Also, while I didn't do a full quote of the original post, I did say "I said 'XYZ'", and there was only one post in which I said 'XYZ', so I don't think I was ambiguous. I don't think there even would have been any confusion if a third person hadn't added his own mistaken interpretation, while admitted he was "grunching", meaning he hadn't even read all of the posts being discussed.

I agree that the whole thing was a misunderstanding and should have been brushed off quickly. The only reason it did not was that QP jumped to conclusions and said I was gaslighting him.

I would like to hear your take on the use of the term Gaslighting in this forum, with relation to what Boba, uke, and I said above.

But there was no "without context" there. I am fine with context. But if all you give is context, you aren't answering the question. I think a judge would agree. "please answer the question, witness".

Since he later said that I asked the wrong question, it's pretty clear he knew that he didn't answer that "wrong question".

That may well be. But unlike the courtroom analogy with the judge, no one here has the authority to say "answer the question". So it's either figure out another way to solicit the info you are seeking, or you have to move on.

If he had just said to begin with that he wouldn't answer the question, that would have stopped the incident and I would have moved on. The problem was his claiming over and over to have answered it.

Sometimes an alt name user may be given a chance to remain should his posting show a marked reform of the behavior that caused the ban and he becomes a valuable member of the forum. But any lapse into the dark side can result in alts reverting to a ban on sight status which applies to any alt names. As I said, I'm starting with a clean slate and am hopeful everyone will be considered valuable contributors.

But that's his prerogative. If you don't agree that he did, then move on. Don't go back and forth "over and over" on it. But it's hard to drop it.

So under the new mod the same poster can make these two posts within a few hours of each other:

And its fine, also fine to call people liars for pointing out this contradiction.

No, just no, and this seems like a clearly intentional calculated act of obfuscation. You are very plainly fudging here on purpose.

SS does not state he never said he was a libertarian, he makes a concrete claim not to be a libertarian:

This is a statement that can be viewed completely in a vacuum of previous statements.

Not much later in the thread, I do reference views SS has expressed in the past, but this is ultimately superfluous, because the issue SS accuses me of lying over is in the present.

I claim:

Here he is [now]. Again a statement about the present, not the past.

This is the statement leads to SS calling me a liar and also stating that he has never said he is not a Libertarian. He makes some noise over the use of " in any way" but that changes nothing.


When he claims never to have said he is not a Libertarian, off course this evokes lots of references to previous positions and there are several in the past X posts, but this all superfluous to the core issue, the important point is that he has made that claim in that very thread on the same day. On that very day he has claimed not to be a libertarian.

So on the same day (24H give or take) and in the same thread he states a clearly contradictory position and calls the poster who points this out a liar and claims never to have said something he said just a few posts prior.

It does not get more clear cut than this.

Yet you seem to have read all this in a way, that simply put, makes your life easier as a mod.

Knowing this forum, its hard to imagine it ever getting more clear cut than this.

I didn't see the original context, but from these clips alone I would guess he got confused by all the double negatives so contradicted himself.
It took me several readings to be sure the statements clashed.

Or was there any notable "strategic" reasons for him to change his claim?

Nope he clearly states that he is not a libertarian.

That is a clear declaration made with zero confusion.

When he claims to have never said he wasnt a libertarian ive said the exact opposite etc, again, its clearly said with clear understanding.

Very gracious apology:

Not really an apology at all, as that would have owned the mistake not projected it onto the other poster.

I don't know why you can't have a libertarian belief yet not be labelled a libertarian. It seems to me that every Democrat.or Republican who supported legalized weed falls into this category.

You can that is not the issue at all in anyway.

This issue is I am not X, I never said I am not X.

I'm not going to copy all the pertinent posts here, but to get a feel for the complete context of what was said one really needs to read all the posts between about #40 and 115. The selected quotes given in posts above omit some key responses and misses some context.

But at the heart of the issue is that when asked by IAM if he denies ever stating he was a libertarian, SS replied:

Two things here. First, he is referencing the past, not posts in this thread. And in context, it is referring to lagtight posts that are at least 6 months old. Earlier in this thread he states that he is neither a libertarian or anarchist. That is a present tense statement of his position today. It does not reference any past statements.

But the key in his reply about the past is that he says there are caveats, ie he is not simply saying he is a libertarian 100% but rather there are some libertarian positions he agrees with but some he doesnt.

This distinction is important because later when IAM states that SS claims he never said he was a libertarian IN ANY WAY... it is the "in any way" part that SS disputes. SS says that his libertarian with caveats statements clearly contradicts that he denied being a libertarian in any way.

