|
On March 09 2020 06:11 JimmiC wrote:
@Nebuchad, for how long, or how many posts would I have to do until you were giving me the benefit of the doubt on a post that was questionable?
Probably forever.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On March 09 2020 05:06 Nebuchad wrote:Okay, so in this post that we're discussing, maybenexttime mentions that GH is doing this to "push his agenda". In my interpretation that we're talking about racism, this sentence is refering to an agenda of "white man bad", "let's kill all whites" that I imagine maybenexttime is attributing to GH. In your interpretation that we're talking about innocence, what is the agenda that GH is pushing? Show nested quote +On March 09 2020 05:00 Melliflue wrote:
Moreover GH was already shifting from "innocent man" to "race was a factor" in response to Gorsameth which was before maybenexttime's "You made a claim..." post. That is untrue. GH mentioned racism in response to Acrofales and farvacola listing some reasons why the situation happened, saying that racism wasn't to be forgotten as a factor (an obviously true point).
I think we have lost sight of the wood for the trees. This is my criticism of GH's posts:
- His first post on the subject was very misleading. He did not, in any way, explain what the man had been accused of doing (luring the police into a trap, and Blitzkrieg later explained why this is important)
- GH does not explain why he brought up this story. (Does he want to argue that the man did nothing wrong, or that the death penalty is too harsh, or that he would not have been given the death penalty if not for racism?)
- When Acrofales expresses confusion as to why the man was convicted, GH still does not explain that the man was accused of luring police into a trap and only brings up racism.
- When criticised for not providing that part of the story and implying the man was completely innocent, GH talks as if people are criticising him for saying race was a factor but before that post by GH nobody had suggested that racism was not a factor.
- In the back and forth with maybenexttime, GH ignores that he strongly implied man was innocent.
I believe somebody acting in good faith would have handled things very differently.
|
Norway28806 Posts
One of GH's last posts on the subject ended with the line 'I'll take the criticism seriously though and be more thoughtful next time.' This is significant, and something that has been missing from your posts describing his posts. 
|
On March 09 2020 20:17 Melliflue wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2020 05:06 Nebuchad wrote:Okay, so in this post that we're discussing, maybenexttime mentions that GH is doing this to "push his agenda". In my interpretation that we're talking about racism, this sentence is refering to an agenda of "white man bad", "let's kill all whites" that I imagine maybenexttime is attributing to GH. In your interpretation that we're talking about innocence, what is the agenda that GH is pushing? On March 09 2020 05:00 Melliflue wrote:
Moreover GH was already shifting from "innocent man" to "race was a factor" in response to Gorsameth which was before maybenexttime's "You made a claim..." post. That is untrue. GH mentioned racism in response to Acrofales and farvacola listing some reasons why the situation happened, saying that racism wasn't to be forgotten as a factor (an obviously true point). I think we have lost sight of the wood for the trees. This is my criticism of GH's posts: - His first post on the subject was very misleading. He did not, in any way, explain what the man had been accused of doing (luring the police into a trap, and Blitzkrieg later explained why this is important) - GH does not explain why he brought up this story. (Does he want to argue that the man did nothing wrong, or that the death penalty is too harsh, or that he would not have been given the death penalty if not for racism?) - When Acrofales expresses confusion as to why the man was convicted, GH still does not explain that the man was accused of luring police into a trap and only brings up racism. - When criticised for not providing that part of the story and implying the man was completely innocent, GH talks as if people are criticising him for saying race was a factor but before that post by GH nobody had suggested that racism was not a factor. - In the back and forth with maybenexttime, GH ignores that he strongly implied man was innocent. I believe somebody acting in good faith would have handled things very differently.
I was commenting about the trees. If we agree the trees don't exist, good.
|
On March 09 2020 21:17 Liquid`Drone wrote:One of GH's last posts on the subject ended with the line 'I'll take the criticism seriously though and be more thoughtful next time.' This is significant, and something that has been missing from your posts describing his posts.
Why not post the whole post? And posts after that:
On March 07 2020 00:33 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2020 00:11 Gorsameth wrote:On March 06 2020 23:52 Mohdoo wrote:On March 06 2020 17:52 maybenexttime wrote:On March 06 2020 14:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 05 2020 22:50 GreenHorizons wrote:Alabama is scheduled to kill a man tonight for killing cops literally no one disputes were killed by someone else who has confessed and been convicted. Hours after a federal judge denied a stay request in the upcoming execution of Alabama prisoner Nathaniel Woods, the son of Martin Luther King Jr. released an open letter to Gov. Kay Ivey asking her to intervene in the case.
