Monarchy Forum
Register Latest Topics
 
 
 


Note: This topic is locked. No new replies will be accepted.


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 3 of 3      Prev   1   2   3
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 890
Reply with quote  #31 
I thought you weren't going to reply any more? I'm very pleased to be back. Thank you so much for keeping me amused.

I have made abundantly clear I do support monarchism simply as a form of government. I have I little more to add that is not in my posts above.
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,147
Reply with quote  #32 

Me keeping you amused? I never intend to do that and quite the opposite in fact. I don't see how we can coexist on this forum as shown above, so we might as well ignore each other. Either I go or you go. I'm just sick of this and sick of "seeing" the sight of you here.

Oh btw, accusing me of listening to Hannity shows to me what a lying piece of scum you really are. Again you attribute something to me that obviously isn't true but this is characteristic of you. You, Wessexman, are scum of the earth. You really are.

Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 890
Reply with quote  #33 
Just to repeat, I am not going anywhere. You can of course leave if you really want. It's no skin of my nose
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,567
Reply with quote  #34 
It might not be any skin off your nose but it would be a considerable loss to the forum. As a matter of objective fact, you have not made the kinds of contributions David has, and doubtless will continue making if he remains, as I hope he will. I also hope you will remember that it takes two to make a fight. I have again urged David to ignore you as any interaction inevitably leads to the sort of unedifying spectacle we have seen today, advice I have tried to take myself following previous episodes. But the responsibility cannot all be his, you could also have ignored him instead of launching into a counterattack. Perhaps if you both try to ignore each other in future we will have no more threads like this.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 890
Reply with quote  #35 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
It might not be any skin off your nose but it would be a considerable loss to the forum. As a matter of objective fact, you have not made the kinds of contributions David has, and doubtless will continue making if he remains, as I hope he will. I also hope you will remember that it takes two to make a fight. I have again urged David to ignore you as any interaction inevitably leads to the sort of unedifying spectacle we have seen today, advice I have tried to take myself following previous episodes. But the responsibility cannot all be his, you could also have ignored him instead of launching into a counterattack. Perhaps if you both try to ignore each other in future we will have no more threads like this.


This is true, but the responsibilities are hardly the same for one who makes unprovoked, vicious attacks, and one who simply responds. In fact, I shouldn't have to put up with such nonsense. I have done little to deserve it. The arguments didn't just happen. They were started by his personal attacks, and it is quite natural to respond. Where have I launched such attacks? David certainly does make some excellent contributions, alongside much dross that would hardly appeal to any causal seeker not strongly of hs ideological bent. His behaviour is also clearly unacceptable at an order of magnitude higher than mine, and that is hardly good for the forum - what happens the next tine a new poster annoys him? It was not I who originally spoke of people leaving.

I notice you hypocritically ignore much of David's behaviour, no doubt because of your own grudge. If you were more honest about it, you would tell him to knock it off and stop launching personal attacks; that being slightly annoyed at someone's posting style is no exce for crude personal attacks. Or you would at least try to play neutral peacemaker. So spare me the sanctimonious routine.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,567
Reply with quote  #36 
I'm not too sure what I have done to deserve being called hypocritical and sanctimonious. But let it pass. I repeat, it takes two to make a fight, and you cannot load all the blame on David for what has happened today. He started it, it is true, and I personally thought your original post, which I guess was in reply to me, was unexceptionable. But while he started it you most definitely carried it on. I am just asking that it cease now, you are not going to come to any agreement and surely neither can have anything new to say on the matter. No more assigning of blame, both just stop.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 890
Reply with quote  #37 
I meant you, again, focused on me, rather David, yet our misbehaviour is hardly of similar magnitudes. The one who continues to launch unprovoked and quite vicious personal attacks clearly bears the brunt of the blame. But it isn't blame so much that bothers me. It is what am I supposed to do in the future? He as good as promised he will continue such attacks. Would you just ignore such? I seem to remember you getting rather worked uo at much less. It is not normal, on a forum, to have to put up with such attacks. I have a very shrewd feeling if he were attacking anyone but me, you would not be responding in quite the same way.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,567
Reply with quote  #38 
Oh, I've been on more turbulent forums than this one before, and have borne the brunt of many such attacks, especially as an out gay person which many people don't like. When I couldn't take it any more, I tended to leave. That's not really meant as a hint, and if it were I know it would be futile. But I would suggest not being quite so thin-skinned and definitely not engaging in further tit-for-tat games for page after page. I hope that David will also try harder to just ignore your presence. As I have pointed out to him before, since he doesn't like to see your posts it is somewhat counter-productive for him to provoke dozens of them, as he again has today.

