So I have bid my farewell of the EUOT.

[Eddie Teach]

Was this the thread about Tim being an idiot?

Nah, this one was about Slargos being a type of meatball.

[Razgovory]

This thread doesn't deliver.

[Razgovory]

The only St. Louis fan we ever had on this forum was Vinraith and I think derspiezze

I like the Cardinals. Don't really follow baseball though.

I am also a Cards fan.

[LaCroix]

Was this the thread about Tim being an idiot?

i think it is about semantics 

[PDH]

Was this the thread about Tim being an idiot?

i think it is about semantics 

Same thing.  Anyway, I am a well known anti-semantite.

[LaCroix]

Was this the thread about Tim being an idiot?

i think it is about semantics 

Same thing.  Anyway, I am a well known anti-semantite.

that's a holocaust everyone can get behind!

[Pat]

Caliga and grumbler: You might think what I wrote was a poor characterization of libertarians in general, but I'm guessing you don't know what I was responding to, so how would you know if it was a strawman or not? Anyway it doesn't matter. I'm not going to defend my posts here where they're out of their context. Grumbler is right in saying I didn't come here to talk about that.

He's not right, however, saying I came here for the sympathy. I might as well start boxing for the hugs or go to prison for the companionship.

Since Stonewall called me a liar in public, and wouldn't let me defend myself, I thought I would call him on it in public. It would give people a chance to make up their own opinion of him. Throughout this thread I've made it a point *not* to talk bad about Stonewall, because I honestly wanted us to work something out. I am at liberty to say what I want to Stonewall because at Languish he has no moderator powers to hide behind and use to punish me for talking back to him (Neils oppressive regime is one I willingly subject myself to, as I find it much preferable). Yet I have said nothing bad of him. So ask yourselves this: Why would I be so careful to maintain civility with Stonewall if my motivation had been any other than clearing my name?

But I now see my name will not be cleared. Though not for lack of trying on my part, as the readers of this thread can attest to: the main criticism against me is that I have been trying too hard.

I didn't know much about Stonewall when I recently returned to EUOT after not having been there for many years. Many posts here have attested to his infamous moderating-style, and criticised me for being the least bit surprised. Well, I was. I like to think the best of people. When they say they care about liberty, I tend to believe them. When they say they care about things not standing in their way, when they say they believe in the sacrosanctity of credibility, when they say people must always be able to take what you say as being true even if it is not something they want to hear, yes, in all of these cases: I tend to take them at their words.

Unless their words and their actions do not correlate.

Stonewall, angry at finding himself unable to compete intellectually, and angry someone dared talk back to him, bent the rules of the game to win the discussion by moderator decree; a decree of slanderous lies and threats of giving punishment to any attempt of the accused to clear his name. I would rather leave than be his serf, and he would rather lie than let me leave in peace. Actions, as they say, speak louder than words.

Stonewall has shown his true face for all to see. Behind his mask of lies, his words have a different meaning. When he says he cares about liberty, he means liberty for himself and slavery for others, when he says he cares about things not standing in his way, he means things not standing in his way as he exercise his power over others, and when he says others must always be able to take what you say as being true even if it is not something they want to hear, he means others can not tell him what is true if it is not something he wants to hear - because then he will use his powers to silence this rebellion against his authority.

I'm probably not going to respond to any of the subsequent trolling in this thread, unless it's something really bad, or Stonewall replies. This post is to be read as me accusing Stonewall of being a liar and a hypocrite, but at least I do not forbid him to clear his name if he feels anything I have written to be in error. I sent a link to this post in a PM to Stonewall to make sure he's seen it. Thank you for your attention, gentlemen, you may, if you wish, commence your dogpiling.

[Jaron]

You're a fucking liar

[katmai]

You're a fucking liar

Compared to being just a liar like you?

[PDH]

  I want Miglia to tell me to fuck off.

[Jaron]

You're a fucking liar

Compared to being just a liar like you?

I HATE LAIRS

[Pat]

  I want Miglia to tell me to fuck off.

You have a PM.

[Slargos]

Caliga and grumbler: You might think what I wrote was a poor characterization of libertarians in general, but I'm guessing you don't know what I was responding to, so how would you know if it was a strawman or not? Anyway it doesn't matter. I'm not going to defend my posts here where they're out of their context. Grumbler is right in saying I didn't come here to talk about that.

TLDR

You really need to work on making your statements briefer.

[Pat]

I know it's not easy for you with all the big words and long sentences, Slargos. That's okay 

[Berkut]

This is some high quality emo right here.