Woods is slated to be killed via lethal injection on Thursday for his capital murder convictions in the shooting deaths of three Birmingham police officers in June 2004.
By all accounts, Woods was not the shooter and did not have a gun at the time of the shooting. Woods was instead convicted of capital murder, despite personally killing no one www.montgomeryadvertiser.com They killed (murdered?) him after a last minute stay was denied by the US Supreme Court. Alabama has executed inmate Nathaniel Woods for the 2004 murders of three Birmingham police officers, the state corrections department said.
Woods, 42, did not give a final statement. He was pronounced dead at 9:01 p.m. local time, the department said in a statement Thursday.
Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey refused to stop the controversial execution, and the US Supreme Court denied a last-minute stay, after first ordering a temporary halt only minutes before Woods had been scheduled to die. www.cnn.comHe didn't have to die. Our society feels bottomless in its depravity sometimes. This imo is what happens when people prioritize process over justice. Innocent people are killed and no one is held accountable. You have a history of leaving out important details to suit your narrative. From your CNN article: Woods had threatened Owen, who had arrested him as a teenager, that morning, he said. Upon learning Woods had a misdemeanor assault warrant, the four officers returned to the apartment and told Woods to come outside, Marshall wrote.
"If you come in here, we'll f**k you up," Marshall quoted Woods as saying.
Chisholm went to the back and showed the warrant to Woods, who ran into the apartment, and the officers gave chase. Woods surrendered and asked the officers not to Mace him, the letter said.
Collins went outside and heard gunfire. Spencer shot Chisholm as he tried to retreat, Marshall said, and when Woods tried to escape, he saw Collins and said, "There's someone else. We got another one right here," and Spencer opened fire on Collins, who took a bullet in the thigh as he took cover and called for backup, the prosecutor said.
When help arrived, Bennett was found outside the front door, shot in the head, and Chisholm and Owen were inside. They had been shot in the back, through their bulletproof vests, Marshall wrote. All three were dead.
Investigators found Spencer in a neighbor's attic, and Woods "was found sitting on a nearby porch, apparently 'very relaxed' and carrying two .22 caliber bullets in his pocket," his letter said.
"Although Woods was not the shooter, he was hardly an innocent bystander," Marshall wrote, explaining that Woods allegedly bragged about the shootings, threatened a sheriff's deputy and composed drawings and songs boasting of the killings. The guy was outside, ran into the house to pretend to surrender so that his friend could shoot the cops in the back. Then he bragged about the whole thing. Even if this is true, why kill him? What does society gain from retribution? Nothing, but that wasn't the argument being made by GH. If GH made a post about "man will be executed, death penalty is abhorrent" he would get a bunch of people concurring. But he made a post about "innocent man will be executed because racism" except he might not be so innocent after all. I don't have an issue with people disputing his innocence (confirming it would only make killing him more horrific), I would have a problem with someone suggesting racism didn't play a role in both how/why he was convicted in Alabama and how/why he was killed in cold blood in Alabama in the year 2020 (ironically before the man who confessed to the shooting). But I don't think not repeating the polices version of events is an egregious attempt at disinformation, practically every article always reports police statements as facts or near to, so anyone that thought perhaps it was justified to kill him despite everyone knowing he didn't pull the trigger could see it in the cited article or one of their own finding. I thought people took away the important parts without it turning into a CSI cold case discussion, and I think the format I presented it in helped that happen. I'll take the criticism seriously though and be more thoughtful next time.
On March 07 2020 08:00 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2020 07:36 maybenexttime wrote:On March 07 2020 00:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 07 2020 00:11 Gorsameth wrote:On March 06 2020 23:52 Mohdoo wrote:On March 06 2020 17:52 maybenexttime wrote:On March 06 2020 14:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 05 2020 22:50 GreenHorizons wrote:Alabama is scheduled to kill a man tonight for killing cops literally no one disputes were killed by someone else who has confessed and been convicted. Hours after a federal judge denied a stay request in the upcoming execution of Alabama prisoner Nathaniel Woods, the son of Martin Luther King Jr. released an open letter to Gov. Kay Ivey asking her to intervene in the case.
Woods is slated to be killed via lethal injection on Thursday for his capital murder convictions in the shooting deaths of three Birmingham police officers in June 2004.
