Good grief, another meltdown.

Are you seriously trying to pretend I start these things? Let's look at how the volleys between RJ and I went on this thread.

Me-OP: Should conservative posts be banned like on Democratic Underground?

RJ: The question is wrong and not worth answering. Pose the question fairly and get responses.

Note: This is "usually staying out of his threads?"

Me: @ Rjwood, I'm open for suggestions - tell me what you have in mind (PM or Here) and if its in line with what I'm curious about I'll be happy to change it.

Note: Was that out of line? I'm open to contructive criticism, so all I did was ask RJ to explain his jab.

RJ: What good is your question if I am asking it? Figure it out yourself. If you cannot see the fallacy in your question, I cannot help you. I do agree with qtwerp, but your question is too contrived. But that is so you, rasczak.

Note: This was typical of him. He pops in with some passive agressive gripe, but refuses to explain it. That's not discussion. I asked him to tell me how he'd have phrased it, but he refused. This indicates to me, he's not interested in stirring up constructive discussion, he just wants to create friction. And he keeps calling me a troll?

Did I fire back and insult at him? No.

Me: I'm not the one saying there is anything wrong with my question as it is. You are. All I'm asking is that you tell me what you think is wrong with it. You say it is contrived - how is it contrived?

Have I said anything insulting towards RJ at this point in the thread? I think not.

RJ: In Rasczaks case it may have a lot to do with the fact he is so military minded. The military is not a place for creative or critcal thinking within the ranks and is usually, 'do as I say and think as I think or else.'

Most military lifers like rasczak are more or less raised to think like this.

Full disclosure - I hadn't even noticed this until just now as I was reviewing the thread, and it wasn't directed at me, he was replying to BNS. None the less, its an example of how RJ always goes to the person - me. BNS was discussing the topic question, RJ had to turn it into a discussion about me.

Next, BNS asks a question about where I took my username from. Now remember, RJ want you to think I drag him kicking and screaming into confrontations with me - that I'm the instigator.

RJ: It is from star wars troopers or some other action fiction story or cartoon.

Insulting? Not at all. Childish? Absolutely. Should I have called him on it? Why not.

Me: Yet another transparent passive aggressive stunt that serves only to make you look foolish and stir up yuk yuks amongst the little clique of whacko-liberal bed-wetters and head-nodders you seek reassurance and validation from. For you to know about the character "LT Rasczak" means you know where it comes from, so its obvious your feigned ignorance of the title and genre was intentional and contrived, not to mention perfectly childish.

You know the rest. Should I just have ignored RJ? Some will answer yes, and I respect that. I believe in answering foolishness according to what the foolishness deserves. But I won't have anyone pretending like I'm the one that stirs these things up. Go back and look at any thread where RJ and I have gone at it and see if you don't see the same pattern. RJ is not trying to avoid conflicts with me.

Now take a look at threads where BNS (for example) and I get into disagreements, and BNS almost always disagrees with me. BNS argues the issues. He and I have fairly solid debate with none of the crap RJ brings into a thread.