WooBot
Unregistered
W
Next drama, please. This one's already over the top.
Ian Rowland is a Friendly Guy
- Thread starter Clancie
- Start date
-
- Tags
- ian rowland
RC said:
Was I on the thread in which Claus called Clancie a Gorgon? Am I supposed to follow the bickering between the two and comment on everything that happens between them?
Did you object when SteveGrenard insunuated Claus was a pedophile? No?
RC, it was pretty quick the veneer of niceness left you. I am disappointed.
On the more important point, I am sorry Ian felt he had to post what I felt was obvious from the start. I apologize to him for my role in any embarassment I caused him.
De_Bunk
Scourge of the Believer
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2002
- Messages
- 5,523
All this over Neo's one sentence...
Oh please...
It was meant as a joke...plain and simple...
99.99% of everyone that read it realised it was a joke...
Why bother even discussing it...
A bit of common sense wouldn't have gone amiss...
DB
Oh please...
It was meant as a joke...plain and simple...
99.99% of everyone that read it realised it was a joke...
Why bother even discussing it...
A bit of common sense wouldn't have gone amiss...
DB
WooBot
Unregistered
W
renata said:
And perhaps for creating a situation out of whole cloth, where there was none before?
If you hadn't made a huge issue of it, it would have passed unnoticed.
WooBot
Unregistered
W
Ian Rowland said:
No disrespect intended, but it's probably a good idea to look around a bit and see where you are before making pronouncements. We tend to say what we like here.
WooBot
Unregistered
W
xouper said:
Interesting. I would expect you, if you erred, to err on the side of freedom.
WooBot
Unregistered
W
xouper said:
Sorry you think so. I find I usually agree with you.
I'm not one for hero worship. I expect even God to take off his halo if He's having dinner with me.
Just because I find certain speech offensive does not mean I am not a defender of free speech. I can defend your right to say what you want and at the same time disagree with (or be offended by) the content of your speech. No contradiction there.
WooBot
Unregistered
W
xouper said:
Then my reply wasn't "out of line". You are free to disagree with it.
Fade, we have never gotten along, but rarely have you ever explained in detail your issues with me. Instead, you choose low road and insult without even taking the time to explain why.
So, I challenge you to lay it out. Explain to me what my agenda is and why you think it is "tired, stupid, and annoying".
I don't just insult and run. I've been very clear to Renata on why I have issues with her. She thinks that I've just stopped being "nice" and that's her right. She and I don't have to get along, but at least she doesn't just post every once in a while to take a shot at me like you do.
I see no real agenda in pointing out that I find hypocrisy when people defend skeptics against insults but ignore those flung at believers. I name specific examples and put it out there for discussion.
So...do let me know...what is my agenda?
So, I challenge you to lay it out. Explain to me what my agenda is and why you think it is "tired, stupid, and annoying".
I don't just insult and run. I've been very clear to Renata on why I have issues with her. She thinks that I've just stopped being "nice" and that's her right. She and I don't have to get along, but at least she doesn't just post every once in a while to take a shot at me like you do.
I see no real agenda in pointing out that I find hypocrisy when people defend skeptics against insults but ignore those flung at believers. I name specific examples and put it out there for discussion.
So...do let me know...what is my agenda?
WooBot
Unregistered
W
Hey Xouper, let's drop it and get a beer instead. You can come too, Ian.
Do you think we might have a More Interesting Ian now?
Do you think we might have a More Interesting Ian now?
I guess that means you don't see how hypocritical it is to chastise Ian Rowland for saying what he wanted on this board, when you yourself claim the right to say what you want.
I don't think it was unreasonable for Ian to post a request not to make misleading statements about him. I still maintain that your comment (implying that his request was unreasonable) is out of line. People are certainly free to ignore Ian's request, but at least we now know how he feels about it.
OK.
WooBot
Unregistered
W
xouper said:
Dangit, you know I'm not going to let you have the last word.
Ian can say what he likes, of course, don't pretend to misunderstand. In case that first beer has already taken effect and you hadn't noticed, his first post here was telling people what and what not to say. If he had waited a little longer he'd have realized that he was playing into someone's little pre-existing drama and would probably have ignored the little made-for-tv controversy.
