Judge: Iowa gay marriage ban unconstitutional

[YomMamasHouse]

Funny, that alias is the same as one I encountered on a forum about cloning and stem cell research which was really just preachville for a bunch of depraved bible belters. I doubt the real person could have found fortress forever. I suspect one of the people from here who took an active role in those forums.

[SizeableSSonic]

Originally Posted by Christian Soldier

You are noted as a sinner SizeableSSonic, my righteousness will be swift on you

...what the hell?

[Innoc]

Originally Posted by Christian Soldier

Embrace the lord Scuzzy, embrace him and dine on our enemies flesh with divine righteousness.

IP check on aisle 12. I vote for a permaban for this troll by IP and accounts.

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by Christian Soldier

Embrace the lord Scuzzy, embrace him and dine on our enemies flesh with divine righteousness.

This has far to much ekiM in it for my taste.

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by ekiM

Has your contribution to this thread been anything other than nitpicking the arguments of others?

Nitpick Nitpick Nitpick, the way I write, Nitpick Nitpick Nitpick, the signing of my posts, Nitpick Nitpick Nitpick, my contribution to the thread, Nitpick Nitpick Nitpick... Nothing's every good enough for ekiM.

Scuzzy

[squeek.]

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

This has far to much ekiM in it for my taste.

Read Christian Soldier's first post in the thread. I just see a very awful attempt at really awful satire. If it is any long-time forum goer trying to be witty, I'd be disappointed and surprised.

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by squeek.

Read Christian Soldier's first post in the thread. I just see a very awful attempt at really awful satire. If it is any long-time forum goer trying to be witty, I'd be disappointed and surprised.

Oh I did read that the first time.... when CS started mentioning my name mixed in with the satirical Christian bashing, that's pretty much ekiM's style...

Scuzzy

[puppychow]

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

Nitpick Nitpick Nitpick, the way I write, Nitpick Nitpick Nitpick, the signing of my posts, Nitpick Nitpick Nitpick, my contribution to the thread, Nitpick Nitpick Nitpick... Nothing's every good enough for ekiM.

Scuzzy

Scuzzy,

I think there is something to ekiM's comment. You are obviously a smart guy, whether or not I or people think you are overly indoctrinated.

I think what rubs people the wrong way with your postings is it seems that you rarely lay your cards out on the table and rather just play quote wars with people - never quite saying what YOU believe and taking a chance, but rather riding the fence on issues and just playing the contrarian poster game; always ready to counter and try to poke holes without ever really knowing what you believe.

IMO, and this is not a bash at all, I think you would be better served by changing your approach - stop the line by line quoting and write your opinions (and take more chances) in a clearer, singular or mutiple paragraph format. The approach you take is just somewhat grating and annoying.

Alot of people have issues with the way you conduct debates or post - if the numbers really continue to point in that direction, perhaps its time to examine how you present yourself, and gasp, maybe alter. Saying you were wrong once or twice, or at least being open to that possibility would go a long way as well.

Not a sermon, just a thought

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by puppychow

Scuzzy,

I think there is something to ekiM's comment. You are obviously a smart guy, whether or not I or people think you are overly indoctrinated.

I think what rubs people the wrong way with your postings is it seems that you rarely lay your cards out on the table and rather just play quote wars with people - never quite saying what YOU believe and taking a chance, but rather riding the fence on issues and just playing the contrarian poster game; always ready to counter and try to poke holes without ever really knowing what you believe.

IMO, and this is not a bash at all, I think you would be better served by changing your approach - stop the line by line quoting and write your opinions (and take more chances) in a clearer, singular or mutiple paragraph format. The approach you take is just somewhat grating and annoying.

Alot of people have issues with the way you conduct debates or post - if the numbers really continue to point in that direction, perhaps its time to examine how you present yourself, and gasp, maybe alter. Saying you were wrong once or twice, or at least being open to that possibility would go a long way as well.

