Extending flame wars from other forums

[greg2]

... in response to Re: Silence only implies, suggests the p..., posted by thesearch on Aug 20, 2002

just wondering LOL

[Dan]

... in response to Just curious does anyone else read this ..., posted by greg2 on Aug 21, 2002

Dominance of the board by a few loudmouthed, ignorant blowhards (not you Greg) in combination with a general apathy toward setting the record straight and spending more time with my wife, has resulted in my only occasionally reading some of the posts on the board these days.

- Dan

[thesearch]

... in response to Less and Less . . ., posted by Dan on Aug 21, 2002

Hey, your life with you lady is the most important thing at this stage of the game.

I still feel you are one of the most valuable resources this forum has and I do not want to lose you if I run into a problem. Just selfish.

[MarkInTx]

... in response to Re: Less and Less . . ., posted by thesearch on Aug 21, 2002

What problem can you run into dating an AW.

Wait... let me rephrase that...

What problem can you run into that Dan's resources will be able to help with?

(We are ALL aware of the problems you might run into ;-)

[BrianN]

... in response to Just curious does anyone else read this ..., posted by greg2 on Aug 21, 2002

[greg2]

... in response to Just curious does anyone else read this ..., posted by greg2 on Aug 21, 2002

asdf

[MarkInTx]

... in response to Re: Silence only implies, suggests the p..., posted by thesearch on Aug 20, 2002

OK... a few things.

FIRST, apparently, you are wrong when you say: "Had LP persisted, you would have seen my posts adjust to the need. He dropped it at that point and has not returned to repeat."

The fact is that LP DID return to make the comment again, which is what drew Brian's attack. I didn't read it, but apparently Brian did. (And so did MarkH who also mentioned the comment...)

Secondly, when I said that Brian makes a point, I was not referring to his blatant attack, but rather his explanation in this thread, where he explained why he felt irked enough by LP to attack...

Brian simply took LPs tactics and expanded upon them when he claimed to have "knowledge" that LP had dated Claire. Was he telling the truth? Only as much truth as LP was saying when he said that he met my fiance... which was Brian's point. If you don't produce proof, and no one challenges you... you can get away with saying anything. Brian was simply illustrating his point by using extremism.

How do I know LP never met Victoria? I have said this before. I know because she tells me she didn't. Would I care if she had been on a date with someone else? No. But she says that she didn't, and I believe her. Furthermore, although he back-peddled later, he clearly hinted that he had been intimate with her, and she didn't live up to his standards, so he dropped her. This was a blatant lie. When called upon it, he started disseminating, and claiming that he never actually SAID that... yeah right. He's a blowhard and a jerk, who just wanted to act superior. Plain and simple...

Do I "approve?" of Brian's initial attack? No. But Brian didn't ask me for my "approval." He has his style, and I have mine. But if you are going to accept LP's, I can't see why anyone would take offense at Brian's...

You ask me why I think LP gets away with his trash? I think there are a few reasons. One, I think some people are afraid to "take him on." Not many people like to engage in flame wars. (There are a few who seem to thrive on it... but most find it unpleasant.)

I also think that some people are just happy when they are not being the one who is getting attacked. It is always funny when it is the other guy...

Finally, I think that there is a certain "Good Ol' Boy" mentality that persists. Those of the "old guard" are hesitant to take on other members of "the old guard."

You are also incorrect when you say that the old guard are not quick to flame newcomers. Although Oscar's style is combative, there was a time when any post by him could immediately draw an attack from Dan or Ken -- even when his posts were fairly innocent. Happily, they all seem to have made a truce now... but for awhile there it was completely predictable: Oscar would post, and Dan would attack.

And that isn't all. There have been plenty of examples of this.

As for me being the "President of the Anti-LP" club... I would think I am more of the head of the "Everyone ignore the idiot and he will stop coming here" club. But if you are saying that I have decided he's a jerk and virtually nothing he can do now can change my mind... you are right. Mainly because I don't read anything of his anymore, so even if he made a decent post, I wouldn't know.

I think you are wrong that he won't "be back." His ego needs stroked, and he will "be back." In fact, he has never left. If you don't think he reads every post about him, you have completely misjudged him...

[BrianN]

... in response to Silence ... played at 33 1/3 speed..., posted by MarkInTx on Aug 20, 2002

Well, I think I would probably make a better nomination for the president of the anti-lp club.  After all, I was one of those dudes way back when that asked... "where the heck is lp".

I'll tell ya what happened, he got laid - then he got an ego.  Our styles (yours and mine) differ only because of anger-trigger points that cause us to go off.  My sensitivity is a little less than yours, and I've had my share of "claire crocodiles" in my life too.

