement for me to try and reduce dukkha (suffering). If you have some unstated need not to believe this, that is your choice, but it doesn't change the truth of my statement or of my message.

I appreciate that much of modern Western society, particularly in the US but by no means limited to it, is dominated by a desperate need to keep score. It stands in the way of contentment, and it poisons interpersonal relationships.

For the pilers-on: I read what you write for me and I feel compassion because you are unable to let go of your hate and desire for conflict. Beyond that I can only point to the path, I cannot (and would not try) to compel you to step onto it. Encourage only, and lead by example. (5 months so far without a single deliberately or intentionally insulting post. As you like to keep score, how does your own record stack up?)

"Superfluous" meaning inconsistent with the current narrative.
"Without a single...insulting post" Accurate but misleading. See the Decluttering topic, post 28, "Are you stupid or something?" And Decluttering, post 32, "Why not follow your own insanity (sic) advice?" Not a single but a double. In October, which is within the last 5 months.
You can weigh whether the cited posts were written "deliberately or intentionally."

[724Seney]

5 months so far without a single deliberately or intentionally insulting post.

This comment is beyond stunning.
The only "example" it provides is a vivid demonstration of just how far beyond hope (and help) one can progress within their delusion of grandeur.
I wish you the best..............

Point me toward an intentionally insulting post I've made in the last 5 months please.

Ah! You think that because you have deleted them they no longer exist!!
How pathetic...................



I have screen shots of them all; care to view them?

Then the request shouldn't have been hard to satisfy?


“For things to reveal themselves to us, we need to be ready to abandon our views about them.” Thich Nhat Hanh

Oh, sure, easy to comply with your "request" but all that would create is an endless stream of denials, conspiracy theories, personal attacks and finally condescending explanations about why each one is not an insult or a flame but, rather, another example of where you are being misunderstood and victimized.

We've seen it all before.......... Like a bad Summer re-run.

You seem to enjoy trying to make your points via the Zen-like quotes of others. And, so I offer this from John Heywood. Not a Zen icon but still a pretty wise man:
"There are none so blind as those who will not see."

Since I know you find it hard to connect the dots, let me explain.......what Heywood is conveying is the concept that the most deluded people (in this case, that would be YOU) are those who choose to ignore what they already know.
If the shoe fits (and it does), wear it.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

More insults? Is that ALL you have to offer? Is this ALL you will ever be?

[724Seney]

More insults? Is that ALL you have to offer? Is this ALL you will ever be?

:deadhorse:

[Empty_of_Clouds]

Edited for clarity and to remove superfluous material. Apparently that's not allowed now, who knew. :)
The removal of posts elsewhere was part of a requirement for me to try and reduce dukkha (suffering). If you have some unstated need not to believe this, that is your choice, but it doesn't change the truth of my statement or of my message.

I appreciate that much of modern Western society, particularly in the US but by no means limited to it, is dominated by a desperate need to keep score. It stands in the way of contentment, and it poisons interpersonal relationships.

For the pilers-on: I read what you write for me and I feel compassion because you are unable to let go of your hate and desire for conflict. Beyond that I can only point to the path, I cannot (and would not try) to compel you to step onto it. Encourage only, and lead by example. (5 months so far without a single deliberately or intentionally insulting post. As you like to keep score, how does your own record stack up?)

"Superfluous" meaning inconsistent with the current narrative.
"Without a single...insulting post" Accurate but misleading. See the Decluttering topic, post 28, "Are you stupid or something?" And Decluttering, post 32, "Why not follow your own insanity (sic) advice?" Not a single but a double. In October, which is within the last 5 months.
You can weigh whether the cited posts were written "deliberately or intentionally."


The word 'intentionally' was used, as it were, intentionally, to make the distinction between intent on my part and interpretation on the part of the reader. None of what I've written since 27th June 2022 has been intentionally insulting. However, I concede two things, one, that a reader may feel insulted no matter the actual intent, and two, that you will accord yourself with the virtue of telling the truth but will never extend it to me. Whether you intend to insult me by taking such a stance or not, I could and do feel insulted by this, and so it perfectly encapsulates the first point.

How is directing a member to follow their own advice an insult? (the insanity thing) Perhaps you hadn't seen that the member had repeatedly put up a quote about insanity and outcomes, and complained that people didn't follow this advice?

Superfluous - unnecessary, especially through being more than enough. I cannot help you in your desire to choose an interpretation that fits your own narrative, but that is the definition under which I use this word.


Edit


You can weigh whether the cited posts were written "deliberately or intentionally."

Only the writer can weigh or determine this. For another to assume they know the writer's intent better than the writer themselves would be an act of sheer arrogance in absence of the fact.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

More insults? Is that ALL you have to offer? Is this ALL you will ever be?

:deadhorse:

Looking back over, I suppose pretty much all your posts, what percentage of them do you think contributed positively toward a discussion or toward good relationships among members?

[dneal]

EoC - kazoolaw satisfied your request. Are you going to address his proofs, or deflect with Seney? As I've noted multiple times in the past, you do tend to weasel.

Here's your chance. Accept kaz's evidence, refute it, or deflect/weasel?

[Empty_of_Clouds]

EoC - kazoolaw satisfied your request. Are you going to address his proofs, or deflect with Seney? As I've noted multiple times in the past, you do tend to weasel.

Here's your chance. Accept kaz's evidence, refute it, or deflect/weasel?

Looking back over, I suppose pretty much all your posts, what percentage of them do you think contributed positively toward a discussion or toward good relationships among members?

[dneal]

EoC - kazoolaw satisfied your request. Are you going to address his proofs, or deflect with Seney? As I've noted multiple times in the past, you do tend to weasel.

Here's your chance. Accept kaz's evidence, refute it, or deflect/weasel?

Looking back over, I suppose pretty much all your posts, what percentage of them do you think contributed positively toward a discussion or toward good relationships among members?

So weasel it is then.

[dneal]

Hey, where did EoC go?

I did caution you in post #109 that you really didn't want to involve yourself in this, and what would happen.

You responded in post #110 with:


That may be true, but the pile-on people will get no response from me; they'll be creating an echo chamber of their own devising.

But here we are, watching you respond.

[724Seney]

Edited for clarity and to remove superfluous material. Apparently that's not allowed now, who knew. :)
The removal of posts elsewhere was part of a requirement for me to try and reduce dukkha (suffering). If you have some unstated need not to believe this, that is your choice, but it doesn't change the truth of my statement or of my message.

I appreciate that much of modern Western society, particularly in the US but by no means limited to it, is dominated by a desperate need to keep score. It stands in the way of contentment, and it poisons interpersonal relationships.

For the pilers-on: I read what you write for me and I feel compassion because you are unable to let go of your hate and desire for conflict. Beyond that I can only point to the path, I cannot (and would not try) to compel you to step onto it. Encourage only, and lead by example. (5 months so far without a single deliberately or intentionally insulting post. As you like to keep score, how does your own record stack up?)

"Superfluous" meaning inconsistent with the current narrative.
"Without a single...insulting post" Accurate but misleading. See the Decluttering topic, post 28, "Are you stupid or something?" And Decluttering, post 32, "Why not follow your own insanity (sic) advice?" Not a single but a double. In October, which is within the last 5 months.
You can weigh whether the cited posts were written "deliberately or intentionally."


The word 'intentionally' was used, as it were, intentionally, to make the distinction between intent on my part and interpretation on the part of the reader. None of what I've written since 27th June 2022 has been intentionally insulting. However, I concede two things, one, that a reader may feel insulted no matter the actual intent, and two, that you will accord yourself with the virtue of telling the truth but will never extend it to me. Whether you intend to insult me by taking such a stance or not, I could and do feel insulted by this, and so it perfectly encapsulates the first point.

How is directing a member to follow their own advice an insult? (the insanity thing) Perhaps you hadn't seen that the member had repeatedly put up a quote about insanity and outcomes, and complained that people didn't follow this advice?

Superfluous - unnecessary, especially through being more than enough. I cannot help you in your desire to choose an interpretation that fits your own narrative, but that is the definition under which I use this word.


Edit


You can weigh whether the cited posts were written "deliberately or intentionally."

Only the writer can weigh or determine this. For another to assume they know the writer's intent better than the writer themselves would be an act of sheer arrogance in absence of the fact.

Just a few posts up (#130) I said:

"Oh, sure, easy to comply with your "request" but all that would create is an endless stream of denials, conspiracy theories, personal attacks and finally condescending explanations about why each one is not an insult or a flame but, rather, another example of where you are being misunderstood and victimized."

That was easy, I rest my case.
:dance3:

[kazoolaw]

Edited for clarity and to remove superfluous material. Apparently that's not allowed now, who knew. :)
The removal of posts elsewhere was part of a requirement for me to try and reduce dukkha (suffering). If you have some unstated need not to believe this, that is your choice, but it doesn't change the truth of my statement or of my message.

I appreciate that much of modern Western society, particularly in the US but by no means limited to it, is dominated by a desperate need to keep score. It stands in the way of contentment, and it poisons interpersonal relationships.

For the pilers-on: I read what you write for me and I feel compassion because you are unable to let go of your hate and desire for conflict. Beyond that I can only point to the path, I cannot (and would not try) to compel you to step onto it. Encourage only, and lead by example. (5 months so far without a single deliberately or intentionally insulting post. As you like to keep score, how does your own record stack up?)

"Superfluous" meaning inconsistent with the current narrative.
"Without a single...insulting post" Accurate but misleading. See the Decluttering topic, post 28, "Are you stupid or something?" And Decluttering, post 32, "Why not follow your own insanity (sic) advice?" Not a single but a double. In October, which is within the last 5 months.
You can weigh whether the cited posts were written "deliberately or intentionally."


The word 'intentionally' was used, as it were, intentionally, to make the distinction between intent on my part and interpretation on the part of the reader. None of what I've written since 27th June 2022 has been intentionally insulting. However, I concede two things, one, that a reader may feel insulted no matter the actual intent, and two, that you will accord yourself with the virtue of telling the truth but will never extend it to me. Whether you intend to insult me by taking such a stance or not, I could and do feel insulted by this, and so it perfectly encapsulates the first point.

How is directing a member to follow their own advice an insult? (the insanity thing) Perhaps you hadn't seen that the member had repeatedly put up a quote about insanity and outcomes, and complained that people didn't follow this advice?

Superfluous - unnecessary, especially through being more than enough. I cannot help you in your desire to choose an interpretation that fits your own narrative, but that is the definition under which I use this word.


Edit


You can weigh whether the cited posts were written "deliberately or intentionally."

Only the writer can weigh or determine this. For another to assume they know the writer's intent better than the writer themselves would be an act of sheer arrogance in absence of the fact.

