However, I had the previlage to witness the reign of two price-winning idiots recently. The problem is I cannot decide which one is dumber.

 

Now, everyone knows Dubya, but considering many people here are younger than I am, I'll give some info on Reagan.

 

He was a bad actor who became the Governor of California (sounds familiar!). He later became the President, because his acting experience was useful in making speeches. Behind him, in the government, were people like Cheney and Rumsfeld (sounds familiar!). He had an astrologer in the White House...

 

Here are some quotes about him:

 

"I don't think he's read the report in detail. It's five-and-a-half pages, double-spaced." -- Larry Speakes explaining why Ronnie didn't know about a recent truck bombing in Beirut. 5 Oct 1984

There are times when you really need him to do some work, and all he wants to do is tell stories about his movie days." -- Anonymous White House aide. 31 Aug 1980

"He knows less about the budget than any president in my lifetime. He can't even carry on a conversation about the budget. It's an absolute and utter disgrace." -- House Speaker Tip O'Neill after a meeting with Ronnie. 23 Nov 1980

"He only works three to three and a half hours a day. He doesn't do his homework. He doesn't read his briefing papers. It's sinful that this man is President of the United States." -- Tip O'Neill exasperated after meeting with Ronnie. 31 Oct 1983

"What do you do when your President ignores all the palpable, relevant facts and wanders in circles?" -- David Stockman (ex Reagan Cabinet member), explaining what briefings with Ronnie were like. 12 April 1986

"God, he's a bore. And a bad actor. Besides, he has a low order of intelligence, with a certain cunning. And not animal cunning, Human cunning. Animal cunning is too fine an expression for him. He's inflated, he's egotistical -- he's one of those people who thinks he is right, and he's not right. He's not right about anything." -- Movie director John Huston (to Rolling Stone), after a meeting with Ronnie.

"An amiable dunce." -- Clark Gifford (former Defense Secretary), describing Ronnie at a Georgetown dinner party.

"... that incoherent cretin." -- Andre Faulds (British Labour Party member), discussing Ronnie in Parliament.

"Stupefyingly incredible." -- British Labour Party member Denis Healy's reaction to Ronnie's "explaining" trading weapons for hostages with Iran. 14 Nov 1986

"I was sitting there so worried about 'throw weight', and Reagan suddenly asks us if we've seen War Games." -- Anonymous Congressman after a meeting with Ronnie to discuss arms control. 7 June 1983

"His answers to any questions about young men being killed for some vague and perhaps non-existent reason in Central America has been to smile, nod, wave a hand and walk on. And America applauds, thus proving that senility is a communicable disease." -- Columnist Jimmy Breslin explaining Ronnie's ability to "get away with it".

"Since when is it considered cruel and unusual punishment to expect the President to learn the facts he needs to govern?" -- Geraldine Ferraro asking an impossible question to answer. 11 Oct 1984

"Mr. Reagan's ignorance about the Soviet Union and his air-headed rhetoric on the issues of foreign policy and arms control have reached the limit of tolerance and have become and embarrassment to the US and a danger to world peace." -- The Chicago Tribune telling the truth in endorsing (!) Ronnie for re-election. 28 Oct 1984

 

Most incredible thing about Reagan is that the American Conservatives worship him because due to a fluke he happened to be on the throne when the Soviet Union collapsed. Of course, that the American cons believe the imbecilic Raygun destroyed the SU, is a testament to their unsurpassed genious.

 

So, help me decide, which one is dumber?

 

I don�t know how Reagan was in regards to this, since when he was in power I was born, but in any case I voted for him.

 

-Akolouthos

 

Well... for every step forward in learning a little about ourseleves, there is alway's those that help the rest in taking "10 steps" back!

 

Perhaps there need's too be an international school where everyone can go. In which...  helps and teaches them too recognise political bias when they see or read about it?

Only after Franklin Roosevelt's reign, so far as I am concerned.

 

Some of the quotes are from people who work with him, one is from a White House aide, and another from a member of his own cabinet. So either his 'political allies' call him dumb, or he's a dumb enough to have his political adversaries in his cabinet. In both cases, he is dumb.

 

The thing that really illustrates exactly how much mental energy this whole thing took to cook up, however, is the incredibly poetic first line which asserts the "evil" nature of a succession of politicians spanning nearly two and a half centuries, as a universally held fact.

