NationStates Jolt Archive

Grave Grave Grave, give it a rest, Ive got no more time for you OK?

So. You DON'T know what pissant means, and you had no answers to the rest of the questions.

You may have noticed, there is a debate going on, here.... if you want to join in at anytime, feel free.

OK, I try to be patient, but FFS Terminlia, do you even know what logic or debating are? You answer every question with a question or completely miss the point being made and respond to some irrelevant part of the post...

(Not actual posts - satire):

Peopleandstuff: "Protestors have rights too, you know!"
Terminalia: "It rained last Wednesday, so there!"

Grave'n'Idle: "Do you know what pissant means?"
Terminalia: *looks at watch* "About half past three..."

Peopleandstuff: "So you are advocating violence against people who insult you?"
Terminalia: "Insults were first invented in ancient Babylonia in 2500BC."

It's like some sort of demented Monty Python sketch...but one that isn't funny...

I'm sorry Fubaria, I have to disagree, that was funny, one of the funniest thing I've read all day (and since I've been checking up on some Anne Coulter quotes, that makes it pretty darn funny), I'm still giggling now....if they decide to reform the Monty Python group, I'm certain they'll be calling you...

I have no idea why, but I especially like this bit
Insults were first invented in ancient Babylonia in 2500BC."
Very 'Pythonesque'.... :p

Ah I hate to be the one to break it to you but that rarely happens in League, before you shriek John Hopate at me, hes about the only high profile league player that was doing it, and hes a basket case, good guy and top player, but never the less.


But, by your logic, if some rugby players like to feel around inside each other, then ALL OF THEM must. Hoist by your own petard.


Right that must be great sport with someone like you, um are you a Christian hater, Its allright you can say so if you are, its PC so your covered.


I love the fact that anyone who disagrees with you is automatically a 'christian-hater'. You say that to your parents when they 'tell you off'?
Ever occured to you that maybe people have a problem, not with 'christians', but just with you?

Of course, some 'christians' have sex with small children... now, how does your logic work again?



but if they want to get in my face then they have crossed the line into my personal space and then thats intimidation with possible intention to assault which naturally I'll defend myself against by knocking them out.



Actually, if they are 'in your face' that isn't a legal defence for you to assault them, either.

And, once again, you are threatening to 'knock someone out'... only this time it's a hypothetical person, that you conjured up in your mind...

You really need to address your rage issues.

I'm sorry Fubaria, I have to disagree, that was funny, one of the funniest thing I've read all day (and since I've been checking up on some Anne Coulter quotes, that makes it pretty darn funny), I'm still giggling now....if they decide to reform the Monty Python group, I'm certain they'll be calling you...

I have no idea why, but I especially like this bit

Very 'Pythonesque'.... :p

I'm backing 'Peopleandstuff' on this one. That was seriously funny, and true on so many levels.

Thanks for injecting a little levity into a tiresome situation. (I assume most people will know what I mean...)

OK, I try to be patient, but FFS Terminlia, do you even know what logic or debating are? You answer every question with a question or completely miss the point being made and respond to some irrelevant part of the post...

(Not actual posts - satire):

Peopleandstuff: "Protestors have rights too, you know!"
Terminalia: "It rained last Wednesday, so there!"

Grave'n'Idle: "Do you know what pissant means?"
Terminalia: *looks at watch* "About half past three..."

Peopleandstuff: "So you are advocating violence against people who insult you?"
Terminalia: "Insults were first invented in ancient Babylonia in 2500BC."

It's like some sort of demented Monty Python sketch...but one that isn't funny...

have a tissue.

Protests are important because they can are part of the democratic process - everyone's voice heard. It is compulsory to allow protests, or should be (depending on how disruptive). Sometimes, protests are necessary to get the government's attention aimed at those who feel ignored or cheated out. Trust me, the UK needs it when Blair forces us into the European Constitution...we say no or want a referendum, Blair is unhappy...and I hope I didn't imagine that someone said Labour will take us in the EC whether or not we say yes because that is disgusting. I could go on about the Euro being less stable than the pound, or the law system of the UK (though already ridiculous) being affected furthermore than in our power. We voted Blair, now he wants to hijack the country. He already 'tackled' a number of things...like hell Labour are useful - 'ban' on people having their own fireworks, 'ban' on driving with mobiles, anti-social behaviour orders...the country is down the drain...so we need protesters to try and get our point across...especially if the ballot box is useless...and with Blair...

have a tissue.

http://koti.mbnet.fi/mazgurth/pics/pictures/cookie.jpg

have a tissue.

I thought THAT was going to be our little secret - you promised! :p

=Peopleandstuff]Are you suggesting that outside the top-level it's a common occurance?

No your suggesting that, I assumed you would have heard of the John Hopate hidden finger incidents from televised league games, you seem to have a very adverse view of league players in general so I didnt imagine you would be down at the park much to watch the locals go round, so I didnt see it necessary to mention them.
Ive played league on and off since I was 17, and in all the games I played there wasnt one incident such as this, so no I dont think its that common as you seem to want to believe, and if it did happen there would most likely be a fight or something straight away.
You seem a bit infactuated with the bum poking, any reason why?


As it happens the fact that Hopate's behaviour is not the norm for league players is no revelation to me. My point is in the logical form you presented which is that some protestors are criminal, ergo all protestors are criminal.

No just the ones who commit violence and vandalism, how many times now is that Ive told you?



Aha, and despite my insistence that you have every right to express, I think your opinion is a particulary stupid one.

I'll really try to care about that.


The only premise I can see for such a conclusion would also imply that I am a hater of police, and doctors also. As it happens I have teachers who are stupid, so by your (incorrect) reasoning I must also hate teachers, in fact I cant think of a single group that does not contain individual's who's behaviour at times is contrary to the ideology or purpose of that group, so by your logic I would hate everyone (myself included since I belong to many namable typographies). Please reconsider those comments that suggest you invest some time in coming to terms with logic.

Yes but you bought that one out on purpose as you have probably read on other threads that Im a Christian, just admit it. :rolleyes:
And like I said feel free to express your hate of Christianity, it doesnt worry me.


You keep posting here, so I would have to presume you are literate...

Either that or you have been hallucinating for the past few days.


I can only suggest you go and re-read my posts again.

No thanks, I would rather pull one of my fingernails off than go through that torture :p

You will find that I consistently condemn all law breaking be it by those who happen to be protesting, or by league players who cant hack being called a name.

Well start condemning the violence in the protests I'm referring to then, I havent heard you once.
And why should I hack being called a name, what right has anyone got to be rude to someone?

As you will note if you care to read I have consistently stated that any law breaking should be dealt with according to the law. It's somewhat ironic that you are now rabbiting on

rabbiting on that sums you up too :)


According to your assertions throughout this thread they are dangerous, troublemaking, out for attention, cowards, and should be run over, bashed, shipped to a shark surrounded island and ought to leave the country they have fought for, supported with taxes their whole working life, and which has always been their home, because they are protestors. Grab a dictionary if you still think protestor means anything other than persons who are engaged in the activity known as protest.


Ah and here you go yet again, I call protesters going on rampages of destruction, assaulting people in groups troublemakers, cowards etc and you of course have to make it out that Im talking about all protesters, whan Ive told you about I think seven times now, exactly what protesters Im talking about, but you go on ahead and ignore this vital fact again to suit your own arguements.


I suggest you re-read all your comments then, you have clearly misrepresented your view, and then continued to do so despite even when it was pointed out that people understood your comments to be referring to the law abiding. In fact so far as I can ascertain your last post implyed that there were no such thing as peaceful protestors, that people just said they were peaceful even though they were not...

No it didnt imply that at all, you of course read into that, that it did.


so far as I am aware your face is not entitled to any more or less protection than the next persons...now I'm sure it's a very nice face and all, and that you and your loved ones are fond of it, but the same can be said of with regards to most peoples' faces.

Whos waffling on now? :rolleyes:

I really cant speak for you, but your posts have done a great job of representing a view entirely out of step with your current assertion. May I ask why you were ever disagreeing with me since my position is that people have the right to freedom of expression so long as they do so lawfully, if you have no problem with with protestors who not not break the law for instance by using violence. Since the only assertions I have made have been in support of lawful expression (which by definition precludes violent behaviour), you either entirely did not understand what you were reading, or you argued against a point of view you dont disagree with, or you have changed your mind, or you are lying about your point of view. Either way the confusion appears to belong entirely to you.

No the confusions all yours, Ive said repeatedly to you where I stand on protesters depending on how they conduct themselves and where, but of course you will delete this and ignore it again as you have other statements Ive made to the same effect.

May I inquire why you can see that the form some of group X = A, therefore all X's are As is invalid when applied to league players and fingers up bums, or courage and protestors, but not when applied to violence and protestors? Evidently I dont need to prove that all protestors have courage to refute your claim, I only need prove that one does to prove that your conclusion is unsound.

You really have a fixation with that bum carry on dont you.


Says you, which makes you no better than the protestors who think that their right to express themselves becomes before what the law deems is lawful, since some of these protestors are protesting in defence of what they perceive as being rights, then their protest a form of self defense, but I maintain that this gives them no right to act unlawfully, and neither does your claim that someone called you a name give you any moral or legal excuse to bash people.

I really dont care what the law says there, I wont tolerate rudeness to my face, and nor should I have to.
You do realise we have been around the mulberry bush now about four times on this matter, but my guess is you will still try yet for another angle on it, just to set some new record on being tedious.

Which is probably the most annoying thing you could do to them, plus is a form of expression in its own right.

Yes sometimes it annoys them so much they want to start something.

What does getting in your face mean, calling you a name, standing too close to you in the bank?

It pretty much means what it says, if you dont know what that is yet, then you have lived a pretty sheltered life.

If someone simply calling you a name incites you to physical violence because in your mind it is so intimidating, then I suggest you toughen up....gee, they dont make league players like they used to...

As if you would know.

Whereas on every hand you appear to be in desperate need of a reading remedial program...

Whatever.

I thought THAT was going to be our little secret - you promised! :p

promises are sometimes broken, sorry I'll send some flowers and chocolates to cheer you up.

Protests are important because they can are part of the democratic process - everyone's voice heard. It is compulsory to allow protests, or should be (depending on how disruptive). Sometimes, protests are necessary to get the government's attention aimed at those who feel ignored or cheated out. Trust me, the UK needs it when Blair forces us into the European Constitution...we say no or want a referendum, Blair is unhappy...and I hope I didn't imagine that someone said Labour will take us in the EC whether or not we say yes because that is disgusting. I could go on about the Euro being less stable than the pound, or the law system of the UK (though already ridiculous) being affected furthermore than in our power. We voted Blair, now he wants to hijack the country. He already 'tackled' a number of things...like hell Labour are useful - 'ban' on people having their own fireworks, 'ban' on driving with mobiles, anti-social behaviour orders...the country is down the drain...so we need protesters to try and get our point across...especially if the ballot box is useless...and with Blair...

How is the ballot box useless, if hes doing that bad a job he will get voted out.

Ive played league on and off since I was 17, and in all the games I played there wasnt one incident such as this, so no I dont think its that common as you seem to want to believe, and if it did happen there would most likely be a fight or something straight away.


How do you KNOW there were no incidents? Have you personally inspected everyone, to ensure that there have been no 'violations'? See, when I played Rugby, one of the big tricks that players used was 'grabbing' a handful of whoever was closest on the opposition. And, when someone did that to you, they were TRYING to throw you off your game... they were TRYING to start a fight... so we had to RISE above it. Maybe your team-mates have been nmore professional about it than you would have been, and didn't make a big fuss. Then again, maybe they liked it. No way to know for sure.


No just the ones who commit violence and vandalism, how many times now is that Ive told you?


Twice now, I think... after you changed your story.


Yes but you bought that one out on purpose as you have probably read on other threads that Im a Christian, just admit it. :rolleyes:
And like I said feel free to express your hate of Christianity, it doesnt worry me.


Although you love to suspect otherwise, people aren't necessarily debating in these threads just for the opportunity to 'follow you around'. You really love the idea of being persecuted, don't you?


And why should I hack being called a name, what right has anyone got to be rude to someone?


The same right you have, when you are consistently rude on the forum.


No the confusions all yours, Ive said repeatedly to you where I stand on protesters depending on how they conduct themselves and where, but of course you will delete this and ignore it again as you have other statements Ive made to the same effect.


You HAVE repeatedly stated where you stand. Unfortuantely, you continuously change that position.


I really dont care what the law says there, I wont tolerate rudeness to my face, and nor should I have to.


So, now you say that the law doesn't apply to your violent response... and yet you would begrudge that same 'right' to militant 'protestors'.

This is called 'Hypocrisy'.


Yes sometimes it annoys them so much they want to start something.



So, you admit that you deliberately INCITE trouble? You laugh in someone's face until they are enraged, and try to strike you (which should be fine... you said someone getting in your 'face' was enough justification for you to 'knock them out').

And still, you would try to pretend to be a god-fearing man.

=Grave_n_idle]So. You DON'T know what pissant means,

Yes, but so what?
Your probably one for all I know.

and you had no answers to the rest of the questions.

Grave it got boring weeks ago, sorry.

You may have noticed, there is a debate going on, here.... if you want to join in at anytime, feel free.

Oh gee thanks, I was going to do that anyway. :)

Sure you can vote them out, how many years later......? Stands to reason that a lot of damage can be done from one election to the next. Protesting actually is doing him somewhat of a favour, he cant say 'no one told me they didnt like my policies' if he gets voted out for ignoring his constituents, if they all took to the streets to demonstrate their disapproval.

Yes, but so what?
Your probably one for all I know.


I am probably a pissant? I am PROBABLY a pissant? Huh. I guess you DON'T know what it means, then....


Grave it got boring weeks ago, sorry.


I don't know about you, but I am having a great time. I love these debates, I am learning stuff from all kinds of people, oh, and there's always you and your silly little barbs and insults to keep me chuckling, too.


Oh gee thanks, I was going to do that anyway. :)

Well, let us know when you do.

Sure you can vote them out, how many years later......? Stands to reason that a lot of damage can be done from one election to the next. Protesting actually is doing him somewhat of a favour, he cant say 'no one told me they didnt like my policies' if he gets voted out for ignoring his constituents, if they all took to the streets to demonstrate their disapproval.

And riot also dont forget that bit.

=Grave_n_idleHow do you KNOW there were no incidents? Have you personally inspected everyone, to ensure that there have been

No Grave, something like that would have been noticed on the field or talked about after.


no 'violations'? See, when I played Rugby, one of the big tricks that players used was 'grabbing' a handful of whoever was closest on the opposition. And, when someone did that to you, they were TRYING to throw you off your game... they were TRYING to start a fight... so we had to RISE above it.

Really.
So what I copped treatment too, facials, pressure points getting jabbed, nuts grabbed, fingers in ears and nostrils etc, but never one up the coit, and I didnt think of giving one either.


Maybe your team-mates have been nmore professional about it than you would have been, and didn't make a big fuss. Then again, maybe they liked it. No way to know for sure.

Yeah right.


Twice now, I think... after you changed your story.

I never changed my story, the beginning part about running them over with a car was just black humour, Id never really do that.
Sorry to dissapoint you.


Although you love to suspect otherwise, people aren't necessarily debating in these threads just for the opportunity to 'follow you around'. You really love the idea of being persecuted, don't you?

It must be the Christian in me I guess.

The same right you have, when you are consistently rude on the forum.

Diddums, wanna tissue to wipe your eyes?



You HAVE repeatedly stated where you stand. Unfortuantely, you continuously change that position.

Like where?

So, now you say that the law doesn't apply to your violent response... and yet you would begrudge that same 'right' to militant 'protestors'.

This is called 'Hypocrisy'.

Ahh your favourite word, its not so much their 'right' to be violent I object against, more their reasons.

So, you admit that you deliberately INCITE trouble? You laugh in someone's face until they are enraged, and try to strike you (which should be fine... you said someone getting in your 'face' was enough justification for you to 'knock them out').

I never said in their face, you made that bit up to embellish the story, I said at them, I dont get in anyones face unless they get in mine first.


And still, you would try to pretend to be a god-fearing man.

And the gratutious attack on my faith as usual.

=Grave_n_idle]I am probably a pissant? I am PROBABLY a pissant? Huh. I guess you DON'T know what it means, then....

I assume its something like arseache or dropkick, so what.




I don't know about you, but I am having a great time. I love these debates, I am learning stuff from all kinds of people, oh, and there's always you and your silly little barbs and insults to keep me chuckling, too.


Great, chuckle your little head off.



Well, let us know when you do.

OK.

new law no long replys

I assume its something like arseache or dropkick, so what.


As I thought....

Sad that you argue insult, when you don't even know what the word means.

And you are threatening to deck a guy, for using a word you don't understand.

What could be better than all your opposition in a compressed, confined area? Barcode them, drag every 1 in 10 away for torture and questioning (in turn discovering another 10 enemies per torture victim) lock up those who could potentially help you track down more, and burn the rest. Protests are a populations way of filtering the meek from the dangerous.