EoC argues that calling someone "stupid" is not an insult. Or that calling someone "stupid" is Unintentionally insulting? See a problem there?
EoC goes on to argue about "insanity," that it wasn't insulting, relying on what he allegedly said in a post he deleted. See a problem there?
We weigh credibility based upon a number of factors every day: advertising, the child with his hand in the cookie jar, a witness in a trial, politicians campaigning, etc. We rely on past history, observed demeanor, language, inconsistency, common experience, concealing/destroying evidence, etc.
That's what we ask the reader of each of our posts to do.
That's what you've asked us to do.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

I asked whether the other guy was stupid, I didn't call him that. It's very mildly insulting at best, but hey nobody is perfect. I never claimed to be perfect, but all of a sudden you are trying to hold me to that impossible standard. Is this the length you need to go to justify your argument or try to 'win' the discussion? I had higher hopes to be honest.

724Seney repeatedly posted a quote about the definition of insanity (incorrectly attributed to Einstein) and complained that people don't understand this and alter their actions. All I did was direct that member to his own words and suggest that he follow his own advice. How is that insulting? I guess you weren't aware that the member had posted this repeatedly. I wonder if 724Seney will be honest enough to admit that he did indeed post this quote on several occasions?

Credibility is not the same as intention. You are now using a different term to try and reconcile your point. Nobody knows my intentions better than myself. Just as I don't know your intentions better than you. We can make assumptions, but they are based on only the information we choose to share, which may or may not be truthful in and of itself.

So, in this portion of the thread I have not asked you to weigh my credibility when I was talking about my intention. I have stated that my intention was not to be deliberately insulting. If you choose not to accept this then you can use your argument to not accept anything for any reason.

[dneal]

Like trying to nail jello to a tree...

[724Seney]

724Seney repeatedly posted a quote about the definition of insanity (incorrectly attributed to Einstein) and complained that people don't understand this and alter their actions. All I did was direct that member to his own words and suggest that he follow his own advice. How is that insulting? I guess you weren't aware that the member had posted this repeatedly. I wonder if 724Seney will be honest enough to admit that he did indeed post this quote on several occasions?

Actually, EoC, unlike you I will own up to things I have said and posted. And, when I post something, it stays. I do not later delete it in hopes that others will forget I said it.
So, to the "Insanity" quote. Yep, I posted it and yes I have posted it on more than one occasion.

But, pointing out that I made the quote is not enough for you. You have chosen to disparage and insult me by stating that I incorrectly attributed the quote to Einstein. That is not true, when I attribute the quote I always (to the best of my recollection) qualify my comment to include that the words, over the years, have been attributed to Einstein and as well as host of others.

So, now it's your turn to be honest. Admit that you falsely embellished my post as a means of disparaging me and apologize for the insult. (Yeah sure, when pigs fly..........)

As for the insult, how long did you make it this time? Less than an hour, I think! Time to reset the clock. Maybe you can make it a full hour the next time??

Last, if you now think that by removing the "insanity" quote as evidence of an insult and that only one "soft" insult remains, you are sadly mistaken. There are dozens more out there. You know it, I know it and so does everyone else. But, the thing is as each one of them gets brought up you will in turn provide your deranged defense of yourself and explain (sic) why what appears to the world to be an insult, really is not an insult at all.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

I didn't specifically say YOU incorrectly attributed it, only that it is (often really) so attributed. It's predictable that you will spin the actual words to lean toward something unintended. It's rather sad that you have to pick apart someone's sentence construction just to stretch a point.

While you three (and let's be honest here it is only three of you) continue in the goalless pursuit of trying to trash another member - a bit like accusing someone at an AA meeting of being an alcoholic and not having any hope of change - I went and made a Christmas cake for my wife. Took me about an hour to prepare everything and now have to wait a further two hours to cook.

Do you think that trashing me is a profitable use of your time on the forum? What do actually expect to be the outcome here? Do you even have any idea of what kind of outcome may be possible?

What I notice in most of the posts from you three is statements on a subject either prefaced by disparaging remarks about the audience or interlaced with assumptions about the audiences' abilities or even just about the audience. @dneal practices all this regularly, @kazoolaw goes for the more furtive interlacing. @724Seney just posts vitriol, only rarely addressing the topic of the thread.

Do you disagree with this assessment of what you write here? Or would you prefer to ignore what I've just said, cleave to the idea that your own lives should remain unexamined, and just go after me again? As before what do actually expect to realistically achieve here? And that's an honest and direct question.

As 724Seney so often likes to quote: :)


The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

Usually incorrectly attributed to Einstein and actually first appears in 1981, in a document published by Narcotics Anonymous.

[dneal]

That may be true, but the pile-on people will get no response from me; they'll be creating an echo chamber of their own devising.

This still seems odd, given that we've reached another page of your "no response from me" stance.

[724Seney]

I didn't specifically say YOU incorrectly attributed it, only that it is (often really) so attributed. It's predictable that you will spin the actual words to lean toward something unintended. It's rather sad that you have to pick apart someone's sentence construction just to stretch a point.

As I have said twice before in recent posts, this is a futile exercise as you will continuously create an endless stream of denials, conspiracy theories, personal attacks and finally condescending explanations about why each one is not an insult or a flame but, rather, another example of where you are being misunderstood and victimized. Here we go again............

Here are your words, verbatim: "724Seney repeatedly posted a quote about the definition of insanity (incorrectly attributed to Einstein) and complained that people don't understand this and alter their actions."
Please explain again, so I can understand, how any person in their right mind would interpret your words to NOT mean I incorrectly attributed them to Einstein?

But then again, you are not in any semblance of a "right mind."
I guess I just answered my own question.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

I didn't specifically say YOU incorrectly attributed it, only that it is (often really) so attributed. It's predictable that you will spin the actual words to lean toward something unintended. It's rather sad that you have to pick apart someone's sentence construction just to stretch a point.

As I have said twice before in recent posts, this is a futile exercise as you will continuously create an endless stream of denials, conspiracy theories, personal attacks and finally condescending explanations about why each one is not an insult or a flame but, rather, another example of where you are being misunderstood and victimized. Here we go again............

Here are your words, verbatim: "724Seney repeatedly posted a quote about the definition of insanity (incorrectly attributed to Einstein) and complained that people don't understand this and alter their actions."
Please explain again, so I can understand, how any person in their right mind would interpret your words to NOT mean I incorrectly attributed them to Einstein?

But then again, you are not in any semblance of a "right mind."
I guess I just answered my own question.

My pleasure. The bit in the brackets is stating that the quote is incorrectly attributed to Einstein. The bit in the quote doesn't say that YOU are incorrectly attributing it to Einstein. I can see how it could be misinterpreted that way and I appreciate that you will never accept me saying that is not what I meant. Nothing I can do about a mind that is made up. If you think it is a futile exercise on your part then why do you persist? Kind of feeds back into the 'Einstein' quote don't you think?


And I note since my last post that two of the three haters have not answered my question about what you think to realistically achieve with your vitriolic and combative approach. Is it because... you don't know? Or is it because you are invested only in the process - perhaps because you enjoy it or something - and have no outcome in mind?

I examined what I was doing, together with taking on board the constructive criticism of others, and am in the process of change - a point which for some reason upsets you three. Is that because the possibility of me becoming a better person than I was scares you? Or that you find it challenging in light of your own unwillingness to try something similar?

Because all I am seeing from you three is constant personal attack, and virtually no effort to improve the environment here. For you three it seems always to be about the other guy. You never, not once in my recall (with the minor exception of one of you) consider YOUR contribution to the forum problems. It's always someone else's fault in your eyes.

I am shining a spotlight on this because I am already effecting change. What are you doing? Really?

[724Seney]

What are you doing? Really?

Shaking my head in disbelief.
Really.

And, you are right, it has gotten to the point where it is insanity. This was all quite predictable. In fact I said so in my initial response.

So, you keep doing your thing and I'll keep doing mine.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

And still no answer to my question about what you really think to achieve with your approach to these 'conversations'.

Is it such a difficult question to answer, or are you concerned about shining a light on your motives?

[724Seney]

And still no answer to my question about what you really think to achieve with your approach to these 'conversations'.

Is it such a difficult question to answer, or are you concerned about shining a light on your motives?

And still no apology from you to me for your insult.
Is that so difficult to do or are you the only one who can determine what does or does not constitute an insult?

[Empty_of_Clouds]

You have never apologised to me for the many vicious insults cast my way. Why would you expect me to apologise for something that was, at worst, an accidental insult resulting from a difference of parsing? The difference is ALL your insults and disparaging remarks are deliberate and nasty.


And still no answer to my question about what you really think to achieve with your approach to these 'conversations'.

Is it such a difficult question to answer, or are you concerned about shining a light on your motives?


Edit: I will extend that and note that you never apologise for the nasty comments you make to other members either. That's your pattern.

[kazoolaw]

I asked whether the other guy was stupid, I didn't call him that. It's very mildly insulting at best, but hey nobody is perfect. I never claimed to be perfect, but all of a sudden you are trying to hold me to that impossible standard. Is this the length you need to go to justify your argument or try to 'win' the discussion? I had higher hopes to be honest.

724Seney repeatedly posted a quote about the definition of insanity (incorrectly attributed to Einstein) and complained that people don't understand this and alter their actions. All I did was direct that member to his own words and suggest that he follow his own advice. How is that insulting? I guess you weren't aware that the member had posted this repeatedly. I wonder if 724Seney will be honest enough to admit that he did indeed post this quote on several occasions?

Credibility is not the same as intention. You are now using a different term to try and reconcile your point. Nobody knows my intentions better than myself. Just as I don't know your intentions better than you. We can make assumptions, but they are based on only the information we choose to share, which may or may not be truthful in and of itself.

So, in this portion of the thread I have not asked you to weigh my credibility when I was talking about my intention. I have stated that my intention was not to be deliberately insulting. If you choose not to accept this then you can use your argument to not accept anything for any reason.

Spin noted

[724Seney]

I asked whether the other guy was stupid, I didn't call him that. It's very mildly insulting at best, but hey nobody is perfect. I never claimed to be perfect, but all of a sudden you are trying to hold me to that impossible standard. Is this the length you need to go to justify your argument or try to 'win' the discussion? I had higher hopes to be honest.

724Seney repeatedly posted a quote about the definition of insanity (incorrectly attributed to Einstein) and complained that people don't understand this and alter their actions. All I did was direct that member to his own words and suggest that he follow his own advice. How is that insulting? I guess you weren't aware that the member had posted this repeatedly. I wonder if 724Seney will be honest enough to admit that he did indeed post this quote on several occasions?

Credibility is not the same as intention. You are now using a different term to try and reconcile your point. Nobody knows my intentions better than myself. Just as I don't know your intentions better than you. We can make assumptions, but they are based on only the information we choose to share, which may or may not be truthful in and of itself.

So, in this portion of the thread I have not asked you to weigh my credibility when I was talking about my intention. I have stated that my intention was not to be deliberately insulting. If you choose not to accept this then you can use your argument to not accept anything for any reason.

Spin noted


Yep.......
And the beat goes on.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

Noted that you both still refused to answer the question.

