Michael Moore's Commentary on George W. Bush and the Enron Corporation

[Diamond The U2 Patriot]

At the end of the day
When the dust has settled
and
The smoke has cleared..
Bubba is standing and rules the day..

Diamond

------------------
"...The big guy is made of STEEL." - Bono as we stood together on stage at Boston #4, June 9th, 2001.

---
-curious? click
links for
Bono/Dimon-
Bos.4 Story
Pics..

http://www.arizonaautoweb.com/bono/

http://members.aol.com/diamondbruno9/

[U2live]

somebody has an awful lot of time on their hands to waste.

[Ormus]

Originally posted by melon:
If you dislike what he has said, the least you could do is state "why," rather than resurrect your post Sept. 11th dismissal of him, which, I might remind you, I found myself disagreeing with the articles as well then. Put aside Moore's continuing flaw--his partisanship--and read his description Enron's association with the Bush (I and II) Administrations.

Originally posted by Achtung Bubba:
In summary, Moore equated the terrorists of 9/11 with the United States itself; in one article, he compares 9/11 to Nicaragua and even the tragic shooting at Kent State (an absurd comparison). He further implied that the U.S. is responsible for AND DESERVED the attacks.

*bump*

Ormus

[Achtung Bubba]

Oh, I see. I apparently don't address Moore's current absurdity, right?

WRONG.

Originally posted by Achtung Bubba:
That said, Moore's tirade falls apart on many levels:


It seems to me there are four situations involving a politician and the policies he supports, each starting with the premise that he ideologically supports Policy A.

1. Mr. Smith supports A; a group in support of of Policy A contributes to his campaign; he continues to support A.

2. Smith supports A; a pro-A group funds him; he changes his mind and supports B.

3. Smith supports A; a group that supports an alternative B contributes to his campaign; he STILL continues to support A.

4. Smith supports A; a pro-B group funds his campaign; he changes his mind to B.

In (1) and (2), what we have is a group supporting a candidate because he already supports their cause. It's like the NRA supporting an established pro-gun candidate. I believe it is the normal way of politics; groups support candidates that already champion their causes.

In (1), the candidate still supports A, but he would have done so without the funding from the group. The funding didn't affect his behavior; thus, no scandal.

Honestly, (2) seems quite rare, and one certainly can't assert that the group's funding changed his mind. I think it can be safely disregarded here.

In (3) and (4), the candidate supports one thing and the group supports another. It seems clear that they are trying to influence the candidate so that will change his mind at a later date. This is also probably quite frequent, but it's not necessarily cause for alarm.

In (3), the candidate ignores the funding and sticks to his principles. The funding doesn't affect his behavior; again, no scandal.

In (4), I think we have a reason to raise an eyebrow or two. It appears that the groups funding influenced and altered the man's behavior. That's very bad.

Basically, it's only bad if the contributions caused the politician to do something he wouldn't have done without the funding.

The problem is, everything Moore mentioned is either quite speculative or falls under (1) or (3) - NOT (4).

As an example, the suggestion that Enron's chiefs "interviewed" candidates for Administration positions is so speculative that very few others are touching it. Given that there are quite a few who in the mainstream press who desparately want to find a scandal, this seems to indicate there's NONE to find.

An example of (1)? Bush hiring people he personally knows in the oil and energy industries should be expected; presidents hire who they know and can trust, just as Clinton hired lawyer friends. Bush's handling of the energy problems in California, energy policies in general, and tax policy fall clearly under conservative ideaology. Thus, one can't point to Enron and say, "That's why he did it!"

An example of (3): the fact that Bush did NOT help bail Enron out. I believe this is most telling. Here you have an example where Bush could have chosen a big contributor over the principles of the free market, and HE CHOSE HIS PRINCIPLES. Whether you agree with the decision is irrelevant; what matters is that he appears to have chosen his conscience of contributions.

There's no reliable evidence of (4), the only scenario that matters.


