The Blue Wall of Silence Is Starting to Crack

[Cow Poke]

Tell me, how is it that you can keep all those posts on file and at the ready, but then you ask someone to answer a question while editing out part of their post that already directly answers that question? How does that work?

It just hit me --- she's like the wife in the unhappy couple, where the husband realizes he's been a turd and wants to start over, and she launches into all the past and throws it in his face!

I had a couple like that last week that I was counseling --- she just couldn't let things go. When they left, my secretary came into my office and said, "yeah, I remember back in 1903 that you said...."

That's kind of a standing joke.... but if you can't let go of the past, you'll never improve the future.

[Cow Poke]

Alas, that's how she's been for years. Elsewhere beyond this forum there was one time where she did that regularly to one poster, and then finally that poster got fed up, started just responding to small parts of her posts and ignoring the rest, and boy, was there a fit thrown over that, that her posts that she spent time writing out were being ignored. Followed by a lot of grammar/word nitpicking. And then utter silence when she was called on the hypocrisy.

I'll be fine dealing with her if she stops the nonsense, I actually kinda like her for some odd reason. But just not playing the games.

And, yeah, she can go back and collet all kinds of posts to use as weapons, but she can't just converse without the nonsense.

[Cow Poke]

To be honest

That would be refreshing!

I do not think you are capable of putting aside your prejudices and emotions. You flaunt them too often.

Wow, I'm gonna lose another night's sleep worrying that some in Germany is unhappy because I don't play her little games.

[Gondwanaland]

Below are a few examples from this thread of what you presumably consider to be "serious" correspondence.



I have received such mature and adult introductory comments from you as:
And again:


Perhaps the following comment is what you consider to be dispassionate objectivity:



Not forgetting the citation 3 posts after that from a RW self-proclaimed “media watchdog” [Media Research Centre] as if the observations from that site offered definitive proof on the veracity and exactitude of your contentions.

When I pointed out that these topics are complicated I received this:



And this remark was made to another contributor:



When at post #113 I replied to your post point by point raising my own questions as necessary I got this in return at post # 114



The above selected examples, and I could have found a great many more, make it quite clear you have no desire to engage in any form of “serious” debate.

Your real objective [and I have noticed this in your treatment of other correspondents who disagree with you] is to harangue that individual with the intent that they will capitulate and acquiesce to you on every single point.

If your interlocutor declines or resists you, then you resort to your default position. You make unnecessary personal remarks either directly to that person or about them to other correspondent[s].

Yours is the behaviour one would expect to see in a nine year schoolyard bully and has nothing whatsoever to do with any real desire for a mature, dispassionate and objective exchange.

To be honest I do not think you are capable of putting aside your prejudices and emotions. You flaunt them too often.

Talk about some longwinded projection!

The uninformed opinions of QuantaFille merely echo your own prejudices. Nothing more.

Tell me, how is it that you can keep all those posts on file and at the ready, but then you ask someone to answer a question while editing out part of their post that already directly answers that question? How does that work?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Not only do you ignore my answers to your questions -- you ignore answering my own questions.



Until you start acting like a decent human being, I'm going to treat you like the pitiful little you are.

Time after time, I take the time to answer your questions, but you totally ignore them and start another round of ing.

How bout stepping up to the plate and prove you can actually be a serious 'correspondent'?

Below are a few examples from this thread of what you presumably consider to be "serious" correspondence.

This is actually an area of my expertise - compared to some ditzy dame from across the pond who knows absolutely nothing about this but appears to enjoy argument just for the same of arument alone.

I have received such mature and adult introductory comments from you as:

Well, first of all, that's a steaming pile of horsie poo –

And again:

What a steaming load of crap!

Perhaps the following comment is what you consider to be dispassionate objectivity:

They don't represent the teaching profession - they protect teachers - good or bad.The liberals have been in charge of public education for decades.
The liberals are supportive of the public school unions.
The public school unions give very generously to the liberal politicians.
So, yeah, it's the liberals, and you are showing your profound ignorance of the facts.

Not forgetting the citation 3 posts after that from a RW self-proclaimed “media watchdog” [Media Research Centre] as if the observations from that site offered definitive proof on the veracity and exactitude of your contentions.

When I pointed out that these topics are complicated I received this:

Obviously too complicated for your simplistic little mind.

