PDA

View Full Version : General courtesy, namecalling aka flaming



Pages : [1] 2

jimnyc
04-13-2007, 03:26 AM
There has been a lot of animosity on the board lately, and quite a few otherwise good threads have deteriorated into name calling flamefests. I would appreciate it if everyone would try to take a step back, and try to be a little more civil in our posts. You can despise another poster and totally disagree with their beliefs, and still debate without getting too personal.

This is directed at no one in particular, whether individuals, or libs or cons. If you feel the need to get something off your chest, go to the steel cage section. Please don't sideswipe good threads by committing endless attacks on one another. Please try to stay on topic as best as possible. Sarcasm will always rear it's face, but the low blow personal attacks are going a bit far lately.

I have asked mods to monitor the situation. Anyone being disruptive in this manner consistently will receive a warning via PM. Should they continue being disruptive, they will be given a 24hr timeout.

There's a time and place for everything. Debate in appropriate threads, and place your attacks in the steel cage if you feel you must.

Thanks!

gabosaurus
04-13-2007, 11:57 PM
Without sarcasm and low blow personal attacks, this forum would get boring really fast. :cheers2:

Samantha
04-13-2007, 11:59 PM
That's not true. The political climate today is interesting enough. I don't think long threads filled with personal attacks instead of discussing the issue are very interesting actually.

TheStripey1
04-14-2007, 12:24 AM
That's not true. The political climate today is interesting enough. I don't think long threads filled with personal attacks instead of discussing the issue are very interesting actually.

Quite true, but when you're in a right wingers' haven, what do you expect? Intelligent discourse? Nonpartisan moderators?

yeah? Can I interest you in a nice brrrrridge? It's the middle span of the Car Queen Ez... annnnnnnnnd I can get it for you cheap...

interested?

Samantha
04-14-2007, 12:36 AM
Quite true, but when you're in a right wingers' haven, what do you expect? Intelligent discourse? Nonpartisan moderators?

yeah? Can I interest you in a nice brrrrridge? It's the middle span of the Car Queen Ez... annnnnnnnnd I can get it for you cheap...

interested?I understand there are no moderate mods or admins here. It's too bad really....

Another thing I noticed is the emoticons are pretty flaming. I think if the owner wants this site to have more general courtesy, your emotes aren't helping. There are plenty of really rude ones.

:finger3: :lame2: :poke: :pee: :flameth: :gives: :hitit: :boom2: :bsflag: :lalala:

Samantha
04-14-2007, 12:36 AM
:wank2: :upyours: :argue: :fart: :bs1: :dev3: :fu:

See what I mean?

And in addition, I see that the mod staff engages in personal insults too. I don't think that you can change the tone on the board if the staff contributes to the name calling, flaming and general rudeness.

TheStripey1
04-14-2007, 12:58 AM
And in addition, I see that the mod staff engages in personal insults too. I don't think that you can change the tone on the board if the staff contributes to the name calling, flaming and general rudeness.

Like I said... partisan moderators... there're the same whether it's an all righty board or an all lefty one... absolute power corrupts absolutely...

the only good boards are those with impartial moderators... you know where they are and so do I... in fact, isn't that where we met?

:cheers2:

TheStripey1
04-14-2007, 01:03 AM
I dunno, sam... I like the emoticons here... cuz they sure beat the lame ones at that site which will remain nameless...

:dance:

I will admit tho, given my druthers, I'll take lame emoticons and impartial moderators over... well, you know... the opposite... cool emoticons and partisan moderators...

:dance:

Roomy
04-14-2007, 01:13 AM
Shut the fuck up:laugh2:

Baron Von Esslingen
04-14-2007, 01:18 AM
When I arrived at this board, the righties were in the middle of a flamefest that they somehow thought was appropriately posted in Current Events, not the Steel Cage. When they got their feet held to the fire, you should have seen them come up with every excuse in the book for flaming that member and trying to explain that I didn't know the whole story. For a Twilight Zone minute I thought I'd gotten dropped in the middle of the White House-lost emails-Gonzales-Congress dispute.

I've seen the mods here shitcan a member for posting contrary posts to the ones the mod posted. I've seen them excuse the blatent violators of the Reputation rules and do nothing over reported posts where members were abused and threatened. Partisan isn't the word I would use to describe them.

I hold little hope for anyone on the other side of the aisle to live within the spirit of the owner's request since they have not so far. I'll be happy to do my part... until they start in again with the personal attacks. (It's as predictable as night following day.)

Samantha
04-14-2007, 01:39 AM
Change starts at the top. If the board needs changes, the mods need to set the example. I don't think calling for the posters to behave will do any good, unless the mods behave too. One liner insult posts, that I've seen here by mods, aren't going to encourage posters to be civil to eachother. Change starts at the bottom too. ;) That's the seed I've planted. If it's to grow, the staff must water it.

stephanie
04-14-2007, 01:56 AM
Whining and complaining........doesn't look good on anybody..

http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m268/alaskamomma/060786a0.gif

jimnyc
04-14-2007, 05:21 AM
Samantha - The emoticons might be a bit edgy, but it's what the member base has requested. It's supposed to be fun! You can be edgy without going over the top into personal attacks. Again, all in good fun.

Stripey - Moderation will come into play at any political board, unless there is no moderation at all. No mod/admin will be able to please everyone. I do ask my mods to moderate impartially, with respect to all members & within the vision I see for the board. Problems will sometimes still occur... I have an open door and can be PM'd or emailed at any time. We're not a right wing society here, I have a true desire to see ALL members enjoy their time here.

Gabby - Controversy creates posts, no doubt about it. I'd rather it be sarcasm, anger & vehement opposition to true debate though, as opposed to using that energy to get into heated personal attacks with others.

Baron - Your concerns are noted. Please PM me if you see anything transpire on the board that you truly feel is unfair to a member, and I'll do my best to correct the situation.

Remember, my announcement applies to all - Myself, mods and all members regardless of politics. I want controversy to exist here but not hatefests that result in total animosity towards one another and degradation of threads.

stephanie
04-14-2007, 05:59 AM
Whining and complaining........I guess does fit some...

http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m268/alaskamomma/thtantrumgr7.gif

krisy
04-14-2007, 07:38 AM
Whoooaaaa guys. There are a few Libs who have done some nasty things as well. Name calling,one liners are a big one.


I regrettably gotted sucked into it in one thread,and am not proud of what I said,or really the language I used. I won't do it again. Lets not blame just ONE side tho.

samantha-I have seen you on another board I think. online politics or something like that?Maybe US politics? I used to go over there and read a lot,never signed up tho. If it is you,I know you are a decent poster....just curious

I think jim has always been fair,especially compared to the like of DU. That is no partisan attack,but really,you can't even post there is you think a teency bit different than they do. Talk about extreme.

shattered
04-14-2007, 07:58 AM
When I arrived at this board, the righties were in the middle of a flamefest that they somehow thought was appropriately posted in Current Events, not the Steel Cage. When they got their feet held to the fire, you should have seen them come up with every excuse in the book for flaming that member and trying to explain that I didn't know the whole story. For a Twilight Zone minute I thought I'd gotten dropped in the middle of the White House-lost emails-Gonzales-Congress dispute.

I've seen the mods here shitcan a member for posting contrary posts to the ones the mod posted. I've seen them excuse the blatent violators of the Reputation rules and do nothing over reported posts where members were abused and threatened. Partisan isn't the word I would use to describe them.

I hold little hope for anyone on the other side of the aisle to live within the spirit of the owner's request since they have not so far. I'll be happy to do my part... until they start in again with the personal attacks. (It's as predictable as night following day.)


What you consider a personal attack, and what actually IS a personal attack are two totally different things.. If someone calls you a lameass, and tells you that your views are twisted and lopsided, you're going to consider that a personal attack, whereas someone else may just consider it fact, and yet another person may just consider it an opinion.

You're also on a political board where free speech (much to your dismay, probably) is actually ALLOWED. That means in order for YOU to have it, you have to put up with it from others.

Before you "give up hope for anyone on the other side of the aisle", take a close look at the shit your own company is smearing on the window.

Nukeman
04-14-2007, 08:08 AM
When I arrived at this board, the righties were in the middle of a flamefest that they somehow thought was appropriately posted in Current Events, not the Steel Cage. When they got their feet held to the fire, you should have seen them come up with every excuse in the book for flaming that member and trying to explain that I didn't know the whole story. For a Twilight Zone minute I thought I'd gotten dropped in the middle of the White House-lost emails-Gonzales-Congress dispute.

I've seen the mods here shitcan a member for posting contrary posts to the ones the mod posted. I've seen them excuse the blatent violators of the Reputation rules and do nothing over reported posts where members were abused and threatened. Partisan isn't the word I would use to describe them.

I hold little hope for anyone on the other side of the aisle to live within the spirit of the owner's request since they have not so far. I'll be happy to do my part... until they start in again with the personal attacks. (It's as predictable as night following day.)

BVE is a jerk...BVE is a jerk...BVE is a jerk...BVE is a jerk...BVE is a jerk...
BVE is a jerk...BVE is a jerk...BVE is a jerk...BVE is a jerk...BVE is a jerk...
BVE is a jerk...BVE is a jerk...BVE is a jerk...BVE is a jerk...BVE is a jerk...
BVE is a jerk...BVE is a jerk...BVE is a jerk...BVE is a jerk...BVE is a jerk...
BVE is a jerk...BVE is a jerk...BVE is a jerk...BVE is a jerk...BVE is a jerk...
BVE is a jerk...BVE is a jerk...BVE is a jerk...BVE is a jerk...BVE is a jerk...
BVE is a jerk...BVE is a jerk...BVE is a jerk...BVE is a jerk...BVE is a jerk...
BVE is a jerk...BVE is a jerk...BVE is a jerk...BVE is a jerk...BVE is a jerk...
BVE is a jerk...BVE is a jerk...BVE is a jerk...BVE is a jerk...BVE is a jerk...
BVE is a jerk...BVE is a jerk...BVE is a jerk...BVE is a jerk...BVE is a jerk...
BVE is a jerk...BVE is a jerk...BVE is a jerk...BVE is a jerk...BVE is a jerk...
BVE is a jerk...BVE is a jerk...BVE is a jerk...BVE is a jerk...BVE is a jerk...
BVE is a jerk...BVE is a jerk...BVE is a jerk...BVE is a jerk...BVE is a jerk...
BVE is a jerk...BVE is a jerk...BVE is a jerk...BVE is a jerk...BVE is a jerk...
BVE is a jerk...BVE is a jerk...BVE is a jerk...BVE is a jerk...BVE is a jerk...
BVE is a jerk...BVE is a jerk...BVE is a jerk...BVE is a jerk...BVE is a jerk...
BVE is a jerk...BVE is a jerk...BVE is a jerk...BVE is a jerk...BVE is a jerk...
BVE is a jerk...BVE is a jerk...BVE is a jerk...BVE is a jerk...BVE is a jerk...
BVE is a jerk...BVE is a jerk...BVE is a jerk...BVE is a jerk...BVE is a jerk...
BVE is a jerk...BVE is a jerk...BVE is a jerk...BVE is a jerk...BVE is a jerk...

OCA
04-14-2007, 08:12 AM
This fucking cracks me up, libs complaining about bias again, there is no bias on this board, nobody has ever been banned for opinions contrary to a mod.

Shut the fuck up, grab your sack and debate, if you get flamed take it like a man and move on, don't be a bunch of pussies even though that comes with the lib territory.

Nuc
04-14-2007, 08:19 AM
This fucking cracks me up, libs complaining about bias again, there is no bias on this board, nobody has ever been banned for opinions contrary to a mod.

Shut the fuck up, grab your sack and debate, if you get flamed take it like a man and move on, don't be a bunch of pussies even though that comes with the lib territory.

Hey OCA seems like you're carrying around a lot of anger and venting it on people here. What's the story are you Walter Mitty in real life or a henpecked husband? Happy people don't talk the way you do to others habitually. Once in a while it's funny but you are boring because you overdo it. Not everything requires a vehement commentary.

shattered
04-14-2007, 08:37 AM
Hey OCA seems like you're carrying around a lot of anger and venting it on people here. What's the story are you Walter Mitty in real life or a henpecked husband? Happy people don't talk the way you do to others habitually. Once in a while it's funny but you are boring because you overdo it. Not everything requires a vehement commentary.

Give up on that one.. No matter what point you try to make to him about HIS method of delivery, and the way HE speaks to people, he will tell you it doesn't matter because he has carte blanche (directly from Jim) to say and do whatever he wants here.. So, best to just ignore him.

Nuc
04-14-2007, 08:44 AM
Give up on that one.. No matter what point you try to make to him about HIS method of delivery, and the way HE speaks to people, he will tell you it doesn't matter because he has carte blanche (directly from Jim) to say and do whatever he wants here.. So, best to just ignore him.

My attitude towards these things is don't say anything on the web that you wouldn't have the balls to say to someone's face. And looking at his personality type it's almost certain that he's a poser. In reality he lets people push him around so he comes here and somehow thinks he can make up for that by being a foulmouthed hysterical punk.

LiberalNation
04-14-2007, 10:09 AM
Welp people have threatned to beat me up and called me just about every name in the book. I don't mind though. Nothing personal just some internet fun. Smilies or fine but kinda gross.

As for the mods, totally biased nearly all conservatives and no people skills. dmps power tripping, I want a yes or no and there can be nothing else wont go over well on political boards. Wana know why, no one likes absolutes and want do just to be pissy after getting talked to like that.

OCA
04-14-2007, 10:11 AM
My attitude towards these things is don't say anything on the web that you wouldn't have the balls to say to someone's face. And looking at his personality type it's almost certain that he's a poser. In reality he lets people push him around so he comes here and somehow thinks he can make up for that by being a foulmouthed hysterical punk.

Lol, couldn't be farther from the truth.

OCA
04-14-2007, 10:12 AM
Give up on that one.. No matter what point you try to make to him about HIS method of delivery, and the way HE speaks to people, he will tell you it doesn't matter because he has carte blanche (directly from Jim) to say and do whatever he wants here.. So, best to just ignore him.

Oh well!

OCA
04-14-2007, 10:16 AM
Hey OCA seems like you're carrying around a lot of anger and venting it on people here. What's the story are you Walter Mitty in real life or a henpecked husband? Happy people don't talk the way you do to others habitually. Once in a while it's funny but you are boring because you overdo it. Not everything requires a vehement commentary.

No anger, Nuc....well except towards stupid people, i'm just foulmouthed gutter trash who don't give a shit and that makes me as happy as a clam.:laugh2:

Samantha
04-14-2007, 10:22 AM
Whoooaaaa guys. There are a few Libs who have done some nasty things as well. Name calling,one liners are a big one.