Another major complaint is related to the fact that Bush refused to help Enron. Quite a few partisans (Daschle in particular) have been so desparate to find a scandal - ANY SCANDAL - that their accusations are contradictory and illogical.

Bush has Enron ties, so he must have helped Enron, right? Doesn't look that way, so the new argument is, "Well, he just stood there and let it happen! He should have helped the little guy!"

And Moore has followed Daschle's suit, proof that his partisanship comes above his "compelling arguments."

The suggestion that Bush was wrong to do nothing BEGS the question, what, then, should he have done? No president has ever, should ever, or probably will ever announce that a company is collapsing and that its employees should sell its stocks immediately.

K-Mart has been on the brink; Bush did nothing there, so I suppose that's his fault too?

Picture it, Melon: Say Bush makes the announcement that Enron is falling apart and employees and stockholders should sell while they can.

WHO THE FUCK IS GOING TO BUY THAT STOCK?

No one.

Bush would make Enron stock immediately worthless. The only thing he COULD have done was somehow convince others to buy up that stock, but you're still stuck with the problem of people having a less valuable portfolio - a problem presidents have never addressed. To use Moore's analogy, to save the people in the house, he would have had to convince others to take their place. The suggestion is absurd.


Finally, my last major complaint is that, as a writer, he's sloppy. The title of the article is "George W. in the Garden of Gethsemane", an allusion to Christ's final prayer before being turned over to the Romans. If he's making the comparison between Bush and Christ, then he's ignoring a REALLY salient part of the story of Gethsemane: Christ was falsely accused.

Beyond that, the "Gethsemane" bit never enters into the article, and the only other reference to the Bible is, "The cock
has crowed for the last time." This is a reference to Peter's betrayal, which doesn't even occur in the garden, and probably has nothing to do with the analogy he was trying to make.

Michael Moore is a hateful, hateful man; his hate makes his arguments unreasonable and his prose unreadable.

That is why I dislike the man and disdain those who find him so profound.

*bump*

I did in fact post quite a long reply to the latest article - something you would know if you read this entire thread.

Anything else, Ormus?

[Achtung Bubba]

Originally posted by melon:
You are pathetic. I'm not trying to make this out into some macho contest, and I honestly don't give a fuck about who "wins." Reading the consensus of most of the messages here, I wouldn't say that you've won; it's just that your responses are so ridiculous that they are unanswerable--much like Rush's own rhetoric. How many times and in how many manners can I reiterate that those rating statistics are misleading? Even in elementary school, we are taught to question graphs and statistics, but I see you were sleeping during that. You don't care...it's all about ego to you.

And, in typical fashion, we've strayed from the original topic to some dumb ass thread about Rush Limbaugh. I'm tired of arguing to a post. You've obviously got your mind set and opinions formulated, and I don't even know the point of arguing this further. I'm just repeating myself, attempting to knock some sense into you, when you are clearly not receptive to ideas. It's a contest to you--much like our court system, where the object is not to discover truth, but to see who can trick the other side into stumbling. A laugh a minute, but since I'm concerned with finding truth amongst the ruins, I had best start looking elsewhere. I'm finished with this discussion. Period.

If others, besides Bubba, wish to comment in earnest, I'll be happy to respond.

Melon

Oh, you're finished with this discussion, are you?

I remember that I also tried that, once or twice, agreeing to stop discussing politics with you; I would stop IF you stopped. You didn't, choosing instead to return to your infuriating style of shoddy debating.

And now you say you're tired of debating me, conveniently coinciding with the moment that I've caught you in a serious error of logic. How nice.

I'm tired of debating you, too. I have tried to end it, allowing you to post what you will on the assumption that you would do the same to me. (If you noticed, I did not respond to your posts until you first broke the agreement to stop arguing.) That hasn't worked.

I will again extend this offer to stop this. If you agree to stop replying to my posts, I will resume my practice of ignoring you.


Until you agree, I will continue to question every statement you make.

(You misread my posts far too often; it seems only fair that I nitpick at yours.)


