MODERATORS DISCRIMINATE AGAINST CENTRISTS & CONSERVATIVES

[Leslie Sharp]

17 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

Well, Leslie. I guess someone has to hang onto some semblance of morality.
 

The best petty criticism you could up with was ‘meddling’. Have you looked at your own posts during the past 2 weeks since you were humiliated? Your sticky beak has been all over the place. 

Your sticky beak has been all over the place.

I see now why you took up the mantle for Matthew Koch. You need his active presence to support you ideologically.  It's humorous to note that one who admonishes me and others to keep a level head was finally triggered. You're not immune after all.

In all seriousness (which means I was just joking, right?) I'm waiting patiently for you to offer a semblance of factual information in a discussion —  any one of a number of threads we both follow.  

Tell me, who do you think killed the president in Dallas, the man who encouraged public discourse? Do you believe it was a coup, and if so, why?

 

Edited March 22, 2023 by Leslie Sharp

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:

@Chris BarnardI am also astonished that @W. Niederhut thinks @Benjamin Cole is a problem. He is a nice guy who speaks his mind politely. 

I've been having difficulty pinpointing the approach, and it finally came to me.

Sealioning refers to the disingenuous action by a commenter of making an ostensible effort to engage in sincere and serious civil debate, usually by asking persistent questions of the other commenter. These questions are phrased in a way that may come off as an effort to learn and engage with the subject at hand, but are really intended to erode the goodwill of the person to whom they are replying, to get them to appear impatient or to lash out, and therefore come off as unreasonable.

@Chris Barnard Is this unconscious behavior, or a result of training? 

Well, that’s an expression I haven’t heard before. I guess if it somehow excuses your irrational responses, I am happy for you to clutch at as many straws as you like, Leslie. 🤷‍♂️ 
 

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:

Your sticky beak has been all over the place.

I see now why you took up the mantle for Matthew Koch. You need support.  t's humorous to note that someone who admonishes me and others to keep a level head was finally triggered. You're not immune after all.

In all seriousness (which means I was just joking, right?) I'm waiting patiently for you to offer a semblance of factual information on any one of a number of threads we both follow.  

Tell me, who do you think killed the president in Dallas, the man who encouraged public discourse? Do you believe it was a coup, and if so, why?

 

I have two points for you to comprehend:

1) This thread was written regarding a very specific situation relating to equality and double standards here on the forum. I have made a case which you apparently can’t refute. Anything else will be off topic / irrelevant. 

2) Why would you assume that anyone would desire to interact with you? You gloated about representing the HR Hunt family in a PR capacity, and we all know the ills of that family. You have exhibited a lack of morality, civilised etiquette and objective reasoning skills IMO. There is no upside for anyone else to interact with you. IMO people like you socially isolate themselves. 
 

Something you may want to consider is; Hank, I am sure worked hard on the book that you finished in his absence. Your posts here have excellent SEO and serve as a written record of your credibility. You aren’t doing his work any favours with this pettiness. With my PR hat on, I would probably scrub all of this silliness and start again, maintaining greater composure and resolve. Of course, I am not expecting you to take sound advice. 

[Leslie Sharp]

40 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

Well, that’s an expression I haven’t heard before. I guess if it somehow excuses your irrational responses, I am happy for you to clutch at as many straws as you like, Leslie. 🤷‍♂️ 
 

It defines the method others have recognized for some time apparently.  I just arrived at the party late.

In fact, let me repeat it, because your recent posts are indicative of the same method, Seasoning, that Benjamin employs.  

Koch improvised a bit, but managed the same end result - see underlined.

 
Sealioning refers to the disingenuous action by a commenter of making an ostensible effort to engage in sincere and serious civil debate, usually by asking persistent questions of the other commenter. These questions are phrased in a way that may come off as an effort to learn and engage with the subject at hand, but are really intended to erode the goodwill of the person to whom they are replying, to get them to appear impatient or to lash out, and therefore come off as unreasonable.

Edited March 22, 2023 by Leslie Sharp

[Guest]

28 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

This post, Chris, upsets me deeply. I’ll give you one point, which I bet others would agree with. Matthew should have been warned. Maybe he was.

