Would you care to cite some sources to back up your claim that I, as you put it (and I'll get to the heart of this later in this post), "won't"? Like so many of your claims, it seems that your response to me here is designed with no other purpose than to get a rise out of your opponent--to troll, as it were. Even more striking here is your use of the word "you"--notably the only pronoun in your phallically short response to me.
"You" of course serves a dual function: first, you are clearly relying on the ambiguity of the pronoun itself. Do you mean me as an individual? Or do you mean "you" as in "all you maggot-infest pinko commie liberal eggheads"? I can only infer that it is the latter.
Second, of course, it is a failed attempt at a clever play on the homonyms "you" and "ewe"--clearly an attempt to associate me with a female sheep and thereby infer that my support of women's rights and all my other maggot-infested pinko liberal commie notions render me, essentially, a thoughtless coward.
Finally, your use of "won't" is clearly indicative of a neo-fascistic desire to silence me. Indeed, had you meant that arguing with a brick wall is something I am not prone to do, you would have said "don't." Your use of "won't" with reference to my behavior, however, functions as an order, not a description.
Cheers
Scott
Edit: I really wanted to end this post with "bite me," but Fellows said I'd be banned if I told you to bite me, so just imagine that I did say "bite me" there at the end.
Would you care to cite some sources to back up your claim that I, as you put it (and I'll get to the heart of this later in this post), "won't"? Like so many of your claims, it seems that your response to me here is designed with no other purpose than to get a rise out of your opponent--to troll, as it were. Even more striking here is your use of the word "you"--notably the only pronoun in your phallically short response to me.
Oh I'll gladly support my claim about you and arguing with a brick wall.
Take a look at this little linky I got via Google.
www.bangyourhead.com
Quote:
Scott ?midwinter? bin Abdul Aziz, is often known to argue with walls of all persuasions. He has been seen attempting arguments with stucco, brick, wood, and tin siding. Sources say such dimwitted arguments are actually an attempt to ?bomb? said buildings with words. Thus allowing him to soothe is shallow ego and commit terrorist attacks at the same time.
Next we have this little ditty...
Quote:
"You" of course serves a dual function: first, you are clearly relying on the ambiguity of the pronoun itself. Do you mean me as an individual? Or do you mean "you" as in "all you maggot-infest pinko commie liberal eggheads"? I can only infer that it is the latter.
How dare you associate maggot-infested pinko commie liberals with the word egghead. Obviously it is an attempt to award intelligence where obviously there is none. Thanks for attempting to take my word "you." Which meant the former and hijacking it (of course you would hijack it you terrorist) to attempt to give yourself intelligence where none is due.
Quote:
Second, of course, it is a failed attempt at a clever play on the homonyms "you" and "ewe"--clearly an attempt to associate me with a female sheep and thereby infer that my support of women's rights and all my other maggot-infested pinko liberal commie notions render me, essentially, a thoughtless coward.
By "ewe" I did not attempt to associate you the women's rights movements. While you are indeed a thoughtless coward (stop trying to get us to think of you as an "egghead" it won't work.) I really was attempting to make others aware of your sexual preferences. Obviously being an "animal lover" such as yourself, I would have to alert others via code words of your support for homosexual, trisexual, quadrisexual, and many other sexual rights and unions.
Quote:
Finally, your use of "won't" is clearly indicative of a neo-fascistic desire to silence me. Indeed, had you meant that arguing with a brick wall is something I am not prone to do, you would have said "don't." Your use of "won't" with reference to my behavior, however, functions as an order, not a description.
How little you know...
Don't go partially quoting me in order to twist my words. (and no that isn't a command either) Instead I was attempting to phrase the reply in a manner reminiscent to the centrally planned and run economy you so desire. If I had simply made a statement, you would have accused me of leaving it to market forces and of hating the poor, needy and elderly as well. I had no CHOICE but to use an authoritative tone in an attempt to reflect your worldview. If I reflected any other world view you would vilify me. Sad that you, a person who claims to support choice can only choose one worldview to respond to.
Nick
P.S. I'm not going to imagine you saying "bite me." It is just an attempt by you to put homo-erotic imagery in my head, likely in an attempt to get me to run off to Mass. and marry you.
