Unless that person is me. Then, go right ahead.

I've seen you say stuff like this a few times and I don't understand. Who has targeted you IRL?

I 'm quite happy, no tragedy to dwell upon at the present. Thanks for asking.

You've been around the track, have tried to hijack the train, rob the train. Technically you have even called the train racist. You probably had no idea you were on a train until after it did not stop at any of the early stations. Doesn't matter to me. It's the Internet railroad history buffs that really can't resist ya.

I'm going all hippy and becoming one with the train. The train is an illusion. A toy people made and think you, or you, or I should play with.

Choo Choo mutha****a! The train ain't got nothing on me when I'm one with the tracks.

It's really difficult to root for you, spank.

I stuck up for you and gave some sincere, constructive, advice. You give the impression that it's welcome when you make noises in recognition of the problem and suggesting you want to improve. Other posters gave me flak for making that post and they are vindicated because you didn't even acknowledge it. I wasted my time.

If you don't GAF about improving, stop stringing people along by saying that you do. If you did care, I'd think a thread where the topic at hand is your writing style would be the place to make an effort. Instead, your writing here is beyond turgid. I counted a 50 word sentence a few posts ago. 50 words! Are you Jack Kerouac's grandson or something?

I don't like pack behaviour; I think it's ugly and I consciously avoid participating. I can 100% see how you've attracted this behaviour towards yourself, though.

This quote shows you all you need to know about whether spank actually cares about improving:

When someone thinks that they are right in the face of criticism from 99% of everyone else, you can't help them. It was once different, but somewhere down the line spank decided that anyone criticising his 'language capabilities' is either wrong or a troll.

That "somewhere down the line" might have a lot to do with the emergence of the "all pile on spank" trend. Not difficult to see how somebody becomes cynical and distrustful in the face of that. Which is why I defend him on principle even if it is difficult to do so.

Of course, I think I actually restructured that post quickly and wrote 'down the line' instead of 'after the fiasco' or something. I'm not saying there's no reason for it, but that's what has happened.

You also speak correctly about the pack mentality here and that strongly opposes your approach.

You may be being too hopeful to think defending the individual can change much quickly either in the behavior of the individual or in the pack.

It's weird to me that people complain about a pack mentality. When everyone is saying something is wrong it's not because they all agree on everything. For instance, it seems ikes and I agree on Spank for the most part but we disagree on almost everything else.

It's not about disagreeing on something. It's about the way a group deal with it.

Eta: an obvious example was the move to exclude Spank

Alex, you're a lying sack of **** who tried to smear another poster and everyone here knows it.

Packs generally stick together. People coming together on a specific subject doesn't really meet that definition, to me.

Like if some guy came in here and started dropping n bombs and other nonsense should I say it's a shame there's pack mentality when you and others don't want him around?

I've been fairly active over night but I didn't see him respond to my question about how he's been targeted IRL by people here. Did he ever say?

I'm agreeing with Alex, bitterman, so, y'know, hopefully that isn't viewed as piling on.

Some things are totally unacceptable -- dropping n bombs is one of them. That's nothing to do with the vote to exclude spank and nothing to do with having different views/approaches on most topics or even just opposing the pack mentality.

So others have a different view on what should be unacceptable.

No, and given that he also said he uses Peter Porker because it was a bad idea to use his real name yet posted on the AlexM account last month, and how much he likes calling people out on victimising him, and that he was in fact pretty close to doing this exact thing to someone else and defended it to the core, I'm pretty sure he's lying

Am I supposed to freak out and be a victim when people call me Joe? Never crossed my mind.

Personally, I, myself, don't and can't see any issue/problem with writing responsive posts that contain large amount quantities of redundant and/or excessive synonyms of words that mean the same.

What you were responding to was about smearing someone's screen name, to which you replied:

I'd be incredibly careful doing something like this (and I mean don't do it) because... people sometimes use their screen name for real life activities.

No idea why you're moving the goal posts to IRL.

You just quoted the explanation.

You responded to my post about IRL by implying it has happened to you. Did you not mean it that way?

Like, if I make a 'Alex' or 'Peter' gimmick to mock you here I don't think it affects you in any way as those are super generic names that someone you work with, for instance, would have no way to tie to you. But if I made a 'Matt Sklansky' gimmick and started posting a ton of racist things that would be entirety different because 1) it's a much more specific name and 2) he does business here under that name.

Dude, I just said. You were responding to spank's post about smearing screen names. There was nothing IRL about it except you pointing out to not smear screen names because someone might use that screen name IRL, which is, of course, the exact reason I've stopped using that screen name.