NationStates Jolt Archive

Some of you may know me as an avidly Pro-Israel debater (no I do not want this to turn into a debate), however what you may not know, is that in a debate, I get very annoyed and normally leave when certain links are posted. If you wish me to take you seriously, never, ever, link from the following sites.
NOTE: This is just me, and Israel debates. If you debate something else and won't accept certain sites, post it here. That way you'll know what not to link to in a debate with someone. Consider this thread like a reference.

Stormfront- This should really go without saying. If you link to Stormfront, or any variation of it, expect me to laugh, loudly. Nothing they say is credible in my eyes.
Jewwatch- I saw this linked to today, and laughed when the poster tried to pass it off as credible. This is run by an incredibly anti-Jewish man, and one who I wouldn't trust to give me the time of day.
Al-Jazeera- Don't even try it, just don't!
Palestine-Remembered, Electronic-Intifada, or any similar websites- If its objectivity you're looking for, close that webpage.
Will add in more as I think of them. So what websites will you not accept in a debate?

I don't trust Al-Jazerra either.

*sighs*

Sanctaphrax's is bigger. Let us all take note.

Democracynow.com

But only because I consider it to be satire:).

In addition to not using those links are there any books you'd like me to toss in the fire?

Yeah, the jewwatch thing really pissed me off to. Especially since it was on my thread.

I won't accept links from fundamentalist organizations of any stripe. Nor neo-Nazi movements. Basically, hate groups are no-nos for me.

Fox news! Although I don't think anyone else accepts them as a credible source of info as I've only ever seen them linked as a joke!

How can you 'not accept certain sites'? Just because a site has a stigma attached does not instantly make all its information uncredible. Why not try actually disproving the information that the person presents instead of instantly dismissing it as "biased"?

Well Matt, you try finding me something credible on Electronic Intifada or Stormfront. When you do, then we'll talk :)

Dobbsworld, I'm a bit slow on the uptake today, what do you mean?

I know I don't debate the subjects he presents (gays, America, American Gays) but personally I wouldn't accept anything Fred Phelps based.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

How can you 'not accept certain sites'? Just because a site has a stigma attached does not instantly make all its information uncredible. Why not try actually disproving the information that the person presents instead of instantly dismissing it as "biased"?

But that's no fun. Plus, it requires brainpower...why would you use valuable brain power on someone who can't formulate their own opinions and leans on someone elses to make an argument?

How can you 'not accept certain sites'? Just because a site has a stigma attached does not instantly make all its information uncredible. Why not try actually disproving the information that the person presents instead of instantly dismissing it as "biased"?

I would say that sites with a definite partiality towards one side or another should not be consulted even if there is factual data simply because those sights might manipulate the facts to make one side look wrong or another right. Also, no hate group sites.

Out of curiosity, can you tell me what is the problem with Al-Jazeera?
Is it the Fox News of the arab world? I don't get to watch it so I'm curious.

So what websites will you not accept in a debate?

I wouldn’t accept a link to the BBC unless it was accompanied by links to other news sources with a similar story. I don’t accept links to any Arab News agencies or anything from a hate group.

In my oppinion, if you have to lean on a hate site to win an argument, you've already lost. Really all I accept, at least as news goes, is CNN and the BBC. I'm not saying I won't accept anything else-I just find those to be the most credible. I'm willing to look at anything else you post, but I may take it with a grain of salt.

How can you 'not accept certain sites'? Just because a site has a stigma attached does not instantly make all its information uncredible. Why not try actually disproving the information that the person presents instead of instantly dismissing it as "biased"?

...what I find galling is that he feels this warrants a thread.

Sanctaphrax?

I just don't care what you may or may not 'accept' as a link. The other side of my brain is telling me you're hoping to collect a whole whack of offensive links right here on this thread, though presumably posted by other people who just don't care what you may or may not 'accept' as a link.

Either way, tough-o. I don't need to be whined at, lectured to, or otherwise informed of your special needs as a sensitive individual. Just do like the rest of us and suck it up. And just in case, I won't provide you any offensive links. In fact, the one thing I'll remember from this thread is to make a point of not providing you with links of any sort in future.

Time Cube.

On any subject apart from "how much shite can be crammed into one web-page?"