You say that we are to question statistics. Yes, we are supposed to be be skeptical, but numbers cannot be rejected simply because they are numbers. You seem to go from the true observation that "some statistics are misleading" to the fallacy that "all stats are misleading", and you simply can't say that logically.

I didn't "sleep through that class", but I don't reject all stats out-of-hand. Neither do you, as I've noticed.

That said, I asked for evidence that would overturn the seemingly overwhelming statistics of 600 stations, 20 million listeners a week, and a record-breaking new contract. You provided anecdotal evidence of your own hometown (one that appears to be a town dominated by usually liberal unions), vague comments about how statistics are misleading, and that's about it.

Sorry, that's not enough to overturn my evidence.

Yes, this issue is very off-topic (though an error made on an off-topic point is still an error), but I think it clearly demonstrates that you won't admit when you overstep your bounds.

I occasionally say something that seems quite outrageous. Sometimes I mean it as written. If it was miswritten, I correct it. If it was poorly explained (as was my opinion of Moore at the beginning of this thread), I elaborate. And if I simply overstated something, I apologize and move on.

You implied that Rush has been rejected by the "general consensus", deemed an extremist who is "not even worthy of listening to" - and the way you presented this point made you look supremely confident that you were right, and that Rush's rejection as an extremist is very nearly self-evident.

And yet, your only evidence is the fact that your town seems to have rejected Rush, making the fallacy of trying to extend that local feeling to the entire country; and the fact that ratings stats can be manipulated and are often misleading - committing the mistake of saying that numbers' manipulation MUST be true simply because it COULD be true.

You overstepped your ability to defend your argument, I think, and the fact that you don't admit that is telling.


I too search for the truth, but I try to restrict myself to arguments that are logical, well reasoned, and well defended. To do otherwise would keep me stumbling in the dark world of feelings, opinions, and relativism.

Truth, whenever it is found or appears to have been found, must be tested through debate.

One person says, "I believe X, becuase Y."

Another person says, "I disagree, because Z."

And so on.

The truth will win in the end, especially if the armchair philosophers abide by such simple guidlines as not mischaracterizing previous arguments and not presenting arguments with a great deal of logic or evidence waiting behind it.

And, of course, the question of which argument wins is not one of "consensus" of a discussion, but a question of the merits of the arguments.

Asking for sufficient evidence (even on a minor point, particularly if the minor point seems to be made confidently, but on some very large assumptions) isn't playing games, keeping score, acting macho, or using courtroom tricks.

It's keeping you intellectually honest, melon.


As long as you continue to debate me, I will hold you to the high standards of demonstrating a reasonable amount of proof or logic behind your arguments.

And if you REALLY want out of debating me, permanently, say so - and keep your word.

[Calluna]

I am afraid you spoke too soon, Diamond. Perhaps the dust has settled where
you're at but I'm still smoking.

Calluna (or Melon, since you sound awfully defensive about poor, sweet,
innocent Melon):

Oh I assure you that I am not melon, although I am friend of his and I am not going to sit back and watch you misrepresent him.

You are right: on October 11th, I apparently did figure out that the two names were controlled by one person.

So if you had already figured out that the two names were the same person then
how was melon to know that you had forgotten?? He can't read your mind. Too bad he isnt online right now to defend himself but I’m willing to bet that he
thought you remembered that melon = Ormus too. If he thought that you already
knew it was him then he wasnt really trying to decieve you at all.

But is ALSO true that my memory is not perfect. I do not keep tabs on the many names of Melon, Deathbear, ********, and whoever else can't own up to their own comments.

FYI - I know you dont have time to keep up with all these multiple handles but
deathbear only has one name now, the original Zoomerang96 so I dont think he has a problem owning up to his own comments and I dont think melon does
either.


It should be clear to anyone who thinks that I'm being the least bit honest
that, at the time of THIS thread, I honestly did not know that melon was Ormus.
It should also be clear - by the fact that Ormus asserted something melon
knew to be otherwise - that melon/Ormus was being deceitful.

