Greece 'far right' rejects austerity after 'socialists' capitulate!

[ag]

Now that there are Mexican avatars, you don't have an excuse for not wearing one.

Right you are

[ag]

Obviously it is a personal attack since it is an attack on the character of his interlocutor rather than statement of an argument about the issue,

Believe me there was no attempt on my part to attack you character I would fess up, though, there was some irony involved. I am not sure, if it is against the rules - I would ask my fellow moderators (none of whom I know in person) to decide on that.

[Politico]

I think it is safe to say that nobody really attacks Opebo. He is not serious enough to be taken seriously. And this is coming from Romneybot 2012!

[opebo]

Obviously it is a personal attack since it is an attack on the character of his interlocutor rather than statement of an argument about the issue,

Believe me there was no attempt on my part to attack you character I would fess up, though, there was some irony involved. I am not sure, if it is against the rules - I would ask my fellow moderators (none of whom I know in person) to decide on that.

Ironical attack is attack, ag.  Please stop abusing your position.

[Gustaf]

Obviously it is a personal attack since it is an attack on the character of his interlocutor rather than statement of an argument about the issue,

Believe me there was no attempt on my part to attack you character I would fess up, though, there was some irony involved. I am not sure, if it is against the rules - I would ask my fellow moderators (none of whom I know in person) to decide on that.

Ironical attack is attack, ag.  Please stop abusing your position.

I'm afraid you don't really get the concept of what a personal attack is...

[ag]

Ironical attack is attack, ag.  Please stop abusing your position.

I notice, Your Lordship has a very Thai view of Lese Majeste

Once again, I am not moderating my own posts - if other moderators decide that I stepped over the line, I will take the consequences.

However, I'd like to note, that in this very thread I've been quite obviously and personally (and entirely seriously) critical of the morals of other posters, none of whom chose to object. If anything here was a personal attack (I myself do not believe it was a violation of any rules, but I could be wrong), it was this - and you were not subject to it.

[ingemann]

You have to work with what you have, not what you wish you had. You won't get a parliament which can raise taxes for decades into the future, and yes we have seen some expansion of the EU's power versus the states, but your suggestion is still too radical.

That was, actually, exactly my point.

BTW, what does US constitution have to do w/ it? I am not an American, in case you wonder ))

It was not clear that it was your point, and as you were lacking a avatar it was not clear that you are not American. As for why I used it as example, what better example than the American constitution to show how hard it is to change EU treaties. For as radical changes as you suggest it would take years of negotiation and several votes (primary in Ireland, Denmark and Sweden but likely also in other member states).

[opebo]

Once again, I am not moderating my own posts - if other moderators decide that I stepped over the line, I will take the consequences.

You know very well they won't.

However, I'd like to note, that in this very thread I've been quite obviously and personally (and entirely seriously) critical of the morals of other posters, none of whom chose to object. If anything here was a personal attack (I myself do not believe it was a violation of any rules, but I could be wrong), it was this - and you were not subject to it.

You're missing the point, as usual, ag.  Criticism of the 'morals' of one's interlocutor is an appropriate and constructive part of making an argument.  In my case you're merely name-calling, a practice from which I am barred.  So, the unfairness is obvious, as well as the lack of any constructive purpose - your only purpose is to cause offense.

[ag]

You object to the "Your Lordship"? Because that's the only name I've been calling you.

[Politico]

You object to the "Your Lordship"? Because that's the only name I've been calling you.

The only thing he does not like about "Your Lordship" is the fact that only you refer to him as it. He secretly fantasizes about becoming the next Colonel Kurtz.

[True Federalist]

You object to the "Your Lordship"? Because that's the only name I've been calling you.

The only thing he does not like about "Your Lordship" is the fact that only you refer to him as it. He secretly fantasizes about becoming the next Colonel Kurtz.

Be careful with the intentionally obscure movie references.  People might start to think you are a jmfcst sock.

[asexual trans victimologist]

You object to the "Your Lordship"? Because that's the only name I've been calling you.

The only thing he does not like about "Your Lordship" is the fact that only you refer to him as it. He secretly fantasizes about becoming the next Colonel Kurtz.

Be careful with the intentionally obscure movie references.  People might start to think you are a jmfcst sock.

The idea that Apocalypse Now is obscure makes me sad.

[Kuu ülevaade olulisematest]

You object to the "Your Lordship"? Because that's the only name I've been calling you.