I'm not overheated, but I'm still glad it happened. Maybe now we can show the mods clearly what is happening around here. People are personalizing disagreements to the point that ll they can do is demonize and attack each other.
You don't have to laugh or cry. Some temp bans should clear up this problem quite well lets look at it up close.
Some people here know how to derail threads without breaking any rules. They just know how to press the right button.
Banning will be just a way to select the less skilled trolls.
Any attempt of manipulation of mods is doomed to failure
A lot of people on here seem to either be students or young enough in their life that they haven't left the service sector grind yet. In some ways, the nature of their world makes it easy for them to disagree with me. But someday that world will change for them. They will get older, more accomplished, and be better off.
...Those types of posts should get people warned and then temp banned. Not agreeing with an idea, even strongly, does not require personally disparaging the poster.
If ya don't want to talk about how you are or are not older, more educated or more advanced in your career than others on AO there's a really simple solution: don't talk about it.
People that disagree with me are just young kids with McJobs. If anyone replies to any part of this statement, they should be temp banned for personally attacking me.
You only imagined it was female because you are homophonic and homophobic.
Nick
Then why oh why would you say this:
Quote:
By "ewe" I . . . was attempting to make others aware of your sexual preferences. Obviously being an "animal lover" such as yourself, I would have to alert others via code words of your support for homosexual, trisexual, quadrisexual, and many other sexual rights and unions.
Unless, of course, when you say "being an 'animal lover' such as yourself" you are actually admitting your own bestial proclivities? So which is it, Nick? Were you lying before, or are you a closeted beast-lover?
Unless, of course, when you say "being an 'animal lover' such as yourself" you are actually admitting your own bestial proclivities? So which is it, Nick? Were you lying before, or are you a closeted beast-lover?
There you go. Typical conservative tactic: dodge the question. Why don't you answer the question? Were you lying, or are you a closeted beast-lover? I can, of course, only respond to by further derailing the discussion by attacking your tactics themselves. Indeed, by trying to impugn my character (i.e. describing me as a "beast"--and therefore brutish, animal, and of course, thoughtless) you have engaged in an obvious ad hominim attack, to which I am obligated to respond by claiming the moral high ground: such tactics are beneath you, Nick.
There you go. Typical conservative tactic: dodge the question. Why don't you answer the question? Were you lying, or are you a closeted beast-lover? I can, of course, only respond to by further derailing the discussion by attacking your tactics themselves. Indeed, by trying to impugn my character (i.e. describing me as a "beast"--and therefore brutish, animal, and of course, thoughtless) you have engaged in an obvious ad hominim attack, to which I am obligated to respond by claiming the moral high ground: such tactics are beneath you, Nick.
Cheers
Scott
God you're cute when you're angry. I'm going to smack you up, flip you and rub you down.
I didn't see/haven't seen Powerdoc's post about Presidential posts, but why? I haven't noticed many problems around here as of late. It's been mostly tame.
(To everyone else not involved in the little spat)
What's disgustingly ironic is that they have no clue what they're doing. They don't realize that they started -- and have continued -- an argument based on the discussion of the current problems in AO of which their argument is a perfect example.
Do you think they don't realize it or they just don't care?
(To everyone else not involved in the little spat)
What's disgustingly ironic is that they have no clue what they're doing. They don't realize that they started -- and have continued -- an argument based on the discussion of the current problems in AO of which their argument is a perfect example.
Do you think they don't realize it or they just don't care?
Midwinter and Trumptman, although TRYING WAY TOO HARD , are really just joking-- honestly.
I didn't see/haven't seen Powerdoc's post about Presidential posts, but why? I haven't noticed many problems around here as of late. It's been mostly tame.
Comments
Originally posted by trumptman
No you won't.
Nick
Would you care to cite some sources to back up your claim that I, as you put it (and I'll get to the heart of this later in this post), "won't"? Like so many of your claims, it seems that your response to me here is designed with no other purpose than to get a rise out of your opponent--to troll, as it were. Even more striking here is your use of the word "you"--notably the only pronoun in your phallically short response to me.
"You" of course serves a dual function: first, you are clearly relying on the ambiguity of the pronoun itself. Do you mean me as an individual? Or do you mean "you" as in "all you maggot-infest pinko commie liberal eggheads"? I can only infer that it is the latter.