 

Well, I wasn't being entirely serious there. But I see your sense of humour matches your IQ in its grandeur. 

 

Unfortunately, I'm afraid I will be unable to participate. You will forgive me, but all of this heady intellectualism is a bit over my head.

 

If the topic overwhelms your intellect, so that you can't participate, don't participate. You don't need to write a paragraph to excuse yourself. This is not grade school, and I am nor your teacher.

 

Only after Franklin Roosevelt's reign, so far as I am concerned.

 

Well, I wasn't being entirely serious, as I wrote. Unfortunately nowadays people have a hard time with sense of humour unless you out some ugly yellow faces next to your sentences.

 

However, do you mean that you are not concerned by the genocidal, slave driving, expansionistic racial supremacism US presidents have been practising until Roosevelt?   

 

Now, now. I've never claimed to be anything other than a doddering simpleton.

 

If the topic overwhelms your intellect, so that you can't participate, don't participate. You don't need to write a paragraph to excuse yourself. This is not grade school, and I am nor your teacher.

 

I am actually so slow-witted that I mistook you for my teacher. I now realize that this is not grade school and you nor are my teacher. Although given that my humble sense of humor must, of necessity, match my even more humble IQ, I don't quite understand how you expected me to come up with that on my own.

 

Unfortunately nowadays people have a hard time with sense of humour unless you out some ugly yellow faces next to your sentences.

 

I actually have to agree with you here. Well phrased.

 

However, do you mean that you are not concerned by the genocidal, slave driving, expansionistic racial supremacism US presidents have been practising until Roosevelt?

 

 

-Akolouthos

 

 

Also keep in mind that Cuba is on the verge of economic collapse,Also anyone who admires Cuba's Goverment might want to ask themselves why a good number of Cubans take their chances with danger and possible death in order to reach the United States which is just 90 miles off it's shore?     

 

Are you asking me?

 

I was just supporting YohjiArmstrong in his case that Cuba under Castro's leadership isn't the great socialist that some in this thread are suggesting. I never said that Cuba was stronger then the United States in any area or field.  

 

I think that Cuba is going to do very well after Castro dies and crossing my fingers that a Democratic goverment comes to power. 

 

Do you think so? Wel then how about this: you give me your full name, address, and job details, and i will hire 360 assasins to kill you. If you survive, I'll concede your point.

 

The Cuban government has been in power for 46 years, around 23 of those years they had Soviet support. The superpower you speak of has been non-existant for 16 years, yet Cuba is still standing.

 

By the way, if your so intent on speaking of human rights abuses, remind me who put Pinochet in power in Chile, giving him the resources to murder 30 000 socialists. Remind me who instigated civil war in Nicaragua. Remind me who blew the crap out of Granada in the 1980's, who organized a military coup in Venezuela, who financed the Iran-Iraq war. There is no nation in existance who's history is devoid of human rights abuses, yet few nations measure up to the USA in that aspect.

 

Besides which, i never claimed Cuba was a paradise. With all the trade embargo's the Americans imposed on them, they probably never will be. I simply stated that their government is effective, which, when we consider that prior to Castro the island was simply a tourist destination for Americans to enjoy gambling and prostitution, with an abysmal economy, is not unfounded.

 

 

AMEN!!!!

 

 

If you have a specific complaint, take it to a mod or an admin., don't attempt to adress it on the public forum.

I might also point out that this thread is a year old.

 

regarding a complaint you can hardly tell mod or amin that people are making supid or unsuported pionts I have seen it more and more on the forum, the majority are good people and fun to debate with but the minority do tarnish it into with extremist and stupid comments, like the one above and serval others i coud piont out, morever age doesnt lessen a coments stupidity nor the need to coment on it. i.e. when people say the holcaust was bad an master race stupid, people dont piont out but it was 60 years ago.

 

surely as a mod u must have come across these types of comments and find them as irritating as I do     

Originally posted by Beylerbeyi We know that while all American presidents are evil, not all are dumb. Some were really smart people like Nixon.

 

Is it possible to please have some posts from those who don't have some ridiculous bias against one country or other to start a thread like this?  Is this supposed to be an intelligent discussion, or is it simply counterproductive "America bashing"?

 

And the "We know" statement is an insult to one's intelligence.  What is it exactly that we "know"?  Are you telling us all what we know? 

