Well, that's done.

[naruki_oni]

After this, it's time to move on, I suppose. Still, I should post my side of things and make room for all the comments (don't want people mucking up other entries because they can't find a place to discuss it).


It's not been that long since Slamlander's idiocy got me disabled. That should have told me to pack my bags and clear out, but I'm one of those geeks that doesn't take signs of impending doom seriously. You know, an optimist. An idiot. ;-)

I should have known that the segment of UF that loathes being prevented from spreading stupidity were active in seeking my banishment. Every time I've been disabled, the same people come out of the woodwork to attack me like sniveling cowards. I'd say like a pack of hyenas, but that's not quite appropriate. Hyenas do stink like the opinons of those people, but hyenas aren't the cowards they've been portrayed as. They are pack hunters who will kill live animals. I don't think the feeble-willed Anti-Naruki Brigade had the sense to coordinate their attacks, despite many of them being quite smart. Perhaps that's got something to do with their internal need to justify their actions - they didn't want to admit that they were basically trying to drive me away, instead couching it in self-aggrandizing terms of "making the board a better place". Coordinating their attacks would have been too obvious, even to such as they are.

Despite what some of the whingers have indicated, I am not nor ever was in cahoots with the UF staff. I've often suspected that of people like Subbywan, for example. So had I been in cahoots, I wouldn't have had to wonder. Anyhoo, in all my behind-the-scenes dealings with the moderators, I have never been made privvy to their deliberations - only to their decisions and whatever justifications Kickstart or Illiad gave for them. And I'd make my deductions based on what I knew from the public forum and the personalities of the parties involved. I'm sure a lot of my deductions were wrong, but there's no way to prove that.

Getting back on track for once, the comment that was declared the "last straw" was innocuous. Since then, I've seen people whinging that it was a direct and knowing attack on veterans. WTF?

As far as I've gathered from the comments, some Viet Nam vets were at some point in time accused of such a thing, and now any reference to baby-eating is now automatically a reference to that, especially if it's done to a veteran. Of any war or battle or skirmish or, hell, anyone who attended a ROTC weekend training class in college. The things stupid people will come up with.

Now, just so we're absolutely clear on this: I was annoyed at DesertRat66 for making the same bullheaded slander against Kerry that he's made constantly. Everyone and their mother has debunked his statement, yet he continues to make it in total defiance of the evidence. So I've given up on trying to politely reason with him a while back. What can I do? (Everyone knows I'm not the type to leave ignorant slander alone, so don't even try to suggest that.) That's right, it's analogy time!

First, I try to reduce his argument to the basic logic as I see it: DR66 makes a patently false claim (Kerry did something bad to all veterans) and then decries Kerry for not apologizing for the thing he obviously didn't do.

Now that the logic is clear, find an analogous situation. The main criteria are:

• it has to be "personal", as he's not going to care about something that happens to someone else (this is true of most people who are being irrational about an issue)


• it has to be patently false, even to someone who just wanders in and has never seen DR66 before

So, of course, the first thing that occurs to me is the "hello, world" of the loaded question genre: have you stopped beating your wife?

And here's where irony and a third criterion kick in: I know that he has a wife, and more importantly, he has an ex-wife with serious issues. I'm pretty sure that he didn't beat her (given that the restraining order goes the other direction), but that is just way too personal. Someone with a passing knowledge of DR66 might conceivably take that as real, and that would spoil the analogy. No, I need something so totally over-the-top that nobody would believe it. Ah ha!

So I made that post declaring (in the exact same way he posted about Kerry) that DR66 had not apologized for killing and eating babies. There, that ought to point out his logic error to him.

Except now I find out that some people have made this incredibly stupid association of all veterans to baby eating. And DR66, apparently looking for offense, finds it where it wasn't seriously offered. Note the qualifier.

I make no bones about the fact that I've seriously tried to add some insult to him in other posts. Just as he has done to me. C'est la vie.

But there was none in that post, as many of the respondents pointed out. Kickstart among them.

Cut to yesterday and the sudden disabling and later announcement. I actually had to ask Kickstart what it was I'd done now. Imagine my surprise that I'd been banned for pointing out a logical fallacy! One that Kickstart originally agreed with!

Looking through DR66's new LJ entries this morning, I see similar hints that I somehow "knew" he was gone already, and that this post is somehow being taken as a sign of gloating.

Damn! I just got it. I was struggling to think of a backronym for LART that would allow me to strike the idiot reporter no matter where on earth he might be. Satellites come to mind, and thus lasers. So I get "geosynchronous Laser Assisted Rat Terminating satellite". He is taking "Rat" as a reference to him! OMFG, that's too much. Of course, with Slammie egging him on, it's easy to see why he might doubt me.

Well, I'm not going to apologize for things I've not done. So no apology for "deliberately trying to hurt DR66's feelings". And if I did apologize, wouldn't that be too fucking ironic, given the post that set this off?

I've explained why it was a mistaken impression on the part of DR66. I've shown how the moderators opinions suddenly and radically reversed direction overnight. What's left to discuss? Oh, yeah, my conclusion.

That makes me conclude that this decision was merely a long time coming, and they chose this opportunity to make the break. They couldn't actually show where I'd done anything wrong, but they were tired of the pseudo-hyenas constantly writing in to bitch. Plus, there is now an implied threat to anyone who dares be controversial - you "know" the rules, so we don't have to actually apply them before kicking you!

Well, they've got two fewer persons on there to keep it from turning into Canadian Teletubbies. I hope they enjoy it when Llyr's nonsense threads are the bulk of the posts.


A big warm thanks to those who showed support of me and also for those who just publically stated they didn't like where the board is going (even if you didn't support me). You are what made UF so interesting and worthwhile. You don't deserve to be overrun by the pseudo-hyena crowd. Good luck!

Comments

Too right.

[naruki-oni.livejournal.com]

Well, that's why I don't often gamble. I suck at predicting the future (or, in this case, the present).