Hiney is a queer magnet

Grudges can last a long time in Skypeland. Today I was talking to a friend D in a Skypeland channel who is marrying BG, someone she met on Skype. They said it was very unfair that the owners and managers of a given Skype channel did not let them talk freely in the channel.

I pointed out that the owners of this Skype channel paid for the room, and D's fiance BG said the people who had paid for the room were "fucking stupid" for paying and that it was a waste of money. I said that it was their money, and they could do what they wanted with it. It was not up to anyone else. I notice that although some criticize the people who provide the room, they are anxious to take advantage of it. Hmm...

D and BG implied that the room should not have any arguments in it and there should be no discussion of politics. I said that it would be better if there was a selection of rooms for people to choose from, but so far there are very few.

I thought, no one is forcing anyone to come to the room if they dislike it so much. And they are free to start their own room if they prefer. I held my tongue however.

However, at that time, the infamous Hiney with his sidekick U, the retired American expatriate living in China entered the discussion. Hiney is an Indian immigrant who is probably living in Houston and has a huge chip on his shoulder. Hiney used to host "argument rooms" as Skypecasts for years. His method of "arguing" was to memorize a long soliloquy and then spew it out at high speed, laced with insults and threats and personal attacks. Hiney would occasionally allow half a second or a second for the other party to respond. No matter what the other party said, or did not say, Hiney would shut off his microphone and eject him from the room, laughing and mocking him. Hiney was aggressive about pressing his strident anti-American views, along with a good measure of conspiracy theories. Finally few would listen to Hiney any more, so he took to hacking other Skypecast rooms and ejecting the hosts, destroying one cast after another where people were having productive conversations. This went on for years. Hiney earned a fair amount of ill will from his behavior and attitude. Gee, I wonder why that would be?

Hiney's wingman U holds similarly outrageous points of view. While Hiney is around 20 years old, U is in his 60s. It is sort of curious to watch a 60 year old "kissing the posterior" of a 20 year old boy. U frantically brown-noses Hiney because of Hiney's alleged "intellectual superiority" which Hiney demonstrated by reciting a memorized script. U also lectures people for hours that the US is awful and that evil Jews secretly run the US and the World. U told me in great detail that there is no political repression in China and that China has more freedoms than the US. Ah yes, U is a real genius and so nice and rational

I had been quiet up to this point, as pleasantries flew back and forth. I listened while Hiney told D over and over what a loser her fiance BG is, and how she could do better. I had the strong impression that Hiney felt that D would be better off with him.

Hiney bragged that women think his picture is handsome. Hiney said women pursue him constantly. Someone asked if men pursue him as well, and Hiney said they did. Hiney said he is a "queer magnet" and many gay guys want to be with him.

After this statement, I could not stay quiet any longer. I let loose a stream of insults focused on Hiney and U, much to the annoyance of BG and of D who wanted a nice pleasant conversation. I was told over and over that I was childish and juvenile for attacking Hiney and U. I only like to give Hiney a little dose of his own medicine so he remembers that he is disliked and why he is disliked.

Some of us hold grudges. We don't appreciate being insulted, attacked, threatened and having our discussions hacked and destroyed repeatedly. And someone who spews nonsense and insults like U, as well assisting Hiney in creating disruption, deserves whatever he gets. This is particularly true in a Skypeland venue that advertises itself as a haven for rude behavior and insults, as well as being pro-American, pro-Israel, pro-Jewish and anti-conspiracy theory. It is not a "kumbaya room". Hiney and U have earned whatever negative reception they get. If they want to reform their ways, maybe eventually they would be treated differently.

Everyone demanded that I stop disrupting the room. So I played about 60 seconds of static in the room to give them a message that I was not going to put up with this kind of nonsense. In response, they accused me of being an infant having a tantrum. And then I muted my microphone and listened, while U played about 30 minutes or more of fart noises in the room.

Ah yes, I am childish and I have no reason for treating U and Hiney like that. Obviously.

Addendum

D invited me to her room in Skypeland. I said I would come and present my side of this contretemps. I attempted to explain why I had disrupted the discussion with Hiney and U. Immediately D's friend DH, the "chronic chronic" user, launched an attack.

I have studiously avoided DH for years, because he is ridiculous to talk to, and makes almost no sense, being usually stoned out of his mind. DH said that I had given Hiney free "adverizing" by talking about him and that showed what a jerk I am. DH also claimed that there is no such thing as computer hacking or malware, and anyone who has their software hacked has chosen to have it hacked. This should be news to most of the computer industry, but I am sure that DH knows what he is talking about.

Then DH came out with gems of wisdom like "If you think what you think, that is only because you think what you think". Hmmm now that is profound, but something I would definitely expect from DH. Maybe it would make more sense after a puff or two on a bong.

I was asked repeatedly to not continue with the topic, and I agreed if all attacks ceased. DH continued to attack, and I was muted. So I left.

I was accused of "not being able to take it" and I was told "some 1 stood up to u n u went runniong". Talking over someone, lecturing them, demanding that they not respond and then muting them is not a good way to get a dialogue, in my opinion. And it is not likely to create a positive impression.

People do not quite get it. If I am verbally bludgeoned, I reserve the right to defend myself. I also claim the right to disagree with statements I find objectionable. If I am not allowed to defend myself or disagree, then I will most likely leave. There is little purpose for me or anyone to be forced to listen to someone lecture about nonsense, except possibly for entertainment purposes or to capture their ridiculous statements for blog posts, etc.