The only thing he does not like about "Your Lordship" is the fact that only you refer to him as it. He secretly fantasizes about becoming the next Colonel Kurtz.

Be careful with the intentionally obscure movie references.  People might start to think you are a jmfcst sock.

The idea that Apocalypse Now is obscure makes me sad.

Yeah, that one was significantly more obvious than anything jmfcst has said. Hell, half my posts are obscure references to TV shows that go entirely unnoticed.

[Politico]

Don't be ridiculous. An obscure reference would be saying that Greece should have been more Larry and less Balki. Watch and learn.

[opebo]

You object to the "Your Lordship"? Because that's the only name I've been calling you.

Yes, obviously.

[True Federalist]

Well, I'm not a member of the Marlin Brando fan club.  Apocalypse Now would be a far better movie of it had someone else in the Kurtz role, and the same could be said about the other films Brando was in.

[Jack Vance RIP]

Well, I'm not a member of the Marlin Brando fan club.  Apocalypse Now would be a far better movie of it had someone else in the Kurtz role, and the same could be said about the other films Brando was in.

I shall not leave this sacrilege alone without at least once commenting upon it.

[Oakvale]

My only comment on this thread is that putting scare quotes around "far-right" makes me unseasy.

[ag]

You object to the "Your Lordship"? Because that's the only name I've been calling you.

Yes, obviously.

Ok, I will avoid that in the future, if it upsets you. Which, of course, doesn't change the point I am making: your worldview is, really, mostly consistent with the interest of a racist rich aristocrat, who wholheartedly despises the common folk and enjoys satisfying his wants at their expense, and so chooses to advocate policies that would make sure nobody can challenge his inherited advantages in life. Now, there is another, perhaps simpler, reason for somebody to have such views, but I don't like assuming people are stupid.

[ag]

Unfortunately, gentlemen, all movie references, obscure or othewise, are generally lost on me

[opebo]

Ok, I will avoid that in the future, if it upsets you. Which, of course, doesn't change the point I am making: your worldview is, really, mostly consistent with the interest of a racist rich aristocrat, who wholheartedly despises the common folk and enjoys satisfying his wants at their expense, and so chooses to advocate policies that would make sure nobody can challenge his inherited advantages in life. Now, there is another, perhaps simpler, reason for somebody to have such views, but I don't like assuming people are stupid.

You see, ag, the way you elucidated your point above was perfect, until the last sentence.  We disagree - there is no reason to claim that one's interlocutor is 'stupid'.  You really should work on your posting, as you are setting a very poor example as a moderator.  Make your points, but leave out the trolling and personal attacks.

[ag]

Make your points, but leave out the trolling and personal attacks.

You object to me claiming you are NOT stupid? You really want me to change my opinion? I fail to understand you.

[opebo]

You object to me claiming you are NOT stupid? You really want me to change my opinion? I fail to understand you.

Nothing to do with me particularly in this case, I was referring to your continual claims that those who disagree with you must be stupid.. the example in question:

...your worldview is, really, mostly consistent with the interest of a racist rich aristocrat, who wholheartedly despises the common folk and enjoys satisfying his wants at their expense, and so chooses to advocate policies that would make sure nobody can challenge his inherited advantages in life. Now, there is another, perhaps simpler, reason for somebody to have such views, but I don't like assuming people are stupid.

Here you suggest that anyone who doesn't believe that your capitalism is the best way to improve the lot of 'the common folk' must be stupid.  Really ag, this is not the kind of discourse you moderators are supposed to allow!

[ag]

Well, I don't really know what is capitalism - it is a sort of a word I don't understand. I merely suggest that anyone who supports policies that close off opportunities for social mobility, reinforce inequality and increase poverty, likes the aristocrats and doesn't like the common folk. That's all. I've explicitly ruled out stupidity (which, I agree, many people would have taken to be a likelier explanation, but which I don't believe in): I prefer to assume evil. As you yourself have said, "<c>riticism of the 'morals' of one's interlocutor is an appropriate and constructive part of making an argument" - and I do have a problem w/ the morals of the rightwingers like yourself. I believe you wouldn't shirk from expressing such a view - nor do I see why I should.

This has nothing to do w/ my role as a moderator. I do not moderate my own posts, I do not know personally the other moderators and I do not discuss w/them how they do what they have to do. I always try to be fair when actually moderating myself, and I expect nothing else from the others.

[Sibboleth]

Well, I don't really know what is capitalism - it is a sort of a word I don't understand.

It's a shorthand.