"I don't need to be whined at, lectured to, or otherwise informed of your special needs as a sensitive individual."

You know, some might think this hypocrisy, because funnily enough, you don't like the thread, you can stay out, I didn't force you in, and I certainly didn't force you to post.

I wouldn’t accept a link to the BBC unless it was accompanied by links to other news sources with a similar story. I don’t accept links to any Arab News agencies or anything from a hate group.
BBC? Surely one of the most reputable and fair sources of news coverage without bias and not scared to report things that some in authority would rather were 'overlooked'.

I find it difficult to take seriously stories from Fox News. Al-Jazeera is really quite moderate and objective, it's not particularly anti-American. It's similar to BBC in many of its values (unbiased, not scared to report things against governments etc - many of its staff are ex-BBC)... in fact it's been banned from many Arab dictatorships in the past for reporting the truth about their leaders.

I don't trust Al-Jazerra either.
Why don't you trust Al-Jazeera?

I think that they're a great U.S.-government run newsmedia (http://fapfap.org/faq18.html).

"I don't need to be whined at, lectured to, or otherwise informed of your special needs as a sensitive individual."

You know, some might think this hypocrisy, because funnily enough, you don't like the thread, you can stay out, I didn't force you in, and I certainly didn't force you to post.
*stands between Dobbs and Sanct*

Smartan up ewe too, or aye'll spel theez werds so baadlie thaht ewe'll bowth end up crying yer eyz owt....

nice rules kid. who the hell wants to debate with a person who sets rules because he cant handle curve balls?
what site is good and acceptable?
www. arielsharoncoversupbeingathugreaalywell dot com???

Out of curiosity, can you tell me what is the problem with Al-Jazeera?
Is it the Fox News of the arab world? I don't get to watch it so I'm curious.

Believe me, Al Jazeera is not Fox News. They are NOT fair and balanced. They are a mouthpiece to certain terrorist organizations. No wonder their satellites got bombed in Iraq and Afghanistan by complete accidents.

nice rules kid. who the hell wants to debate with a person who sets rules because he cant handle curve balls?
what site is good and acceptable?
www. arielsharoncoversupbeingathugreaalywell dot com???
:D Welcome back...you are always refreshing!

Believe me, Al Jazeera is not Fox News. They are NOT fair and balanced. They are a mouthpiece to certain terrorist organizations. No wonder their satellites got bombed in Iraq and Afghanistan by complete accidents.
*tongue in cheek* neither is Fox News for that matter.

"I don't need to be whined at, lectured to, or otherwise informed of your special needs as a sensitive individual."

You know, some might think this hypocrisy, because funnily enough, you don't like the thread, you can stay out, I didn't force you in, and I certainly didn't force you to post.

...So maybe I should start a thread about what sort of threads I 'accept'? And when someone (rightly) calls me a fathead, I can kick back on my haunches and call 'em hypocrites.

Get over yourself, Sanctaphrax.

Believe me, Al Jazeera is not Fox News. They are NOT fair and balanced. They are a mouthpiece to certain terrorist organizations. No wonder their satellites got bombed in Iraq and Afghanistan by complete accidents.

...and Fox News isn't fair and balanced either....

Seriously, these things have bright neon signs, how do you keep on missing them?

Believe me, Al Jazeera is not Fox News. They are NOT fair and balanced. They are a mouthpiece to certain terrorist organizations. No wonder their satellites got bombed in Iraq and Afghanistan by complete accidents.
Fox News are a mouthpiece of terrorists? I wouldn't go that far, they are very biased towards the right and very intolerant of any opinion against the US government.

Believe me, Al Jazeera is not Fox News. They are NOT fair and balanced. They are a mouthpiece to certain terrorist organizations. No wonder their satellites got bombed in Iraq and Afghanistan by complete accidents.
No news outlet is fair and balanced. It's a statistical impossibility.

*ducks*

nice rules kid. who the hell wants to debate with a person who sets rules because he cant handle curve balls?
what site is good and acceptable?
www. arielsharoncoversupbeingathugreaalywell dot com???
1) I do *not* take well to patronisation, so cut it out ok?
2) You prefer a debate with no rules? Like most Israel debates which inevatibly end up with a civilized debate with random spatterings of "Israel is t3h 3vil!!!!111+shift!!:sniper:". Without rules, a debate is just a pointless argument.
3) BBC, CNN, Sky News, Yahoo, and various others.
4) Flaming Sharon isn't smart either, so stop being so patronising.