And this remark was made to another contributor:

I think she's just a pride-filled old bitty for whom it's impossible to admit she's wrong.

When at post #113 I replied to your post point by point raising my own questions as necessary I got this in return at post # 114

How bout we stop the intensely fragmented parsing of every phrase, and bring it back to actual summary points, eh?

The above selected examples, and I could have found a great many more, make it quite clear you have no desire to engage in any form of “serious” debate.

Your real objective [and I have noticed this in your treatment of other correspondents who disagree with you] is to harangue that individual with the intent that they will capitulate and acquiesce to you on every single point.

If your interlocutor declines or resists you, then you resort to your default position. You make unnecessary personal remarks either directly to that person or about them to other correspondent[s].

Yours is the behaviour one would expect to see in a nine year schoolyard bully and has nothing whatsoever to do with any real desire for a mature, dispassionate and objective exchange.

To be honest I do not think you are capable of putting aside your prejudices and emotions. You flaunt them too often.

[Gondwanaland]

You appear to going for the options stated in your posts #288 and #363

Why? On what grounds?

How do you propose that could be achieved?

You've literally not been paying attention to anything this whole thread, haven't you?

EDIT: My bad, that was assuming too much honesty on your part which was absolutely silly of me to do. I see now from a quick look back that you deleted the next sentence he wrote in which he explained exactly why and on what grounds, and then went on to quote another statement he made after, deliberately leaving out the part of his post that answered your question.

[Gondwanaland]

Not only do you ignore my answers to your questions -- you ignore answering my own questions.



Until you start acting like a decent human being, I'm going to treat you like the pitiful little you are.

Time after time, I take the time to answer your questions, but you totally ignore them and start another round of ing.

How bout stepping up to the plate and prove you can actually be a serious 'correspondent'?

Alas, that's how she's been for years. Elsewhere beyond this forum there was one time where she did that regularly to one poster, and then finally that poster got fed up, started just responding to small parts of her posts and ignoring the rest, and boy, was there a fit thrown over that, that her posts that she spent time writing out were being ignored. Followed by a lot of grammar/word nitpicking. And then utter silence when she was called on the hypocrisy.

[CivilDiscourse]

Not only do you ignore my answers to your questions -- you ignore answering my own questions.



Until you start acting like a decent human being, I'm going to treat you like the pitiful little you are.

Time after time, I take the time to answer your questions, but you totally ignore them and start another round of ing.

How bout stepping up to the plate and prove you can actually be a serious 'correspondent'?

[Cow Poke]

You appear to going for the options stated in your posts #288 and #363

Not only do you ignore my answers to your questions -- you ignore answering my own questions.

My very first choice would be to get rid of all public sector unions.
Public Sector unions pit interests of the dues-paying members against the tax payers who pay their salaries.

Especially with regards to police and education.

If the unions can't be eliminated, then SERIOUSLY rein in or eliminate collective bargaining.

Did you take the time to Google the difference between Public and Private Sector Unions?

Until you start acting like a decent human being, I'm going to treat you like the pitiful little you are.

Time after time, I take the time to answer your questions, but you totally ignore them and start another round of ing.

How bout stepping up to the plate and prove you can actually be a serious 'correspondent'?

[Cow Poke]

You appear to going for the options stated in your posts #288 and #363

Why? On what grounds?


How do you propose that could be achieved?

I really REALLY wish you were a serious debater and not just a

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

You appear to going for the options stated in your posts #288 and #363

My very first choice would be to get rid of all public sector unions.

Why? On what grounds?

If the unions can't be eliminated, then SERIOUSLY rein in or eliminate collective bargaining.

How do you propose that could be achieved?

[Cow Poke]

Where did I say that you did? You really need to stop making things up.

She is never wrong, dear brudder - never, not even once.

[rogue06]

You quoted my words. Did you not understand them?



What archaic usage of words did I employ in my reply that Sparko quoted?

Where did I say that you did? You really need to stop making things up.

[Cow Poke]

Point taken.

My very first choice would be to get rid of all public sector unions.
Public Sector unions pit interests of the dues-paying members against the tax payers who pay their salaries.

Especially with regards to police and education.

If the unions can't be eliminated, then SERIOUSLY rein in or eliminate collective bargaining.

Did you take the time to Google the difference between Public and Private Sector Unions?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Yes!

Point taken.