The standing question for you is: What do you realistically expect to achieve with your caustic approach to interacting on this forum?

To use Seney's words, is that so difficult?

[724Seney]

Noted that you both still refused to answer the question.

The standing question for you is: What do you realistically expect to achieve with your caustic approach to interacting on this forum?

To use Seney's words, is that so difficult?

Babble on you deluded fool. Your nonsense is second only to your hypocrisy.
:crazy_pilot:

[Empty_of_Clouds]

More avoidance. Is the question so difficult to answer? Be honest for a change.

[724Seney]

Be honest for a change.

This from someone who repeatedly claims "I Never Insulted Anybody."
:nono:

[Empty_of_Clouds]

Still avoiding the question. For all that you may accuse others, this is massively hypocritical of you.

[724Seney]

Still avoiding the question. For all that you may accuse others, this is massively hypocritical of you.

When it comes to "hypocrisy," I am no match for you EoC.
You have perfected it to the level of an art form.
:hail:

[Empty_of_Clouds]

Still avoiding the question. How about as a show of good faith you go first and answer the question? Or do you avoid because you don't have an answer that you would want to be made public? I suspect the latter.

[724Seney]

Still avoiding the question. How about as a show of good faith you go first and answer the question? Or do you avoid because you don't have an answer that you would want to be made public? I suspect the latter.

In case you missed my response in #155........

Babble on you deluded fool. Your nonsense is second only to your hypocrisy.
:crazy_pilot:

[Empty_of_Clouds]

Still avoiding the question. No answer?

There are two likely reasons for this:

1. You don't actually have an answer
2. Your answer would reveal something about you that you don't want to admit (unfortunately that ship may already have sailed)



By the way, dropping a nasty comment in the other thread I started in a different forum was, well, just nasty and deliberately insulting. No apology? Of course not, because on the balance of evidence shown by your posts it appears there is no honesty or integrity in you.


Edit: following people around just to interject nasty comments and insults I would have thought beneath even you, Seney, but apparently I was wrong about your depths. Showing your colours now.
.

[724Seney]

Still avoiding the question. No answer?

There are two likely reasons for this:

1. You don't actually have an answer
2. Your answer would reveal something about you that you don't want to admit (unfortunately that ship may already have sailed)


By the way, dropping a nasty comment in the other thread I started in a different forum was, well, just nasty and deliberately insulting. No apology? Of course not, because on the balance of evidence shown by your posts it appears there is no honesty or integrity in you.

For someone who thinks he knows so much about human behavior, it is all the more ironic that you have no insights about or control over your own.
Just saying.......
(After all, you have been badgering me for an "honest" answer.)

[Empty_of_Clouds]

And still avoiding the question. No honest answer forthcoming. How interesting.

[724Seney]

And still avoiding the question. No honest answer forthcoming. How interesting.

The honest answer is you would not recognize an honest answer if you got one.
So, why bother...................

[Empty_of_Clouds]

I think what is being established here is that Seney is unhappy and/or unwilling to provide an explanation for his/her caustic approach to engagement on this forum. Deflection and avoidance are usually devices used by people with something to hide. I, for one, am genuinely interested in the answer to my question. And while you probably don't want to believe it, you may find my response to an honest answer will surprise you.

[dneal]

That may be true, but the pile-on people will get no response from me; they'll be creating an echo chamber of their own devising.

This still seems odd, given that we've reached another page of your "no response from me" stance.

And another page of getting no response from EoC. Must be a glitch in their echo chamber.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

Why interject with this? You know as well as I that people are not perfect; in how they express themselves, their intent, their interpretation of others and so on. So why go to the lengths of holding me to some impossible and absolute standard just to try and score the most minor of points?

Of whom I consider to be the three most highly disruptive members on this forum I have always considered you to be the most responsive to a call for civility, and at least willing to try it. Seney is just all out vitriol.

[dneal]

Why interject this? Highly disruptive members? You're the douchebag fucking up this thread even further with this stupid ass drama. Do you think Seney is going to acquiesce to the next not-clever attempt to weasel that you come up with?

Your game is transparent, and just the latest of the personalities you invent in your head. I'm just waiting for you get pissy, delete your posts and run away.

--edit--

And just to keep the record straight, since you live in an alternate reality; YOU were the one interjecting yourself in this.




But never actually followed through with any sincerity. I think that would be a good start, but it requires sustained application. If I can do it, being a substandard human in some members eyes, I am sure you can.


I have absolutely zero problem pissing any of you off, and I haven't even put any effort into it yet.

One does not have to put effort into a default position.


As I said quite a while back, taking the attitude of 'I'll do it if someone else goes first' doesn't really cut it. Better to be a pioneer.


Note: I started my change in attitude on 27th June, so I am now into my 5th month. Give it a try! :)

[724Seney]

Why interject this? Highly disruptive members? You're the douchebag fucking up this thread even further with this stupid ass drama. Do you think Seney is going to acquiesce to the next not-clever attempt to weasel that you come up with?

Your game is transparent, and just the latest of the personalities you invent in your head. I'm just waiting for you get pissy, delete your posts and run away.

:amen:

[Empty_of_Clouds]

And continuing with insults, casting aspersions, assumption that YOU have any insight at all (an illustration of arrogance), disparaging. Is this your only playbook now?

Seney, you have a problem providing a truthful answer to a simple question. All your responses are deflections and avoidance of answering the question. That is highly suspicious, and I have no doubt of the conclusions that will be drawn by other readers.

@dneal, your continued assumption of intellectual superiority is tiresome, and not based on any measurable metric.

[dneal]

More weaseling, more drama.

Doesn't seem like something Buddha would advocate, but unlike you he wasn't a hypocrite.

p.s.: I already told you my policy for duplicitous bullshit.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

More point scoring, more nasty comments, more insults. Got anything better?

[dneal]

More point scoring, more nasty comments, more insults. Got anything better?

Would Buddha approve of that post? You did interject to lecture us on how we should behave, after all.

Are you furthering drama? Increasing suffering?

[Empty_of_Clouds]

Zen buddhism accepts the existence of conflict and conflict management.

[dneal]

Zen buddhism accepts the existence of conflict and conflict management.

Incitement and furthering of conflict is acceptable? I think you've been listening to the wrong Buddhists.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

You may find this of interest: https://greatplainszen.org/ethical-guidelines-and-grievance-procedure/

[dneal]

Actually, I find the need for Democrats to shift their covid narrative of interest.

But you disrupted that in the first reply to this thread, because that's what you do. I hope you included yourself in your top-3 of "highly disruptive members".

Good job with your consistency in not responding, by the way. 3 pages of not responding. Can we make it 4?

[Empty_of_Clouds]

More point scoring, more nasty comments, more insults. Got anything better?

[dneal]

You're still not-responding? Surprising.

I think we're going to make it to 4 pages of this just with these silly jabs.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

Yes, probably, because I am still waiting for Seney to answer the question I set. After that I would be more than amenable to a civil discussion on anything, but every time anyone gets personal, they will and should be called on it. Until then we can bat this ball back and forth as much as you like.

[724Seney]

Yes, probably, because I am still waiting for Seney to answer the question I set. After that I would be more than amenable to a civil discussion on anything, but every time anyone gets personal, they will and should be called on it. Until then we can bat this ball back and forth as much as you like.

Nice try EoC.
But, another swing and a miss.............
:cheer2:

[dneal]

Yes, probably, because I am still waiting for Seney to answer the question I set. After that I would be more than amenable to a civil discussion on anything, but every time anyone gets personal, they will and should be called on it. Until then we can bat this ball back and forth as much as you like.

Weren't you the guy who also posted this, just a few pages ago?



As I said quite a while back, taking the attitude of 'I'll do it if someone else goes first' doesn't really cut it. Better to be a pioneer.

Delicious.


Note: I started my change in attitude on 27th June, so I am now into my 5th month. Give it a try! :)

I'm not really seeing a change in your attitude. But go on and tell us how you only meant the insults...

Give it a try, indeed.

p.s.: congrats on making it to another page by not responding.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

And around we go, with you guys never answering only deflecting.

Seney, you can deflect and avoid all you like, but what is really clear here is that cannot and will not answer the question.


Despite what dneal writes, I've already 'gone first' by at least stepping onto the path to improvement. Yet it seems from his writing that being on the path has no value, that being at the goal is the only place that has value, and uses this stretch to try to score points of the most minimal value in themselves. It's quite the parochial way of thinking in my opinion.



As for pivot, there's little need for discussion. All governments are predicated on a single purpose: the preservation of the hegemony. As my grandfather used to say, it doesn't matter who you vote for the govt. always gets in.

[dneal]

"Despite what dneal writes..."

Dude, I'm pointing out what YOU wrote.

But yeah, everyone else is deflecting.

The hypocrisy gets deeper with each of your posts. I'm gonna have to go get some hip-waders.

Want to try for 5 pages?

[Empty_of_Clouds]

Considering how often you accuse others of deflection it's kind of surprising (though perhaps it shouldn't be) just how blind you are to your own ongoing deflections. Or you know about it but just don't care about the hypocrisy. Either way it's disappointing.

Oh, and you mentioning the pages... you may think you are scoring points - as doing so with a weird view to 'winning' on the internet seems to be important to you - but it's just juvenile. I know you can be better than that, I've seen it. So why revert?

[dneal]

Accuse you of deflection? I point it out as it happens. I'm completely consistent:

My position remains zero tolerance for bullshit, which includes duplicity or disingenuousness; and I will respond to it as I like.

You are a hypocritical weasel, and try to deflect; which I simply point out.

I don't fall for your deflections. I'd cite it all, but there's no need since it's all laid out already. Well, until you start editing and deleting to save face.

Again, I did tell you what would happen, and offered you an out. You've gone 4 pages of not-responding, and apparently do want to make it to 5.

Hypocrite.

--edit--

Just want to add this before you edit it or delete it:


Considering how often you accuse others of deflection it's kind of surprising (though perhaps it shouldn't be) just how blind you are to your own ongoing deflections. Or you know about it but just don't care about the hypocrisy. Either way it's disappointing.

Oh, and you mentioning the pages... you may think you are scoring points - as doing so with a weird view to 'winning' on the internet seems to be important to you - but it's just juvenile. I know you can be better than that, I've seen it. So why revert?

Is this the change in your attitude? It seems to be changing more and more as you not-respond.

Is "juvenile" an insult?

[Empty_of_Clouds]

I am sorry, let me rephrase. I am pointing out your deflections, and those of Seney. It's not an accusation but a statement of fact.


You are a hypocritical weasel, and try to deflect; which I simply point out. As you have proven to be yourself.


I don't fall for your deflections. I'd cite it all, but there's no need since it's all laid out already. As I don't fall for yours, which are equally all laid out.


Again, I did tell you what would happen, and offered you an out. And I chose to stay in. Did you think I wasn't aware of what would happen? As it is, in this part of the forum, it's really only three people who are persistent in their ad hominem attacks to me. I know Seney likes to throw around the typical Trumpian hyperbole of 'many people' but it's just three.

Page counting. Pointless point scoring, again. And this from the guy who complained when I mentioned some people's need to 'win' a discussion.

Hypocrite? Well, I guess if the hat fits you...


Edited for typos (naughty of me as apparently editing is against dneal's imaginary rules)

[724Seney]

You are a hypocritical weasel, and try to deflect; which I simply point out.

Dear EoC-

HERE (see dneal's quote just above) is the eagerly anticipated answer to your question.
Just so happens he said it better than I could......(thanks dneal)

Ok, you promised once I answered your question we could move on. And now, it is DONE.

So, let's see if you can do it.
(I'm betting you cannot and we are in for another round of your ridiculousness)

Cordially,
Seney

[Empty_of_Clouds]

Here's the question again, to save your mad scrambling through past posts:

What do you realistically expect to achieve by your caustic approach to engagement in this forum?

Note that I am not talking just about your deplorable conduct toward me, but also toward others.

That was the question, which I note you have refused to answer yet again.

Edit to include: if you are saying that your only purpose in speaking in a deplorable fashion to another member is being hypocritical, how do you defend your nasty comment in a thread about baking cakes? I'll wait.


I love editing. It's going to be my new thing. Get ready to quote early ladies, you never know how things will change!

[dneal]

I am sorry, let me rephrase. I am pointing out your deflections, and those of Seney. It's not an accusation but a statement of fact.

Back up your bullshit then. Seriously, you can't even come up with your own argument?

Me: You're deflecting. Here are your posts demonstrating your deflections, lies and hypocrisy (which you reinforce with every not-response).

You: No you're deflecting!

[dneal]

Here's the question again, to save your mad scrambling through past posts:

What do you realistically expect to achieve by your caustic approach to engagement in this forum?

Note that I am not talking just about your deplorable conduct toward me, but also toward others.

That was the question, which I note you have refused to answer yet again.

You're confusing "deflecting" with not entertaining your stupid ass questions, which are your attempts to deflect.

[724Seney]

Here's the question again, to save your mad scrambling through past posts:

What do you realistically expect to achieve by your caustic approach to engagement in this forum?

Note that I am not talking just about your deplorable conduct toward me, but also toward others.

That was the question, which I note you have refused to answer yet again.

Excuse me..... but the way I act / interact with others is, quite simply, none of your damn business.
There you go. Asked & answered.

Now, it's your turn Mr. "5 Months With No Insults." Please explain how your characterization of me as "deplorable" is not an insult?

[Empty_of_Clouds]

I don't need to back up anything, because unlike you I am not interested in point scoring. What I am interested in is ramping everything down so people can have civil conversations. This is something you've often whined about, but don't want to do even though I actually agree with you. Perplexing.



Me: You're deflecting. Here are your posts demonstrating your deflections, lies and hypocrisy (which you reinforce with every not-response).

You: No you're deflecting!

That's not how it goes, and you know it. In this part of this thread I am focussed on a single thing - an answer to the Seney question.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

Here's the question again, to save your mad scrambling through past posts:

What do you realistically expect to achieve by your caustic approach to engagement in this forum?

Note that I am not talking just about your deplorable conduct toward me, but also toward others.

That was the question, which I note you have refused to answer yet again.

Excuse me..... but the way I act / interact with others is, quite simply, none of your damn business.
There you go. Asked & answered.

Now, it's your turn Mr. "5 Months With No Insults." Please explain how your characterization of me as "deplorable" is not an insult?


I find your behaviour and language toward me is deplorable. That is not an insult but an expression of how your conduct makes me feel. What are you going to do about it? Apologise?



Excuse me..... but the way I act / interact with others is, quite simply, none of your damn business.

As a participant of an open forum how you interact with others (as well as myself) is very much everyone's business. What you may do privately in PMs or whatever is not my business. As soon as you act publicly, expect scrutiny. After all, that is PRECISELY what you are doing with me.


I note, again, that you have made no attempt to answer the actual question.

[dneal]

I don't need to back up anything, because unlike you I am not interested in point scoring. What I am interested in is ramping everything down so people can have civil conversations. This is something you've often whined about, but don't want to do even though I actually agree with you. Perplexing.

That's what makes them empty accusations, and duplicitous bullshit. Buddha doesn't approve, I suspect.


In this part of this thread I am focussed on a single thing - an answer to the Seney question.

You seem to be spending a lot of effort on me though. Seems contradictory to what you stated, just like you said you were going to 'not-respond'.

Pathetic.

p.s.: No one but you is raising questions of intelligence, point scoring, winning, etc...

p.p.s: You have a curious way of "ramping everything down". Seems to be the opposite, just like I said it would be. But please, cite the threads started by who, and where the civil conversation was disrupted. You're a main culprit, and jumped right into my "troll-trap" thread. You were the first reply, if I recall.

[dneal]

Here's the question again, to save your mad scrambling through past posts:

What do you realistically expect to achieve by your caustic approach to engagement in this forum?

Note that I am not talking just about your deplorable conduct toward me, but also toward others.

That was the question, which I note you have refused to answer yet again.

Excuse me..... but the way I act / interact with others is, quite simply, none of your damn business.
There you go. Asked & answered.

Now, it's your turn Mr. "5 Months With No Insults." Please explain how your characterization of me as "deplorable" is not an insult?

Oooh, ooooh, He didn't say YOU were deplorable, he was just talking about your conduct. Not an intentional insult, don't ya know. That's completely up to the writer!

[Empty_of_Clouds]

Here's an example of deflection.


You're confusing "deflecting" with not entertaining your stupid ass questions, which are your attempts to deflect.

You use this argument in the quote as a way of deflecting from answering the question. The question is a serious one from me, but your downgrading it to 'stupid ass question' is a typical method of deflection.

[dneal]

Oh what a twisted web we weave...

I think we're going to hit another page of your not-responding with your changed attitude.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

Here's the question again, to save your mad scrambling through past posts:

What do you realistically expect to achieve by your caustic approach to engagement in this forum?

Note that I am not talking just about your deplorable conduct toward me, but also toward others.

That was the question, which I note you have refused to answer yet again.

Excuse me..... but the way I act / interact with others is, quite simply, none of your damn business.
There you go. Asked & answered.

Now, it's your turn Mr. "5 Months With No Insults." Please explain how your characterization of me as "deplorable" is not an insult?

Oooh, ooooh, He didn't say YOU were deplorable, he was just talking about your conduct. Not an intentional insult, don't ya know. That's completely up to the writer!

You will no doubt have seen that I used the terms 'deplorable conduct' in the quote above. Funny how you spin that to mean that I said he was a deplorable person. Whatever floats yer boat I guess, but that was just egregious.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

Then why not avoid all of this by simply answering the question?


Edit to add: fishing for levers to pull or buttons to push doesn't really work on me. You should already know this from past experience.

[724Seney]

I note, again, that you have made no attempt to answer the actual question.

Too bad.
Deal with it weasel. Your perseverating about this matter will not change a thing, so stop wasting your time. I'm done letting you waste mine.

[dneal]

Another page of not-responding. Congrats!

[Empty_of_Clouds]

perseverating

Is that a real word? :)

So, asked to honest about the motives for your conduct, you find that you are unable to be either honest or honourable and prefer to slink away. And this is after complaining that I've called you dishonest in the past.

And people say I am the hypocrite. C'mon!

[Empty_of_Clouds]

Another page of not-responding. Congrats!

Another pointless attempt at point scoring. Congrats!

[dneal]

Probably a good time to repost this for the lurkers and new members who my stumble in here:


Be aware that well-practiced manipulation techniques were just applied...again. I suggest not being taken in or feeling sorry.

This very same pattern has been exhibited over the years that have sought to shift responsibility, blame and even guilt for misbehavior onto other members as part of some kind of emotional neediness. Then there are these publicly declared departures to elicit sympathy - only to drift back into the forum again for a honeymoon period until the misbehavior begins anew. A search on member ID and the word "goodbye" will show just a sliver of the history and the grudges.

Like a close call with a con artist, learn the lesson what to watch out for and ignore, then move on to enjoy this community with the majority of its members and our pens!

It seems to apply to more than the threats to leave (how many times is it now?).

[Empty_of_Clouds]

Probably a good time to repost this for the lurkers and new members who my stumble in here:

Another deflection from the current discussion, and more pointless point scoring. Congrats!

Edit: just because you don't openly talk about point scoring or 'winning the internet' doesn't default to you NOT doing just that. It is apparent in your arguments, where most of your statements are directed at the poster and not the subject. You know this already though because you are far from stupid.

[dneal]

Deflection from the current discussion? My "current discussion" with you is your hypocrisy, duplicity, and deflection contained in your not-responses.

[724Seney]

perseveratingIs that a real word?

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/perseverate

SEE #2 ("Always happy to teach.")

Definition of perseverate
intransitive verb

1a: to recur or repeat continually
We call such tunes 'catchy'—and they are sometimes referred to as 'earworms,' for they may burrow into us, entrench themselves and then perseverate internally hundreds of times a day, only to evaporate, fade away, in a day or two …
— Oliver Sacks

1b: to intently focus one's attention on a thought or thoughts : FIXATE
Lest she be misinterpreted, Hard is not an old-timer perseverating on the good old days and bitter about not getting some of that big money.
— Bill Dwyre
According to a variety of medical Web sites and publications, people who never smoke, … who exercise and don't perseverate about past wrongs and future ills are happier and healthier and live longer.
— Brian McKenzie

2 Psychology : to have or display an involuntary repetitive behavior or thought : to exhibit perseveration
Any person … whose social skills have been severely deficient since very early childhood, who started to talk late or whose communicative use of language is inadequate, and who perseverates and lacks cognitive and behavioral flexibility meets the diagnostic criteria for an autistic-spectrum disorder.
— Isabelle Rapin

[Empty_of_Clouds]

Deflection from the current discussion? My "current discussion" with you is your hypocrisy, duplicity, and deflection contained in your not-responses.

My current discussion is Seney's unwillingness to answer a simple question honestly and directly. Your involvement revolves around trying to steer the discussion away from this point.

[dneal]

I'm actually getting a kick out of how many of my points he's adopting for his own. Deflecting is the most obvious, but the notions in 204 with "slink away" and "commented in the past" are damn near direct rip-offs.

FFS EoC, get your own material.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

perseveratingIs that a real word?

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/perseverate

SEE #2 ("Always happy to teach.")