1) I do *not* take well to patronisation, so cut it out ok?
2) You prefer a debate with no rules? Like most Israel debates which inevatibly end up with a civilized debate with random spatterings of "Israel is t3h 3vil!!!!111+shift!!:sniper:". Without rules, a debate is just a pointless argument.
3) BBC, CNN, Sky News, Yahoo, and various others.
4) Flaming Sharon isn't smart either, so stop being so patronising.

I wouldn't be so eager to accuse others of being patronizing. Telling us what sources meet your requirements and therefore are valid for debate is far more patronizing than anything Occidio said.

*tongue in cheek* neither is Fox News for that matter.

Prove it!

Without rules, a debate is just a pointless argument.

We have rules on NS. You want everybody on NS to observe a special set of rules where you are concerned.

High post counts obviously help to create an immense sense of entitlement.

I am completely unmoved.

1) I do *not* take well to patronisation, so cut it out ok?
2) You prefer a debate with no rules? Like most Israel debates which inevatibly end up with a civilized debate with random spatterings of "Israel is t3h 3vil!!!!111+shift!!:sniper:". Without rules, a debate is just a pointless argument.
3) BBC, CNN, Sky News, Yahoo, and various others.
4) Flaming Sharon isn't smart either, so stop being so patronising.
Wow. Accused of being patronising not once, but TWICE in one post...Occ...yer on a roll today!

Sanct...by now you should be quite aware that if you want a debate that adheres to your rules, you're in the wrong place. Almost all threads degenerate at one point or another into flaming...if the other posters can rise above that, the thread can usually be saved. If not, time to try again.

You are never going to get people to agree to 'follow your rules', because frankly, you have no power. You want a debate that goes the way you like it? Get your own forum, some mod powers, and debate on.

We have rules here. They don't include what websites are 'acceptable' or not.

Jihadwatch. Anti-Muslim bigots.

I wouldn't be so eager to accuse others of being patronizing. Telling us what sources meet your requirements and therefore are valid for debate is far more patronizing than anything Occidio said.
Exactly.
Hi pot. Meet kettle.

1) I do *not* take well to patronisation, so cut it out ok?
2) You prefer a debate with no rules? Like most Israel debates which inevatibly end up with a civilized debate with random spatterings of "Israel is t3h 3vil!!!!111+shift!!:sniper:". Without rules, a debate is just a pointless argument.
3) BBC, CNN, Sky News, Yahoo, and various others.
4) Flaming Sharon isn't smart either, so stop being so patronising.
what do you mean, you dont take well? are you joking? thats 1337 speak for "i am going to the mods!!! i dont like you, or your jokes!!!!" so run and cry , just make sure you bring a hanky. and , where did you find the time to search out all of your fair and inbiased news services? every news channel/link is unbiased to the individual that believes in it.
and, since you really seem to believe in thius forum, even the most rigid debate still is a pointless argument. in the end, its just you, shaking your fist at the monitor. and it wasnt a sharon flame. first of all, i beleive he hides it well. second of all, you dont want to know what i thionk of the entire isreal/palestine region.

I suppose it goes without saying, but the least credible source ever is www.weeklyworldnews.com

Prove it!

Prove Al Jazeera is not fair and balanced.

I wouldn't be so eager to accuse others of being patronizing. Telling us what sources meet your requirements and therefore are valid for debate is far more patronizing than anything Occidio said.
wow, you make it sound so official. You would therefore accept things like
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=211436
or
http://www.stormfront.org/jewish/whorules.html

right? And take it seriously?

I think that rather than having to reject source sites, you should simply rebut the arguments. Many biased sites have flaws in their arguments that a well-informed person can recognize and defeat without much difficulty. After a while, the sources would hopefully become more impartial because you can rebut the biased ones.

al jazeera has its place as a pro arab news service. i would not automatically dismiss what they have to say but i would want an extra outside source if it is something anti-american.

