The answer is depressingly simple: massively overrepresented in media, academia, and among social influencers of every other sort, screeching “progressive” elites are driving our dialogue, sending us into a sharp left turn off the straight and narrow path.
The Left made sure that we saw a diversity of appearance, correctly calculating that we wouldn't notice the lack of diversity of opinion. Superficial diversity, because to some, the word "diversity" is more powerful than the concept it purports to represents. Etymologically speaking, "diversity" and "division" have the same origin.
Saw a leftist Karen response post complaining to a women (sorry, birthing person) to remove her wedding pictures she posted because it was offensive to those who were divorced as wedding are triggering.
Originally posted by olejoedad: It's amazing isn't it..... and all in the name of civility?
My initial thought when I saw this was that "olejoedad" is reacting to some of the O/T threads that have been Closed or Trash Canned in recent days. Or reacting to the circumstance that one or more such threads has been Closed or Trash Canned.
Since that is an authentic thought that I had, when I first entered this thread, I don't think it is out of line for me to say that I just went into the Trash Can to present some relatively brief remarks, in response to what was the Last Post on that thread, before it was Trash Canned.
The Trash Can, where discussions go to "hide in plain sight."
My initial thought when I saw this was that "olejoedad" is reacting to some of the O/T threads that have been Closed or Trash Canned in recent days. Or reacting to the circumstance that one or more such threads has been Closed or Trash Canned.
Since that is an authentic thought that I had, when I first entered this thread, I don't think it is out of line for me to say that I just went into the Trash Can to present some relatively brief remarks, in response to what was the Last Post on that thread, before it was Trash Canned.
The Trash Can, where discussions go to "hide in plain sight."
Calm down Karen.
You are literally talking about punishing someone for what you THINK they are doing in a thread about though police. Take it down about 20% there.
.....I just went into the Trash Can to present some relatively brief remarks, in response to what was the Last Post on that thread, before it was Trash Canned.
The Left made sure that we saw a diversity of appearance, correctly calculating that we wouldn't notice the lack of diversity of opinion. Superficial diversity, because to some, the word "diversity" is more powerful than the concept it purports to represents. Etymologically speaking, "diversity" and "division" have the same origin.
The whole point of the Leftist "diversity" campaign is to destroy notions of right and wrong, better and worse.
The notion that difference itself is an asset falls to pieces when logically examined, which is why Leftists respond to anyone who does so by trying to shout them down or kill the discussion "by any means necessary".
"Diversity" means "different." That's all it means.
Why in the world would I celebrate "different." ?
Mass murderers (thank God) are "different."
Leftists celebrate mass murderers. Whether they are Che Gueverra or Islamic terrorists, the Leftist adores the mass murderer.
Drug addicts are "different." Leftists adore drug addicts.
One of the reasons they originally hated Mayor Rudolph Giuliani in New York was because he wouldn't allow the drug-addicted prostitutes to continue to mug people in Times Square.
Sexual perversions are "different."
From men in women's restrooms and showers to deviant, mentally ill, men in women's sports, Leftists promote sexual perversion at every turn.
In a society that respects law and order, lawlessness is "different."
Leftists love lawlessness. Just look at the endless riots and destruction they committed all through the summer of 2020
In a society where literacy is the norm, "ebonics" is what becomes the stuff of "celebration."
You see, when mere "differentness" is the criteria for celebration, in a good society that which is "different" is going to be bad.
We know the difference between right and wrong, good and evil and the behaviors that we want celebrated so that our future generations recognize that what is being honored is good and leads to success,..... not just different.
In order to eliminate "discrimination", the Leftist has opted to become utterly indiscriminate.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 02-20-2022).]
Originally posted by Fats: Calm down Karen. You are literally talking about punishing someone for what you THINK they are doing in a thread about though police. Take it down about 20% there.
I'm not talking about punishing anyone in particular. I think it's a kind of collective punishment that is inflicted upon the forum at large--every forum member that's active in O/T--when a thread is Closed or Trash Canned, under circumstances where a forum moderator (hypothetical) would have done better to single out the first disturbing or disruptive message that emerges within a thread, and focus moderator attention on the single forum member who posted that message. Instead of just Closing the thread or Trash Canning it without any comment or explanation from the moderator about what's on his (moderator's) mind at that moment.
But there's a strategy to deal with that. My new idea, at least for today. An idea, being rolled out with a brand new slogan of its very own:
quote
Make the Trash Can Great Again
I may look in here further, to see what comes, but this could be my closing thoughts for this "Thought police" forum topic.
HAGO. In case that these do become my closing thoughts for this particular forum topic.
"Gaslighting" Click to show
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 02-20-2022).]
Gaslighting is your specialty. Just like many other wuhan bats**t crazy leftists.