I regrettably gotted sucked into it in one thread,and am not proud of what I said,or really the language I used. I won't do it again. Lets not blame just ONE side tho.

samantha-I have seen you on another board I think. online politics or something like that?Maybe US politics? I used to go over there and read a lot,never signed up tho. If it is you,I know you are a decent poster....just curious

I think jim has always been fair,especially compared to the like of DU. That is no partisan attack,but really,you can't even post there is you think a teency bit different than they do. Talk about extreme.Hi Krisy, yes that's me. :D Thank you for the compliment.

Samantha
04-14-2007, 10:42 AM
What you consider a personal attack, and what actually IS a personal attack are two totally different things.. If someone calls you a lameass, and tells you that your views are twisted and lopsided, you're going to consider that a personal attack, whereas someone else may just consider it fact, and yet another person may just consider it an opinion.

You're also on a political board where free speech (much to your dismay, probably) is actually ALLOWED. That means in order for YOU to have it, you have to put up with it from others.

Before you "give up hope for anyone on the other side of the aisle", take a close look at the shit your own company is smearing on the window.

I disagree. A personal attack is clear. Calling someone a lameass is a personal attack. It doesn't matter if it is a fact or not. For example Stephanie only posts lameass stuff from what I've seen so far. Just one liner insults, laughing at posts about Harry Reid talking about our troops not having the proper equipment so their arms and legs get blown off, she posts giggles. On this thread she posts the same way, just look. If I call her a lameass, that's a personal attack, even though it is true.

A personal attack doesn't have to be false to be an attack. I doubt our founding fathers considered rude, mean, low class insults to be part of the free speech they stood for. In those days, manners were an important part of society.

When you have no good argument, no fact to debate with, nothing to say on the issue, you turn to attacking the poster.

shattered
04-14-2007, 10:44 AM
I disagree. A personal attack is clear. Calling someone a lameass is a personal attack. It doesn't matter if it is a fact or not. For example Stephanie only posts lameass stuff from what I've seen so far. Just one liner insults, laughing at posts about Harry Reid talking about our troops not having the proper equipment so their arms and legs get blown off, she posts giggles. On this thread she posts the same way, just look. If I call her a lameass, that's a personal attack, even though it is true.

A personal attack doesn't have to be false to be an attack. I doubt our founding fathers considered rude, mean, low class insults to be part of the free speech they stood for. In those days, manners were an important part of society.

When you have no good argument, no fact to debate with, nothing to say on the issue, you turn to attacking the poster.


If you truly consider that a personal attack, you have some VERY thin skin, and probably won't make it very far in life. I call it a sarcastic reply, and typically don't give it much more thought than that. I can show you what I consider a personal attack, and it's a far cry different than the term "lame-ass"..

Samantha
04-14-2007, 10:50 AM
If you truly consider that a personal attack, you have some VERY thin skin, and probably won't make it very far in life. I call it a sarcastic reply, and typically don't give it much more thought than that. I can show you what I consider a personal attack, and it's a far cry different than the term "lame-ass"..A personal attack is an insult. It has nothing to do with discussing the issue. It doesn't matter if it's really crude, threatening and low class like this:


You know you are quick to go ad hominem motherfucker, you sure you want to go down this path with me you treehugging , polesmoking loving faggot.

I will fucking destroy you if this is where you want to go.


You were around my balls with your tongue back then.

Or just calling someone a lameass.

They are all personal attacks. The word you use in the personal attack doesn't determine if it is a personal attack. It's the act of personally attacking that determines if it is a personal attack.

shattered
04-14-2007, 10:52 AM
A personal attack is an insult. It has nothing to do with discussing the issue. It doesn't matter if it's really crude, threatening and low class like this:





Or just calling someone a lameass.

They are all personal attacks. The word you use in the personal attack doesn't determine if it is a personal attack. It's the act of personally attacking that determines if it is a personal attack.

I posted my opinion in the thread wherein the same quote you used of OCA's is located..(I used it as well)..

So, if you're a non-smoker, and someone blows smoke in your direction, would you consider that a personal attack?

Samantha
04-14-2007, 10:59 AM
I posted my opinion in the thread wherein the same quote you used of OCA's is located..(I used it as well)..

So, if you're a non-smoker, and someone blows smoke in your direction, would you consider that a personal attack?Do you know what a strawman argument is?

Gunny
04-14-2007, 11:01 AM
Quite true, but when you're in a right wingers' haven, what do you expect? Intelligent discourse? Nonpartisan moderators?

yeah? Can I interest you in a nice brrrrridge? It's the middle span of the Car Queen Ez... annnnnnnnnd I can get it for you cheap...

interested?

Interesting. Seems this board was cruising along quite nicely until a sudden influx of rude as Hell liberal-type folks showed up and decided deflections, intellectual dishonesty and/or personal attacks the way to win an argument.

That's not to mention the time honored tradition of following up said lame posts with declarations ov victory, and getting two or three other libs to pile on and say "Yeah."

Gunny
04-14-2007, 11:04 AM
When I arrived at this board, the righties were in the middle of a flamefest that they somehow thought was appropriately posted in Current Events, not the Steel Cage. When they got their feet held to the fire, you should have seen them come up with every excuse in the book for flaming that member and trying to explain that I didn't know the whole story. For a Twilight Zone minute I thought I'd gotten dropped in the middle of the White House-lost emails-Gonzales-Congress dispute.

I've seen the mods here shitcan a member for posting contrary posts to the ones the mod posted. I've seen them excuse the blatent violators of the Reputation rules and do nothing over reported posts where members were abused and threatened. Partisan isn't the word I would use to describe them.

I hold little hope for anyone on the other side of the aisle to live within the spirit of the owner's request since they have not so far. I'll be happy to do my part... until they start in again with the personal attacks. (It's as predictable as night following day.)

Have you EVER been a member of a board where you DIDN'T cry bias and try to change the rules on your second post? Just wondering. Seems I've seen this act before.

krisy
04-14-2007, 11:05 AM
Interesting. Seems this board was cruising along quite nicely until a sudden influx of rude as Hell liberal-type folks showed up and decided deflections, intellectual dishonesty and/or personal attacks the way to win an argument.

That's not to mention the time honored tradition of following up said lame posts with declarations ov victory, and getting two or three other libs to pile on and say "Yeah."

There has been quite a few of them hasn't there?

Not all of them,but that desribes a few,definitely. I swear they act like DUer's

Gunny
04-14-2007, 11:07 AM
What you consider a personal attack, and what actually IS a personal attack are two totally different things.. If someone calls you a lameass, and tells you that your views are twisted and lopsided, you're going to consider that a personal attack, whereas someone else may just consider it fact, and yet another person may just consider it an opinion.

You're also on a political board where free speech (much to your dismay, probably) is actually ALLOWED. That means in order for YOU to have it, you have to put up with it from others.

Before you "give up hope for anyone on the other side of the aisle", take a close look at the shit your own company is smearing on the window.

Aren't you wasting your breath? I don't see that he's changed a word of his diatribe in 3 years. Same accusations, same whining.

manu1959
04-14-2007, 11:10 AM
Do you know what a strawman argument is?

have you insulted anyone since you came here?

Gunny
04-14-2007, 11:10 AM
There has been quite a few of them hasn't there?

Not all of them,but that desribes a few,definitely. I swear they act like DUer's

I don't mind liberals. I think everyone should have one or two, but kept strictly on a leash.:laugh2:

Seriously, I don't care for ANY new members, right or left, who charge in here balls to the wall, without getting a feel for the board first, and start attacking people based on preconceived notions rather than doing their homework (reading a few threads) and then cryin glike titybabies when they get their butts handed to them.

Abbey Marie
04-14-2007, 11:21 AM
I don't mind liberals. I think everyone should have one or two, but kept strictly on a leash.:laugh2:

Seriously, I don't care for ANY new members, right or left, who charge in here balls to the wall, without getting a feel for the board first, and start attacking people based on preconceived notions rather than doing their homework (reading a few threads) and then cryin glike titybabies when they get their butts handed to them.

Exactly.

Samantha
04-14-2007, 11:40 AM
I don't mind liberals. I think everyone should have one or two, but kept strictly on a leash.:laugh2:

Seriously, I don't care for ANY new members, right or left, who charge in here balls to the wall, without getting a feel for the board first, and start attacking people based on preconceived notions rather than doing their homework (reading a few threads) and then cryin glike titybabies when they get their butts handed to them.


Exactly.And here we have a fine example of a moderator egging on the kind of behaviour that the owner is asking to be stopped.

It's a lost cause on this board, apparently.

shattered
04-14-2007, 11:42 AM
And here we have a fine example of a moderator egging on the kind of behaviour that the owner is asking to be stopped.

It's a lost cause on this board, apparently.

You're delusional. There is nothing whatsoever in Gunny's post that is considered a personal attack by anyone, except perhaps you.

One thing you can't do here is change the masses to suit you - you have no right.

manu1959
04-14-2007, 11:45 AM
And here we have a fine example of a moderator egging on the kind of behaviour that the owner is asking to be stopped.

It's a lost cause on this board, apparently.

gunny's post stated that people should be polite out of the gate.....rather than storm in guns blazin.....and if you decide to storm in guns blazzin....and you get pissed on for it don't cry about it....

abbey aggreed with that....

now which part of gunny's requested behaviour do you belive is wrong?

OCA
04-14-2007, 11:46 AM
A personal attack is an insult. It has nothing to do with discussing the issue. It doesn't matter if it's really crude, threatening and low class like this:





Or just calling someone a lameass.

They are all personal attacks. The word you use in the personal attack doesn't determine if it is a personal attack. It's the act of personally attacking that determines if it is a personal attack.

Thanks for quoting me, makes me proud.

Seriously though, i'm equally adept at both ends of the field, if someone wants to be polite and just discuss an issue that is great but if some douchebag like loose wants to get muddy with me then I hope he brought a lunch and a change of clothes with him because I EXCEL at that end of the field, thats where I earn my paycheck.

The problem is polite debate, at least from libs is few and far between.

OCA
04-14-2007, 11:48 AM
And here we have a fine example of a moderator egging on the kind of behaviour that the owner is asking to be stopped.

It's a lost cause on this board, apparently.

Egging on what? He's pointing out a truth about libs and she is agreeing with him, are not mods allowed to have opinions too?

This is coming from a former mod, and 99.9% of complaints we got wewre from libs crying when they got owned on an issue.

Samantha
04-14-2007, 11:50 AM
If you people can't see it, when it's right there in black and white, there's really no sense in my repeating it for you.

Thank you, come again.

manu1959
04-14-2007, 11:53 AM
If you people can't see it, when it's right there in black and white, there's really no sense in my repeating it for you.

Thank you, come again.

funny.....and you are claiming the high moral ground....

Roomy
04-14-2007, 12:19 PM
Well, I for one welcome all political persuasions, I am not American and do not swallow any one particular spiel, but am interested in the opinions of all of the people belonging to the country that sees itself as the world leader, I have a vested interest, as should we all, by the same token you lot should be interested in the politics of the real world leader...Britain.:cheers2: .

LiberalNation
04-14-2007, 12:25 PM
And here we have a fine example of a moderator egging on the kind of behaviour that the owner is asking to be stopped.

It's a lost cause on this board, apparently.
Yep, that can't even see what's wrong with it.

Gunny justifies the attacking of posters if the person is new and starts out with opinions he doesn't like or say burning flag or gay pride flage avatars as was the case with me whenI was new. Then says when they are attacked, they shouldn't whine about it because they're getting what they desearve. A mod agree's with this.

I wouldn't call this trying to tone things down and stop all the attacks. Not to mention the new persons isn't wrong for getting defensive and attacking back.

I don't know what it is, but boards have cliques and double standards for new and old members which is stupid.

OCA
04-14-2007, 12:35 PM
[QUOTE=LiberalNation;38965]Yep, that can't even see what's wrong with it.

Gunny justifies the attacking of posters if the person is new and starts out with opinions he doesn't like or say burning flag or gay pride flage avatars as was the case with me whenI was new. Then says when they are attacked, they shouldn't whine about it because they're getting what they desearve. A mod agree's with this.

I wouldn't call this trying to tone things down and stop all the attacks. Not to mention the new persons isn't wrong for getting defensive and attacking back.

I don't know what it is, but boards have cliques and double standards for new and old members which is stupid.[/QUOTE\]


Could you please spell and punctuate your posts correctly? I mean one or two are ok but when the post is littered with mistakes it renders it almost unreadable.

Roomy
04-14-2007, 12:38 PM
[QUOTE=LiberalNation;38965]Yep, that can't even see what's wrong with it.

Gunny justifies the attacking of posters if the person is new and starts out with opinions he doesn't like or say burning flag or gay pride flage avatars as was the case with me whenI was new. Then says when they are attacked, they shouldn't whine about it because they're getting what they desearve. A mod agree's with this.

I wouldn't call this trying to tone things down and stop all the attacks. Not to mention the new persons isn't wrong for getting defensive and attacking back.

I don't know what it is, but boards have cliques and double standards for new and old members which is stupid.[/QUOTE\]


Could you please spell and punctuate your posts correctly? I mean one or two are ok but when the post is littered with mistakes it renders it almost unreadable.

:laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2:

manu1959
04-14-2007, 01:34 PM
Yep, that can't even see what's wrong with it.

Gunny justifies the attacking of posters if the person is new and starts out with opinions he doesn't like or say burning flag or gay pride flage avatars as was the case with me whenI was new. Then says when they are attacked, they shouldn't whine about it because they're getting what they desearve. A mod agree's with this.

I wouldn't call this trying to tone things down and stop all the attacks. Not to mention the new persons isn't wrong for getting defensive and attacking back.

I don't know what it is, but boards have cliques and double standards for new and old members which is stupid.

how you get that from this one can only wonder.....

"Seriously, I don't care for ANY new members, right or left, who charge in here balls to the wall, without getting a feel for the board first, and start attacking people based on preconceived notions "

shattered
04-14-2007, 01:36 PM
how you get that from this one can only wonder.....

"Seriously, I don't care for ANY new members, right or left, who charge in here balls to the wall, without getting a feel for the board first, and start attacking people based on preconceived notions "

Simple, Manu. He used the word "ANY", and put it in all caps. That's an obvious personal insult to ANY new poster that comes here and starts attacking.. They're feeling wronged, and insulted because that's exactly what they did.

manu1959
04-14-2007, 01:56 PM
Simple, Manu. He used the word "ANY", and put it in all caps. That's an obvious personal insult to ANY new poster that comes here and starts attacking.. They're feeling wronged, and insulted because that's exactly what they did.

i like samantha ... she calls all of us "you people" then jumps to the high moral ground.....

jackass
04-14-2007, 02:22 PM
I dunno, sam... I like the emoticons here... cuz they sure beat the lame ones at that site which will remain nameless...

:dance:

I will admit tho, given my druthers, I'll take lame emoticons and impartial moderators over... well, you know... the opposite... cool emoticons and partisan moderators...

:dance:

So why are you here??

Kathianne
04-14-2007, 02:23 PM
So why are you here??

A question for the ages.

