Lincoln: Hero or Tyrant?

Rusty · **Posted:** Wed May 07, 2008 1:13 am

I'm sorry, but when someone says something like that, I'm going to say something back. It's not an attempt to troll or whatever you want to call it, I just really think that lahi's sort of attitude should be called out.

Jitka · **Posted:** Wed May 07, 2008 1:16 am

Well, right, jerks are jerks and they deserve to be told about it. Just not every time they say anything remotely disagreeable.

StrongRad · **Posted:** Wed May 07, 2008 1:36 am

Rusty wrote:

I'm sorry, but when someone says something like that, I'm going to say something back. It's not an attempt to troll or whatever you want to call it, I just really think that lahi's sort of attitude should be called out.

My point is that if you're not going to do anything but stir up trouble (and that's what that post was about), you don't need to post here.

Rusty · **Posted:** Wed May 07, 2008 1:39 am

No, it wasn't. I just hate it when he does that and I'm not going to keep my mouth shut.

StrongRad · **Posted:** Wed May 07, 2008 1:40 am

Rusty wrote:

No, it wasn't. I just hate it when he does that and I'm not going to keep my mouth shut.

Then realize you're no better than him and we'll all be one happy family.

Rusty · **Posted:** Wed May 07, 2008 1:42 am

Ugh.

No.

HHFOV · **Posted:** Wed May 07, 2008 1:56 am

Shh, the adults are talking.

TheFacelessEvil · **Posted:** Wed May 07, 2008 2:29 am

StrongRad wrote:

Rusty wrote:

No, it wasn't. I just hate it when he does that and I'm not going to keep my mouth shut.

Then realize you're no better than him and we'll all be one happy family.

In my opinion, Rusty keeps it to a select few who a lot of people also find annoying.
The persons you claim he's no better then do not keep their mouths exclusive to just a select few - but everybody. They're even disruptive enough to earn suspensions from the forum.

StrongRad · **Posted:** Wed May 07, 2008 2:47 am

TheFacelessEvil wrote:

StrongRad wrote:

Rusty wrote:

No, it wasn't. I just hate it when he does that and I'm not going to keep my mouth shut.

Then realize you're no better than him and we'll all be one happy family.

In my opinion, Rusty keeps it to a select few who a lot of people also find annoying.
The persons you claim he's no better then do not keep their mouths exclusive to just a select few - but everybody. They're even disruptive enough to earn suspensions from the forum.

Rusty's earned plenty of time off himself. At any rate, any argument he tries to get in about "annoying" people would be an ultimate example of "pot calling kettle black".

Rusty · **Posted:** Wed May 07, 2008 3:59 am

You know, Sree, and I'm just pointing this out...whenever you've accused me of something like this, the only thing your argument against me consists of is pot and kettle. It's redundant and does not move anything forward.

Now, I will say that I was an a-hole a month or two ago. I have changed, and if you love to get on my case, but have nothing to say except "you did the same thing a while ago so you're doing the same thing now", then the problem is yours, not mine.

And I don't think it's a matter of "everybody's doing it, so it's okay for him to do it" - not at all. However, I will point out that of all the people who get onto lahi's case (or anyone else's, for that matter), I am generally the one most targeted by the administration. That's just an observation.

If you actually had a problem with people saying things like that to lahi or him saying those things, you would have been talking to TFE (sorry, hon) in the Cath/Mormon thread as well, lahi too.

TheFacelessEvil · **Posted:** Wed May 07, 2008 4:40 am

Rusty wrote:

you actually had a problem with people saying things like that to lahi or him saying those things, you would have been talking to TFE (sorry, hon) in the Cath/Mormon thread as well, lahi too.

No, Rusty, I do agree with you. I do think you're on the target-radar, probably because of your behavior in the past. But since I have a clean slate with you, I can see what they might not see, so... I love you regardless. Mwah.

Yeah. I disagree with him on a point and it's all good clean fun, you do it and suddenly it's wag-finger-drama-time. Probably because of your track record with them, while I'm still fairly new.

MAYBE IT'S START-OVER TIME, HUH FELLAS? So that way we all can have differing conversations of all types?