The above was written before you edited your post to add a few second thoughts. To respond to one of them, David hasn't attacked anyone but you. I don't particularly expect that he will either, so the point is moot. On another, I have got pretty worked up with you in the past. It is never profitable and I have tried quite hard to avoid recurrences. I am only asking that you as well as David should try to avoid recurrences of what we have seen on this thread.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 890
Reply with quote  #39 
I have seen David attack others. There aren't that many active posters, and several of the active ones he wouldn't dare, they being here longer and being respected more here than him.

Anyway, I too have been to such forums. As you know, what normally happens in them is people respond to being attacked - it is only natural - and there are lots of brawls and flame wars. This is perhaps the biggest reasons that many forums ban and penalise personal attacks.

I refuse to be bullied out of not replying sometimes to David's threads or even his posts. His idea of ignoring each other seems to include me not replying in this way, and perhaps even not passing comment on topics he is very interested in, such as foreign policy towards Russia or Iran, even when not responding to him or in one of his threads, lest he attack me. That isn't fair. But I will take your genuinely magnanimous advice and try hard not to respond to any insults for the sake of the board. Though I am not a saint, so it will certainly be hard sometimes.

Personally, I'd be more than happy to bury the hatchet with David (and with you), not in the sense of liking each other perhaps, but just acting civilly. I don't bear grudges for long if continued offence is not given.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 890
Reply with quote  #40 
The shame of it all is that before the personal abuse, our discussion had unpacked certain assumptions and qualifications in my points that needed to be brought out. I had been assuming that social conservatism in ethnic communities - which was on my mind partly because of the commentary around the preference in some of these communities for Abbott over Turnbull despite the media often implying Turnbull is almost universally more popular in Australia, partly because of his social and cultural liberalism and support such causes - would make them more amenable to monarchism in Australia. But it is perfectly true that this social conservatism doesn't necessarily translate into a desire to culturally conserve the British heritage of Australia, including the monarchy.
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,147
Reply with quote  #41 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessexman
I have seen David attack others. There aren't that many active posters, and several of the active ones he wouldn't dare, they being here longer and being respected more here than him.


Where have I attacked others? I have made the occasional digs at others when I think their position is absurd, I have made fun of others but that's just it. You on the other hand belong in a different category.
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,147
Reply with quote  #42 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessexman
The shame of it all is that before the personal abuse, our discussion had unpacked certain assumptions and qualifications in my points that needed to be brought out. I had been assuming that social conservatism in ethnic communities - which was on my mind partly because of the commentary around the preference in some of these communities for Abbott over Turnbull despite the media often implying Turnbull is almost universally more popular in Australia, partly because of his social and cultural liberalism and support such causes - would make them more amenable to monarchism in Australia. But it is perfectly true that this social conservatism doesn't necessarily translate into a desire to culturally conserve the British heritage of Australia, including the monarchy.


You assume that based on your whole "beautiful traditional spiritual culture" routine, though I think I know ethnic communities better than you ever could. Turnbull after all represents the worst of Australia's self-hating elites. I have a certain antipathy towards some minority communities, I admit, because of their continued attempts to tear down Australia's heritage. Look at how aggressively they campaigned against Tony Abbott. They hate him because of who he is and what he represents. If I believe in the supremacy of Western and above all British culture and values, that's because Britain and the Commonwealth built the greatest modern civilisation known, and the diminution and dilution of it has invariably made things worse for everyone.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 890
Reply with quote  #43 
On the attacks, I will heed Peter's advice and reapond no further to this dispute.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 890
Reply with quote  #44 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidV


You assume that based on your whole "beautiful traditional spiritual culture" routine, though I think I know ethnic communities better than you ever could. Turnbull after all represents the worst of Australia's self-hating elites. I have a certain antipathy towards some minority communities, I admit, because of their continued attempts to tear down Australia's heritage. Look at how aggressively they campaigned against Tony Abbott. They hate him because of who he is and what he represents. If I believe in the supremacy of Western and above all British culture and values, that's because Britain and the Commonwealth built the greatest modern civilisation known, and the diminution and dilution of it has invariably made things worse for everyone.


The claim that the social and cultural conservatism of these cultures makes them more amenable to monarchism is logically separable from other beliefs I might have about the worth of traditional cultures (and, by the way, my beliefs on traditional cultures and faiths are very close to those of HRH), and, in fact, was not really motivated by them. It was just an appraisal of the situation, possibly a faulty one (though I did qualify it), analogous to the belief of some in America that the social conservatism of Hispanics could be harnessed by conservatives and Republicans. I agree that multiculturalism is a bad thing, in general, and encourage assimilation, but that isn't likely to happen any time soon in Australia.

I agree about Abbott. I did not vote for liberals (well I preferenced them behind several other parties) because they got rid of Abbott for Turnbull. I live in Liberal heartland, so it didn't really matter. Part of what got me speculating on ethnic Australia was commentary that Abbott may have been able to do better than Turnbull in Western Sydney, partly because of the ethnic vote.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation: