Please explain who blackballed you, Yanniru.
Be objective. Be complete. Did you find it entertaining? Are you trying to act it out
and thereby understand your victimization
by attacking another person who you recognize
as a good faith correspondent, or did you simply
deserve to be blackballed?
"Show me the post where I claimed to read minds.
In the previous post he wrote:
"The brass rule is to do unto others as they do to you, which is how I think you think the Golden Rule is. But on this one you are mistaken, even though most of us live on our brasses."
The operative phrase is
"I think you think" and it is a case of
attempting an operation you apparently cannot do -- think what I think.
"Mike once had this forum in an uproar by being contentious in a very insiduous way to everybody."
There he goes again -- lying. I merely posted in good faith. Contentiousness is certainly inevitable in a discussion. What form it takes
depends on the quality of the information. Yanniru posted an extremely high number (the highest of any forum participant, I am sure) of
short, almost meaningless, annoying remarks after posts I wrote. Occasionally he posted an actual discussion point to me, but mostly not.
The forum never "uproared" and insidiuous is certainly a weasel word which can mean anything if not scientifically defined and measured. . I post in good faith and in several previous rounds of Yanniru's attacks, I have proposed
1) an audit of the forum's archives to make sure they were not tampered with
2) a careful comparison and analysis of the exchanges which are in question. Yanniru replied that scientific analyis was bull* or something to the effect. I say Yanniru is barking up the wrong tree.