Jitka · **Posted:** Wed May 07, 2008 4:42 am

I think the difference is that you are using arguments to back yourself up whereas Rusty has a tendency to just kinda say GTFO.

Not that I'm taking sides here, I have no idea where Rusty's reputation comes from, I've been gone for a while.

TheFacelessEvil · **Posted:** Wed May 07, 2008 4:43 am

Jitka wrote:

I think the difference is that you are using arguments to back yourself up whereas Rusty has a tendency to just kinda say GTFO.

Not that I'm taking sides here, I have no idea where Rusty's reputation comes from, I've been gone for a while.

Ohhh. Yeah yeah, I could see that. *rub chin*

See, I have a tougher time seeing it because I have a straight-up-attitude that's similar to his so I can relate to his style of internet-speak.

Rusty · **Posted:** Wed May 07, 2008 5:06 am

Jitka wrote:

I think the difference is that you are using arguments to back yourself up whereas Rusty has a tendency to just kinda say GTFO.

Not that I'm taking sides here, I have no idea where Rusty's reputation comes from, I've been gone for a while.

I think you're right - I wouldn't normally do that, but sometimes, I really think that my saying something lengthy in response to a post like lahi's would just be a waste of my time, along with everyone else's who would read it. Stating the obvious.

lahimatoa wrote:

Um, it did read like that.

Quote:

I can tell you're not a bitter racist, but the fact that they were Southern historians just makes it seem to me that they're bitter racists. If it was Northern I might read into it more, but eh.

How does this mean anything other than "Southern historians = bitter racists, Northern historians = fair and balanced"?

I didn't think that this was worth much of a response.

By the way, I don't really like arguing about this type of thing, especially in a thread like this, but I want to make my point and make it very clear.

lahimatoa · **Posted:** Wed May 07, 2008 5:23 am

I don't know why Rusty is immune to the rules about spam.

When he jumps into a conversation to add nothing to it other than a facepalm, whether literal or otherwise, it's spam.

And he does it constantly.

Jitka · **Posted:** Wed May 07, 2008 5:24 am

Have we not been arguing about this for two pages?

No more.

LINCOLN WAS OUR BEST PRESIDENT HERE IN U.S. AMERICA AND THAT'S HOW COME HE'S ON THE 5$ BILL

Rusty · **Posted:** Wed May 07, 2008 5:29 am

lahimatoa wrote:

I don't know why Rusty is immune to the rules about spam.

When he jumps into a conversation to add nothing to it other than a facepalm, whether literal or otherwise, it's spam.

And he does it constantly.

Okay, PERFECT example. It's incredibly hard to come up with any intelligent response to something so stupid, something that annoys me so much that I cannot come up with a response to it.

Jitka wrote:

Have we not been arguing about this for two pages?

One. And I'll be done now, unless someone has something else to say to me - unless it's something like what lahi just posted. I'll start to ignore that.

lahimatoa · **Posted:** Wed May 07, 2008 5:32 am

Quote:

Okay, PERFECT example. It's incredibly hard to come up with any intelligent response to something so stupid, something that annoys me so much that I cannot come up with a response to it.

Your arrogance knows no bounds.

Coupled with your ignorance, you truly are a dangerous foe.

JoeyDay wrote:

3. NO SPAM.

Spam includes:

b. Writing posts without meaning.

d. Writing posts like "I agree" that do not contribute to the conversation.

The exact definition of spam is not limited to the above, and is to be determined by the admins and moderators.

Is it really so hard for you to understand that when you post "Sigh" in response to something I wrote, it's the very definition of spam? If so, you are a lost cause.

And may God have mercy on your soul.

Jitka · **Posted:** Wed May 07, 2008 5:33 am

OK, guys? Seriously? Stop? Like now?

We done?

TheFacelessEvil · **Posted:** Wed May 07, 2008 5:34 am

Rusty wrote:

Okay, PERFECT example. It's incredibly hard to come up with any intelligent response to something so stupid, something that annoys me so much that I cannot come up with a response to it.

Yup. Lahi struts around like he owns his internet threads, he makes 'n breaks the rules, and that he's entitled to everything and your Aunt Maude. That attitude is very annoying, and can cause a ton of problems.