And I honestly believe you when you say that you did not know melon was Ormus
until Bama informed you earlier today but it is not melon’s fault that you have
such a poor memory. He wasnt being decietful if he believed that you knew melon = Ormus when he posted as Ormus.

If it isn't clear, go ahead and call me a liar, because you're certainly
insinuating that I am.

There you go, twisting other peoples words around again. I never called you a
liar. I just said that I thought you knew melon =Ormus. And i honestly did think
that you would remember that. Anyway, I guess its ok for you to insinuate that
melon is a liar but not the other way around.

Beyond that, I did not call melon a troll. I said he ACTED like a troll, and I stand by that evaluation. He misled this forum and misled me, specifically and intentionally, in order to incite me to anger. That sure as HELL sounds like troll behavior to me, and if ANYONE starts doing that - veteran or not - they risk punishment from the Admins. There are no exceptions, and there SHOULD be no exceptions.

Oh okay, you said he "acted like a troll." Well I dont think he did act like
one. How did he mislead you if he thought that you already knew he was Ormus?? Im sure melon has better things to do with his time then to sit around thinking of ways to "incite your anger."

I'm doing this and I don't like him "because he is the only one who is not
afraid to stand up to [me]"? That's bullshit, and I think you know that.

No its not bullshit, its the truth but you will never admit it.

Look at this thread alone: Danospano and doctorwho disagree with me, and make it known. Do I become uncivil around them? NO.

I’ll give you that one but I think you and melon have a history of intense
debates and you had it out for him from the start.

Are you slow or something? I did not say it's a crime to create an alias "to
escape preconcieved notions". This has nothing to do with "escape". I'm upset
because, and I quote, he "disguised himself to assert that I never elaborated
at all - an assertion about me that he knew to be false."

That's nice, insulting my intelligence. Oh ok, I guess Im "slow" now in addition
to being "not too bright" because I just cant see how he was disguising himself if he thought you already knew he was Ormus.

THAT is what I have the problem with. He's using his alias not to "escape",
but to commit character assassination, to act like I didn't say something, when
I already had - AND HE ALREADY FUCKING RESPONDED TO IT!

character assasination??!!! Oh, please, aren't you blowing this just a little
bit out of proportion?

What is so difficult about this concept, and how does this NOT qualify as
harassing me? Through "melon" and now through at least one alias HE IS LYING ABOUT WHAT I HAVE AND HAVE NOT SAID.

Yeah, you’re insinuating that melon is a liar again. If melon is harrassing you then
you are harassing him as well.

But this is apparently not a big deal, huh? In these discussions about
relatively important issues of the day, true representations of viewpoints is
essential. It is IMPOSSIBLE for someone to agree or disagree with me if they
don't accurately know what I believe.

I think we all know what you believe quite well because we have had it shoved
down our throats day after day, over and over again, until we are sick to death
of it.

And it is now clear that Melon has been interfering with the expression of my
viewpoint that I have been trying terribly hard to build. It's clear he doing
so deliberately, and doing so knowing that he is lying.

There’s that lying thing again. All melon is doing is debating with you.

Not harassing me at all? What do you know?

I know because I read through this whole thread and nothing that melon has
written constitutes harassment.

Further, I did not threaten to ban melon - I threatened to ask Elvis permission to boot melon; there is a huge difference.

Please enlighten me then. What exactly is the difference between threatening to
ban someone or threatening to ask Elvis to “boot” someone. What is the
difference between booting and banning?? Sounds like the same thing to me.

It'd be nice if you actually read my post thoroughly enough to notice the
difference.

Whatever, I read your post.


Finally, I'm not being a "a big egotistical bully". I'm FUCKING DEFENDING
MYSELF from slander. I've tried twice to convince melon to just leave me the
fuck alone, and he hasn't. I now KNOW he's messing with me intentionally, and
I will no longer put up with it.

He’s messing with you intentionally because he has a different opinion than
you?? Slander??? Come on!!?? Melon has tried to get you to leave him alone too
but you wont ever quit screaming, "I'm right! I'm right! Im right!" It seems to
me that you are messing with him intentionally.