That said, I don't care if my wife or fiance was the biggest ugliest pig in the usa, any dude that comes up and starts mouthing off about her, be it here, in person or via telex who cares, is gonna get his butt slammed.  Does that make me a jerk?  No. Does it mean that other well meaning people with more tolerance in life are wrong to think I'm too hostile?  In my opinion, no again.

But that's just my opinion, based on my own biased point of view at the moment.

Let's look at the flip side of this whole thing and imagine that the puke decides to apologize for his behavior.  IE, be a REAL man, and do the right thing - (it takes a bigger man to admit his mistakes and correct them than to make them).  Given the right level of "perceived" sincerity it just may provide for some type of positive outcome where everybody can kiss or make up, even though you... You Mark, have actually taken it personally and have sworn him off by your above statement, the rest of us just might be clamoring again to read another one of his posts after he's "cleaned his slate".

You see, while you disagree with my means and methods (fight fire with fire... no, nuke the hell out of'em), you have taken the overall insult of the whole situation and  stashed it in the corner, never to speak to this wizzle wizard again.  The truth is, is that this formerly somewhat respected tough guy, has resorted to underhanded means to stroke his ego, and thrown you the hook line and sinker.

Probably, on your gentlemanly terms, you won by being the better gentleman.  But I'll guarantee you that he thinks his worthless butt won because you've retreated to oblivion in your corner, never to be heard from again.  How many Marks does it take before somebody puts this pos out to pasture where he belongs?  And you too Greg...  You really should pay attention to the subject line of Mark's posts, as that is where the real key to this whole thing is, not in the details where he goes head to head with you and tries to tweak your mind.

Now, who can I offend next?  I'm looking for a dude, divorced, just got back from the FSU, had a great time and is really proud of his new "wife to be", and his new life, expresses himself in great detail about his emotional experience for the world to see...  Yeah, another victim, even posted the pics of his babe on a website somewhere too!  I can get my rocks off with this weak minded sort of guy that's proud of himself, after all I'm a pilot, found me a woman lately, didn't have to go the same route these jerk-offs did... so that makes me king and I get to play with'em.  Hey, ain't none of my buds gonna gimme crap cause I'm the MAN!

This kind of dude, is the one that gets taken out to the shack and his ass beat.  And don't think you wouldn't be laughing about it later cause a few dudes decided to do it for you on their principles alone.

This guy should be BANNED from posting on this board.

WHY?  Hmmm.  Business reason this time.  Let's see when the next "great" trip report that comes in here.  I think we've seen the last of them for a long time if any of these dam fool newbies read the archives in any detail.

Good day.

[greg2]

... in response to hmmmm., posted by BrianN on Aug 21, 2002

YOU are the President of the I hate LP club. Now you state that MarkinTX has dropped things with LP. No way - look how he and I have bantered. He has not dropped things - he has just changed in who he addresses his upset to. Just because I think that LP had some good posts -  I am the target. He should deal with LP and get it out of his system or not even respond to me or anyone else.

Sad to some, clear to others - LP did bring some truth to all of this - that is why he was tolerated. Each based upon his position/truth responded differently.

I am not condoning his tactics or methods - just that in it all there was truth plain and simple - not all of it but enough.

[MarkInTx]

... in response to You are correct, posted by greg2 on Aug 21, 2002

Actually, you are "the Target" for two reasons:

One, I think you are a sincere, and intelligent person, with whom I can discuss things without it degenerate into senseless name-calling... and two, you keep throwing out posts that say things like: "Where is LP when we need him?"

My answer is, and always will be, "No one needs him. Anyone can be a crochety idiot... that doesn't take any talent at all... We DON'T need him."

As for me continuing the posts about LP, I actually never post a thread about him, but I will respond to them. When he posted something about me and my fiance (again) Brian responded, and it brought the discussion back up. So I responded, and our discussion started anew.

But it is your last comment that bothers me the most, Greg.

"I am not condoning his tactics or methods - just that in it all there was truth plain and simple ..."

Well, shucks, then I guess you think that Osama bin Laden is a pretty good guy, too then. Because there is SOME truth to his claims, too.

I just happen to think that no amount of truth justifies terrorist means.

Which is what I have against LP.

Remember the sh!t he threw at Stan? Was he right about Stan and his wife?

No. Was what he said justified? No. Was he "helping" Stan with a "dose of reality?" No. Was Stan in "lala land?" No. (Maui is paradise, not lala land :-)

Did you take LP to task for his attacks on Stan?

Stan has been a gentleman, and has been around long enough to show everyone class, and that LP is just a mean old man -- not some sort of prophet.

He was able to tolerate it for a very good reason: He knew what he has in his wife.

I can ignore LP for the same reason.