Samantha
04-14-2007, 02:35 PM
funny.....and you are claiming the high moral ground....I'm just discussing the issue of personal attacks as brought up by the board admin. I'll leave the claiming of the high moral ground to the right wing, fundamentalist, Republican, evangelical, holier than thou, war monger sorts ;)


[QUOTE=LiberalNation;38965]Yep, that can't even see what's wrong with it.

Gunny justifies the attacking of posters if the person is new and starts out with opinions he doesn't like or say burning flag or gay pride flage avatars as was the case with me whenI was new. Then says when they are attacked, they shouldn't whine about it because they're getting what they desearve. A mod agree's with this.

I wouldn't call this trying to tone things down and stop all the attacks. Not to mention the new persons isn't wrong for getting defensive and attacking back.

I don't know what it is, but boards have cliques and double standards for new and old members which is stupid.[/QUOTE\]


Could you please spell and punctuate your posts correctly? I mean one or two are ok but when the post is littered with mistakes it renders it almost unreadable.OCA: What's more unreadable (it's actually called illegible) are posts where the quotes are all fucked up so you can't tell who said what. :clap:

OCA
04-14-2007, 02:52 PM
I'm just discussing the issue of personal attacks as brought up by the board admin. I'll leave the claiming of the high moral ground to the right wing, fundamentalist, Republican, evangelical, holier than thou, war monger sorts ;)

[QUOTE=OCA;38971]OCA: What's more unreadable (it's actually called illegible) are posts where the quotes are all fucked up so you can't tell who said what. :clap:


The one where all the shit is misspelled and punctuated wrong, must be the liberal education system's fault.

Samantha
04-14-2007, 02:55 PM
I'm just discussing the issue of personal attacks as brought up by the board admin. I'll leave the claiming of the high moral ground to the right wing, fundamentalist, Republican, evangelical, holier than thou, war monger sorts ;)




The one where all the shit is misspelled and punctuated wrong, must be the liberal education system's fault.
You have a lot of trouble with quotes I see.

The end of the quote must have this: [ /quote] without the space.

OCA
04-14-2007, 03:12 PM
You have a lot of trouble with quotes I see.

The end of the quote must have this: [ /quote] without the space.

If it happens to be gone when I hit it for whatever reason then fuck it, you can read that shit, you're just being purposely obtuse.

Get that libtard youngster Nation a friggin spellcheck.

Yurt
04-14-2007, 06:00 PM
This fucking cracks me up, libs complaining about bias again, there is no bias on this board, nobody has ever been banned for opinions contrary to a mod.

Shut the fuck up, grab your sack and debate, if you get flamed take it like a man and move on, don't be a bunch of pussies even though that comes with the lib territory.

Would have to agree with OCA. If anyone knew anything about this board, you would know that it is NOT biased towards its mods.

Utter rubbish. Quit bitching and start posting.

Baron Von Esslingen
04-15-2007, 12:08 AM
Aren't you wasting your breath? I don't see that he's changed a word of his diatribe in 3 years. Same accusations, same whining.

Funny, the same thing is being said about you.


Have you EVER been a member of a board where you DIDN'T cry bias and try to change the rules on your second post? Just wondering. Seems I've seen this act before.

Have you ever been a member of a board where you didn't launch into personal attacks instead of discussing an issue and lamely try to justify those personal attacks by saying "you deserve it"? You have seen this act before. It's your own dog and pony show.


Interesting. Seems this board was cruising along quite nicely until a sudden influx of rude as Hell liberal-type folks showed up and decided deflections, intellectual dishonesty and/or personal attacks the way to win an argument.

That's not to mention the time honored tradition of following up said lame posts with declarations ov victory, and getting two or three other libs to pile on and say "Yeah."

This board was cruising along alright all with conservative voices ganging up on the few Liberals that had the courage to post here amidst the namecalling and lengthy, unverified diatribes against all things Liberal. Your little Pirahna Party got broken up and the wimpy whining started because you couldn't gang up on someone the way you used to. The intellectual dishonesty and personal attacks flowed from right to left not the other way around and the "yes-men" were predominantly from the right. Liberals don't operate that way. It's our time honored tradition.

You're just mad because you are not able to bully people around like you used to. Thanks for proving to me that it was you all that this thread was aimed at. :slap:

Abbey Marie
04-15-2007, 03:28 AM
And here we have a fine example of a moderator egging on the kind of behaviour that the owner is asking to be stopped.

It's a lost cause on this board, apparently.

Oh really. If you think this type of false accusation, intended to stifle my free speech on this board, is going to work for you, you are going to be disappointed. Every once in a while someone comes to the board and has the hubris to think that it will change to suit their sensitivities. Uh, no. You should have waited for an example with at least a hint of bad modding, if you were going to play your hand. Now when you complain in the future, you will look like the overly sensitive complainer-type whom people ignore.

Btw, if you think that a post as tame as Gunny's is what the owner is trying to stop, you really have no clue.

Baron Von Esslingen
04-15-2007, 03:38 AM
So why are you here??

I was wondering the same thing about some of you ALL...

avatar4321
04-15-2007, 05:16 AM
Whoooaaaa guys. There are a few Libs who have done some nasty things as well. Name calling,one liners are a big one.


A few? You mean virtually all of them don't you?

avatar4321
04-15-2007, 05:20 AM
If you people can't see it, when it's right there in black and white, there's really no sense in my repeating it for you.

Thank you, come again.

Looks like Gunny sure called this one.


Interesting. Seems this board was cruising along quite nicely until a sudden influx of rude as Hell liberal-type folks showed up and decided deflections, intellectual dishonesty and/or personal attacks the way to win an argument.

That's not to mention the time honored tradition of following up said lame posts with declarations ov victory, and getting two or three other libs to pile on and say "Yeah."

avatar4321
04-15-2007, 05:22 AM
Well, I for one welcome all political persuasions, I am not American and do not swallow any one particular spiel, but am interested in the opinions of all of the people belonging to the country that sees itself as the world leader, I have a vested interest, as should we all, by the same token you lot should be interested in the politics of the real world leader...Britain.:cheers2: .

ah but you do swallow one particular spiel. Everyone does. Because everyone has an opinion on the matter in some way.

avatar4321
04-15-2007, 05:25 AM
I was wondering the same thing about some of you ALL...

I don't know about you, but I come here because its nice to have some mature reasonably discussion. its a shame you libs cant seem to do that any more.

Nuc
04-15-2007, 05:45 AM
Btw, if you think that a post as tame as Gunny's is what the owner is trying to stop, you really have no clue.

I think she's talking about Mr. Gyro.

shattered
04-15-2007, 06:32 AM
I think she's talking about Mr. Gyro.

No, that's me. SHE was talking about Gunny, and then Abbey saying "He's right" or something.

shattered
04-15-2007, 09:28 AM
I was wondering the same thing about some of you ALL...

We were here first - why do you keep coming back for more? :)

loosecannon
04-15-2007, 10:59 AM
We were here first - why do you keep coming back for more? :)

Well that is a human enough reaction.

Yeah ya'll were here first, but so were the indians.

You did have an echo chamber here, or so it appears, with a minority of dissenting pov.

But times change, and so is the nation. This is your wake up call. Business as usual is not. Get with the new program or prepare to be the whining fringe for 4-8 years.

The party that went on an apeshit witch hunt of the Clinton admin and then fucked up when they got control of all three branches of government is now falling apart.

The majority no longer approves of the arrogant dishonest and swift boat methods of the GOP.

And I will certainly not forget anytime soon that when ya'll had a majority of only 1-3% in Congress you acted as if tyranny of that slim majority was democracy.

Pay back is a motherfucker.

All that aside i certainly came in here with both guns firing. There were a few folks here I was fairly quick to square off against because of my own assumptions about their partisanship.

CSOB probably deserves some measure of an apology, maybe even Manu to a lessor degree.

But before that, for the first week here I was as civil as could be, posted only on threads about econ and forestry and certain posters responded like visceral assholes throwing all manner of labels like "chomskyite", "comrade" and "stalinist" around because they were incapable of discussing the topic at all.

Then there is Gunny whom I don't dislike but he doesn't seem to understand the basic premise of debate. If you make an allegation you must either substantiate it or admit it is merely an opinion. It isn't true in public debate just because the pres says so. He has lied before.

Bottom line, I have been on boards with no moderation.

Boards that make this one look like a kindergarden sandbox.

And there is no such thing as too tough for me to handle.

There is no poster on this board who will ever be too tough for me. I have seen posters who would eat you alive, but they didn't rattle me.

And lastly, the righties seem to be whining as much as the lefties.

If the board settles down it will be because a majority change the tempo. Not because one side triumphs over the other, but because a social agreement forms.

Democracy is messy that way.

Enjoy.

Samantha
04-15-2007, 11:07 AM
Oh really. If you think this type of false accusation, intended to stifle my free speech on this board, is going to work for you, you are going to be disappointed. Every once in a while someone comes to the board and has the hubris to think that it will change to suit their sensitivities. Uh, no. You should have waited for an example with at least a hint of bad modding, if you were going to play your hand. Now when you complain in the future, you will look like the overly sensitive complainer-type whom people ignore.

Btw, if you think that a post as tame as Gunny's is what the owner is trying to stop, you really have no clue.
If this is the moderator team's attitude, it's no wonder this board is so caustic.

Gunny
04-15-2007, 11:09 AM
I disagree. A personal attack is clear. Calling someone a lameass is a personal attack. It doesn't matter if it is a fact or not. For example Stephanie only posts lameass stuff from what I've seen so far. Just one liner insults, laughing at posts about Harry Reid talking about our troops not having the proper equipment so their arms and legs get blown off, she posts giggles. On this thread she posts the same way, just look. If I call her a lameass, that's a personal attack, even though it is true.

A personal attack doesn't have to be false to be an attack. I doubt our founding fathers considered rude, mean, low class insults to be part of the free speech they stood for. In those days, manners were an important part of society.

When you have no good argument, no fact to debate with, nothing to say on the issue, you turn to attacking the poster.

And when someone disagrees with your extremist political idealism, you are quick to question their ability to comprehend, and/or their intellect in general. You have just about THE most arrogant, condesending attitude one can have.

You aren't special, nor the only one capable of comprehending political idealism. You're just another extremist liberal in a long line of them, who doesn't understand/gets pissed about getting dismissive replies when your posts insults themselves insult the intelligent of your averge, noraml-thinking individual.

shattered
04-15-2007, 11:10 AM
If this is the moderator team's attitude, it's no wonder this board is so caustic.

Make up your mind.. Loose says it's childs play, you say it's caustic.. Which is it? Many people of differing opinions have managed to get along just fine here...

loosecannon
04-15-2007, 11:13 AM
Make up your mind.. Loose says it's childs play, you say it's caustic.. Which is it? Many people of differing opinions have managed to get along just fine here...

Well we are too different people, hence different POV

Gunny
04-15-2007, 11:17 AM
Welp people have threatned to beat me up and called me just about every name in the book. I don't mind though. Nothing personal just some internet fun. Smilies or fine but kinda gross.

As for the mods, totally biased nearly all conservatives and no people skills. dmps power tripping, I want a yes or no and there can be nothing else wont go over well on political boards. Wana know why, no one likes absolutes and want do just to be pissy after getting talked to like that.

Really now. Just WHEN exactly do the mods moderate? Ths board usually looks like a free-fire zone, and without naming any names, seems to me they have been VERY lenient in their applying the few rules the board does have considering the recent beahvior of certain foul-mouthed, disrespectful morons who appear to have no concept of where to draw a line.

LiberalNation
04-15-2007, 11:19 AM
DP

LiberalNation
04-15-2007, 11:21 AM
Well I've been banned, warned, and moderated since I've been here so I'd say the mods do moderate and are not impartial when it comes to how they treat libs and cons.

Gunny
04-15-2007, 11:23 AM
A personal attack is an insult. It has nothing to do with discussing the issue. It doesn't matter if it's really crude, threatening and low class like this:

Or just calling someone a lameass.

They are all personal attacks. The word you use in the personal attack doesn't determine if it is a personal attack. It's the act of personally attacking that determines if it is a personal attack.

Implying or stating others are incapable of intellectual comprehension, and or just generally talking down to others are ALSO personal attacks... both of which you use as SOP with anyone who disagrees with you.

shattered
04-15-2007, 11:25 AM
Well I've been banned, warned, and moderated since I've been here so I'd say the mods do moderate and are not impartial when it comes to how they treat libs and cons.

Practically every one of us has been warned and/or "moderated" since we got here.. We're just not stupid enough to push an issue in public unless we WANT to get banned. But we'll damned well tell them to get bent in PMs as is allowed. :D

Samantha
04-15-2007, 11:27 AM
Make up your mind.. Loose says it's childs play, you say it's caustic.. Which is it? Many people of differing opinions have managed to get along just fine here...Make up my mind?

Are you OK? Another person on the message board has an opinion and I have an opinion, and you tell me to make up my mind because the other person has a different opinion?

Are you sure you're OK?

Your post is very strange. Then you say many people of differing opinions.....

LOL! But you tell me to make up my mind because another person has a differing opinion.

I don't get it. LOL! That's some way out there stuff.

Mr. P
04-15-2007, 11:29 AM
If this is the moderator team's attitude, it's no wonder this board is so caustic.

I think truth is it's some posters that are caustic. Could that be why you were Banned from your other sandbox?:laugh2:

Samantha
04-15-2007, 11:29 AM
Implying or stating others are incapable of intellectual comprehension, and or just generally talking down to others are ALSO personal attacks... both of which you use as SOP with anyone who disagrees with you.I never said I was perfect. You are contributing to the discussion about personal attacks. Does that mean you've never engaged in a personal attack? If only people who've never done wrong were contributing to this thread, it would have died after the first post.

Samantha
04-15-2007, 11:31 AM
I think truth is it's some posters that are caustic. Could that be why you were Banned from your other sandbox?:laugh2:I was temp banned because I discussed moderator action which is forbidden over there.

shattered
04-15-2007, 11:33 AM
Make up my mind?

Are you OK? Another person on the message board has an opinion and I have an opinion, and you tell me to make up my mind because the other person has a different opinion?

Are you sure you're OK?

Your post is very strange. Then you say many people of differing opinions.....

LOL! But you tell me to make up my mind because another person has a differing opinion.

I don't get it. LOL! That's some way out there stuff.


Point is, you both think this place, and its posters suck. Yet, you're still here.. again.. whatever for? Surely there are other places you'd rather play, since it took you so long to find this one..

loosecannon
04-15-2007, 11:38 AM
Implying or stating others are incapable of intellectual comprehension, and or just generally talking down to others are ALSO personal attacks... both of which you use as SOP with anyone who disagrees with you.

Gunny, no actually not exactly true.

It depends on the contract (TOS) wording. Typically the phrases used are personal attacks or adhominem attacks. The first refers to attacks against a persons person which could include impuning their intelligence, the second refers to namecalling.

IOW calling somebody a dunce would be a personal attack whereas asking if they were able to keep up with the material would not.

Implying that they might not or seem not to be smart enough to keep up with the material would also not be a personal attack.

Calling somebody a librul, or a liberal could also be considered a personal attack, depending.

