Why am I not banned yet??

[IAHM-COL]

IMHO it is way past the signature request thing.
It is about the construed abuse over Bomber's personna.

[We doubt your intentions on "this community" because you "pledge alliance" to "that group", via your signature.

And you would start better with "us" by removing your signature: yet, keep in mind (at least I) have good memory.... and I won't forget you used to say or cite certain unspeakable things. .... ]

so, again, the problem is not about a signature. It is a problem of attitude towards anyone there that says they dont bite the bullet that FGMEMBERS is terribly bad for FG progress and community stability or whatever.
It is a problem of the damned philosophy of "you are with us or against us"!!

[KL-666]

Yes, IAHM-col, you are correct. But if you do not want to see the movement that is made in this position, there is no chance of progress. About your post before that, i see it as a situation escalating again. Nothing new under the sun, we all hate the guts of our neighbours (metaphorically), always rekindling the fire in them to hate us. (Not meaning that they are correct in hating us)

Kind regards, Vincent

[IAHM-COL]

I hear you.

[bomber]

I've a question.... how long before he spots the irony ?

[bomber]

Some time back I was contacted by a respected person of the forum, asking that I not defend myself against Thorsten in his topic.

I asked then that in his opinion is was all right for Thorsten to denigrate me in this topic, his reply was.

To be frank, I have very little interest in this type of problem, my main concern is about developing the [insert plane type here]

Interestingly it was soon his turn for the eye of Thorsten to fall on.... And he's no longer a contributor to Flightgear.

Is there a moral here I wonder ?

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me

[jwocky]

Well, as every member of this forum, Bomber has the right to speak his mind and as far as I am concerned, this right isn't limited to this forum. I'm that hard-boiled conservative old dog who believes in freedom of speech (oh wait, is that even a conservative trait?). Well, I just believe in it.
Now, less hard boiled minds may think, in case of a confrontation, the own side has always to tune it down, be always nice, try not to provoke anything. Personally, and as everybody else here, I argue on my pure personal perception of the situation and of course my experience, I think, in most cases, such attempts of political correctness are perceived on the other side as weakness and therefore as a motivation to play it even more aggressive.
Bullies don't think "Hey, somebody is talking nice to me, I have to be nice too". Bullies think "hey, this guy goes weak, now I can smash his face". Bullies live psychologically from attacking those they perceive as weaker. They can't hack on someone their own size. Bullying weaker ones gives them a feeling of power. So, the last thing, you want to do is marking yourself as "weak" to a bully. If a bully bullies you, break his legs and make him crawl a complete round over the school yard where everybody can see him, that is the only thing that stops a bully from being one.

And about the whole idea of de-escalation: There is peace by understanding, that's the good kind.There is peace by ambivalence, that's the dangerous kind and then there is peace by surrender, which is the dangerous kind because it means, you give up what you stand for to cater to the enemy. So, if there has to be peace by ending a conflict the hard way, I personally prefer to be the one ending it, not the one being ended only because I cave in when people call me the bad guy.

[FL2070]

is this conversation even on the original topic anymore

[KL-666]

Maybe not exactly, but slightly is good enough to me. Just my personal take on it, so shoot if you want to.

Kind regards, Vincent

[jwocky]

Well, obviously I think, it is, because it dealt aside of other things with two important aspects: We don't know hoe much pressure Lego did get over there behind the scenes and we don't know what he hopes to achieve. So I have surely not enough data for a conclusive judgment about him leaving and why, but then, I don't need to judge to begin with, everybody here is free in his decisions. We are no prison.

[bomber]

Jwocky... I think wrong topic.

However this is priceless....

Thorsten wrote
You're just stringing one flawed premise onto the next and fabricate a fantasy of that.

Curt wrote
The beauty of this strategy is they can then watch everything said and done and cherry pick any little thing that might contribute towards their flawed premises and alternative story line. Everything they say is based on "evidence" and therefore proved to be true! It is your basic dirty politics 101 practiced around the world, which sadly is being applied to FlightGear where it's not needed or wanted.

bomber wrote
Are you having a larf...... This all started because YOUR moderator Bugman cherry picked a quote from over on FGMEMBERS forums...

These are the facts..