Could you not even refute anything randye posted?
He wants to have a soap box for his propaganda against the Durham investigation and recent revelations about Clinton associates because he is forbidden by the forum moderator from posting in threads that I start:
Being denied access to that thread he instead Rupar'd the now closed thread that he is hooting about.
He wants you and everyone else to know that he made, (another), garrulous and pointless propaganda post in a now closed thread and he desperately wants someone to come play in the trash can with him about it.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:
.... some of the O/T threads that have been Closed or Trash Canned in recent days.
.....such threads has been Closed or Trash Canned.
....I just went into the Trash Can to present some relatively brief remarks, in response to what was the Last Post on that thread, before it was Trash Canned.
The Trash Can,....
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:
....a thread is Closed or Trash Canned,
....Closing the thread or Trash Canning
My new idea, at least for today. An idea, being rolled out with a brand new slogan of its very own:
Make the Trash Can Great Again
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 02-21-2022).]
Gaslighting is your specialty. Just like many other wuhan bats**t crazy leftists.
Could you not even refute anything randye posted?/SIZE]
I did, but I can't get inside your head and make your brain work for you.
If you had anything of substance to say about the Durham probe (or any other topic) you wouldn't be indulging yourself with conspicuously empty trash talk like "wuhan bats**t crazy leftists."
But you seem to be new here, at least in this Totally O/T part of Pennock's. Plenty of time to up your game. The "randye's" shelf life expired eons ago, as far I'm concerned. That's why I scroll past so many of his messages without even stopping to look.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 02-20-2022).]
Originally posted by Patrick: Excerpts from one [of randye's posts here] . . . Do you [randye] think that there's a possibility, just maybe, that you [randye] perhaps have a hyperfixation on "Leftists"? I understand there may be ways to cope [https link] with this issue. Check it out, for your [randye] own sanity!
Wassamatter here, Patrick? Are you nuts?
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 02-22-2022).]
From this end it looks like a group of people are ganging up on Randye.
It's hard to ignore people that post in every other post in every political post. That's not an attack, I like the interaction, but you can't post like that and then accuse someone else of "fixating" on you. You keep dancing in front of us like shiny damned bait on a hook.
From this end it looks like a group of people are ganging up on Randye.
It's hard to ignore people that post in every other post in every political post. That's not an attack, I like the interaction, but you can't post like that and then accuse someone else of "fixating" on you. You keep dancing in front of us like shiny damned bait on a hook.
What's wrong here is not a group of people who are ganging up on Randye.
I'd say it's not a group, exactly. Just three forum members in particular who are (once again) coming forward with their understanding that Randye's long time abuse of this forum is something that really ought to be called out and scorned publicly by other forum members—other forum members, beyond just the "gang of three." (Myself, obviously. I'm one of the three. And if you've been reading the forum's recent activity closely, you know the two other forum members that I am talking about.)
If Randye would focus on calmly and courteously expressing his ideas and making his points, instead of deliberately trying to provoke other forum members with endless and endlessly childish insults, that would be great. No one's asking him to be sanctimonious or kissy-assy (I guess.) Just reasonable.
I can say for myself, without any doubt or hesitation, that if Randye would finally (after umpteen years and 1000s of posts) stop going so incredibly far out of his way to disparage other forum members just because they don't line up with his views—that's the proposition—the corollary would be that I wouldn't be going out of my way to disparage him. I've been doing that (when I'm not just ignoring him) because it pleases me to retaliate, but there's no doubt in my mind that if he'd stop, I'd stop. He's the aggressor or instigator, and if you think otherwise, it's because you've overlooked some of the action here over the years and over the last few days. Not just some of the action—"some" is a huge understatement.
quote
Originally posted by randye: Has it ever ONCE occurred to you [rinselberg] that the stupid things that you think and believe are due to the stupid people and sources that you get your propaganda from? https://biographyhost.com/p/aaron-rupar.html
That's an example (one of 1000s over the years) from just the other day. I don't have any problem with the image that Randye posted, or that Randye has a point to make about this Aaron Rupar. (I had presented some remarks and posted an article from this Aaron Rupar.)
The problem is what's ahead of that image. The problem is "Has it ever ONCE occurred to you [rinselberg] bla bla bla..." That's not discussion. That's disparagement (of me.) It's disparagement (of me) for the sake of disparagement, not for the sake of having a discussion. And it ends the conversation immediately, right at that question mark after the word "from".
It ends the conversation right there because I choose to end the conversation right there. If Randye starts out by disparaging me like that, then I have no time or interest for anything else that follows from him. What Randye said about Aaron Rupar is interesting and relevant, and at the same time, hypocritical and stupid on Randye's part, in that context—but that's a conversation that didn't happen. Why is it a conversation that didn't happen? Because "There is some **** I will not eat." (e.e. cummings.)