This leads to splitting hairs.

Gunny
04-15-2007, 11:41 AM
Well I've been banned, warned, and moderated since I've been here so I'd say the mods do moderate and are not impartial when it comes to how they treat libs and cons.

And how was that warning delivered? The one I got (way back when) began with "Could you please ....." Any official dealings I have ever had with staff members here, or when we used to be at USMB have always been handled in a courteous manner. I can't say the same for other boards, the one you came here from in particular.

The job sucks, and that's where your buddy lily and I had our falling out. And the first accusation is always partisan favortism, even when it has nothing to do with partisanship and everything to do with the rules.

loosecannon
04-15-2007, 11:42 AM
Point is, you both think this place, and its posters suck. Yet, you're still here.. again.. whatever for? Surely there are other places you'd rather play, since it took you so long to find this one..


BS.

Gunny
04-15-2007, 11:46 AM
Gunny, no actually not exactly true.

It depends on the contract (TOS) wording. Typically the phrases used are personal attacks or adhominem attacks. The first refers to attacks against a persons person which could include impuning their intelligence, the second refers to namecalling.

IOW calling somebody a dunce would be a personal attack whereas asking if they were able to keep up with the material would not.

Implying that they might not or seem not to be smart enough to keep up with the material would also not be a personal attack.

Calling somebody a librul, or a liberal could also be considered a personal attack, depending.

This leads to splitting hairs.

And again, you wish to play semantics. The implication to asking someone if they can keep up is pretty clear, and it is a personal insult. Beating around the bush to get where you're going instead of taking the direct route still leads to the same destination.

loosecannon
04-15-2007, 11:56 AM
And again, you wish to play semantics. The implication to asking someone if they can keep up is pretty clear, and it is a personal insult. Beating around the bush to get where you're going instead of taking the direct route still leads to the same destination.


Every conversation that ascends in complexity will reach a point where it's participants can no longer navigate.

That isn't semantics.

I trust that with good reason most of the people on this board are not professionals in policy management.

Tho all of them express opinions about the policies of the US.

And being less intelligent is not an insulting position.

Smart people do stupid things. Stupid people do smart things.

God makes both flavors for a reason.

Despite all social prejudices there are times when being dumb is a distinct advantage.

Keeping up with complex ideas is not one of them.

OCA
04-15-2007, 11:57 AM
I think she's talking about Mr. Gyro.

No, actually she's not....please try to stay up with us.

Gunny
04-15-2007, 11:58 AM
Point is, you both think this place, and its posters suck. Yet, you're still here.. again.. whatever for? Surely there are other places you'd rather play, since it took you so long to find this one..

Because where they come from, new members feel about as welcome as a black guy at a KKK meeting. It took me a while to place them, but I've crossed paths with them before. At least in my case loosecannon took it upon him/herself to be the official welcome wagon using the same premise he/she was so kind as to provide in the post above .... that implication is not a personal insult.

Nukeman
04-15-2007, 12:04 PM
I was temp banned because I discussed moderator action which is forbidden over there.

Than you should be thankful for the FREEDOM that is afforded to you here. Yes you may be right the Mods at times may be leaning one way or another but that is just human nature.

You have the ability to question the Mods here because they believe in FREEDOM OF SPEACH above all else. Even if you have a differing point of view. With the freedom comes a certain amount of personal attacks that will always be part of any discourse with others. You do not have the freedom to not be offended, remember that I always do. I know at times I will be attacked and I will be insulted, thats just part of dealing and discussing something as inflamatory as politics. People are very passionate about their politics so it should come as no surprise when people disagree to such an extent.

Once again be THANKFUL you have the ability to question the Mod staff. This is a great place to actually be FREE to express yourself as you wish. I know other boards wouldn't let you get away with half of what has been said or questioned here.

Gunny
04-15-2007, 12:06 PM
Every conversation that ascends in complexity will reach a point where it's participants can no longer navigate.

That isn't semantics.

I trust that with good reason most of the people on this board are not professionals in policy management.

Tho all of them express opinions about the policies of the US.

And being less intelligent is not an insulting position.

Smart people do stupid things. Stupid people do smart things.

God makes both flavors for a reason.

Despite all social prejudices there are times when being dumb is a distinct advantage.

Keeping up with complex ideas is not one of them.

I did not state that one's intellectual end-line has anything to do with semantics.

The semantics comes in when you choose do exactly what you're attemptign to do here .... use literalism without intent or context to deny something is clearly what it is. The same game you've tried unsuccessfully in one of the threads.

There are times when too much data and not enough reality are a distinct disadvantage.

loosecannon
04-15-2007, 12:19 PM
I did not state that one's intellectual end-line has anything to do with semantics.

The semantics comes in when you choose do exactly what you're attemptign to do here .... use literalism without intent or context to deny something is clearly what it is. The same game you've tried unsuccessfully in one of the threads.

There are times when too much data and not enough reality are a distinct disadvantage.

Gunny, I repeatedly get the impression that you use the very behaviors you accuse others of as your simultaneous deflecting device.

In this case you deflected my valid point by projecting the accusation that i was using double speak to convey a fiction.

I think you were using double speak to convey a fiction and thereby avoiding coming to terms with a valid point.

Some people are over their heads in conversations. That's a fact Jack.

Many people have opinions without foundations, that's reality.

We are all marginally informed.

If you want to take offense, be my guest.

In the long run everyone gets a turn at being the fool.

Said1
04-15-2007, 12:24 PM
I did not state that one's intellectual end-line has anything to do with semantics.

The semantics comes in when you choose do exactly what you're attemptign to do here .... use literalism without intent or context to deny something is clearly what it is. The same game you've tried unsuccessfully in one of the threads.

There are times when too much data and not enough reality are a distinct disadvantage.

You're dead on.

manu1959
04-15-2007, 12:28 PM
Gunny, I repeatedly get the impression that you use the very behaviors you accuse others of as your simultaneous deflecting device.

In this case you deflected my valid point by projecting the accusation that i was using double speak to convey a fiction.

I think you were using double speak to convey a fiction and thereby avoiding coming to terms with a valid point.

Some people are over their heads in conversations. That's a fact Jack.

Many people have opinions without foundations, that's reality.

We are all marginally informed.

If you want to take offense, be my guest.

In the long run everyone gets a turn at being the fool.

can you let us know when you are done with your turn....:laugh2:

shattered
04-15-2007, 12:30 PM
can you let us know when you are done with your turn....:laugh2:

LMFAO!!! :laugh2: :laugh2:

loosecannon
04-15-2007, 12:36 PM
The semantics comes in when you choose do exactly what you're attemptign to do here .... use literalism without intent or context to deny something is clearly what it is. The same game you've tried unsuccessfully in one of the threads.



For the record every syllable of this is BS. In this context.

Underlying this false statement is an implication that you can guage intent.

You can't honestly make that assumption.

Roomy
04-15-2007, 12:42 PM
If anyone is worried about anything in particular, have a word with jimnyc, it is his board and he makes the rules and I wager you can come to an agreement with the man one way or the other, all problems solved.:cheers2:

Gunny
04-15-2007, 01:25 PM
Gunny, I repeatedly get the impression that you use the very behaviors you accuse others of as your simultaneous deflecting device.

In this case you deflected my valid point by projecting the accusation that i was using double speak to convey a fiction.

I think you were using double speak to convey a fiction and thereby avoiding coming to terms with a valid point.

Some people are over their heads in conversations. That's a fact Jack.

Many people have opinions without foundations, that's reality.

We are all marginally informed.

If you want to take offense, be my guest.

In the long run everyone gets a turn at being the fool.

I'm not taking offense. And what would I be deflecting from, since my statement in regard to the difference between implication and direct was the point you originally responsed to?

If I'm guilty, it's of being raised a liberal and spending a few years journalism becoming quite educated on the use and misuse of semantics.

Obviously, you are educated on the same subject as evidenced by most of your arguments. If I disagree with your argument, and it's based on fallcious semantics, I'm calling it.

An insult's an insult, regardless the delivery or reasoning. Nothing ficticious about that at all. The fiction begins when you attempt to remove the intent from the insult.

What you mean individually doesn't matter a damned bit when compared to how you are preceived collectively.

Opinions without base are easily exposed without the need of insult, and I will make one point here, that you know as well as I do .... dumb people don't know they're dumb. Kinda' like every political extremist I've met claims to be a moderate. :poke:

Pointing it out to them is wasting your breath.


In the long run everyone gets a turn at being the fool.

Stop hogging up everyone else's turns.:laugh2:

SassyLady
04-15-2007, 01:38 PM
Every conversation that ascends in complexity will reach a point where it's participants can no longer navigate.

That isn't semantics.

I trust that with good reason most of the people on this board are not professionals in policy management.

Tho all of them express opinions about the policies of the US.

And being less intelligent is not an insulting position.

Smart people do stupid things. Stupid people do smart things.

God makes both flavors for a reason.

Despite all social prejudices there are times when being dumb is a distinct advantage.

Keeping up with complex ideas is not one of them.


Asking if one is keeping up with the conversation is based on the assumption that the one asking is far superior and it comes across as being patronizing. The implication is that the one asking (which for the most part on this board seems to be you, Loose) is intellectually superior and therefore has to "check in" with the inferior ones to see if the superior one needs to tone down their rhetoric.

Trust me Loose...........there is never, ever, any reason for you to ask the question of people on this board if they are keeping up with the twists and turns you seem to take........they've pretty much already compeleted the course and are just waiting for you to catch up.

Now - did this feel like a personal attack, or just a clearly defined observation of how you talk to people on this board?

Gunny
04-15-2007, 02:02 PM
For the record every syllable of this is BS. In this context.

Underlying this false statement is an implication that you can guage intent.

You can't honestly make that assumption.

Therein lies the fallaciousness to your argument. If it smells like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck and looks like a duck ... it AIN'T Wile E. Coyote.

manu1959
04-15-2007, 02:06 PM
Therein lies the fallaciousness to your argument. If it smells like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck and looks like a duck ... it AIN'T Wile E. Coyote.

unless of course he is wearing a duck suit from ACME

typomaniac
04-15-2007, 02:13 PM
Every once in a while someone comes to the board and has the hubris to think that it will change to suit their sensitivities. Uh, no.I don't think this board will change to suit my sensitivities. I think it will change because people are waking up to ideas like mine. The more I discuss them, the more they'll be adopted - of everyone's own free will. Don't forget that a guy named Jesus once said, "He who is not against me is for me."

I won't say anything more about what this implies about George W's way of thinking...

loosecannon
04-15-2007, 02:17 PM
An insult's an insult, regardless the delivery or reasoning. Nothing ficticious about that at all. The fiction begins when you attempt to remove the intent from the insult

What you mean individually doesn't matter a damned bit when compared to how you are preceived collectively.



Glad you brought this up.

Unfortunately you contradicted yourself with the second sentence which is too bad because i would have you nailed dead to rights if you had not argued both sides of your own framed question.

But the truth is The fiction begins when you attempt to insert the intent from the insult.

Using the example on your mind it was actually kind of painful for me to have to point out repeatedly that you must not have been astute enough to realize that you never presented a case for your allegation that pelosi was acting unethically.

I was really at a loss as to why else you would dogmatically dispute something that was so obviously true.

For example you never once mentioned an ethical tenet that she breached, a maxim of ethics that she violated.

Surely if you studied journalism you MUST recognize that without that maxim you had no basis for declaring her conduct unethical.

So what AM I to assume? And what am I to assume that isn't an insult? That you were intentionally being obtuse or dishonest? What else is there?

I really, and I mean this with deadly seriousness, had no desire to maliciously malign you, but the glaring contradiction coupled with your serial assertions that you had presented a case demanded I either drop the subject or drill the point.

I rarely drop a board argument when I am winning to that degree. Besides the basic premise that an allegation is either substantiated or accepted as mere opinion is central to board protocol.


What you mean individually doesn't matter a damned bit when compared to how you are perceived collectively.



Tough shit because even if I wanted to be responsible for what is "perceived collectively" I still have no power over what ya'll perceive.

Best example is the routine way in which ya'll make fallacious assumptions and then pretend as if i intended what ya'll fallaciously perceive.

You lose on that point flat out.

I will give you a hint tho: I do not believe everything I post in absolute terms.

The world does not occur according to the limits of our understanding, or vice versa. Human ideas are grotesquely imperfect containers with which to describe or understand the world.

That said nothing is absolutely true and many things are relatively true at once, always.

That's a fact jack. Understanding and ideas are always fictions to some degree.

So every idea is wagered for it's value at that moment.

And every idea is granted a continually modified significance and credibility within that moment.

Absolutes are for those who don't understand that chaos is the underlying order in the universe and nuances and differentials drive everything.

There is no truth, everything is true can and probably are both true simultaneously.

So don't try to present no more fallacious arguments about relativism.

Don't blame me for your assumptions

And don't make me responsible for you getting your feelings hurt.

Gunny
04-15-2007, 02:25 PM
I don't think this board will change to suit my sensitivities. I think it will change because people are waking up to ideas like mine. The more I discuss them, the more they'll be adopted - of everyone's own free will. Don't forget that a guy named Jesus once said, "He who is not against me is for me."

I won't say anything more about what this implies about George W's way of thinking...

I see no opportunity for you to wake up the ideals of others.

Gunny
04-15-2007, 02:49 PM
Glad you brought this up.

Unfortunately you contradicted yourself with the second sentence which is too bad because i would have you nailed dead to rights if you had not argued both sides of your own framed question.

But the truth is The fiction begins when you attempt to insert the intent from the insult.

Using the example on your mind it was actually kind of painful for me to have to point out repeatedly that you must not have been astute enough to realize that you never presented a case for your allegation that pelosi was acting unethically.

I was really at a loss as to why else you would dogmatically dispute something that was so obviously true.

For example you never once mentioned an ethical tenet that she breached, a maxim of ethics that she violated.

Surely if you studied journalism you MUST recognize that without that maxim you had no basis for declaring her conduct unethical.

So what AM I to assume? And what am I to assume that isn't an insult? That you were intentionally being obtuse or dishonest? What else is there?

I really, and I mean this with deadly seriousness, had no desire to maliciously malign you, but the glaring contradiction coupled with your serial assertions that you had presented a case demanded I either drop the subject or drill the point.

I rarely drop a board argument when I am winning to that degree. Besides the basic premise that an allegation is either substantiated or accepted as mere opinion is central to board protocol.



Tough shit because even if I wanted to be responsible for what is "perceived collectively" I still have no power over what ya'll perceive.

Best example is the routine way in which ya'll make fallacious assumptions and then pretend as if i intended what ya'll fallaciously perceive.

You lose on that point flat out.

I will give you a hint tho: I do not believe everything I post in absolute terms.

The world does not occur according to the limits of our understanding, or vice versa. Human ideas are grotesquely imperfect containers with which to describe or understand the world.

That said nothing is absolutely true and many things are relatively true at once, always.

That's a fact jack. Understanding and ideas are always fictions to some degree.

