taking an opportunity to react to one negative comment by pissing all over Manon in specific and the staff in general - and *that* is what I was responding to.
Not sure whether you're saying Manon was negative or not. The whole paragraph is a bit convoluted.
"Hey, Manon, I don't think that mafia comment was helpful. I don't think we should expect users to recruit" or if it was instead an attack on the staff to the point that there was not a single sentence that was primarily intended for anything other than to denigrate the staff.
I haven't made any remark about the mafia comment as there is none to be made, except that it shows that there are double standards applied towards different people. And a specific group of users which includes him and you (and others) and, surprisingly, is composed by GMs/ex-GMs, get really pissy when someone else writes things like that, but go out and defend or justify when it's one of you guys who does it.
There is no excuse you can bring up that will make me change my mind on this. And besides, I really don't want care about talking about the mafia comment and more about how you lot feel entitled to sabotage threads or people you don't like.
Read post 179 again, and tell me honestly if you think the point you are trying to make was: "Hey, Manon, I don't think that mafia comment was helpful. I don't think we should expect users to recruit" or if it was instead an attack on the staff to the point that there was not a single sentence that was primarily intended for anything other than to denigrate the staff.
No, no, you misunderstood there. My point was that there is a group of users which includes you and him, who are pathologically incapable of discussing anything they disagree with, mostly behind the reasoning that some users are only out on the forums to criticise. And if perchance someone points out the inconsistencies, the hypocrisy, the flip flopping, then the only way you react is accusing the other people of something, usually about them being negative and unconstructive and anything they say being irrelevant.
You have had so much of this attitude of yours on forums that Trainerman came out with the first post in months (some people even sent me emails about whether I knew what happened to him lol) and there you have people insulting him right away
openly admitting they did not even read what he wrote. That dismissing attitude, that superficiality. If you haven't read a post and tried to understand what the other person had said what is the point of replying? How can it ever hope to be considered as constructive. You've had one such episode yourself here above...
If you're going to call out the idea of attacking the messenger rather than the topic, read post 179 again. Read my response again. Ask yourself why you have this notion that I should be discussing a topic that you yourself didn't feel worth the effort of making an honest attempt at.
Post 179 is clearly about Manon being hypocritical in his stance and trying to run away when being called out. At that point we were in fact discussing the hypocrisy of suggesting something you're not prepared to do yourself. He steered the discussion that way, he was given the chance to explain why he wasn't being hypocritical and instead he chose (see previous paragraph) an ad hominem attack.
In the context of post 175, post 179 looks actually right to the point. I just widened the scope a bit, to highlight that this kind of behaviour is not limited to this instance, but is fairly common to a specific group of people. He did nothing to refute my point, so he could have gone away quietly or he could have lied and said he proudly distributed 10k fliers in Stockholm to promote buzzerbeater, but he rather chose to close the conversation (that's what I meant by shutting down, not that you close the threads), but not before attacking the guy making the point! Which is exactly what post 179 was about.
Last edited by Lemonshine at 4/1/2016 6:52:38 PM