As I thought....

Sad that you argue insult, when you don't even know what the word means.

And you are threatening to deck a guy, for using a word you don't understand.

It obviously isnt a compliment, and the decking was hypothetical.

http://koti.mbnet.fi/mazgurth/pics/pictures/cookie.jpg

OK are you trying to imply something?
Because it mighten work here due to different expressions we might use, your American right?

OK are you trying to imply something?
Because it mighten work here due to different expressions we might use, your American right?

Man, this is just sick. It's like watching someone kick a puppy.

Here, Terminalia, let me help you with that...

Now I normally try to avoid messing with other people's grammar and spelling, but, honestly... I'm not sure everyone will be able to read your 'foreign tongue'.

Because, it mightn't work here, due to different expressions that we might use. You're American, right?

I mean it's still not great, but at least now they can read it...

Man, this is just sick. It's like watching someone kick a puppy.

Here, Terminalia, let me help you with that...

Now I normally try to avoid messing with other people's grammar and spelling, but, honestly... I'm not sure everyone will be able to read your 'foreign tongue'.



I mean it's still not great, but at least now they can read it...
:)
Thanks Grave your a champion.

:)
Thanks Grave your a champion.

"Thanks Grave, you're a champion."

Normally I wouldn't stoop to that, but:

I dont sue, just correct :)

What could be better than all your opposition in a compressed, confined area? Barcode them, drag every 1 in 10 away for torture and questioning (in turn discovering another 10 enemies per torture victim) lock up those who could potentially help you track down more, and burn the rest. Protests are a populations way of filtering the meek from the dangerous.

Thank you, Ann Coulter.

People protest to try and change something, and if they can't, they do it to prove a point.

What's more effective:

1,000 people writing letters to the White House?

OR

1,000 people marching through the middle of DC during rush hour?

Protests are a good thing. They may be quite inconvenient to many, but that's pretty much the only way that they can be heard. So you cannot disrespect those people who do protest.
So then, you support the pro-life protestors.

:) Oh no! Big bad republicans! We're evil! We're cruel! We're passing laws to ban puppies!

Richard Nixon still pisses me off. He was the John McCain of the 1970s, and I view them on the same level, with disdain. What kind of an anti-communist from the 1950s opens relations with China?

There's a flaw in your logic about protestors however. Criminals in large numbers under the guise of protesting are still.. criminals. Outside that sphere is a different kettle of fish.

Oh and for the record, National Security is not murder, no matter how many times you write it on a postercard with a well used sharpie.

Oh no masses of the public getting together and speaking their minds to make their voices heard.

Our country sure has gone downhill.

The car stuff right?.. joke comprende?You've also said that you have attacked protestors on two separate occasions and neither of them have been self defence.
Their have been other posters on here talking about running them over as well and also machine gunning them, but you dont seem to have a problem with them, so are you being personal here?Infamy Infamy, they've all got it in for me. You're the only poster left on here still making that argument. Are you familiar with Occam's razor?


Something protesters never do, of course not you, your one of the peaceful ones arent you, and you of course comdemn all violent protests and protesters blablabla right?I'd said in the same post that I am one of the few posters on here prepared to condone violence in certain circumstances. Is even the most basic reading comprehension beyond you?


Like you wont tolerate any dissent of your marches or reasons for them ?Who said that? You haven't been arguing for counter protests or dissent. You've been arguing for physical attacks.


Yes its strange that protesters wanting peace have no problem with baying for George Bushes and other peoples blood, and dont tell me again how you guys disaprove so much of violent protesters and protests, because if you did you wouldnt allow your so called peaceful protests to become a stage for them so easily.Provide some real evidence that the majority of peaceful protests turn violent.

Apparently, Immanual Kant was a real pissant.

But then, he was vary rarely stable.

Ach, but Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar who could think you under the table...

[QUOTE=The Holy Word]You've also said that you have attacked protestors on two separate occasions and neither of them have been self defence.Infamy Infamy, they've all got it in for me. You're the only poster left on here still making that argument. Are you familiar with Occam's razor?

The first occasion was just abit of shoving, Id hardly call it an attack, the second incident I was actually swung at first, so naturally I responded, um did you say neither were in self defence?
Im sure you already read my account of that, if not, then go back and have a better look and stop altering a story for your own arguement, anyone can see for themselves, that its still there.
Strange, I dont think except for the first few posts I made that I havent mentioned once chasing people and running them down with cars, that was satire and the original arguement, satire THW, are you familiar with that?
Admittedly in bad taste.
Ive heard of Occams razor, but cant say I really know about it, or care.


I'd said in the same post that I am one of the few posters on here prepared to condone violence in certain circumstances. Is even the most basic reading comprehension beyond you?

Who said that? You haven't been arguing for counter protests or dissent. You've been arguing for physical attacks.

Bit of a hypocrite arent you, maybe you should do some basic reading and comprehension yourself, starting with your own.


Provide some real evidence that the majority of peaceful protests turn violent.

I never said the majoity of peaceful protests do turn violent, and Im not talking about a few inncidents in a protest, Im talking about a rally that is intended to cause mayhem or intimidate other people from the start which brings in more police and security to tackle it, if you want the latest example then look at what happened in Athens two weeks ago, or did you miss that somehow?

The first occasion was just abit of shoving, Id hardly call it an attack, the second incident I was actually swung at first, so naturally I responded, um did you say neither were in self defence?


In the first case, you admit to shoving. By this, one assumes you mean that you made physical contact with the other individual. Whether or not YOU call this an attack, you invaded another person's personal space with a physical assault... and earlier you were saying it was okay to 'knock someone out' for 'getting in your face'.

You started an incident, there. Therefore, you are a hypocrit.


Strange, I dont think except for the first few posts I made that I havent mentioned once chasing people and running them down with cars, that was satire and the original arguement, satire THW, are you familiar with that?
Admittedly in bad taste.
Ive heard of Occams razor, but cant say I really know about it, or care.


Perhaps you should work on your sense of humour? You want to run pedestrians down.... that joke falls somewhat flat.... in another thread, a girl who's boyfriend tidies around the house is "probably gay"... once again, if you are trying to be funny, you are only getting half way there.

All you have managed so far is to be 'trying'.

I never said the majoity of peaceful protests do turn violent, and Im not talking about a few inncidents in a protest, Im talking about a rally that is intended to cause mayhem or intimidate other people from the start which brings in more police and security to tackle it, if you want the latest example then look at what happened in Athens two weeks ago, or did you miss that somehow?

Which rallies are "intended to cause mayhem or intimidate other people from the start"? If you know, you should tell someone. Most rallies are peaceful events. Most rallies that end up contentious are INTENDED to be peaceful. Where are you getting this 'insider information'?

No your suggesting that, I assumed you would have heard of the John Hopate hidden finger incidents from televised league games, you seem to have a very adverse view of league players in general so I didnt imagine you would be down at the park much to watch the locals go round, so I didnt see it necessary to mention them.
Ive played league on and off since I was 17, and in all the games I played there wasnt one incident such as this, so no I dont think its that common as you seem to want to believe, and if it did happen there would most likely be a fight or something straight away.
You seem a bit infactuated with the bum poking, any reason why?
You seem more infactuated with violence than I am interested in bums, fingers or league players. Is there some reason why you are unable to differentiate between a point being made and illustrations of that point?

No just the ones who commit violence and vandalism, how many times now is that Ive told you?
Not as many times as you have implied otherwise.

Yes but you bought that one out on purpose as you have probably read on other threads that Im a Christian, just admit it.
Actually the only comments of yours I remember from any other threads were a clarification that the phrase 'done it have you?' was not intended to be read as 'done it, have you?'.

Well start condemning the violence in the protests I'm referring to then, I havent heard you once.
Since I have repeatedly condemned all violent protest, I have repeatedly condemned any violence in any protests including any referred to in your posts and any that you may care to think of. The thing about condemning all acts of violence commited during a protest, is that no acts of violence commited during protests is excluded from that condemnation...

Ah and here you go yet again, I call protesters going on rampages of destruction, assaulting people in groups troublemakers, cowards etc and you of course have to make it out that Im talking about all protesters, whan Ive told you about I think seven times now, exactly what protesters Im talking about, but you go on ahead and ignore this vital fact again to suit your own arguements.
As pointed out to you earlier many times you responded to comments about peaceful protestors by either implying no such thing existed, or by indicating that your comments included them. You either misrepsented yourself, have changed your mind, or are currently misrepresenting yourself previously. As also pointed out earlier, any lack of clarity this has caused is entirely your doing.

As for your assertion that you have never implied that there are no peaceful protests/protestors, here are a couple of your own comments just to remind you...
Your so called peaceful protests
Your so called peaceful protests are a venue for nothing but potential and actual violence, course all the peaceful ones like you suddenly wash your hands clean of it, like you had nothing to do with it.

No the confusions all yours, Ive said repeatedly to you where I stand on protesters depending on how they conduct themselves and where, but of course you will delete this and ignore it again as you have other statements Ive made to the same effect
You have repeatedly made comments such as the two above, and now you are making comments such as
you of course have to make it out that Im talking about all protesters,

As pointed out earlier any lack of clarification caused by you contradicting yourself is indeed (as logic suggests) caused by you contradicting yourself.

You really have a fixation with that bum carry on dont you.
You really have an inability to differentiate between an illustrative example tailored to be relevent to your stated interests, and the actual point that is being illustrated, dont you?

I really dont care what the law says
Yet expect your rights under law to be respected. You really do have screwed perspective if you think you can get much sympathey of your rights being infringed by protestors, when you clearly believe that you are entitled to ignore everyone else's legal right to not be bashed by you.

I wont tolerate rudeness to my face, and nor should I have to.
Why should you not have to abide by the law just like everyone else?

You do realise we have been around the mulberry bush now about four times on this matter, but my guess is you will still try yet for another angle on it, just to set some new record on being tedious.
I'm perfectly happy with the same angle I have pursued throughout all my posts on this thread; people have a right to lawfully exercise their legal rights, such as freedom of expression.

It pretty much means what it says, if you dont know what that is yet, then you have lived a pretty sheltered life.
I know what I mean when I say someone is getting in my face, but what you might mean by it is probably effected by whatever bizaare attitude leads you to believe that you have the right to ignore the law and bash people.

And riot also dont forget that bit.
not that you would imply that people cant protest without rioting, or at least not that you would when you're not......

I never changed my story
it must have been your other personalities that posted using your member name....

Like where?
see selected quotes above.

[The first occasion was just abit of shoving, Id hardly call it an attack, the second incident I was actually swung at first, so naturally I responded, um did you say neither were in self defence?
Im sure you already read my account of that, if not, then go back and have a better look and stop altering a story for your own arguement, anyone can see for themselves, that its still there.Quote it.
Strange, I dont think except for the first few posts I made that I havent mentioned once chasing people and running them down with cars, that was satire and the original arguement, satire THW, are you familiar with that?
Admittedly in bad taste.From Dictionary.com

Satire:
1: a) A literary work in which human vice or folly is attacked through irony, derision, or wit.
b) The branch of literature constituting such works. See Synonyms at caricature.
2: Irony, sarcasm, or caustic wit used to attack or expose folly, vice, or stupidity.

Which defination are you arguing your posts fell into?

Ive heard of Occams razor, but cant say I really know about it, or care.Ignorance is not something to be proud of.

Bit of a hypocrite arent you, maybe you should do some basic reading and comprehension yourself, starting with your own.Reading comprehension is a compound. The "and" is redundant. Out of interest do you have any retorts other then "I know you are but what am I"? :rolleyes:

Hypocrite:

One who plays a part; especially, one who, for the purpose of winning approbation of favor, puts on a fair outside seeming; one who feigns to be other and better than he is; a false pretender to virtue or piety; one who simulates virtue or piety.

I've higlighted the particuarly relevant bits. I have made it clear I don't condemn violence because it's violence. It's the ideology behind violence that interests me. You on the other hand have condemned "violent protestors" with one hand while talking about how you want to "bash" people on the other. Which stance do you think fits better with the dictionary defination of hypocrite?


I never said the majoity of peaceful protests do turn violent, and Im not talking about a few inncidents in a protest, Im talking about a rally that is intended to cause mayhem or intimidate other people from the start which brings in more police and security to tackle it, if you want the latest example then look at what happened in Athens two weeks ago, or did you miss that somehow?Should more police and security be brought in to tackle your tendency to violence as expressed by you in these forums. (Peopleandstuff has already shown you to be lying about what you've previously said so I won't bother).

I think everyone needs to join protestwarrior.com! Don't run the lefties over make them have an anuerism instead!

[QUOTE=Grave_n_idle]In the first case, you admit to shoving. By this, one assumes you mean that you made physical contact with the other individual. Whether or not YOU call this an attack, you invaded another person's personal space with a physical assault... and earlier you were saying it was okay to 'knock someone out' for 'getting in your face'.

You started an incident, there. Therefore, you are a hypocrit.

Did I say I started the shoving?
You just assumed I did, now go wipe the egg off your face.

Perhaps you should work on your sense of humour? You want to run pedestrians down.... that joke falls somewhat flat....

I admitted poor taste, and the joke was about protesters being run over, try and get the subject matter right.

in another thread, a girl who's boyfriend tidies around the house is "probably gay"... once again, if you are trying to be funny, you are only getting half way there.
All you have managed so far is to be 'trying'.

Have a tissue.


Which rallies are "intended to cause mayhem or intimidate other people from the start"? If you know, you should tell someone. Most rallies are peaceful events.


Like the latest one in London, how peaceful was that?
Most rallys might be peaceful events but that doesnt excuse the ones that arent.

Most rallies that end up contentious are INTENDED to be peaceful.

SURE they are.

=Peopleandstuff]You seem more infactuated with violence than I am interested in bums, fingers or league players.

I wouldnt call it infactuation, just a huge dislike of rude people that inevitably leads to violence, so what.


Is there some reason why you are unable to differentiate between a point being made and illustrations of that point?

Does it really matter?

Since I have repeatedly condemned all violent protest, I have repeatedly condemned any violence in any protests including any referred to in your posts and any that you may care to think of. The thing about condemning all acts of violence commited during a protest, is that no acts of violence commited during protests is excluded from that condemnation...

So I take it your not at all pleased with the latest protests in London?


As pointed out to you earlier many times you responded to comments about peaceful protestors by either implying no such thing existed, or by indicating that your comments included them. You either misrepsented yourself, have changed your mind, or are currently misrepresenting yourself previously. As also pointed out earlier, any lack of clarity this has caused is entirely your doing.


Sorry but its always been violent protests.


Yet expect your rights under law to be respected.

Do I?

Sorry but your wrong, if I'm charged with assaulting a protester(s), even if its
self defence then I'll abide by what the law seems fit to punish me with.


You really do have screwed perspective if you think you can get much sympathey of your rights being infringed by protestors, when you clearly believe that you are entitled to ignore everyone else's legal right to not be bashed by you.

Sorry but I dont recall asking for any sympathy?
And to verify yet another tired point with you, I am perfectly in my rights to defend myself.
I expect that you will return to this same point with the same huge inability to understand why I shouldnt be allowed to defend myself.

Why should you not have to abide by the law just like everyone else?

Well if everyone did, we wouldnt have any violent protests would we?


I'm perfectly happy with the same angle I have pursued throughout all my posts on this thread; people have a right to lawfully exercise their legal rights, such as freedom of expression.

Not if its in my face they dont.


I know what I mean when I say someone is getting in my face, but what you might mean by it is probably effected by whatever bizaare attitude leads you to believe that you have the right to ignore the law and bash people.

I take it then if you know exactly what it it means then, that someone is in your face, like nose to nose, and to go over again the same old chestnut with you, and probably will unfortunately again, if their attacking me or I suspect there about too, then I can defend myself, and if that means they get the shit bashed out of them, then they might think twice again about harrassing people.



it must have been your other personalities that posted using your member name....

As long as it keeps you amused I guess. :)

[commentator voice]That's 5 "answer question with question", 3 irrelevancies and 2 "I know you are, but what am I!" for those of you keeping score at home...[/commentator voice]

[commentator voice]That's 5 "answer question with question", 3 irrelevancies and 2 "I know you are, but what am I!" for those of you keeping score at home...[/commentator voice]

And this is New Fuburia totally taking one side against the other, right or wrong. :p

And this is New Fuburia totally taking one side against the other, right or wrong. :p

Err, yes...

Err, yes...

So you admit to taking their side when their wrong?
Admitting then that they have been according to you.

So I take it your not at all pleased with the latest protests in London?
What element? I'm pleased with people's right to protest, I'm not pleased with any law-breaking such as trespassing whether it be in the halls of Parliment or elsewhere. I dont approve of people breaking the law by being violent, although clearly I have no problem with lawful people assembling to have their cause heard.