So every idea is wagered for it's value at that moment.

And every idea is granted a continually modified significance and credibility within that moment.

Absolutes are for those who don't understand that chaos is the underlying order in the universe and nuances and differentials drive everything.

There is no truth, everything is true can and probably are both true simultaneously.

So don't try to present no more fallacious arguments about relativism.

Don't blame me for your assumptions

And don't make me responsible for you getting your feelings hurt.

A sentence means nothing without intent. When the intent is obvious, there is no real need to go through the process of elimination to guess what it is. If the intent is unlcear, I would assume most reasonable persons would ask for clarification.

We won't rehash the Pelosi thing. There's a thread for it. You presented an intellectually dishonest argument comparable to the one you have attempted to present in this thread, and you were wrong. Simple as that.

You DO, to a degree, have control over general perception. It's called communication skills. The more effectively you communicate, the smaller the disparity between what you are saying and what others hear.

I will aso add that when the general perception is collectively the same and only the individual is trying to say I'm rigth and everyone else is wrong, it is perhaps time for that individual to reevaluate his/her presentation.

And of course, I see you bring out the usual follow-up to the literalist argument -- relativism. There are absolutes and they are based on fact, not misunderstanding. Relativity has its place. Used to promote an intellectually dishonest argument is NOT it.

loosecannon
04-15-2007, 03:08 PM
I would assume most reasonable persons would ask for clarification.

Obviously not, the norm is for people to assume that they understand and operate on that basis.

Read any thread, it is obvious.


We won't rehash the Pelosi thing. There's a thread for it. You presented an intellectually dishonest argument comparable to the one you have attempted to present in this thread, and you were wrong. Simple as that.

That is a bald faced lie. Actually two.

YOU presented a dishonest argument and are too pig headed to admit it.


You DO, to a degree, have control over general perception. It's called communication skills. The more effectively you communicate, the smaller the disparity between what you are saying and what others hear.

"All lies and jests, A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest"

No effort in an attempt to communicate can over power the counterpart necesity of perceiving what is being conveyed.

At best you have half the responsibility for what others hear.


I will aso add that when the general perception is collectively the same and only the individual is trying to say I'm rigth and everyone else is wrong, it is perhaps time for that individual to reevaluate his/her presentation.

You should take your own advice then.


There are absolutes and they are based on fact, not misunderstanding. Relativity has its place. Used to promote an intellectually dishonest argument is NOT it.

There are absolutes and neither you nor I know what they are.

Everything you say, believe, perceive is a degree of relativism.

The absolutists position is indefensible.

Using the cry of relativism to feign an argument is dishonest, is dishonest.

manu1959
04-15-2007, 03:16 PM
Obviously not, the norm is for people to assume that they understand and operate on that basis.

Read any thread, it is obvious.



That is a bald faced lie. Actually two.

YOU presented a dishonest argument and are too pig headed to admit it.



"All lies and jests, A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest"

No effort in an attempt to communicate can over power the counterpart necesity of perceiving what is being conveyed.

At best you have half the responsibility for what others hear.



You should take your own advice then.



There are absolutes and neither you nor I know what they are.

Everything you say, believe, perceive is a degree of relativism.

The absolutists position is indefensible.

Using the cry of relativism to feign an argument is dishonest, is dishonest.

the norm is for people to assume that they understand and operate on that basis.....

you have responsibility for what others hear.....

"All lies and jests, A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest"

you are welcome

Gunny
04-15-2007, 03:17 PM
Obviously not, the norm is for people to assume that they understand and operate on that basis.

Read any thread, it is obvious.



That is a bald faced lie. Actually two.

YOU presented a dishonest argument and are too pig headed to admit it.

Wrong.


"All lies and jests, A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest"

No effort in an attempt to communicate can over power the counterpart necesity of perceiving what is being conveyed.

At best you have half the responsibility for what others hear.

I think that's about what I said.


You should take your own advice then.

I do, if and when that comes about.


There are absolutes and neither you nor I know what they are.

Really. I exist. THAT is an absolute.

Everything you say, believe, perceive is a degree of relativism.

As I said, realtivism has its place.

The absolutists position is indefensible.

There is a difference between being an absolutist and accepting that absolutes exist. Just as there is a difference between using relativism in an argument, and basing your entire argument on relativism.

Using the cry of relativism to feign an argument is dishonest, is dishonest.

Using realtivism to present a dishonest argument is what is dishonest. Realtivism, in an dif itself is not dishonest.

Pointing out that one is using relativism to present a dishonest argument is likewise not dishonest.

typomaniac
04-15-2007, 03:19 PM
I see no opportunity for you to wake up the ideals of others.You don't have to see it. It will happen.

manu1959
04-15-2007, 03:22 PM
You don't have to see it. It will happen.

the tactics and presentation will need to change....insulting people to draw them to your cause has been less than successful....and that is the tactic of the left...

jackass
04-15-2007, 03:23 PM
I was wondering the same thing about some of you ALL...

We arent the ones whining about the way the board is run are we?

Gunny
04-15-2007, 03:29 PM
You don't have to see it. It will happen.

Wasn't my point. So far, your political idealism, the little you have posted in the midst of just generally being a smartass, leave room for improvement.

The question is, and I am basing it on your original statement that I responded to ... are you here to preach? Or is that a two-way street?

loosecannon
04-15-2007, 03:46 PM
Pointing out that one is using relativism to present a dishonest argument is likewise not dishonest.

OK, youi are using relativism to present a dishonest argument or four.

You never presented a case to support the allegations that Pelosi acted unethically.

There are absolute truths and neither you nor I, nor ant person will ever know what they are.

Merely stating you exist means nothing.

What is existence? How can you prove that you do it? Any answers you provide will be dependent on relativist positions. Checkmate.

Absolutism is understood by philosophers to be indefensible for a reason.

loosecannon
04-15-2007, 03:48 PM
insulting people to draw them to your cause has been less than successful....and that is the tactic of the left...

Well it is consistently Gunny's tactic of last resort as well. After he exhausts all of his dishonest arguments.

manu1959
04-15-2007, 03:51 PM
Well it is consistently Gunny's tactic of last resort as well. After he exhausts all of his dishonest arguments.

so you are going to use behavior you condemn to justify your poor behavior .... don't ever claim the moral or intellectual high ground on me agian...

manu1959
04-15-2007, 03:56 PM
You never presented a case to support the allegations that Pelosi acted unethically.



i say she breached these two:

CODE OF ETHICS FOR GOVERNMENT SERVICE
Any person in Government service should:

1. Put loyalty to the highest moral principals and to country above loyalty to Government persons, party, or department.

2. Uphold the Constitution, laws, and legal regulations of the United States and of all governments therein and never be a party to their evasion.

http://www.house.gov/Ethics/Ethicforward.html

typomaniac
04-15-2007, 04:14 PM
The question is, and I am basing it on your original statement that I responded to ... are you here to preach? Or is that a two-way street?You don't need me to answer that, Gunny. You've demonstrated that you already know how to judge others for yourself. You're a damn poor judge, but you're still a prolific one.

Gunny
04-15-2007, 04:24 PM
OK, youi are using relativism to present a dishonest argument or four.

You never presented a case to support the allegations that Pelosi acted unethically.

There are absolute truths and neither you nor I, nor ant person will ever know what they are.

Merely stating you exist means nothing.

What is existence? How can you prove that you do it? Any answers you provide will be dependent on relativist positions. Checkmate.

Absolutism is understood by philosophers to be indefensible for a reason.

You probably need to get back a little closer to Earth dude.

I've used nothing but, fact. common sense and/or logic to present my arguments. You just keep going further off the deep end into Never-Never Land attempting to maintain an indefensible position.

You went from message board debate here in the real world to relativist theory.

The fact that we exist is an absolute within the realm of Man's knowledge and science. What is outside the realm of Man's knowledge/science is fine to discuss in and of itself.

Meanwhile, back on the Earth, we exist as an absolute in a real world thats existence is an absolute insofar as the limit of Man's intellect is concerned.

For instance, if you really didn't exist, then I wouldn't be sitting here LMAO @ you. I have to admit, I have never seen anyone go to the lengths you do in some REALLY lame attempts to deny the obvious.

And again, since you obviously missed it the first time, believing there are absolutes and being an absolutist are two completely differnt things.

Gunny
04-15-2007, 04:27 PM
You don't need me to answer that, Gunny. You've demonstrated that you already know how to judge others for yourself. You're a damn poor judge, but you're still a prolific one.

I'm nowhere near as judgemental as you would try to make me out to be. This is a messageboard. I can only respond to what I see.

And as far as demonstrated judgement goes, I'm waiting for you to get something right.

Mr. P
04-15-2007, 04:43 PM
You probably need to get back a little closer to Earth dude.

I've used nothing but, fact. common sense and/or logic to present my arguments. You just keep going further off the deep end into Never-Never Land attempting to maintain an indefensible position.

You went from message board debate here in the real world to relativist theory.

The fact that we exist is an absolute within the realm of Man's knowledge and science. What is outside the realm of Man's knowledge/science is fine to discuss in and of itself.

Meanwhile, back on the Earth, we exist as an absolute in a real world thats existence is an absolute insofar as the limit of Man's intellect is concerned.

For instance, if you really didn't exist, then I wouldn't be sitting here LMAO @ you. I have to admit, I have never seen anyone go to the lengths you do in some REALLY lame attempts to deny the obvious.

And again, since you obviously missed it the first time, believing there are absolutes and being an absolutist are two completely differnt things.

I've always said "If you can't dazzle em with your knowledge, Baffle em with your Bullshit". loosecannon has it down pat. :lol:

loosecannon
04-15-2007, 04:48 PM
so you are going to use behavior you condemn to justify your poor behavior .... don't ever claim the moral or intellectual high ground on me agian...


Not so fast Manu.

Gunny lost an argument because he was unwilling or unable to state his basis.

He also refused the alternative which was to simply admit that his allegations were merely his unfounded opinions.

When I continued to point out the fact that he wasn't presenting an argument to back up his allegations he then began repetitively claiming that I was being dishonest by asking him to present his case.

I wasn't, he was.

I got tired of it and decided to simply turn the tables and call his allegations of my being dishonest as being dishonest.

Gunny really is using semantics and dishonest arguments to mask the fact that he was wrong.

Maybe you should lecture him.

manu1959
04-15-2007, 04:50 PM
Not so fast Manu.

Gunny lost an argument because he was unwilling or unable to state his basis.

He also refused the alternative which was to simply admit that his allegations were merely his unfounded opinions.

When I continued to point out the fact that he wasn't presenting an argument to back up his allegations he then began repetitively claiming that I was being dishonest by asking him to present his case.

I wasn't, he was.

I got tired of it and decided to simply turn the tables and call his allegations of my being dishonest as being dishonest.

Gunny really is using semantics and dishonest arguments to mask the fact that he was wrong.

Maybe you should lecture him.

nope.... you chose the path .....live with the results of your choice

loosecannon
04-15-2007, 04:58 PM
I've used nothing but, fact. common sense and/or logic to present my arguments.

No you relied only on bald assertions, attacking myself with claims that I was being dishonest, and evasion.

You presented nothing to support your argument but everything in your arsenal to avoid admitting that your allegations are only unfounded opinions that can't or won't support.




The fact that we exist is an absolute within the realm of Man's knowledge and science.

Rubbish, find me any scientific proof or repeatable experiment that demonstrates our existence.

This is utter nonsense.





And again, since you obviously missed it the first time, believing there are absolutes and being an absolutist are two completely differnt things.

You are relying on absolutes in your argument. You are also defying relativism in other threads.

I was gonna use the term objectivist early on but didn't know whether you could follow the gear change.

In either case you are wrong and still in denial and your allegations that MY arguments are dishonest has gone too far.

Put up or shut up, or just do what a MAN would do in your position and admit that what you present as allegations and truth is just your unfounded opinion.

You don't know the truth. That is obvious. None of us do.

But there is a method to presenting a rationalization that you refuse to risk participating in.

Which is fine so long as you just admit you are spouting unfounded opinions.

Oh yeah and quit resorting to ad hominem attacks and personal attacks to avoid confronting the fact that you are wrong.

Gunny
04-15-2007, 04:59 PM
Not so fast Manu.

Gunny lost an argument because he was unwilling or unable to state his basis.

He also refused the alternative which was to simply admit that his allegations were merely his unfounded opinions.

When I continued to point out the fact that he wasn't presenting an argument to back up his allegations he then began repetitively claiming that I was being dishonest by asking him to present his case.

I wasn't, he was.

I got tired of it and decided to simply turn the tables and call his allegations of my being dishonest as being dishonest.

Gunny really is using semantics and dishonest arguments to mask the fact that he was wrong.

Maybe you should lecture him.

I presented my argument and backed up my reasoning for it. You did nothing to counter the argument but attempt to refute it with intellectual dishonesty.

There's no wrong to admit by anyone but you, and obviously, you're willing to go into the theory of the cosmos rather that admit such.:laugh2:

loosecannon
04-15-2007, 05:00 PM
nope.... you chose the path .....live with the results of your choice

Great I look forward to you applying the same standard to Gunny.

Let's make it permanent, OK?

loosecannon
04-15-2007, 05:02 PM
I presented my argument and backed up my reasoning for it. You did nothing to counter the argument but attempt to refute it with intellectual dishonesty.



That is simply a lie.

You would not present an argument at all to support your allegations.

For example you won't list the ethical maxim Pelosi violated.

This is super simple. Without violating an ethical maxim, she can't possibly have acted unethically.

manu1959
04-15-2007, 05:03 PM
Great I look forward to you applying the same standard to Gunny.

Let's make it permanent, OK?

i will not take orders from you ..... your battle with gunny is yours....if you would like me to treat you a certain way speak to me as such .... i told you ... don't ever claim the moral or intellectual high ground on me again ...

OCA
04-15-2007, 05:05 PM
Gunny, I repeatedly get the impression that you use the very behaviors you accuse others of as your simultaneous deflecting device.

In this case you deflected my valid point by projecting the accusation that i was using double speak to convey a fiction.

I think you were using double speak to convey a fiction and thereby avoiding coming to terms with a valid point.

Some people are over their heads in conversations. That's a fact Jack.

Many people have opinions without foundations, that's reality.

We are all marginally informed.

If you want to take offense, be my guest.

In the long run everyone gets a turn at being the fool.

Loose if you are so fucking smart which is highly debateable how come you can't form a simple fucking paragraph?:laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2:

Your everyone's bitch here.

OCA
04-15-2007, 05:07 PM
Not so fast Manu.

Gunny lost an argument because he was unwilling or unable to state his basis.

He also refused the alternative which was to simply admit that his allegations were merely his unfounded opinions.

When I continued to point out the fact that he wasn't presenting an argument to back up his allegations he then began repetitively claiming that I was being dishonest by asking him to present his case.

I wasn't, he was.

I got tired of it and decided to simply turn the tables and call his allegations of my being dishonest as being dishonest.