Definition of perseverate
intransitive verb

1a: to recur or repeat continually
We call such tunes 'catchy'—and they are sometimes referred to as 'earworms,' for they may burrow into us, entrench themselves and then perseverate internally hundreds of times a day, only to evaporate, fade away, in a day or two …
— Oliver Sacks

1b: to intently focus one's attention on a thought or thoughts : FIXATE
Lest she be misinterpreted, Hard is not an old-timer perseverating on the good old days and bitter about not getting some of that big money.
— Bill Dwyre
According to a variety of medical Web sites and publications, people who never smoke, … who exercise and don't perseverate about past wrongs and future ills are happier and healthier and live longer.
— Brian McKenzie

2 Psychology : to have or display an involuntary repetitive behavior or thought : to exhibit perseveration
Any person … whose social skills have been severely deficient since very early childhood, who started to talk late or whose communicative use of language is inadequate, and who perseverates and lacks cognitive and behavioral flexibility meets the diagnostic criteria for an autistic-spectrum disorder.
— Isabelle Rapin

Well, I learned a new word today, thanks!

However, you used it as an insult, which is not unexpected. So add that to your deplorable conduct toward me. Do I hear an apology? :)

[Empty_of_Clouds]

I'm actually getting a kick out of how many of my points he's adopting for his own. Deflecting is the most obvious, but the notions in 204 with "slink away" and "commented in the past" are damn near direct rip-offs.

FFS EoC, get your own material.

Still nothing of substance on the subject of Seney's unwillingness to be forthright about his conduct. Plenty of deflection of course.

Edit: I am experimenting with being unoriginal. Taking my cue from you of course (that's a joke, in case you were wondering)

[dneal]

Deflection from the current discussion? My "current discussion" with you is your hypocrisy, duplicity, and deflection contained in your not-responses.

My current discussion is Seney's unwillingness to answer a simple question honestly and directly. Your involvement revolves around trying to steer the discussion away from this point.

I don't care about what your discussion with Seney is. I don't care if you think you are having a discussion with me.

I'm just pointing out your bullshit, because it's so ridiculous.

[dneal]

Are we going to get another page of not-responding?

[Empty_of_Clouds]

Care enough to keep commenting and insulting though. Fascinatin'

[Empty_of_Clouds]

Are we going to get another page of not-responding?

You got anything original?

[724Seney]

perseveratingIs that a real word?

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/perseverate

SEE #2 ("Always happy to teach.")

Definition of perseverate
intransitive verb

1a: to recur or repeat continually
We call such tunes 'catchy'—and they are sometimes referred to as 'earworms,' for they may burrow into us, entrench themselves and then perseverate internally hundreds of times a day, only to evaporate, fade away, in a day or two …
— Oliver Sacks

1b: to intently focus one's attention on a thought or thoughts : FIXATE
Lest she be misinterpreted, Hard is not an old-timer perseverating on the good old days and bitter about not getting some of that big money.
— Bill Dwyre
According to a variety of medical Web sites and publications, people who never smoke, … who exercise and don't perseverate about past wrongs and future ills are happier and healthier and live longer.
— Brian McKenzie

2 Psychology : to have or display an involuntary repetitive behavior or thought : to exhibit perseveration
Any person … whose social skills have been severely deficient since very early childhood, who started to talk late or whose communicative use of language is inadequate, and who perseverates and lacks cognitive and behavioral flexibility meets the diagnostic criteria for an autistic-spectrum disorder.
— Isabelle Rapin

Well, I learned a new word today, thanks!

However, you used it as an insult, which is not unexpected. So add that to your deplorable conduct toward me. Do I hear an apology? :)

I answered your inquiry about the word "perseverate" and provided you with the definition from the world's most highly respected dictionary of the English language.
If the definition insulted you, that's too bad. Your beef is with merriam-Webster, not me.

As the old saying goes, "If the shoe fits, wear it."
:rockon:

[Empty_of_Clouds]

My position remains zero tolerance for bullshit, which includes duplicity or disingenuousness; and I will respond to it as I like.

Such a good line, I am stealing it.

[dneal]

Are we going to get another page of not-responding?

You got anything original?

That one is kind of weak.

Nice to see you "rise above" all this sort of thing though. Be an example, right?

[Empty_of_Clouds]

perseveratingIs that a real word?

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/perseverate

SEE #2 ("Always happy to teach.")

Definition of perseverate
intransitive verb

1a: to recur or repeat continually
We call such tunes 'catchy'—and they are sometimes referred to as 'earworms,' for they may burrow into us, entrench themselves and then perseverate internally hundreds of times a day, only to evaporate, fade away, in a day or two …
— Oliver Sacks

1b: to intently focus one's attention on a thought or thoughts : FIXATE
Lest she be misinterpreted, Hard is not an old-timer perseverating on the good old days and bitter about not getting some of that big money.
— Bill Dwyre
According to a variety of medical Web sites and publications, people who never smoke, … who exercise and don't perseverate about past wrongs and future ills are happier and healthier and live longer.
— Brian McKenzie

2 Psychology : to have or display an involuntary repetitive behavior or thought : to exhibit perseveration
Any person … whose social skills have been severely deficient since very early childhood, who started to talk late or whose communicative use of language is inadequate, and who perseverates and lacks cognitive and behavioral flexibility meets the diagnostic criteria for an autistic-spectrum disorder.
— Isabelle Rapin

Well, I learned a new word today, thanks!

However, you used it as an insult, which is not unexpected. So add that to your deplorable conduct toward me. Do I hear an apology? :)

I answered your inquiry about the word "perseverate" and provided you with the definition from the world's most highly respected dictionary of the English language.
If the definition insulted you, that's too bad. Your beef is with merriam-Webster, not me.

As the old saying goes, "If the shoe fits, wear it."
:rockon:

Based on your current and past engagement I conclude you chose the word because you know it is insulting.

Still waiting on an honest answer to my question.

[dneal]

And another page of not-responding. Holy crap that was fast!

That's enough for me for tonight though. Thanks for the laughs.

[dneal]

One last one though, before they get deleted


Sustained good faith effort is the key. If you respond with insult, rudeness and so on, then you are helping to create the poor quality of the environment. Rise above it, be an example! :)


That may be true, but the pile-on people will get no response from me; they'll be creating an echo chamber of their own devising. I only delete posts that are no longer needed or whose message has expired.

To be better, to at least have civil conversations, and to refrain from simply insulting other members should be the least standard that we can aspire to. Others, like myself, may want to go further. Good. Some will no doubt find such suggestions are challenging and perhaps a bit scary. Good. Nothing will change without people being proactive. Don't wait for the other guy to start. As I've quoted before:

“We but mirror the world. All the tendencies present in the outer world are to be found in the world of our body. If we could change ourselves, the tendencies in the world would also change. As a man changes his own nature, so does the attitude of the world change towards him. This is the divine mystery supreme. A wonderful thing it is and the source of our happiness. We need not wait to see what others do.” – Mahatma Gandhi

Hypocrite.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

2 Psychology : to have or display an involuntary repetitive behavior or thought : to exhibit perseveration
Any person … whose social skills have been severely deficient since very early childhood, who started to talk late or whose communicative use of language is inadequate, and who perseverates and lacks cognitive and behavioral flexibility meets the diagnostic criteria for an autistic-spectrum disorder.

To be brutal about it, this part of the definition, especially the first phrase could apply to many participants here, including ALL those in the current kerfuffle.

As for the rest, true I am more solitary than social in real life. Though when I am social, I am told by others that I shine, and that my use of language is both broad, deep in places and creative. Started talking, reading and writing well before the expected age most children do. Never been diagnosed as autistic despite once being a member of MENSA (scored 148) and known among my colleagues for having an astonishing degree of cognitive flexibility. Behaviourally... well, I am getting old so there is a natural reduction in flexibility there which we all will exhibit sooner or later.

Of course dneal and Seney will dispute the above, even in the absence of pesky things like facts. At least they are consistent in this.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

One last one though, before they get deleted




That may be true, but the pile-on people will get no response from me; they'll be creating an echo chamber of their own devising. I only delete posts that are no longer needed or whose message has expired.

To be better, to at least have civil conversations, and to refrain from simply insulting other members should be the least standard that we can aspire to. Others, like myself, may want to go further. Good. Some will no doubt find such suggestions are challenging and perhaps a bit scary. Good. Nothing will change without people being proactive. Don't wait for the other guy to start. As I've quoted before:

“We but mirror the world. All the tendencies present in the outer world are to be found in the world of our body. If we could change ourselves, the tendencies in the world would also change. As a man changes his own nature, so does the attitude of the world change towards him. This is the divine mystery supreme. A wonderful thing it is and the source of our happiness. We need not wait to see what others do.” – Mahatma Gandhi

Hypocrite.

Unlike you I don't label people as hypocrites if they have good reason to alter their positions, or merely drift a bit due to the inexactness of being human. I don't expect people to be static. For some reason you appear to do so though.


Edited because the following quote didn't get quoted (not sure why, perhaps it was a multiple quote?)


Sustained good faith effort is the key. If you respond with insult, rudeness and so on, then you are helping to create the poor quality of the environment. Rise above it, be an example!

I don't see you doing any of the first part, any of the time, but almost always the second part. Nor Seney, even excluding his/her deplorable conduct toward me.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

kerfuffle
/kəˈfʌf(ə)l/

nounINFORMAL•BRITISH

a commotion or fuss, especially one caused by conflicting views.



Just for Seney, as a kind of trade for 'perseverating', though without the pointless appeal to authority on source. :)

[724Seney]

2 Psychology : to have or display an involuntary repetitive behavior or thought : to exhibit perseveration
Any person … whose social skills have been severely deficient since very early childhood, who started to talk late or whose communicative use of language is inadequate, and who perseverates and lacks cognitive and behavioral flexibility meets the diagnostic criteria for an autistic-spectrum disorder.

To be brutal about it, this part of the definition, especially the first phrase could apply to many participants here, including ALL those in the current kerfuffle.

As for the rest, true I am more solitary than social in real life. Though when I am social, I am told by others that I shine, and that my use of language is both broad, deep in places and creative. Started talking, reading and writing well before the expected age most children do. Never been diagnosed as autistic despite once being a member of MENSA (scored 148) and known among my colleagues for having an astonishing degree of cognitive flexibility. Behaviourally... well, I am getting old so there is a natural reduction in flexibility there which we all will exhibit sooner or later.

Of course dneal and Seney will dispute the above, even in the absence of pesky things like facts. At least they are consistent in this.

73231

[Empty_of_Clouds]

As expected, predictable (see the last statement of the quote).

If you, Seney, would like to give me an honest answer to my question, my response to it may surprise you even so.


As an aside, while I find crude language and personal insults to be in poor taste, they actually don't advance your points, or upset me in any way.

Perhaps you should have a go at a more adult level of discourse. You never know how that may turn out. Your use of language and imagery is at the level of an adolescent, but I don't know if that is reflective of you as a person.

[724Seney]

As expected, predictable (see the last statement of the quote).

If you, Seney, would like to give me an honest answer to my question, my response to it may surprise you even so.


As an aside, while I find crude language and personal insults to be in poor taste, they actually don't advance your points, or upset me in any way.