It's confusing to follow this without sorting through all the posts. But if you do, you will find that it is not a simple case of SS saying one thing and then denying it in real time. Rather it is about SS stating his present day position, then admitting that in the past he made statements saying he was a libertarian with caveats. Then SS objecting to the characterization that he was denying saying in the past that he was a libertarian in any way.

So similar to the "only" situation, whether you include the words "with caveats" and "in any way" in those quotes can completely change ones understanding of what each side meant.

But again I want to emphasize that this entire derail began because the discussion veered away from the current topic being discussed in real time to a discussion about past statements made months ago versus today. That shift from discussing the subject to discussing the posters past statements derails the discussion that multiple posters are participating in, and changes it into a heads up off topic argument.

In addition to my own observations about these derails when I first came to the forum, this type of derail was cited by more posters as the number one problem I should address to improve the forum than any other. We need to keep the focus on the current thread topic. If you want to have a one on one debate with another poster about past positions I suggest either doing it by PM or take it to the Hi-Lo Content thread. But we cant continue having these dozen+ post derails snuffing out an ongoing discussion.

I have not even focused any attention on the :

Element of that reply.

It is probably the most bad faith element.

It was literally the first time.

So that is clear cut gaslighting, absolute stone cold in fact gaslighting.

I know that word gets bandied about, but here is it clear cut and absolute.

By his own full admission his previous statements on that issue he has made positive claims to at least some degree of libertarainism.

So its not just the claim that he is not X, its a claim that he has stated he is not X on "many" occasions.

I identify as a Marxist with important caveats.

How many times do I have to tell you I am not a Marxist or a [place holder].

Yep zero contradiction in those two statements.

Mod simply does not want to take responsibility.

SS had many good faith options in that spot, he could have admitted that he had never made "many" claims not to be a libertarian, because that is obviously false, and he could have explained that he has moved on from libertarianism but holds sympathy with a few of their positions.

Instead he chose a bad faith element of entrenching around the claim he has repeatedly claimed not to be a libertarian.

All the mod has done here is incentivise bad faith posting, he has shown its easy to get away with as long as you obfuscate enough, the mod will do nothing, and we can all expect more of it going forward from the usual suspects.

Good times.

I will make numerous claims to some degree of libertarianism then claim to have stated I am not a libertarian numerous times.

All perfectly fine under the new regime.

It boggles the mind how this is acceptable.

1. I suspect that most of political views are consistent with libertarianism.

2. But, I also hold a number of positions that are clearly inconsistent with libertarianism.

3. Based on that, the gentle reader can decide for him or her self whether I can be properly pigeon-holed as a Libertarian or not.

4. I'm both amazed and amused that what has been perceived by some folks as contradictory statements on my part has received so much attention!

But is it as mind-boggling as having a cow over it?

How many time have you told me prior to this that you are not a libertarian?

This issue has absolutely nothing to do with this, no one is pigeonholing you, they are simply holding you the truth of your own declarations.

I would have let it go until your again bad faith claim to have made an apology which was in fact a back handed insult over my comprehension skills.

This is the moderation thread, if the mod is going to let clear cut stone cold examples of bad faith posting go unmodded, then its clearly worth discussing here.

I got the impression that Browser has spent a ton of time evaluating this situation. Kinda the opposite of "unmodded" imo.

I'm kewl with this being discussed here until the cows come home. The discussion should continue to be both amusing and instructive.

I am taking responsibility. I have stated how these derails will be handled. You just don't agree with my decision, which is fine. I am going to move posts arguing over statements people made 6 months ago versus what they made today. They clog up the thread and contribute nothing to the current discussion.

I am not aware of that Carlin Meme, so can you quote it for me so i can see if indeed you understand it in a way that would show you are using it correctly.

I often cite another Carlin Meme and that certainly in, no way, fits this example so I am always curious as one of the biggest discrepancies here is many people THINK and PRETEND they understand the meme and yet can almost NEVER interpret or apply it appropriately to the situations. Thus why those same people continually walk into making the same mistake of the meme over and over.

I look forward to your citation.

Ok so to be clear.

I can argue I am Y for months maybe years and argue strongly and aggressively for Y positions then simply post one day that I have told people I am not Y "many" times.

Glad we have cleared that up.

FYI,

I had a debate with SS about 4 to 6 weeks ago where he identified as a libertarian and I argued he is actually a typical conservative and he refuted that claim.

He argued in the positive for being a libertarian not a conservative.

I can cite this, I looked at it yesterday.

When not that long after that exact poster asks "how many times must I tell you I am not a libertarian" of course this is bad faith.

Also when posters complain about the constant accusations of bad faith, its because these claims are never evinced or substantiated.

That is not what is happening here, its black and white cited and substantiated beyond doubt, and you do utterly fek all about it.

You are just a cookie cutter wishy washy mod and all your claims are dust.