Fox News are a mouthpiece of terrorists?

Where the hell you get that? I was talking about Al Jazeera and not FNC.

Prove Al Jazeera is not fair and balanced.
i know they are!!! they ran a story on the MJ verdict.

wow, you make it sound so official. You would therefore accept things like
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=211436
or
http://www.stormfront.org/jewish/whorules.html

right? And take it seriously?

Those sites don't offer any legitimate argument, they simply make accusations and manipulate the numbers and real facts.

Prove it!
Proove that Al-Jazeera is owned by terrorist...

As for proof, a simple google search with "Fox News fair balanced" will give you ample links to allegations about Fox. There's also that video from a former employye that's going around.

Ok sorry, this was not intended as a rules thing, just my personal opinion on what links I find to be racist, bigoted, and so badly skewed that they should not be thought credible. I think everyone needs to take a step back and calm down. And yes Occidio, I did alert the mods, because surprise! this forum does have rules, whether or not you're aware of it, and not flamebaiting is one of them. Everything you, Dobbs, Sdaeriji and Sinuhue have done seems to be trying to provoke a response, so you got one. Me going to the mods is my response.

Where the hell you get that? I was talking about Al Jazeera and not FNC.
No need to swear ;)
Sorry, I was confused by your statement. For me neither are the mouthpieces of terrorists... but Fox News is clearly a less reliable source of unbiased news than Al-Jazeera.

Prove Al Jazeera is not fair and balanced.

Look at their coverage in the war in Iraq, how they cover suicide/homicide bombings in Israel and Iraq. How they always view the Israeli responses to terror attacks as attacks of aggression on palestinians when they are just shooting at terror leaders.

wow, you make it sound so official. You would therefore accept things like
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=211436
or
http://www.stormfront.org/jewish/whorules.html

right? And take it seriously?

Well the first one is just a thread in a forum. I would consider it a viable source just like I would consider this thread one, in that it's just a bunch of people giving their opinions. I hardly have enough time to read that entire second link, since I'm not in any sort of position to actually have to refute it. But if I were, I would read the article and dissemble it point by point, instead of saying "Oh, it's from Stormfront, therefore it is invalid." That's the sign of an inferior debater.

No need to swear ;)
Sorry, I was confused by your statement. For me neither are the mouthpieces of terrorists... but Fox News is clearly a less reliable source of unbiased news than Al-Jazeera.

OMFG! I would trust FNC more tha AJ

Look at their coverage in the war in Iraq, how they cover suicide/homicide bombings in Israel and Iraq. How they always view the Israeli responses to terror attacks as attacks of aggression on palestinians when they are just shooting at terror leaders.
It's to counterbalance Fox News... plain and simple!

Look at their coverage in the war in Iraq, how they cover suicide/homicide bombings in Israel and Iraq. How they always view the Israeli responses to terror attacks as attacks of aggression on palestinians when they are just shooting at terror leaders.

Go look up "proof" in the dictionary, and try again. Provide sources that support your claim. Not just hearsay.

Ok sorry, this was not intended as a rules thing, just my personal opinion on what links I find to be racist, bigoted, and so badly skewed that they should not be thought credible. I think everyone needs to take a step back and calm down. And yes Occidio, I did alert the mods, because surprise! this forum does have rules, whether or not you're aware of it, and not flamebaiting is one of them. Everything you, Dobbs, Sdaeriji and Sinuhue have done seems to be trying to provoke a response, so you got one. Me going to the mods is my response.
Okay, so can you tell me why you think Al-Jazeera is not a credible source?

wow, you make it sound so official. You would therefore accept things like
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=211436
or
http://www.stormfront.org/jewish/whorules.html

right? And take it seriously?

Well, whoever wrote that loooooooooong article (just looked at the second one you linked to) sure seems to take it seriously. Otherwise they would've just posted something like what you suggested, ""Israel is t3h 3vil!!!!111+shift!!".

Simply steamrolling over it doesn't address the thinking behind it. You want to change the world, you gotta get some dirt under your fingernails. If you just keep sloughing it off, there's no telling how it might eventually bite you on the ass, or how large a bitemark it'll leave.