And to verify yet another tired point with you, I am perfectly in my rights to defend myself.
I expect that you will return to this same point with the same huge inability to understand why I shouldnt be allowed to defend myself.
Your rights are those conferred to you by law.

Well if everyone did, we wouldnt have any violent protests would we?
Obviously. That's my point. No break law = no fowl.

I take it then if you know exactly what it it means then, that someone is in your face, like nose to nose, and to go over again the same old chestnut with you, and probably will unfortunately again, if their attacking me or I suspect there about too, then I can defend myself, and if that means they get the shit bashed out of them, then they might think twice again about harrassing people.
What has this got to do with the discussion about your claimed right to be able to bash people who were obeying the law, and who had done no more than call you a name?

[QUOTE=The Holy Word]]
Quote it.

Here you are, pg 9:
On two occasions I saw the Australian war memorial being abused by Uni students and Socialists, the first time it was just some comical shoving, the second occasion one of then took a swing at me, so I hammered him in three punches and broke his shades.


From Dictionary.com

Satire:
1: a) A literary work in which human vice or folly is attacked through irony, derision, or wit.
b) The branch of literature constituting such works. See Synonyms at caricature.
2: Irony, sarcasm, or caustic wit used to attack or expose folly, vice, or stupidity.

Which defination are you arguing your posts fell into?

2.


Ignorance is not something to be proud of.

You have my condolences of course.



I've higlighted the particuarly relevant bits. I have made it clear I don't condemn violence because it's violence. It's the ideology behind violence that interests me.

In other words you like violence, but just dont have the guts to be a part of it.


You on the other hand have condemned "violent protestors" with one hand while talking about how you want to "bash" people on the other.

Ive condemned them mainly for their reasons and motives for it, not purely on a base issue of just being violent.

The bashing is always in self defence.

Should more police and security be brought in to tackle your tendency to violence as expressed by you in these forums.

I dont think so, I offer them no threat.


(Peopleandstuff has already shown you to be lying about what you've previously said so I won't bother).

P&S has twisted and tweaked few statements Ive made around to suit the point he/she is making, I havent lied as you so dramatically put it, about anything.

So you admit to taking their side when their wrong?
Admitting then that they have been according to you.
:D
Great Logic there! Let me try...

just a huge dislike of rude people that inevitably leads to violence, so what.
so you admit that you have a huge dislike of rude people?
Admitting then that I am the ruler of the earth and that you bow done before my greatness....

Invalid logic form = A therefore B.

[QUOTE=Peopleandstuff]What element? I'm pleased with people's right to protest, I'm not pleased with any law-breaking such as trespassing whether it be in the halls of Parliment or elsewhere. I dont approve of people breaking the law by being violent, although clearly I have no problem with lawful people assembling to have their cause heard.

Lawful? :)



Your rights are those conferred to you by law.

Thank you for agreeing, I am allowed if threatened to defend myself.


Obviously. That's my point. No break law = no fowl.

OK.


What has this got to do with the discussion about your claimed right to be able to bash people who were obeying the law, and who had done no more than call you a name?

It was abit more than that, were talking in your face, name calling from a distance can be shrugged or laughed off, then they either go away or stupidly decide to get closer to you, thats when it goes beyond names, once people get in your space, names become unimportant and secondary to violence suffered or violence used in your own defence, you say I cant hit someone because its against the law, well is the law going to jump out of mid air and save me, unlikely, so I have to.
Sure in your eyes I break the law then, even if its self defence, but when laws get in the way of common sense and put your own life as secondary to it, then I'll put the laws secondary to my life.

:D
Great Logic there! Let me try...


so you admit that you have a huge dislike of rude people?
Admitting then that I am the ruler of the earth and that you bow done before my greatness....

Invalid logic form = A therefore B.

Wrong, you admitted you supported other posters on here, the basis being purely that they were arguing against me.

A
-
b + C = D(UCK)

It was abit more than that, were talking in your face, name calling from a distance can be shrugged or laughed off, then they either go away or stupidly decide to get closer to you, thats when it goes beyond names, once people get in your space, names become unimportant and secondary to violence suffered or violence used in your own defence, you say I cant hit someone because its against the law, well is the law going to jump out of mid air and save me, unlikely, so I have to.
Sure in your eyes I break the law then, even if its self defence, but when laws get in the way of common sense and put your own life as secondary to it, then I'll put the laws secondary to my life.

So, the crime you are arguing here... that allows you to carry out whichever violent action you deem necessary (maybe you can 'hammer a guy'... that made you sound very rugged) is 'getting in your space'?

Was this 'space' marked? Does it have clearly defined boundaries? Is it protected, in any way? Just trying to ascertain here if trespass was involved... because otherwise I don't think you have a case.

Now - if they actually struck you... or were in the process of striking you - you might have a case.

But it sounds, in this instance, like someone maliciously 'gets close to you'... which obviously means they deserved a heroic beating. They should know better than to stand near you, shouldn't they?

[QUOTE]

Here you are, pg 9:
So in the first incident it absolutely wasn't self defence.


2.Was it "irony", "sarcasm" or "caustic wit".




You have my condolences of course.Good retort. :rolleyes: The spirit of Oscar Wilde lives on.


In other words you like violence, but just dont have the guts to be a part of it. Where did I say that? I've made it clear that in certain circumstances I'm prepared to actively support violence.



Ive condemned them mainly for their reasons and motives for it, not purely on a base issue of just being violent.Where?

The bashing is always in self defence.You've also said you'd bash them if they were "disruptive". No self defence there.


I dont think so, I offer them no threat.
I think you'll find the police consider vigilantism a threat.



P&S has twisted and tweaked few statements Ive made around to suit the point he/she is making, I havent lied as you so dramatically put it, about anything.Where have you been misrepresented?

So you admit to taking their side when their wrong?
Admitting then that they have been according to you.

I don't know how you reached that conclusion from my answer. My reply was simply meant to say that I take sides, not that I blindly take sides based on who is making the argument- for the record, I do (and always have in this thread) consider their side "right".

P&S has twisted and tweaked few statements Ive made around to suit the point he/she is making, I havent lied as you so dramatically put it, about anything.
Generally speaking a direct quote does not constitute a twisting or tweaking of someone else's words...

Lawful?
Yes lawful, you know the 10's of thousands of people gathered who committed no crime whatsoever, had no intention of commiting any crime whatsoever, and no desire to see any crime whatsoever commited.

Thank you for agreeing, I am allowed if threatened to defend myself.
No you are allowed to employ reasonable force to defend yourself in circumstance that where a reasonable person would have reasonable grounds for feeling threatened. The circumstances in which you have claimed to be entitled to employ physical force, for the most part dont fall under this definition of defense or threatened; for instance using physical force in response to be called a name.

once people get in your space, names become unimportant and secondary to violence suffered or violence used in your own defence, you say I cant hit someone because its against the law, well is the law going to jump out of mid air and save me, unlikely, so I have to.
There is no legal entitlement to ownership of a public space you happen to be located at. The fact is the even if the law jumped out of mid air, if the other person's actions are lawful, the law still wont protect. You specifically replied to my comments about not bashing people who are abiding by the law, by claiming their name calling entitled you to bash them. So the discussion is about you bashing people who have not broken the law. There is no self defence provision in the law that would not require you to prove that law breaking had occured or was in the process of occuring. If someone is not breaking the law, there is nothing to defend yourself against so far as the law is concerned.

Sure in your eyes I break the law then, even if its self defence, but when laws get in the way of common sense and put your own life as secondary to it, then I'll put the laws secondary to my life.

I dont know why you are having so much trouble understand the very basic premise of self defence. The law does not place your life in danger, just because it forbids you to bash people when they are not presenting a physical threat to you. If they are threatening you in any way that makes physical force by you defendable on self defence grounds, then they are not behaving lawfully, if they are behaving lawfully, then you face no physical threat and have neither legal nor moral recourse to employing physical violence.

Wrong, you admitted you supported other posters on here, the basis being purely that they were arguing against me.
No actually that was Furbia, or rather it would be if admitting that one side of an argument finds more favour with you than another. The premise that the support is based purely on who is participating is not supported by the comments Furbia made. You would have to prove such a premise was valid, and I doubt you could do so.

A
-
b + C = D(UCK)
I have no idea what you imagine this to mean, but if it's supposed to be a logical form, again it is an invalid one. There is no logical relationship between D and b, C or A, the latter of which appears to have no logical relationship to any of the others at all.


As it happens the only thing proven by Furbia's comments, is that Furbia has formed an opinion, the premises on which Furbia formed the opinion, and the reasoning applied to the premises in order to arrive at a conclusion (ie opinion), are not described or referred to anywhere in the post. The inference you imagined is exactly that, an inference imagined by you.

I say any protestor causing inner city traffic is fair game.

I say any protestor causing inner city traffic is fair game.
Surely cars cause inner city traffic?

So, the crime you are arguing here... that allows you to carry out whichever violent action you deem necessary (maybe you can 'hammer a guy'... that made you sound very rugged) is 'getting in your space'?

Was this 'space' marked? Does it have clearly defined boundaries? Is it protected, in any way? Just trying to ascertain here if trespass was involved... because otherwise I don't think you have a case.

Now - if they actually struck you... or were in the process of striking you - you might have a case.

But it sounds, in this instance, like someone maliciously 'gets close to you'... which obviously means they deserved a heroic beating. They should know better than to stand near you, shouldn't they?

I dont care if they stand near me, start yelling in my face but and I'll see red, does spittle coming from a screaming idiots mouth landing on your face and in your mouth deem an assault, I think so.
KO time.

Bill of Rights
Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Sorry if this has already been posted.

I don't know how you reached that conclusion from my answer. My reply was simply meant to say that I take sides, not that I blindly take sides based on who is making the argument- for the record, I do (and always have in this thread) consider their side "right".

Well why do you have to mock my replys.
Is this a substitute for debating on your own part?

Well why do you have to mock my replys.
Is this a substitute for debating on your own part?
No, it's just for fun. ;) Don't take it so personally...

Surely cars cause inner city traffic?

Not on purpose they don't.

No, it's just for fun. ;) Don't take it so personally...

Im not.

Well why do you have to mock my replys.
Is this a substitute for debating on your own part?Have a heart. We're only human. I try to resist but... :D

So deep down, can I just run them over and call it a day?

Yes, running over protesters is absolutly OK. Remember, you get extra points for hitting old people and kids.

I dont care if they stand near me, start yelling in my face but and I'll see red, does spittle coming from a screaming idiots mouth landing on your face and in your mouth deem an assault, I think so.
KO time.

Ah, I see.... once again you change the story.

So... one minute they were 'getting in your space', the next they are 'spitting in your mouth'.

You really are incredibly violent, aren't you?

[QUOTE=Grave_n_idle]Ah, I see.... once again you change the story.

So... one minute they were 'getting in your space', the next they are 'spitting in your mouth'.


I dont care if they stand near me, start yelling in my face but and I'll see red, does spittle coming from a screaming idiots mouth landing on your face and in your mouth deem an assault, I think so.
KO time.


As you can see from my original post Grave here has once again twisted the story into something to suit his/hers own point, whereas I said spittle as in flecks of saliva spray hitting your face and landing in your mouth from someone yelling in your face, Grave has to change it to 'spitting in your mouth'.


You really are incredibly violent, aren't you?

No I just react naturally to being assaulted in any way.

Have a heart. We're only human. I try to resist but... :D

But what?

Do you have something to say?

Then spit it out man.

But what?

Do you have something to say?

Then spit it out man.

Maybe he's afraid that you'll try to run him over if he speaks up.

[QUOTE]


I dont care if they stand near me, start yelling in my face but and I'll see red, does spittle coming from a screaming idiots mouth landing on your face and in your mouth deem an assault, I think so.
KO time.


As you can see from my original post Grave here has once again twisted the story into something to suit his/hers own point, whereas I said spittle as in flecks of saliva spray hitting your face and landing in your mouth from someone yelling in your face, Grave has to change it to 'spitting in your mouth'.



Interesting? You were adressing that to me? You think I refer to myself in the third person?

Anyways.... surely the POINT there was the story change, not the details of 'how you exchange saliva with angry men'.

You can't refute the argument (because all the evidence is STILL in the thread), so you attack my wording.

But what?

Do you have something to say?

Then spit it out man.
Are you sure you wouldn't prefer me to swallow?;)

Not on purpose they don't.

Okay, surely drivers of cars cause inner city traffic then?

Are you sure you wouldn't prefer me to swallow?;)

Well, he IS a 'Big Rugged Rugby Player', apparently...

In defence of Termie, he's a league player not a rugby player, in defence of rugby players, I'm not convinced they're into that.

Termie, you have indeed changed the premises of your assertions. I asked you what right you have to physically assault law abiding people who happened to have called you a name, you responded several times attempting to justify your right to do so. Now you are going on about people spitting in your mouth and suggesting that this is an assualt and so you are justified in employing physical force in your own defence. If someone has assaulted you that is not relevent to your insistence that you have a right to assault law-abiding citizens, because anyone who is assaulting you is not abiding by the law. Your comments were specifically addressed to law abiding citizens, so comments about defending yourself from people assaulting you are not in any way relevent to your earlier assertions that you have a right to assault law abiding persons.

From a legal POV, spitting on someone is considered assault, verbal abuse (unless it is a clear threat of physical harm) is not. In either case, you could not claim self defence in a court of law. If someone spits on you or verbally threatens you with harm, the law states that you should report the incident to the authorities, not just start swinging away with your fists. The only time you could argue self defence in a court of law is if the person perpetrated bodily harm on you (or on someone else whom you were defending), and THEN you responded with violence. In any other case, you are (legally) the attacker.

At least, that's how I understand the law...

From a legal POV, spitting on someone is considered assault, verbal abuse (unless it is a clear threat of physical harm) is not. In either case, you could not claim self defence in a court of law. If someone spits on you or verbally threatens you with harm, the law states that you should report the incident to the authorities, not just start swinging away with your fists. The only time you could argue self defence in a court of law is if the person perpetrated bodily harm on you (or on someone else whom you were defending), and THEN you responded with violence. In any other case, you are (legally) the attacker.

At least, that's how I understand the law...

In the case of Terminalia's "Salive swapping" incident, he implies that the spittle is an 'accidental' projectile... caused by the fervour of the protestors. I believe he has no self-defence motive in this case. Now, if he had specific reason to believe that the protestor has AIDS, and the protestor made a DELIBERATE attempt to pass an infected body fluid into an open wound, he MIGHT have an argument. But, he didn't say any of that stuff - so he has no case.

How can I put this in terms Terminalia might understand?

"No. Bad. Don't Fight the Other Boys."

Well, he IS a 'Big Rugged Rugby Player', apparently...
Hey be fair, he's already told us that there is nothing 'queer' about taking naked showers with other men...

Hey be fair, he's already told us that there is nothing 'queer' about taking naked showers with other men...

Oh, I know....

There's no homo-sexual undercurrent there. I agree.

Although, as a former Rugby player myself, I know that there were (proportionally) as many gay Rugby players as there are (proportionally) gay males in the population...

Are you sure you wouldn't prefer me to swallow?;)

Im not gay, sorry if this disapoints you.

In defence of Termie, he's a league player not a rugby player, in defence of rugby players, I'm not convinced they're into that.

Im pretty sure they wouldnt be.

Now you are going on about people spitting in your mouth

excuse me, that was Graves wording of this hypothetical incident, not mine, and it is hypothetical, just so you dont get confused on that.

and suggesting that this is an assualt and so you are justified in employing physical force in your own defence.

Well dont you think that would verify an assault, if not then you sure are willing to put up with a lot, or expecting other people to.

Note how you spelled assault compared to my spelling of it, what were you saying before about my terrible spelling, worry about your own.

Im pretty sure they wouldnt be.



excuse me, that was Graves wording of this hypothetical incident, not mine, and it is hypothetical, just so you dont get confused on that.



Well dont you think that would verify an assault, if not then you sure willing to put up with a lot, or expecting other people to.
did you intentionally ignore the point of his post? would you mind humoring me by responding to it?

did you intentionally ignore the point of his post? would you mind humoring me by responding to it?

No Ive responded enough, if you dont agree with it then I cant help you any more.

No Ive responded enough, if you dont agree with it then I cant help you any more.
i'm not looking to agree or disagree, just for you to actually respond to his point rather than insulting his spelling or quibbling about semantics. i would be interested to hear your side of the argument, but you aren't putting one forward so far.

Im pretty sure they wouldnt be.


Which is, of course, another stereotype... since you are effectively claiming that all Rugby players are straight.


excuse me, that was Graves wording of this hypothetical incident, not mine, and it is hypothetical, just so you dont get confused on that.


My wording, based on your story. (Which has only one consistent element, the fact that it 'consistently' changes). It's your story, Terminalia. You are the one that told it originally... didn't like the responses it got, and it is you that has been 're-writing' it ever since, to try to justify your violent response.