It is no secret at all that I am not arbitrary with these decisions for anyone who pays attention to the forum at all. I'm not threatening Melon on a whim (or without the full intention to carry through if needed).


It is no secret at all that you already attempted to ban melon once for
disagreeing with you. You forced him to apologize when he had done nothing worth apologizing for. I called that arbitrary and unnecessary. Melon has done nothing worth banishment.

And I'm not planning on issuing the same promise to anyone else. I will tell
you this, though: keep insinuating I'm a liar, and keep calling me a bully,
and I WILL start noticing.

LMAO! That was a bullying statement if I ever heard one! Notice THIS!!!

I'm sorry if this got repetitive but I think Bubba's arguments are repetitive too. It is my birthday now and I have wasted enough time responding to you. I know you wont listen anyways. But dont expect me back in here posting for at least another twenty-four hours. Im not going to let this ruin my birthday.

[Angela Harlem]

Calluna that was very well written. The points you made may very well be correct. I feel however that Bubba may have points to make in respnse, which are true from his point of view.

Bubba, this debate is at its end. You are from the opposite end of the political scale to melon. Melon, its the same for you. This is now nothing more than a pissing contest. This forum however requires evidence to make a statement like that. Here is the evidence. http://forum.interference.com/u2feed...ML/001072.html
I am not going to go through and quote from 3 pages of replies, and reiterate. It is a practice that I feel unessecary, when you both are quite capable of reading through and doing it yourselves. The only difference between Bubba's replies in here and Melon's are that Bubba, you are using your power as you know it has weight. If for example you and I both had the same complaint about melon, and we made a point of it to Elvis, yours has the most potential. I am not arguing this either, you are a mod on this board. Any complaint coming directly from you is going to carry further than one from me. Which in all its aspects is how it should be. As for the credence of your claims of harassment, perhaps they are true, perhaps they are not. I only say this because Calluna has already offered an argument for the negative, and I have no doubt you can offer an argument in responcse for the affirmative - that melon is deceiving, lying, harrassing. Whatever you wish to call this. One thing you may wish to consider, is that melon many many many times has come up against members of this board and argued very strongly about what he believes in. Never to my knowledge has anyone felt it was personal, or worthy of an actual complaint. I am not saying melon is free of 'guilt' as it were, but it does appear that you are the 1st to state your dissatisfaction is at a point to warrant a comlaint. This being said, you can bring forth his removal from this board. Any of us cannot do that, all we can do is bring the matter to the attention of the owner of this board to keep an eye on, and then decide what to do. This is not the 1st time you have threatened to do this simply because you do not agree with him. There was a time a few months back when his account was suspended. I am not searching to verify this. I believe your claim was that melon was acting inappropriately by setting up some kind of 'test' post to invoke a certain response. Absolutely that may be considered inappropriate behaviour, but no one else suggested his removal, if my memory serves me. Nevertheless, we are discussing now, not then. This thread has unfolded so that, once the arguments over the merit of Michael Moore were discussed, it moved onto the pissing contest. Each reply getting more and more pedantic and 'nit picky'. You had both obviously run out of things to say. To anyone else, it seemed as though it would only end if one of you were to quit. I cannot believe the amount of energy wasted trying to force the opinion of one onto another. You claim harasssment, you claim that melon is lying etc. You have that right. You cannot nfortunately see that your comments have angered others. You resort to the name calling and then when questioned reply in that much loved condescending manner. If you take note again, you will see Bubba just how many people, who may actually agree with your political viewpoint, are still in disagreeance with your method of dealing and speaking with the members of this board.

I'd be happy for you to reply to me Bubba, or melon, or both. Please pick out all the holes in my argument, give me back some rhetoric, we can start another pissing contest, they are good reading. For that is all it is. My view. I am like you Achtung Bubba and melon, I believe in my opinions. No one will ever agree with me on everything. Sometimes I am wrong, Bubba, sometimes you are. Melon, you too.