Not a sermon, just a thought

There are times a debate can be moved forward by posing questions and/or posting and defending positions. You'll find in the "Ahead of his time" thread I've made my position and opinions on the matter quite clear. ekiM doesn't really care about that. I believe he is more interested in finding fault with Christians, no matter how small of a problem he can find, to make himself feel more secure. I've seen a significant projection mentality from his posts and it does get tiresome, but that's the mindset he's developed into.

In this particular thread I helped the conversation in a direction to highlight the "holier then thou" attitudes that some people have about equality. Ultimately it came down to "Equality for the people I like and the cause I feel is just", whether you were on the side of Christian values or otherwise. By bringing polygamists into the debate only a few people took a step back from their beliefs, examined them, and rethought them. Others could not let go of their prejudice. People tout their belief in "Equality for All!", but when the behavior is outside what they feel is normal, equality must end. A person does not necessarily have to post their own positions to contribute to a thread. The insistence of people for me to do so toward the end of this thread highlights they are specifically looking for something of mine to attack, rather then continue to examine their own internal prejudices.

Scuzzy

[halo]

You obviously don't know ekiM very well Scuzzy. It's not at all his style. He wouldn't been seen dead doing something like that. But then, you were just making a cheap dig at him in your typically hypocritical fashion.

Scuzzy posts here because he likes arguing. He may even admit that, though he'd probably change 'argue' to 'debate'. Same thing, different clothes. That's pretty much obvious. He only posts in threads about things that are contentious and he always has a lot to say about them.

This bit he certainly won't agree with though. His like of arguing is a big part of his writing style. The excessive number of quotes to pick away at other people's opinions, the use of condescension to get a rise out of people so that the argument continues. Notice, also, how he always gets the last word in. He never gives up an argument, the other person has to. He never backs down. That's why he's reluctant to post his opinions. Because then other people can do what he does to everyone else, back at him. (Pick away and find flaws.) He might lose, he might not get the last word, he might lose face. Maybe it's a pride thing. Maybe that losing face is the key. An inferiority complex. Probably not, but maybe.

He's actually very good at what he does. I don't think logic is his strength, but he doesn't often need it because he doesn't post much of his own views, except in cases where it's relatively clear cut. He picks away at both sides of an argument, quite often, but doesn't technically argue because he isn't supporting a conclusion. That would leave him too open. But in that case what he's doing is wasting time. People argue with him about the nits he picks expecting this to lead up the chain of the argument, as ordinarily it would. But he refuses to let it because he won't say what it thinks. And yet he also won't stop. The result? 13 pages of wasted time and nothing changes.

That's my theory anyway.

[ekiM]

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

Nitpick Nitpick Nitpick, the way I write, Nitpick Nitpick Nitpick, the signing of my posts, Nitpick Nitpick Nitpick, my contribution to the thread, Nitpick Nitpick Nitpick... Nothing's every good enough for ekiM.

You sure took the observation "Scuzzy has poor communication skills" badly.

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

Oh I did read that the first time.... when CS started mentioning my name mixed in with the satirical Christian bashing, that's pretty much ekiM's style...

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

ekiM doesn't really care about that. I believe he is more interested in finding fault with Christians, no matter how small of a problem he can find, to make himself feel more secure.

What the hell? I suggested the reason that this thread is a trainwreck is because you're bad at getting your point across. What does this have to do with finding fault with Christians? Can you name _one_ time I've engaged in "satirical Christian bashing"? No?

Perhaps you're confusing me with someone else? I know you've done that before..

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by halo

He only posts in threads about things that are contentious and he always has a lot to say about them.

You are absolutely right in the fact that I will post in threads I have things to say about. I'm not one of those people who will enter a thread to attack how a person is contributing to the conversation or how they are making their argument because I can't contribute to the subject matter directly. That's pretty much what ekiM's posts in this thread have been about, mostly about what he doesn't like about me. He is kinda obsessing on it, and it's a little freaky, but to each his own. But, you're right halo, I normally don't post in threads I am not interested in or have nothing to say about. Thanks for that clarification.