 

Ridiculous statements like "all american presidents are evil".  Stupid.  really, really stupid.

 

Franklin Delano Roosevelt evil?  Woodrow Wilson?  Dwight Eisenhower?  Jimmy Carter? Harry Truman?

 

EDIT: Sorry...should have taken this up with the administrators. 

 

More on the subject, I have recently learned that when Reagan was barking tough about the USSR and pushing the Star Wars project, which some idiots in America think was a brilliant stategy he formed to defeat the Soviets, the man actually knew NOTHING WHATSOEVER about the USSR, let alone devising a strategy to defeat them.

 

How do we know this? Because he wrote it in his bloody diary! Just before he met Gorbachov on nuclear disarmament talks, much after his election and Star Wars tough talk, he was given long and hard intensive lectures by American experts on all aspects of the Soviet Union, in a panic attempt to give him an idea about what he is doing. He wrote in his diary that his head is about to burst from all the numbers they kept repeating to him...

 

Btw, delusional hero-worshipping right-wing Americans and their ass-kissers worldwide should consider this before whining about my one year old humourous comments on all American presidents' moral composure (or lack thereof); what do you call someone who send young people to invade other countries, keeps slaves, harbours racist hate theories, exterminates native populations, drops nukes and napalm on helpless civilians other than evil? Just ask yourself, what kind of person would want to become the most powerful ruler on earth, in command of thousands of nukes aimed at world's major population centres? I for one never met any good person who would like to put himself in a position to make that choice, no matter how right that choice might seem to be.

 

 

 

es_bih please don't dig up old wounds. That quote is not recent and the fallout which resulted last year has been paid in full by Bey.

 

Uhh, political leader of the USSR and head of the Communist Party?

 

 

 

 

Tem, I don't see this as a case of lesser of two evils, but rather the evil of two lessers.

 

And Gov. Palin didn't improve the situation any.  Matter of fact,  she makes Dan Quail seem like an acceptable alternative. Man! Even Al Sharpton is starting to look good.

 

 

 

Yes, I can't think of any lasting testament more indicative of your contribution to rational dialogue on this forum than the current thread. Well done.

 

Btw, delusional hero-worshipping right-wing Americans and their ass-kissers worldwide should consider this before whining about my one year old humourous comments on all American presidents' moral composure (or lack thereof); what do you call someone who send young people to invade other countries, keeps slaves, harbours racist hate theories, exterminates native populations, drops nukes and napalm on helpless civilians other than evil? Just ask yourself, what kind of person would want to become the most powerful ruler on earth, in command of thousands of nukes aimed at world's major population centres? I for one never met any good person who would like to put himself in a position to make that choice, no matter how right that choice might seem to be.

 

Well, as the general tenor of your posts indicate, we certainly have no problem finding individuals willing to seek the thrones of judgment in other contexts, so why should it surprise you in this one? And as for humor, worry not, dear Bey; you never fail to amuse.

 

Es_biH, Please stop spamming. We don't need any more one-yellow-face-symbol responses to 1-year old posts, do we? It is not allowed in your belowed CoC, you should give yourself a warning on that.

 

Hm. It would seem that Seko had already dealt with this situation at the time of your post, so I don't see what purpose your response serves other than to glorify yourself and give me an opportunity to refer you to Section V. As you implied, the CoC is a fascinating read; perhaps one day you will have the time?

 

-Akolouthos

 

IV. Complaints against specific forum members
Reports of misconduct must be directed to a forum administrator or a moderator active in the forum section of the alleged misconduct in Private Messaging(PM). Please provide specific information, links, and/or quotations to ensure a fast response. The staff will respond, after determining the extent of the misconduct. The staff is not obligated to take any action against a forum user purely for the sake of personal preference by another.

V. Complaints about staff actions

We no longer directly seek to elicit public opinion on matters regarding violations, as only moderators may post in the "edicts" forum. An appeal to staff actions must be made to a forum administrator through Private Messaging. All appeals are considered, but we are not obligated to make any changes to the actions, nor partake in prolong debate. In the case of reporting misconducts of a staff member, they must be addressed to an administrator (preferably) or another moderator.

 

And just to make sure all bases were covered, I even threw in section IV as well.