By all accounts, Woods was not the shooter and did not have a gun at the time of the shooting. Woods was instead convicted of capital murder, despite personally killing no one www.montgomeryadvertiser.com They killed (murdered?) him after a last minute stay was denied by the US Supreme Court. Alabama has executed inmate Nathaniel Woods for the 2004 murders of three Birmingham police officers, the state corrections department said.
Woods, 42, did not give a final statement. He was pronounced dead at 9:01 p.m. local time, the department said in a statement Thursday.
Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey refused to stop the controversial execution, and the US Supreme Court denied a last-minute stay, after first ordering a temporary halt only minutes before Woods had been scheduled to die. www.cnn.comHe didn't have to die. Our society feels bottomless in its depravity sometimes. This imo is what happens when people prioritize process over justice. Innocent people are killed and no one is held accountable. You have a history of leaving out important details to suit your narrative. From your CNN article: Woods had threatened Owen, who had arrested him as a teenager, that morning, he said. Upon learning Woods had a misdemeanor assault warrant, the four officers returned to the apartment and told Woods to come outside, Marshall wrote.
"If you come in here, we'll f**k you up," Marshall quoted Woods as saying.
Chisholm went to the back and showed the warrant to Woods, who ran into the apartment, and the officers gave chase. Woods surrendered and asked the officers not to Mace him, the letter said.
Collins went outside and heard gunfire. Spencer shot Chisholm as he tried to retreat, Marshall said, and when Woods tried to escape, he saw Collins and said, "There's someone else. We got another one right here," and Spencer opened fire on Collins, who took a bullet in the thigh as he took cover and called for backup, the prosecutor said.
When help arrived, Bennett was found outside the front door, shot in the head, and Chisholm and Owen were inside. They had been shot in the back, through their bulletproof vests, Marshall wrote. All three were dead.
Investigators found Spencer in a neighbor's attic, and Woods "was found sitting on a nearby porch, apparently 'very relaxed' and carrying two .22 caliber bullets in his pocket," his letter said.
"Although Woods was not the shooter, he was hardly an innocent bystander," Marshall wrote, explaining that Woods allegedly bragged about the shootings, threatened a sheriff's deputy and composed drawings and songs boasting of the killings. The guy was outside, ran into the house to pretend to surrender so that his friend could shoot the cops in the back. Then he bragged about the whole thing. Even if this is true, why kill him? What does society gain from retribution? Nothing, but that wasn't the argument being made by GH. If GH made a post about "man will be executed, death penalty is abhorrent" he would get a bunch of people concurring. But he made a post about "innocent man will be executed because racism" except he might not be so innocent after all. I don't have an issue with people disputing his innocence (confirming it would only make killing him more horrific), I would have a problem with someone suggesting racism didn't play a role in both how/why he was convicted in Alabama and how/why he was killed in cold blood in Alabama in the year 2020 (ironically before the man who confessed to the shooting). But I don't think not repeating the polices version of events is an egregious attempt at disinformation, practically every article always reports police statements as facts or near to, so anyone that thought perhaps it was justified to kill him despite everyone knowing he didn't pull the trigger could see it in the cited article or one of their own finding. I thought people took away the important parts without it turning into a CSI cold case discussion, and I think the format I presented it in helped that happen. I'll take the criticism seriously though and be more thoughtful next time. You made a claim that he was convicted due to racism. The burden of proof is on you. So far you have not presented a shred of evidence. You've been doing this shit for years. You think anyone's gonna buy that you're suddenly gonna change? I said it was also a factor in addition to the others mentioned.
On March 07 2020 08:27 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2020 08:20 maybenexttime wrote:On March 07 2020 08:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 07 2020 07:36 maybenexttime wrote:On March 07 2020 00:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 07 2020 00:11 Gorsameth wrote:On March 06 2020 23:52 Mohdoo wrote:On March 06 2020 17:52 maybenexttime wrote:On March 06 2020 14:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 05 2020 22:50 GreenHorizons wrote:Alabama is scheduled to kill a man tonight for killing cops literally no one disputes were killed by someone else who has confessed and been convicted. [quote] www.montgomeryadvertiser.com They killed (murdered?) him after a last minute stay was denied by the US Supreme Court. Alabama has executed inmate Nathaniel Woods for the 2004 murders of three Birmingham police officers, the state corrections department said.
Woods, 42, did not give a final statement. He was pronounced dead at 9:01 p.m. local time, the department said in a statement Thursday.
Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey refused to stop the controversial execution, and the US Supreme Court denied a last-minute stay, after first ordering a temporary halt only minutes before Woods had been scheduled to die. www.cnn.comHe didn't have to die. Our society feels bottomless in its depravity sometimes. This imo is what happens when people prioritize process over justice. Innocent people are killed and no one is held accountable. You have a history of leaving out important details to suit your narrative. From your CNN article: Woods had threatened Owen, who had arrested him as a teenager, that morning, he said. Upon learning Woods had a misdemeanor assault warrant, the four officers returned to the apartment and told Woods to come outside, Marshall wrote.
"If you come in here, we'll f**k you up," Marshall quoted Woods as saying.
Chisholm went to the back and showed the warrant to Woods, who ran into the apartment, and the officers gave chase. Woods surrendered and asked the officers not to Mace him, the letter said.
Collins went outside and heard gunfire. Spencer shot Chisholm as he tried to retreat, Marshall said, and when Woods tried to escape, he saw Collins and said, "There's someone else. We got another one right here," and Spencer opened fire on Collins, who took a bullet in the thigh as he took cover and called for backup, the prosecutor said.
When help arrived, Bennett was found outside the front door, shot in the head, and Chisholm and Owen were inside. They had been shot in the back, through their bulletproof vests, Marshall wrote. All three were dead.
Investigators found Spencer in a neighbor's attic, and Woods "was found sitting on a nearby porch, apparently 'very relaxed' and carrying two .22 caliber bullets in his pocket," his letter said.
"Although Woods was not the shooter, he was hardly an innocent bystander," Marshall wrote, explaining that Woods allegedly bragged about the shootings, threatened a sheriff's deputy and composed drawings and songs boasting of the killings. The guy was outside, ran into the house to pretend to surrender so that his friend could shoot the cops in the back. Then he bragged about the whole thing. Even if this is true, why kill him? What does society gain from retribution? Nothing, but that wasn't the argument being made by GH. If GH made a post about "man will be executed, death penalty is abhorrent" he would get a bunch of people concurring. But he made a post about "innocent man will be executed because racism" except he might not be so innocent after all. I don't have an issue with people disputing his innocence (confirming it would only make killing him more horrific), I would have a problem with someone suggesting racism didn't play a role in both how/why he was convicted in Alabama and how/why he was killed in cold blood in Alabama in the year 2020 (ironically before the man who confessed to the shooting). But I don't think not repeating the polices version of events is an egregious attempt at disinformation, practically every article always reports police statements as facts or near to, so anyone that thought perhaps it was justified to kill him despite everyone knowing he didn't pull the trigger could see it in the cited article or one of their own finding. I thought people took away the important parts without it turning into a CSI cold case discussion, and I think the format I presented it in helped that happen. I'll take the criticism seriously though and be more thoughtful next time. You made a claim that he was convicted due to racism. The burden of proof is on you. So far you have not presented a shred of evidence. You've been doing this shit for years. You think anyone's gonna buy that you're suddenly gonna change? I said it was also a factor in addition to the others mentioned. You made a baseless claim. You used deliberate misinformation to push your agenda. No, I didn't. I appreciate your opinion that racism wasn't a factor though. I'm not going to try to convince you otherwise. Curious how you would describe my agenda though if you're interested in that.
Much like GH "apologizing" to Jealous, which was a non-apology talking about "decorum" as if the problem was not what he did, but how he said it, at 2 months late, not directed at the person, and in a thread jealous no longer posts in, this isn't GH taking reflection.
None of that sounds like GH apologizing for deliberately misleading and misrepresenting events that were in the link. Rather he is ignoring the observation and defending his posting. Doesn't help that GH and his supporters seem to think that posting misinformation from GH is something that should be defended as opposed to utterly outrageous. Honestly the tone of GH and his enablers are so hostile to someone pointing out the misrepresentation they should be applauded for their audacity to do so in the first place.
I get that TL doesn't want to regulate the "truth", but this sort of misinformation is not the first time GH has done this, and I would say judging by the lack of reflection and the posts mindlessly supporting him irregardless, wouldn't be the last.
|
The issue with talking about GH's forest is that it contains a lot of trees. It also contains a forest, he could post better. So could I, so could you (Melliflue), so could most people. If history is any indication, in six months when this incident will be brought up again, people discussing it will include a lot of the trees that we now agree (I think?) didn't happen, as DMCD does here, mentioning misrepresentations in his post right after our discussion where you gave up on them.
|
GH posted outright misinformation. It is not the first time. There is no excuse for such behaviour. Yet you talk about trees. Don't defend bad behaviour, and stop being an enabler.
|
On March 09 2020 22:29 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
GH posted outright misinformation. It is not the first time. There is no excuse for such behaviour. Yet you talk about trees. Don't defend bad behaviour, and stop being an enabler.
