wmw999 2,167 #26 October 15, 2013 No, actually it isn't. He's criticizing the post (rather opaquely, since he's providing no counter-arguments as to why he thinks the previous post shows poor reading comprehension), not calling the poster names. You can say "that's a a bullshit post and you completely misunderstood what it (whatever) says" all day and it's OK. Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #27 October 15, 2013 wmw999No, actually it isn't. He's criticizing the post (rather opaquely, since he's providing no counter-arguments as to why he thinks the previous post shows poor reading comprehension), not calling the poster names. You can say "that's a a bullshit post and you completely misunderstood what it (whatever) says" all day and it's OK. Wendy P. He said the guy had "piss poor reading comprehension". That is playing the player and not the ball. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #28 October 16, 2013 DaVinciHe said the guy had "piss poor reading comprehension". That is playing the player and not the ball. No, what he wrote was, QuoteA perfect example of piss-poor reading comprehension. which is a piss-poor example of sentence construction. As a result, you're left with a fragment that is ambiguous as to whether he is talking about the post or the poster. This is intentional because it's a troll. (see how easy that is?) You can write any insults you want and then reword them into the passive form and introduce an ambiguity in the object between the post and poster and bam, not a personal attack. What irks me is when certain individuals actually do botch a verb and end up posting a personal attack and none of the mods even notice because they're so used to the MO of the poster in question. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #29 October 16, 2013 Anyway, back to this... regulatorPrecious few people on this planet I wish would die. This bitch is on the list. You probably mean this simply as a statement of how adamantly you disagree with her stance on gun control. Maybe it's a way to "feel out the waters" where if you get some people to agree without really considering the statement too literally, you'll feel like you're in good company. Maybe you want people to feel compelled to defend her policies as though they're defending her life and in the process they'll say something stupid and you can jump their shit over it. You know what though, just... fucking... don't... okay? People read shit like that and think, "oh great, I guess single-issue-voting has devolved into single-issue-loss-of-humanity." and then that person stops listening to anyone who disagrees with her. I don't mean to suggest that speakers corner is supposed to be, or ever was, some intellectual nexus of political debate, but it doesn't have to be such a train wreck either. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,673 #30 October 16, 2013 champu ***He said the guy had "piss poor reading comprehension". That is playing the player and not the ball. No, what he wrote was, Quote A perfect example of piss-poor reading comprehension. which is a piss-poor example of sentence construction. As a result, you're left with a fragment that is ambiguous as to whether he is talking about the post or the poster. This is intentional because it's a troll. (see how easy that is?) But you're smart enough to deal with a little ambiguity.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bignugget 0 #31 October 16, 2013 champuAnyway, back to this... ***Precious few people on this planet I wish would die. This bitch is on the list. You probably mean this simply as a statement of how adamantly you disagree with her stance on gun control. Maybe it's a way to "feel out the waters" where if you get some people to agree without really considering the statement too literally, you'll feel like you're in good company. Maybe you want people to feel compelled to defend her policies as though they're defending her life and in the process they'll say something stupid and you can jump their shit over it. You know what though, just... fucking... don't... okay? People read shit like that and think, "oh great, I guess single-issue-voting has devolved into single-issue-loss-of-humanity." and then that person stops listening to anyone who disagrees with her. I don't mean to suggest that speakers corner is supposed to be, or ever was, some intellectual nexus of political debate, but it doesn't have to be such a train wreck either. nice post shampoo. I doubt he will receive that message, but I thought it was pretty insightful. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #32 October 16, 2013 kallend ******He said the guy had "piss poor reading comprehension". That is playing the player and not the ball. No, what he wrote was, Quote A perfect example of piss-poor reading comprehension. which is a piss-poor example of sentence construction. As a result, you're left with a fragment that is ambiguous as to whether he is talking about the post or the poster. This is intentional because it's a troll. (see how easy that is?) But you're smart enough to deal with a little ambiguity.I guess some people are just asses. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LyraM45 0 #33 October 16, 2013 regulator ******Precious few people on this planet I wish would die. This bitch is on the list. Really? Over gun nonsense? ----------------------------------------------------- This cunt over my right to defend myself and my family? You betcha. You can call me what the fuck ever you want. Not only that but she is so butt ass ugly her picture could be used to ward off scary ghosts in the dark. wow... stay classy there Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LyraM45 0 #34 October 16, 2013 Bignugget***Anyway, back to this... ***Precious few people on this planet I wish would die. This bitch is on the list. You probably mean this simply as a statement of how adamantly you disagree with her stance on gun control. Maybe it's a way to "feel out the waters" where if you get some people to agree without really considering the statement too literally, you'll feel like you're in good company. Maybe you want people to feel compelled to defend her policies as though they're defending her life and in the process they'll say something stupid and you can jump their shit over it. You know what though, just... fucking... don't... okay? People read shit like that and think, "oh great, I guess single-issue-voting has devolved into single-issue-loss-of-humanity." and then that person stops listening to anyone who disagrees with her. I don't mean to suggest that speakers corner is supposed to be, or ever was, some intellectual nexus of political debate, but it doesn't have to be such a train wreck either. nice post shampoo. I doubt he will receive that message, but I thought it was pretty insightful. +1. Nicely said :)Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
regulator 0 #35 October 16, 2013 'Sen Dianne Feinstein (D. Cal.) has long been a fanatic gun control advocate. Yesterday, she upped the ante by declarating that all military vets, merely because they are vets, are mentally ill.' This is me still not giving a fuck. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,673 #36 October 16, 2013 regulator'Sen Dianne Feinstein (D. Cal.) has long been a fanatic gun control advocate. Yesterday, she upped the ante by declarating that all military vets, merely because they are vets, are mentally ill.' This is me still not giving a fuck. Apparently you didn't comprehend what you read, because by no stretch of the imagination did she say that "all military vets, merely because they are vets, are mentally ill", or anything remotely like it.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,467 #37 October 16, 2013 >Yesterday, she upped the ante by declarating that all military vets, merely because they are vets, are mentally ill. No, she didn't. It's unfortunate that you feel you have to lie about this stuff to make your point. Makes one think your point can't stand on its own. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #38 October 17, 2013 regulator'Sen Dianne Feinstein (D. Cal.) has long been a fanatic gun control advocate. Yesterday, she upped the ante by declarating that all military vets, merely because they are vets, are mentally ill.' This is me still not giving a fuck. It wasn't yesterday, it was 7 months ago, and what she did was stumble head first over the fundamental problem with the AWB: safety is about making sure people who need help get it and about who has a weapon, not types of weapons. Instead of writing articles and having discussions about that though, we apparently would rather write articles and have arguments about whether she hates veterans. One stands a chance of preventing her from instituting idiotic policy, and one does not. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
regulator 0 #39 October 17, 2013 Here's to being the bigger man than I was. I will say I despise her elitist attitude where she thinks its ok for her to conceal carry but the rest of american including veterans can't be trusted. And no I don't want her to die because of her stance on fireams. But she isn't worthy of coming to the conclusion who does and who doesn't get to defend themselves and their families. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #40 October 17, 2013 regulatorHere's to being the bigger man than I was. I will say I despise her elitist attitude where she thinks its ok for her to conceal carry but the rest of american including veterans can't be trusted. And no I don't want her to die because of her stance on fireams. But she isn't worthy of coming to the conclusion who does and who doesn't get to defend themselves and their families. Cheers! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ianmdrennan 2 #41 October 17, 2013 regulatorHere's to being the bigger man than I was. I will say I despise her elitist attitude where she thinks its ok for her to conceal carry but the rest of american including veterans can't be trusted. And no I don't want her to die because of her stance on fireams. But she isn't worthy of coming to the conclusion who does and who doesn't get to defend themselves and their families. :) well recovered and stated. That's a statement I can understand and get behindPerformance Designs Factory Team Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