OMFG! I would trust FNC more tha AJ
Well, I guess news media is very subjective. I will stick to watching SVT and BBC.

Okay, so can you tell me why you think Al-Jazeera is not a credible source?
Maybe Al-Jazeera I would not rule out straight away, they have some more and some less racist articles. For Israel debating though, I think they're too badly skewed to provide any sort of real proof.

Maybe Al-Jazeera I would not rule out straight away, they have some more and some less racist articles. For Israel debating though, I think they're too badly skewed to provide any sort of real proof.
So, too close to one side of the conflict to remain unbiased? I can understand that. But I do think that they probably raise some valid complaints about Israel. It's just too bad they don't do the same for the other side.

Proove that Al-Jazeera is owned by terrorist...

Ohhh. I never said they were owned by them :rolleyes:

As for proof, a simple google search with "Fox News fair balanced" will give you ample links to allegations about Fox. There's also that video from a former employye that's going around.

Commentary only. Now show me a story that they ran that was bias.

Go look up "proof" in the dictionary, and try again. Provide sources that support your claim. Not just hearsay.

Dude, I've seen Al Jazeera coverage. Give me a break.

Dude, I've seen Al Jazeera coverage. Give me a break.

No. I will not give you a break. You make a claim; back it up. You demand that other people prove Fox News' bias; now prove Al Jazeera's bias, or back off your claim. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

...I did alert the mods, because surprise! this forum does have rules, whether or not you're aware of it, and not flamebaiting is one of them. Everything you, Dobbs, Sdaeriji and Sinuhue have done seems to be trying to provoke a response, so you got one. Me going to the mods is my response.

It's no surprise to me. Not a surprise at all. I said as much a page or two ago. My contention is that you feel entitled to special consideration over and above the rules the rest of us either conform to or reject. I feel that this sense of entitlement you seem to feel stems from your high post count.

Go ahead, complain all you like. I remain unmoved.

It's no surprise to me. Not a surprise at all. I said as much a page or two ago. My contention is that you feel entitled to special consideration over and above the rules the rest of us either conform to or reject. I feel that this sense of entitlement you seem to feel stems from your high post count.

Go ahead, complain all you like. I remain unmoved.

I want to know where I flamed anyone. Maybe Corneliu. Not Sanctaphrax, though.

Ok sorry, this was not intended as a rules thing, just my personal opinion on what links I find to be racist, bigoted, and so badly skewed that they should not be thought credible. I think everyone needs to take a step back and calm down. And yes Occidio, I did alert the mods, because surprise! this forum does have rules, whether or not you're aware of it, and not flamebaiting is one of them. Everything you, Dobbs, Sdaeriji and Sinuhue have done seems to be trying to provoke a response, so you got one. Me going to the mods is my response.
here you go, sancta. a premier site for the jew about town, written by several upstanding members of your community.
http://www.jewcy.com/bin/en.jsp?enPage=HomePage


and look at this article.

http://www.jewsweek.com/bin/en.jsp?enPage=BlankPage&enDisplay=view&enDispWhat=object&enDispWho=Article^l776&enZone=Opinions&enVersion=0&

based on that article above, Jews are racists. big time. and to me, racists are thugs. so there "proves" my sharon thoery, when using your standard of "proving"" and "unbiased". now is that fair???
you are sorely mistaken to think that getting me forum banned does any good. i dont live and die by typed opinions on an internet forum, as you do. there are other things in life, and even (gasp!!!) other places on the net where we will get together and sneer at you and your whining.

Everything you, Dobbs, Sdaeriji and Sinuhue have done seems to be trying to provoke a response, so you got one. Me going to the mods is my response.
*sighs*
I guess in the future, I'll do my best to avoid...causing you to respond. I didn't realise you understood my motives so much better than I do.

*sighs*
I guess in the future, I'll do my best to avoid...causing you to respond. I didn't realise you understood my motives so much better than I do.

Wow, this got out of control fast. I don't think you tried to provoke a response, you only challenged a generalization.

I want to know where I flamed anyone. Maybe Corneliu. Not Sanctaphrax, though.