 

 

 

Ah yes, he is busy with his crusade, and probably hasn't the time to waste on my meaningless ramblings about obscure paragraphs in the CoC. I hadn't thought of that, but that I hadn't thought of it should come as no surprise: dear old Bey has demonstrated on many occasions, through his impeccable logic, that I, being a brainless, sheep-minded, delusional, arse kissing capitalist pig, have not the wit to remember my own name, much less remember to reproduce portions of a text I am citing. Honestly, you should all be most impressed that I have figured out how to use a keyboard, and it's nothing short of a miracle that I was able to decipher all of these odd little symbols and form them into words. Then again, perhaps I am just mindlessly apeing my greedy, soulless capitalist masters. I have had ample opportunity, while slaving away in their salt mines, to watch them as they day-trade and order champagne off the internet with which to celebrate their evil domination of the world. Next time I will try to remember to be more considerate of the time constraints placed upon those who ardently crusade on my behalf.

 

-Akolouthos

Akolwhatever,

Yes, I can't think of any lasting testament more indicative of your contribution to rational dialogue on this forum than the current thread. Well done.

Hey, aren't you the theology guy? With all due respect, I don't think that you've been around long enough to fairly judge my contribution to this forum. Also, I don't think you are sufficiently qualified to judge what's 'rational', given your expertise is in mumbo-jumbo (i.e. theology). I rather think you are jumping in because you are bitter.

Well, as the general tenor of your posts indicate, we certainly have no problem finding individuals willing to seek the thrones of judgment in other contexts, so why should it surprise you in this one? And as for humor, worry not, dear Bey; you never fail to amuse.

Very convoluted way to insult. You can do it more elegantly. Anyway, you are not being honest. If I amuse you, why all this hatred? I believe you are angry with me for some reason.

 

Hm. It would seem that Seko had already dealt with this situation at the time of your post, so I don't see what purpose your response serves other than to glorify yourself and give me an opportunity to refer you to Section V. As you implied, the CoC is a fascinating read; perhaps one day you will have the time?

My intention was to show that I don't bow to intimidation. New mods need to encounter some resistance now and then lest they become too confident. If I gain any glory by doing this, it is because people think I am right.


Look, I don't know what I have written has hurt you so much, and made you so full of hate, maybe you are one of those who worship Reagan, whatever the reason I don't intend to argue with you any further. Chill out.

Just know that I don't fully agree with your CoC, which is a badly written document unsuitable to be a basis for a just law. Crime of 'negative attitude'? Of 'propaganda'? In that case you'd have to ban half the members (and most of the mods) if you really took your CoC seriously. We all know that it serves no purpose other than providing justification for more or less arbitrary decisions by mods. We have all seen newbies get banned for very minor sleights, while the mods (or those who know how to stand their ground) walk scot free for major breaches.

On a more legal tone, I was here before the CoC and special mod powers came about, and I objected to them at the time. There was no CoC when I signed up to this forum, therefore I have even less reason to modify my behaviour in accordance to what I consider your illegal tyrannical whims.

If you want me to behave differently (apologise, change the texts I have written, etc.), you have three ways (all of them happened before and can be found in the archives):
1. You convince me in an open argument. (The best way, really. Just practice what you preach, and instead of writing dumb ad-hominems on my political views, write me why I am wrong and should mend my ways. Others managed to do this before, why can't you?)
2. You write me a PM and I will do what you ask me to for the sake of respect I have for you, even when I am not convinced by your argumentation (note that I do not respect ranks but people, so if, for instance, Red Clay sends me a PM, I am more likely to comply than you sending me one).
3. If you think I am a cocky bastard who should taste the wrath of mods, you can use your mod powers in a violent/coersive way to ban my IP or edit the text of my posts.

One thing that won't work is threats. Posting sections of CoC in a thread with a dismissive  attitude and veiled threats is a waste of your time as far as I am concerned. Either respect me and deal with me as an equal or ban me/warn me outright. If you threaten me I will respond in kind, and things will get ugly. This has happened many times by now, but especially the new mods seem to have a problem with understanding that they are not gods here but servants of the forum.

Have a nice day.

 

Oh, come now, Bey; it's not that hard to spell.

 

Hey, aren't you the theology guy? With all due respect, I don't think that you've been around long enough to fairly judge my contribution to this forum. Also, I don't think you are sufficiently qualified to judge what's 'rational', given your expertise is in mumbo-jumbo (i.e. theology). I rather think you are jumping in because you are bitter.

