Standard Deflection (or Reflection) Techniques.

[Frank Kneeland]

So has everyone heard the one about the cannibal that passed his friend in the jungle?Alright, so from what little I can glean from these few posts there may or may not be some belief that the Backsider is RS in disguise. They have different physical addresses as I have mailed them both. They both emailed comments about my book and their comments were really different and came a month apart. After Backsider had already emailed me with comments, I met RS in person and he was shocked to see how large my book was. He then commented after reading it and his comments about it were far more positive than Backsider's and completely different and from the POV of a fellow author, as one might expect. Though I imagine that Mission Impossible level subterfuge and Academy Award level acting could have pulled off a deception, I have no doubt in my mind that they are two very distinct and different people.I couldn't take sides in this discussion if I wanted to because I just don't understand the particulars well enough, and honestly, I don't have the time to research it.Lastly, the Admin on this site clearly made the use of xxx-xxxxxx's name impossible to post, because of a desire to restrict discussion about him, not because of an alergy to the letter combination. You might all be adhering to the "letter" of the law, but I think you may have lost sight of its spirit.So when scientists try to pick up girls in bars do they walk up and say, "I have a theory that we'd be good in bed. I suggest we apply the scientific method and try to disprove that." ~FK

[Webman]

[achoo!]Must have been something in the air.

[shadowman]

  
Maybe you should read Franks post above before spouting off. Do you understand what MAILED ME, RODNEY, A BOOK TO MY HOME means? To a state in the midwest? My goodness shadowman, is that your contribution for the day or is there more?
 
Like I said before, in fact, right in the post you quoted. No one is saying there isn't a real Rodney.
 
Frank, your indulgence please, and thank you for verifying me. You probably havent much time to read through history here but Ive read some. It seems theres a handful of characters here who do not like RS so whenever someone gets under the skin of one of them they all jump in saying the person who is doin it must be him. Childish, yes, and they dont care if theyre wrong like here, they just keep it up from what Ive seen. Its the same m.o. and cast over on lva, Im sure youve seen it, only shadow is arcimedes. Its beyond me, but dont agree with me or else youll be the next victim!



 
So, a rookie poster knows all about LVA and everything that has gone on there. Quite amusing.
 
"under the skin" is another favorite of you know who.
 
And, just like Joe he comes on and jumps in with all kinds of personal details including his real name. Yup, just like everyone else. Well, I guess that would only be Joe.
 
The most humorous thing is that someone would go to all this trouble just to post on a VP forum. I think "childish" is a pretty darn good description.

[New2vp]

frank when you said "may or may not " believe I guess you have everything covered. however no poster other than back cider suggested that back cider and rs are the same. so why would he do that? it allows him to complain a bout a non issue as if it were an issue. it fits the reflection profile. please for give the temporary spelling and grammar problems. talk to text is imperfect and corrections are not worth the trouble.

[Frank Kneeland]

frank when you said "may or may not " believe I guess you have everything covered. however no poster other than back cider suggested that back cider and rs are the same. so why would he do that? it allows him to complain a bout a non issue as if it were an issue. it fits the reflection profile. please for give the temporary spelling and grammar problems. talk to text is imperfect and corrections are not worth the trouble.OK now I'm taking the other side. I think it is far more plausible that backsider felt this was the case, and conveyed his honest beliefs (true or false...irrelevant), rather than hatching an elaborate convoluted plot involving premeditated feints and higher level planning.I have not always agreed with Backsider, but at no time have I detected malice aforethought in his communications. And I don't really see him as the type that enjoys complaining. In several private emails to me he expressed his dissatisfaction with the general on-line-forum environment and expressed his desire that things were more affable. He even shared with me several valid complaints that he withheld from the forum. If he really liked complaining that much, he would have just posted them, and he would have been justified in doing so.One can argue the rightness and wrongness of people's actions all day long until the cows come home (one wonders where they go when they are out), but to argue about people's feelings is utterly pointless. Feelings are always true at least to the person feeling them. What was that old saying,All things are true, even false things. ~Gregory Hill  aka-Malaclypse the YoungerWhy don't we take a step back and make an affirmation to ourselves that Baksider's voice on this forum might not be ours, or in agreement with our world view, and that this is OK. If anything it adds interest and color to the experience.Can you look me in the eye and tell me seriously that you aren't enjoying this exchange. I thought not. (looking people in the eye is tremendously difficult in a text based communication).~FKP.S. I still have next to no idea what this whole thread is about, so if my statements are completely off base, just pretend I was reenacting the evil Kirk from Star Trek second-season episode, #33 Mirror Mirror.