Perhaps you should have a go at a more adult level of discourse. You never know how that may turn out. Your use of language and imagery is at the level of an adolescent, but I don't know if that is reflective of you as a person.

I find it to respond to your posts because by the time I am done replying, with even a short reply such as this one, you have edited it several times.

So, I will leave it at this.......

Your nonsense is duly noted.
I hope you believe the crap you write because no one else does.......... Needless to say, you have not got even one iota of self awareness because, if you did, you would see the ridiculousness of your posts and delusional thinking.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

As expected, predictable (see the last statement of the quote).

If you, Seney, would like to give me an honest answer to my question, my response to it may surprise you even so.


As an aside, while I find crude language and personal insults to be in poor taste, they actually don't advance your points, or upset me in any way.

Perhaps you should have a go at a more adult level of discourse. You never know how that may turn out. Your use of language and imagery is at the level of an adolescent, but I don't know if that is reflective of you as a person.

I find it to respond to your posts because by the time I am done replying, with even a short reply such as this one, you have edited it several times.

So, I will leave it at this.......

Your nonsense is duly noted.
I hope you believe the crap you write because no one else does.......... Needless to say, you have not got even one iota of self awareness because, if you did, you would see the ridiculousness of your posts and delusional thinking.

Note the hyperbole in the bolded part? Have you canvassed everyone? Really you are just talking about three people. The best of generosity suggests this is hyperbole, but as it's you I can see this as an attempt at a gaslighting lie.

"crap", "nonsense", " not got even one iota of self-awareness", "ridiculousness", "delusional thinking" - look at all those insulting words and projections. Deplorable.


You still haven't answered the question. I suspect you probably never will because it appears you are an inherently dishonest person. [and while you may find that insulting, it is a statement of my opinion of you based on your deplorable conduct and aversion to being truthful]


Edit: I love editing.

[724Seney]

Have you canvassed everyone? Really you are just talking about three people. The best of generosity suggests this is hyperbole, but as it's you I can see this as an attempt at a gaslighting lie.

Is that so????????
Let me refresh your memory.......

Check out post #31 of this thread:
https://fpgeeks.com/forum/showthread.php/37139-Is-FPGeeks-still-a-pleasant-place-to-stay?p=364710#post364710

Look familiar?? Still want to maintain that it is only three people???

PS: For anyone who does not have the time to follow the link, the referenced post says this about our pal EoC and his well practiced victim mentality:

"Be aware that well-practiced manipulation techniques were just applied...again. I suggest not being taken in or feeling sorry.

This very same pattern has been exhibited over the years that have sought to shift responsibility, blame and even guilt for misbehavior onto other members as part of some kind of emotional neediness. Then there are these publicly declared departures to elicit sympathy - only to drift back into the forum again for a honeymoon period until the misbehavior begins anew. A search on member ID and the word "goodbye" will show just a sliver of the history and the grudges.

Like a close call with a con artist, learn the lesson what to watch out for and ignore, then move on to enjoy this community with the majority of its members and our pens!"

[Empty_of_Clouds]

I see you are still avoiding, deflecting, and now adopting the point scoring approach.

Still didn't answer the important question though.

[724Seney]

I see you are still avoiding, deflecting, and now adopting the point scoring approach.

Still didn't answer the important question though.

Nor did you.
Hypocrisy personified.

[kazoolaw]

I re-entered this Topic November 4, after a 10 month absence. This lengthy series of quotes is to preserve and respond to some of them. The quotes chosen are not all of them, and may be edited.



That may be true, but the pile-on people will get no response from me... I only delete posts that are no longer needed or whose message has expired.

To be better, to at least have civil conversations, and to refrain from simply insulting other members should be the least standard that we can aspire to. Others, like myself, may want to go further. Good. Some will no doubt find such suggestions are challenging and perhaps a bit scary. Good. Nothing will change without people being proactive. Don't wait for the other guy to start....(emphasis added)

The reason EoC's deleted posts are no longer needed is because they document past behavior which is no longer expedient for him. Likewise, those which have "expired." Remember the pens for sale dispute with bunnspecial? Go back now and only bunnspecial's posts remain. Remember the computer persona? How many remain? So, some will be copied, as a record of EoC in his own words, to let future readers draw their own conclusions about his latest re-invention from posts he has not disappeared.




@ EoC

That's all about as believable as your claim to have written an AI bot, or any of your claims to leave. Now you've added the 'depth of [your] resolve and breadth of [your] resources'?

We all know how this plays out - including you.

--edit--

and this is why we quote your posts (which I didn't this time). You've edited twice as I typed the first response.


Edited for clarity and to remove superfluous material. Apparently that's not allowed now, who knew. :)

The removal of posts elsewhere was part of a requirement for me to try and reduce dukkha (suffering). If you have some unstated need not to believe this, that is your choice....




(5 months so far without a single deliberately or intentionally insulting post....

EoC makes two statements he wants us to believe: that he removes posts to reduce suffering, and has gone 5 months without a deliberately or intentionally insulting post.





Edited for clarity and to remove superfluous material. Apparently that's not allowed now, who knew. :)
The removal of posts elsewhere was part of a requirement for me to try and reduce dukkha (suffering). If you have some unstated need not to believe this, that is your choice, but it doesn't change the truth of my statement or of my message.

I appreciate that much of modern Western society, particularly in the US but by no means limited to it, is dominated by a desperate need to keep score. It stands in the way of contentment, and it poisons interpersonal relationships.

For the pilers-on: I read what you write for me and I feel compassion because you are unable to let go of your hate and desire for conflict. Beyond that I can only point to the path, I cannot (and would not try) to compel you to step onto it. Encourage only, and lead by example. (5 months so far without a single deliberately or intentionally insulting post. As you like to keep score, how does your own record stack up?)

"Superfluous" meaning inconsistent with the current narrative.
"Without a single...insulting post" Accurate but misleading. See the Decluttering topic, post 28, "Are you stupid or something?" And Decluttering, post 32, "Why not follow your own insanity (sic) advice?" Not a single but a double. In October, which is within the last 5 months.
You can weigh whether the cited posts were written "deliberately or intentionally."






Edited for clarity and to remove superfluous material. Apparently that's not allowed now, who knew. :)
The removal of posts elsewhere was part of a requirement for me to try and reduce dukkha (suffering). If you have some unstated need not to believe this, that is your choice, but it doesn't change the truth of my statement or of my message.

I appreciate that much of modern Western society, particularly in the US but by no means limited to it, is dominated by a desperate need to keep score. It stands in the way of contentment, and it poisons interpersonal relationships.

For the pilers-on: I read what you write for me and I feel compassion because you are unable to let go of your hate and desire for conflict. Beyond that I can only point to the path, I cannot (and would not try) to compel you to step onto it. Encourage only, and lead by example. (5 months so far without a single deliberately or intentionally insulting post. As you like to keep score, how does your own record stack up?)

"Superfluous" meaning inconsistent with the current narrative.
"Without a single...insulting post" Accurate but misleading. See the Decluttering topic, post 28, "Are you stupid or something?" And Decluttering, post 32, "Why not follow your own insanity (sic) advice?" Not a single but a double. In October, which is within the last 5 months.
You can weigh whether the cited posts were written "deliberately or intentionally."


The word 'intentionally' was used, as it were, intentionally, to make the distinction between intent on my part and interpretation on the part of the reader. None of what I've written since 27th June 2022 has been intentionally insulting.

How is directing a member to follow their own advice an insult? (the insanity thing) Perhaps you hadn't seen that the member had repeatedly put up a quote about insanity and outcomes, and complained that people didn't follow this advice?

Superfluous - unnecessary, especially through being more than enough.


Edit


You can weigh whether the cited posts were written "deliberately or intentionally."

Only the writer can weigh or determine this. For another to assume they know the writer's intent better than the writer themselves would be an act of sheer arrogance in absence of the fact.






Edited for clarity and to remove superfluous material. Apparently that's not allowed now, who knew. :)
The removal of posts elsewhere was part of a requirement for me to try and reduce dukkha (suffering). If you have some unstated need not to believe this, that is your choice, but it doesn't change the truth of my statement or of my message.

I appreciate that much of modern Western society, particularly in the US but by no means limited to it, is dominated by a desperate need to keep score. It stands in the way of contentment, and it poisons interpersonal relationships.

For the pilers-on: I read what you write for me and I feel compassion because you are unable to let go of your hate and desire for conflict. Beyond that I can only point to the path, I cannot (and would not try) to compel you to step onto it. Encourage only, and lead by example. (5 months so far without a single deliberately or intentionally insulting post. As you like to keep score, how does your own record stack up?)

"Superfluous" meaning inconsistent with the current narrative.
"Without a single...insulting post" Accurate but misleading. See the Decluttering topic, post 28, "Are you stupid or something?" And Decluttering, post 32, "Why not follow your own insanity (sic) advice?" Not a single but a double. In October, which is within the last 5 months.
You can weigh whether the cited posts were written "deliberately or intentionally."


The word 'intentionally' was used, as it were, intentionally, to make the distinction between intent on my part and interpretation on the part of the reader. None of what I've written since 27th June 2022 has been intentionally insulting. However, I concede two things, one, that a reader may feel insulted no matter the actual intent, and two, that you will accord yourself with the virtue of telling the truth but will never extend it to me. Whether you intend to insult me by taking such a stance or not, I could and do feel insulted by this, and so it perfectly encapsulates the first point.

How is directing a member to follow their own advice an insult? (the insanity thing) Perhaps you hadn't seen that the member had repeatedly put up a quote about insanity and outcomes, and complained that people didn't follow this advice?

Superfluous - unnecessary, especially through being more than enough. I cannot help you in your desire to choose an interpretation that fits your own narrative, but that is the definition under which I use this word.


Edit


You can weigh whether the cited posts were written "deliberately or intentionally."

Only the writer can weigh or determine this. For another to assume they know the writer's intent better than the writer themselves would be an act of sheer arrogance in absence of the fact.

EoC argues that calling someone "stupid" is not an insult. Or that calling someone "stupid" is Unintentionally insulting? See a problem there?
EoC goes on to argue about "insanity," that it wasn't insulting, relying on what he allegedly said in a post he deleted. See a problem there?
We weigh credibility based upon a number of factors every day: advertising, the child with his hand in the cookie jar, a witness in a trial, politicians campaigning, etc. We rely on past history, observed demeanor, language, inconsistency, common experience, concealing/destroying evidence, etc.
That's what we ask the reader of each of our posts to do.
That's what you've asked us to do.



I asked whether the other guy was stupid, I didn't call him that. It's very mildly insulting at best, but hey nobody is perfect. I never claimed to be perfect, but all of a sudden you are trying to hold me to that impossible standard. Is this the length you need to go to justify your argument or try to 'win' the discussion? I had higher hopes to be honest.


Credibility is not the same as intention. You are now using a different term to try and reconcile your point. Nobody knows my intentions better than myself. Just as I don't know your intentions better than you. We can make assumptions, but they are based on only the information we choose to share, which may or may not be truthful in and of itself.