Xouper, for someone who constantly gets told that he's being out of line, I had hoped you'd have a higher standard for what qualifies.
Ian, welcome welcome, in case you misinterpret me. Glad you're here.
What'll you boys drink?
Ian Rowland said:
Hello, Ian. You are a hundred percent correct that I meant no harm, nor anything untoward by my remark to my good friend, RC. It most definitely was made in good humor, and it referred only to the very healthy appreciation that you obviously have for women, which is apparent to anyone who peruses your website's photo gallery.
I could be mistaken, but it seems that most of the photos there were of women you either know or met briefly during your travels, and not of men. I meant no disrespect towards you, however, and am glad you didn't take offense. Your concerns are duly noted.I will corroborate Clancie on this particular issue, Ian, since I did read it as well, somewhere on your website. It seemed a rather off-handed comment, but since you didn't elaborate, it would be difficult for anyone to know exactly what you may have meant by that remark. I'm sure if you'd like to edit it out, it won't be too difficult to find.
Well, that's what it means in my book as well, Ian, but it sounds as though perhaps renata's book might read a little differently, since you can see from her posts what she has accused me of saying about you.
I plead innocent, I assure you! As you stated, some things are in the eye of the beholder. 
Nor was that my impression of you during our e-mail exchanges, and I certainly was not trying to attach any such characterization to you in my post. I found you to be very tactful, intelligent, charming, witty, and most importantly, patient with me when I plied you with all kinds of questions about cold-reading vs. mediumship. At the time, I totally enjoyed corresponding with you, and thought you were a delightful man. No CSMLL at all! Well, actually, seductive may still apply, but only in a good way.
Peace right back atcha, Ian! I appreciate your concerns, and thanks for addressing them in such a direct and honest manner. Take care! .....neo (Jackie)
You continue to interject your irrelevant politick into every single thread you post in, with few exceptions. Time and again people have attempted to correct your misconceptions, but you repeat the same anti-Skeptic, anti-Atheist, anti-Everythingyoubelieve in philosophies that don't have anything to do with rational thinking. Why are you here? You are obviously credulous enough to believe in obviously fake mediums (most likely because you enjoy believing in such things and it vindicates yet other portions of your belief structure), and can't stand the fact that we aren't.
You shout from the rooftops about your halfwitted ethics. You vomit out comments aimed at people like Renata, when she isn't talking to you or about you or about anything remotely having to do with you, and try to draw paralells that don't exist, so that you can feel like a big fat martyr.
You aren't caustic, and you are generally pleasent. That doesn't excuse your uncritical thinking, your pointless barbs, and your hopeless politics. I have nothing against you personally, but you are the embodiment of every single lame mind that exists on the planet. You don't attempt to reason through anything, rather you accept what you like. You coat your words with ulterior motives. You try to make yourself feel important. You stir up drama (which I have called others on as well) because it makes you feel as if your life had some meaning.
You are lazy. You are a brick wall of incompetence.
That is my problem with you.
You shout from the rooftops about your halfwitted ethics. You vomit out comments aimed at people like Renata, when she isn't talking to you or about you or about anything remotely having to do with you, and try to draw paralells that don't exist, so that you can feel like a big fat martyr.
You aren't caustic, and you are generally pleasent. That doesn't excuse your uncritical thinking, your pointless barbs, and your hopeless politics. I have nothing against you personally, but you are the embodiment of every single lame mind that exists on the planet. You don't attempt to reason through anything, rather you accept what you like. You coat your words with ulterior motives. You try to make yourself feel important. You stir up drama (which I have called others on as well) because it makes you feel as if your life had some meaning.
You are lazy. You are a brick wall of incompetence.
That is my problem with you.
Telling?? He asked, "please don't say things like this." Sounded more like a polite request to me.
That's a valid point. You can have that last word.Xouper, for someone who constantly gets told that he's being out of line, I had hoped you'd have a higher standard for what qualifies.