Well dont you think that would verify an assault, if not then you sure are willing to put up with a lot, or expecting other people to.

Note how you spelled assault compared to my spelling of it, what were you saying before about my terrible spelling, worry about your own.

I don't think you mean 'verify'. I would say that the word you are looking for is 'constitute'.... and I can't really see how you confused the two...

And, No... that doesn't constitute (or verify) an assault. If you don't like it, that is between you and the judicial system.

Well dont you think that would verify an assault, if not then you sure are willing to put up with a lot, or expecting other people to.
Termie let me clarify again, I asked you what right you had to physically attack law abiding people, you responded with many suggestions including the fact that you should not have to put up with people being rude to you. You have asserted your right to bash law abiding citizens, now you appear to be back peddaling. So which is, do you percieve the you have a right to bash law abiding citizens, or do think that the law should be obeyed?

Note how you spelled assault compared to my spelling of it, what were you saying before about my terrible spelling, worry about your own.
The only comment I would have made about your spelling would be that if your own is not perfect or close to, it's best not to comment on someone else's, simple advice which I happen to abide by. Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else....

I agree that many protestors are brainless and have nothing better to do. There are some that actually have a clue and are LEGALLY protesting. For some reason alot of protestors think they have the right to interfere with people's lives! Isnt it, u have the right to peacefully protest. As far as I'm concenred when they get violent the police should just gun em all down with rubber bullets. They began destroying people's businesses and other property, they physically attack police, and they harass innocent bystanders, and that's not right nor legal protesting.

So deep down, can I just run them over and call it a day?
I know, tempting, but running over large groups of people (no matter how stupid) is a crime.

i'm not looking to agree or disagree, just for you to actually respond to his point rather than insulting his spelling or quibbling about semantics. i would be interested to hear your side of the argument, but you aren't putting one forward so far.

Sorry Bottle, I dont have time at the moment to answer every post and

arguement Ive missed, if you really would like me to answer it that badly,

then put it up in quote please and I'll do my best to answer it, thanks.

[QUOTE=Grave_n_idle]Which is, of course, another stereotype... since you are effectively claiming that all Rugby players are straight.

Id say most would be hetero, there would be gays playing but they

wouldnt be advertising it much.

Your reply: thats because half of union players are really in the closet.

Mine back: whatever.


And, No... that doesn't constitute (or verify) an assault. If you don't like it, that is between you and the judicial system.

So if someone walked up and in 'your version' spat in your mouth, your first

reaction would be to go get a policeman?

Termie let me clarify again, I asked you what right you had to physically attack law abiding people,

law abiding??

Since when did people assaulting me suddenly become law abiding?

Whos changing the story now?


The only comment I would have made about your spelling would be that if your own is not perfect or close to, it's best not to comment on someone else's, simple advice which I happen to abide by. Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else....


From Pg 17
You:
[QUOTE]Termie, given your grammer and spelling, you really are asking to be hit over the head with that one....

You say you dont comment on other peoples spelling eh?

Simple advice you abide by you say..

Hah! lol

law abiding??

Since when did people assaulting me suddenly become law abiding?

Whos changing the story now?

let me help clarify: he was, i believe, refering to your original statements that you felt you had the right to attack people who were NOT assaulting at you, people who were protesting but NOT physically contacting you in any way. later in the topic, the idea of the spitting was introduced, and you claimed that you have the right to retaliate against somebody who is assaulting you. he was saying that you have changed your tune, because originally you were saying you have the right to attack people who aren't doing anything except protesting, but then you began talking about the spitting and the assault later on.

hope that was helpful.

Sorry Bottle, I dont have time at the moment to answer every post and

arguement Ive missed, if you really would like me to answer it that badly,

then put it up in quote please and I'll do my best to answer it, thanks.
the post in question was:


Termie, you have indeed changed the premises of your assertions. I asked you what right you have to physically assault law abiding people who happened to have called you a name, you responded several times attempting to justify your right to do so. Now you are going on about people spitting in your mouth and suggesting that this is an assualt and so you are justified in employing physical force in your own defence. If someone has assaulted you that is not relevent to your insistence that you have a right to assault law-abiding citizens, because anyone who is assaulting you is not abiding by the law. Your comments were specifically addressed to law abiding citizens, so comments about defending yourself from people assaulting you are not in any way relevent to your earlier assertions that you have a right to assault law abiding persons.

he has pointed out, correctly, that at the beginning of this thread you were asserting your right to attack people for "being rude to you," for protesting...protesting is a legal action, and therefore a person who is exercising their right to protest has not committed an illegal act, so you were apparently claiming you had the right to assault law-abiding citizens. you talked about running into protestors with your car, and the then, at some point, you changed your story to say that you would be defending yourself against assault, bring up this confused spitting situation...so which is it?

do you still defend your right to assault persons for getting in your way with their lawful protest, or do you only feel you have the right to defend yourself if they assault you?

Id say most would be hetero, there would be gays playing but they
wouldnt be advertising it much.
Your reply: thats because half of union players are really in the closet.
Mine back: whatever.
So if someone walked up and in 'your version' spat in your mouth, your first
reaction would be to go get a policeman?

Interesting... I never said half.... is that a Freudian slip?

If someone spat in my mouth? Maybe I shouldn't have been walking around with my mouth open... some of the more 'advanced' men can breathe through their noses...

law abiding??

Since when did people assaulting me suddenly become law abiding?
People who are assaulting someone else are not law abiding, that is why I stated that your references to defending yourself against assault are utterly irrelevent to earlier assertions that you have the right to bash law abiding persons. If you understand that those who are commiting assault are not law abiding, why did you even bring them up in the context of trying to justify the right to bash law abiding citizens?

You say you dont comment on other peoples spelling eh?
No, I say the only type of comment I would make in regard to someone's spelling is that it is inadvisable to comment on the accuracy of someone else's spelling unless your own is perfect. Although such comments may reference spelling they are not about spelling, but about the rather simple premise summed up in cliches such as 'people who live in glass houses should not throw stones'. I would not be surprised however if you misinterpreted the subject of my comments, it seems to be a habit of yours.

the post in question was:

[QUOTE]he has pointed out, correctly, that at the beginning of this thread you were asserting your right to attack people for "being rude to you," for protesting...protesting is a legal action, and therefore a person who is exercising their right to protest has not committed an illegal act, so you were apparently claiming you had the right to assault law-abiding citizens.

Only if they were harrassing me.. Bottle.

you talked about running into protestors with your car, and the then, at some point, you changed your story to say that you would be defending yourself against assault, bring up this confused spitting situation...so which is it?

Um the cars thing was Satire.. Bottle.

And Ive already admitted twice thats all it was, oops make that three times

now, still I suspect that you know that already but had to say it anyway.

The er confusion about the spitting incident was bought about by Grave who

changed my statement on the matter to suit his own arguement, something he does a lot.


do you still defend your right to assault persons for getting in your way with their lawful protest,

if their assaulting me yes.


or do you only feel you have the right to defend yourself if they assault you?

I never said I did.

let me help clarify: he was, i believe, refering to your original statements that you felt you had the right to attack people who were NOT assaulting at you, people who were protesting but NOT physically contacting you in any way. later in the topic, the idea of the spitting was introduced, and you claimed that you have the right to retaliate against somebody who is assaulting you. he was saying that you have changed your tune, because originally you were saying you have the right to attack people who aren't doing anything except protesting, but then you began talking about the spitting and the assault later on.

hope that was helpful.

Satire Bottle satire :rolleyes:

=Grave_n_idle]Interesting... I never said half.... is that a Freudian slip?

No just what you probably think.

If someone spat in my mouth? Maybe I shouldn't have been walking around with my mouth open... some of the more 'advanced' men can breathe through their noses...

The spitting directly and intentionally into the mouth was bought up by you

first as an exaggeration of what I originally said, and dont deny it.

You still dodged the question, Im sure if someone was screaming in your face

your mouth would drop open out of fear maybe, hense spittle from screaming

idiot could get in your mouth, try not to embellish this into a gob of spit

aimed deliberately into the mouth this time if you can.

Anyway what would you do Grave?

Surely you wouldnt resort to violence, not someone as advanced and

broadminded as you lol

Um the cars thing was Satire.. Bottle.


Good escape. You lose the argument in a humiliating defeat, and then you claim it was all 'just a big joke'.


The er confusion about the spitting incident was bought about by Grave who
changed my statement on the matter to suit his own arguement, something he does a lot.


Not really, Terminalia. You started talking about some chap raging at you, and his spittle going into your mouth... and how this justified you pounding his head into a bloody pulp, or some other macho crap.

Maybe you shouldn't stand with your mouth open in front of rabid people... unless you like exchanging bodily fluids with the obviously deranged?

No just what you probably think.


I am a former rugby player, and I would guess that there are as many homosexuals in rugby, as their are (proportionally) in society.

So, my guess would be about 10% are purely homosexual, with varying proportions of the rest 'experimenting' in homosexuality at various times, or engaging in intercourse with members of either/both genders.

I find it curious that you raised the 50% idea, Terminalia... I guess you have information that I don't.


The spitting directly and intentionally into the mouth was bought up by you
first as an exaggeration of what I originally said, and dont deny it.
You still dodged the question, Im sure if someone was screaming in your face
your mouth would drop open out of fear maybe, hense spittle from screaming
idiot could get in your mouth, try not to embellish this into a gob of spit
aimed deliberately into the mouth this time if you can.
Anyway what would you do Grave?
Surely you wouldnt resort to violence, not someone as advanced and
broadminded as you lol

I never tried to deny it. You started talking about bashing some guy because of a spittle incident... and I basically argue that, if you stand around with your mouth open, while someone is delivering cascades of spittle, you are either too dumb to close your mouth, or you obviously WANT spittle in your mouth.

I have had people 'screaming in my face', and I somehow managed to retain control of my body functions... including my jaw. Maybe that makes me a better man, I don't know.

Didn't you say that you deliberately laughed at these protestors, just to annoy them, anyway?

In answer to your question, someone 'screaming in my face' is unlikely to cause me to engage in a violent altercation. I have self-control.

Of course, if my wife or daughter came to harm, then I have no doubt that I would engage in acts of violence... but, then again, I am not dim enough to lead them (or myself) deliberately into a rioting mob... so it becomes somewhat irrelevent.

Geebus, GnI, rent a clue! :) I gave up on this troll days ago!

Geebus, GnI, rent a clue! :) I gave up on this troll days ago!

Hey, don't use the name of Geebus in vain!

I'm actually almost getting to enjoy him, though.

I've got him running in little circles, like a mindless puppet, slashing at his own strings.

Soon enough, he'll cut through his last string, and come crashing down as a little pile of kindling, cursing and spitting at the unseen puppeteer hands that made him dance his ridiculous jigs... and he'll feel like he has won.

Welcome to Metaphoria, population 1... and a puppet.

Ahh... but who is strung on the strings of whom? :cool:

Ahh... but who is strung on the strings of whom? :cool:

Ooooh. Deep....

That's like... far out, man....

It's like some great cosmic brain pulsating at the heart of the metaverse, or something.

Actually - to be honest... the reason why I insist on petting this particualr troll, is that I ignored him a while back, and he started savaging the noobs.

I figured it was better for me to be forced to discipline him, than to let poor little newbies think he was a representative for the ACTUAL debate that exists on the forum... I know it, I'm SO the hero..... *sigh*

Good escape. You lose the argument in a humiliating defeat, and then you claim it was all 'just a big joke'.

The beginning was..

If you think I would actually run people over with my car, then your even

screwier than I think, humiliating defeat lol

Great way to say your view is the only right one.

Not really, Terminalia. You started talking about some chap raging at you, and his spittle going into your mouth... and how this justified you pounding his head into a bloody pulp, or some other macho crap.

But you changed the story into a full gob of spit, why cant you just admit it,

you twist stories for your own advantage, you always do.


Maybe you shouldn't stand with your mouth open in front of rabid people...

This was a hypothetical Grave, remember, the inncident never even actually

happened, wakey wakey.

unless you like exchanging bodily fluids with the obviously deranged?

More insults Grave, for someone who enjoys crowing on about their

intelligence, you sure dont show it much.

if a protest blocks traffic, take another damn route you judgemental jackass

If you think I would actually run people over with my car, then your even
screwier than I think...But you changed the story into a full gob of spit, why cant you just admit it,you twist stories for your own advantage, you always do. This was a hypothetical Grave, remember, the inncident never even actually happened, wakey wakey... More insults Grave, for someone who enjoys crowing on about their intelligence, you sure dont show it much.

I haven't 'crowed on' about my intelligence. You have tried to denigrate it repeatedly, and failed. That isn't quite the same thing.

Said it before... if that's your idea of a joke, your sense of humour needs some work. And just because you put "lol" or ":)" at the end, doesn't make it funny.

I didn't actually insult you there, either. Curious that you picked up on that one of two options, though.

if a protest blocks traffic, take another damn route you judgemental jackass

Now, I do believe that protests are a way of allowing the minority to prevent having their rights overrun by the majority. However, when a minority has so little respect for the rest of the country that they would deliberately ruin another persons day just to make their point, then I think that they are just a very vocal jackass. You should understand, if you drive, that there is nothing worse than a traffic jam. If you spend 2 hours and only move 25 feet, you are about as pissed as they come. So why would a protester cause another person such consternation? I have more respect for people than to do that. It really only hurts the protest, because then all those avergae guys on their way to work that just might have been on their side are pissed enough to, yes, run them over. So, as an average joe shmoe, I beg, nay, implore, don't be jackasses protesters!

=Grave_n_idle]I am a former rugby player, and I would guess that there are as many homosexuals in rugby, as their are (proportionally) in society.

Guestimations, thats all you really have.


So, my guess would be about 10% are purely homosexual, with varying proportions of the rest 'experimenting' in homosexuality at various times, or engaging in intercourse with members of either/both genders.

I dont agree with the same ratio as the rest of society in these sports, most

gays Ive met dont play any sport at all, Im not saying that there arent any

homosexuals in League or Union just that the % participating is probably

lower compared to the number of gays in society in general, mainly being the

attitude in these sports isnt very friendly to homosexuals, whether you think

thats right or wrong is irrelevant.


I find it curious that you raised the 50% idea, Terminalia... I guess you have
information that I don't.

You seem to think thats the case, with your 10% of full on queer and then

more degrees of experimentation, I dont agree with that.

I never tried to deny it. You started talking about bashing some guy because of a spittle incident... and I basically argue that, if you stand around with your mouth open, while someone is delivering cascades of spittle, you are either too dumb to close your mouth, or you obviously WANT spittle in your mouth.

Grow up, as if I would want that, and there you go yet again right on cue,

now my flecks of saliva spray have been altered to 'cascades of spittle', you

should get a job for the National enquirer Grave.


I have had people 'screaming in my face', and I somehow managed to retain control of my body functions... including my jaw. Maybe that makes me a better man, I don't know.

As I have, and I just laughed at them, is that allright, or do I have to just

nod and solemly agree with their rant, so as not to antagonise the little

merkins?

Didn't you say that you deliberately laughed at these protestors, just to annoy them, anyway?

Whats wrong with that, are you saying protesters have a right to get angry

and assault people for merely laughing at them?


In answer to your question, someone 'screaming in my face' is unlikely to cause me to engage in a violent altercation. I have self-control.

Ah this was originally more about spittle landing in your mouth or on your

face, not yelling wasnt it?

But you go on ahead and change the story as usual.

Of course, if my wife or daughter came to harm, then I have no doubt that I would engage in acts of violence... but, then again, I am not dim enough to lead them (or myself) deliberately into a rioting mob... so it becomes somewhat irrelevent.

A rioting mob, so you finally admit protesters can become like this.

if a protest blocks traffic, take another damn route you judgemental jackass

What about ambulances and fire crews rushing to an emergency, what if their

blocked and the delay taking alonger route costs lives.

Idiots like you who support street protests dont have any consideration for

people at all.

Guestimations, thats all you really have.
I dont agree with the same ratio as the rest of society in these sports, most
gays Ive met dont play any sport at all, Im not saying that there arent any
homosexuals in League or Union just that the % participating is probably
lower compared to the number of gays in society in general, mainly being the
attitude in these sports isnt very friendly to homosexuals, whether you think
thats right or wrong is irrelevant.
You seem to think thats the case, with your 10% of full on queer and then
more degrees of experimentation, I dont agree with that.


Whether you agree or not is irrelevent. You suggested the figure of 50%, not I.

I don't know why you think that the number of homosexuals would be LESS just because of negative attitudes in the sport. Oh, they might not be so open about their sexuality, but that doesn't mean they aren't there.

I have met many gay people (of both genders), and I reckon that the number of gay people playing sports is about the same proportion as the number of straight people playing sports. Conversely, within any given sport, I have usually encountered about the same proportion of homosexuals as seem to be in society.

You can try to stereotype gays as 'non-sporting' if you like, but that is all it is, a stereotype.