I would love to see the 2 of you agree to disagree. If you cannot do that, fine, but Bubba think about your position as moderator of this particular forum. I say this after reading months and months of you not being able to keep a clear head on all the events we have seen recently. This is by no means an attack on your views, it is simply appearing to be a conflict of interest.

[Diamond The U2 Patriot]

I think both Melon and Bubba are both fine fellows.

I do think the majority of Bubba's posts
were defending his honor and integrity-usually siting sources ect..

Melon appears to be equally as brilliant but thinks w/the other side of his brain.

Diamond



[This message has been edited by Diamond The U2 Patriot (edited 02-05-2002).]

[Spiral_Staircase]

So much anger. So much foul language.

This is all Enron's fault!

[Achtung Bubba]

Calluna:

Oh I assure you that I am not melon, although I am friend of his and I am not going to sit back and watch you misrepresent him.

Glad to see you're not Melon, and that's awfully kind that you're not going to let me misrepresent him.

Problem is, again, melon has been continuously misrepresenting my views - it's now clear he's doing so intentionally and I think maliciously. If misrepresentation is "making a big deal out of nothing", then why should you be so committed to preventing it? And why should melon be granted protection from supposed misrepresentation and I shouldn't?


So if you had already figured out that the two names were the same person then
how was melon to know that you had forgotten?? He can't read your mind. Too bad he isnt online right now to defend himself but I’m willing to bet that he
thought you remembered that melon = Ormus too. If he thought that you already
knew it was him then he wasnt really trying to decieve you at all.

I'm not sure whether melon knew that I had forgotten (by noticing that I didn't recognize Ormus previously) or whether he was merely guessing. But it STILL appears that melon/Ormus intentionally posted as Ormus to be dishonest.

Why? BECAUSE ORMUS IMPLIED THAT I DIDN'T EXPLAIN MY POSITION, AND MELON CLEARLY KNEW THAT TO BE TRUE, BECAUSE MELON REPLIED TO THE POST WHERE I EXPLAINED MY POSITION.

Ormus, who has appeared in just EIGHT threads in "Free Your Mind", appeared out of nowhere, said something that melon knew to be false, and signed his name "Ormus". There's EVERY indication melon/ormus did this to lie about me.

Beyond THAT, Ormus has only posted to the forum 49 times - in only 24 threads since his secret slipped, and only 7 threads in Free Your Mind since his secret was revealed. It seems pretty clear then that melon uses Ormus very rarely, to the point that I SHOULD question this rare instance that he used it, particularly in the same thread where he uses melon, and particularly when he uses the accounts to say TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.

What indicates that he WASN'T intentionally lying and hiding?

FYI - I know you dont have time to keep up with all these multiple handles but
deathbear only has one name now, the original Zoomerang96 so I dont think he has a problem owning up to his own comments and I dont think melon does
either.

Melon does have a problem: he not only doesn't sign these multiple accounts the same way (to let everyone explicitly know who he is), he SAYS THINGS HE KNOWS TO BE FALSE AND HIDES BEHIND A SECOND ACCOUNT TO DO SO. Once again, Ormus implied I didn't elaborate; melon knew better, because he had REPLIED to my elaboration.

And I honestly believe you when you say that you did not know melon was Ormus
until Bama informed you earlier today but it is not melon’s fault that you have
such a poor memory. He wasnt being decietful if he believed that you knew melon = Ormus when he posted as Ormus.

Again, that is ONE HUGE "if", "if he believed that I knew melon = Ormus".

Because, logically, IF he knew, he wouldn't have used the two accounts to say two different things and then get immediately nailed for being an obvious ass.

There you go, twisting other peoples words around again. I never called you a
liar. I just said that I thought you knew melon =Ormus. And i honestly did think
that you would remember that. Anyway, I guess its ok for you to insinuate that
melon is a liar but not the other way around.

You also said, "It is no secret at all that melon is Ormus for anyone who pays attention to the forum at all."

You're implying that I either don't pay attention to the forum "at all" or that, if I do, I MUST know that melon is Ormus, so I must be lying about the assertion that I didn't.

