Censoring

[Agent M]

Wonderful excuse brad, just great. You were unnecessarily rude, you insulted people and ultimately destroyed whatever good people may have thought of you, so that you could destroy a topic that was both civil and healthy, as well as controversial, because you disagreed with what most people were saying. Seriously, I applaud you for your absolutely ingenious way of destroying a topic of debate, because obviously that's the right thing to do when you disagree with someone. Debating civilly, with room for harshness but not ultimate meaness, and discussing your ideas with other people, that's below people with your IQ. 168 I think you said? Of course you shouldn't be expected to debate like the rest of us, you did the right thing in shutting down a topic for that simple reason: because it was something you, and only you, thought was wrong.

And a note on your spelling:
Personnaly: Personally
Definitly: Definitely
Eleoquently: Eloquently
And because you are so spelling impaired, you're probably incapable of recognizing sarcasm as well, so I'll say this in a way you can understand: What you did was wrong. You cannot hope to shut down a topic (if that really was your original intent, which I am in doubt of at the moment) simply because you disagree with what people are saying. When you disagree with someone, you put out your opinions with concrete facts, which you don't seem to be able to grasp the concept of. You don't destroy a topic, essentially a conversation, that other people actually like to talk about, a discussion such as the Iraq War topic could be considered an expansion of the mind. Thank you for destroying a topic in which someone could actually find out what was happening in Iraq and perhaps form some opinions, you are the protector of ignorant minds, and we thank you for that.

[TheClone]

Originally posted by bradwart:
Did anyone ever consider the possibility that my posts in the "Iraq War" topic had a greater purpose? Personnaly, I doubt it.

Let's go back to the 1960's. Martin Luther King Jr. His principle of Civil Disobedience.
Did it never occur to you that I was using this tactic for my ends? I got a topic I felt was wrong shut down. I may not have liked the means, but it was considered necessary. The principle definitly has proven itself successful many times.

Bradwart, you might claim to be practicing "civil disobediance," but it doesn't appear that you, or at least from what I have seen, understand what this actually is. Thoreau pioneered the modern theory of civil disobedience, not King.

Lets take these rules written by Mahatma Gandhi in regards to how civil disobedience should be practiced:

1. A civil resister (or satyagrahi) will harbour no anger.
2. He will suffer the anger of the opponent.
3. In so doing he will put up with assaults from the opponent, never retaliate; but he will not submit, out of fear of punishment or the like, to any order given in anger.
4. When any person in authority seeks to arrest a civil resister, he will voluntarily submit to the arrest, and he will not resist the attachment or removal of his own property, if any, when it is sought to be confiscated by authorities.
5. If a civil resister has any property in his possession as a trustee, he will refuse to surrender it, even though in defending it he might lose his life. He will, however, never retaliate.
6. Retaliation includes swearing and cursing.
7. Therefore a civil resister will never insult his opponent, and therefore also not take part in many of the newly coined cries which are contrary to the spirit of ahimsa.
8. A civil resister will not salute the Union Jack, nor will he insult it or officials, English or Indian.
9. In the course of the struggle if anyone insults an official or commits an assault upon him, a civil resister will protect such official or officials from the insult or attack even at the risk of his life.

I think it is rather clear that with your attacks on your "opponents," you have crossed the line of civil disobedience and become little more than a common troll.

Edit: Kathy already mentioned what Gahndi wrote, though! Ah, this'll teach me just to skim the posts! *Smacks his head.* Oh well, the rules still make for an interesting read on civil disobedience. It's a rather interesting topic. Check out the wikipedia article on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience

[Dee]

Bradwart:
Did it never occur to you that I was using this tactic for my ends? I got a topic I felt was wrong shut down. I may not have liked the means, but it was considered necessary. The principle definitly has proven itself successful many times.

Ah, how very nice. You didn't like the means to the end. Very noble. Gandhi would love you. But wait... doesn't that (just kinda) conflict with what you said in the Iraq War topic, right while you were insulting everybody with your fourteen insults?

Bradwart:
I am not offended. I rather enjoy being referred to as "the bad guy". It's one of my favorite roles.

Hm... are we backpedaling, Bradawart? Did you decide that perhaps your wanting to be seen as the bad guy wasn't the best idea, and you're now trying to collect sympathy? Well, I'll tell you this: It isn't working. I think the only sympathy people have for you is your inability to understand simple rules, such as politeness, or logic. Personally, I don't have any pity for you... but that's just me. Please don't mistake politeness for pity again.

Yep... you sound a lot like Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. to me... I wonder if they're shaking hands and commending you. (wherever they are... you know, up in the clouds or whatever.) Whoops, I forgot. You're impervious to sarcasm.

You know, it's very obvious that he believes he has done nothing wrong. There is, perhaps, no way to get through to him to let him know what politeness is, except by example. Wait. That hasn't worked, either. I suppose we can only hope that he will eventually learn. I believe Bradwart has a problem with cosmos-annihilating narcissism, meaning that he does not have the ability to get outside himself to see another person's point of view. His mind also does not have the capacity for introspection or induction. It is actually quite a common problem, especially in teenage boys. It's not that he chooses not to listen to other's feelings, it is that he cannot do it. His mind simply has not finished developing, and he does not have the frontal lobe capacity for it. Don't worry. It will probably go away when his frontal lobes finish developing, and his emotions move out of the amygdala.

-Dee

[Kathy Li]

Yes, but on the other hand, it's certainly giving me an insight into why people troll--something I never quite wrapped my brain around, before. A very interesting way to cast oneself as a hero--by creating your very own opposition...

