MMMMMM Advocates Violence Against Americans

[MMMMMM]

Myrtle, do you expect moderators--or teachers--or anyone--to have always acted perfectly?

Best advice I can give: do not expect perfection from others--or from yourself--because if you do, you will be disappointed.

[Myrtle]

[ QUOTE ]
Myrtle, do you expect moderators--or teachers--or anyone--to have always acted perfectly?

[/ QUOTE ]

........groan.........

[ QUOTE ]
In the past I admit to having at times referred to Cyrus as a chucklehead or you as a nitwit--and/or suggested as much. However I have not done this frequently considering the total number of exchanges we have had. My criteria for disqualification on the vote referred to are that someone has name-called frequently and engaged in other childish and destructive behaviors on the forum--which I haven't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who mentioned anything about perfection? I simply pointed out that your above statement can literally be interpreted to be hypocritical. And to add to that, when you state...”which I haven’t”, you must acknowledge that statement as your subjective opinion, and may not, in fact, be interpreted that way by others.

[ QUOTE ]
Best advice I can give: do not expect perfection from others--or from yourself--because if you do, you will be disappointed.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with the above.

Perfection is an admirable goal, as long as one has the perspicacity to understand how rarely it is achieved.

I think that disappointment is a part of life....I try to learn from it and move on.

Based upon some of the posts in this string, I’ve been learning and moving on quite a bit lately...........


[img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[MMMMMM]

Myrtle, I think you might be being too picky. Sorry that I'm not your perfect moderator, what can I say.

[ACPlayer]

I did not say that you dont have the "moral authority", I just pointed out an inconsistency in your post. But, IMO, that is par for the course -- so carry on.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
I did not say that you dont have the "moral authority", I just pointed out an inconsistency in your post. But, IMO, that is par for the course -- so carry on.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since a foolish consistency is but a hobgoblin, I intend to have many inconsistencies.

[Myrtle]

[ QUOTE ]
Myrtle, I think you might be being too picky. Sorry that I'm not your perfect moderator, what can I say.

[/ QUOTE ]

M..........I’m puzzled?

Clearly you possess the intellectual capacity to differentiate between ‘attacking the post, not the poster’, as you have been quick to point it out in this forum a number of times.

However, when your point of view is examined using the same critical criteria, your response is simply one of disagreement and of attempting to change the subject, not one of addressing the issue.

That type of response is typically used when a person does not understand or agree with the distinction that a critic of a post is using to differentiate.

FWIW, we all suffer from this syndrome to a certain degree, and it has nothing to do with seeking perfection. It has everything to do with being human.

If we hold a position based upon a strong conviction, it is no wonder that our natural response is to defend that conviction.

A truly wise person understands that, and will do their best to re-examine their position, not just respond with a knee-jerk defense of it.

The typical knee-jerk defense usually consists of something like....... “You’re a moron/idiot/etc.”. The more sophisticated defense is usually employed by those skilled in political communications......... “restate the question while changing it’s essential meaning, so that one can swing the debate to a platform upon which they can reiterate their position”, or “simply change the subject in midstream in an attempt to obfuscate and misdirect the debate”.

As a moderator in this forum, you possess the ‘bully pulpit” authority to make censorship judgments upon other posters. You are also an active poster in this forum. By virtue of this fact, the potential for conflict of interest is very real. Both AC Player & Cyrus have been consistent in pointing this out to you. You reject it out of hand with your latest response....


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I did not say that you dont have the "moral authority", I just pointed out an inconsistency in your post. But, IMO, that is par for the course -- so carry on.

[/ QUOTE ]
Since a foolish consistency is but a hobgoblin, I intend to have many inconsistencies.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is my opinion that you must either learn to get to the next level of critical self-analysis, or relinquish you moderator position.

I’m rooting for you to get to the next level, as it is my belief (even though we disagree on many things political) that you would be an excellent moderator should you be able to make the jump.

[Myrtle]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Myrtle, I think you might be being too picky. Sorry that I'm not your perfect moderator, what can I say.

[/ QUOTE ]

M..........I’m puzzled?

Clearly you possess the intellectual capacity to differentiate between ‘attacking the post, not the poster’, as you have been quick to point it out in this forum a number of times.

However, when your point of view is examined using the same critical criteria, your response is simply one of disagreement and of attempting to change the subject, not one of addressing the issue.

That type of response is typically used when a person does not understand or agree with the distinction that a critic of a post is using to differentiate.

FWIW, we all suffer from this syndrome to a certain degree, and it has nothing to do with seeking perfection. It has everything to do with being human.

If we hold a position based upon a strong conviction, it is no wonder that our natural response is to defend that conviction.

A truly wise person understands that, and will do their best to re-examine their position, not just respond with a knee-jerk defense of it.

The typical knee-jerk defense usually consists of something like....... “You’re a moron/idiot/etc.”. The more sophisticated defense is usually employed by those skilled in political communications......... “restate the question while changing it’s essential meaning, so that one can swing the debate to a platform upon which they can reiterate their position”, or “simply change the subject in midstream in an attempt to obfuscate and misdirect the debate”.

As a moderator in this forum, you possess the ‘bully pulpit” authority to make censorship judgments upon other posters. You are also an active poster in this forum. By virtue of this fact, the potential for conflict of interest is very real. Both AC Player & Cyrus have been consistent in pointing this out to you. You reject it out of hand with your latest response....


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I did not say that you dont have the "moral authority", I just pointed out an inconsistency in your post. But, IMO, that is par for the course -- so carry on.

[/ QUOTE ]
Since a foolish consistency is but a hobgoblin, I intend to have many inconsistencies.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is my opinion that you must either learn to get to the next level of critical self-analysis, or relinquish you moderator position.

I’m rooting for you to get to the next level, as it is my belief (even though we disagree on many things political) that you would be an excellent moderator should you be able to make the jump.

[/ QUOTE ]

....has M 'left the house' before he was able to reply to the above?

[ACPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
Since a foolish consistency is but a hobgoblin, I intend to have many inconsistencies

[/ QUOTE ]

Trust me, we have seen many, many, many, many, (i could go on) logical inconsistencies in your posts.

[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]