[backsider]

What's to learn from the tangent this thread has taken?1) The most popular, talked about person in the gaming world is banned from posting on forums overtaken by irationality, delusion, and fear. Whose the winner here? 2) No matter how much proof is presented by the most respected of wellknown names, shadowman will go to his grave believing everyone he cant agree with is RS or someone in cahoots with the guy to use passwords, logins, comparable words,,, just to bug him.3) eog will want my scalp until the day i die and will bring it up more often than Dennis Miller does Pelosi.  4) Finally, what will most probably force another set on long explanatory posts to his fans, new2vp doesnt look too excited about Frank taking over as the forums most articulite witty poster.

[damule]

1) The most popular, talked about person in the gaming world is banned from posting on forums overtaken by irationality, delusion, and fear. Whose the winner here?
 
I'm sure if Billy Walters or Doyle Brunson wanted to post here they would be more than welcome.
 
 
 
3) eog (sic:edog) will want my scalp until the day i die and will bring it up more often than Dennis Miller does Pelosi.
 
This statement definitely will not gain you any friends.
 
 

[edog743]

Mule, I did not think that warranted a response. thank you for having my back I think he just wants to piss everyone off.

[New2vp]

OK now I'm taking the other side. I think it is far more plausible that backsider felt this was the case, and conveyed his honest beliefs (true or false...irrelevant), rather than hatching an elaborate convoluted plot involving premeditated feints and higher level planning.Frank, I have less time than usual in the near future, so please forgive the length of time until my next response if one is needed.I'm sure most people are getting tired of this by now.  I've used up most of my funny lines, so in explaining what you seem to have missed, I'll probably start to sound a bit mean and unfriendly to some.  But with your renewed interest, I'll try at least one more time.

What's to learn from the tangent this thread has taken?1)
The most popular, talked about person in the gaming world is banned
from posting on forums overtaken by irationality, delusion, and fear.
Whose the winner here? 2) No matter how much proof is
presented by the most respected of wellknown names, shadowman will go to
his grave believing everyone he cant agree with is RS or someone in
cahoots with the guy to use passwords, logins, comparable words,,, just
to bug him.3) eog will want my scalp until the day i die and will bring it up more often than Dennis Miller does Pelosi. 
4) Finally, what will most probably force another set on long
explanatory posts to his fans, new2vp doesnt look too excited about
Frank taking over as the forums most articulite witty poster.I can see by bs's latest post that your support has evidently emboldened the guy you are trying to defend.  Look at how he uses that support:  his first two priorities are not that I'm too mean now, but that poor BS-master that I also refer to as his hero is being treated unfairly.  Where is that coming from, if that is not the actual issue here?  Talk to someone else (Webman) or look up earlier posts to see why his hero was banned from the forum; that was beyond my control, prior to me entering discussions such as these.  And, if I recall correctly, his hero bragged about trying to get banned here.  Sorry, you won't get a legitimate boo-hoo out of anyone who remembers those nasty exchanges.Then with his next breath, he decides to try to get a rise out of a Native American who has previously asked for sensitivity in posting.  I've already stated that I haven't always agreed with this poster, but come on, just deliberately mocking someone in the area of race is probably not the way to go on fora of these type.Lastly he is concerned about he length of my posts, which he has now made 3 paragraphs longer since those paragraphs can comment further on his bad behavior.First I am puzzled why you would feel compelled to take any side.  I earlier suggested that you may not want to referee this discussion.  I'm sure you have your reasons for now trying to moderate them and I don't really need to know about them but  a few hours earlier I read: I couldn't take sides in this discussion if I wanted to because I just
don't understand the particulars well enough, and honestly, I don't have
the time to research it.It is a good debating technique to change stated plans because it's harder to hit a moving target, but it doesn't provide me with confidence that you have reasonable evidence that I should consider in making any decision.A couple other quotes that left me with apparently the wrong conclusion about your future participation: I really don't have a clue what this is all about, but yes I can confirm
that backsider is who he's saying he is, to the best of my knowledge. I
clearly must have missed something.What you missed is that this was a red herring.  No one accused backsider of being rs, which was what I tried to convey in my grammatically-challenged post. Since apparently there is some sort of serious discussion going on here
that does not concern me, I'll bow out and let you all get to it.OK, nevertheless, you now want to take the other side.  That's fine with me...and let me know when you want to switch sides, quit altogether, or re-switch.  It's difficult for me to keep up without a scorecard.In the post that you quoted, I said  "no poster other than back cider
suggested that back cider and rs are the same".  The "other side" here
would be that someone did in fact suggest
backsider and rs are the same, not that backsider felt that somebody did.  If you know of
where that happened, that would be valuable evidence for the other side
of the argument.

As a matter of fact, the specific mentions of this relationship were:

by shadowman:  "I'm sure Rodney is a real person" and

by me in listing supplemental "standard deflection/reflection
techniques" that reflections: Pretend that someone accused the
reflection of being someone else.

I guess your version of the other side is "it is far more plausible that backsider felt this was the case."  No problem there except one might wonder why he would have felt that way if in fact no one said it.