Your opposition to my posting is noted and immediately discarded.
|
On March 09 2020 22:30 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2020 22:29 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
GH posted outright misinformation. It is not the first time. There is no excuse for such behaviour. Yet you talk about trees. Don't defend bad behaviour, and stop being an enabler. Your opposition to my posting is noted and immediately discarded.
Now everyone can see the example of the passive-aggressive posting that is typical of US Pol that GH and his supporters make to anybody who dare have the audacity to point out criticism or a diverging viewpoint. Or in this case exposing pure misinformation. The kind of posting that encourages GH to post as he does. That's the kind of posting that drives everyone else away. Have a nice day Neb.
|
On March 08 2020 05:31 Danglars wrote:
Such drama.
If I ever need to come up with a quote to demonstrate how much people suck on the internet, you're my proof.
I have no idea what compels someone to enter a thread where people have just had a heartfelt discussion in a good faith attempt to improve themselves, and then shit on it with a condescending one liner.
|
On March 09 2020 22:45 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2020 22:30 Nebuchad wrote:On March 09 2020 22:29 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
GH posted outright misinformation. It is not the first time. There is no excuse for such behaviour. Yet you talk about trees. Don't defend bad behaviour, and stop being an enabler. Your opposition to my posting is noted and immediately discarded. Now everyone can see the example of the passive-aggressive posting that is typical of US Pol that GH and his supporters make to anybody who dare have the audacity to point out criticism or a diverging viewpoint. Or in this case exposing pure misinformation. The kind of posting that encourages GH to post as he does. That's the kind of posting that drives everyone else away. Have a nice day Neb.
I was a dick online long before I met GH, and so were you. But I understand that you have an agenda to push so it has to come back to him. See you around.
|
On March 09 2020 22:56 Aveng3r wrote:If I ever need to come up with a quote to demonstrate how much people suck on the internet, you're my proof. I have no idea what compels someone to enter a thread where people have just had a heartfelt discussion in a good faith attempt to improve themselves, and then shit on it with a condescending one liner.
You can read on in the part of the post you didn’t quote to find people mentioning me by name with an old charge.
Also, even mods weighing in whether GH is particularly more nasty than JimmiC and vice versa? And people coming in on all sides between the bickering parties to say who was attacking whom? Did we read the same thread?
Reread 5 pages and tell me that I’m really being unfair.
“ I think you're a bad person and he isn't.”
“ the vitriol in these posts while claiming GH is the dick and bully is so egregious”
“ I mean you're consistently writing worse stuff about GH than what GH writes about anybody else, writing bad stuff about GH is pretty much the only thing I ever see you do, and you claim he's a bully. It's fucking ridiculous.”
“ WARNING, UNHEALTHY ONLINE FORUM COMMUNITY!”
“ here comes the brigade.”
“lol, don't be a pussy mate. You can dish it out but can't take it?“
“ He shares more qualities with trump then anyone else in the threads histories.”
And I have to give this disclaimer: just because I remarked on the “drama,” doesn’t mean that 10-20 people really did need to explain their true feelings, regardless of the form it took.
|
On March 09 2020 23:33 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2020 22:56 Aveng3r wrote:On March 08 2020 05:31 Danglars wrote:
Such drama. If I ever need to come up with a quote to demonstrate how much people suck on the internet, you're my proof. I have no idea what compels someone to enter a thread where people have just had a heartfelt discussion in a good faith attempt to improve themselves, and then shit on it with a condescending one liner. You can read on in the part of the post you didn’t quote to find people mentioning me by name with an old charge. Also, even mods weighing in whether GH is particularly more nasty than JimmiC and vice versa? And people coming in on all sides between the bickering parties to say who was attacking whom? Did we read the same thread? Reread 5 pages and tell me that I’m really being unfair. “ I think you're a bad person and he isn't.” “ the vitriol in these posts while claiming GH is the dick and bully is so egregious” “ I mean you're consistently writing worse stuff about GH than what GH writes about anybody else, writing bad stuff about GH is pretty much the only thing I ever see you do, and you claim he's a bully. It's fucking ridiculous.” “ WARNING, UNHEALTHY ONLINE FORUM COMMUNITY!” “ here comes the brigade.” “lol, don't be a pussy mate. You can dish it out but can't take it?“ “ He shares more qualities with trump then anyone else in the threads histories.” And I have to give this disclaimer: just because I remarked on the “drama,” doesn’t mean that 10-20 people really did need to explain their true feelings, regardless of the form it took.