 

I think the title "the theology guy" gives me a bit more credit than is my due. And as for judging, it was never my intent; I think you've handled my judgment quota and then some.  Is my bitterness that obvious? You can hardly blame me; being exposed to the brilliance that emanates from your clever mind is enough to make those of us who are not so clever despair of ever accomplishing anything in the scholarly world. By the way, thanks for including a parenthetical clarification of what you meant to label as "mumbo jumbo". As you well know, those of us who specialize in nonsense are far too simpleminded to draw those conclusions for ourselves. Your charity does you credit.

 

Very convoluted way to insult. You can do it more elegantly. Anyway, you are not being honest. If I amuse you, why all this hatred? I believe you are angry with me for some reason.

 

Hatred, eh?  

 

Generally I find it hard to be angry and amused at the same time; must be one of the innumerable symptoms of my deficient mind. And I think I was quite elegant enough, thank you.

 

My intention was to show that I don't bow to intimidation. New mods need to encounter some resistance now and then lest they become too confident. If I gain any glory by doing this, it is because people think I am right.

 

Well, the point was that the situation was resolved; you needn't concern yourself with the day-to-day tasks that we dictatorial censors of free speech trouble ourselves with. After all, if you were to waste your valuable time on this, when would you have the time to decide which political figures, forum members, or social systems you wish to "analyze" next?

 

Look, I don't know what I have written has hurt you so much, and made you so full of hate, maybe you are one of those who worship Reagan, whatever the reason I don't intend to argue with you any further. Chill out.

 

I don't know where you got the idea that I am full of hate. And I wasn't aware that we were arguing, dear Bey. After all, I have done naught but bow to your overpowering intellect.

 

Just know that I don't fully agree with your CoC, which is a badly written document unsuitable to be a basis for a just law. Crime of 'negative attitude'? Of 'propaganda'? In that case you'd have to ban half the members (and most of the mods) if you really took your CoC seriously. We all know that it serves no purpose other than providing justification for more or less arbitrary decisions by mods. We have all seen newbies get banned for very minor sleights, while the mods (or those who know how to stand their ground) walk scot free for major breaches.

 

Hm. I would think you would be familiar with the term "negative attitude" -- from encountering it in others who resist your Truth, of course. And of course the CoC is just a glorified justification for our tyrannical actions; honestly, have you ever encountered any form of law that isn't?

On a more legal tone, I was here before the CoC and special mod powers came about, and I objected to them at the time. There was no CoC when I signed up to this forum, therefore I have even less reason to modify my behaviour in accordance to what I consider your illegal tyrannical whims.

 

Well, you may consider them as illegal and tyrannical as you like. You may even consider me a power-drunk, pathetic excuse for a moderator. The fact of the matter stands: you have voluntarily submitted yourself to the terms of the CoC by participating in this forum. No one is forcing you to participate; at least not that I know of -- of course there might be some greedy western capitalist at your house who has you chained to your computer, but how could I possibly have known that?

 

If you want me to behave differently (apologise, change the texts I have written, etc.), you have three ways (all of them happened before and can be found in the archives): 1. You convince me in an open argument. (The best way, really. Just practice what you preach, and instead of writing dumb ad-hominems on my political views, write me why I am wrong and should mend my ways. Others managed to do this before, why can't you?) 2. You write me a PM and I will do what you ask me to for the sake of respect I have for you, even when I am not convinced by your argumentation (note that I do not respect ranks but people, so if, for instance, Red Clay sends me a PM, I am more likely to comply than you sending me one). 3. If you think I am a cocky bastard who should taste the wrath of mods, you can use your mod powers in a violent/coersive way to ban my IP or edit the text of my posts.

 

I don't think I'll be taking suggestions from you, thanks.  After all, why would I want to try to convince you that you are wrong when I have stated countless times that I agree with every single one of your philosophical and political positions? Your brilliant arguments have made the truth of your position crystal clear, and your willingness to condescend without condescension, in all humility and mutual respect, to enlighten those of us who have languished so long in darkness is a gift we could never hope to repay.

 

One thing that won't work is threats. Posting sections of CoC in a thread with a dismissive  attitude and veiled threats is a waste of your time as far as I am concerned. Either respect me and deal with me as an equal or ban me/warn me outright. If you threaten me I will respond in kind, and things will get ugly. This has happened many times by now, but especially the new mods seem to have a problem with understanding that they are not gods here but servants of the forum.

 

What? Are you going to hit me?  

 

Seriously though, I don't see where you got the idea that I threatened you. I know that lobbing generalizations and accusations left and right all day long becomes something of a habit, but if you read what others wrote, you might be able to pick the right labels and accusations. My correspondence with you certainly fits into a category, but it hardly contains threats.

 

And don't worry, Bey; from what I've seen of you in the forum, I have your measure, even if I could never hope to aspire to it.

 

Have a nice day.

 

Oh, I will, I will. Thank you for your concern; it's actually quite touching to know that others wish me well; especially one as clever as yourself, who has been the poor, innocent victim of so much tyranny and hatred, and so many threats. Would you like to hear about my day? I could send you that PM you asked for later, and let you know how it went. I honestly don't think I'll be doing all that much -- it is the weekend, after all -- but one never knows.

 

-Akolouthos

 

 

Akowashisname,

 

Oh, come now, Bey; it's not that hard to spell.

 

Maybe I will spell your handle right when you finally manage to spell mine.

 

I usually don't mind being insulted here in AE because the insults tend to be either too dumb (so I feel sorry for the moron who wrote them) or quite well written (so it is fun to read and respond to). Yours, however, are plain boring. I was away on real-life business since I have last written here, giving you a golden opportunity to write something interesting, but you blew the chance with this drivel.

I don't know where you got the idea that I am full of hate. And I wasn't aware that we were arguing, dear Bey. After all, I have done naught but bow to your overpowering intellect.

 

You are obviously full of resentment towards me. Why else would you pick an issue with me? I hardly know you, I had to check who you were before replying to your posts referring to me as 'dear Bey' etc as if we have been engaging in conversation anywhere. That's why I wrote 'you are the theology guy'. I was (and I am still) wondering, 'what did I do to this one'? I usually know why mods attack me. However, aside from what happened in this thread one year ago, I don't remember talking to you at all. I am not that active in the mumbo-jumbo subforum anyway.

 

Hm. I would think you would be familiar with the term "negative attitude" -- from encountering it in others who resist your Truth, of course. And of course the CoC is just a glorified justification for our tyrannical actions; honestly, have you ever encountered any form of law that isn't?

 

I think in your hatred you failed to read my post carefully. There is no indication in it that I claim to be innocent of 'negative attitude'. To the contrary. Btw, you use way too many stupid yellow faces, it gives your resentment away.

The fact of the matter stands: you have voluntarily submitted yourself to the terms of the CoC by participating in this forum.

 

I think you may have a reading/comprehension problem. Or have a problem with 'facts', which would be hardly surprising given your expertise in mumbo-jumbo. My post clearly explained, when I joined this forum in 2004 (that's two years before you did) there was no CoC. I have never voluntarily submitted to the CoC. You won't get anywhere by telling me what I do out of volution and what not. That's incredibly arrogant power-tripping.

 

And don't worry, Bey; from what I've seen of you in the forum, I have your measure, even if I could never hope to aspire to it.

 

I don't care what your kind thinks of me.

 

BE,

 

Are you serious?  I cannot believe you are including the possibility of your ways being changed by open and honest discourse.  Has someone at AE actually succeeded in convincing you to mend your ways?  It must have been long before my ascendency to tyranny.

 

 

 

Even though I dont consider myself as right-leaning or Reagan to be perfect, he was not a bad president and has left a descent legacy for his successor.  Bush, on the other hand, has left a much more damaged nation to whoever will win this election and I dont envy the next president, since he is going to spend his whole term making up for those mistakes.

 

Och. A hit, that. I have been missing that "l", haven't I. I have been duly chastised by your humble eminence for my error. Mea culpa. 

 

Originally posted by Beylerbeyi I usually don't mind being insulted here in AE because the insults tend to be either too dumb (so I feel sorry for the moron who wrote them) or quite well written (so it is fun to read and respond to). Yours, however, are plain boring. I was away on real-life business since I have last written here, giving you a golden opportunity to write something interesting, but you blew the chance with this drivel.

 

I'm so sorry to disappoint you, dear Bey, especially since pleasing you is my single purpose in life, and since I hold your reasoning skills in the highest regard.

 

I suspect that one of the smarter mods set up the tone of general attack against me and the less creative ones are imitating it to no end. It feels like I am dealing with a flock of parrots.

 

A conspiracy, is it? Well, that is a most serious accusation indeed, especially when it comes from one who doesn't have a history of tossing around accusations like rice at a wedding, but who is always seen utilizing calm, objective reason, sans hyperbole.  Honestly, methinks someone has an exalted sense of self-importance if that someone believes that the entire moderating staff is taking time out of their days to cook up some sort of anti-Bey coalition.

 

Oh, and actually we're more like a group of lemmings, although the fact that we are able to speak may have led to your slightly less apt "parrot" analogy.

 

It's none of your business. He is a mod. I like es_bih. Cool avatar. He tried to deal with me in the way he learned from your likes and I objected. If he has a problem with me, he will talk to me. He doesn't need a bitter wannabe big-brother mod like you to jump in to use this issue to 'glorify yourself'.

 

Actually, the whole point was that it was none of your business. The situation had been resolved by Seko. What made it my business was your attempt to stir it up again. Reading threads before you criticize others is sometimes useful -- as you rightly pointed out in the instances where I mispelled your name.  Glad you like es_bih; he is a rather nice chap. I am absolutely crushed that you think so lowly of me, after I have made your opinion of me the sole measure of success in my life.

 

You are obviously full of resentment towards me. Why else would you pick an issue with me? I hardly know you, I had to check who you were before replying to your posts referring to me as 'dear Bey' etc as if we have been engaging in conversation anywhere. That's why I wrote 'you are the theology guy'. I was (and I am still) wondering, 'what did I do to this one'? I usually know why mods attack me. However, aside from what happened in this thread one year ago, I don't remember talking to you at all. I am not that active in the mumbo-jumbo subforum anyway.

 

Resentment? Of course not. I just saw that you had resurrected a thread in which your original post had been so full of coolheaded analysis, and so devoid of vitriol and overdramatization, and wished to participate. Oh, and when you are referring to the Philosophy-Theology subforum specifically, we use the term "Mumbo-Jumbo 2". The words "mumbo" and "jumbo" are capitalized to indicate that we are speaking of a proper noun, and the number is included to distinguish it from the Historical Amusement (M-J 1) and Alternate History (M-J 3) subforums.

 

I think in your hatred you failed to read my post carefully. There is no indication in it that I claim to be innocent of 'negative attitude'. To the contrary.

 

I think that in your desire to correct me, you may have failed to read my post carefully, that is unless you can point out where I said that you "claim[ed] to be innocent of 'negative attitude'". I was simply stating that I would never believe such a thing of you, no matter how brutally humble and totally honest you are in your relentless self-deprecation and self-analysis.

 

Btw, you use way too many stupid yellow faces, it gives your resentment away.

 

 

Do I?  I hadn't noticed.

 

I hope your quote does not portend another outbreak of Emoticonoclasm on this, our sacred forum.

 

I think you may have a reading/comprehension problem. Or have a problem with 'facts', which would be hardly surprising given your expertise in mumbo-jumbo. My post clearly explained, when I joined this forum in 2004 (that's two years before you did) there was no CoC. I have never voluntarily submitted to the CoC. You won't get anywhere by telling me what I do out of volution and what not. That's incredibly arrogant power-tripping.

 

Once again, if you wish to criticize what someone has written, actually reading it may help.  I think Temujin addressed the issue clearly below, by posting what is essentially a repeat of what I initially said. Since you appear to be unclear on the use of the term "voluntary", I'll try to explain a bit further. You may choose not to participate in this forum, which is a voluntary act. You may also choose to participate in this forum, which is a voluntary act. By choosing the latter, however, you voluntarily submit yourself to the conditions of the action. Whether they suit you or not, those are the terms of this forum, and you will abide by them, just as everyone else does. If you need it explained a bit more simply, I am at your service.

 

I don't care what your kind thinks of me.

 

I am simply crushed. Where did I put my stash of "Beylerbeyi Doesn't Care About Me" chocolate? 

 

What petty arrogance! My ways don't need mending. Your power-tripping ways are the ones that need mending. I haven't edited anybody else's posts to make myself look good, have I?