Gunny really is using semantics and dishonest arguments to mask the fact that he was wrong.

Maybe you should lecture him.

Again, Gilligan, form a simple fucking paragraph for the love of God!

Kathianne
04-15-2007, 05:09 PM
That is simply a lie.

You would not present an argument at all to support your allegations.

For example you won't list the ethical maxim Pelosi violated.

This is super simple. Without violating an ethical maxim, she can't possibly have acted unethically.
Let's see. A member's unwillingness or inability to find links, let's Pelosi off scott free. Cool world you are living in. :lame2:

loosecannon
04-15-2007, 05:45 PM
Let's see. A member's unwillingness or inability to find links, let's Pelosi off scott free. Cool world you are living in. :lame2:

No, I am merely waiting for Gunny to actually present his argument.

Simple allegations prove nothing.

loosecannon
04-15-2007, 05:47 PM
Loose if you are so fucking smart which is highly debateable how come you can't form a simple fucking paragraph?:laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2:

Your everyone's bitch here.

I don't use paragraphs on purpose Dog.

If it bothers you, so what?

Should I ride your ass for criticizing other's grammatical errors while committing several per sentence?

Cuz you do that, ya know?

loosecannon
04-15-2007, 05:48 PM
i will not take orders from you ..... your battle with gunny is yours....if you would like me to treat you a certain way speak to me as such .... i told you ... don't ever claim the moral or intellectual high ground on me again ...

I have to laugh, first you say you don't take orders, well great I didn't issue any, read the post again.

Then you bark out orders.

whatever

OCA
04-15-2007, 05:57 PM
I don't use paragraphs on purpose Dog.

If it bothers you, so what?

Should I ride your ass for criticizing other's grammatical errors while committing several per sentence?

Cuz you do that, ya know?

No, actually I don't. Form a fucking paragraph lest we think you are more of a dunce than we already do.

Mr. P
04-15-2007, 05:58 PM
I don't use paragraphs on purpose Dog.

....
What purpose, Dog? Or should I say, 'what purpose asshole', since you tagged yourself as such?

loosecannon
04-15-2007, 06:00 PM
No, actually I don't. Form a fucking paragraph lest we think you are more of a dunce than we already do.

eat shit. I have been writing outside paragraph form for a few years on blogs and I ain't stoppin fur u

loosecannon
04-15-2007, 06:00 PM
What purpose, Dog? Or should I say, 'what purpose asshole', since you tagged yourself as such?


OCA told me a few days ago that he was my Dog, humor him.

Mr. P
04-15-2007, 06:03 PM
OCA told me a few days ago that he was my Dog, humor him.

Non answer.

OCA
04-15-2007, 06:07 PM
eat shit. I have been writing outside paragraph form for a few years on blogs and I ain't stoppin fur u


Well then you are a first rate dumbfuck because you think it makes you cool, not here.

OCA
04-15-2007, 06:11 PM
Non answer.

Its all you'll get P, this one is a douchebag magnified.

loosecannon
04-15-2007, 06:42 PM
Well then you are a first rate dumbfuck because you think it makes you cool, not here.


Naw I am not some shallow fuck who would think that abandoning paragraph form relates to cool.

OCA makes that kind of linkage.

Kathianne
04-15-2007, 06:43 PM
Naw I am not some shallow fuck who would think that abandoning paragraph form relates to cool.

OCA makes that kind of linkage.

Last I noted, OCA can make paragraphs, seems you refuse to. Based on what? Oh yeah, years ago you decided to, not changing now. You are too cool for you. :cool:

loosecannon
04-15-2007, 06:43 PM
Non answer.


Well he might have sed God, but I might be dyslexic.

If I was a dyslexic agnostic he wouldn't exist.

Either way, humor him.

OCA
04-15-2007, 06:46 PM
Naw I am not some shallow fuck who would think that abandoning paragraph form relates to cool.

OCA makes that kind of linkage.


Loose LMFAO! You can't even carry my jockstrap.

loosecannon
04-15-2007, 06:48 PM
Loose LMFAO! You can't even carry my jockstrap.


You got that right Dog.

Dilloduck
04-15-2007, 06:48 PM
OCA told me a few days ago that he was my Dog, humor him.

Are you willing to start posting something or respond to ones in a courteous respectful manner or is this pissing contest going to last forever ?

loosecannon
04-15-2007, 06:49 PM
Last I noted, OCA can make paragraphs, seems you refuse to. Based on what? Oh yeah, years ago you decided to, not changing now. You are too cool for you. :cool:

No it has nothing to do with cool.

I have several reasons, cool is not one of them.

OCA
04-15-2007, 06:51 PM
No it has nothing to do with cool.

I have several reasons, cool is not one of them.

Well Gilligan lets hear your reasons, should be interesting coming from such a brilliant mind such as yours.

Kathianne
04-15-2007, 06:51 PM
No it has nothing to do with cool.

I have several reasons, cool is not one of them.

Well that clears it all up. :lame2:

loosecannon
04-15-2007, 06:52 PM
Are you willing to start posting something or respond to ones in a courteous respectful manner or is this pissing contest going to last forever ?


I am waiting for Gummy to respond.

But if you address a comment to me, chances are, I respond.

OCA
04-15-2007, 06:52 PM
You got that right Dog.


Ok cat, glad you got that down.

Lol what a joke.

Dilloduck
04-15-2007, 07:08 PM
I am waiting for Gummy to respond.

But if you address a comment to me, chances are, I respond.

I just DID address a comment directly to you.

Said1
04-15-2007, 07:13 PM
This thread is lame. :fu:

Mr. P
04-15-2007, 07:16 PM
Well he might have sed God, but I might be dyslexic.

If I was a dyslexic agnostic he wouldn't exist.

Either way, humor him.

And that has what to do with my question?

Kathianne
04-15-2007, 07:22 PM
And that has what to do with my question?

following the links, I'm looking for the question.

loosecannon
04-15-2007, 07:26 PM
Well Gilligan lets hear your reasons, should be interesting coming from such a brilliant mind such as yours.

sorry, need to know basis.

loosecannon
04-15-2007, 07:27 PM
I just DID address a comment directly to you.

which is why I responded

and yes it is boring, I am waiting for Gummy's response............

Kathianne
04-15-2007, 07:27 PM
sorry, need to know basis.

:lame2:

loosecannon
04-15-2007, 07:30 PM
:lame2:

ok, I can live with that

shattered
04-15-2007, 07:36 PM
Funny how a thread protesting constant flaming is probably the biggest flame-fest on the board. :laugh2:

Dilloduck
04-15-2007, 07:46 PM
which is why I responded

and yes it is boring, I am waiting for Gummy's response............

You responded but you never answered the question.

SassyLady
04-15-2007, 08:38 PM
Not so fast Manu.

Gunny lost an argument because he was unwilling or unable to state his basis.

He also refused the alternative which was to simply admit that his allegations were merely his unfounded opinions.

When I continued to point out the fact that he wasn't presenting an argument to back up his allegations he then began repetitively claiming that I was being dishonest by asking him to present his case.

I wasn't, he was.

I got tired of it and decided to simply turn the tables and call his allegations of my being dishonest as being dishonest.

Gunny really is using semantics and dishonest arguments to mask the fact that he was wrong.

Maybe you should lecture him.


When you start with an incorrect premises everything else is moot.

glockmail
04-15-2007, 08:39 PM
11 pages of this crap on a Sunday? Folks, get a life! :poke:

LiberalNation
04-15-2007, 08:40 PM
lol

SassyLady
04-15-2007, 08:45 PM
That is simply a lie.

You would not present an argument at all to support your allegations.

For example you won't list the ethical maxim Pelosi violated.

This is super simple. Without violating an ethical maxim, she can't possibly have acted unethically.


This is where you are being intellectually dishonest yourself, loose......all of us have presented the "ethical maxim" Pelosi violated. You disagree with our assertions. That is OK.......but to continue to deny, ad nausem, that no one presented valid assertions is boring.

loosecannon
04-15-2007, 08:48 PM
When you start with an incorrect premises everything else is moot.


I didn't

loosecannon
04-15-2007, 08:49 PM
This is where you are being intellectually dishonest yourself, loose......all of us have presented the "ethical maxim" Pelosi violated. You disagree with our assertions. That is OK.......but to continue to deny, ad nausem, that no one presented valid assertions is boring.

Then state it here and now!

This isn't rocket science but it is like pulling teeth.

If you have it, post it.

If you won't or can't admit that you have nothing but unfounded opinions.

Kathianne
04-15-2007, 08:52 PM
Then state it here and now!

This isn't rocket science but it is like pulling teeth.

If you have it, post it.

If you won't or can't admit that you have nothing but unfounded opinions.
Got that everyone, repost in one post. Gather them together, lc demands it. :stupid:

loosecannon
04-15-2007, 08:52 PM
This is where you are being intellectually dishonest yourself, loose......all of us have presented the "ethical maxim" Pelosi violated. You disagree with our assertions. That is OK.......but to continue to deny, ad nausem, that no one presented valid assertions is boring.


And BTW, you are resorting to the same last resort that Gunny has been. Ad hominems to mask the fact that you are wrong.

You can't present an argument so you pretend that my asking for one is dishonest.

Well put up or shut up.

SassyLady
04-15-2007, 08:53 PM
Then state it here and now!

This isn't rocket science but it is like pulling teeth.

If you have it, post it.

Been there, done that. Go to Pelosi thread and reread.

SassyLady
04-15-2007, 08:54 PM
And BTW, you are resorting to the same last resort that Gunny has been. Ad hominems to mask the fact that you are wrong.

You can't present an argument so you pretend that my asking for one is dishonest.

Well put up or shut up.


Well, why don't you put up or shut up about where I'm wrong in what I posted?

loosecannon
04-15-2007, 08:55 PM
Got that everyone, repost in one post. Gather them together, lc demands it. :stupid:

A simple ethical maxim like "thou shalt not steal"

Nobody can post one to identify what was unethical about Pelosi's actions.

But ya'll can come up with a million excuses and diversions.

JUST like the BA.

glockmail
04-15-2007, 08:58 PM
Got that everyone, repost in one post. Gather them together, lc demands it. :stupid: So says the Board Nazi.

glockmail
04-15-2007, 08:58 PM
lol quiver, quiver.

loosecannon
04-15-2007, 08:59 PM
Well, why don't you put up or shut up about where I'm wrong in what I posted?

I wasn't intellectually dishonest, Gunny has been.

And NOBODY has presented a case that supports the allegation that Pelosi is unethical.

Those are lies. Repetition doesn't make them true.

glockmail
04-15-2007, 09:01 PM
I wasn't intellectually dishonest, Gunny has been.

And NOBODY has presented a case that supports the allegation that Pelosi is unethical.

Those are lies. Repetition doesn't make them true. Unethical? Heck, she's committed treason! :poke:

SassyLady
04-15-2007, 09:01 PM
I wasn't intellectually dishonest, Gunny has been.

And NOBODY has presented a case that supports the allegation that Pelosi is unethical.

Those are lies. Repetition doesn't make them true.

I tell you what Loose - give me an example where she WOULD have been unethical. Perhaps if you educate us on what ethical behavior is or isn't, we can understand where you are coming from.

You keep asking us to post our POV and all you do is attack and try to deconstruct. How about you try another tactic and explain to us what type of behavior she would have had to be engaging in for you to believe she was unethical.

Can you meet this challenge?

LiberalNation
04-15-2007, 09:04 PM
quiver, quiver.

dream on.

Kathianne
04-15-2007, 09:08 PM
So says the Board Nazi.

I'm a nazi? Or you mean LC?

loosecannon
04-15-2007, 09:54 PM
Unethical? Heck, she's committed treason! :poke:

We both know that you don't believe that.

loosecannon
04-15-2007, 09:55 PM
I'm a nazi? Or you mean LC?


In this case you, I ordered nobody to do nothing.

That was your gig.

loosecannon
04-15-2007, 10:01 PM
I tell you what Loose - give me an example where she WOULD have been unethical. Perhaps if you educate us on what ethical behavior is or isn't, we can understand where you are coming from.

You keep asking us to post our POV and all you do is attack and try to deconstruct. How about you try another tactic and explain to us what type of behavior she would have had to be engaging in for you to believe she was unethical.

Can you meet this challenge?

Can you understand simple english?

I am not asking for your POV. Or Gunny's.

I am not trying to educate you about ethics.

WRONG.

Gunny made an allegation.

Do you understand that?

Gunny hasn't supported it at all.

If he doesn't suport it, can't, won't then he should admit it and stop pretending that he proved his case.

He didn't even present a case. At all.

If she acted unethically, what ethical maxim, or standard did she violate?

What are ethical standards? Things like the ten commandments, laws, social contracts, oaths of office etc.

If Pelosi didn't violate an ethical maxim it is by definition impossible for her to have acted unethically.

SassyLady
04-15-2007, 11:04 PM
First - I understand English quite well....however, I do have a hard time understanding your circular logic at times.




If Pelosi didn't violate an ethical maxim it is by definition impossible for her to have acted unethically.

Especially if she adhers to this ethical premise:

Machiavelian

Of or pertaining to Machiavel, or to his supposed principles; politically cunning; characterized by duplicity or bad faith; crafty.


I suppose this is why you think what she did doesn't breach any ethical maxim.

loosecannon
04-15-2007, 11:09 PM
First - I understand English quite well then focus on this english





I suppose this is why you think what she did doesn't breach any ethical maxim.

You suppose from Mars.

Gunny made an allegation. Not me, Gunny.

He needs to support it based on the bulwarks of logical thesis or simply admit his assertion is just his unfounded opinion.

Are you REALLY this dense or are you intentionally trying to deflect and distract from the point?

manu1959
04-15-2007, 11:11 PM
she violated both of these

CODE OF ETHICS FOR GOVERNMENT SERVICE

Any person in Government service should:

1. Put loyalty to the highest moral principals and to country above loyalty to Government persons, party, or department.

2. Uphold the Constitution, laws, and legal regulations of the United States and of all governments therein and never be a party to their evasion.

http://www.house.gov/Ethics/Ethicforward.html

loosecannon
04-15-2007, 11:12 PM
Machiavelian

Of or pertaining to Machiavel, or to his supposed principles; politically cunning; characterized by duplicity or bad faith; crafty.




It is funny you would mention machiavelli, since the Machiavellian principle only applies to Bushbots as they are the power principles.

Nice insincere distraction.

(what is wrong with these posters?)

manu1959
04-15-2007, 11:14 PM
It is funny you would mention machiavelli, since the Machiavellian principle only applies to Bushbots as they are the power principles.

Nice insincere distraction.

(what is wrong with these posters?)

"kerry klowns"

SassyLady
04-15-2007, 11:15 PM
then focus on this english






You suppose from Mars.

Gunny made an allegation. Not me, Gunny.

He needs to support it based on the bulwarks of logical thesis or simply admit his assertion is just his unfounded opinion.

Are you REALLY this dense or are you intentionally trying to deflect and distract from the point?

