sevenpin63
Addicted Member
So I hear our pal WAMO is back, glad to see this.
Let's hope you dont get screwed again.
Let's hope you dont get screwed again.
Oh, I guarantee if I catch him in my barn again he will be fucked!
... but is it certain that he didn't sneak into the barn during his brief forum "time out"?Uh oh WAMO you better use your super decoder ring to sneak into the barn this time.
I'm also glad to see him back. He's been a loyal forum member for many years.So I hear our pal WAMO is back, glad to see this.
He didn't get screwed. He was reprimanded and actually received a break. I just did him a favor.So I hear our pal WAMO is back, glad to see this.
Let's hope you dont get screwed again.
I guess depends who's eyes your looking through.He didn't get screwed. He was reprimanded and actually received a break. I just did him a favor.
Maybe so, but I never talked down to him, and HE was the one to sling names. Nobody else stooped to that level, and when I attempted to reason with him and all I received in return was snarky sarcasm.I guess depends who's eyes your looking through.
Like I said in the thread that was deleted, one can only take so much talking down to and belittled before you lose it.
Some people here think they are better than the rest of us.
Then who was it that called him "a fucking moron"?Maybe so, but I never talked down to him, and HE was the one to sling names. Nobody else stooped to that level, and when I attempted to reason with him and all I received in return was snarky sarcasm.
Nobody that I know of. I usually comb every post on here because that is my job. I may have missed one. I'm not perfect.Then who was it that called him "a fucking moron"?
I understand what you're saying, but in all fairness, isn't that what debating and discussing is all about? Nobody ever changes another's mind during a debate, so what would be the point if it isn't "one-upmanship"? On the same token, had the other member resorted to calling names he would not have gotten off scott free. As I explained to WAMO on SEVERAL occasions, he is free to express his opinion in any way he sees fit, short of infantile name calling and personal attacks. That leaves a universe full of opportunities. BUT, when I try to explain the rules and and remind him that he is breaking one, he gets testy and sarcastic with me. He should have appreciated my assistance, if anything. So now, I'm the white cop that killed a black guy.....doesn't matter that the black guy was grabbing for my gun.My single take on this and then I'm out of this conversation, not gonna go down the BR route again. This is just my outside looking in opinion. There is a member on here who seems to like baiting people with innocent looking posts, but that are expertly crafted to provoke an emotional response. When that response is given (eventually in a not-so nice manner such as name calling because after enough provocation they finally lose their shit), this user then claims themselves to be the victim. Seen it unfold several times in the same manner. Unfortunately, WAMO was the one this time who took these provocations personally and got pissed off about it, which is the intention of this game the other user is playing.
I believe the snark you received, Greg, is that in WAMO's eyes you were singling him out when he felt equally as disrespected by the provacateur as they claimed to feel by his insults. Basically, WAMO got the book thrown at him and the other got off scott free (just like the NFL - the guy that retaliates gets flagged while the guy who started it receives no penalty).
It is a mentally stimulating game for some, to see how far they can push others on the emotional spectrum without being directly offensive. Few can do it as well as this particular user.
If I am wrong about the other user's intentions (which is possible, I'm no mind reader), the only other explanation I have is that their method of trying to engage in debate / discussion just tends to make people angry for whatever reason. The responses I recall during the BR meltdown were similar to what we saw from WAMO here.
If nobody else agrees with this assessment, then I will accept that I am wrong and apologize to all.
I agree 100%My single take on this and then I'm out of this conversation, not gonna go down the BR route again. This is just my outside looking in opinion. There is a member on here who seems to like baiting people with innocent looking posts, but that are expertly crafted to provoke an emotional response. When that response is given (eventually in a not-so nice manner such as name calling because after enough provocation they finally lose their shit), this user then claims themselves to be the victim. Seen it unfold several times in the same manner. Unfortunately, WAMO was the one this time who took these provocations personally and got pissed off about it, which is the intention of this game the other user is playing.
I believe the snark you received, Greg, is that in WAMO's eyes you were singling him out when he felt equally as disrespected by the provacateur as they claimed to feel by his insults. Basically, WAMO got the book thrown at him and the other got off scott free (just like the NFL - the guy that retaliates gets flagged while the guy who started it receives no penalty).
It is a mentally stimulating game for some, to see how far they can push others on the emotional spectrum without being directly offensive. Few can do it as well as this particular user.
If I am wrong about the other user's intentions (which is possible, I'm no mind reader), the only other explanation I have is that their method of trying to engage in debate / discussion just tends to make people angry for whatever reason. The responses I recall during the BR meltdown were similar to what we saw from WAMO here.
If nobody else agrees with this assessment, then I will accept that I am wrong and apologize to all.
This is why you can not get any of the old users back, they got tired of this crap and left.I understand what you're saying, but in all fairness, isn't that what debating and discussing is all about? Nobody ever changes another's mind during a debate, so what would be the point if it isn't "one-upmanship"? On the same token, had the other member resorted to calling names he would not have gotten off scott free. As I explained to WAMO on SEVERAL occasions, he is free to express his opinion in any way he sees fit, short of infantile name calling and personal attacks. That leaves a universe full of opportunities. BUT, when I try to explain the rules and and remind him that he is breaking one, he gets testy and sarcastic with me. He should have appreciated my assistance, if anything. So now, I'm the white cop that killed a black guy.....doesn't matter that the black guy was grabbing for my gun.