Quote from: Marleycat;773747I have him on IL for a reason and never would have known the little that I do know except for other people quoting him here and there but I do apologize if I ever said a thing about about his family (I didn't). But I don't apologize for thinking he's a mean spirited asshole.

Did anyone actually say anything about his family aside from gliechman himself?

Quote from: Nexus;773750Did anyone actually say anything about his family aside from gliechman himself?

How would I know? I literally found out Gleichman created the damn topic while I was in a decent conversation about something brought up in the thread pages later.

A bunch of us said nice things about his son in the service.

Because we're such assholes.

Quote from: Marleycat;773752How would I know? I literally found out Gleichman created the damn topic while I was in a decent conversation about something brought up in the thread pages later.

It was more a question to the general thread.

Quote from: Nexus;773764It was more a question to the general thread.

Beyond Butcher's joke I saw nothing but respect for his son in the military. Most of us here respect and understand what's real compared to elf games.

Now now, not too much of massaging of prostates here - there was a lot of unnecessary jumping down on his throat as he was already down, that ultimately derailed the thread for the few insane or naive to engage him honestly (or just talk to each other).

Quote from: Rincewind1;773524Jeff, this is a tangent here, but - you need to let things go, man. You are a man who literally has to have a grudge against someone. You find a target, and engage them endlessly until they quit the forums. I like to think you're not a troll, just sometimes an horrible bastard.

Quote from: apparition13;773692There's that scene in Terminator where Arnie is responding to the, I think motel manager, and we see a list of potential responses, the last of which is "fuck you asshole". He jumps straight to the bottom of the list; I'm suggesting we use the other responses more often.

Here's the thing, though. Sometimes the best response to someone is to be that horrible bastard and say, "Fuck you, asshole."

Gleichman brought up his son and his son's military service in order to emotionally manipulate the readers and it has worked on you two. It is a despicable tactic.

Koltar hates that I give him shit about his Klingon cosplay but has conveniently managed to miss those times when I have admitted to picking on him while also noting that he has managed to do more to make the world a better place through his Klingon cosplay than all the social justice warriors combined because he got off his ass and did something instead of just masturbating about it on the Internet. Then again, I loathe Roddenberry, a cardinal sin to a Trekkie.

And all of you need to get a better grip on the concept of sarcasm.

Quote from: jeff37923;773839Here's the thing, though. Sometimes the best response to someone is to be that horrible bastard and say, "Fuck you, asshole."

Gleichman brought up his son and his son's military service in order to emotionally manipulate the readers and it has worked on you two. It is a despicable tactic.

And all of you need to get a better grip on the concept of sarcasm.

So, when someone says something as an answer to someone else, and briefly adds something that he's proud of (or else he would not have mentioned it at all, as it was unimportant to the topic), you automatically assumes that that someone is just adding it to manipulate.
Well, I think you have gotten too used to politicians.

Thing is, I have no love as such for military in general in reality, and if I have any at all, it is purely game-based.
But, despite that, I saw no manipulative purpose with how he expressed himself when mentioning that detail.

Also, that comment you made there, on "emotional manipulation" followed (after a paragraph on Koltar that I removed because I do not know what that was about,) by a comment on sarcasm ...
My initial reaction was to consider adding the response in the beginning of the quote .. but I won't.
It do shows me though why you would think that Gleichman was manipulative when it is possible that he wasn't:
You know (and use)triggers, so you assume G is using triggers, too.
But you might say that you aren't using triggers, and you may even believe that yourself.
It is possible that G uses triggers with his absolutes, but if he does, I doubt that he is aware of it.

Is this perhaps what all this is about?
Triggers of the sort that makes some easily jump to the abrasive responses?
(I grew up with someone that was good at using triggers, and I wished to not get effected by such, nor to ever use those myself. Perhaps that is helping me here .. It feels awkward, though.)

While I have no cow in this race myself, and the Zebras & Hyenas game is abhorrent to me, I think Jeff37923 and Rincewind1 both make good points. As far as I can see as a fairly Neutral observer, Gleichmann brought it on himself. That doesn't really excuse the dogpiling in that thread, but I can't see him as a victim in it either.

"Vil du være med på leken får du tåle steken", as we say in my country.

Quote from: The Ent;773881While I have no cow in this race myself, and the Zebras & Hyenas game is abhorrent to me, I think Jeff37923 and Rincewind1 both make good points. As far as I can see as a fairly Neutral observer, Gleichmann brought it on himself. That doesn't really excuse the dogpiling in that thread, but I can't see him as a victim in it either.

"Vil du være med på leken får du tåle steken", as we say in my country.

That saying has equals in other languages, and I think it even has several in English.
The problem with that saying is that this is not a game, games are what we are talking about.
G seems quite secluded in himself to begin with, and someone that is secluded do not answer to attacks well, and attacked is what he was.
Sure, he failed to see connections in his reasoning, but too many used that flaw and that info, to attack him.