When it comes to you I must be really dense Loose - because you just talk in circles - like most progressives. So, I guess my inability to sort through all your circles makes me look dense.

I can totally understand why Gunny doesn't want to waste any more energy on you and your rants.

You're just downright boring.

loosecannon
04-15-2007, 11:16 PM
she violated both of these

CODE OF ETHICS FOR GOVERNMENT SERVICE

Any person in Government service should:

1. Put loyalty to the highest moral principals and to country above loyalty to Government persons, party, or department.

2. Uphold the Constitution, laws, and legal regulations of the United States and of all governments therein and never be a party to their evasion.

http://www.house.gov/Ethics/Ethicforward.html

OK Manu, you deserve unparralleled recognition above all other rightwingers on this board.

You have distinguished your self as a giant among midgets.

You have proven yourself far above the median Rightwinger here at Debate politics.

Next step, pick one or both maxims and delineate your case as to how Pelosi violated it.

Again, good job, truly noteworthy.

loosecannon
04-15-2007, 11:18 PM
When it comes to you I must be really dense Loose - because you just talk in circles - like most progressives. So, I guess my inability to sort through all your circles makes me look dense.

I can totally understand why Gunny doesn't want to waste any more energy on you and your rants.

You're just downright boring.

You are just evading the realities of the discussion trying to bullshit your way thru.

That bullshitter approach won't work here anymore.

Learn a new trick. Don't blame me if you can't hit the ball either.

manu1959
04-15-2007, 11:27 PM
OK Manu, you deserve unparralleled recognition above all other rightwingers on this board.

You have distinguished your self as a giant among midgets.

You have proven yourself far above the median Rightwinger here at Debate politics.

Next step, pick one or both maxims and delineate your case as to how Pelosi violated it.

Again, good job, truly noteworthy.

first off ... stop insulting people it makes you look stupid

second ... i am not a right winger

1. Put loyalty to the highest moral principals and to country above loyalty to Government persons, party, or department.

she was asked not to go to syria by the president of her country she ignored the request...violation of the highest moral standard.

2. Uphold the Constitution, laws, and legal regulations of the United States and of all governments therein and never be a party to their evasion.

she was asked not to go and negotiate with syria as that is the pervue of the president she ignored the request and went without authorization and claims it was a "fact finding mission".... violation .... evasion

loosecannon
04-15-2007, 11:50 PM
first off ... stop insulting people it makes you look stupid

when people insult me as has happened at least 100 times today on this thread i will follow in suit.


second ... i am not a right winger

Really?


1. Put loyalty to the highest moral principals and to country above loyalty to Government persons, party, or department.

she was asked not to go to syria by the president of her country she ignored the request...violation of the highest moral standard.

OK, so how does the principle relate to what you allege?

Did Bush ask her not to go?

On what authority? Did he have that right?

What if bush asked you to die for his cause? Would it be unethical to disobey?


2. Uphold the Constitution, laws, and legal regulations of the United States and of all governments therein and never be a party to their evasion.

Bush took the same vow, did he break it or uphold it by asking Pelosi not to go?


she was asked not to go and negotiate with syria as that is the pervue of the president she ignored the request and went without authorization and claims it was a "fact finding mission".... violation .... evasion

Did she negotiate? Can you prove that?

Did she need Bush's authorization?

Did she claim it was a fact finding mission?

You can ignore all of the questions now, but i posted them to prepare you, in good faith for the eventuality that your claims will be questioned. Several are already specious.

But for now connect your allegations to the maxims you posted.

BTW so far you are miles above the other Rightwingers on the board, and yes you are abrightwinger manu.

53% of the nation wants bush impeached. 70% of the nation no longer identifies with the GOP or with Bush.

If you are still supporting bush you are far right.

Baron Von Esslingen
04-16-2007, 01:08 AM
first off ... stop insulting people it makes you look stupid

You don't want a point by point refutation of how this works here at DP, do you?


second ... i am not a right winger

I'm hard pressed to buy into that allegation.


she was asked not to go to syria by the president of her country she ignored the request...violation of the highest moral standard.

The president condemned HER trip (but not the ones the republicans took) but he did not ask her not to go.


she was asked not to go and negotiate with syria as that is the pervue of the president she ignored the request and went without authorization and claims it was a "fact finding mission".... violation .... evasion

Negotiations means there were treaties that were discussed. Discussions of issues is just talk...literally. As the legally elected head of the legislative branch she is within her rights to talk to foreign leaders. The CIC sets policy but the Speaker may discuss that policy as she desires. She cannot countermand it (which she did not) or reverse it (which she also did not).

Your anger stems from the fact that congresscritters are no longer marching in lockstep to the drumbeats of Bush's neocon philosophy. Otherwise your condemnation would have extended to EVERY person that went to Syria, not just the Democratic ones.

Gunny
04-16-2007, 06:31 AM
No, I am merely waiting for Gunny to actually present his argument.

Simple allegations prove nothing.

Obviously, however great you consider your intellect to be, simple reading and comprehension is above and beyond wherever that may be.

This is not the Pelosi thread. There are currently two, both of which you derailed with your intellectually dishonest literalism and relativist BS to try to say something is not what it is.

Just as you have done in this thread, where you decided to chime in try to say an insult by implication is not an insult.

I'm not sure whether or not I am impressed, or just think you're a complete loon that you have gone one step further than any other poster I've ever come across and attempted to use the same tactics to defend using them.

Gunny
04-16-2007, 06:42 AM
This is where you are being intellectually dishonest yourself, loose......all of us have presented the "ethical maxim" Pelosi violated. You disagree with our assertions. That is OK.......but to continue to deny, ad nausem, that no one presented valid assertions is boring.

Obviously, the logic and common sense in that equation is lost on him.:laugh2:

Gunny
04-16-2007, 06:44 AM
Got that everyone, repost in one post. Gather them together, lc demands it. :stupid:

He's already derailed two threads on the topic. Now he wants to derail this thread with that topic, so he can derail that topic again.

Methinks loose has a little too much invested in claiming victory on message boards.:cuckoo:

Gunny
04-16-2007, 06:46 AM
We both know that you don't believe that.

Yeah he does.:cool:

Gunny
04-16-2007, 06:57 AM
You don't want a point by point refutation of how this works here at DP, do you?

It works the same way it used to work way back when. You don't get to be a nasty little asshole, then cry foul the second someone replies to you in kind; which, IIRC, was the same unequal standard you wished to apply elsewhere.



I'm hard pressed to buy into that allegation.

That's because you have that narrow viewpoint that anyone to the right of you is a "right winger," and Lord knows there's only one kind ... Bible thumping, abortion clinic bombing warmongers.:rolleyes:



The president condemned HER trip (but not the ones the republicans took) but he did not ask her not to go.



Negotiations means there were treaties that were discussed. Discussions of issues is just talk...literally. As the legally elected head of the legislative branch she is within her rights to talk to foreign leaders. The CIC sets policy but the Speaker may discuss that policy as she desires. She cannot countermand it (which she did not) or reverse it (which she also did not).

Your anger stems from the fact that congresscritters are no longer marching in lockstep to the drumbeats of Bush's neocon philosophy. Otherwise your condemnation would have extended to EVERY person that went to Syria, not just the Democratic ones.

The argument you make here was already splattered in the Pelosi thread. Why is it you "left-wingers" presume to believe every issue requires negative emotion? Calling a spade a spade requires none.

The precedding Congress was a joke. This Congress is an even bigger joke, and unlike the last one, a menace to society.

Oh, and my condemnation, in the Pelosi thread where it belongs, DOES include EVERYONE who made the trip. However, Pelosi hold the senior position. With more power comes more responsibility, and it is by that margin she is that much more responsible than any tag-alongs.

glockmail
04-16-2007, 07:57 AM
dream on.
OK. :coffee:

glockmail
04-16-2007, 07:58 AM
I'm a nazi? Or you mean LC? I'm referring to the Nazi who banned me "forever". :pee:

glockmail
04-16-2007, 07:59 AM
We both know that you don't believe that. Let me correct you: I believe that she has. :salute:

manu1959
04-16-2007, 10:06 AM
when people insult me as has happened at least 100 times today on this thread i will follow in suit.
Makes you look childish, rise above it

Really? yep

OK, so how does the principle relate to what you allege?

Did Bush ask her not to go? yes

On what authority? Executive power Did he have that right? yes

What if bush asked you to die for his cause? this not a question Would it be unethical to disobey? currently no as there is no civil service requirement or code of ethics concerning this

Bush took the same vow, did he break it or uphold it by asking Pelosi not to go? he was opperating within the law which sates authority must be granted prior to negotiating with foriegn leaders

Did she negotiate? yes Can you prove that? she said in her own press confrence that she had set aside her differences with the bush administration and was presenting the same posistion as the white house, she discussed hezbollah and israel and peace,
Did she need Bush's authorization? yes
Did she claim it was a fact finding mission? no

You can ignore all of the questions now, but i posted them to prepare you, in good faith for the eventuality that your claims will be questioned. Several are already specious. they are not claims, question all you want but to blindly ignor the symetrical argument to your own posistion would have you banned from the kerry klown brigade

But for now connect your allegations to the maxims you posted.
you have my answers, you will claim relativism, intent and that absolutes can not be proven....you know, like you can't actually see the sun set....

BTW so far you are miles above the other Rightwingers on the board, and yes you are abrightwinger manu. define right winger and prove i am one

53% of the nation wants bush impeached. can you prove this and on what charge 70% of the nation no longer identifies with the GOP or with Bush. i think you will be surpised in november
If you are still supporting bush you are far right. on certain issue you would be correct on certain issues you would be incorrect

so, let the camus counter argument begin....

loosecannon
04-16-2007, 12:13 PM
You don't want a point by point refutation of how this works here at DP, do you?



I'm hard pressed to buy into that allegation.



The president condemned HER trip (but not the ones the republicans took) but he did not ask her not to go.



Negotiations means there were treaties that were discussed. Discussions of issues is just talk...literally. As the legally elected head of the legislative branch she is within her rights to talk to foreign leaders. The CIC sets policy but the Speaker may discuss that policy as she desires. She cannot countermand it (which she did not) or reverse it (which she also did not).

Your anger stems from the fact that congresscritters are no longer marching in lockstep to the drumbeats of Bush's neocon philosophy. Otherwise your condemnation would have extended to EVERY person that went to Syria, not just the Democratic ones.

BINGO!!!!!!!!!!

We have a winner.

loosecannon
04-16-2007, 12:17 PM
Obviously, however great you consider your intellect to be, simple reading and comprehension is above and beyond wherever that may be.

Insult, adhominem, lies


This is not the Pelosi thread. There are currently two, both of which you derailed with your intellectually dishonest literalism and relativist BS to try to say something is not what it is. .

Insult, adhominem, lies



Just as you have done in this thread, where you decided to chime in try to say an insult by implication is not an insult. .

Insult, adhominem, lies


I'm not sure whether or not I am impressed, or just think you're a complete loon that you have gone one step further than any other poster I've ever come across and attempted to use the same tactics to defend using them.[/QUOTE]



Insult, adhominem, lies

You can't present a case against pelosi because it is a vacant allegation.

You can't argue intellectually honestly. Manu has to do it for you.

You are too small to admit being wrong or that your allegation is just your unfounded opinion.

Bushbots are loons.

loosecannon
04-16-2007, 12:17 PM
Methinks loose has a little too much invested in claiming victory on message boards.:cuckoo:

"I am in to win"

loosecannon
04-16-2007, 12:19 PM
so, let the camus counter argument begin....


OK, excellent post.

I will have to wait till much later today before i have time to address it.

But bravo for the effort.

Gunny
04-16-2007, 01:38 PM
"I am in to win"

Be sure and let me know if and when you ever do. I'll wager ahead of time it won't be by honest means, but rather the ignorance of your opponent to your less than honest tactics.

glockmail
04-16-2007, 02:03 PM
Insult, adhominem, lies

.....

Thin skinned? :laugh2:

OCA
04-16-2007, 04:08 PM
Insult, adhominem, lies



Insult, adhominem, lies




Insult, adhominem, lies


I'm not sure whether or not I am impressed, or just think you're a complete loon that you have gone one step further than any other poster I've ever come across and attempted to use the same tactics to defend using them.



Insult, adhominem, lies

You can't present a case against pelosi because it is a vacant allegation.

You can't argue intellectually honestly. Manu has to do it for you.

You are too small to admit being wrong or that your allegation is just your unfounded opinion.

Bushbots are loons.[/QUOTE]

Ad hominem is Douche Rammin's ONLY tactic, funny that he bitches about it.:laugh2:

Gunny
04-16-2007, 04:16 PM
Insult, adhominem, lies

You can't present a case against pelosi because it is a vacant allegation.

You can't argue intellectually honestly. Manu has to do it for you.

You are too small to admit being wrong or that your allegation is just your unfounded opinion.

Bushbots are loons.

Ad hominem is Douche Rammin's ONLY tactic, funny that he bitches about it.:laugh2:[/QUOTE]

He's the type that if you broke both his arms and legs and beat to an unregnizeable pulp, and was standing over the puddle you made of him, would ask if you give up.:laugh2:

manu1959
04-16-2007, 04:18 PM
Ad hominem is Douche Rammin's ONLY tactic, funny that he bitches about it.:laugh2:

He's the type that if you broke both his arms and legs and beat to an unregnizeable pulp, and was standing over the puddle you made of him, would ask if you give up.:laugh2:[/QUOTE]

ever see the black knight from monty python?

Gunny
04-16-2007, 04:45 PM
He's the type that if you broke both his arms and legs and beat to an unregnizeable pulp, and was standing over the puddle you made of him, would ask if you give up.:laugh2:

ever see the black knight from monty python?[/QUOTE]

I thought i recognized this guy.:laugh2:

typomaniac
04-16-2007, 04:50 PM
Ad hominem is Douche Rammin's ONLY tactic...:lame2:

OCA
04-16-2007, 04:54 PM
:lame2:


Unable to refute that Douche Rammin's only tactic is the ad hominem?

The smilie was cute, kind of like grunting.

Gunny
04-16-2007, 05:00 PM
Unable to refute that Douche Rammin's only tactic is the ad hominem?

The smilie was cute, kind of like grunting.

When you get done owning these fuckers, how are you going to fit all their names under your ID?:poke:

typomaniac
04-16-2007, 05:33 PM
Unable to refute that Douche Rammin's only tactic is the ad hominem?I don't read all his posts; I have a life. :p


The smilie was cute, kind of like grunting.Just making sure you could understand me. :pee:

loosecannon
04-16-2007, 06:03 PM
Be sure and let me know if and when you ever do. I'll wager ahead of time it won't be by honest means, but rather the ignorance of your opponent to your less than honest tactics.

You keep posting these lies because you are too ashamed to admit that you were posting opinions not facts.

You really are a lame assed poser Gunny, I am losing all respect for you.

It takes an average sized man to admit being wrong.

loosecannon
04-16-2007, 06:11 PM
Thin skinned? :laugh2:

Not at all, This thread has turned into a two fer.