So, in this portion of the thread I have not asked you to weigh my credibility when I was talking about my intention. I have stated that my intention was not to be deliberately insulting. If you choose not to accept this then you can use your argument to not accept anything for any reason.

Here EoC says he was "mildly insulting" but "hey nobody is perfect." Compare/contrast this with the highlighted language about no deliberate or intentional insults. EoC concedes that asking someone if they're stupid may be mildly insulting, but asserts it was not deliberate or intentional. What wasn't intentional, saying it out loud? (added 11/6)
Credibility is not the same as intention. What EoC has done, and will continue to do, is make assertions that he wants us to take as credible. EoC says that his assertion of intent cannot be contradicted or disbelieved because he says so. Readers are entitled to review his body of posts here and arrive at their own conclusions.




What I notice in most of the posts from you three is statements on a subject either prefaced by disparaging remarks about the audience or interlaced with assumptions about the audiences' abilities or even just about the audience. @dneal practices all this regularly, @kazoolaw goes for the more furtive interlacing.. @724Seney just posts vitriol, only rarely addressing the topic of the thread.

Do you disagree with this assessment of what you write here? Or would you prefer to ignore what I've just said, cleave to the idea that your own lives should remain unexamined, and just go after me again? As before what do actually expect to realistically achieve here? And that's an honest and direct question.

EoC begins by saying I have disparaged readers, or made assumptions about audience ability, or about the audience. No examples supplied. "Furtive interlacing" sounds impressive. For a term without meaning.
Yes, EoC, I disagree with your assessment. I've not ignored your faulty characterization of my comments, I've shown you have cited no evidence, and created a meaningless vocabulary. Your first question is direct and may well be honest. Your second is not. My realistic expectation is to document your posts so that they don't disappear, and respond to your style of argument. Some of your posts require more than casual scanning to appreciate their sophistication.





Here's the question again, to save your mad scrambling through past posts:

What do you realistically expect to achieve by your caustic approach to engagement in this forum?


I love editing. It's going to be my new thing. Get ready to quote early ladies, you never know how things will change!

Sorry I didn't catch the first formulation of the question, but "caustic wasn't in it.
In an attempt at humor/sarcasm EoC states he loves to edit his posts, because we "never know how things will change." My hypothesis is that edits always work in EoC's favor.




Have you canvassed everyone? Really you are just talking about three people. The best of generosity suggests this is hyperbole, but as it's you I can see this as an attempt at a gaslighting lie.

Is that so????????
Let me refresh your memory.......

Check out post #31 of this thread:
https://fpgeeks.com/forum/showthread.php/37139-Is-FPGeeks-still-a-pleasant-place-to-stay?p=364710#post364710

Look familiar?? Still want to maintain that it is only three people???

PS: For anyone who does not have the time to follow the link, the referenced post says this about our pal EoC and his well practiced victim mentality:

"Be aware that well-practiced manipulation techniques were just applied...again. I suggest not being taken in or feeling sorry.

This very same pattern has been exhibited over the years that have sought to shift responsibility, blame and even guilt for misbehavior onto other members as part of some kind of emotional neediness. Then there are these publicly declared departures to elicit sympathy - only to drift back into the forum again for a honeymoon period until the misbehavior begins anew. A search on member ID and the word "goodbye" will show just a sliver of the history and the grudges.

Like a close call with a con artist, learn the lesson what to watch out for and ignore, then move on to enjoy this community with the majority of its members and our pens!"

The highlighted link is to a series of posts referencing EoC and reactions to him. Not all are critical of him.
There is also a series of saved posts in the Topic Kabul and Responsibility

[Empty_of_Clouds]

That's hilarious :) that you feel some weird need to spend so much time trawling through threads to try and score points. Kind of a low-level ambition.


The standing question for you is: What do you realistically expect to achieve with your caustic approach to interacting on this forum? from post #154 - I'll use this is as the definitive version of the question that Seney is so tellingly averse to answering. Other versions don't differ much in intent, except in the minds of the point scorers.

Kind of sadly amusing that you make such a big deal about variations in how I phrased a question but are completely oblivious to the fact that you substituted credibility for intention, two words with quite different meanings, just to further your own narrative.


EoC says that his assertion of intent cannot be contradicted or disbelieved because he says so. Readers are entitled to review his body of posts here and arrive at their own conclusions. It's so funny that you think your remote conclusions have more weight than a statement of fact from the source. And then you state that my conclusions about you are wrong because you say so. Bit illogical, and frankly disingenuous.

You hold me to an absolute standard but don't demonstrate such adherence yourselves.

Here, in this particular part of the forum, I will treat you as you treat me. If you find that inconsistent, I don't give a shit.

Anyway, troll away. You will find it unprofitable.

[dneal]

EoC seems to believe that multiple pages of obfuscation are to his benefit, so let’s revisit where these many pages of nonsense began.

Post #108, EoC interjects himself into the disagreement between TSherbs and myself, quoting portions of my post #107:





I've offered contrition several times. I've started threads trying to reconcile.

But never actually followed through with any sincerity. I think that would be a good start, but it requires sustained application. If I can do it, being a substandard human in some members eyes, I am sure you can.


I have absolutely zero problem pissing any of you off, and I haven't even put any effort into it yet.

One does not have to put effort into a default position.

As I said quite a while back, taking the attitude of 'I'll do it if someone else goes first' doesn't really cut it. Better to be a pioneer.

Note: I started my change in attitude on 27th June, so I am now into my 5th month. Give it a try! :)

I note to him how this will turn out - and an opportunity to avoid the inevitable, which he declines (posts #109 and #110).

Of note in EoC’s post #110:

- That I am insincere (is this another not-insult he has been refraining from since June?). I would point him to the Ukraine thread, or the Retirement thread as two quick examples of sincere attempts.

- That I have taken an attitude of “I’ll do it if someone else goes first”, which is clearly not my repeatedly stated position of responding in kind.

- That he will not respond to those who will pile on to his injecting of himself into the dispute:


That may be true, but the pile-on people will get no response from me; they'll be creating an echo chamber of their own devising.

This is demonstrably untrue, as we see multiple pages of EoC in fact responding.

Post #110 continues with:


To be better, to at least have civil conversations, and to refrain from simply insulting other members should be the least standard that we can aspire to. Others, like myself, may want to go further. Good. Some will no doubt find such suggestions are challenging and perhaps a bit scary. Good. Nothing will change without people being proactive. Don't wait for the other guy to start.

My response in post #111 is:


EoC - I think your view is skewed. Feel free to browse the threads I've started in the last 12 months or so, and see who put forth the good faith effort (or 'sincerity', to use your term) and who didn't. I frequently note where they go wrong, the post number, and the poster responsible.

I have had my fill of unsubstantiated accusations, and I view your assertion that I'll be nice if someone else goes first to be one of those. Show your work, so to speak, and do it fairly; and I'll consider it fairly.

My position remains zero tolerance for bullshit, which includes duplicity or disingenuousness; and I will respond to it as I like.

He responds, beginning his deflection/weaseling.


Sustained good faith effort is the key.


I have had my fill of unsubstantiated accusations, and I view your assertion that I'll be nice if someone else goes first to be one of those.

That wasn't aimed at you specifically although it does relate to a specific member, but was rather a suggestion simply for us all to effect this change rather than waiting on others. Lead rather than follow. Sorry if you thought that was a personal remark, wasn't intended to be, more just hasty writing on my part and failing to be as accurate as I should be.


My position remains zero tolerance for bullshit, which includes duplicity or disingenuousness; and I will respond to it as I like.

If you respond with insult, rudeness and so on, then you are helping to create the poor quality of the environment. Rise above it, be an example! :)

It is perfectly clear that EoC was offered an opportunity to substantiate his assertions, and that I would consider them fairly. It is also perfectly clear that I reiterated my position on unsubstantiated accusations - which his are.

It is also readily apparent that EoC begins his deflecting/weaseling, now claiming my posts he is quoting and responding directly to weren’t aimed specifically at me.

The example he advocates in the last two sentences of post #112 (and certainly fails to exemplify) prompts a question that I pose in post #113:


Bold has been a shining example of the approach you advocate. How has that worked out for him?

I do rhetorically tell him there’s no need to respond, and why; because (to paraphrase another poster) this is a well-practiced tactic, and I have no intention of entertaining it.


No need to respond. Not only have you not offered any substantiation, you're already backtracking on your assertions, which unambiguously referred to me.

Also note where EoC has demanded an answer to a question he posed in an attempt to turn the tables (typical of his well-practiced deflecting/weaseling), he never offered an answer to the question I posed (rhetorical “no need to respond” notwithstanding).

So here we are, half a dozen or so pages later, with EoC continuing his no-response policy with deflection, weaseling, and obfuscation; constituting hypocrisy on multiple levels.

—break—

I must say that I find this particular post especially delicious though, as he attempts to contradict my prediction of what his next weasel will be - by restating it!





Here's the question again, to save your mad scrambling through past posts:

What do you realistically expect to achieve by your caustic approach to engagement in this forum?

Note that I am not talking just about your deplorable conduct toward me, but also toward others.

That was the question, which I note you have refused to answer yet again.

Excuse me..... but the way I act / interact with others is, quite simply, none of your damn business.
There you go. Asked & answered.

Now, it's your turn Mr. "5 Months With No Insults." Please explain how your characterization of me as "deplorable" is not an insult?

Oooh, ooooh, He didn't say YOU were deplorable, he was just talking about your conduct. Not an intentional insult, don't ya know. That's completely up to the writer!

You will no doubt have seen that I used the terms 'deplorable conduct' in the quote above. Funny how you spin that to mean that I said he was a deplorable person. Whatever floats yer boat I guess, but that was just egregious.

If this doesn’t exemplify the complete absurdity of this “kerfuffle”, I don’t know what does.

Lastly, it would be interesting for EoC to pose his “what do you realistically expect to achieve…” question to himself; and give us an answer. But since he’s not responding to the pile on, I suppose we’ll never find out.

[dneal]

That's hilarious :) that you feel some weird need to spend so much time trawling through threads to try and score points. Kind of a low-level ambition.

I don't know about kaz, but it's certainly no trouble for me. I would think a highly competent / MENSA 148 / blah, blah, blah... wouldn't find substantiating his argument difficult either.


You hold me to an absolute standard but don't demonstrate such adherence yourselves.

Here, in this particular part of the forum, I will treat you as you treat me. If you find that inconsistent, I don't give a shit.

Anyway, troll away. You will find it unprofitable.

You introduced a standard when you injected yourself into this, in your lecture.

You've stolen my position, as you said you would; but we all know you do give a shit. That's why you repeatedly threaten to leave, and delete your posts in a futile attempt to hide the evidence (as kaz rightly points out).

There's certainly a troll here, and I've caught you in a simple trap devised for it. "Trump was right". Now run along and delete the post in there before someone quotes it!

