Two tier moderating.

[mitch66]

I'd call that a rational behaviour.

Lol. Likely you would.

 

[Notch7]

Notch is a supporter of racism.

View attachment 352127

That quote is taken out of context

JohnDs previous post criticises the state of Israel and its military, the the post you quote was in reference to that.

Filly is a known hater of Muslims

 

[Notch7]

Same applies to anyone using the Holocaust as a blanket shutdown.

Godwin’s law part 2

 

[Mrs Ten Names]

Lol. Likely you would.

Trumpian tactics. Attack the personality because you lack the intelligence to discuss the issues.

 

[Trazor]

Trumpian tactics. Attack the personality because you lack the intelligence to discuss the issues.

So by attacking his personal intelligence, you are using Trumpian tactics.

IRONY alert.

 

[Mrs Ten Names]

So by attacking his personal intelligence, you are using Trumpian tactics.

IRONY alert.

It's a valid criticism of his tactics.
That's an issue, and a probable cause why he employs those tactics.
His comment was pure ad hominem, not an iota about the discussion, as is your comment.

 

[Trazor]

It's a valid criticism of his tactics.
That's an issue, and a probable cause why he employs those tactics.
His comment was pure ad hominem, not an iota about the discussion, as is your comment.

His intelligence level was an assumption made by you, with out any validity.

 

[Mrs Ten Names]

His intelligence level was an assumption made by you, with out any validity.

It was proposed as a reason for his Trumpian tactics.
If Mitch felt the need to resort to Trumpian tactics it suggests that he has no valid comment to offer about the issues.
The same applies to you.

 

[mitch66]

Trumpian tactics. Attack the personality because you lack the intelligence to discuss the issues.

Didn't see an attack there. Just agreed that you'd say what you said. As for tactics? You're the guy that never looks for an argument...unless there isn't one.

 

[Mrs Ten Names]

Didn't see an attack there. Just agreed that you'd say what you said.

I' m having difficulty untangling your comment.
You said

Lol. Likely you would.

That's quite an explicit LOL, followed by a rhetorical question.
I took it as a direct opinion of yours about what I'd do.
It absolutely was not a simple agreement.
It was a sarcastic, disbelieving comment and little else.

As for tactics? You're the guy that never looks for an argument...unless there isn't one.

"Never looks for an argument, unless there isn't one." is what you said and quoted my comment below:

I'd call that a rational behaviour.

a) there wasn't an argument. there was a discussion and I gave my opinion. Do you want to deny me having or expressing an opinion?

b) untangling your double negative, I think you said,"I look for an argument when there is one"
If there is one, I wouldn't need to look for it, or I assume you also meant, to create one.

There was a discussion, not an argument, until you made your irrelevant ad hominem remark, which did not address the discussion.
Then the argument began, due only to your (and trazor's) ad hominem comments.

 

[Munroast]

Didn't see an attack there. Just agreed that you'd say what you said. As for tactics? You're the guy that never looks for an argument...unless there isn't one.

and looses so many he/she/they/them has to change its name every 5 minutes

 

[Justin Passing]

Looks like an unmoderated thread. Complaining abaout mods and moaning about other members aren't permitted, afaik.
Perhaps there should be a trolls-only thread.