Mightyboosh doesn't even need a post in the thread to get some drive by insults from Aaron.

Vintage Aaron.

The impotent behavior police would like to remind everyone that he disapproves of certain behaviors. And even though he got his hand slapped for it, he really, really wants you to know this.

A strange interpretation. When original position moved our posts to this thread (where I agree they are more apt), you might remember a particular request to not engage in personal insults and negativity. It's kind of sad that you ignored that so quickly, and even got a lick in on Mightyboosh this time!

Heh -- I didn't even notice they were moved. I just assumed they were deleted.

But in any event, you might want to actually read the warning more carefully.

Edit: I also pointed out the MB similarities far earlier in the thread than you've observed. I consider the comparison fair when we've had to repeat the same point several times and the fundamental errors remain.

Oh, I'm sorry that I didn't read every one of your posts to see that you bashed Mightyboosh on three separate occasions in your on topic thread, not just once. Pardon me! He doesn't even have to post in the thread anymore to be your punching bag.

It was never the case that he had to.

A sad admission. While in other threads your insults of Mightboosh fail to"respect the tone" - as the rules prohibit - set by his OPs at least he actually had made an OP even if he had put you on ignore. There was at least some semblance that your insults could be "on topic" and connected to his posts in a given thread. But what we see here is your harassment is so egregious that even in threads where he doesn't show up once, your insults towards him continue repeatedly. You should have picked up that he wasn't - as the the rules state - "not looking for a fight" when he ignored listed you for years. But when he isn't even posting in the thread, you should be able to finally clue in. Apparently not.

The impotent behavior police would like to remind everyone that referencing another poster is prohibited under his rules, but he can't enforce that. So anyone who mentions another poster that hasn't posted in the thread will get a severe wagging of the finger, and everyone else will have to sit through his whining.

He also wants to remind everyone that, despite claiming that MB is not "looking for a fight," MB puts up a fight anyway but we should all pretend he doesn't.

Pretty much anyone who posts in a public forum can pretty much expect a fight, even if not specifically looking for one. Public forums are not for the thin-skinned.

This post fairly clearly reveals fundamental misunderstandings of the issue. The problem isn't mentioning other posters. The problem is that you repeatedly insulted Mightyboosh. Acrimonious posts are allowed but the rules clearly give a reciprocity. Your immature playground style insults to Bill, for instance, were acrimonious but - as the rules allow - reflected acrimony that he also engaged in with you in that thread. It's sad but not against the rules (except maybe being off topic) that the rest of us have to "sit through" gems like this:
But Mightyboosh did not do that. He didn't post in the thread. He didn't insult you in that thread or any other. He didn't act "acrimoniously" such that you were "respecting his tone" with a acrimonious response. He put you on ignore for years and tried to have nothing to do with you. There is no need for you to repeatedly insult him in a thread he was not in any way a part of.

Your second paragraph is also bizarre. MB certainly fully argues his points with other - not you - people. But the observation in the forum rules that not everyone is looking for a fight is about respecting the tone and level of acrimony of your fellow posters.

Sure. But we have rules that specifically cite respecting the tone of others, that not everyone is looking for a fight, and to save acrimonious posts for acrimonious threads. That might be a bad rule (I presumed for years it was an obsolete relic of a very different era of the forum), it might be a rule that is too hard to meaningfully enforce, but it is a de jure and putative de facto rule for this forum.

You mean by using MB's posting style as a reference point to warn a poster that he's coming in from a point of ignorance? I'm not sorry that this isn't a safe space for willful ignorance. And I don't care that this is a meaningful reference point within the forum. That it offends you means nothing to me.

Right... the "tone" argument.

But don't you *dare* say something that could potentially offend the impotent behavior police's sensibilities by leveling a directed comment at someone's ability to make arguments. That's totally off limits. Respect the tone. It is forever the case that whatever Mightyboosh says, no matter how ignorant, no matter how factually inaccurate, and no matter what insults he chooses to sling, that his tone is always perfect. There is no acrimony ever in MB's posting.

Maybe I should whine more to respect the impotent police's tone.

What's ironic for me is that when I post I really try hard to keep it as impersonal and matter of fact as possible but I have a habit of responding in kind sometimes, I react to the tone being used with me, and the problem with Aaron is he was so horrible it made me start being that horrible back and I didn't enjoy that at all. Plus, it's just really inelegant, being horrible doesn't make you right about anything, it just makes you horrible.

I think this Shaw quote sums it up nicely. "I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it."

Right.

Totally in-kind posting for something that's not even directed at you.

It was such a terrible, terrible thing that I called you out for being factually incorrect about Thales of Miletus. That you thought it was a "misrepresentation" for me to quote you back to yourself. How dare I do such a thing.

We have someone playing the victim card, and then an em-pathetic enabler.