I'm not opining on anything in your post other than the condescending one liner that you started with. It sucked, its a symptom of the problems with almost every one of your posts, and I don't know how or why you are still here.
|
On March 10 2020 00:19 Aveng3r wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2020 23:33 Danglars wrote:On March 09 2020 22:56 Aveng3r wrote:On March 08 2020 05:31 Danglars wrote:
Such drama. If I ever need to come up with a quote to demonstrate how much people suck on the internet, you're my proof. I have no idea what compels someone to enter a thread where people have just had a heartfelt discussion in a good faith attempt to improve themselves, and then shit on it with a condescending one liner. You can read on in the part of the post you didn’t quote to find people mentioning me by name with an old charge. Also, even mods weighing in whether GH is particularly more nasty than JimmiC and vice versa? And people coming in on all sides between the bickering parties to say who was attacking whom? Did we read the same thread? Reread 5 pages and tell me that I’m really being unfair. “ I think you're a bad person and he isn't.” “ the vitriol in these posts while claiming GH is the dick and bully is so egregious” “ I mean you're consistently writing worse stuff about GH than what GH writes about anybody else, writing bad stuff about GH is pretty much the only thing I ever see you do, and you claim he's a bully. It's fucking ridiculous.” “ WARNING, UNHEALTHY ONLINE FORUM COMMUNITY!” “ here comes the brigade.” “lol, don't be a pussy mate. You can dish it out but can't take it?“ “ He shares more qualities with trump then anyone else in the threads histories.” And I have to give this disclaimer: just because I remarked on the “drama,” doesn’t mean that 10-20 people really did need to explain their true feelings, regardless of the form it took. I'm not opining on anything in your post other than the condescending one liner that you started with. It sucked, its a symptom of the problems with almost every one of your posts, and I don't know how or why you are still here.
I think we read different threads. “Such drama” is a fair remark, and at least in SoCal, is more of a comment on the emotional character of the thread than condescending. And it was and is utterly true. I think myself and xDaunt got mentioned by no less than 3 posters, despite neither of us having posted in the thread for months. Such drama.
And right back at you. This schoolmarm routine about a benign and accurate post is, in your words, “a symptom of the problems with almost every one of your posts.” Now if you can cease the drama about another person remarking on the drama... (and if you’re just starting more drama in a performance, congratulations, you absolutely got me)
|
On March 09 2020 21:17 Liquid`Drone wrote:One of GH's last posts on the subject ended with the line 'I'll take the criticism seriously though and be more thoughtful next time.' This is significant, and something that has been missing from your posts describing his posts.
I know this is subjective but it comes across as an empty statement to me. Particularly in context; in the previous sentence GH says he thinks how he presented it was fine:
I thought people took away the important parts without it turning into a CSI cold case discussion, and I think the format I presented it in helped that happen.
I would be more willing to believe that GH was sincere in the sentence you quoted if he had shown some acceptance that his presentation was misleading, or if earlier in that post he had not implied there was "someone suggesting racism didn't play a role", or if he did not have a long history of dodgy posting. As it is, I see a non-apology (see Explanation apology), which is why in my first post I described it as "...making a 'I-am-not-actually-sorry' apology."
|
Norway28806 Posts
Even GH's biggest detractors generally agree that his behavior has improved (in accordance with what was demanded of him) after he came back from his ban, and he just two days ago wrote 'Finally, I want a solidarity tempban for 2 days with brian as a show of good faith to my commitment to do better and in recognition of past wrongs.' - which is virtually unprecedented in how far it goes in showing repentance..
At this point I'm honestly feeling that the responsibility for not accepting his apologies is more with the people not accepting his apologies than how he issues his apologies, and from my perspective it seems like a worthless endeavor on his behalf to spend any more effort doing so.
I also don't really see an issue with an explanation-apology in general though - you can both be sorry for your behavior and explain why you behaved in that way at the same time. (This is distinctly different from the 'I am sorry you're so thin-skinned that you were offended by my perfectly fine comment' - type of apology - which is indeed a non-apology.')
|
GH screwed up there. (fake)apology or not, he got caught his his pants down. it was funny to see him weaseling out of it. 
most probably, that idea, that whole argument, was acquired from his entourage and he never questioned it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