I can tell you very reliably that he hasn’t been warned. Only asked where he got information from. No warning. 
 

29 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

As for the rest of it, it’s now clear to me that you are doing far more than defending him. You are attacking what you perceive, wrongly, to be a bunch of misled mean spirited Democrats. Your next to last paragraph says an awful lot about who you think you are debating here, and it’s highly insulting.

I think you are reading too much into my reply, Paul. My response was not to upset you. It was to present the scenario which would make you question or review your position. It matters not when you like Matthew or agree with his positions. If we are being fair we need to put that aside. 
 

We have rules, and processes which we are all supposed to adhere to. In this instance one person has been scape-goated, and others allowed to remain free to do as they wish. 
 

It doesn’t amount to anything more than injustice, as per the rules and processes not being followed, selectively applied and obvious biases. 
 

Sometimes we all need to put the shoe on the other foot. You could see when I was suspended (apparently while comments were reviewed) that it was unjust or at least not even handed. You defended me, kindly, and I am grateful for that, Paul. Would I be a person of character if I saw the same thing happening to another person and was apathetic?  The difference is; you have very little in common as far as I can discern, with @Matthew Koch. You and I do have some common ground. I have some common ground with Matthew. I will say that he is a decent chap, who loves his JFK research and likes JFK for the reasons that we mostly do. It was permitted for him to be baited and he responded in kind. 
 

I think we all need to look at how we are doing things here and how we can improve. Its out of control and ultimately that in my eyes is partly due to the moderators and the participants in threads. 

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:

It defines the method others have recognized for some time apparently.  I just arrived at the party late.

Well, there is a ‘pareto distribution’ here, like everywhere else. Typically, I put little store in the thinking of the 80%. Perhaps its all a little more nuanced than  you’ve considered?! 

[Leslie Sharp]

1 minute ago, Chris Barnard said:

I have two points for you to comprehend:

1) This thread was written regarding a very specific situation relating to equality and double standards here on the forum. I have made a case which you apparently can’t refute. Anything else will be off topic / irrelevant. 

2) Why would you assume that anyone would desire to interact with you? You gloated about representing the HR Hunt family in a PR capacity, and we all know the ills of that family. You have exhibited a lack of morality, civilised etiquette and objective reasoning skills IMO. There is no upside for anyone else to interact with you. IMO people like you socially isolate themselves. 
 

Something you may want to consider is; Hank, I am sure worked hard on the book that you finished in his absence. Your posts here have excellent SEO and serve as a written record of your credibility. You aren’t doing his work any favours with this pettiness. With my PR hat on, I would probably scrub all of this silliness and start again, maintaining greater composure and resolve. Of course, I am not expecting you to take sound advice. 

You gloated about representing the HR Hunt family in a PR capacity, and we all know the ills of that family.

Gloated? Can you please provide an instance of "gloating"? You mimic Koch's tactic when you invert the facts.  I determined early on, with Hank's blessing, that I would be transparent regarding my stint with the Hunts. If you interpret that as "gloating", you're ignorant. It's also obvious you did not read our book, nor have you read the excerpts directly related to H. L. Hunt posted on various threads.

You have exhibited a lack of morality, civilised etiquette and objective reasoning skills IMO.

Won't work, Chris.  Try something else.

IMO people like you socially isolate themselves. 

More psychobabble.

Hank, I am sure worked hard on the book that you finished in his absence.

You know nothing of Hank, or of the circumstances of how this book took shape. For your edification, Hank contacted me in 2017 to co-author the book, 50/50. Pursuant to that call, I was actively engaged with the project, working with him daily and frequently in person. The prelim manuscript was "ours", designated a joint work under US copyright. After his devastating untimely passing, along with his valued friend and colleague — expert researcher and skilled writer in his own right — Alan Kent, I brought our collaboration across the finish line. 

Of course, I am not expecting you to take sound advice. 

Sanctimonious.

[Leslie Sharp]

12 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

Well, there is a ‘pareto distribution’ here, like everywhere else. Typically, I put little store in the thinking of the 80%. Perhaps its all a little more nuanced than  you’ve considered?! 