There's only one person who I suspect will find all this unprofitable.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

There he is! The other dishonest member of the trio. Well done on another nasty post. You must be proud!

Here's the question again for Seney, although really it could apply to all three of you fairly equally:

The standing question is: What do you realistically expect to achieve with your caustic approach to interacting on this forum?



You have given me no reason to trust anything you say. All the effort you're going to does amuse me though. Keep it up! :)


Edit: the juvenile psych-type statements intended to try and elicit a response that would satisfy you don't really work on me. Have you learned nothing? I was right about you though. Not a man of his word, not someone to be trusted.

Edit a 2nd time to note that you don't appear to be able to parse my statements accurately. I don't give a shit if you find me inconsistent. It is also extremely funny that you believe you know my motives and intentions. You don't. Neither does the other guy, but those are the kinds of delusion harboured by arrogant people.

[dneal]

My question came first. Bold exemplifies the behavior you are advocating. How has that worked out for him?

[dneal]

There he is! The other dishonest member of the trio. Well done on another nasty post. You must be proud!

Here's the question again for Seney, although really it could apply to all three of you fairly equally:

The standing question is: What do you realistically expect to achieve with your caustic approach to interacting on this forum?



You have given me no reason to trust anything you say. All the effort you're going to does amuse me though. Keep it up! :)


Edit: the juvenile psych-type statements intended to try and elicit a response that would satisfy you don't really work on me. Have you learned nothing? I was right about you though. Not a man of his word, not someone to be trusted.

Edit a 2nd time to note that you don't appear to be able to parse my statements accurately. I don't give a shit if you find me inconsistent. It is also extremely funny that you believe you know my motives and intentions. You don't. Neither does the other guy, but those are the kinds of delusion harboured by arrogant people.

Quoting for posterity.

Well done exemplifying the behavior you advocate!

[Empty_of_Clouds]

No, my question comes first in the pertinent part of this thread. Now you are weaseling, but you've often demonstrated that trait, so it's merely familiar. Hey! remember the last time you tried to escalate a trolling attack? Didn't work as you wanted as I recall. Didn't learn anything from it either it appears.

[dneal]

No, my question comes first in the pertinent part of this thread. Now you are weaseling, but you've often demonstrated that trait, so it's merely familiar. Hey! remember the last time you tried to escalate a trolling attack? Didn't work as you wanted as I recall. Didn't learn anything from it either it appears.

"The pertinent part of this thread..."

More weaseling.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

There he is! The other dishonest member of the trio. Well done on another nasty post. You must be proud!

Here's the question again for Seney, although really it could apply to all three of you fairly equally:

The standing question is: What do you realistically expect to achieve with your caustic approach to interacting on this forum?



You have given me no reason to trust anything you say. All the effort you're going to does amuse me though. Keep it up! :)


Edit: the juvenile psych-type statements intended to try and elicit a response that would satisfy you don't really work on me. Have you learned nothing? I was right about you though. Not a man of his word, not someone to be trusted.

Edit a 2nd time to note that you don't appear to be able to parse my statements accurately. I don't give a shit if you find me inconsistent. It is also extremely funny that you believe you know my motives and intentions. You don't. Neither does the other guy, but those are the kinds of delusion harboured by arrogant people.

Quoting for posterity.

Well done exemplifying the behavior you advocate!


Quoted for asininity.


Already stated, gloves are off in this part of the forum. It's what you three seem to want. None of you want a civil forum, you want conflict. You got it. I will 'speak' to you with the same intent you 'speak' to me. I wonder if that makes you happy? Well, who gives a shit. :P

[Empty_of_Clouds]

No, my question comes first in the pertinent part of this thread. Now you are weaseling, but you've often demonstrated that trait, so it's merely familiar. Hey! remember the last time you tried to escalate a trolling attack? Didn't work as you wanted as I recall. Didn't learn anything from it either it appears.

"The pertinent part of this thread..."

More weaseling.

More deflection, and evasion.

[dneal]

There he is! The other dishonest member of the trio. Well done on another nasty post. You must be proud!

Here's the question again for Seney, although really it could apply to all three of you fairly equally:

The standing question is: What do you realistically expect to achieve with your caustic approach to interacting on this forum?

You have given me no reason to trust anything you say. All the effort you're going to does amuse me though. Keep it up! :)

Edit: the juvenile psych-type statements intended to try and elicit a response that would satisfy you don't really work on me. Have you learned nothing? I was right about you though. Not a man of his word, not someone to be trusted.

Edit a 2nd time to note that you don't appear to be able to parse my statements accurately. I don't give a shit if you find me inconsistent. It is also extremely funny that you believe you know my motives and intentions. You don't. Neither does the other guy, but those are the kinds of delusion harboured by arrogant people.

Quoting for posterity.

Well done exemplifying the behavior you advocate!


Quoted for asininity.


Already stated, gloves are off in this part of the forum. It's what you three seem to want. None of you want a civil forum, you want conflict. You got it. I will 'speak' to you with the same intent you 'speak' to me.

That bolded part sounds like an insult. My, how easily you fall off your high-horse.

Let's revisit your post again:


That may be true, but the pile-on people will get no response from me; they'll be creating an echo chamber of their own devising. I only delete posts that are no longer needed or whose message has expired.

To be better, to at least have civil conversations, and to refrain from simply insulting other members should be the least standard that we can aspire to. Others, like myself, may want to go further. Good. Some will no doubt find such suggestions are challenging and perhaps a bit scary. Good. Nothing will change without people being proactive. Don't wait for the other guy to start. As I've quoted before:

“We but mirror the world. All the tendencies present in the outer world are to be found in the world of our body. If we could change ourselves, the tendencies in the world would also change. As a man changes his own nature, so does the attitude of the world change towards him. This is the divine mystery supreme. A wonderful thing it is and the source of our happiness. We need not wait to see what others do.” – Mahatma Gandhi

Simple hypocrite, or habitual liar? There's a lot of evidence for the latter. Maybe that's a root cause of your trust problem. Thieves expect everyone else to steal from them, as the metaphor goes. But you don't have to trust me, I'm just quoting your posts. You can go back and verify for yourself.

Congrats on another page of not-responding, by the way.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

Ooh, another nasty post. Apparently it's all you're capable of.


Already stated, gloves are off in this part of the forum. It's what you three seem to want. None of you want a civil forum, you want conflict. You got it. I will 'speak' to you with the same intent you 'speak' to me.

You've invited the above, and now that you're getting it you snivel.

Here's the question for those who missed Seney's evasion the first 50 times around:

The standing question is: What do you realistically expect to achieve with your caustic approach to interacting on this forum?

[dneal]

Ooh, another nasty post. Apparently it's all you're capable of.


Already stated, gloves are off in this part of the forum. It's what you three seem to want. None of you want a civil forum, you want conflict. You got it. I will 'speak' to you with the same intent you 'speak' to me.

You've invited the above, and now that you're getting it you snivel.

Here's the question for those who missed Seney's evasion the first 50 times around:

The standing question is: What do you realistically expect to achieve with your caustic approach to interacting on this forum?

Why are you demanding I answer a question you posed to Seney?

You do realize I'm not Seney, right?

You're looking a little unhinged right now. Perhaps go practice what you like to preach?

It's midnight here, I'm off to bed.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

Because on reflection it really applies to all three of you, even though you have already admitted to posting nasty stuff because you think it is fun. Trolls for lolz ay!

[dneal]

Because on reflection it really applies to all three of you, even though you have already admitted to posting nasty stuff because you think it is fun. Trolls for lolz ay!

Can you substantiate that, or is it another empty accusation?

Hint: it misrepresents what I actually said, which was a conditional (if/then) statement.

[kazoolaw]

That's hilarious :) that you feel some weird need to spend so much time trawling through threads to try and score points. Kind of a low-level ambition.

from post #154 - I'll use this is as the definitive version of the question that Seney is so tellingly averse to answering. Other versions don't differ much in intent, except in the minds of the point scorers.

Kind of sadly amusing that you make such a big deal about variations in how I phrased a question but are completely oblivious to the fact that you substituted credibility for intention, two words with quite different meanings, just to further your own narrative.


EoC says that his assertion of intent cannot be contradicted or disbelieved because he says so. Readers are entitled to review his body of posts here and arrive at their own conclusions. It's so funny that you think your remote conclusions have more weight than a statement of fact from the source. And then you state that my conclusions about you are wrong because you say so. Bit illogical, and frankly disingenuous.

You hold me to an absolute standard but don't demonstrate such adherence yourselves.

Here, in this particular part of the forum, I will treat you as you treat me. If you find that inconsistent, I don't give a shit.

Anyway, troll away. You will find it unprofitable.

EoC finds that quoting his posts is trolling. Any points scored are by EoC in an own goal.
He pretends that I've not responded to his question(s). My response remains the same: "My realistic expectation is to document your posts so that they don't disappear, and respond to your style of argument." Post 234
Repeats his position that a reader cannot assess the credibility of his claims, because he says so. Common sense in daily life reflects that are constantly deciding whether statements and speakers are truthful. There are any number of verbal and visual clues we consider in our evaluation.
If you've the time, re-read EoC's posts with an eye toward whether he infers the intent of others based on his own words being quoted to at him.





There he is! The other dishonest member of the trio. Well done on another nasty post. You must be proud!

Here's the question again for Seney, although really it could apply to all three of you fairly equally:

The standing question is: What do you realistically expect to achieve with your caustic approach to interacting on this forum?



You have given me no reason to trust anything you say. All the effort you're going to does amuse me though. Keep it up! :)


Edit: the juvenile psych-type statements intended to try and elicit a response that would satisfy you don't really work on me. Have you learned nothing? I was right about you though. Not a man of his word, not someone to be trusted.

Edit a 2nd time to note that you don't appear to be able to parse my statements accurately. I don't give a shit if you find me inconsistent. It is also extremely funny that you believe you know my motives and intentions. You don't. Neither does the other guy, but those are the kinds of delusion harboured by arrogant people.

Quoting for posterity.

Well done exemplifying the behavior you advocate!


Quoted for asininity.


Already stated, gloves are off in this part of the forum. It's what you three seem to want. None of you want a civil forum, you want conflict. You got it. I will 'speak' to you with the same intent you 'speak' to me. I wonder if that makes you happy? Well, who gives a shit. :P

In responding to Post EoC repeats his debate tactics: (1) ignores and then mischaracterizes a plain response to his repeated question, which (2) was posed to avoid the focus on his own posts, (3) tries to conflate "intention" and "credibility" to argue that no one can weigh the credibility of his statements in this topic despite (4) the evidence in his posts in the pen for sale topic and the Lounge topic linked by 724Seney, and (5) his repeated deletions and edits of prior posts, which in the legal arena is the destruction/spoliation of evidence, then (6) repeats a variation of his initial question, pretending that it has not been answered repeatedly.
Re-read EoC's own words and make your own assessment of their credibility.