What's really burning my ass is that Sanctaphrax is singling me out over in Moderation. It's pathetic really - he makes a stink about three or four people here, threatens Mod action, and then when I go take a look, all he's got is this:

"Either way, tough-o. I don't need to be whined at, lectured to, or otherwise informed of your special needs as a sensitive individual. Just do like the rest of us and suck it up. And just in case, I won't provide you any offensive links. In fact, the one thing I'll remember from this thread is to make a point of not providing you with links of any sort in future."

He's got nothing on anyone else, and this is the worst he's got on me. This is pretty sad.

He then follows up with an easy out:

"Wow, so much flaming going around, I think locking the thread would be best. Sorry for the trouble mods, but if you could lock it and dish out whatever punishments you see fit."

Feh.

Wow, this got out of control fast. I don't think you tried to provoke a response, you only challenged a generalization.
Which apparently provoking a response.

It actually is. I'm trying to 'provoke' a defense.

*sighs*
I guess in the future, I'll do my best to avoid...causing you to respond.

Just don't bother responding to any more of Sanctaphrax's threads. That oughtta be safe enough.


As an aside, I only very rarely respond to Sanctaphrax's threads. I felt I should in this case because of the nature of the thread, which is, in my opinion, born of an inflated sense of self-importance.

What's really burning my ass is that Sanctaphrax is singling me out over in Moderation. It's pathetic really - he makes a stink about three or four people here, threatens Mod action, and then when I go take a look, all he's got is this:

"Either way, tough-o. I don't need to be whined at, lectured to, or otherwise informed of your special needs as a sensitive individual. Just do like the rest of us and suck it up. And just in case, I won't provide you any offensive links. In fact, the one thing I'll remember from this thread is to make a point of not providing you with links of any sort in future."

He's got nothing on anyone else, and this is the worst he's got on me. This is pretty sad.

He then follows up with an easy out:

"Wow, so much flaming going around, I think locking the thread would be best. Sorry for the trouble mods, but if you could lock it and dish out whatever punishments you see fit."

Feh.

He mentioned Occidio Multus by name as well.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9072667&postcount=7

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9072679&postcount=8

my responses to his incessant whining. figures he went off line.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9072667&postcount=7

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9072679&postcount=8

my responses to his incessant whining. figures he went off line.

Because its nighttime where he's at Occidio. He's asleep.

Commentary only. Now show me a story that they ran that was bias.
Well I can tell you that they have a definitive bias in their coverage of Canada. I remember specifically the fuss they made when they weren't accepted to broadcast over here.

And I remeber their coverage of the military man who went AWOL to Canada and want to be accepted as a refugee. Nothing whatsoever was mentionned on how things work here, on why we didn't give him back immediatly or any other concern than what they felt was a insult to the US.

And let's not even cover the show like O' Reilly where he cuts the mic of his guests and go straigth to the source of my contention: Rupert Murdoch, owner of Fox News, has issued internal memos advocating the support of Bush in their coverage.

Fox News is biased and what's worse, they want us to believe that they are FAIR and BALANCED. Hell, they sue over this sentence, claiming to have copyrighted the terms.

Because its nighttime where he's at Occidio. He's asleep.
nice try. people like sanctaphrax will stay up all night when "winnning' a debate, and having mass amounts of much desired attention lavished upon them on this forum. he signed off because he sensed an argument, with the wrong people, those formidable opponents being Myself, Sinahue, Sdaeriji, and Dobbs.

I ratted myself out just so Dobbs wouldn't be the only meanie:)

nice try. people like sanctaphrax will stay up all night when "winnning' a debate, and having mass amounts of much desired attention lavished upon them on this forum. he signed off because he sensed an argument, with the wrong people, those formidable opponents being Myself, Sinahue, Sdaeriji, and Dobbs.

Four muck-rackin' shit-kickers if ever there were any, Multus.

I know I'd've gotten the Hell outta Dodge.

Hell, sometimes I scare myself.

nice try. people like sanctaphrax will stay up all night when "winnning' a debate, and having mass amounts of much desired attention lavished upon them on this forum. he signed off because he sensed an argument, with the wrong people, those formidable opponents being Myself, Sinahue, Sdaeriji, and Dobbs.

Sanctaphrax was owned by you four and he ran away. I just sat back and watched.

Sinuhue, Dobbstown, Occidio...you each have a TG.