An unabashed demonstration of the rights ad hominem approach and a bitch fest about the left attacking them.

I don't mind going straight to blows especially with mental midgets like OCA and Gunny.

But the thread started out with some rightwads complaining about how the left was beating the shit outta the right with cruelty.

MtnBiker
04-16-2007, 06:26 PM
But the thread started out with some rightwads complaining about how the left was beating the shit outta the right with cruelty.

No the thread was started by the owner of the board asking for all members to show general courtesy toward one another.


There has been a lot of animosity on the board lately, and quite a few otherwise good threads have deteriorated into name calling flamefests. I would appreciate it if everyone would try to take a step back, and try to be a little more civil in our posts. You can despise another poster and totally disagree with their beliefs, and still debate without getting too personal.

This is directed at no one in particular, whether individuals, or libs or cons. If you feel the need to get something off your chest, go to the steel cage section. Please don't sideswipe good threads by committing endless attacks on one another. Please try to stay on topic as best as possible. Sarcasm will always rear it's face, but the low blow personal attacks are going a bit far lately.

I have asked mods to monitor the situation. Anyone being disruptive in this manner consistently will receive a warning via PM. Should they continue being disruptive, they will be given a 24hr timeout.

There's a time and place for everything. Debate in appropriate threads, and place your attacks in the steel cage if you feel you must.

Thanks!

OCA
04-16-2007, 07:07 PM
Not at all, This thread has turned into a two fer.

An unabashed demonstration of the rights ad hominem approach and a bitch fest about the left attacking them.

I don't mind going straight to blows especially with mental midgets like OCA and Gunny.

But the thread started out with some rightwads complaining about how the left was beating the shit outta the right with cruelty.


Loose, go through this and the various threads you've gotten involved in, you've been ass pounded by just about everyone here, hell even Biker is taking a bite out of your ass now!

Get a grip, give up!

shattered
04-16-2007, 07:46 PM
About time this stupid thread made it down here.

Gunny
04-16-2007, 08:03 PM
You keep posting these lies because you are too ashamed to admit that you were posting opinions not facts.

You really are a lame assed poser Gunny, I am losing all respect for you.

It takes an average sized man to admit being wrong.

I'm not an average-sized man, so that problem is solved.

Your respect for me means nothing. The second it became clear that you would use whatever means necessary, to include intellectual dishonesty, in order to pacify your overblown ego and claim a false victory, I quit bothering to post an honest, fact-based argument over and over again.

The word "pointless" is another word that has meaning, and it applies quite well to attempting to debate in good faith with you.

I don't lie, nor do I post dishonest arguments. I have done my best to refrain from using the same crude tactics as you, but the fact of the matter is, you are the liar, and you haven't won shit but a good deal of contempt.

Gunny
04-16-2007, 08:05 PM
Not at all, This thread has turned into a two fer.

An unabashed demonstration of the rights ad hominem approach and a bitch fest about the left attacking them.

I don't mind going straight to blows especially with mental midgets like OCA and Gunny.

But the thread started out with some rightwads complaining about how the left was beating the shit outta the right with cruelty.

From what I've seen of you, you'd be hard-pressed to take any of us if we purposefully threw the argument, Black Knight.

What's to complain about? You think nobody's noticed you're an arrogant and mannerless jackass? Probably the same as your arrogance refuses to allow you to see the transparency of your fallacious arguments.

Gadget (fmr Marine)
04-16-2007, 08:55 PM
Intelligent discourse?

I resemble that!

loosecannon
04-16-2007, 10:20 PM
Loose, go through this and the various threads you've gotten involved in, you've been ass pounded by just about everyone here, hell even Biker is taking a bite out of your ass now!

Get a grip, give up!

OCA, pathetic little nothing.

You can't pound ass. You imagione that you can pound ass. You imagine yourself a big dog.

You are a tiny poodle.

GWB pretends to be moral, a christian, and honest. I can see the similarity tween you two.

loosecannon
04-16-2007, 10:23 PM
The second it became clear that Gunny would use whatever means necessary, to include intellectual dishonesty, in order to pacify his overblown ego and claim a false victory

Reality





I quit bothering to post an honest, fact-based argument.

At least you finally own up to it.

lily
04-16-2007, 10:24 PM
There has been a lot of animosity on the board lately, and quite a few otherwise good threads have deteriorated into name calling flamefests. I would appreciate it if everyone would try to take a step back, and try to be a little more civil in our posts. You can despise another poster and totally disagree with their beliefs, and still debate without getting too personal.

This is directed at no one in particular, whether individuals, or libs or cons. If you feel the need to get something off your chest, go to the steel cage section. Please don't sideswipe good threads by committing endless attacks on one another. Please try to stay on topic as best as possible. Sarcasm will always rear it's face, but the low blow personal attacks are going a bit far lately.

I have asked mods to monitor the situation. Anyone being disruptive in this manner consistently will receive a warning via PM. Should they continue being disruptive, they will be given a 24hr timeout.

There's a time and place for everything. Debate in appropriate threads, and place your attacks in the steel cage if you feel you must.

Thanks!

Thank you!

Gunny
04-16-2007, 10:26 PM
Thank you!

:lmao:

loosecannon
04-16-2007, 10:30 PM
From what I've seen of you, you'd be hard-pressed to take any of us if we purposefully threw the argument, Black Knight.

What's to complain about? You think nobody's noticed you're an arrogant and mannerless jackass? Probably the same as your arrogance refuses to allow you to see the transparency of your fallacious arguments.

But Ginny, YOU are arrogant, fallacious, mannerless, and transparent.

Just read your own posts^.

You are also intellectually dishonest, hypocritical, neck deep in false pride that prevents you from admitting that you post opinions not fact, and a Bushbot.

You are also a small man, as you admitted, too small to admit being wrong when proven wrong.

And you make a board livelihood claiming false victory.

Why don't you cut the bullshit and present a case for what you allege Mr hypocrite.

Save yourself the eternal embarrasment of being called on this in every single thread. Forever.

If you have the case you pretend to have, post it.

Don't make Manu do your work for you.

Or are you afraid of being shown up?

Are you skeered of being shown up Gunny?

Gunny
04-16-2007, 10:30 PM
Reality






At least you finally own up to it.

Guess the dishonesty from you just doesn't end, does it? I guess it's too bad you can't go into my original post and edit it, huh? That's about your style.

loosecannon
04-16-2007, 10:46 PM
Guess the dishonesty from you just doesn't end, does it? I guess it's too bad you can't go into my original post and edit it, huh? That's about your style.


That's pretty funny coming from you.
At least the way i edited made it true, whereas the way you posted it was a bald faced lie.

Why are you afraid to tell the truth Gunny. Everyone on the board can see that you refuse to admit that you post opinions not facts.

Why can't you support your allegations? I mean manu can. Why can't you?

How come everytime I kick your ass in debate you pretend i was dishonest while you are lying out your ass?

Sucks to be a lying fool like Gunny.

Gunny
04-17-2007, 05:38 AM
But Ginny, YOU are arrogant, fallacious, mannerless, and transparent.

Where you are concerned ... arrogant and mannerless would certainly apply. You had to earn it.

I have absolutely no problem with being transparent. Unlike you, I'm not trying to hide anything behind a bunch of blustering bullshit.

Oh ... and there ain't a damned thing fake about me.

Just read your own posts^.

You are also intellectually dishonest, hypocritical, neck deep in false pride that prevents you from admitting that you post opinions not fact, and a Bushbot.

Unsubstantiated bullshit.

You are also a small man, as you admitted, too small to admit being wrong when proven wrong.

I don't recall I EVER said a thing about being small. I just said I wasn't average size.

And you make a board livelihood claiming false victory.

Au contrare ...claiming victory is YOUR gig. I've rarely done it at all, and in each case, it's been with someone like you who just refuses to admit defeat, a difference of opinion, and/or just let it go.

I don't feel the need to claim the obvious.

Why don't you cut the bullshit and present a case for what you allege Mr hypocrite.

I presented my case numerous times over quite a few pages. You could not honestly refute it even once. End of story.

Save yourself the eternal embarrasment of being called on this in every single thread. Forever.

I suggest you review your tactic. One, I'm not embarrassed. You on the other hand have made quite the fool of yourself, and put on display for any-and-everyone to see, the lengths you are willing to go to claim a victory you have yet to earn.

It is however quite obvious that in your desperation you are quite willing to derail every thread you participate in. This one being a prime example. It got moved. I doubt your disrupting the board in such a manner will be tolerated indefinitely.

If you have the case you pretend to have, post it.

It's all over the Pelosi thread ... imagine THAT. Feel free to review it.

Don't make Manu do your work for you.

Manu doesn't do my work for me. Manu does Manu's work, and I do mine. Obviously, pcikin's are slim if he's willing to continue patronizing you. I am not.
Or are you afraid of being shown up?

Are you skeered of being shown up Gunny?

Not by you.

Gunny
04-17-2007, 05:54 AM
That's pretty funny coming from you.
At least the way i edited made it true, whereas the way you posted it was a bald faced lie.

What you did was make obvious what you usually try to hide behind a bunch of bluster ... the fact that you are willing to twist or change any-and-everything to suit whatever fantasy you are trying to sell.

Why are you afraid to tell the truth Gunny. Everyone on the board can see that you refuse to admit that you post opinions not facts.

"Everyone on the board?" You mean the few partisan hacks who'd agree with you just to disagree with me, don't you? Just more of your baseless, wishful thinking.

Why can't you support your allegations? I mean manu can. Why can't you?

Been there done that. It isn't a matter of supporting allegations anymore. It's a matter of repeating the same supported allegations ad nauseum; which, you cannot refute, but refuse to accept.
How come everytime I kick your ass in debate you pretend i was dishonest while you are lying out your ass?

Sucks to be a lying fool like Gunny.

Pretty damned-simple, not to mention obvious. Your arguments are dishonest. You haven't, and won't kick anything here but continue kicking your own ass until you present an honest argument.

So long as people like your delusional ass exist and are in evidence, it'll never suck to be me. People can't help but feel good about themselves after crossing paths with such a petty, delusional, arrogant and insufferable ass such as yourself.

Sitarro
04-17-2007, 10:48 AM
Everyone on the board can see that you refuse to admit that you post opinions not facts.



Hey Loosebowels,
Judging from rep points alone this statement would be just a bit incorrect. Gunny is easily one of the most even tempered, least frazzled, well liked and respected, respectfully correct and knowledgeable posters I have seen on any messageboard.

On the other hand, you have come here and immediately become one of the least honest, talking point posters with O respect for anyone that isn't in total agreement with your spewing of anti-American crap. The board IQ went down when you joined and I feel that you are a total waste of time. I don't put people on ignore but I will not give any of your post a second thought.:fu:

It is obvious that you just don't like anyone who isn't a pussy so you should probably go back to your friends at DU.:upyours:

lily
04-17-2007, 11:10 AM
It is obvious that you just don't like anyone who isn't a pussy so you should probably go back to your friends at DU.:upyours:

This seems to be the standard "advice" the right likes to hand out......yet they refuse to see that they want forums to be run like Free Republic. I've read posts here saying we were here first, go back where you came from, ect. so it appears to me that you want this to be just like it was before. No one disagreeing or showing the other side of the coin. Thankfully the owner of the site isn't as short sided as some of the posters and wants to see the forum grow.

krisy
04-17-2007, 11:24 AM
This seems to be the standard "advice" the right likes to hand out......yet they refuse to see that they want forums to be run like Free Republic. I've read posts here saying we were here first, go back where you came from, ect. so it appears to me that you want this to be just like it was before. No one disagreeing or showing the other side of the coin. Thankfully the owner of the site isn't as short sided as some of the posters and wants to see the forum grow.


There has always been posters from the other side here. It makes for better debate,no doubt.

However the poster that Sitarro is talking to seems to have anger issues and connot make a post without calling names and cursing. Yes,others call names at times,but this guy is well,a TEENCY bit overboard.:laugh2:

Sitarro
04-17-2007, 11:38 AM
There has always been posters from the other side here. It makes for better debate,no doubt.

However the poster that Sitarro is talking to seems to have anger issues and connot make a post without calling names and cursing. Yes,others call names at times,but this guy is well,a TEENCY bit overboard.:laugh2:

That is exactly what I was talking about, I am certainly not guiltless when it comes to playing with names and getting pissed but I at least try to give my opinion rather than the standard party line. What struck me was the load of crap this person is giving Gunny. He certainly doesn't need my help but I couldn't sit back any longer reading loose's bullshit.

glockmail
04-17-2007, 11:42 AM
Thank you!


....Thankfully the owner of the site isn't as short sided as some of the posters and wants to see the forum grow.

Ass kisser. :slap:

lily
04-17-2007, 11:43 AM
There has always been posters from the other side here. It makes for better debate,no doubt.

Well, obviously I wasn't here when those posters from the other side of the political spectrum were here. What happend to them?

krisy
04-17-2007, 11:44 AM
That is exactly what I was talking about, I am certainly not guiltless when it comes to playing with names and getting pissed but I at least try to give my opinion rather than the standard party line. What struck me was the load of crap this person is giving Gunny. He certainly doesn't need my help but I couldn't sit back any longer reading loose's bullshit.

No doubt. If I didn't know any better,I would think he is Michael Moore.......you never know:coffee:

Roomy
04-17-2007, 11:45 AM
That is exactly what I was talking about, I am certainly not guiltless when it comes to playing with names and getting pissed but I at least try to give my opinion rather than the standard party line. What struck me was the load of crap this person is giving Gunny. He certainly doesn't need my help but I couldn't sit back any longer reading loose's bullshit.


Gunny likes it and he doesn't need a two bit tosspot like you licking his ball bag.:laugh2:

glockmail
04-17-2007, 11:49 AM
No doubt. If I didn't know any better,I would think he is Michael Moore.......you never know:coffee: Can't be. Moore's fingers are too fat to type on a keyboard. :laugh2:

lily
04-17-2007, 12:06 PM
Ass kisser. :slap:

If you say so.........doesn't change the fact that I can appreciate where the owner of this site is trying to go with it.

Sitarro
04-17-2007, 12:06 PM
Gunny likes it and he doesn't need a two bit tosspot like you licking his ball bag.:laugh2:

You're not all that intelligent are you Roomy?

glockmail
04-17-2007, 12:15 PM
If you say so.........doesn't change the fact that I can appreciate where the owner of this site is trying to go with it. Not going to go there. :laugh2:

Roomy
04-17-2007, 12:31 PM
You're not all that intelligent are you Roomy?

Have I ever pretended to be?:laugh2:

Sitarro
04-17-2007, 01:37 PM
Have I ever pretended to be?:laugh2:

Guess I'll give you that, good one.:laugh2:

typomaniac
04-17-2007, 04:02 PM
By the way,


Gunny is easily one of the most even tempered, least frazzled, well liked and respected, respectfully correct and knowledgeable posters I have seen on any messageboard.You don't get out much, do you? :lol: