In the course of debate, there's a lot I'll put up with, but some accusations are obvious in their intent.

"Liar, disingenuous, and dishonest", when directed at a poster, are accusations used almost exclusively to derail a thread.  Rational discussion ceases at that point, and the taunt has achieved its goal.

♣ a seal

Dee is right, I think, on her last remark. I think the most satisfying moments on NB are when two posters with differing views reach common ground. Protracted arguments, on the other hand, start out exciting and tend to end in bitter stalemate or regret. Then those grudges carry into new arguments. And if we could all agree to a no-name-calling pact, then this site, which we all obviously enjoy using, would become that much better.

Rereading this, I realize that I sound like a 1st grade teacher; so I'm wrapping it up.

"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte

DB: I know I'm not one to talk but I try not to hold grudges against people.

Coming from you I believe that, because it appears to me your behavior and your posts reflect a will to at least try to come to the table and reason without bitterness. 

However, you can't speak for everyone; only for yourself. 

DB:  We all say things in the heat of the moment that we regret and some people just can't ever admit that they regret it - but they do.

But aren't you assuming that a virtue you claim to have automatically applies to every other member here?

DB:  It seems like people jump on RJ constantly based on what he said another time. It would be nice if we could all try harder to treat each argument as a new one and see where it goes from there.

But what if RJ is the type to carry a grudge?  Who is the first to give second chances here, and who is the 1st one to run straight for the safety of cheating and the ever-trusty cheap shot? 

I guarantee you Dee, if you ever argued RJ into a corner the way Jason or CA could, he would turn on you in a heartbeat.  

You have a very noble sentiment, but RJ doesn't play by any rulebook that you're appealing to. 

-PJ

"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07

DB:  I don't really know all of this history as I wasn't around when your feud started. All I know now is that it looks like people are ganging up on him constantly and I don't see him name calling.

I won't argue the appearance of it, suffice to say that if RJ is just a name on a board, why does he have the most dance partners?  Libs, conservatives, religious, agnostic, etc.  They're all there, and they're actually coming together and hanging up their issues, because one member is tearing down the discussion through trolling.  Is it because RJ is just so popular and charismatic?  No.  So it must be the other thing.

DB:  Anyone reading his calling you a stalker knows that he is referring to your going after his every post. No one thinks that you are actually finding out where he lives and harassing him.

Check the link.  He has more leverage here than that.  Cyberstalking is a very real issue.  Just as bad as accusing me of being a convicted rapist, wife-beater, etc.  Depending on where this ends up going, you yourself might want to re-think participating on this thread.   

DB:  From what I've seen (which isn't a lot I admit) I've noticed little gestures and clues by RJ that he would be willing to bury the hatchet on this feud but the rest of you don't seem to be willing to. I could be wrong - maybe he's doesn't have an interest in reconciliation either, but if you can't stand him then why not just ignore his posts?

1. I have made the offer to bury the hatchet myself.  I have always left him an honest "out" in the past.  But he has established continually contradictory behavior and refuses to give any on his side.  He's inconsistent.  He posts like someone who has zero consideration for others to begin with.  He resorts to tactics very few of us are willing to resort to ourselves (or publicly regret doing.  RJ has no regrets).

2.  His posts cannot be ignored because there is always someone out there willing to take the bait.  Hence, trolling.  Your thread is dead because of him, Dee. 

DB:  Someone has to do something different or nothing will change.

This is why I'm taking it to the admins.  He's skirted the line numerous times in the past.  This is the one time he stumbled over it.  If something isn't done, he can (and probably will) escalate the ad hominem.  This means he could theoretically get away with calling you a convicted criminal.  

DB:  You can try responding only to posts you agree with or if you are fed up to the point of never being able to forgive him then you should just ignore him until you feel differently.

I love that idea.  However, RJ is so creatively inflammatory that it would take the participation of every member here to make that proposal work.

DB:  Really - we all can't get along with everyone. Some personalities just clash. It's best to just ignore people you don't like. There is enough going on here that you can spend time interacting with the people you do like and it will make you much happier.

This goes beyond that.  RJ has indeed violated terms of use and is actively killing fair discussion here on NB.  Everything was totally civil until his decision to resort to lower than low tactics. 

Either there are limits on NB, or we can crank it up and call each other pretty much anything we want. 

DB:  I hope that I can be someone that you don't mind interacting with. I'm not trying to blame you for this whole problem by any means. I don't know enough about it. It takes two people to fight and it also takes two to end it.

Agreed.  However, I honestly think you haven't counted the number of people he's done this to.  It doesn't matter who you pair RJ up with.  He just happened to cross the line with me.  It could have been anyone else. 

-PJ

"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07