It seems to me that this post is related to philosophy. Yet, for some reason, you obviously think that it is not. And you made that known after you declared that the person who posted that post is “full of shit”. You didn’t merely say he’s wrong, you said that he is “full of shit”. There’s a subtle but important difference. I don’t think this is an acceptable behavior even if your claim that Gib’s post has nothing to do with philosophy is correct.
You are right. It is his way of doing “philosophy”. … A clear case …
He’s not literally full of shit. But figuratively speaking he is full of shit. He is desperate to be banned as he has been elsewhere. I say give him what he wants. The tone and quality of posts on the Forum will be improved. Every time I boot up this page I find myself confronted by crap. Calm and considered posts that I make a ridiculed or ignored. The only way to get your point across on this infected forum is to use the common tongue.
Since this forum has rules of conduct (I assume) then they ought to be applied.
Thank you polish youth for pretending to be someone else.
I understood that much.
It would be nice if you could explain what about his post makes him worthy of a ban.
I don’t doubt that but I don’t think the solution is to play the popular game.
That post is not his.
It is only a transcipt of Limbaugh.
Why link it?
Is that really true? Even if it is, I don’t think your behavior is unacceptable.
My behaviour??? 
At least I do not give gratuitous insults at every turn.
What, exactly, is so unacceptible?
And what makes you think that the Rush Limbuagh post WAS his?
Who is “gib”?
Your first post in that thread. The one-line insult. Why should anyone tolerate that? What’s the benefit?
You mean my ironic rejoinder to his litany of insults??
=D>
There does not appear to be a single insult in the post you responded to. And he does not even mention you more than one time in any other place outside of that thread.
Where are those insults?
And even if he did insult you on many occasions, does that justify your response? Perhaps to an extent but I am pretty sure not entirely.
Nice try!
Scuptor you are like an ulcer on somebodies anus…an autistic anus ulcer.
e.g. “Scuptor you are like an ulcer on somebodies anus…an autistic anus ulcer.”
Gib and Polish Youth are two entirely different individuals.
Not everyone on these forums is Polish Youth.
Then why are you castigating me for attacking PolishY by linking a psot by gib?
I have at least 10 socket-puppet accounts I use daily…I have no life…no job…I just sit on ILP under a bridge, hungry and cold and wait until MagsJ replies to my posts.
I see where the misunderstanding lies. I wasn’t castigating you for attacking Polish Youth, I was castigating you for your behavior outside of this thread (your post in that Gib’s thread being an example.)
Not Gib, but him: Ban Sculptor! Sculptor ist the one who is not capable of philosophizing, only capable of using AD HOMINEMS in communist command form, of trolling and of stalking. So why should we let someone like him tell us anything? Ban him or, because ILP has no moderation anymore, ignore him!
So there is some hope for us.
It is always the same: Sculptor has no other “arguments” than “AD HOMINEMS”.
And if he is asked about this problem (which is only seldom the case), then he has only excuses, e.g. like now again: “there is no philosophy here” - if he really misses philosophy (what one can doubt very strongly!), then one asks oneself immediately: why does he post here? He does not want philosophy, but a projection surface, a projection surface to get rid of his permanent frustration.
Then the confusion is all yours.