Sanctaphrax was owned by you four and he ran away. I just sat back and watched.

It's not a competition.

Sinuhue, Dobbstown, Occidio...you each have a TG

What, I don't get one? :(

It's not a competition.

More like a "nobody wins" situation, but still interesting.

Four muck-rackin' shit-kickers if ever there were any, Multus.

I know I'd've gotten the Hell outta Dodge.

Hell, sometimes I scare myself.
you have one loud mouthed ,mean, sarcastic, narcissictic , nihilistic, brutally honest bitch

one well read, well thought ,well reasoned, patient history scholar

one unflappable, unstoppable, unbeatable , unemotional, unrelenting politico

and then you have SINAHUE, who defies explaination, except for the word- awesome
( i could say she is a fly-your-face- crazed lactating native who has read more books and started more arguments than anyone on here, but that doesnt fit quite so well. but i know it made her laugh.

What, I don't get one? :(

Oh, suit yourself. Here. *sends* :p

you have one loud mouthed ,mean, sarcastic, narcissictic , nihilistic, brutally honest bitch

one well read, well thought ,well reasoned, patient history scholar

one unflappable, unstoppable, unbeatable , unemotional, unrelenting politico

and then you have SINAHUE, who defies explaination, except for the word- awesome
( i could say she is a fly-your-face- crazed lactating native who has read more books and started more arguments than anyone on here, but that doesnt fit quite so well. but i know it made her laugh.
Hehehehe...reading through this, I was trying to figure out which one was me...until I realised you'd left me 'till the end:)

And I'm no longer lactating. That's right...the baby is OFF the tit! YAYA!

you have one loud mouthed ,mean, sarcastic, narcissictic , nihilistic, brutally honest bitch

one well read, well thought ,well reasoned, patient history scholar

one unflappable, unstoppable, unbeatable , unemotional, unrelenting politico

and then you have SINAHUE, who defies explaination, except for the word- awesome
( i could say she is a fly-your-face- crazed lactating native who has read more books and started more arguments than anyone on here, but that doesnt fit quite so well. but i know it made her laugh.

Haha, patient. Sure.

you have one loud mouthed ,mean, sarcastic, narcissictic , nihilistic, brutally honest bitch

one well read, well thought ,well reasoned, patient history scholar

one unflappable, unstoppable, unbeatable , unemotional, unrelenting politico

and then you have SINAHUE, who defies explaination, except for the word- awesome
( i could say she is a fly-your-face- crazed lactating native who has read more books and started more arguments than anyone on here, but that doesnt fit quite so well. but i know it made her laugh.

Am I dumb 'cause I can't recognize myself by your description, Multus?

(Which one am I supposed to be??)

Am I dumb 'cause I can't recognize myself by your description, Multus?

(Which one am I supposed to be??)

Unflappable, unstoppable, unbeatable, unemotional, unrelenting politico.

I only know because the first one is obviously Occidio, the last one is obviously Sinuhue, and I'm a history student, so that leaves you. Unstoppable is a pretty good descriptor to have.

Wow.

Thanks Multus!

And to think I've never made any of those "greatest whatsit on NS" lists...

...actually come to think of it, I'm kinda glad to have been left out of those reindeer games...

"Unemotional"?

No Vulcan I!

unemeotional until you realize that sinahue just stopped breastfeeding a ten year old.

dobbs- we have a special bond, because when i got forum banned, you got dobbstwon deleted, right?

and matt, you do just sit there and patiently wait for someone to answer your question

unemeotional until you realize that sinahue just stopped breastfeeding a ten year old.
BAHHAHAHHAHHAAA! Well...I guess that would've only made me 17 when I had her...so it isn't inconcievable...you should just be happy I DID stop!

dobbs- we have a special bond, because when i got forum banned, you got dobbstwon deleted, right?

Oh geez, you're right...I'd forgotten.

How I miss Dobbs Town.

I reasoned to myself that Dobbs Town just balkanized, so I made up a whole crop of various Dobbs Towns...still keep 'em up, too - but somehow Dobbsworld has become my fave.

Memories...

i trust the bbc the most and fox or cnn the least, russian and arab new channels do tiwst the truth a little, but not as much as you americans