Backsider stated his case as such, but if he felt that
this was the case in light of what went on above, we have something of
interest.  Why would he do that?  Do you know? What difference does it make if he felt that way of not?  Backsider likes rs, so that wouldn't be an insult to him.  Why would it bother him?  Should someone apologize to him for something that was never said simply to protect his feelings?  Or should he apologize when he eventually realizes that no one said it.  Frank, have you really thought this through?  I have already given my
explanation.  To that I'll add another Standard Deflection Technique:  "When possible, try and aggrandize the BS-master."  Until I know what competing antithesis you have to my thesis, I can't synthesize them into a new thesis.Frank, I know you are a cool guy and you love making friends out of enemies., but given the history here it is much more than reasonably possible that your non-conventional non-confrontational apologetic style giving more than the benefit of the doubt to someone who makes nasty comments was NOT as responsible in "befriending" backsider as was your intention to have the BS-master on your radio show.  I'm not suggesting that you change your style; I love it; it makes you unique and interesting, but sometimes you may turn a blind eye and miss a few things.

You wouldn't know without doing research or talking to someone who has
been around, but backsider is not the first to complain that someone
said he was rs BEFORE anyone did.  It is difficult and I think unreasonable for you to expect me to give more
credibility to your conjectures about what you think backsider's
intentions are than I give to conclusions I have drawn based on past
experience.

It is not simply my feeling that I have seen this behavior before, but the existence of this behavior can be supported by past posts if you are really that interested.It looks to me like you are giving significantly more credence to email exchanges with backsider than to what I've written, but you have to have seen that backsider's posts here have a much higher than normal frequency of insulting others, even after your attempts at conversion.  Certainly if you see where I have written something that is incorrect or
have some evidence that my logic has been faulty, I'm always interested
in improving my perception.  I am probably not going to change much if
you simply feel differently about something than I do, but who knows, I might. <This is actually a trick on my part to try and incent you to re-read the posts,
especially if you want to continue trying to correct my conduct, because it appears to me you have missed some key concepts>

Here I think it is your perception that needs improving, but that's my
opinion, based on the fact that I simply have more experience in this forum with posters in previous years than do you.  The observed patterns have happened far too often to be explained by chance.  My advice would be that gaining such experience by going over past posts  is not a very valuable or worthwhile
venture, but there is plenty of reading
available if you value your time that poorly.
Why
don't we take a step back and make an affirmation to ourselves that
Baksider's voice on this forum might not be ours, or in agreement with
our world view, and that this is OK. If anything it adds interest and
color to the experience.Have you actually been following along with the chronology?  I never suggested that backsider should be discouraged from posting.  I simply warned jm, admittedly tongue-in-cheek, that his response to backsider was mean and not to discourage backsider from continuing to give "invaluable" advice. Please look back and direct your counsel to backsider if you think you need to give advice in this area unless it is really your intent to take backsider's side and thus encourage the following type of behavior.This is a synopsis of the start of backsider feeling that someone called him rs; or, since no one did and I cannot really be sure when these feelings started, this was the start of my latest involvement.1.  jm002546:  Move Palms down your list - FPDW progressive GONE.2.  backsider:  If fpdw progressives was the main reason for your going to Palms, may i suggest you get your eyes examined?3.  jm002546: No response4.  backsider:  Its very anoying watching grown men and women cry over something they think they have a right to play.
5.  jm002546:  I DO have a right to play FPDW at Stations and I will.  You don't have to know how to spell annoying to be anoying.6.  new2vp:  jm, that was a very mean....but admittedly funny...retort! Don't be so hard on backsider's advice or he may decide not to continue to bless us with any more pearls of wisdom....Plus, backsider is always so very considerate and thoughtful to those who have differing opinions from him  <In between, I included many of backsider's invaluable insights>7.  backsider: Im glad you dont post much because you are rude and stuck up.Really, Frank?  This is the other side that you want to defend?  Hey, I already presciently wrote, "I hope you stay on good terms with backsider because I sense that is what you want to do."  But let's not get carried away and think others including me will agree to do the same thing.Frank, it is not my intent to embarrass or demean you in any way.  I feel from reading past writings that you are sincere and caring.  Unfortunately, I think you have stepped into an area in which your moderation skills just might not be enough.  Sorry, I don't have a funny closing, so I'll try a response to one more of your questions.
Can you look me in the eye and tell me
seriously that you aren't enjoying this exchange. I thought not.
(looking people in the eye is tremendously difficult in a text based
communication).

What
about this winking emoticon?  I copied it from one of your posts. 
Since it is yours, I believe all parts of it are yours, including the
eyes, even though one of them keeps hiding.  So, I am looking right in
your eyes, now eye, now eyes, now eye, ..., and telling you I am no
longer enjoying this exchange.  It has reached the point beyond
diminishing positive utility, even for me.

[brmcc74]

I would like to thank all parties involved for this entertaining thread