A very realistic example ----- ME: The US lied about WMD’s in Irak. BONZO: 1. Irak definitely had WMD’s. 2. The CIA said Irak had WMD’s! 3. The White House said Irak had WMD’s! ME: 1. Saddam Hussein said he had no WMD’s 2. Tariq Assiz said they had no WMD’s 3. The UN inspection team (after having inspected the sites that the CIA swore there were WMD’s) said Irak had no WMD’s 4. The American military invasion forces found none and said there were no WMD’s. 5. President Bush finally admitted that Irak had no WMD’s. BONZO: You are just a leftist, terrorist sympathizer, and an anti-American! ME: (thinking to myself) “This guy is going on the ignore button.”
I have nobody on ignore although I there was a few people I wanted to add to the list. The people that irritate me the most are the ones calling Trump "Jesus". I find that very offensive and disrespectful.
I don’t put anyone on ignore. The ignore function is for the weak minded that either cannot accept opposing views or are triggered emotionally by something they cannot handle.
we don't like our time wasted. If someone never comes up with a post that provides me any merit, its extremely unlikely they are about to start. Why would anyone want that worthless content cluttering up their screen?
I'm not sure if I qualify as a, "radical LEFTIST," overall-- as opposed to on some given issue(s)-- but I don't think you are even close to being, "the most hated right wing Conservative." I hope you're not too disappointed. IMO, you are not using the right criteria. What makes a person, "hated," or at least annoying, is: 1) insincerity-- when you know that the person's argument is not honestly the way they think or feel about the issue, but is only a pretext, an attempt to excuse their position; 2) Insulting language & disingenuous innuendo; IOW, ad hominem attack strategy, substituting for an actual argument; extreme rudeness & disrespectful lack of even the barest sense of civility; 3) badgering-- when a poster will not give up trying to have an argument which has already been had, which has no real relevance to the thread's topic, or which the poster on the receiving end has made clear they find fruitless, or is uninterested in continuing. This includes people who are insensibly fanatical about a given subject, whether it be a political issue (e.g., boundless gun rights), or a social one (religious, or anti-religious, zealotry). It was only your own derogatory language (emboldened, above) that emboldened me to use the word fanatical within artillery range of mentioning the 2nd Amendment clergy (which has led to my moderator-deleted posts, & warnings, in the past). This kind of burns me, to be honest, that members on the Right seem to be able to use these characterizations with impunity, while I get deleted for even calling someone a "zealot," when his own words show him to be a quintessential example of this term. It's not that I don't believe that, "hyper-liberal, radical Leftists," exist, but that it seems these terms get applied, by those on the Right, WAY TOO liberally (so to speak); your quote, in fact, twice uses the expression, "radical Leftist"-- is there any other kind, in your mind? I am only explaining this to you because, considering your stated curiosity to know how posters here, on the Left, felt about you, I thought you might be interested in getting this insight into a, "lefty's," perspective. For the record-- though I've come close-- I've never put a gun-nut, err, l mean, "enthusiast," on ignore. In a year & a half, I've only used it 3 or 4 times, with only 1 person, currently, on my list. For my criteria, if you came directly to your quote, in my reply, see my comments, above, to Pollycy. Even though my views, in general, could be categorized as falling on the political Left, none the few I've ever iggied, were hard-line Right, members. One happened on my first day, I think. It was a poster who did not acknowledge my arguments, and kept referring to my own lack of reading comprehension, and the like. I later saw him in another discussion in which he sounded like a completely different person; i.e., he was clearly disingenuous, as well as gratuitously insulting. The 2nd person, was a religiously-fierce devotee of science, that is, who supported whatever was the status quo opinion of the moment, and would launch into hectoring attack on anyone who offered the slightest faulting of anything in the history of science; but what got him ignored, was his unrelentingly misrepresenting of my argument, whether as a result of insincerity, or just due to his own cognitive dissonance. (I guess I could add a 4th item, to my list above, of irritating traits: a poster who shows no signs of actually listening to anything you say, who is non-responsive, to opposing arguments). The person, currently on ignore, I actually can't recall why, so I'll have to review his case. I think he might be an off-beat, religious fanatic, though I might be mistaken. But his posts, if I put him on ignore, must have been both abrasive, and devoid of reason, rationality, or even creativity.
No. Never. But I like it when people put me on ignore. This way, I can comment on their posts, make fun of them, ridicule them and they’re not able to respond in kind - they just read it and go on being sore about.
I never used it. Now I use it when people respond engaging inbaiting and personal references and not addressing the issues because I found they are the very same people that run to the moderator to complain they are being insulted and I have a lack of confidence in some moderators to be neutral and balanced with them. So I use that ignore list now. It saves a lot of aggravation and I am doing the ignored person a favour.
I suspect that the folks most likely to ignore me are also the folks that I have the most fun destroying in debate. So I think overall, it probably decreases my enjoyment.
I think of them as a pile of rubbish in front of the entrance to the railway station. If you want to reach your intended destination then you can choose to climb over it and risk spraining your ankle ..... or simply ignore and walk around it.
Lol so I won't ignore you. I don't even use it that much. I do not know where you found that video of me from back in the early 70's. Remember we went through hippies then suddenly disco and that was a shock so you know going from Derek and the Dominoes to the Bee Gees in a brief period caused many of us to turn to magic mushroom which may explain it.
Dutch I saw him in Chic Filet and he carries a flame thrower and he had sex with Celine Dion. I think you need to watch him not ignore him.
That went way over my head but it sounds friendly anyway. I went from The Platters to Weather Report.
Or, to Five Finger Death Punch, and, Vivaldi, Beethoven, Haydn, and Mozart. Parenthetically, we have a "Like" button -- but why can't we also have a "Dislike" button...?!
What dishonest hogwash. You slandered me on another thread because you couldn't defend your delusional opinions. I've repeatedly asked you to support your slander and have heard nothing but crickets ever since. "When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser" Socrates
Do you mean paradoxically? I agree. Most forums have - like - dislike - funny - and - f*ing idiot - buttons.
Like I've said, I never put anyone on ignore! As for me defending the existence of the Holocaust and you denying it, the Holocaust needs no defense, as I've already told you. But you go on and have at it with the rest of your pals, just keep me out of it.