Grow up, as if I would want that, and there you go yet again right on cue,
now my flecks of saliva spray have been altered to 'cascades of spittle', you
should get a job for the National enquirer Grave.


You didn't say "flecks of saliva spray".


As I have, and I just laughed at them, is that allright, or do I have to just
nod and solemly agree with their rant, so as not to antagonise the little
merkins?


Or you could just listen to their point.


Whats wrong with that, are you saying protesters have a right to get angry
and assault people for merely laughing at them?


Surely they have that right, as much as you have the right to get angry at their protests, or to want to strike someone who yells at you?


Ah this was originally more about spittle landing in your mouth or on your
face, not yelling wasnt it?
But you go on ahead and change the story as usual.


I don't know any more, Terminalia. I can't keep up. I thought you had just claimed that it was all about the yelling man, and that I was chasing a redundant thread on the spittle issue. You ask me the question you want me to answer, and silence all your static, and I'll try to work out what it is you are asking?


A rioting mob, so you finally admit protesters can become like this.

Not at all, this was your imagery. I think that, if you approach the kind of image that you have been discussing, you are looking to get into an altercation. That simple.

What about ambulances and fire crews rushing to an emergency, what if their
blocked and the delay taking alonger route costs lives.
Idiots like you who support street protests dont have any consideration for
people at all.

You never worked for the emergency services, did you?

They have specific routes that they follow to any given location - for lowest possible response times. Along those routes, traffic signals are primed to inhibit traffic flow that would block the route, to enhance this ability to respond.

Protests, natural emergencies, disasters, etc. are all factored in when deciding response routes. If there is a protest on a given street, they will choose a quicker route around it.

Next weak uninformed argument?

[Lift left leg]

What about ambulances and fire crews rushing to an emergency, what if their

blocked and the delay taking alonger route costs lives.

Idiots like you who support street protests dont have any consideration for

people at all.
i live in a city that sees more protests and demonstrations each year than any other major city in America (bonus points to whomever can name that city :)), and i can tell you that protests do not in any way impair the ability of emergency personel to carry out their duties. i work nextdoor to a major hospital, and eat lunch with EMTs and premeds in the hospital, and they actually have said it's sometimes easier to get around town when a protest is going on; people in the city don't park on the streets as much, and tend to use mass transit rather than driving to get around when there are protest detours in effect.

so if the people who would actually be driving those emergency vehicles don't mind the inconvenience, why do you think your feelings should matter in the slightest? sounds like you just want to make sure nobody adds two minutes to your morning commute, to me, and you are willing to take away the consitutional rights of other citizens in order to get your way.

and since when do you care about inconveniencing emergency workers? you're the one who started things off by advocating driving over protestors with your car, and that would make all kinds of work for the emergency workers. if you really cared about their feelings, you wouldn't be talking about assaulting people and making messes for the emergency workers to clean up.

=Grave_n_idle]Whether you agree or not is irrelevent. You suggested the figure of 50%, not I.

I suggested thats what you probably think, not something I agree with.

I don't know why you think that the number of homosexuals would be LESS just because of negative attitudes in the sport. Oh, they might not be so open about their sexuality, but that doesn't mean they aren't there.

So your assumming then that their there.


I have met many gay people (of both genders), and I reckon that the number of gay people playing sports is about the same proportion as the number of straight people playing sports. Conversely, within any given sport, I have usually encountered about the same proportion of homosexuals as seem to be in society.

You can try to stereotype gays as 'non-sporting' if you like, but that is all it is, a stereotype.

I dont know, I think Gays are more attracted to Arts, Dance and music than

Sport.

You didn't say "flecks of saliva spray".

It was close to what I said, definitely far from your version of what I said.



Or you could just listen to their point.

You mean their hate filled rant, sorry but I have better things to do.



Surely they have that right, as much as you have the right to get angry at their protests, or to want to strike someone who yells at you?

Oh so now they have the right to do something you have so venemently

denied me, and like I said, I never said I would hurt someone just for yelling

at me.

I don't know any more, Terminalia. I can't keep up. I thought you had just claimed that it was all about the yelling man, and that I was chasing a redundant thread on the spittle issue. You ask me the question you want me to answer, and silence all your static, and I'll try to work out what it is you are asking?


My static lol what about yours?

I dont care anymore, you guys paste me out to be some kind of thug, and I'll

keep denying it, and so on round in circles, like a broken pencil ..pointless.


Not at all, this was your imagery. I think that, if you approach the kind of image that you have been discussing, you are looking to get into an altercation. That simple.



Do you suggest everyone who doesnt agree with what the protesters are

marching about give them a wide berth out of fear of an altercation, where

would that fear come from Grave, surely your not suggesting these

protesters could be violent?

=Grave_n_idle]You never worked for the emergency services, did you?

Have you?


They have specific routes that they follow to any given location - for lowest possible response times. Along those routes, traffic signals are primed to inhibit traffic flow that would block the route, to enhance this ability to respond.

This might be the case for high tech parts of modern cities, but I dont think

it would count for everywhere.


Protests, natural emergencies, disasters, etc. are all factored in when deciding response routes. If there is a protest on a given street, they will choose a quicker route around it.

Why doesnt the protest just get out of the way instead, is their protest more

important than people dying from a delay in the help trying to reach them?


Next weak uninformed argument?

If its so weak then why do you bother?

[Lift left leg]

lol what are you a dog? :)

I've got a better solution than killing them. It should be made law that if you can prove economic (or other) loss because of their protest, you can claim repayment. Hrm, well, I guess I can see how companies would abuse that, so maybe it's not such a wonderful idea.

I dont know, I think Gays are more attracted to Arts, Dance and music than Sport.

Oh so now they have the right to do something you have so venemently
denied me, and like I said, I never said I would hurt someone just for yelling
at me.

Do you suggest everyone who doesnt agree with what the protesters are
marching about give them a wide berth out of fear of an altercation, where
would that fear come from Grave, surely your not suggesting these
protesters could be violent?

Stereotyping (homosexuals) again. How many homosexuals do you know, Terminalia?

I am saying that you have to accord someone those rights if you want to demand those rights for yourself.

I would argue that you should avoid large groups of people. You seem to have an angry personality... and large groups of people would just be bait to that.

I avoid large groups of people, where passions are running high. Not because I think those people might be violent, but out of caution. You never know what is going to happen when large groups of people conflict. You are advocating that you SHOULD conflict with them... so I would be doubly careful to avoid a large group of people that had you in/near it.

This might be the case for high tech parts of modern cities, but I dont think
it would count for everywhere.

Why doesnt the protest just get out of the way instead, is their protest more
important than people dying from a delay in the help trying to reach them?


Emergency Medical Services have similar networks set up in most of the major towns and cities in the civilised world. They may not have them set up on backroads in the middle of nowhere - but that is okay - since very few protests take place in cornfields.

Try looking into your local councils' policy on emergency response.

The protest doesn't have to get out of the way - there is an alternative route that is more EXPEDIENT than moving a protest.

And, if the emergency takes place where the protest is, I have seen protestors seperate to allow ambulances through... so your argument falls (again).

I called your argument weak and uninformed, because you clearly didn't check out HOW emergency response works - even in your own locale - before you posted your point. The ACTUAL way emergency responders operate makes your argument redundant.

=Grave_n_idle]Stereotyping (homosexuals) again. How many homosexuals do you know, Terminalia?

Quite a lot at the moment, the area I live in is a red light district for them, I

dont hang out with them all the time, sometimes, but usually only for brief

periods of time, I also know some transexuals as well.

None of them play much sport either.



I would argue that you should avoid large groups of people. You seem to have an angry personality... and large groups of people would just be bait to that.

I do avoid large groups of people whos lifestyle clashes with my own

opinions, like you said your just asking for an arguement. Im not going to

convince them that their wrong, and likewise back.

I get angry sometimes about certain things, but theres nothing wrong with

that.

I avoid large groups of people, where passions are running high. Not because I think those people might be violent, but out of caution.

So if you dont think they might be violent then why the caution?

You never know what is going to happen when large groups of people conflict. You are advocating that you SHOULD conflict with them...

Hang on, are you saying I'm a large group, Im only one person Grave, what

two groups conflicting are you talking about here?

=Grave_n_idle]Emergency Medical Services have similar networks set up in most of the major towns and cities in the civilised world.

This could still cause delay but, if the most direct route somewhere is blocked

by something that could have been just as easily held in a park.

Why should protests be allowed to dictate to emergency services when and

where they should go?



The protest doesn't have to get out of the way - there is an alternative route that is more EXPEDIENT than moving a protest.

The alterrnative route is probably longer or it would have been taken in the

first place, someone could die because of the delay.


And, if the emergency takes place where the protest is, I have seen protestors seperate to allow ambulances through...

Yeah right I can just see the Ambulance crawling along at 5 km an hour now,

as protesters 'quickly' move out of the way, not good enough sorry.

so your argument falls

In your opinion.

Alot of people would agree with you, and alot with me, so

whos right here, answer: the guys trying to get to an emergency, they have

first priority not a protest, for any reason.



I called your argument weak and uninformed, because you clearly didn't check out HOW emergency response works - even in your own locale - before you posted your point. The ACTUAL way emergency responders operate makes your argument redundant.

Well you answered that yourself, they take an alternate route, which is

longer and therefore slower, if it was quicker then they would have to, to

repeat myself, taken that way in the first place.

Hey Terminalia, I just came up with a great idea: how about you show us a link to a specific instance of an emergency services vehicle being critically delayed by a protest, instead of speculating. If you can find one, it will add a lot of weight to your argument.

Speculating?

What about this then Fubaria.

Id say any emercency services trying to get somewhere in a hurry would

have encountered quite a few problems getting around these imbeciles.

http://www.emergency.com/2000/RNC_conv.htm

OK, maybe I need new glasses, but I see a lot of complaints by authorities about this particular group, and charges laid against them, but no mention of any emergency vehicles missing or being late to calls due to the protests. If I missed it, could you please point it out to me?

Speculating?
What about this then Fubaria.
Id say any emercency services trying to get somewhere in a hurry would
have encountered quite a few problems getting around these imbeciles.
http://www.emergency.com/2000/RNC_conv.htm

Interesting. The article you cite specifically mentions that the people it is discussing are not conventional 'protesters', but are, in fact a group DEDICATED to causing obstruction and disorder.

What, in the old days, they used to call 'anarchists'.

And, since that was in Philadelphia, AND was not about conventional protest, what has that to do with YOUR EMS answer?

Quite a lot at the moment, the area I live in is a red light district for them, I
dont hang out with them all the time, sometimes, but usually only for brief
periods of time, I also know some transexuals as well.
None of them play much sport either.



So, you live in a homosexual-prostitution-zone? So, all the homosexuals you know are homosexual prostitutes? That doesn't really make a very good sample of the homosexual population, does it - since most homosexuals obviously are NOT prostitutes? Perhaps that explains why they exhibit atypical results.

I have changed my opinion of you, Terminalia. A League player who lives in a gay-hooker district can't be as bad as he appears.

OK, maybe I need new glasses, but I see a lot of complaints by authorities about this particular group, and charges laid against them, but no mention of any emergency vehicles missing or being late to calls due to the protests. If I missed it, could you please point it out to me?

Well its obvious I think that any ambulances or fire crews trying to get

somewhere would have been hampered by these so called protesters who are

actually nothing but thugs or rioters, these 'demonstrations' covered a wide

area not just a few select streets for the marches, also any firecrews or

ambos heading into the actual disaster zone for any reason caused by theses

imbeciles, would have probably been attacked as well.

If you think that any other emergencies happenning at the time, that ambos,

police and firies have to get to, will suddenly put themselves on hold for this

mayhem, then your sadly mistaken.

[QUOTE=Grave_n_idle]So, you live in a homosexual-prostitution-zone? So, all the homosexuals you know are homosexual prostitutes?

No, some of them are.

And yes most homosexuals Ive met are nice friendly people, I just dont agree

with their lifestyle.


That doesn't really make a very good sample of the homosexual population, does it - since most homosexuals obviously are NOT prostitutes? Perhaps that explains why they exhibit atypical results.

Most out and out gays live in this area, not just gay prostitutes.

The area is Id say about 60% gay in some way or another.


I have changed my opinion of you, Terminalia. A League player who lives in a gay-hooker district can't be as bad as he appears.

Right so I live in a gay area and suddenly Im a better person, its not just a

gay area, its also close to everything in the city, the harbour and the

beaches, and is also fairly cheap.

Well its obvious I think that any ambulances or fire crews trying to get

somewhere would have been hampered by these so called protesters who are

actually nothing but thugs or rioters, these 'demonstrations' covered a wide

area not just a few select streets for the marches, also any firecrews or

ambos heading into the actual disaster zone for any reason caused by theses

imbeciles, would have probably been attacked as well.

If you think that any other emergencies happenning at the time, that ambos,

police and firies have to get to, will suddenly put themselves on hold for this

mayhem, then your sadly mistaken.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you - I'm just asking if you can cite a specific example of an emergency services vehicle being critically delayed by a protest...

I coulda sworn it was the right that was more militant.

militant != military :sniper:

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you - I'm just asking if you can cite a specific example of an emergency services vehicle being critically delayed by a protest...

Im sure its happenned, and a critical delay doesnt have to be along one

either.

Im sure its happenned, and a critical delay doesnt have to be along one

either.

Oh, well since you're sure it's happened... :rolleyes: I guess that's proof...

But since any delay could be critical, when are you going to stop driving your momma around and stop killing ambulence passengers?

[QUOTE=Druthulhu]Oh, well since you're sure it's happened... :rolleyes: I guess that's proof...

logic would suggest the chances of it happenning are more true than false.

I hate protesters who don't respect my right to get to work on time. If they don't respect you, then how can they expect you to respect them? They are obviously self-centered asshats, and must be run over.

VROOM VROOM muddafuka
:sniper: :mp5: :gundge: :cool:

I hate protesters who don't respect my right to get to work on time. If they don't respect you, then how can they expect you to respect them? They are obviously self-centered asshats, and must be run over.

VROOM VROOM muddafuka
:sniper: :mp5: :gundge: :cool:

Oh you have done it now.

Expect about half a dozen anti war activists to pester the hell out of you,

for the next ten or more pages of this thread now.

Or we could just call him an idiot.

Since, you know, he is one.

Or we could just call him an idiot.

Since, you know, he is one.


I dont actually.

You on the other hand..

Never argue with an idiot, because other people will not be able to tell the difference.

Good night.

Never argue with an idiot, because other people will not be able to tell the difference.

Good night.

Did you write that one yourself Dru?

So original, get some of your own material, or people one day might think

your an idiot, for constantly resorting to cliches to try to look superior.

Never argue with an idiot, because other people will not be able to tell the difference.

Good night.

Hmm. That's right up there on a par with "I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed man." Sigh.

I say run over ALL pedestrians.... and cyclists too while we're at it :)

Hmm. That's right up there on a par with "I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed man." Sigh.

Or you have battleship mouths and rowboat brains Eutrusca..

[QUOTE]

logic would suggest the chances of it happenning are more true than false.

Actually, logic dictates both are equally likely, in the absence of any other evidence.

However, the lack of evidence does seem to suggest that it probably has NOT happened... otherwise there would have been a fuss, and, thus, some evidence.

Overall then, logic suggests the chances of it happenning are more 'false' than 'true'.

Let me get this straight. Someone walks in and makes an idiotic comment that has no debatable material. You say "OMG watch out, they'll GeT MaAD At yUU!"

We...don't. In fact, we pretty much ignore him, and call him an idiot-which he showed himself to be-and you say "OMG WhY ARn't yUU DEbaTiNG w/ hIM?!?!?!"

Actually, logic dictates both are equally likely, in the absence of any other evidence.

However, the lack of evidence does seem to suggest that it probably has NOT happened... otherwise there would have been a fuss, and, thus, some evidence.

Overall then, logic suggests the chances of it happenning are more 'false' than 'true'.
ahh, but you forget: Terminalia says he's sure that it happened. just because he's never seen it, can't come up with an example of a single time it might have happened, and doesn't feel like even attempting to find evidence that it might possible occur...well, none of that diminishes the fact that he says he's SURE.

i don't know about you, but Terminalia's sparkling record of solid debating, sound reasoning, and ample evidence for all his opinions leads me to believe it is wise to take his word for it.

wow, i managed to type that without bursting into laughter.

ahh, but you forget: Terminalia says he's sure that it happened. just because he's never seen it, can't come up with an example of a single time it might have happened, and doesn't feel like even attempting to find evidence that it might possible occur...well, none of that diminishes the fact that he says he's SURE.

i don't know about you, but Terminalia's sparkling record of solid debating, sound reasoning, and ample evidence for all his opinions leads me to believe it is wise to take his word for it.

wow, i managed to type that without bursting into laughter.

True, it often seems less like an uphill climb, and more like climbing a ladder with your arms and legs tied together...

I just think that: if someone calls for Occam, they should at least check his ID before letting him in...