 

 

 

 

-Akolouthos

 

 

Temujin,

 

and i joined AE on it's early days on the old proboards, that changes nothing at all. you automatically submitt to the CoC by still posting at this forum like everyone else. talking about arrogant, why in hell do you considder yourself "above the law" based on seniority...

 

Above 'the mod's self-serving law'? No, I am 'outside' it. You are an oldtimer, yes, but you are a mod, it is in your interest to use it. In fact you are incredibly hypocritical because while you wrote that you dislike the AE moderation, you still continue to hold on to your sweet mod powers. More honest mods have resigned over these issues, you know.

 

Also, rejection of your self-serving illegal documents and powers don't make me or a newer member 'arrogant'. Seniority is just one part of the case. I would have agreed to a better CoC and mod powers arrangement, but these things were never discussed openly, but forced on the forum. Anyway, my rejection of these things is hardly a secret. I have posted them all over the forum and never had someone tell me that I have to accept the new CoC in order to continue writing here. I think you are pulling this up now in desperation, as your previous attempts to get rid of me (for personal reasons) did not work. A lot of two-faced behind-the-curtains scheming, a lot of hypocracy, that's what you are doing.

 

So for the sake of avoiding a repeat let us go back to the original topic. Mind the CoC (meaning all of us) and have a good time.

this is my topic, I like this topic and I was on topic until I was attacked with lame ad-hominems as usual. You can go back and read for yourself. Rein the aggressors in and I won't write about anyone except Reagan and Bush here.

 

What 'intelligence officer'? He was in the film unit making films for the military and entertaining troops.

They falsely give the impression of being dumb due to their populist appeals and their distrust of intellectuals with grand schemes.

 

Reagan's distrust of 'grand schemes'? Such as 'Star Wars', you mean? Orbiting X-ray-laser satellites which would shoot down Soviet missiles? Still sci-fi with today's technology, let alone the 80s. That didn't stop him from spending billions on that scheme.

 

As to Bush's 'distrust of intellectuals with grand schemes', that's is even more ridiculous. Have you ever heard of the neo-cons? Project for the New American Century? A bunch of power-mad intellectuals on a mission to dominate the world? They are all in Bush administration.

 

Due to their distrust of intellectuals in running a country, intellectuals deride them instead of their ideas. Insulting an opponent as being stupid also accounts for a good deal of this.

 

As I've shown, they had no distrust of intellectuals in running a country. As to intellectuals deride them instead of their ideas, well, their ideas are what got America in the mess it is in today. If some people come up with an idiotic idea after another idiotic idea, at some point they get called an idiot. Just don't whine when that happens.

 

Had Clinton been included, I would have voted for him due to his inability to connect basic dots about the legality and interests of backing the Tehran-Zagreb-Sarajevo arms link.

 

Clinton knew exactly what he was doing when he allowed weapons to be shipped to Sarajevo.

 

Btw, this is an interesting comment on Clinton. You reminded me of a recently banned Romanian-American wiki-nationalists there, for a moment...

 

Nonetheless, his errors are mostly due to a bad attitude about the world. He may be called dumb due to relying on Hillary and Gore to do most of the thinking for him (he recognized he lacked intelligence but had charisma, he used smart people around him to cover his weaknesses).

 

I've heard Clinton speak (and that is beyond barking slogans like a Palin) and he surely is no idiot. Not that I like him, as he is evil as any other president.

 

Who said cons distrust intellectuals? Actually cons depend on intellectuals much more than dems. Just look at the number of intitutes they control (Bey mentioned some) and feed them with a constant amount of public servantas. it is the Joe sixpacks of America that distrust them. They think, and are mainly right, that intellectuals are snobs who know nothing about the real world. It is this reason why those intellectuals don't run for elections becuase they will lose to another Joe sixpack. So they chose a wieldy Joe sixpack of their own, George Bush for example, over hundreds of more qualified people, like Jeb Bush who is a prominant neo-con intellectual. This guy will be portrayed as the man of the streets, go on town hall meetings and convince people he is of their own and the opponent is an intellectual, which is a crime in some places since this means he is a "socialist" or worse, an atheist. After they win the election the intellectuals promptly take over certain aspects of policy, like Reagan's economists and Bush's neo-cons, and leave the president with most of the rest.

 

Al-Jassas