Ren's lack of ability to see his own actions.

Above is the most recent link to how Ren attacks people that he perceives as conservatives and especially on people new to the forum. Pedro's second post to Thom Hartmann's Board:

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Pedro:
Those numbers, if indeed accurate, are tragic and staggering. I have a bit of an issue with the fact that no distinction seems to be made between those killed by sectarian violence and so forth and those inadvertently killed by our military, but one aspect of the article sticks out to me.

The estimate given pre-invasion is 5.5 per 1000, but according to these numbers the global average currently is a little over 8.5 and the average in Iraq is around 5.3.

Something doesn't add up, and I guess it all depends on a person's perspective and what they want to believe.[/QUOTE]

And now how Ren responded without even an introduction or explanation as to what he is talking about:

Let's see, you invade a country, but beforehand, your cultural experts -- those in academia who make a life's work of understanding other cultures around the world, yes those experts, tell you all hell is going to break loose once you depose the government if you don't prepare for the multitude of tribal and religious sectarian "differences" that are held in check by an authoritarian government; you ignore them, in fact you basically spit on them, after all they are from academia and are by default liberals.

Some of your top military experts tell you that taking the government down will be the easy part, what comes next is going to need a lot of soldier power and extensive police level organization. So you can't have that, since your Secretary of Defense is pushing for a whole new Project for a New American Century military force to handle the upcoming geopolitical strategies for a new world order. So naturally you force those people out of their positions into early retirement.

Then, oh my gosh, here we are four years into this adventure, longer than the U.S. was in Europe during WWII and you find out, guess what?, they were right. And now you don't want to take any responsibility for the results of the sectarian violence? Are you sure you are a Democrat?

As far as those statistics. We now have an increasingly insular Unitary Executive Branch. It outspokenly admits it doesn't do a body counts of civilian deaths in Iraq. I'd have to question anything the now emasculated CIA posts as statistics -- esecially in Iraq.

So first Ren starts out with addressing Pedro as 'you' and places him in a position that he can not even respond since he is not a decision maker or someone in power.
And then proceeds to dump all his conspiracy theories on someone that has not had a chance to see where he is coming from. The concepts he expects a new person to respond to is: Authortarianism, Ren's admiration with meritocracy, teachings of PNAC, and the UET theories. This dialogue is obviously distracting to the thread and is violation of rule #2:

Altering Quotations: Do not alter the wording or make it appear as though another member had said something which they did not. Rules

He then goes on to question what a total stranger says is true:

Are you sure you are a Democrat?

And the use of statements with question marks to imply what the person’s position is:

Then, oh my gosh, here we are four years into this adventure, longer than the U.S. was in Europe during WWII and you find out, guess what?, they were right. And now you don't want to take any responsibility for the results of the sectarian violence?

And questioning a new persons ability:

Pedro, from East LA, and he already knows how to imbed url's in sentences in his second post. Not bad. And I like that little deceptive "Those numbers, if indeed accurate, are tragic and staggering." I knew another guy who started out his posts that way. He's been banned though.

Which he uses to imply that the new person is someone that was banned. And he does not even say who he thought it was, even after being asked directly.

And Pedro from East LA claims to be a Democrat.

Who watches Olbermann and O'Reilly "quite a bit"... "mainly to see how both cover the same stories."

And who has a bit of an issue...

The above was first to question his identity that he has willingly shared with other members, and then questions how someone can watch from news from a variety of sources and then tries to leave doubt about a members statements.

Once again, I don't have a clue to what you are trying to say. Would you like a link to a site that can give you some insight into malignant self love, narcissistic personality disorder, or some such? Might be helpful. Can't think of anything else at the moment. Ren: Posted 20 June 2006 16:45

This is a real good example of Ren trying to psychoanalyze me.
The attacking and stalking started on that thread here.

I know GG you want to change the subject. But the Republican hypocrites are a having melt down now and we want to watch. If you read this thread you will see the Bill, King and Ren had a discussion about the sociological meaning of this phenomena of child and women exploitation. "Driveby posts" like yours are meant to waste our time. Ron Rutherford did this all the time and I see the same pattern imitated here.

Bill, notice that same drop-in, driveby, diversion pattern as in Ren's thread "Lebanon/Israeli ceasefire and recovery"? Has GG decided to adopt Rutherford's tactic and pick up where he left off? I think Kate intutitively detected the Rutherford tactic first and left. Posted 01 October 2006 09:13

So he has to use my name three times to make a point or what? I never showed any anger toward Anti and I even offered to help him develope a theory and how to do some hypothesis testing on it. Can anyone say ad hom?