Re: Thank you for pointing this out...

So it's okay to make threats, even when you don't mean them? We are supposed to always assume your threats are false, even during your periodic breakdowns? And as I said, the person I believe we are talking about faked a lot of his pro-choice rhetoric, as he was actually highly protectionist in his thinking. Of course, you didn't even tell me if he leaked my supposed personal info to you maliciously or if he just did it stupidly (without really thinking about what he said first). And it wouldn't be easy for you to ruin my career, because most people I know well in real life are well aware I am a hebephile with pro-choice views, and I do not work with minors professionally.

::smacks head:: Here's what I mean by your lack of understanding of the obvious. Either that, or this is one whopping straw man. I was not excusing what I did, merely explaining why I did it. Big difference. All right, I'm not even gonna comment on the last part and you know why. Or maybe you don't. I'll just say this: consider how easy it was for PJ to get me fired, and I didn't work with minors.

Those incidents from the past display how you get when you are backed into a corner, or especially how you get when you have one of your periodic breakdowns. You expect people to forget about these things. One mistake, maybe. But several? That is a whole other thing. And you think constantly accusing this board of "cultish" behavior isn't stirring up shit? It all comes down to the fact that you are a lot more typical of an anti-contact MAA than you like to think, and you can't stand the thought of your own community being the only one in the world that doesn't harbor your stance predominantly. You like to make threats, tell us that you want to "cure" yourself and that we should all do the same, and then come back and tell us, "I didn't mean what I said, and anyone who thinks I might have are being unfair bullies." Boo fucking whoo.

No, those incidents show how I got when I was backed into a corner back then. People do change, Dissident. It's convenient for you to toss that shit out as if it were some kind of defining quality about me. More straw men here. I'm not saying to anyone they should cure themselves; I'm not seeking to cure myself either. Boo fucking whoo? Oh, that's real mature.

Um, Lat, you did it quite frequently during this entire thread. Whoops!

Um, Dissident, I meant the last time before this. Swooooosh!

You say it over and over again, like a broken record. That sounds similar to what you accuse us of doing with your "mantra" claims.

I do? Well, search the archives and find the last time I said it then, and the times before that. Let's see if your claim holds up.

Now you are worried about us for some other reason. You're right, just because you happened to threaten people on more than one occasion in the past means that anyone who thinks you may be doing it again when you skirt similar territory must be suffering from a worrisome lack of knowledge of human psychology. As opposed to you, a master of psychology and human throught processes. Gotcha.

Whatever. I never claimed to be a psychology expert, but I do have a better grasp on it than you do by a long shot. Judging someone by there past actions is part of labeling, and labeling theory suggests that it can influence outcomes negatively. That's called self-fulfilling prophecy. That's not a threat. That's me pointing out that if you were really that concerned about me outing people, you would no better than to alienate me. No, you know full well I'm never gonna do it, so you just use that as an excuse to push me around in debates. You view my past behavior as a built-in excuse to gain leverage over me in any debate, which is a distraction from the real issues. I'm done with it. You and your friends can play all the games you like with each other. Have fun with it.

As opposed to your worldliness, which includes your inability to deal with simple political realities, and seeing common politics and social groups at work as "cultish" behavior. Yup, no naiviety there. Your naive belief that everyone with opposing viewpoints can and will always play nice together as long as they share one arbitrary similarity is almost beyond belief. You love playing politics yourself, but when other people play them against you, you call them naive. Nice.

Saying this doesn't make it true. This isn't fairy land where you can manifest your thoughts by speaking them aloud.

As opposed to mainstream socio-political views, which work so well for the vast majority of the world, never amount to disaster, and have proven to be in the best interests of all. Yup, fighting for change from something that clearly doesn't work is really a sign of naiviety, as opposed to trying to do the same thing over and over again, failing each time, yet hoping for a different result the next time we do it. Sorry, Lat, but I will take my stance for change and take a chance on it over something that is proven to be rotten to the core and unworkable any day of the week. You fear change, and calling people who seek it and believe it's possible (including on the contact issue) naive is an all too common political tactic that I am all too familiar with for such a tactic to work on me. Shame on you for trying such a transparent tactic. If I truly was naive, then I probably would have fallen for it.

More fairy tale bullshit. I don't fear change. If you knew me in real life you'd know how silly that statement is. I am a staunch liberal and agnostic living in the deep rural South, for fuck's sake! But go ahead and pigeon-hole me according to your viewpoint. I don't care what you think of me, I really don't. Have a good one.