=Goed]Let me get this straight. Someone walks in and makes an idiotic comment that has no debatable material. You say "OMG watch out, they'll GeT MaAD At yUU!"

I was joking Goed, take your pill.


We...don't. In fact, we pretty much ignore him, and call him an idiot-which he showed himself to be-and you say "OMG WhY ARn't yUU DEbaTiNG w/ hIM?!?!?!"

Oh right sure, so why did you and others carp on for pages and pages about

me saying the same thing at the beginning of this thread?

Even though I admitted three now four times, that it was just satire in bad

taste.

As for you debating on here, please dont flatter yourself, all you are

interested in is joining in on the flames.

Actually, logic dictates both are equally likely, in the absence of any other evidence.

However, the lack of evidence does seem to suggest that it probably has NOT happened... otherwise there would have been a fuss, and, thus, some evidence.

Overall then, logic suggests the chances of it happenning are more 'false' than 'true'.

But you have admitted yourself that emergency services have to take

alternate routes, which means longer ones of course, which could mean

someone dying as a result, do you deny that?

(ps Goed go find some toys to play with)

[QUOTE=Bottle]ahh, but you forget: Terminalia says he's sure that it happened. just because he's never seen it, can't come up with an example of a single time it might have happened, and doesn't feel like even attempting to find evidence that it might possible occur...well, none of that diminishes the fact that he says he's SURE.



Which I still am, for you to just out right dismiss the possibilty of it ever

happening, shows your not even in this for a debate, just another stupid

flame attack, for someone who enjoys carping on about their

intelligence bottle, you sure dont show much here.




i don't know about you, but Terminalia's sparkling record of solid debating, sound reasoning, and ample evidence for all his opinions leads me to believe it is wise to take his word for it.

as apposed to your record of needless flaming, you have a lot of spare time

on your hands dont you?


wow, i managed to type that without bursting into laughter.

Laughter.. that might help you.

They say its the best medicene. ;)

Temrinalia, I'm not quite sure you understand what we are saying to you.

We're (me anyway) not saying it could never happen - we're asking you if you can show us that is has happened.

Also, I believe that someone earlier pointed out that alternate route does not neccessarily mean longer route.

[QUOTE=New Fubaria]Temrinalia, I'm not quite sure you understand what we are saying to you.

I understand perfectly.

We're (me anyway) not saying it could never happen - we're asking you if you can show us that is has happened.

I cant, but Im sure it has, logic would suggest it would have happenned

sooner or later.


Also, I believe that someone earlier pointed out that alternate route does not neccessarily mean longer route.

So why didnt they take that one first then, if its shorter, in an emergency

you always take the quickest route.

Actually, yeah, I was bored and in a fairly rotton mood so I did decide to walk in and throw some shit around in hopes that it would hit a fan or two.

I just might've succeeded :p

=Goed Actually, yeah, I was bored and in a fairly rotton mood so I did decide to walk in and throw some shit around in hopes that it would hit a fan or two.

period pain? ;) :)

I just might've succeeded :p

In showing your immaturity, you exceeded even my hopes.

lol

I don't know about anyone else but im tired of protestors. But before I begin my rant I want to say that I am not some pig headed conservative. I'm just tired of protestors. What relevence do they have anymore? None of there points never seem to get heared anymore. Like animal rights? Who cares how some irelevent cow lives before I eat it? Or war protestors, the war has already started, can't you write letters instead of blocking traffic? And just because of that one thing I have to ask, Can I just run them over if they get in my way? Whose gonna miss them? Their parents, whoom im sure they live with, or ahhh... Im pretty sure most of these ppl don't have jobs so.... I think thats about it.

Also, protestors never seem to know what there protesting any more. Or be knowledgeable about the subject they're protesting. They never seem to think.

So deep down, can I just run them over and call it a day?

i think you should hold a protest to ban protests haha im sorry

I dont actually.

You on the other hand..

Jesus, if you're gonna call someone an idiot, at least do it with correct grammar.

Apostrophe in "don't", comma after "you", three dots for ellipsis.

Jesus, if you're 1.gonna call someone an idiot, at least do it 2.with correct grammar.

Apostrophe in "don't", comma after "you", three dots for ellipsis.


1. 'going to'

2. 'the' correct grammar.

If your such a bonafide lover of grammar, how come you have no

problem with this rubbish, dished up before by Goed:


"OMG WhY ARn't yUU DEbaTiNG w/ hIM?!?!?!"


Well, what have you got to say for yourself?

i think you should hold a protest to ban protests haha im sorry

Im all for that, in a park of course.

1. 'going to'

2. 'the' correct grammar.



1. Going to, and I clearly didn't do that out of ignorance, so I don't know why you bothered picking up on it.

2.The correct grammar: The 'the' as far as I'm aware, simply isn't necessary in my sentence.
If you have any substantiation of your claim I'd be interested to see it.

If your such a bonafide lover of grammar, how come you have no

problem with this rubbish, dished up before by Goed:




Well, what have you got to say for yourself?

Taking your "your" for "you're" to be a typo, it just struck me as curious that a person could imply that someone was an idiot using such wobbly English.

why can people just talk england prorper like i use to could?

[QUOTE=Great Scotia]1. Going to, and I clearly didn't do that out of ignorance, so I don't know why you bothered picking up on it.

Yep, thats my story, and I'm going to stick to it right?

Just admit you screwed up for once, your only human.

2.The correct grammar: The 'the' as far as I'm aware, simply isn't necessary in my sentence.
If you have any substantiation of your claim I'd be interested to see it.

Its called a joining word, these words are usually learnt, and put into practice

sucessfully by most 5 year olds, but if you want to come across to your

listeners as a caveman, then you go right on ahead.

why can people just talk england prorper like i use to could?


I dig.

why can people just talk england prorper like i use to could?

They can and worse.

Taking your "your" for "you're" to be a typo, it just struck me as curious that a person could imply that someone was an idiot using such wobbly English.

Yep keep working on those joining words, there like the mortar between the

bricks mate.

[QUOTE]

Its called a joining word, these words are usually learnt, and put into practice

sucessfully by most 5 year olds, but if you want to come across to your

listeners as a caveman, then you go right on ahead.


Without meaning to hijack this thread for some sort of grammar tutorial,

1. It's.
2. Comma before "and".
3. Successfully.
4. 'The' would be necessary in "using the correct grammar" if 'grammar' was a single concrete thing, as in "using the blue pencil", but it isn't. So it isn't.
5. "Joining words" are things like 'and' and 'but'. 'The' is a definite article.

I'm not going to post any more about this on this thread, since I'm sure people want to discuss the merits of limiting freedom of speech.

I cant, but Im sure it has, logic would suggest it would have happenned
sooner or later.


Once again, logic suggests no such thing. Logic is unbiased on the matter.


So why didnt they take that one first then, if its shorter, in an emergency
you always take the quickest route.

Not true. Sometimes EMS take the route less likely to be congested (based on traditional traffic patterning). Obviously, on a day with protests, that route would no longer qualify as 'less congested'.

Sometimes EMS take the route that requires least intersections (so they have to 'divert' less traffic signals), sometimes the route that is straightest (so they can attain maximum speed), sometimes they take the route that most closely approximates a certain 'exit' on a large building (like a hospital or school).

Like I said before, you have clearly not worked for EMS... and neither have you researched the matter.

why can people just talk england prorper like i use to could?

Man, your grammar is terrible! You have the subject and the object mixed up, and you've missed key elements of phrasing... here, let me correct it for you...

why can people just talk prorper england like WHAT i use to could?

Much better.

Did you write that one yourself Dru?

So original, get some of your own material, or people one day might think

your an idiot, for constantly resorting to cliches to try to look superior.

Is that your... final answer?

(...or do you want to edit it a few more times?)

You know, sometimes reading the responses in this thread feels like chewing on broken glass...

...please, someone explain to me why I keep coming back - is it some form of masochism? :p

You know, sometimes reading the responses in this thread feels like chewing on broken glass...

...please, someone explain to me why I keep coming back - is it some form of masochism? :p


Mmmmm, broken glass.... tastes like chicken...

(Actually, it'd probably taste like blood, really....)

Man, your grammar is terrible! You have the subject and the object mixed up, and you've missed key elements of phrasing... here, let me correct it for you...

why can people just talk prorper england like WHAT i use to could?

Much better.

hahahahaha sorry i should have said its an english countryside joke meaning why don't you speak english properly like i would! or summin like that don't take it seriously

I'm not going to post any more about this on this thread, since I'm sure people want to discuss the merits of limiting freedom of speech.

OK we'll call it even then.

[QUOTE=Grave_n_idle]Once again, logic suggests no such thing. Logic is unbiased on the matter.


I'd say the odds of it happenning are more in my favour, than 'not' in yours.


Not true. Sometimes EMS take the route less likely to be congested (based on traditional traffic patterning). Obviously, on a day with protests, that route would no longer qualify as 'less congested'.

Unnesseccary conjestion, traffic cant be helped sometimes, and at least

thats serving a purpose, transporting people around the city to help society

keep going, what purpose do the protests which could turn into full blown

riots serve in blocking traffic, answer, none.


Like I said before, you have clearly not worked for EMS...

Have you?

and neither have you researched the matter.

I think its obvious protests are going to get in the way sometimes, logic again.

You know, sometimes reading the responses in this thread feels like chewing on broken glass...

...please, someone explain to me why I keep coming back - is it some form of masochism? :p

Yes.

777th post, congratulations.

777th post, congratulations.Thanks :)

...you'll be there soon too...;)

Thanks :)

...you'll be there soon too...;)

Yeah thanks, I should get to it by mid next week hopefully.

I'd say the odds of it happenning are more in my favour, than 'not' in yours.

. . .



Uhm... what is your first language?

In a two option situation, the odds of the thing happening in one side's favour are always equal to the odds of it not happening in the other side's favour.

Think about it.

hahahahaha sorry i should have said its an english countryside joke meaning why don't you speak english properly like i would! or summin like that don't take it seriously

I got it, I got it...

That's why I 'corrected' it incorrectly.

:)

I'd say the odds of it happenning are more in my favour, than 'not' in yours.


This makes no sense. It's not even a real sentence.

Look, I don't know how to explain it to you if you don't understand probability, but - in the absence of evidence to the contrary - the probability MUST be equal.



Unnesseccary conjestion, traffic cant be helped sometimes, and at least
thats serving a purpose, transporting people around the city to help society
keep going, what purpose do the protests which could turn into full blown
riots serve in blocking traffic, answer, none.


Except that some people really do just 'go for a drive' because they feel like it. Or maybe they are going to McDonalds, where they will cause unnecessary congestion waiting for a burger...

To the protestor, their congestion is necessary. You need to show a little patience. Most protests are peaceful events that last a few hours, if that. You are taking extremes as if they represent the mean.


I think its obvious protests are going to get in the way sometimes, logic again.

Having a tool is not the same as being able to use it, my friend.

Yeah thanks, I should get to it by mid next week hopefully.

It all becomes clear. You argue with every point, whether it makes sense to, or not... because you think it is cool to have a high post tally...

Explains a lot.

Good job, Terminalia. 700 Posts. Way to Go! You the MAN!

=Druthulhu]Uhm... what is your first language?

English, and its the only one I have at present, although I'm intending to

head to Europe within the next four years, so I might try to learn another one.

In a two option situation, the odds of the thing happening in one side's favour are always equal to the odds of it not happening in the other side's favour.

Rubbish, why bring luck into it?

Its not even applicable in this situation.

[QUOTE=Grave_n_idle]This makes no sense.

It makes perfect sense.

It's not even a real sentence.

What?

How isnt it?


Look, I don't know how to explain it to you if you don't understand probability, but - in the absence of evidence to the contrary - the probability MUST be equal.

Ah so you admit then, that theres an equal chance of services being held up

then, as to not.


Except that some people really do just 'go for a drive' because they feel like it. Or maybe they are going to McDonalds, where they will cause unnecessary congestion waiting for a burger...

People like that usually are happy to cruise around in their neighborhood, not

go use main roads unless their going somewhere for a more important

reason, than just getting a burger.


To the protestor, their congestion is necessary.

Try telling that one to the car or truck driver, trying to get home from work

to their kids after slaving at work all day.


You need to show a little patience. Most protests are peaceful events that last a few hours, if that. You are taking extremes as if they represent the mean.

These extremes seem to be becoming more the norm now:
http://sayanythingblog.com/archives/003762.php

In this interview, a woman in charge of thousands of protesters, will not

answer a simple question directly, if she will be encouraging the protesters to

use violence or not.

The Allah link is telling too, as protesters are encouraged to take molotovs

and boltcutters to the 'protest'

Of course these guys see nothing wrong with endangering lives, but cry like

babies, if the police and security use force against them.

Having a tool is not the same as being able to use it, my friend.

Im just as adept at using logic as anyone else in here.

Are you two guys STILL enjoying your ongoing exchange of love letters to each other? :eek:

English, and its the only one I have at present, although I'm intending to

head to Europe within the next four years, so I might try to learn another one.



Rubbish, why bring luck into it?

Its not even applicable in this situation.

You really need to work on your language comprehension then. Or logic.

1) either A happens or B happens.

2) therefor A is the same as not-B.

3) therefor the chance, likelihood, probablility, statistical occurence, whateverthefuckyouwannacallit, of A is equal to that of not-B.

Go back and reread your post that I was replying to, and marvel at your atrocious misuse of the english language, as I have.

I'd say the odds of it happenning are more in my favour, than 'not' in yours.

Do you know how to properly use the word "than"? And hey! Look! You were the one who brought up "odds". Do you feel as stupid as you sound yet?

You really need to work on your language comprehension then.

Cant you ever make a point, without having to resort to needless flaming?

Cant you ever make a point, without having to resort to needless flaming?

Nope. :) Not when it comes to you. ;)

=Druthulhu]You really need to work on your language comprehension then. Or logic.

1) either A happens or B happens.


So you admit that protests could hold up emergency services then, hoisted

by your own petard.


3) therefor the chance, likelihood, probablility, statistical occurence, whateverthefuckyouwannacallit, of A is equal to that of not-B.

Go back and reread your post that I was replying to, and marvel at your atrocious misuse of the english language, as I have.

lol I highlighted yours above, worry about your own.

Do you know how to properly use the word "than"?

I used it properly.

And hey! Look! You were the one who brought up "odds". Do you feel as stupid as you sound yet?

lol how stupid do you sound, I just used your own logic against you in above

arguement, to clarify my point and therefore win the debate, what are the

odds on that?

Nope. :) Not when it comes to you. ;)

Ah I knew it, it is personal.

Try playing the ball then, not the man in future.

So you admit that protests could hold up emergency services then, hoisted

by your own petard.

HOW HAVE I ADMITTED THIS, AND WHEN HAVE I DENIED IT? EMERGENCY VEHICLES CAN BE DELAYED BY ANY OTHER VALID USE OF PUBLIC ROADWAYS AS WELL.

lol I highlighted yours above, worry about your own.

OH YOU MEAN THE WORD I INVENTED? THERE'S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THAT AND USING EXISTING WORDS WRONGLY.

I used it properly.

[I SEE. SO SOME OTHER PART OF YOUR ORIGINAL STATEMENT MUST BE FUCKED-UP SOMEHOW.

lol how stupid do you sound, I just used your own logic against you in above

arguement, to clarify my point and therefore win the debate, what are the

odds on that?

I'D SAY THE ODDS OF SOMETHING THAT HAS (ALLEGEDLY) ALREADY HAPPENED OF HAVING HAPPENED ARE BEST DESCRIBED AS A PROBABILITY OF ONE.

BUT WHERE HAVE YOU USED LOGIC? OR CLARIFIED YOUR POINT? DID YOU EDIT THAT PART OUT BEFORE I SAW IT?



The odds of you winning this particular debate between the two of us are exactly equal to the odds of me not winning it, since it is a "zero sum game".

I'd say the odds of it happenning are more in my favour, than 'not' in yours.

The odds CANNOT be more in your favour than they are of being NOT in his favour. DO YOU FUCKING GRASP THIS YET???

And for the record, despite your grammatical critique of my FUCKING OBVIOUSLY made-up contraction, I have yet to see anything that I would call solid logic coming from your keyboard. You haven't proven anything yet, except that you still have no grasp of the post you were replying to.

Oh wait now... did you mean to say "than the odds of it not are in his"? Because if you did, you really should have. What you did say could be taken either way.

- Druthulhu
clarifying your points for you since 2004

edit: actually a simple "is" would have done the trick, as in 'than "not" is in yours'.

=Druthulhu]The odds of you winning this particular debate between the two of us are exactly equal to the odds of me not winning it, since it is a "zero sum game".

lol


The odds CANNOT be more in your favour than they are of being NOT in his favour. DO YOU FUCKING GRASP THIS YET???

But you seem to be backing an arguement where emergency services are

never held up by protests, particularly ones that riot, wheres your proof on

that?