Scuzzy

[ekiM]

Let's see. I responded to your video thread. Earlier in this thread I asked for your opinion on somethng (and didn't get it). Then after reading eight pages of crap I said that the problem isn't that you're wrong, it's that you're bad at communicating. I think those are probably the only posts I've made even vaguely related to you in the last month. I'm not really sure how this constitutes freaky obsessive behaviour.

That looks more like this : http://www.fortress-forever.com/foru...?t=9304&page=4

[halo]

Your contempt, paranoia and thinnly veiled insults towards ekiM are most unchristian. Right, going to indulge in some quoting.

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

In this particular thread I helped the conversation in a direction to highlight the "holier then thou" attitudes that some people have about equality. Ultimately it came down to "Equality for the people I like and the cause I feel is just", whether you were on the side of Christian values or otherwise. By bringing polygamists into the debate only a few people took a step back from their beliefs, examined them, and rethought them. Others could not let go of their prejudice. People tout their belief in "Equality for All!", but when the behavior is outside what they feel is normal, equality must end.

You raised an interesting point and not without merit but this is a prime example of how you wind me up. You've painted reality like Toulouse Lautrec, in a clash of extremes with heightened contrast. I did not simply dismiss your point out of hand because of my intense prejudice. I considered it and concluded that, though it was an interesting point and worth consideration, it was a flawed presumption. I then proceeded to explain why I thought this and my reasoning was perfectly valid. I can go over those reasons again but I'd rather not.

There's a big difference between what you describe as people not letting go of their prejudices, and a carefully reasoned argument against your point of view which you failed to refute. It seems to me, quite frequently, that you are the one who fails to re-evaluate his opinions in the light of a good point because you presume that you are right. The quote above illustrates how ingrained into you this is in the way that you present and consider yourself as the light of reason and those who disagree as ignorant and prejudiced. It's a very arrogant, very proud and very patronising way of writing.

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

A person does not necessarily have to post their own positions to contribute to a thread. The insistence of people for me to do so toward the end of this thread highlights they are specifically looking for something of mine to attack, rather then continue to examine their own internal prejudices.

This is true, however I would mark the difference between not stating your opinion and actively hiding it, even denying that you have an opinion. You didn't just pass the odd comment to help the argument along, you dug yourself deep into it and were very critical of those involved. You can't get away with that and not be prepared to offer an alternative point of view. If you're going to hack away at people's opinions then you need to proffer an alterative proposition. At the very least it seems bad sportsmanship to attack people for their opinions and then refuse to state your own so that, as you stated above, they can't attack you back. It's destructive rather than constructive, it's dishonourable, cowardly, unhelpful and it lowers the tone.

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by halo

This is true, however I would mark the difference between not stating your opinion and actively hiding it, even denying that you have an opinion.

I made my position quite clear.

Originally Posted by halo

You didn't just pass the odd comment to help the argument along, you dug yourself deep into it and were very critical of those involved.

I pointed out some hypocrisy, yes. Everyone wants their values on other people. It's even clear in the current argument. You and ekiM do not like the way I worked in this debate, so it must be "Wrong", not just another way to work through a thread.

Originally Posted by halo

You can't get away with that and not be prepared to offer an alternative point of view.

It wasn't my view we were discussing, it was the oppression that some people want on one group of people but not another.

Originally Posted by halo

If you're going to hack away at people's opinions then you need to proffer an alterative proposition.

How wonderfully ironic. When we get down to the origins of life people hack away at my opinion of God made the world. When I patiently tried to get an alternative opinion people tried to redirect that thread a hundred different ways. Finally, when we got down to the "how in all of the universe did life as a single cell finally get created" all that was said was, "I don't know." No alternative theories, no opinions to defend, just "I don't know, but you're absolutely wrong to think God did it." Thanks for pointing that out Halo.

Originally Posted by halo

At the very least it seems bad sportsmanship to attack people for their opinions and then refuse to state your own so that, as you stated above, they can't attack you back.

I didn't attack anyone. It was clear discrimination. You yourself said discrimination isn't necessarily a bad thing. If these people want to oppress poligamists and not homosexuals they should be proud they've denied people the same rights as others based upon their moral outlook.

Scuzzy

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by ekiM

Let's see. I responded to your video thread. Earlier in this thread I asked for your opinion on somethng (and didn't get it).

Is that what this is all about? The last few pages of you criticizing me all started because you didn't get attention from me? Maybe I didn't feel like responding to you because you're usually just looking to nitpick. Maybe I was busy responding to other people in the thread. Maybe it wasn't a tangent I wanted to explore. In the future, please make it more clear that you need a response really badly and I'll try to accommodate you.

Scuzzy

[Innoc]

While I don't think ekiM is the troll with the fake account that's being discussed I do agree with Scuzzy about ekiM's behavior and posting style. It's the reason he's the only person on my ignore list.

[ekiM]

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

Is that what this is all about? The last few pages of you criticizing me all started because you didn't get attention from me? Maybe I didn't feel like responding to you because you're usually just looking to nitpick. Maybe I was busy responding to other people in the thread. Maybe it wasn't a tangent I wanted to explore. In the future, please make it more clear that you need a response really badly and I'll try to accommodate you.

Oh but you did respond - with an evasive non-answer.

Since I was so mean as to sugegst your communciation skills need some work, you've accused me of posting nothing but personal attacks; nitpicking; persecuting Christians; having a freakish obsession with you; and now attention seeking. What's next I wonder?

I guess I should be thankful that at least you aren't scouring the web for information on my personal life, eh?

[Zencheetah]

Originally Posted by ekiM

Let's see. I responded to your video thread. Earlier in this thread I asked for your opinion on somethng (and didn't get it). Then after reading eight pages of crap I said that the problem isn't that you're wrong, it's that you're bad at communicating. I think those are probably the only posts I've made even vaguely related to you in the last month. I'm not really sure how this constitutes freaky obsessive behaviour.

That looks more like this : http://www.fortress-forever.com/foru...?t=9304&page=4

I remember that thread, it was fun. But you're right, that was sorta creepy in a way.

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by ekiM

Oh but you did respond - with an evasive non-answer.

Since I was so mean as to sugegst(suggest) your communciation(communication) skills need some work, you've accused me of posting nothing but personal attacks; nitpicking; persecuting Christians; having a freakish obsession with you; and now attention seeking. What's next I wonder?

I guess I should be thankful that at least you aren't scouring the web for information on my personal life, eh?

Ah, so I did answer you but it wasn't the answer you wanted to hear? You did get the attention you wanted, but then these last what, 3-4 pages have been about not getting the answer you wanted?

I love that you need to scour the forums to bring up old topics to defend your attacks in this one... That's classic, just classic.

Let's do a synopsis, shall we?

ekiM asks a question.

Scuzzy answers it.

ekiM doesn't like the answer, complains about Scuzzy's communication skills.

Scuzzy answers that complaint.

ekim doesn't like the answer, complains about Scuzzy's signing of his posts.

Scuzzy answers that complaint.

ekiM doesn't like the answer, complains about Scuzzy's contributions to the thread.

Scuzzy answers that complaint.

ekiM doesn't like the answer, complains that Scuzzy didn't answer his first question, begins to scour forums for other posts he didn't like of Scuzzy's.

Scuzzy answers that complaint.

ekiM doesn't like the answer, complains that Scuzzy did answer his question but he didn't get the answer he wanted, tries to deflect obsession remarks by hinting Scuzzy might be obsessive.

No pattern there that I can see.

Unless you have any new material, or are going to actually contribute to this thread, aren't we about done? I've humored your need to complain about me for a few pages... but really, can't you let go?

Scuzzy