However, Jeff seem to think that G was manipulating people in the thread, so I guess that explains why he thought it was ok to attack.

Quote from: Catelf;773903That saying has equals in other languages, and I think it even has several in English.
The problem with that saying is that this is not a game, games are what we are talking about.
G seems quite secluded in himself to begin with, and someone that is secluded do not answer to attacks well, and attacked is what he was.
Sure, he failed to see connections in his reasoning, but too many used that flaw and that info, to attack him.

However, Jeff seem to think that G was manipulating people in the thread, so I guess that explains why he thought it was ok to attack.

I Get what you're saying.
(The saying I was quoting isn't just about Games mind, "if you want to join the game you got to stand the pain", sure, literally, but you know. That covers lots of stuff. Like internet brawls.)

He was attacked sure but. He has history here. Jeff, Rince and others - well I can't speak for them, but as far as I can see they've had enough interactions with him that they're not giving him the benefit of the doubt any more. I Don't feel that they can be fairly Criticized for that really. I've seen enough of the posts of all these three posters that I have to agree with Rince & Jeff - sure they can be harsh bastards, but Gleichmann frequently comes across pretty trollish.

Other posters with no such history re: Gleichmann have no excuse to go dogpile him though. As I said, I find dogpiling to be distasteful.

Once again, I have to return to my saying.

If Gleichmann can't handle a beating, then he shouldn't go about starting fights.

It's really that simple.

He's a grown man, with grown children even.

If he wants an emotionally safe place to rant, there's TBP.

And, secluded? He has a Family, apparently.

I don't care for Gliechman's style of writing or the way he present his ideas. This time I tried to refrain from telling him quit arguing like a prick. As that gotten gotten me nowhere in the past.

My first reaction to him mentioning his son was "This is not going to end well." His post was harshly critical and from personal experience a parent being harshly critical of their son or daughter in public often produces strong reactions in people. With the conversation revolving around that instead of the original point.

On the other hand posters should realize that ANY comment on Gliechman criticizing his son or Gliechman's family was also not going to end well. It just needed to avoided or ignored altogether by both sides. But that didn't happen.

As for me I tried to only refer to his son in my posts as the referee, or a similar impersonal term. I had no interest in talking about his family or engaging in commentary about his style of parenting. I am willing to give him this much slack. Also I know pointing out how he argues is near useless so I tried to refrain from doing that.

The other thing I got was trying to argue with the guy without his rules in front of me is not going to work. So I ordered them from lulu.

Which I guess must of have pissed him off because he tore down his lulu store.

And god help me as I actually got the point of a post of his this time.

Anyway that my opinion on the matter.

Quote from: Catelf;773864So, when someone says something as an answer to someone else, and briefly adds something that he's proud of (or else he would not have mentioned it at all, as it was unimportant to the topic), you automatically assumes that that someone is just adding it to manipulate.
Well, I think you have gotten too used to politicians.

Thing is, I have no love as such for military in general in reality, and if I have any at all, it is purely game-based.
But, despite that, I saw no manipulative purpose with how he expressed himself when mentioning that detail.

Also, that comment you made there, on "emotional manipulation" followed (after a paragraph on Koltar that I removed because I do not know what that was about,) by a comment on sarcasm ...
My initial reaction was to consider adding the response in the beginning of the quote .. but I won't.
It do shows me though why you would think that Gleichman was manipulative when it is possible that he wasn't:
You know (and use)triggers, so you assume G is using triggers, too.
But you might say that you aren't using triggers, and you may even believe that yourself.
It is possible that G uses triggers with his absolutes, but if he does, I doubt that he is aware of it.

Is this perhaps what all this is about?
Triggers of the sort that makes some easily jump to the abrasive responses?
(I grew up with someone that was good at using triggers, and I wished to not get effected by such, nor to ever use those myself. Perhaps that is helping me here .. It feels awkward, though.)

Triggers?

I think your head is up your own ass on this so far that you may never see daylight.

Go re-read the thread in question and pay closer attention to how and when Glaichman brings his family into the discussion.

He accused everyone who disagreed with him of wanting his son to die or be tortured horribly because we all hate military and/or were looking for an excuse to vilify him.

My dad was in the Air Force, my cousin served two tours in Afghanistan, my brother was in the Army. I have great respect for everyone who serves.

His _completely out of left field_ slam related to the Armed Services was fucking offensive.

So when he tarred everyone with a broad brush, we immediately went to the attack and... oh wait, no, we lauded his son and mostly brushed it off.

Quote from: jeff37923;773935Triggers?

I think your head is up your own ass on this so far that you may never see daylight.

Go re-read the thread in question and pay closer attention to how and when Glaichman brings his family into the discussion.

I re-read enough when it was going on.

And "head up your ass"?
You try to prove me wrong, by proving me right.
You obviously want a reaction from me, that you can keep perpetrating.
This reply is my response.