If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Where did you get it from though?
I don't recall telling you my personal (nick)name and don't have you on lj either. So kind of puzzled, how you'd know.
Eiher way, why? Because variation never hurt anyone. Especially not on these forums.
While you got angry and whined about Heydrichs views (reported them as well?) I sent the mods a message actually asking them not to ban him. That is while he was spiting some very harsh and racistic views, among those about blacks, Jews and immigrants. Me being 2 out of the 3 above-mentioned.
Would rather know what people like him think, than it coming to me as a shock.
Heydrich and Globe can't be compared apart from the fact that they both have views concidered controversial for most here. That is something which breaks the monotonous tone in here, and which gives a greater perspective and which helps most in the long run.
For the record, I have only offered Globe to create an account for him. The rest are first-time users.
Better to have those who will give the alternative view.
What is the point of a discussion forum if everyone agrees before the issue is put to debate?
mIRC :yes: And no, i have never spoken to you directly
And do you really need racist opinion laid out for you on a forum to know they exist? And I was more shocked by Heydrich saying what he said than meeting any British National Party follower, and having them hurling abuse at me, and other "coloured" people.
We all know they exist. But I also need to know what these opinions consist of, for me to make a valid argument against them.
As the saying goes "keep your friends close, but keep your enemies closer".
I really don't agree with the banning of Heydrich. And should it come to it, then yes, I'd even make a new account for him as well.
It only worked though if the person was willing to engage seriously and not just resort to insults.
Oh the maturity
Don't let it get your blood pressure up. If there are any further points of substance just raise them and the conversation will resume of its own accord quite naturally.
Subtle or blatant, personal attacks are personal attacks and not the stuff of intellectually stimulating discussion.
Fortunately most of the posters on these boards are able to realise that Clan. Those who don't will find themselves banned.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black... :rolleyes:
Ever actually read any of your posts? You cannot respond without the "Neo-con" or "Bush-bot" commentary. Aladdin cannot respond without resorting to hold up Ann Coulter. And your little "horatio" character cannot respond without reference to "Nazi"...
If you were judged by the same standard as I? You would have been gone before the Thanatos persona was banned...
However...
It has been preferable to some of the many moderators to squelch the dissenting perspective, rather than administer equally.
Greenhat left to allow you your position at the head of the circle jerk, so that you might have your "meaningful dialogue" all to yourselves.
And to those who believe that Jacqueline assisted my return as a response to the opine for a token neo-con, to bring ANYTHING other than your boorish and boring circle jerk to the table... check my registration date. All you must do is shift eyes to the left column. ManOfKent knew of my return in January, and the collaborator/enabler not long after.
But then... when did reality ever take precedence over an ignorance based prejudice?
I have yet to see a single post of yours since you and Greeny (and the long lost "Reverse") first began to assail posters here with substanceless personal bashing and hate-filled labels, which merely focuses on the issues rather than the poster him or herself.
One need only examine the majority of threads at military.com to see the standard which is the stock in trade of you and your cadre. Not a shred of substance, merely one ad hominem attack after the next whilst you pat each other on the back with smug self satisfaction.
And try being more original than skiving my perfectly appropro characterisation of your home boards as a "circle jerk". It does you no credit to borrow others' terminology.
That said, perhaps you'd care to demonstrate an ability to actually engage in rational and informed debate by responding to the poignant questions put to you by Aladdin with a substantive and thought out response?
Ah... The Al Gore rejoinder... Did you invent the internet, as well?
Check back, collaborator. I referred to the "circle jerk" in this place, LOOONNGGG before you ever registered.
But then? When did reality ever impinge upon your rhetoric?
You may return to leading your "THE SKY IS FALLING! THE SKY IS FALLING!" circle jerk...
At least we can confirm the truth of the age old addage about the leopard and his spots.
By the way, if you actually ever bothered to do any research rather than merly latch on to the populist right wing myths of the moment, youd know that Gore never actually claimed to have "invented" (i.e. in operational terms) the internet. He was referring to his legislative efforts as co-iniator of the Congressional bill which provided the backing for bringing once disparate networks together making what we call "the internet" a reality for the average person, where it had once been a closed domain for military, government, and academic communications.
For any who care more for accuracy than populist partisan inspired mockery, gross exaggeration and spin I submit the actual record of this common centerpiece of US right wing allegiance to politically engineered public perception...
http://dir.salon.com/tech/col/rose/2000/10/05/gore_internet/index.html
http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue5_10/wiggins/
Not surprising that you should be ever ready to hop on any bandwagon that seeks to discredit the other side however ridiculous the basis for such attacks and how paltry the issues involved happen to be. A shame you don't apply the same standard of scrutiny to those politicans who prove willing to risk the lives of our servicemen upon an entire train of susbsequently exposed lies and rhetorical reversals.
But as they say, consistency is the hobgoblin of tiny minds.
You do too what? Use offensive language? Like refer to people as paki's or ******s? And incite racial hatred? Inciting racial hatred is a crime in the UK and could get this site into trouble.
Exactly when did you first use "circle jerk" within this forum?
And that would make WHO the "plagarist"?
Are you finally admitting to an incapability to comprehend reasoned discussion?
However, with your ever constant attack and run tactics it's little surprise that detailed examination of any issue goes right over your head.
Sorry for unfairly taxing your intellect. Perhaps another round of field stripping your assault rifle is more your speed. :rolleyes:
Why We're in Iraq & Why We Must Stay
For those who think war with Iraq was a mistake and that the US should leave Iraq now--this essay, in first draft form.
For those who think the bad rap on Al Gore regarding his non-claim that he invented the Internet means he tells the truth. The Department of Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency invented the internet, in the 1960s. I kept up with its development in the technical literature of the time. Emphasis to quoted materials added in what follows. Snopes.com on the Al Gore claim. Yes, he has. In one of the 2000 Presidential debates (I watched it.) with George W. Bush, Mr. Gore rudely interrupted Mr. Bush only to claim falsely that he had visited the Big Bend area of Texas with the FEMA director when a disaster had struck there.
The statement was withdrawn the following day. But his self-service was a fait accompli by then. Since it is extremely unlikely that he made an honest mistake with that statement -- he surely knew he had not made such a visit -- a reasonable person would have to conclude that he knowingly lied.
For those who think Al Gore won the 2000 Presidential Election: And Still The Winner and The Media Recount. Gore won the nationwide popular vote--if you ignore that millions of votes were lost nationwide--but Presidents get elected by electoral vote, not by popular vote.
The Great Compromise of the Constitution is not going to be amended to elect the President by popular vote, despite Hillary Clinton's playing to the naive and uninformed about such a change. A popular vote amendment would never pass both legislative houses in the required 38 states--even if it could get through Congress. The less populous states would never give up what is clearly their Electoral College advantage. As an example, states such as South Dakota have two Senators and only one Representative. An amendment to the Constitution would effectively reduce that state's influence in electing a President to one-third what it is now. Legislators in the smaller states will never allow that to happen.
Still, Gore would more than likely have won except for a few slipups by the Democrats themselves:
- Florida's Palm Beach County ballot. Designed and approved by Democrats, understandable to third-graders in tests.
- Some Palm Beach County Democrat flunkie (more than likely) telling voters to mark the second box on the ballot--without ever examining an actual ballot.
- Gore's failure to enlist the aid of Bill Clinton in his election campaign--this undoubtedly cost him many, many votes in close states.
Estimates of votes intended for Gore but counted for Buchanan in Palm Beach County range as high as 2000. More than sufficient for Gore to have carried Florida and been elected President. However, you have to count the votes as they are actually marked. By the way, I'm skeptical of any claims about Gore votes being discarded in the Palm Beach and Broward County recounts. Two of the three recounters were Democrats and they were clearly giving every vote they could possibly justify to Gore. Florida Statutes: Electors and Elections.What didn't you understand about "offensive language", which was what was referred to, in the quote you've taken?
Inciting racial hatred, was not the term discussed.
Correct. Your continuous obfuscation. "Dazzle 'em with BS" is your usual tactic. Confuse the issue, but never address it.
As Aladdin puts it, ready to address the question, yet?
I referred to the liberal bias of this site in late 2000 as a "circle-jerk". You would claim the appelation as of your origin. Another canard, floated upon a sea of BS? Business as usual?
Address the question.
Who is the plagarist?
Afraid to admit even once that your house of cards will come crashing down, when even the slightest truth of your prevarication is known?
Who is the plagarist?
As I am certainly unaware of any such commentary you might have made some 2 years before my arrival here and given your long absence over the past several months only to resurface and invariably opt for the usage of a term I rightly applied to your den of self congratulatory right wing hatred immediately after I applied it, there is only your apparent lack of current originality at issue.
Unless you think your posts so intellectually stimulating that would I wade through a backlog of your stock-in-trade hate-filled attacks spanning two years to co-opt your own terminology.
Your brazen self image is not matched by your ability to present a coherent argument for debate, but by all means continue in your delusions of grandeur if it helps you sleep at night. :rolleyes:
Obviously.
And equally obvious has been my continual usage of "daisy-chain circle jerk" to describe you and your little band of sycophants (another term used by me, and borrowed by you).
You are the canard. AND the plagarist. Wank away...
So quack away!
And I put it in quotemarks, which means that I didn't come up with it from myself, but had seen it being used somewhere before.
No prize for the one who guesses who I'd seen use it before :rolleyes:
Be that as it may, and certainly in relation to continued snide remarks from our favorite stormtrooper (who incidentally doesnt even know the difference between omnipotence and omniscience), unless he or you or I were to lay claim to having written the English dictionary (irrespective of version), this argument is ridiculous insofar as these terms are used regularly by millions of people.
My original contention regarding Than's rather disingenous recently resumed usage of a term immediately after I quite legitimately applied it to his caustic band of self congratulatory knee-jerk reactionaries remains valid regardless of some lame claim to having made use of the term 2 years prior to my arrival.
Of course, his ego outweighs his rationale so its little wonder that he refuses to acknowledge how purely partisan he is in his comdemnation of government duplicity and betrayal, prefering to ignore the lies of the current administration for which our Constitutional guarantees are being raped repeated and our soldiers are being injured or killed daily.
Welcome to the neo-con worldview, the world-view so narrow that if it isn't endorsed by Fox News (he chooses to cite it repeatedly as a viable news source) that it must be a liberal fabrication. This, from an agency which earlier this year went to court to win the right to lie and misinform the public.
http://www.organicconsumers.org/rbgh/akre022603.cfm
Since neo-cons can't counter the truth of the duplicity of their political heros, they are forced to resort to personal attacks of a calibre one would expect from grade school bullies. Such is the indication of just how low the public debate has sunk in the "Bastion of Liberty and Democracy".
Mind acknowledging that your original post referred to "daisy chain" or must I henceforth make use of the "quote" option when replying to any of your posts?
Check the goddamn time, of when I corrected it and when you replied!
Sorry that I caught my own mistake, and didn't give you the pleasure :rolleyes: