I proposed the agreement because you were constantly flipping out when I would post something. Ultimately, I saw no reason why I should appease you. You said I was being put on your ignore list, and that never happened either. I actually meant what I said to Ome in the Pence thread. I wanted to bury the hatched and get back to civil debates. And when I saw your posts last night in my threads, as well as your Nikki Haley thread, I thought there might be hope for that. But then you went back to your tactic of posting words from the dictionary as a means to insult me. So yes, I'd say that makes you the provocateur. I don't care that we disagree or even debate, but apparently you prefer ad hominem attacks to discussions.
This coming from someone who never takes responsibility for their actions. Was I put on your ignore list? No. And your responses to me have always been belligerent and nasty.
Hilarious. I had stayed out of your threads until I saw you liking posts made in threads I created. Thus, you broke the agreement first by not having me on ignore.
Someone please tell me where in the above agreement I pledged not to like posts in Underwood’s threads. And for the record, I did indeed have him on ignore until well after he broke the agreement. Not that it really matters because that wasn’t part of the agreement either. I did it purely of my own volition and for the sake of my own sanity at that point. Apparently, that agreement was quite a moving target. You’d think anyone who considered himself a gentleman would be capable of abiding by the terms of his own proposal.
Your proposal to put me on ignore was no different than my proposal to stay out of your threads, regardless of when you made it. And it was quite clearly non-binding too. If I was on ignore, how were you able to see my threads to begin with? I put you on ignore briefly to test how it worked, and I couldn't see any of your threads. Yet somehow, you could see mine...
After I said I would stay out of your threads, you said:
SueEllenRules! said:
Regardless of how you saw them, the fact is you were liking them as a passive aggressive way of trolling me.
If by "hounding" you mean posting articles and opinions in your threads that don't align with your views, then I guess I'm guilty as charged.
It wasn't contingent on you ignoring me. But since you said you would do that anyway, yet liked posts in my threads as a means to troll me, I saw no reason to keep appeasing you.
What do you mean shit you never agreed to? You're the one who said you were putting me on ignore. And you conveniently found a way to troll my threads without replying to them.
Leave you alone? Is this your own personal message board? The purpose of this board is political discussions from a variety of perspectives, not just the pro-Hillary perspective.
So I'm supposed to give it a rest while you go on and on? How convenient.
Your big mouth just wants the last word, which I've given you in two out of three threads. If you want me to give it a rest, how about taking your own advice.
You're the one who said I was incapable of giving it a rest first while you continued droning on.
As opposed to your dreck that Hillary and corrupt Dems are always worth supporting, even when they cheat and support right wing policies. Any mention of Hillary and the Dems by me is in relation to the various ways they helped Trump and the GOP rise to power, as well as helped push through their neocon agenda. The fact that you disagree or don't see the relevancy is a moot point because all perspectives are allowed here. If you want to know what actual trolling looks like, examples include ad hominem attacks, dictionary entries, and memes.