And for the record, despite your grammatical critique of my FUCKING OBVIOUSLY made-up contraction, I have yet to see anything that I would call solid logic coming from your keyboard. You haven't proven anything yet, except that you still have no grasp of the post you were replying to.

Im replying to your post Dru.

The reason you havent seen any 'solid logic' is because you simply do not

wish to see any, as you appose any arguement I ever make in here, like the

saying goes, there are none as blind, as those who do not wish to see.

And you have probably set a new record for using unnesscessary swearing in

one speech, since Steve Martins effort in 'Trains, planes and

automobiles' lol

lol




But you seem to be backing an arguement where emergency services are

never held up by protests, particularly ones that riot, wheres your proof on

that?





Im replying to your post Dru.

The reason you havent seen any 'solid logic' is because you simply do not

wish to see any, as you appose any arguement I ever make in here, like the

saying goes, there are none as blind, as those who do not wish to see.

And you have probably set a new record for using unnesscessary swearing in

one speech, since Steve Martins effort in 'Trains, planes and

automobiles' lol

:D lol lol lol :rolleyes:

How did I seem to be backing such an argument? By pointing out your baffling use of English? As for your "solid logic", tell me where it is in your second to last post to me. Highlight the logic :D So we can notice it.

Oh wait... do you know what the word "logic" means?

Druthulhu]Oh wait now... did you mean to say "than the odds of it not are in his"? Because if you did, you really should have.

your/his, same diff.

What you did say could be taken either way.

The odds.



- Druthulhu
tweeking your points around for his own arguement since 2004

lol


edit: actually a simple "is" would have done the trick, as in 'than "not" is in yours'.


??????????

I think you need to write that one again.

lol





??????????

I think you need to write that one again.

I disagree. But then, your lack of english language skills comes into play.

Ah I knew it, it is personal.

Try playing the ball then, not the man in future.

You meant this one right?

It was just a critisism of your debating techniques, when faced with

opposition, you seem to go for character assassinations, which dont help

your arguement in any way.

Nope. Sorry, I meant #432. My bad.

I disagree. But then, your lack of english language skills comes into play.

hah, look whos talking:

- Druthulhu
actually a simple "is" would have done the trick, as in 'than "not" is in yours'.

How does that even make sense?

hah, look whos talking:



How does that even make sense?

"I'd say the odds of it happenning are more in my favour, than 'not' IS in yours."

Heck of a lot clearer, assuming that was indeed your meaning.

Nope. Sorry, I meant #432. My bad.

I dont mean to be picky, but what part of it in particular?

"I'd say the odds of it happenning are more in my favour, than 'not' IS in yours."

Heck of a lot clearer, assuming that was indeed your meaning.

You mean 'as'

not 'is'.

Could be a lingual problem here, not a grammatorial one.

I dont mean to be picky, but what part of it in particular?

...uhm... the part that you seem to think displays LOGIC??? ...or clarifies the original post?

From 432:

=Terminalia]So you admit that protests could hold up emergency

services then,

Here logic dictates that, the chances of an emergency a service needs to get

too, not happenning, just because a protest is in the way, is an unrealistic

one to expect, as it could indeed happen.

You mean 'as'

not 'is'.

Could be a lingual problem here, not a grammatorial one.

No... you're comparing two conditions, and to describe the first you used the verb "are", so one the other side of the comparison you should have used another form of "to be", such as "is"

"As" isn't even a verb. :rolleyes:

=Grave_n_idleIt all becomes clear. You argue with every point, whether it makes sense to, or not... because you think it is cool to have a high post tally...

Wrong, its just my opinion, if I simply agreed with you and others on here just

to keep the peace, then there would be no point me being on here, its not

personal, for fun, or to get a high post count.


Good job, Terminalia. 700 Posts. Way to Go! You the MAN!

Ridiculous, I was referring to something else too.

Passing 700 posts is no great milestone for me, and you will find me

celebrating 7000, OR 70,000 posts with as little fevor.

From 432:



Here logic dictates that, the chances of an emergency a service needs to get

too, not happenning, just because a protest is in the way, is an unrealistic

one to expect, as it could indeed happen.

Your statement suggests that I had admitted to your argument, which I had in no way done, certainly not in the part of my post that you quoted from. At any rate it is simply not an example of a logical process, in addition to being wrong. There is a suggestion of logic in your conclusion that it is likley to happen, that is, it seems logical. However, you have yet to make a logical proof of to it.

It's great that kids today express themselves, even if their opinions are retarded. But I gtg2 work. Cya.

No... you're comparing two conditions, and to describe the first you used the verb "are", so one the other side of the comparison you should have used another form of "to be", such as "is"

"As" isn't even a verb. :rolleyes:

'As' is a noun that can be used in conjecture with 'is'

as in 'as is'

why didnt you just put that?

Or why not just simply admit you screwed up?

=Druthulhu]Your statement suggests that I had admitted to your argument, which I had in no way done, certainly not in the part of my post that you quoted from. At any rate it is simply not an example of a logical process, in addition to being wrong. There is a suggestion of logic in your conclusion that it is likley to happen, that is, it seems logical. However, you have yet to make a logical proof of to it.


Nicely dodged.

It's great that kids today express themselves, even if their opinions are retarded.

A parting shot as he scurrys away.

Flamers, I don't know...

But I gtg2 work. Cya.

More evidence of his superior grasp of English lol

Guys, haven't you figured it our yet? Terminlia is a supra-genius: he's only pretending to miss the point in order to infuriate you. ;)

Give it up - as I much as I am against his side of the argument, he has us beat. Trying to point out the fundamental flaws in his logic and sentence structure is about as futile as trying to wrestle water!

There are only two possibilities:

1.) He completely understands eveything the rest of us are saying, but is quite shrewdly emulating incomprehension in order to frustrate you.

2.) He genuinely cannot see what you are trying to point out, and never will.

Anyway, I'm off to a hard earned beer...g'night.

New Fubaria]Guys, haven't you figured it our yet? Terminlia is a supra-genius: he's only pretending to miss the point in order to infuriate you. ;)


Super.

Give it up - as I much as I am against his side of the argument, he has us beat. Trying to point out the fundamental flaws in his logic and sentence structure is about as futile as trying to wrestle water!

There are no flaws, just differences of opinion.

There are only two possibilities:

1.) He completely understands eveything the rest of us are saying, but is quite shrewdly emulating incomprehension in order to frustrate you.

Wrong, I understand you perfectly, I just disagree with you, sorry.


2.) He genuinely cannot see what you are trying to point out, and never will.

See my answer to question 1.

Anyway, I'm off to a hard earned beer...g'night.

Goodnight, I am drinking tonight also, heavily, the Roosters lost the Australian

Rugby League GF tonight in front of 82,000 people at the Sydney Olympic

Stadium, to the Bulldogs, 16-13.

A hard match, but too many mistakes by the Roosters in the wet, cost them

the Australian championship in the end.

Anyway, good on you Freddie Fittler, a champion player for fifteen years in

first grade, and captain of the Roosters, and a champion bloke!

Long may you be remembered!

Anyway, I'm off to a hard earned beer...g'night.


You mean 'good night', surely? Jeez. :rolleyes:

j/k. x

You mean 'good night', surely? Jeez. :rolleyes:

j/k. x

I know, his spelling is... :rolleyes:

They're making a stand for what they believe in. Most of us just bitch about stuff and dont do anything, they take some risk to show their disapproval. It is always intended as a form of non-violent protest, even though it often ends badly. Would you rather have a full-on revolution though? Writing letters doesnt do jack, face it, be thankful those thousands of people dont force the issue with any stronger means of persuasion.

Protesting is the step before outright rebellion; more moderate forms of complaint and pressure are usually ignored out of hand by the bueruacracy (I know I've mispelt that) in control, so people have to do this sort of thing. And if it disrupts your precious day-to-day business, then tough. There are things more important than you getting from one place to another in a certain amount of time. And believe me, emergency services are generally not impeded by protests - apart from the huge police force that often smashes them apart (Heaven forbid you express your disapproval of the state - see American protests for better examples of this).

If it wasnt for protesting, who knows where we would be today? Would women have the vote and all the rights they were denied prior to the suffragete movement? Would black people ever be free? Dont count on it. If history is anything to go by, you have to push people into positive action or they just ignore the negative sides of life.

Not that protesting really works in practice - not anymore at least. But you have to try, dont you?

Oh, and Terminilia - I dont mean to get involved in this debate over spelling and grammar, but "Supra" is just as valid a word as "super" in that context....
But druluthu (or whatever that is), outrightly calling your philosophical opponents "Retarded" and demeaning us all with the "Kids" statement...remember, when you throw shit it sticks to you.

hoisted by your own petard.


Hoist by your own petard... not hoisted.

Ah so you admit then, that theres an equal chance of services being held up
then, as to not.


In the absence of evidence, yes.

But that's not what you said... you said the odds were in favour of it having happened... which is not the same thing at all.

Also... in the case of awaiting evidence... which is what we are doing here, the LACK OF evidence is evidence of lack.

So, the odds actually favour the probability that it HASN'T happened.


People like that usually are happy to cruise around in their neighborhood, not
go use main roads unless their going somewhere for a more important
reason, than just getting a burger.


Because, of course, emergencies ALWAYS happen on main roads?


These extremes seem to be becoming more the norm now:
http://sayanythingblog.com/archives/003762.php
In this interview, a woman in charge of thousands of protesters, will not
answer a simple question directly, if she will be encouraging the protesters to
use violence or not.
The Allah link is telling too, as protesters are encouraged to take molotovs
and boltcutters to the 'protest'
Of course these guys see nothing wrong with endangering lives, but cry like
babies, if the police and security use force against them.


You pick ONE article, and it's from a web-log.

The fact that the name 'Allah' appears is telling in what way? Are you implying all protesters are Islamic?

I would suggest you have been directed to someones hate-site, of some kind.

Just stopping by, going on a road trip now. Just wanted to say...

"As" is a noun??? *LMFAO&ROTFPIMPAMSOMN*

...I'll come back tomorrow night and try to educate you a little more, kid. ;)

Guys, haven't you figured it our yet? Terminlia is a supra-genius: he's only pretending to miss the point in order to infuriate you. ;)Super.
No, supra- ;) Clicky clicky:

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=U&start=1&q=http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php%3Fp%3D11601&e=1102
http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=U&start=2&q=http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa%3FA2%3Dind0203%26L%3Danthro-l%26F%3D%26S%3D%26P%3D66134&e=1102
http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=U&start=3&q=http://www.livejournal.com/users/sebab/411742.html%3Fthread%3D2977374&e=1102
http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=U&start=4&q=http://newcamphorror.i8.com/V2I6/Stories/KK.htm&e=1102
http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=U&start=5&q=http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2004/04/21/eggers/&e=1102
http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=U&start=6&q=http://www.planetadnd.com/interactive_books/mm00005.php&e=1102
http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=U&start=8&q=http://www.randomoddness.com/Archivos/2002_09_01_Archivo.php&e=1102
http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=U&start=10&q=http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/B00027JYMG/%3F_encoding%3DUTF8%26me%3DATVPDKIKX0DER&e=1102
http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=U&start=11&q=http://www.tvtome.com/tvtome/servlet/ShowForumPage/showid-3914/threadid-32244/&e=1102

Learn something new every day, don’t you? I know I do. ;)




There are no flaws, just differences of opinion.
Isn't it funny when movie makers put millions of dollars in making a movie and then they forget all kinds of little (or huge) things, which can and will make the movie look funny, pathetic, weird or unrealistic.





Wrong, I understand you perfectly, I just disagree with you, sorry.
1 1/2 cups all-purpose flour
1 teaspoon baking soda
1/4 cup unsweetened cocoa powder
1/2 teaspoon salt
1 cup white sugar
1/3 cup vegetable oil
1 cup water
1 tablespoon vinegar
1 teaspoon vanilla extract

1 (8 ounce) package cream cheese, softened
1 egg
1/3 cup white sugar
1/8 teaspoon salt
1 cup miniature semisweet chocolate chips




See my answer to question 1.
The Strait of Hormuz, Panama Canal, and Dardanelles are some of the most important chokepoints in the world.





Goodnight, I am drinking tonight also, heavily, the Roosters lost the Australian

Rugby League GF tonight in front of 82,000 people at the Sydney Olympic

Stadium, to the Bulldogs, 19-16.

A hard match, but too many mistakes by the Roosters in the wet, cost them

the Australian championship in the end.

Anyway, good on you Freddie Fittler, a champion player for fifteen years in

first grade, and captain of the Roosters, and a champion bloke!

Long may you be remembered!
It would have been nice to see the Rooster's win, that's for sure.

Libitia]
Oh, and Terminilia - I dont mean to get involved in this debate over spelling and grammar, but "Supra" is just as valid a word as "super" in that context....

Like Dru says, you learn something new everyday I guess.

'I know I do' he says :rolleyes: lol

=New Fubaria]No, supra- ;) Clicky clicky:

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=U&start=1&q=http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php%3Fp%3D11601&e=1102
http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=U&start=2&q=http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa%3FA2%3Dind0203%26L%3Danthro-l%26F%3D%26S%3D%26P%3D66134&e=1102
http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=U&start=3&q=http://www.livejournal.com/users/sebab/411742.html%3Fthread%3D2977374&e=1102
http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=U&start=4&q=http://newcamphorror.i8.com/V2I6/Stories/KK.htm&e=1102
http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=U&start=5&q=http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2004/04/21/eggers/&e=1102
http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=U&start=6&q=http://www.planetadnd.com/interactive_books/mm00005.php&e=1102
http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=U&start=8&q=http://www.randomoddness.com/Archivos/2002_09_01_Archivo.php&e=1102
http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=U&start=10&q=http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/B00027JYMG/%3F_encoding%3DUTF8%26me%3DATVPDKIKX0DER&e=1102
http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=U&start=11&q=http://www.tvtome.com/tvtome/servlet/ShowForumPage/showid-3914/threadid-32244/&e=1102


Some of that stuff is just horrible.





Isn't it funny when movie makers put millions of dollars in making a movie and then they forget all kinds of little (or huge) things, which can and will make the movie look funny, pathetic, weird or unrealistic.

A lot of movies these days, particularly American ones, have lost nearly all

commonsense.

What makes me laugh, is the stupid unrealistic fight scenes, when all of a

sudden every male or female is an expert, and can take an enormous

hammering without hardly a mark on them, pure fantasy from people who

have never been in,or probably even seen a real fight.

Not to mention the stupid unrealistic hollywood noises when blows connect

that sound nearly as loud as a pistol shot lol



1 1/2 cups all-purpose flour
1 teaspoon baking soda
1/4 cup unsweetened cocoa powder
1/2 teaspoon salt
1 cup white sugar
1/3 cup vegetable oil
1 cup water
1 tablespoon vinegar
1 teaspoon vanilla extract

1 (8 ounce) package cream cheese, softened
1 egg
1/3 cup white sugar
1/8 teaspoon salt
1 cup miniature semisweet chocolate chips

Cookies?



The Strait of Hormuz, Panama Canal, and Dardanelles are some of the most important chokepoints in the world.

Agreed.


It would have been nice to see the Rooster's win, that's for sure.

Yeah Freddie deserved to go out a winner in his last game, full credit to the

bulldogs but, they played a good game, and never gave in.

Hoist by your own petard... not hoisted.

Whatever.

=Grave_n_idle In the absence of evidence, yes.

But that's not what you said... you said the odds were in favour of it having happened... which is not the same thing at all.

Also... in the case of awaiting evidence... which is what we are doing here, the LACK OF evidence is evidence of lack.

So, the odds actually favour the probability that it HASN'T happened.

I wouldnt bet on that.



Because, of course, emergencies ALWAYS happen on main roads?

Im talking about unable to use important streets that protesters use, as they do.



You pick ONE article, and it's from a web-log.

I can get more.

The fact that the name 'Allah' appears is telling in what way? Are you implying all protesters are Islamic?

No

'Allah'. or more specifically 'Allah is in da house' is the rights perspective on

muslim activitys in America, and says it has no problem with moderate

muslims, only extreme ones, still its common practice for PC people to call

anything that goes against their beliefs as 'hate'


I would suggest you have been directed to someones hate-site, of some kind.

lol when its the lefts view its called standing up for freedom, when its the

rights view, no matter how moderate it automatically becomes a hate site.

I wouldnt bet on that.


That's because a) you don't have a clear understanding of how probabilities work, obviously... and/or b) you have no grasp of the most basic tools of logic.

If the statistics favour the fact that a thing hasn't happened, you would be foolish to bet against it, surely?


Im talking about unable to use important streets that protesters use, as they do.


Wouldn't they be the same roads that 'traffic' drives on, also? Even the people 'just out for a drive'? Your argument falls down. Admit it, there are hundreds of reasons why traffic may be delayed, hundreds of different 'groups' you could be citing for 'congestion'... you are just choosing one of many to try to make a point.... but without any evidence.


