What are you going to do about your insinuations against me?

Post Reply New Topic

OK I will admit I find this incredulous and frustrating at the same time.
I see a girl. Possibly a young gay Autistic young woman being set upon and I find a little fault in this.

But let's break this down so you see what I am seeing and perhaps an idea what bothers me.

1. I see some Christian bloke call all gays an abomination on an Autistic forum in the online Autistic community.

2. I see at least one person (possibly more and rightly so I may add) take umbrage to this and in a tit for tat suggest HE is homosexual.

3. He threatens to sue.

4. In this somewhere HE is not sanctioned but a young gay Autistic girl as a part of the larger online Autistic forum gets labelled a troublemaker for standing up to him and has posts apparently removed to infract her. She tells of her experience with such similar homophobic experience...and has that edited and or removed.

Are we all up to speed here or am I missing something really obvious?

Next.

5. Despite being assailed upon by yourself Lee and being accused of being a troll for turning up and defending her right to be and sticking through the accusations and censor, you call her a troll, bully or sockpuppet for doing this?

6. OK then some Middle-aged Autistic guy shaking his head at what he sees decides to wade into the debate...that would be me.

7. This girl tries to explain her position and has the same christian guy saying delete all her posts and by the way I am going to sue her over something or other.

8. She tries to state that she has not done anything and you refuse to in anyway give either good reason why she deserves the insinuation of being a troll or bully or a sockpuppet but instead rant about how clever and strategic you were and how she has exposed herself as a troll. Better still you seem to support the Christian guy unchecked.

Does this sound close to the mark? A fair assessment?

This is a support site and yet:

1. The Christian guy is supported and encourage to threaten to at least two members to sue them.

2. The Christian guy can throw ant-homosexual rhetoric around at will and is not censored.

3. People standing up to such rhetoric and him are accused of being bullies, trolls, sockpuppets and trouble-makers

4. Mods will join in denouncing such people and call their judgment strategic in taking away their voice and slighting them.

Now what the hell is going on here?
By any rational reading this looks very bad for the site, for the mod and Christian guy.
Why on Earth the girl in question or any non-homophobic Autistic person in any Online Autism community would feel any degree of support going by the above is beyond me.

I am not a stupid man Lee. I am many things but not stupid. But humour me. Treat me like I am in fact very stupid and non-worldly and explain to me why my reading is so very off.

Who on Earth are you talking to Iamnotaparakeet?

You looked over my questionnaire I prepared for you yet?

You should be a lawyer.

How do you think this would be for somebody who suggested a Christian subforum, had that topic trolled to death, then be followed around by Volodja from there. Within the thread, Left Wing Speech control Volodja also derailed that and started the insinuations and insults about my supposed "latent homosexuality". Saying the acontexualized quotation of yours about my saying that I consider homosexuality to be a perversion and that I am strictly hetrosexual was a statement of my own beliefs in response to Volodja's already occurring questioning of my sexuality. Then enter Volodja's friends from Intensity Squared, who ganged up upon me and started uttering identical rhetoric. One of you brought upon the acontexualized remark of my saying that I consider homosexuality to be a perversion in a thread of another's, and I responded to that stating my belief that, yes, I do consider homosexuality to be a perversion in the same manner that I consider polygamy to be a perversion. Other things that were said by the Intensity Squared sockpuppet, NathanA, were not my words by that of you own group's as able to be seen by IP addresses. Then, to further your game, the intensity squared gang decided it would be humorous to create a shipload of libelous impostor accounts on MySpace, Facebook, and various homosexual and beastiality sites, primarily cheering on and encouraging one Butterflies while she did so. It was your group's intention to have a random I2 sockpuppet mention them to me in the hopes of having a reaction to laugh at.



A young girl? I suppose 21 is younger than 25, but only slightly. It matters not whether she is homosexual or anything else, there are 154 hours until I submit my data. You can continue spinning rhetorical defecation all you like, or you can comply with my one request of bringing down the libelous impostor profiles. Your choice, your consequences.

My group. Well this is interesting? Who are you talking about now?

Yes who is spinning rhetoric defecation now? Cool down junior and start thinking things through.

THIS is where I come from www.religionforums.org. You should go there. You get all types of religions. Theists mainly surprisingly, Next probably the Christians, Muslims, Jewish, even a believer of Voudan. I think they would make short work of you like the Straight Dope folk did but you may surprise. Personally the ability to debate a variety of religious topics is quite invigorating and informative, Obviously the ability or relevance of slotting your Autistic neurotypical identity is limited and so here i am.

So back up and reassess who exactly you are trying to talk to here and exactly what you are trying to insinuate or threaten with me. I have had a bucketful of your bleating and I think that you really need to assess your own behaviour rather than that of others.



Why not delete...I dunno, maybe 19210 of your posts...or do you think that unreasonable? If so why? I think you forfeit the right to expect to talk with your Autistic brethren when you choose to post law suits and them. To my mind that is one step off death threats.

Here is an idea. Why don't you man up and appreciate that you probably deserve everything that gets thrown your way? Why? Because you choose to be offensive (that is you know what you say is offensive and going to give offense) but choose to anyway. When you do you hide underneath a moderator's apron and threaten offline action. That is pretty weak.

You are 25. You are a married man. Be a man and be responsible and accountable for your actions. Stand by what you say by all means but don't cry about it in threads when you are put to the test by your own intolerance and do not take what happens online, offline.

This is not secret men's business or a lesson you did not learn this is part of what all men need to embrace to be good moral people in society. You are a believer of the bible. The bible is a moral handbook filled with morality and ethics and compassion and tolerance. What bloody bits did you read in all of that?

I hope my boy doesn't grow to display the same disregard for respectful interactions with his peers at your age. I hope he grows into a man with respect and responsibility and moral integrity.

For what it is worth I think that young woman emasculated you textually and I think that the amount of rage is an indicator of precisely this.

Last edited by AlSwearengen on 21 Feb 2011, 9:10 am, edited 1 time in total.

I don't understand what is happening here. Who is being a bully? Sorry I am very confused at this time. iamnotaparakeet is gay? I thought he was christian? I guess that makes more sense now though, I didn't know he was gay before. I have been on that IntensitySquared site - they are weird people

As I said already, there is 154 hours before I submit my data to the IC3 for them to further investigate. How you and the rest of the Intensity Squared gang choose to spend your time is really your decision. If you wish to add more to my report, then you can continue your current mode of operation. However, I would prefer that the impostor profiles are dealt with promptly rather than having to submit my report. Your choice, your consequences. Choose as you like, you have 153 hours, 50 minutes, and counting.

Why do you care so much about these profiles? what do they portray you as?

Do you wish to claim any lack of knowledge?

Someone showed me the myspace one but I haven't seen the rest

What is the big deal? I have had fake profiles made of me in the past. It's nothing to take legal action over unless you're really insecure

I don't know what sites you are on about and don't give a damn about them or your 154 hours or your threats. I find it irrelevant and meaningless to your behaviour.

What your connection to "Intensity Squared gang" or to "IC3" is your issue and yours to deal with .
Stop trying to pass blame for your inability to take accountability for your actions.

So you said some threads of yours got derailed? You got called gay? What is this? 3rd grade?
In response what did you do? Call mods? Start poor me threads?, call for all anyone who doesn't agree with your extreme views to have there posts deleted or edited? Threaten to sue?

So someone impersonated you? I have not seen that but I would imagine that part of the reason I haven't is that they and their treads were edited or deleted like much of anything seemingly that is against you. But still you cry....big girly tears.

Buck up lad and dry your eyes. This is an online forum that is it and it has been far more supportive of you than I think you merit.

As to impostor profiles, firstly I doubt they are as bad as what you make it going (by the beat up you seem to make over everything that you dislike) BUT in the event that they A) exist B) are bad C) were not in fact set up by yourself, you probably deserved having someone prank you for being the type of person who would threaten people with legal action online.
You clearly either set them up yourself or have no idea who set them up, to try to threaten me with what will happen if they are not removed.

