@suzianne saidAre you sure?
Your "paraphrasing" is on par with the JW paraphrasing of the New Testament.
Here is WOLFE63's original:
"Might I suggest that you get over this bitter spat with your fellow countryman and concentrate on the true enemy of RHP's leisurely cohesiveness."
And here is the slight paraphrase in order to make it a broader thread OP and not simply about Ghost of a Duke and divegeester and make it about the notion of the forum's having a "true enemy" rather than one particular spat:
"Might I suggest that you concentrate on the true enemy of RHP's leisurely cohesiveness."
The JWs arguably did something dishonest and corrupt with the changes they made to the Bible. How is that analagous to the way the OP for this thread was arrived at?
@fmf saidSimple. It's called "whitewashing", something you've done for people you agree with, while ruthlessly and endlessly attacking those you don't agree with.
Are you sure?
Here is WOLFE63's original:
"Might I suggest that you get over this bitter spat with your fellow countryman and concentrate on the true enemy of RHP's leisurely cohesiveness."
And here is the slight paraphrase in order to make it a broader thread OP and not simply about Ghost of a Duke and divegeester and make it about the notion of the forum's having a "tr ...[text shortened]... nges they made to the Bible. How is that analagous to the way the OP for this thread was arrived at?
You do this all the time. You leave out key information when you quote. This is part and parcel of your ability to self-promote extended to your allies here.
@suzianne saidNo, there is no "whitewashing" here. WOLFE63's comment about a spat between Ghost of a Duke and divegeester is still there on the other thread where people can respond to it as they see fit. This thread takes a strand from that exchange and raises a broader issue about "anonymous posters ... with multiple accounts" who, it has been suggested, are "the real enemy" who everyone should "concentrate on". It's all out in the open and clear. There is no "whitewashing" going on.
Simple. It's called "whitewashing", something you've done for people you agree with, while ruthlessly and endlessly attacking those you don't agree with.
@suzianne saidAre you, in principle, opposed to people "ruthlessly and endlessly attacking those [they] don't agree with", and, if so, do you demonstrate this opposition in your own interactions with people you don't agree with?
Simple. It's called "whitewashing", something you've done for people you agree with, while ruthlessly and endlessly attacking those you don't agree with.
@fmf saidGood grief! What do you want? Novichok in the sardines? Or, if I may suggest, a squirt of Haldol and some Marmite with rooster sauce?
Are you, in principle, opposed to people "ruthlessly and endlessly attacking those [they] don't agree with", and, if so, do you demonstrate this opposition in your own interactions with people you don't agree with?
You're like that vague creature in the air vents from Original Star Trek that thrives on other people's distress and antagonism.
@kevin-eleven saidActually, it's the hypocrisy that I find interesting. Maybe Suzianne will return and answer yes or no to the fair and measured question above. I think she has a different rule for herself than she thinks should apply to others. Maybe she can explain.
You're like that vague creature in the air vents from Original Star Trek that thrives on other people's distress and antagonism.
@fmf saidDo all Cantabrigians turn out to be snake-tongued?
Actually, it's the hypocrisy that I find interesting. Maybe Suzianne will return and answer yes or no to the fair and measured question above. I think she has a different rule for herself than she thinks should apply to others. Maybe she can explain.