Private Manning arbitration

[Vigilant]

We have rules to mediate the inevitable differences of "'conscience and common sense." When one side tries to set these aside to enforce their vision via power tools, that's when we have problems.

POV warriors need to be back off or be backed off.

RfB

Sometimes I'd agree with that, like in political or nationalistic topics where the real-life strife shouldn't be imported into the Wikipedia as another battlefront. But on social issues I'd rather see more activism and forward-thinking.

Like all petty dictators, you want your view to prevail without consideration of anyone else's view.

Got it.

[Tarc]

We have rules to mediate the inevitable differences of "'conscience and common sense." When one side tries to set these aside to enforce their vision via power tools, that's when we have problems.

POV warriors need to be back off or be backed off.

RfB

Sometimes I'd agree with that, like in political or nationalistic topics where the real-life strife shouldn't be imported into the Wikipedia as another battlefront. But on social issues I'd rather see more activism and forward-thinking.

Like all petty dictators, you want your view to prevail without consideration of anyone else's view.

Got it.

Well, Carrite and I managed a streak of 2 back-and-forth exchanges where we did not insult each other. So, thanks for the c-c-c-combo breaker, V.

[Vigilant]

We have rules to mediate the inevitable differences of "'conscience and common sense." When one side tries to set these aside to enforce their vision via power tools, that's when we have problems.

POV warriors need to be back off or be backed off.

RfB

Sometimes I'd agree with that, like in political or nationalistic topics where the real-life strife shouldn't be imported into the Wikipedia as another battlefront. But on social issues I'd rather see more activism and forward-thinking.

Like all petty dictators, you want your view to prevail without consideration of anyone else's view.

Got it.

Well, Carrite and I managed a streak of 2 back-and-forth exchanges where we did not insult each other. So, thanks for the c-c-c-combo breaker, V.

Way to not answer the question/allegation ... again.

[Parabola]

Sorry to pick this back up in another thread, but honestly Vigilant, the idea that you cannot leave a conversation with Tarc without demanding that he admit you're right was exactly what I'm talking about in the other thread. You're so dead certain you're right that you're not actually engaging in discussion here, you never actually respond to the answers you're given, you just shift the vector of the battering ram. If you aren'
t even willing to entertain that you might not be 100% correct, how can you demand that of anyone else?

I don't doubt your sincerity, and I think you make valid points, but you can't really believe you're actually doing anything here except demanding he ram his head against yours because you know better.

[Tarc]

Way to not answer the question/allegation ... again.

Contrary to popular (i.e. your) belief, the website that we're currently on isn't called http://vigilantocracy.com; you aren't owed a response to every thing at every moment in time, in a manner of your liking.

And really, would it even matter? I attempted to engage you early on in GG, publicly & privately...didn't work, you just became angry. Direct discussion didn't work, you just became angry. Now you're angry when I sidestep a post with a flippant remark. So what's left is I just decline to respond at all, which will probably elicit some sort of angry "too scared to face me now, huh?" shtick.

Lunacy is doing the same thing, expecting a different result. If all I'm going to get out of you is



then I'll just do what's easiest for me.

[Vigilant]

I love it when you rewrite history to feel better about yourself.