Letterman campaigning for Franken? (vs., race, between)

[chessgeek]

Originally Posted by Glenfield

Give it up. Your posts are getting tiresome. No one will read 1,000 words on how great you are. Zzzzzzzz.......

You must have read those posts of yours again and know most of them fell way short of the mark where internet manners (that you accused me of lacking) are concerned. So this was the only type of reply possible. The reasonable tone of the thread was hijacked in your first post (from civil to attack/over-reaction). I tried to work it out and reach an "agree to disagree" mutual tone with you, but you would have none of that. I will continue to participate in this thread. Please take your own advice. Yawn.

[chessgeek]

Originally Posted by Grizzly Addams

They are all dingleberries.

Dingleberries...LOL. I have not heard that word in awhile. That is unique. Do you include David Letterman in that or was it just to describe politicians?

[Grizzly Addams]

Originally Posted by chessgeek

Dingleberries...LOL. I have not heard that word in awhile. That is unique. Do you include David Letterman in that or was it just to describe politicians?

All of them.

[Glenfield]

Originally Posted by chessgeek

You must have read those posts of yours again and know most of them fell way short of the mark where internet manners (that you accused me of lacking) are concerned. So this was the only type of reply possible. The reasonable tone of the thread was hijacked in your first post (from civil to attack/over-reaction). I tried to work it out and reach an "agree to disagree" mutual tone with you, but you would have none of that. I will continue to participate in this thread. Please take your own advice. Yawn.

You still haven't caught on, have you?

[chessgeek]

Originally Posted by Glenfield

You still haven't caught on, have you?

I have said what I needed to say and am fine if you don't agree. Your point of view is just one of many. No one gets to play dictator here unless they are a moderator. I have better things to do than a long p-match and prefer to discuss the Franken/Letterman political relationship at this point and provided some information in posts 27 and 28. Unfortunately, specific information about Letterman's plans seems to be lacking at this point.

This is just two people disagreeing on a city data thread. Happens frequently. No big deal. Enjoy your weekend.

[Glenfield]

Originally Posted by chessgeek

I have said what I needed to say and am fine if you don't agree. Your point of view is just one of many. No one gets to play dictator here unless they are a moderator. I have better things to do than a long p-match and prefer to discuss the Franken/Letterman political relationship at this point and provided some information in posts 27 and 28. Unfortunately, specific information about Letterman's plans seems to be lacking at this point.

This is just two people disagreeing on a city data thread. Happens frequently. No big deal. Enjoy your weekend.

Actually, we never disagreed on the topic, we just object to the way each of us conduct ourselves in this forum. But if I object to what you post and the way you post you call names (bully, dictator) but you seem to be able to object to what I say to you without considering yourself to be these same things you've called me.

To recap, I just think that you saw a thread that touched on politics as an opportunity to take a gratuitous slap at a politician that you obviously don't like. I called you on it for being off topic and you went off the rails, both in this thread and in a private message attached to a rep.

That and the issue that neither one of us can bear to let the other have the last word.

End of story.

[Ghengis]

how 'bout that Bachmann, whoot doggy!

[chessgeek]

Originally Posted by Glenfield

Actually, we never disagreed on the topic, we just object to the way each of us conduct ourselves in this forum. But if I object to what you post and the way you post you call names (bully, dictator) but you seem to be able to object to what I say to you without considering yourself to be these same things you've called me.

To recap, I just think that you saw a thread that touched on politics as an opportunity to take a gratuitous slap at a politician that you obviously don't like. I called you on it for being off topic and you went off the rails, both in this thread and in a private message attached to a rep.

That and the issue that neither one of us can bear to let the other have the last word.

End of story.

So here is a quick summary: I am accused of slinging mud in your first post, hijacking the thread, showing poor form, bad internet manners, conducting a "war on women" over a comment about one female politician, get dissed over a legitimate rep.(btw "Take it easy" is a common phrase with some friends for me; probably should not have used it but meant nothing negative) and you are the only person having a problem with what I said. Anyone stating these things should not accuse someone else of being off the rails IMO.

Your recap conveniently left all that out and I am calling you on it. PT Barnum would have been proud...that was a joke. LOL. I would be happy to give you the last word if there was some balance and accountability on your part too, instead of you wanting it only for the other person. When you are that one sided and forget that, you can expect a reply.

I mentioned being bullied to leave the thread and that no one is a dictator here and that is wrong to say despite all of the above apparently. It is not a one way street. You are not a victim. You were never told to leave the thread and I did not try to restrict what you could say about politicians. In fact, I encouraged it in one post.

We should be able to at least briefly make comparisons to other politicians (gratuitous slap was not the reason) in the same region not explicitly in the thread for the sake of context and fairness. Having too tight a straight jacket on a thread prevents important info from being shared IMO. Plus, this is not a court room. You would have objected just as much if I criticized a liberal Democrat or moderate, right? I doubt it.

The great thing about internet forums is there is a record of what we posted. I am confident that the majority of the posters would agree with me if they read all our previous posts. Your internet manners would not receive a passing grade IMO.

You still have a lead in the "insults/attacks" tally and no right to cry foul IMO. I am reasonably thick skinned and will continue to participate in this thread. (I suspect you thought you could get me out of the thread). Just wanted to provide a more balanced recap.

Have a nice Saturday night and Sunday.

[chessgeek]

Originally Posted by Glenfield

Actually, we never disagreed on the topic, we just object to the way each of us conduct ourselves in this forum. But if I object to what you post and the way you post you call names (bully, dictator) but you seem to be able to object to what I say to you without considering yourself to be these same things you've called me.

To recap, I just think that you saw a thread that touched on politics as an opportunity to take a gratuitous slap at a politician that you obviously don't like. I called you on it for being off topic and you went off the rails, both in this thread and in a private message attached to a rep.

That and the issue that neither one of us can bear to let the other have the last word.

End of story.

Here is an option for you to have the last word and we can both proceed with dignity and some peace of mind intact. We can both accept 50% of the fault here and move on. I am a reasonable, flexible person at the end of the day despite the earlier conflict and you can demonstrate the same. That would put us at least a light year ahead of so many others that quarrel fiercely on these threads and get dinged by moderators and also set a good example going forward. There need not be any apology; just an acknowledgement. Win-win scenario.

I'll start: I am 50% at fault for what happened between us on this thread. We did agree about the specific thread topic itself, so further conflict is not necessary.

I am asking you to reply with the same two sentences and we can consider the matter resolved. Thank you so much!

[Glenfield]

Originally Posted by chessgeek

Here is an option for you to have the last word and we can both proceed with dignity and some peace of mind intact. We can both accept 50% of the fault here and move on. I am a reasonable, flexible person at the end of the day despite the earlier conflict and you can demonstrate the same. That would put us at least a light year ahead of so many others that quarrel fiercely on these threads and get dinged by moderators and also set a good example going forward. There need not be any apology; just an acknowledgement. Win-win scenario.

I'll start: I am 50% at fault for what happened between us on this thread. We did agree about the specific thread topic itself, so further conflict is not necessary.

I am asking you to reply with the same two sentences and we can consider the matter resolved. Thank you so much!

I acknowledge that I took my criticism of you too far and apologize for that.