I supposed the BEST thing we can do is ignore him, but... sometimes...

lahimatoa wrote:

Your arrogance knows no bounds.

Coupled with your ignorance, you truly are a dangerous foe.

POT. KETTLE. BLACK. RED ALERT.

... I mean. Ignore. Ignore. Ignore. *rub forehead* he'satrolldon'tlethimwintheinternetdon'tlethim...

StrongRad · **Posted:** Wed May 07, 2008 12:19 pm

OK.
Rusty, Lahi, knock it off.
I'm tired of dealing with this.
Keep it going and there will be permabans all around.

TFE, the reason I'm not jumping onto you is twofold: 1) You seem to have a purpose here other than causing drama. 2) You're funny. 3) You might make snide remarks, but you do so in the context of more robust, substantial debate. 4?) You don't appear to take the internet too personally.

Yes, I realize four reasons does not equal "two-fold". I'm just trying to see if you are paying attention.

ramrod · **Posted:** Wed May 07, 2008 2:33 pm

I'm locking this thread, at least for now, so we can all just calm down and take a breather.

Beyond the Grave · **Posted:** Wed May 07, 2008 5:21 pm

I think all the trouble has passed for now.

Now play nice or else this goes away for good.

TheFacelessEvil · **Posted:** Wed May 07, 2008 5:30 pm

StrongRad wrote:

TFE, the reason I'm not jumping onto you is twofold: 1) You seem to have a purpose here other than causing drama. 2) You're funny. 3) You might make snide remarks, but you do so in the context of more robust, substantial debate. 4?) You don't appear to take the internet too personally.

Aw. Thank you. :blush:

Everyone is so nice to me here, I swear...

Yeah. I learned a long time ago that the internet is just wordswordswords. Hey, I think I have an emote for that --

Acekirby · **Posted:** Fri May 16, 2008 5:08 pm

Lincoln was a hero.

Yes, he restricted liberties and did things no president before or since has done. But if you consider the situation he was in, with the entire nation split in two and fear of the Union breaking up, you know he had to do some of this stuff. It was a unique situation that required drastic measures. If Lincoln had not done some of this stuff, it is likely that the war could have dragged on much longer than it did. And if it dragged on, there was an immense fear of European intervention, where it was likely Europe would want to split the Union so America was weak.

furrykef · **Posted:** Sat May 17, 2008 9:29 am

I think the way history looks upon Lincoln suggests he wasn't a tyrant. History tends to be unforgiving to tyrants. Then again, most tyrants don't have something like the Civil War to offset their bad image. We do tend to think of Lincoln as a better man than he actually was... for example, he was a racist, but most people tend to sweep this fact under the rug because he did think slavery is wrong and he freed the slaves. Still, I think if he were a bad leader, he'd be remembered as such.

- Kef

StrongRad · **Posted:** Sat May 17, 2008 2:20 pm

furrykef wrote:

I think the way history looks upon Lincoln suggests he wasn't a tyrant. History tends to be unforgiving to tyrants. Then again, most tyrants don't have something like the Civil War to offset their bad image. We do tend to think of Lincoln as a better man than he actually was... for example, he was a racist, but most people tend to sweep this fact under the rug because he did think slavery is wrong and he freed the slaves. Still, I think if he were a bad leader, he'd be remembered as such.

- Kef

I think it could have something to do with the fact that he was the leader of "the winners". Winners write the history books.

furrykef · **Posted:** Sat May 17, 2008 8:22 pm

I dunno. History hasn't been as kind to Ancient Rome as it would have liked, for example. And it certainly hasn't been too nice to, say, Genghis Khan.

Acekirby · **Posted:** Sat May 17, 2008 10:04 pm

furrykef wrote:

for example, he was a racist, but most people tend to sweep this fact under the rug because he did think slavery is wrong and he freed the slaves

Protip: Just about every leader of early America was racist in some way or another

Doesn't really make it right, but still, when it's the way the world is run...

Word Up · **Posted:** Sun May 18, 2008 5:56 am

...who picked tyrant?

Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

Lincoln: Hero or Tyrant?

Who is online