Second, of course, it is a failed attempt at a clever play on the homonyms "you" and "ewe"--clearly an attempt to associate me with a female sheep and thereby infer that my support of women's rights and all my other maggot-infested pinko liberal commie notions render me, essentially, a thoughtless coward.
Finally, your use of "won't" is clearly indicative of a neo-fascistic desire to silence me. Indeed, had you meant that arguing with a brick wall is something I am not prone to do, you would have said "don't." Your use of "won't" with reference to my behavior, however, functions as an order, not a description.
Cheers
Scott
Edit: I really wanted to end this post with "bite me," but Fellows said I'd be banned if I told you to bite me, so just imagine that I did say "bite me" there at the end.
Originally posted by midwinter
Would you care to cite some sources to back up your claim that I, as you put it (and I'll get to the heart of this later in this post), "won't"? Like so many of your claims, it seems that your response to me here is designed with no other purpose than to get a rise out of your opponent--to troll, as it were. Even more striking here is your use of the word "you"--notably the only pronoun in your phallically short response to me.
Oh I'll gladly support my claim about you and arguing with a brick wall.
Take a look at this little linky I got via Google.
www.bangyourhead.com
Scott ?midwinter? bin Abdul Aziz, is often known to argue with walls of all persuasions. He has been seen attempting arguments with stucco, brick, wood, and tin siding. Sources say such dimwitted arguments are actually an attempt to ?bomb? said buildings with words. Thus allowing him to soothe is shallow ego and commit terrorist attacks at the same time.
Next we have this little ditty...
"You" of course serves a dual function: first, you are clearly relying on the ambiguity of the pronoun itself. Do you mean me as an individual? Or do you mean "you" as in "all you maggot-infest pinko commie liberal eggheads"? I can only infer that it is the latter.
How dare you associate maggot-infested pinko commie liberals with the word egghead. Obviously it is an attempt to award intelligence where obviously there is none. Thanks for attempting to take my word "you." Which meant the former and hijacking it (of course you would hijack it you terrorist) to attempt to give yourself intelligence where none is due.
Second, of course, it is a failed attempt at a clever play on the homonyms "you" and "ewe"--clearly an attempt to associate me with a female sheep and thereby infer that my support of women's rights and all my other maggot-infested pinko liberal commie notions render me, essentially, a thoughtless coward.
By "ewe" I did not attempt to associate you the women's rights movements. While you are indeed a thoughtless coward (stop trying to get us to think of you as an "egghead" it won't work.) I really was attempting to make others aware of your sexual preferences. Obviously being an "animal lover" such as yourself, I would have to alert others via code words of your support for homosexual, trisexual, quadrisexual, and many other sexual rights and unions.
Finally, your use of "won't" is clearly indicative of a neo-fascistic desire to silence me. Indeed, had you meant that arguing with a brick wall is something I am not prone to do, you would have said "don't." Your use of "won't" with reference to my behavior, however, functions as an order, not a description.
How little you know...
Don't go partially quoting me in order to twist my words. (and no that isn't a command either) Instead I was attempting to phrase the reply in a manner reminiscent to the centrally planned and run economy you so desire. If I had simply made a statement, you would have accused me of leaving it to market forces and of hating the poor, needy and elderly as well. I had no CHOICE but to use an authoritative tone in an attempt to reflect your worldview. If I reflected any other world view you would vilify me. Sad that you, a person who claims to support choice can only choose one worldview to respond to.
Nick
P.S. I'm not going to imagine you saying "bite me." It is just an attempt by you to put homo-erotic imagery in my head, likely in an attempt to get me to run off to Mass. and marry you.
Scott still has you beat though...
Originally posted by trumptman
I'm not overheated, but I'm still glad it happened. Maybe now we can show the mods clearly what is happening around here. People are personalizing disagreements to the point that ll they can do is demonize and attack each other.
You don't have to laugh or cry. Some temp bans should clear up this problem quite well lets look at it up close.
Some people here know how to derail threads without breaking any rules. They just know how to press the right button.
Banning will be just a way to select the less skilled trolls.
Any attempt of manipulation of mods is doomed to failure
Originally posted by trumptman
A lot of people on here seem to either be students or young enough in their life that they haven't left the service sector grind yet. In some ways, the nature of their world makes it easy for them to disagree with me. But someday that world will change for them. They will get older, more accomplished, and be better off.
...Those types of posts should get people warned and then temp banned. Not agreeing with an idea, even strongly, does not require personally disparaging the poster.
If ya don't want to talk about how you are or are not older, more educated or more advanced in your career than others on AO there's a really simple solution: don't talk about it.
People that disagree with me are just young kids with McJobs. If anyone replies to any part of this statement, they should be temp banned for personally attacking me.
I know what I think.
Originally posted by New
ok, Re-read the thread and tell me where and how it turned into a personal argument.
I know what I think.
When Nick tried to associate me with some female sheep-lovin'
Originally posted by midwinter
When Nick tried to associate me with some female sheep-lovin'
You only imagined it was female because you are homophonic and homophobic.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
You only imagined it was female because you are homophonic and homophobic.
Nick
Then why oh why would you say this:
By "ewe" I . . . was attempting to make others aware of your sexual preferences. Obviously being an "animal lover" such as yourself, I would have to alert others via code words of your support for homosexual, trisexual, quadrisexual, and many other sexual rights and unions.
Unless, of course, when you say "being an 'animal lover' such as yourself" you are actually admitting your own bestial proclivities? So which is it, Nick? Were you lying before, or are you a closeted beast-lover?
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by midwinter
Then why oh why would you say this:
Unless, of course, when you say "being an 'animal lover' such as yourself" you are actually admitting your own bestial proclivities? So which is it, Nick? Were you lying before, or are you a closeted beast-lover?
Cheers
Scott
Scott,
You are the only beast of a man I love.
Nick
Originally posted by johnq
It'll be time to shut it down the day I hear Carol say "blow me!!!"
Dear John,
I promise I will never say...er...what 'you' said.
Love,
Carol
Originally posted by trumptman
Scott,
You are the only beast of a man I love.
Nick
There you go. Typical conservative tactic: dodge the question. Why don't you answer the question? Were you lying, or are you a closeted beast-lover? I can, of course, only respond to by further derailing the discussion by attacking your tactics themselves. Indeed, by trying to impugn my character (i.e. describing me as a "beast"--and therefore brutish, animal, and of course, thoughtless) you have engaged in an obvious ad hominim attack, to which I am obligated to respond by claiming the moral high ground: such tactics are beneath you, Nick.
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by midwinter
There you go. Typical conservative tactic: dodge the question. Why don't you answer the question? Were you lying, or are you a closeted beast-lover? I can, of course, only respond to by further derailing the discussion by attacking your tactics themselves. Indeed, by trying to impugn my character (i.e. describing me as a "beast"--and therefore brutish, animal, and of course, thoughtless) you have engaged in an obvious ad hominim attack, to which I am obligated to respond by claiming the moral high ground: such tactics are beneath you, Nick.
Cheers
Scott
God you're cute when you're angry. I'm going to smack you up, flip you and rub you down.
Nick
What's disgustingly ironic is that they have no clue what they're doing. They don't realize that they started -- and have continued -- an argument based on the discussion of the current problems in AO of which their argument is a perfect example.
Do you think they don't realize it or they just don't care?
Originally posted by CosmoNut
(To everyone else not involved in the little spat)
What's disgustingly ironic is that they have no clue what they're doing. They don't realize that they started -- and have continued -- an argument based on the discussion of the current problems in AO of which their argument is a perfect example.
Do you think they don't realize it or they just don't care?
Midwinter and Trumptman, although TRYING WAY TOO HARD
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Midwinter and Trumptman, although TRYING WAY TOO HARD
If you want some smacked up, flipped, and rubbing it down loving too Shawn, then you'll have to go back to bunge's attic.
Nick
Originally posted by bunge
I didn't see/haven't seen Powerdoc's post about Presidential posts, but why? I haven't noticed many problems around here as of late. It's been mostly tame.
Well . . . . I've been gone . . .
But I'm back now . . . .
or, er, will be tomorrow . . . probably.
I know you can't wait . . .