I can get more.


Go for it.


'Allah'. or more specifically 'Allah is in da house' is the rights perspective on
muslim activitys in America, and says it has no problem with moderate
muslims, only extreme ones, still its common practice for PC people to call
anything that goes against their beliefs as 'hate'


Which is interesting, because when I questioned you about the bible, you accused me of being a 'hater of christianity'.... and you are most certainly not PC.

Unless PC stands for Persecution Complex in this case?


lol when its the lefts view its called standing up for freedom, when its the
rights view, no matter how moderate it automatically becomes a hate site.

Speak of the devil...

Grave_n_idle
That's because a) you don't have a clear understanding of how probabilities work, obviously... and/or b) you have no grasp of the most basic tools of logic.

I do to both sorry, and Id say the probability of you disagreeing with me on

that is 100%, is that comprende enough for you?


If the statistics favour the fact that a thing hasn't happened, you would be foolish to bet against it, surely?

Prove it hasnt happenned.



Wouldn't they be the same roads that 'traffic' drives on, also? Even the people 'just out for a drive'? Your argument falls down. Admit it, there are hundreds of reasons why traffic may be delayed, hundreds of different 'groups' you could be citing for 'congestion'... you are just choosing one of many to try to make a point.... but without any evidence.

Traffic usually moves out of the way to let emergency services through, it

would be a different story with protesters, as people walking cant move out

of the way as fast, and if theres a violent protest happenning like a riot,

being the idiots they are, they would probably attack the emergency services

as well.

Go for it.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/8/17/131458.shtml



Which is interesting, because when I questioned you about the bible, you accused me of being a 'hater of christianity'....

You admitted as much yourself, didnt you say once, 'yes, I do have it in for

your religon'...




and you are most certainly not PC.

Thankyou.

Im very happy not to be as well.


Unless PC stands for Persecution Complex in this case?


Fishing for bites Grave, sorry, no catch for you here.


Speak of the devil...

Now your being cryptic.

Just stopping by, going on a road trip now. Just wanted to say...

"As" is a noun??? *LMFAO&ROTFPIMPAMSOMN*

...I'll come back tomorrow night and try to educate you a little more, kid. ;)

From Google definitions:

'As' in context.



The noun "as" has 2 senses in WordNet.

Go look for yourself Sport.

I do to both sorry, and Id say the probability of you disagreeing with me on
that is 100%, is that comprende enough for you?

Prove it hasnt happenned.



You want me to PROVE a statistical PROBABILITY? See, that's my point. No grasp of probabilities.

Hows this: i(v) = 0; i(n) = x; i(h) = y i(n):i(h) = 1:1(i(v))

therefore: i(n):i(h) = 1:0

Clear enough?


Traffic usually moves out of the way to let emergency services through, it
would be a different story with protesters, as people walking cant move out
of the way as fast, and if theres a violent protest happenning like a riot,
being the idiots they are, they would probably attack the emergency services
as well.


Of course.... cars get out of the road so much quicker than pedestrians, don't they... what with being able to walk out of the road, and not being limited by the other vehicles. No, Wait. That's rubbish, isn't it.


You admitted as much yourself, didnt you say once, 'yes, I do have it in for
your religon'...


No. I have never said "yes, I do 'have it in' for" anyone.

I HAVE expressed objections to the double standards that most christians show. I have expressed objections to the brainwashing that christianity condones. I have expressed objections to the portrayal of a book as though it were a god.

But, I don't "HATE" christianity.

And 'making-up' a line you WISH I had said isn't evidence.

Terminalia, Grave - you both have stamina, I'll give you that! :p

Terminalia, Grave - you both have stamina, I'll give you that! :p

Hey, just doing my civic duty... keeping the cyber-streets safe from the predations of evil.

It's a dirty job, but someone's got to do it.

/me runs a pedestrian over, then steals his bike.

[QUOTE=Grave_n_idle]You want me to PROVE a statistical PROBABILITY? See, that's my point. No grasp of probabilities.

I just proved one didnt I, you totally disagreed 100% with me.


Hows this: i(v) = 0; i(n) = x; i(h) = y i(n):i(h) = 1:1(i(v))

therefore: i(n):i(h) = 1:0

Clear enough?

Crystal.


Of course.... cars get out of the road so much quicker than pedestrians, don't they...

if they have room to manouver yes, if its a gridlock then naturally the

ambulance or firey, will take another route instead.


No. I have never said "yes, I do 'have it in' for" anyone.

Fair call, it was in fact Goed, on pg 35, post 520, who

said that in the Athiesm thread.

I was debating something similar to you at the same time in the same

thread, and I got you mixed up with him sorry, my apologys.

I HAVE expressed objections to the double standards that most christians show.

Like what?

I have expressed objections to the brainwashing that christianity condones.

You view it as brainwashing, we view it as the simple truth.

I have expressed objections to the portrayal of a book as though it were a god.

Its the word of God, not actually 'God'.


But, I don't "HATE" christianity.

Clarified, thanks.


And 'making-up' a line you WISH I had said isn't evidence.

I would never do that, I believe in truth.

Terminalia, Grave - you both have stamina, I'll give you that! :p

Just standing up for my beliefs, and trying to put forward a view, that doesnt

involve brainwashing PC lies, and character assassinations, in any format.

I just proved one didnt I, you totally disagreed 100% with me.

if they have room to manouver yes, if its a gridlock then naturally the
ambulance or firey, will take another route instead.

sorry, my apologys.



No, you didn't prove it, I didn't comment on that question, I commented on the next question about proving the statistic... so, by your own logic - you disproved it.

So, all those cars on the road should be banned, shouldn't they? Causing gridlocks, which obviously lead to babies dying in fires. Take them off the roads! They are a menace!

Apology accepted.

I have decided not to pursue the 'christianity' comments in this thread, as they are SOOOO far off topic. If you want to start another topic about the 'evils' of christianity, I'll meet you there.

Note: If you called it the 'evils' of christianity... it would probably have 500 replies before tomorrow night.....

[QUOTE=Grave_n_idle]No, you didn't prove it, I didn't comment on that question, I commented on the next question about proving the statistic... so, by your own logic - you disproved it.

What?


So, all those cars on the road should be banned, shouldn't they? Causing gridlocks, which obviously lead to babies dying in fires. Take them off the roads! They are a menace!

Agreed, cars for personal use, should be for traveling between citys only.

The roads(in citys) would be free for only:


Taxis
Buses
Police
Trucks
Security
Tradesmen
Ambulances
Armed forces
Special Dignatorys
Goods and services


Still a lot of traffic I admit, but the absence of cars for personal usage, would

more than cut it in half.

And no, I dont believe this makes it OK for protestors to use the freed up

space for more protesting.


I have decided not to pursue the 'christianity' comments in this thread, as they are SOOOO far off topic. If you want to start another topic about the 'evils' of christianity, I'll meet you there.

No, I'll start another thread on cars I think.


Note: If you called it the 'evils' of christianity... it would probably have 500 replies before tomorrow night.....

I started a new thread on Abortion, after the other one got shut, but it

somehow ended up in Serious discussions, instead of General where it was

intended to go.

It seems the only posters on there are British ones for some reason.

Its slowly picking up pace, after a very slow start.

As for the 'evils of Christianity' thread, I could never do that.

You can try that if you like, but It would just compromise everything I

believe in, if I started it. lol

What?


How's that for an attention span...


As for the 'evils of Christianity' thread, I could never do that.
You can try that if you like, but It would just compromise everything I
believe in, if I started it. lol

Why would it "compromise everything you believe in"?

Do you really believe that there has been no evil to come from christianity?

/me runs a pedestrian over, then steals his bike.

Why wasn't he riding it? :confused:

Why would it "compromise everything you believe in"?
Do you really believe that there has been no evil to come from christianity?

Not really, but alot of people have used Christianity as a front to commit evil,

that doesnt make Christianity itself evil in any way.

Not really, but alot of people have used Christianity as a front to commit evil,

that doesnt make Christianity itself evil in any way.

I didn't say that christianity is evil... I said the 'evils of christianity'.

You understand you would have far fewer disagreements with people, if you'd just slow your reading down enough to actually understand what they had types?

I didn't say that christianity is evil... I said the 'evils of christianity'.
You understand you would have far fewer disagreements with people, if you'd just slow your reading down enough to actually understand what they had types?

Sorry, but I cant see that much difference between posting a thread called

either 'The evils of Christianity' or 'Christianity is evil'.

Whereas the second title leaves no doupt as to what it means, the first title

is very open for conjecture, to say the least.

Sorry, but I cant see that much difference between posting a thread called

either 'The evils of Christianity' or 'Christianity is evil'.

Whereas the second title leaves no doupt as to what it means, the first title

is very open for conjecture, to say the least.

Which is, surely, the whole point?

The difference is that one of those titles would say that Christianity IS evil, and the other would discuss evils in the name of christianity.

Never mind, Terminalia. Your one dimensional approach to theology would make the whole matter irrelevent, anyway.

[QUOTE=Grave_n_idle]Which is, surely, the whole point?
The difference is that one of those titles would say that Christianity IS evil, and the other would discuss evils in the name of christianity.

In the name of...

that doesnt mean Christianity causes evil to happen.



Never mind, Terminalia. Your one dimensional approach to theology would make the whole matter irrelevent, anyway.


Im not one dimensional at all, I question things, but I know their beyond my

understanding.

Maybe this will help:

Matthew 5

1. As Jesus saw the crowds, he went up the mountain and as he sat down, his disciples came to him.
2. And he opened his mouth and taught them and said,*

3. "Blessed are the humble*,
for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven.

4. "Blessed are the mourners
for they shall be consoled.

5. "Blessed are the gentle
for they shall inherit the earth.

6. "Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for righteousness
for they shall be satisfied.

7. "Blessed are the merciful
for they shall receive mercy.

8. "Blessed are the pure of heart
for they shall see God.

9. "Blessed are the peace makers
for they shall be called the sons of God.

10. "Blessed are they who are rejected for their righteousness
for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven.

11. "Blessed are you when they criticize you
and reject you and tell you every wicked saying
Because of me, in falsehood.

12. "Be glad and rejoice that your reward is great in Heaven.
For this is how they rejected the prophets before you.


Wheres the evil, its beautiful if anything.

In the name of...
that doesnt mean Christianity causes evil to happen.


Well done. That was like a little light-bulb clicking on...


Im not one dimensional at all, I question things, but I know their beyond my
understanding.
Maybe this will help:

Matthew 5

1. As Jesus saw the crowds, he went up the mountain and as he sat down, his disciples came to him.
2. And he opened his mouth and taught them and said,*

3. "Blessed are the humble*,
for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven.

4. "Blessed are the mourners
for they shall be consoled.

5. "Blessed are the gentle
for they shall inherit the earth.

6. "Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for righteousness
for they shall be satisfied.

7. "Blessed are the merciful
for they shall receive mercy.

8. "Blessed are the pure of heart
for they shall see God.

9. "Blessed are the peace makers
for they shall be called the sons of God.

10. "Blessed are they who are rejected for their righteousness
for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven.

11. "Blessed are you when they criticize you
and reject you and tell you every wicked saying
Because of me, in falsehood.

12. "Be glad and rejoice that your reward is great in Heaven.
For this is how they rejected the prophets before you.

Wheres the evil, its beautiful if anything.

You misunderstand my meaning in 'one dimensional'. I am saying you have an unrealistically realistic approach to the bible. You take it as the inerrant word of god, even when it is proved to be a) far from inerrant, and b) the words of some men, some of whom were copying them almost directly off of some other religions' texts.

But, I do agree with you, the Beatitudes are lovely sentiments.

I think, perhaps, you are confusing Jesus with Christianity?

[QUOTE= Grave_n_idle]
You misunderstand my meaning in 'one dimensional'. I am saying you have an unrealistically realistic approach to the bible.


the approach isnt important, its what you learn from it that counts the most.

You take it as the inerrant word of god, even when it is proved to be a) far from inerrant,

A few annonamlys dont make it far from inerrant, its the overall message that

matters.

and b) the words of some men, some of whom were copying them almost directly off of some other religions' texts.

God speaks through men too.

But, I do agree with you, the Beatitudes are lovely sentiments.

The Sermon on the Mount is probably the greatest speech ever given on

Earth.

I think, perhaps, you are confusing Jesus with Christianity?

How can I, its the same thing.

the approach isnt important, its what you learn from it that counts the most.


What you learn from it... that's kind of my point, Terminalia.


A few annonamlys dont make it far from inerrant, its the overall message that
matters.


Do you understand what the word 'inerrant' means?
You do understand that a text can't be 'mostly' inerrant, yes?
You understand that some parts of the bible contradict each other?

How can you have an 'overall message' from a book that is not internally consistent?

(I can, but I don't have to accept the book as all literally true... how do YOU get an overall message despite inconsistency?)


The Sermon on the Mount is probably the greatest speech ever given on
Earth.


Which is ironic, really... because there is no actual evidence that it ever took place. I prefer the stirring call-to-arms at Helm's Deep, personally.


How can I, its the same thing.

No. Jesus is/was a man, and/or a prophet, and/or the son of god (if you are willing to believe that kind of thing).

Christianity is an organised religion (and certainly not the only one) that sprang up AFTER Jesus was dead. There isn't even any way to prove that the modern christian movement is anything like what Jesus envisiones.

[QUOTE=Grave_n_idle]What you learn from it... that's kind of my point, Terminalia.

Your approach to it was your point.

Do you understand what the word 'inerrant' means?

Yes, it means without error.


You do understand that a text can't be 'mostly' inerrant, yes?

And what text is that?


You understand that some parts of the bible contradict each other?

They might appear as contradictions, but they could be choices.

How can you have an 'overall message' from a book that is not internally consistent?

For me, and many many others, the message is one of love and sacrifice.

(I can, but I don't have to accept the book as all literally true... how do YOU get an overall message despite inconsistency?)

Well I get a good feeling when I read it, I remember when I was having some

problems, that if I touched the Bible or a cross I have, filthy language started

to come out of me, I blame that on the demons.

I am slowly, with Jesus helping me, defeat them.

Which is ironic, really... because there is no actual evidence that it ever took place.

I think it did.



I prefer the stirring call-to-arms at Helm's Deep, personally.

That was a good psyche up speech, but the best one I think was Mel Gibsons

Freedom speech in Brave Heart, at the Battle of Stirling.



No. Jesus is/was a man, and/or a prophet, and/or the son of god (if you are willing to believe that kind of thing).

He was all of them.



Christianity is an organised religion (and certainly not the only one) that sprang up AFTER Jesus was dead. There isn't even any way to prove that the modern christian movement is anything like what Jesus envisiones.

Jesus started it, when he came back from the dead, he didnt start any

others.

His message was carried by men and women who believed in his words more

than their own lives.

That can impress people, and so it grew.

Yes, it means without error.


So, how can you sedcribe the bible as being mostly 'inerrant'... you are either 'inerrant' or you are not.


And what text is that?


Good grief, Terminalia... you can't keep track of your own comments! The texts we were discussing was the bible, you know... you MUST have heard of it...


They might appear as contradictions, but they could be choices.


Like David killing Goliath twice? He 'chose' to do it twice? Is that your point?

Like Saul commiting suicide AND being murdered? He couldn't decide?

No, Terminalia. They are not choices, they are contradictions. Look it up.


For me, and many many others, the message is one of love and sacrifice.


Love and sacrifice is good. But it SHOULDN'T require a book of fairy stories to make people act that way.


Well I get a good feeling when I read it, I remember when I was having some
problems, that if I touched the Bible or a cross I have, filthy language started
to come out of me, I blame that on the demons.
I am slowly, with Jesus helping me, defeat them.


This stuff always unnerves me, when people start blaming their failings on demons.


I think it did.


The point was, as I said... there is no EVIDENCE. What you think carries no weight, I'm afraid, unless you can prove it.


That was a good psyche up speech, but the best one I think was Mel Gibsons
Freedom speech in Brave Heart, at the Battle of Stirling.


The "Choose Life" speech from Trainspotting, and the "This is Your Life" speech from Fight Club, also.


He was all of them.


To you. To me, he was a guy who was there... and anything else he MIGHT have done is conjecture.


Jesus started it, when he came back from the dead, he didnt start any
others.
His message was carried by men and women who believed in his words more
than their own lives.
That can impress people, and so it grew.

Prove it. The Gospel of Mary Magdalene, and the Book of Thomas suggest that the modern Christian churches are just the most dominant ones that survived. (And even that was touch and go, until they plagiarised Mithraism).

can't you write letters instead of blocking traffic?

letters don't work noone bothers to read them

letters don't work noone bothers to read themLetter's do work if it's an election year, and politicians get enough of them; but street protests generally get more attention...IMHO...

Go the Libs!

After 20% of the vote counted, the Coalition is surging ahead.

This could be a slaughter, Howards the man.