Ok, one small word to Agent M--one of the argument techniques you chose is, unfortuantely, one of the worser ones in the book when it comes to quelling flamewars (if you wanted to fan the flames, that's a separate issue). It's called an ad hominem attack--an attack against the person, rather than their argument. It's kind of like saying: "Well, what would you know, you put yellow socks with a red tie!" in response to someone saying that eggs are bad for you.

Someone boasting about their IQ doesn't necessarily have much relevance on whether they were practicing civil disobedience or not. OTOH, IQ isn't all there is to intelligence. Lord knows, my IQ score (well, when I was 14--I'm sure it's much lower now) was up there with bradwart's, and I still have a teflon-coated brain--as you can all merrily attest. Sorry again, Clone, for accidentally deleting your post!

I think it's the think-like-Da-Vinci-book or something that lays out that there are really seven kinds of intelligence.

• Logical-Mathematical
• Verbal-Linguistic
• Spatial-Mechanical
• Musical
• Bodily-Kinesthetic
• Interpersonal-Social
• Intrapersonal

I know which ones I score high and low on...

[Agent M]

Well, maybe I was being a little hypocritcal, accusing bradwart of insulting people when that was kind of what I did... I meant every word I said, but I'm sorry about the way I said it.

[Sean L.]

Not just the Da Vinci book, but rather psychology since the 1970s has advocated multiple intelligences, namesly the seven that kathy lists.

I'd definitely like to agree that ad hominem attacks really don't work to well - and I do debate, so I would know.

As a psychology major/debater, I personally would believe that it's life that delivers the swift kick in the pants or slaps to the face that wake a person up; unfortunately, I don't think too many people here can write and have that effect.

I think there's something to psychology and playing the bad guy in that they feel the need to stand out and be right, because they don't in life. Interestingly, it's also the justification for cutting yourself - it's better to feel bad than to feel nothing, so it's better to do bad than to do nothing. These are also the people that end up bombing churchs and hacking websites, because they feel the need to be recognized, even if it's infamy and not fame.

What this says about brad, just as conjecture, may be that his parents don't pay him enough attention, so this is his method of insuring attention is dealt on him. There are meaner terms of these people, but the point is more that by creating strife, he feels he's made a difference - misguided as his thoughts may be.

As a general note: "Even the Devil can quote Scripture to suit his means." Any historical context can be warped to form a variety of opinions...but when you look at the big picture, the reasoning that brad uses mostly falls out. It requires a great deal of picking at certain details and ignoring others - essentially living in a bubble - to take beliefs that he seems to express.

And no, this isn't an ad hominem attack - I'm just giving a general overview on his possible past. Keep in mind that this is all conjecture; don't take it as truth.

[bradwart]

Fourteen Insults? Hardly an interesting name. They were actually called my Fourteen Points.
Try reading closely.

And, Kli6, Dan Brown is being sued for "stealing" his material for The Da Vinci Code. Puts his other ideas under fire as well, doesn't it?

Bradawart? I kind of like it.

Please, continue to attack the American. He enjoys it immensely. Plus, it gives more ammunition to my "Everyone attacks me, boo hoo" argument. Playing into my hands again, I see.

Bradawart out.

[Agent M]

Brad: I was the one accused of attacking you for the most part, "ad hominem" style. And I am an American.

[db_pr]

Yes, brad, you ARE the mastermind controlling the world.
...

(You clearly have issues.)

[bradwart]

No. Who wants to control the world. Too many Whiners like yourself.
And Chat is full of Perverted things.
How sad. This used to be a pretty clean place.

[db_pr]

Then leave, do you want to be surrounded with "whiners" and *checks chat* "poopyheads"?

[Agent M]

Brad: The chat is full of perverted things because of you, you caused it. Was that Civil Disobedience as well? I'm sorry to be critical here, but your crude ways of saying how gays are "abominations" and your reasons for thinking that (because they're "gay" and "gross") is almost insulting, not because we ourselves are gay but because that's one step away from racism and from what I can see, most people here are free thinkers without many prejudices; people like that don't appreciate your comments. Your opinions are your opinions, and no matter how strongly I disagree with them, you have a right to say them. But it's the way that you say them that bothers people (or just me maybe...)You appear to me as someone with predjudices, and well I'm sorry brad, but it bothers us, or at least it bothers me.But if you can't take our opinions then by all means, leave. No one's forcing you to stay and deal with us.
(And don't say that you're sticking around to "fix" us, because no one's going to buy that)
And kli, sorry if I'm "attacking" him again, really I don't mean to insult or hurt anyone, or be hypocritical. Please let me know if I need to stop and I'll stick with the "if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all" rule, but I think brad needs to hear what people have to say about him.

[bradwart]

Me? I certainly know not. I, cause perversion?
Impossible. How ridiculous!

[Kathy Li]

Ok, now you're just TRYING to be funny. Keep working at it. You'll get there, someday.

And I wasn't talking about The Da Vinci Code, although I will admit I was less than specific about the title of the book. The book I was citing was How to Think Like Da Vinci.

M, yeah it's kind of funny how he can't actually figure out who's saying what to whom. Guess IQ doesn't equate to reading comprehension, either.

[Diane Duane]

Originally posted by bradwart:
This Forum seems to get more strict by the day.
Just because you express your opinion, you get kicked off the boards. Anyone else think this is unfair?

Not me, since they're my boards, and I run them as I please. And here's one thing that specifically doesn't please:

"I rather enjoy being referred to as "the bad guy". It's one of my favorite roles."

But not one of mine, especially in this mode. Therefore -- you having fairly clearly stated what your intentions are around here, and having made plain that you're having fun getting up people's noses -- you get to have your posts moderated for the foreseeable future.