Get over yourself kid you really are not as important to me as what you are yourself and your authority that you think you command you really don't.

If I had even the slightest of personal suspicion anything like that was actually going on here, you and I would be sitting at the same table, and for this very same reason:


Ah, so you do know how to do that! Cool.


Overall, I am not aware of any such statement ever having actually been made. However, I am (and as are you, I suspect) aware there is at least some number of people who cannot always distinguish "homosexual" from "homosexuality" during discussion of either, and especially when both are mentioned at one time ... and that is where it can occasionally be extremely difficult to deal with such in the face of this, and to everyone's satisfaction:

Attacking an opinion, belief or philosophy is acceptable, but attacking the person making the comments is not.

Attacking an opinion, belief or philosophy is acceptable, but attacking the person making the comments is not.


"Fairly and accurately portrayed", I would say.


Specific verbiage is not at my disposal at the moment, but yes, at least a thought of some kind of legal action had been brought into the mix.


No. In a "beyond reasonable doubt" fashion, the member in question has instead been decidedly viewed as a troll with sock puppets "doing their thing" for what might otherwise be perceived as nothing beyond what I would happen to see as "good cause" from within at least their own realm of "opinion, belief or philosophy".


No. The only posts removed from public view were those either rightly or wrongly deemed as "unfit for public view" (my own label coined and used here for mere convenience within this specific discussion).


Having never read for content while parsing interactions as a moderator, I can only say that *might* have happened coincidentally, yet certainly apart from any specific intent.


"Up to speed" sounds relatively right to me.


She was not assailed upon. I simply moderated while also posting as a regular member here on WP.


No such accusation was ever made. The matter of "troll" had been previously determined.


Not even close.


There were none.


None of that, either.


Never. If you go back and read carefully in the posts I believe yet remain within public view, I believe you will see something like this:

1) I mentioned my own awareness of "trolls, sock puppets or bullies" likely not liking my style of moderation;
2) Butterflies re-presented that personal sharing of previous thought as an accusation.


You are certainly free to describe yourself to this particular old fogey, yours truly, as you wish!


Absolutely not.


Since the immediately-above did not happen, no such connection could even exist.


That specific matter is displayed and discussed elsewhere within this thread.


As noted just above, no such insinuation was every made. Rather, and again: Butterflies re-presented some personal sharing of some of my previous thought (right after I got my buttons) as an accusation.


Not at all.


Why would anyone ever rant about one's own here-alleged or -described "clever and strategic" self? That makes no sense.


It is not impossible for me to believe Butterflies believes her actions were all justifiable;
In whatever words, she has nevertheless also admitted at least the essence of trolling.


Absolutely not. However, I can see how other people might seem to believe that since any WP rule violation he might have ever made had yet to be noticed on my particular watch.


See above ... but ah, I just realized you were referencing the following:


No. Some people might happen to see things that way, and they obviously do or we would not be having this discussion, yet nothing other than personal perception, speculation and/or spin could ever gather any such allegations.


Please see above.


Not as I see things. I see this as a combination of several challenges based largely upon this:

Attacking an opinion, belief or philosophy is acceptable, but attacking the person making the comments is not.

Attacking an opinion, belief or philosophy is acceptable, but attacking the person making the comments is not.

... and in the end, I believe that can only be good for all.


You are intermixing issues and questions there.


Me neither.


Please let me know how I have done.

Last edited by leejosepho on 21 Feb 2011, 10:22 am, edited 6 times in total.

Note the workings of a sock puppet, folks:

PS: Please also note here how it is actually possible to have this kind of discussion without having to violate this:

Last edited by leejosepho on 21 Feb 2011, 10:32 am, edited 2 times in total.

It was? that's nice.
You can link my posts to absurd accusations as much as you want Para , it really doesn't bother me.

Just proves how much of a crackpot you really are.

Approximately 152 hours to my submission of evidence to the the IC3, if you wish to keep adding to this Sea_Tart (I2 username) it is your choice alone.

what is sockpupper?