I'll accept that you may not have been intentionally calling me a liar, but that sentence above implies that I am.

And I'm not insinuating melon is a liar: I'm outright declaring it as an obvious truth. LOOK AGAIN at melon's posts and at Ormus' single post, and you'll see that A) Ormus IS implying that I didn't elaborate on Moore's latest article and B) Melon knew that I had done so, becuase he responded to my elaboration.

You cannot honestly ignore those two facts, and the ONLY conclusion to be drawn is that Ormus was intentionally implying something he KNEW to be false.

What other conclusions can be reached?

Oh okay, you said he "acted like a troll." Well I dont think he did act like
one. How did he mislead you if he thought that you already knew he was Ormus?? Im sure melon has better things to do with his time then to sit around thinking of ways to "incite your anger."

What part of Ormus' post makes you think he believed that I knew Ormus = melon? As far as I can tell, there IS NO such indication.

And, if you've been paying any attention to our discussions, you will see that I am frequently being misrepresented by melon. If he's NOT doing it intentionally, he's one of the worst debaters I have EVER encounterd - and either way, he can EASILY stop, and he hasn't.

No its not bullshit, its the truth but you will never admit it.

...

I’ll give you that one but I think you and melon have a history of intense
debates and you had it out for him from the start.

If you grant that other members can disagree and I don't become angry, then you concede my point: Melon is not "the only one who is not afraid to stand up to [me]". To say otherwise is simply NOT the truth.

And if you kept up with these discussions, you will also see that I've tried my DAMNED HARDEST to keep this civil, despite the fact that melon has consistently misrepresented a good portion of my posts.

I may not have been perfectly civil, but it should be clear that I have tried.

This isn't a case of melon being bullied; this is a case of melon fucking with a guy ONCE TOO OFTEN, and the guy finally responding.

That's nice, insulting my intelligence. Oh ok, I guess Im "slow" now in addition
to being "not too bright" because I just cant see how he was disguising himself if he thought you already knew he was Ormus.

Bingo.

Hate to be this rude, but it's obvious that Ormus was implying something Melon knew to be false; it is thus reasonable to conclude that melon/Ormus wouldn't do this if he thought I would make the connection between the two.

If you can't see that, you might not be "slow", but you may then be letting your friendship with melon get in the way of the truth, the truth that melon knowingly lied, the truth which I KEEP reiterating.

character assasination??!!! Oh, please, aren't you blowing this just a little
bit out of proportion?

In the context of melon doing this time after time after time? No.

Melon has frequently mischaracterized what I said. The more he has done this, the more I have had to waste the time of myself and the other forum members RE-EXPLAINING what I said. That takes away from my ability to have a reasonable discussion about the issues, because instead of debating the issues, I have to fight to make clear what I even said to begin with.

If that's not character assassination, it's still damn annoying, completely counterproductive and unnecessary, and something THAT WILL STOP.

Yeah, you’re insinuating that melon is a liar again. If melon is harrassing you then
you are harassing him as well.

I see: we're doing the same thing. Except, thing is, I'm REPLYING to his actions; to use a phrase from grade school, he started it - and there IS something to be said for the difference between the person who starts a fight and the person who responds.

Again, I'm not insuination melon lied: I'm outright STATING it, because HE OBVIOUSLY LIED.

I think we all know what you believe quite well because we have had it shoved
down our throats day after day, over and over again, until we are sick to death
of it.

Whatever. Others post to "Free Your Mind" and reiterate their points just as much as I do. As long as I'm attempting to conduct a legitimate discussion, you don't have much room to complain. If you don't like these discussions, don't read them.

Now you're just taking pot shots.

There’s that lying thing again. All melon is doing is debating with you.

No, he isn't; you're delusional if you honestly think he is.

I know because I read through this whole thread and nothing that melon has
written constitutes harassment.

...other than the fact that he used Ormus to imply that I didn't reiterate my point when he clearly knew otherwise

Please enlighten me then. What exactly is the difference between threatening to
ban someone or threatening to ask Elvis to “boot” someone. What is the
difference between booting and banning?? Sounds like the same thing to me.

