From my perspective, having not seen the thread in particular and not being a regular back room reader/poster anyway, it seems that the original issue is now largely irrelevant, and that successive readers of this thread will base their views on Vuk's attitude within this particular thread itself, and not on the thread/incident in question.
It seems to me Vuk, that you have, shall we say, a "talent" for getting yourself into scrapes, through your overly direct and unsubtle approach to particular issues. It also seems that after getting into these situations you will almost "fight to the death" in trying and justify yourself and seemingly wriggle your way out again - instead of backing down and admitting your error. You constantly try to point out the inconsistency in the justice dealt out here at the .org, yet you seem oblivious to the glaring inconsistencies in your own comments. When these are are pointed out you, you will begin the word for word post post dissection and demolition process, which is the mark of a bad debater. Jumping on your opponent's posts in a piecemeal form, trying to dissect and discredit sentence by sentence or even word for word where possible. This in itself is not endearing and you have shown countless examples of it in this very thread.
Your comment about Muhammed being an 'animal' is a classic example of inconsistency. You intended this in a derogatory way, I think 99.999% of orgahs can work that one out, yet you have now backtracked and tried to explain this as:
You seem to be overly obsessed with "legality" of your comments, and not how your comments are actually perceived. There is no sense in "getting away" with posting something offensive simply because you can explain it away later in that fashion. That does not remove the original insult or the offence and it doesn't leave anyone any more convinced.Originally Posted by Vuk
![]()
Bookmarks