Intellectual arrogance is unattractive. 

I prefer simple concepts, like SEALIONING.  

[Leslie Sharp]

7 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:

You gloated about representing the HR Hunt family in a PR capacity, and we all know the ills of that family.

Gloated? Can you please provide an instance of "gloating"? You mimic Koch's tactic when you invert the facts.  I determined early on, with Hank's blessing, that I would be transparent regarding my stint with the Hunts. If you interpret that as "gloating", you're ignorant. It's also obvious you did not read our book, nor have you read the excerpts directly related to H. L. Hunt posted on various threads.

You have exhibited a lack of morality, civilised etiquette and objective reasoning skills IMO.

Won't work, Chris.  Try something else.

IMO people like you socially isolate themselves. 

More psychobabble.

Hank, I am sure worked hard on the book that you finished in his absence.

You know nothing of Hank, or of the circumstances of how this book took shape. For your edification, Hank contacted me in 2017 to co-author the book, 50/50. Pursuant to that call, I was actively engaged with the project, working with him daily and frequently in person. The prelim manuscript was "ours", designated a joint work under US copyright. After his devastating untimely passing, along with his valued friend and colleague — expert researcher and skilled writer in his own right — Alan Kent, I brought our collaboration across the finish line. 

Of course, I am not expecting you to take sound advice. 

Sanctimonious.

@Chris Barnard PS.  You obviously missed the Great Ed Forum Kerfuffle of 2016.  Had you been there, you would know something about Hank's temperament.  He did not suffer fools, he did not pander to an audience, he spoke the truth and truth to power, he challenged the sacred cows.  I speculate you and he would have locked horns immediately,  or he would have ignored you altogether. Having studied mind control operations for two decades, he deplored mind games and psychobabble. He knew their root.

[Guest]

25 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:

Intellectual arrogance is unattractive. 

I’m ‘taken’ Leslie. Thanks 

[Guest]

22 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:

@Chris Barnard PS.  You obviously missed the Great Ed Forum Kerfuffle of 2016.  Had you been there, you would know something about Hank's temperament.  He did not suffer fools, he did not pander to an audience, he spoke the truth and truth to power, he challenged the sacred cows.  I speculate you and he would have locked horns immediately,  or he would have ignored you altogether. Having studied mind control operations for two decades, he deplored mind games and psychobabble. He knew their root.

I am touched by your reverence to Hank. I think that’s nice and admirable.
I did mean it sincerely when I suggested you are damaging your own as well as his reputation with this written record. It’s a shame you can’t see this self destruction. 

[Guest]

26 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:

@Chris Barnard PS.  You obviously missed the Great Ed Forum Kerfuffle of 2016.  Had you been there, you would know something about Hank's temperament.  He did not suffer fools, he did not pander to an audience, he spoke the truth and truth to power, he challenged the sacred cows.  I speculate you and he would have locked horns immediately,  or he would have ignored you altogether. Having studied mind control operations for two decades, he deplored mind games and psychobabble. He knew their root.

In the words of Benjamin C; I guess we are worlds apart and we’ll have to just agree to disagree. 

[Leslie Sharp]

21 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

I am touched by your reverence to Hank. I think that’s nice and admirable.
I did mean it sincerely when I suggested you are damaging your own as well as his reputation with this written record. It’s a shame you can’t see this self destruction. 

Sea Lion.

[Leslie Sharp]

21 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

In the words of Benjamin C; I guess we are worlds apart and we’ll have to just agree to disagree. 

Spoken like a true, fellow sea lion.

[Leslie Sharp]

29 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

I’m ‘taken’ Leslie. Thanks 

As am I, Chris.

Now, what about the question of who killed our president in Dallas in 1963, the man who encouraged [intelligent and preferably informed if not fact-based] public discourse?

It's not lost on me that you failed to engage in polite discourse related to my challenge to your subjective and ill informed comments -- you know, the gloating thing, the Hunts, my joint work copyright with Hank, details you now avoid?  I refer to that as "hit and run".  Most unattractive.