I wasn't making a distinction between booting and banning. The difference I'm making is between asking Elvis and doing so on my own. I don't have to ask Elvis to get rid of melon (I have those administrative powers myself), so asking Elvis would be a sign of good faith that I would boot melon arbitrarily... despite the fact that you seem hell-bent to portray me as a bully.

(Here's a thought question: if I AM such a bully, why haven't I already simply kicked melon out already? Why have I twice agreed to leave him alone if he did the same?)

He’s messing with you intentionally because he has a different opinion than
you?? Slander??? Come on!!?? Melon has tried to get you to leave him alone too
but you wont ever quit screaming, "I'm right! I'm right! Im right!" It seems to
me that you are messing with him intentionally.

No, melon HASN'T tried to get me to leave me alone. I was the one who first agreed to live-and-let-live TWICE, and he was the one to first break that agreement TWICE. The only instance he's tried to "get me to leave him alone" was in this thread, when I clearly nailed him on an assertion he simply could not prove.

I will admit that I emphasized that point (that melon overreached), but this is after months of him misrepresenting me. This thread is simply the point where I have stopped putting up with melon's bullshit.

It is no secret at all that you already attempted to ban melon once for
disagreeing with you. You forced him to apologize when he had done nothing worth apologizing for. I called that arbitrary and unnecessary. Melon has done nothing worth banishment.

NOTHING WORTH APOLOGIZING FOR? I think you're very mistaken on that one.

Again, if I was such a bully, I wouldn't have reinstated him, and he wouldn't still be here.

LMAO! That was a bullying statement if I ever heard one! Notice THIS!!!

No, it's the truth - and it's self-defense.

[Achtung Bubba]

Angela:

Again, I don't HAVE to go to Elvis and complain; I can remove Melon myself.

The fact is, melon has consistently misrepresented what I say - DESPITE the fact that I've tried to reason with him on this. This isn't viewpoint vs. viewpoint; this is a matter of the simple courtesy to make a concerted effort to portray someone else's views accurately. Melon has NOT made that effort.

The fact is, because of that, I've twice tried to "agree to disagree", to NOT debate with him if he did the same. Melon was the one to break that agreement TWICE.

I don't have to have some sort of consensus to remove people from this board (and I will remind you that I VERY RARELY remove people, and usually give them an opportunity to redeem themselves, as I believe I did with melon).

I can remove him on my own, in an instant, and I haven't. That should count for something.

One thing, though:

You resort to the name calling and then when questioned reply in that much loved condescending manner. If you take note again, you will see Bubba just how many people, who may actually agree with your political viewpoint, are still in disagreeance with your method of dealing and speaking with the members of this board.

A person who posts a link to the EXACT SAME thread that the person is on cannot really say a whole lot about being condescending.

I too would love to see us "agree to disagree". Again, I have tried TWICE to agree to simply ignore each other. TWICE melon broke that agreement, and I have simply become tired of playing nice.

In one way, all this is is an offer to agree to disagree. If melon can leave me alone (and I will certainly do the same), there will be no problems.

[Achtung Bubba]

Further, while this is a case of one person harassing just one other person (and not the entire forum), this problem has gone on long enough to justify this promise of punishment if it continues.

If this happened between two others, and I found out about it, I would extend that threat there too: honestly, I would probably just suspend the account of the one who's harassing the other, no questions asked.

To suggest that I wouldn't is dishonest.

To suggest that I shouldn't use the same authority to defend myself is ridiculous.

And to suggest that this is somehow a conflict of interest ignores the fact that I can (and usually do) get along with everyone else, despite their views.

[U2Bama]

Originally posted by Spiral_Staircase:
This is all Enron's fault!

Initially, YES, but the nuclear holocaust it has turned into of late is all my fault for pointing out melon's Sybil complex. This affirms my desire to retire.

Oh, and Lemonite, you are WRONG about Bryant vs. Rockne.

~U2Alabama