But it's not fair to the other guys to have to hear his crap, and then have some guy like you sitting on the sidelines and urging the bully on...

[thesearch]

... in response to Re: You are correct, posted by MarkInTx on Aug 21, 2002

Mark: you keep throwing out posts that say things like: "Where is LP when we need him?"

Greg: Personally I can only remember twice - me doing that. One had good reason the other I was more an issue of frustration as I recall.  

Mark: But it is your last comment that bothers me the most, Greg.

"I am not condoning his tactics or methods - just that in it all there was truth plain and simple ..."

Well, shucks, then I guess you think that Osama Bin Laden is a pretty good guy, too then. Because there is SOME truth to his claims, too. I just happen to think that no amount of truth justifies terrorist means.

Greg: I simply can not see how you can suggest that I support Osama bin Laden because I see some truth in LP's posts.

However, I think that you have revealed the problem in your comment - that what really concerns you is that  amidst LP's "roasts" I find that there has been some truth. If you can not see that then there is no discussion in the world that is going to resolve any of this. My take is that you are not going to see what I see regardless other than the harshness of some of his posts and the area I agreed with you on regarding your fiancee. I just do not think that any amount of words that I might use will allow you to see what I see that is beyond that. You can't see what I see and herein lies our difference.

Mark: Remember the sh!t he threw at Stan? Was he right about Stan and his wife?

No. Was what he said justified? No. Was he "helping" Stan with a "dose of reality?" No. Was Stan in "lala land?" No. (Maui is paradise, not lala land :-)

Did you take LP to task for his attacks on Stan?

Greg: Prior to your post I gave a comment to Stan under the 100th girl thread. Go take a look if you like.

You see, you and I are never never going to agree on many things - just the way it is. It is not that I am right and you are wrong it is about what is right for you and what is right for me. We all have different lessons to learn and we seem to naturally gravitate to certain mental attitudes so that we can find our way to events that can provide the experiences we need in order to grow. I am not saying that either of us is more evolved than the other as it is not such a linear thing. However, I would suspect that we will manifest very significant differences (you compared to me) in our lives.

You see I still feel that LP's post to Stan was warranted and, it has nothing to do with how successful Stan's marriage proves to be or that it was right and meant to be. It was about the rushed nature of Stan's courtship that warranted a strong word of caution.

If it was going to be a mistake for Stan and there were red flags that he had observed a strong warning might have gotten him to slow down before jumping to the K-1. The warning is presented and Stan I am sure thought about it but felt that in his situation the warning was not needed.

You see only Stan has the information to base a decision on. Others only have the information of how quickly it all was happening. Therefore, that is all that an outside source can comment on. It is up to Stan to come to his own conclusion.

So, we know that you do not feel any warning is indicated for someone who goes over meets a lady in short time, does not know her, and proceeds with a K-1. Can it work - sure it can. Does that mean one does not need to consider the risk of a rushed marriage? That is what it is all about.  

Mark: But it's not fair to the other guys to have to hear his crap, and then have some guy like you sitting on the sidelines and urging the bully on...

Greg: My answer to that is if that is how they feel they should not have been sitting on the sideline and doing nothing at all about it when it was happening. But, they did exactly that in force. Very few came forward. Now, with Lp's latest with you, I would suspect that would change relative to that last barrage if it had continued to go on. You state they did not. I think that many were just looking at this wondering what the heck was going on.

[MarkInTx]

... in response to see things differently that is all --- n..., posted by thesearch on Aug 21, 2002

I still think you mis-read much of my last post... and I'm sure that you feel the same way...

I'm going to let it drop now...

At least until the next time LP says something crude, and Brian (or someone) takes offense and mentions it.

Then I will again pipe up and say: "Yep, he's an idiot, and only slightly better than a troll..."

And you will say: "Yes, but remember that post in 1998? That was a good one! So, he is all right..."

And then we'll go round again...

Until then... I've said my last about the weenie...

[thesearch]

... in response to I don't know about you, but I'm bored..., posted by MarkInTx on Aug 21, 2002

asd

[BrianN]

... in response to You are correct, posted by greg2 on Aug 21, 2002

LP DID have some good posts.  
Until he decided to take the low road.

At that point the team quarterback becomes the town thug.  Time to lock him up and throw away the key, not stand back and watch him continue to be a thug... which was the only reason for the "where's the MEN" in this place bit that I posted.

Unfortunately, silence does condone his activity because the written words remain long after the fact.  If the moderator would've banned this fool in the beginning for going after a persons fiance, (subtle or not), then we wouldn't have anything to talk about.

After all, he hasn't contributed anything worth reading in months.

[Philb]

... in response to Silence implies Consent, posted by MarkInTx on Aug 20, 2002

"Why would any decent man say what he said?"