Just lol at using comments about Billy Graham - a public figure in the thread about that public figure - as a bizarre justification that you were respecting Mightboosh's tone when repeatedly insulting him in a thread he didn't even post in and besides has had you on ignore for years.

Ye, while I agree with you that MB does react, perhaps not nastily, but rudely or with personal attack at times, I dont think the Billy Graham example is relevant.

Are you denying a shift in the tone relative to the OP? Do yo believe that MB "respected" the tone of the OP? Or is that not actually the standard you're applying here, and instead using a different type of analysis?

This would also be a rejection of the general underlying tone of MB's posts. It is absolutely true that his posts contain general derision and mockery of people of religious perspectives. My use of this one was more for convenience than lack of example.

The difference here is that I'm using your specific standard and showing you how your stated standard doesn't seem to apply. I don't actually care what MB says in that thread about his perspective on Billy Graham (and Franklin Graham). I'm simply pointing out

(1) Factual errors about the claims of MB's posting
(2) That you "tone" argument isn't being applied in a uniform manner.

I think MB *should* be able to post what he did. I don't think there's a problem with that. But if you have a problem with the "tone" of replies, then you should be appalled by his post. But you're not. And we know why.

-----

MB doesn't respect the tone. He has underlying antagonism towards all things religious. It comes out in many ways. He's not the darling of kind posters and he's ignorant of his own tendencies. Perhaps willfully so.

I disagree. If the argument is about "respecting the tone of the OP" then the fact that MB's post does not is sufficient to show hypocrisy on uke's argumentation.

Again, not that I think MB shouldn't be able to post what he did. I'm simply showing that uke's "tone" argument seems to fail unless he also thinks that MB should be chastised for his post... but he doesn't.

Since the day I started reading this forum, I found MB to be the most annoying poster in here, mostly because he coupled being extremely condescending and patronizing, with being patently wrong and ignorant.

Things haven't changed much over the years.

lol pretty terrible whataboutism

LOL. No. It's like you suck at this pretty hard.

I'm not justifying my behavior through MB's behavior. I'm not even changing the topic to a different perceived violation. I think both behaviors are perfectly acceptable. I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of your position. You have tied yourself very tightly to the "respect the tone" argument by having repeated it probably a dozen times by this point in various threads. But when your favorite poster violates it, you want to ignore it. That's not whataboutism at all. I'll own my behavior. I'm not trying to deflect from the fact that I've made unflattering comparisons involving MB.

It's an argument about consistency of the application of your standard. This is directly and completely the same thing. Mightyboosh did NOT "respect the tone" of the OP. You should be upset. But you're not. Because hypocrisy.

If you truly believe that your understanding ought to be the standard, then you should be principled enough to stand on it. Otherwise, you're just a dishonest hack.

Endless insults towards someone who has you on ignore, who doesn’t even need to post in the thread to be on the recieving end of your invective, and who is neither acrimonious to you or indicates wanting any form of fight with you is just loltastically incomparable to commenting negatively about a public figure in a thread about that public figure.

I'm only adding my contribution here because I too had considered making a similar quip (e.g. "Committing tu quoque is beneath you" *): pointing out someone's hypocrisy seems to be precisely what tu quoque / whataboutism means.


Wiki:
Tu quoque or the appeal to hypocrisy is an informal logical fallacy that intends to discredit the opponent's argument by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with its conclusion(s)

Whataboutism (also known as whataboutery) is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument


* Beneath you because you have already taken on uke_master's issue (wrt anti-MB posts) elsewhere, without any reference to hypocrisy. So these separate comments stood out as being quite unnecessary.

I get sarcastic for sure, and when I feel that someone is using a 'biting' tone with me, I often find myself doing it back (but really don't like that I do that), but I wouldn't want to think I get rude and I would never make a personal attack because using Ad homs is just pointless and a basic logical failure. I might have said things that were perceived as personal attacks but they wouldn't have been.

I'm having a conversation with OrP, someone who never ever gets personal, and the tone has been exactly what I hope for in every conversation I ever have. It just doesn't always work out that way.

I see what happened. There were two threads leaving at the same time, and I'm on a thread that took a different junction than the rest of y'all.

1) I gave a response directed AT Mightyboosh. Mightyboosh claimed "I react to the tone being used with me" and I showed an example in which he did not do that.

2) Uke responded in the next post, making the "Billy Graham" comment.

3) I called uke a hypocrite because he's not applying the same standard to MB as he applied to me.

The divergence of the threads of thought happened because uke's comment was interpreted about being with regards to my comment AT Mightboosh.

Rather, uke's comment was directed at the post *before* that one. I agree that my second paragraph response to him in that post would qualify as whataboutism because I grabbed an example out of laziness that did not apply. There are other examples and counter-positions I could have used, but I did not.

But if uke wants defend that MB's comment was an in-kind response using the tone that was used with him, *that* would be hypocritical.