I am not posting this for Randye's attention. That would be a fool's errand. I just went to set the record straight here with Fats, and anyone else who might be reading along here.
Done!
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 02-23-2022).]
What's wrong here is not a group of people who are ganging up on "randye."
I'd say it's not a group, exactly. Just three forum members in particular who are (once again) coming forward with their understanding that "randye's" long-running abuse of this forum is something that really ought to be called out and scorned publicly by other forum members--other forum members, beyond just the "gang of three." (Myself, obviously. I'm one of the three. And if you've been reading the forum's recent activity closely, you know the two other forum members that I am talking about.)
If "randye" would focus on calmly and courteously expressing his ideas and making his points, instead of deliberately trying to provoke other forum members with endless and endlessly childish insults, that would be great. No one's asking him to be sanctimonious or kissy-assy (I guess.) Just reasonable.
I can say for myself, without any doubt or hesitation, that if "randye" would finally (after umpteen years and 1000s of posts) stop going so incredibly far out of his way to disparage other forum members just because they don't line up with his views--that's the proposition--the corollary would be that I wouldn't be going out of my way to disparage him. I've been doing that (when I'm not just ignoring him) because it pleases me to retaliate, but there's no doubt in my mind that if he'd stop, I'd stop. He's the aggressor or instigator, and if you think otherwise, it's because you've overlooked some of the action here over the years and over the last few days. Not just some of the action--that's an understatement.
I am not posting this for "randye's" attention. That would be a fool's errand. I just went to set the record straight here with Fats, and anyone else who might be reading along here.
...
That's an example (one of 1000s over the years) from just the other day. I don't have any problem with the image that he posted, or that he has a point to make about this Aaron Rupar. (I had presented some remarks and posted an article from this Aaron Rupar.)
The problem is what's ahead of that image. The problem is "Has it ever ONCE occurred to you [rinselberg] bla bla bla..." That's not discussion. That's disparagement (of me.) It's disparagement (of me) for the sake of disparagement, not for the sake of having a discussion.
it's also hypocritical and stupid on "randye's" part, but that's something that could be discussed, if it weren't for the opening disparagement that immediately ends any possibility of further discussion.
Somehow, somewhere, you apparently got the mistaken idea that you are free to continually go off on your personal attack diatribes like this against me with complete impunity.
Rather than posting your obsessing and whining about me, your time would be better spent asking yourself why YOUR ratings bar looks like it does.
Rather than posting your obsessing and whining about me, your time would be better spent asking yourself why and YOU were just recently on multi day probation. NEITHER of those are "personal attacks".
They are documented, objective, FACT.
YOU are not a "victim".
YOU are a PERPETRATOR.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 02-22-2022).]
I had a peek in here, just to see how this new sub-section was set up.
Anyway, I can plainly see that a certain forum member has absolutely no interest in (or he's incapable of) ever being civil.
I will quite happily never bother with this sub-section again.
So there you go... that certain member and all his "friends" who don't particularly care for me, free shots! Get it out of your system in this thread and/or sub-section. I won't be responding, because I'll never see it. So sorry to ruin all your fun!
I had a peek in here, just to see how this new sub-section was set up. Anyway, I can plainly see that a certain forum member has absolutely no interest in (or he's incapable of) ever being civil. I will quite happily never bother with this sub-section again.
So there you go... that certain member and all his "friends" who don't particularly care for me, free shots! Get it out of your system in this thread and/or sub-section. I won't be responding, because I'll never see it.
So sorry to ruin all your fun!
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 02-23-2022).]
Originally posted by Fats: From this end it looks like a group of people are ganging up on Randye . . .
So I engaged in some "backfill" (I guess). That previous message. Actually the message that I posted before the previous message that I posted. The message that started by Quoting of Fats.
The screen name is "randye" with a lower case "r". I had "randye" in quote marks all over the place in that message—but that's logical. Considering the point of the message. I put the quote marks because if I just put randye without the quote marks—like I just did—it could slide right by, like any other common noun. A hammer. A doorbell. A lightbulb. Whatever. So that's why I kept putting "randye" with the quote marks. To ensure that randye would not be mistaken for a common noun, instead of being recognized as a screen name.
But then I thought why not go with Randye? Like Fats did. Just capitalize the "r" so that randye becomes Randye. It goes a little against my grain (so to speak), because the precision answer to what is the screen name(?) is "randye" and not "Randye", but after reviewing that message, I decided that Randye is better than "randye". Gets rid of all those quotation marks. So Randye it is. That's how it stands. That's what anyone would see if they scrolled back to that message from here, or if the started at the beginning of the thread and scrolled forwards until they encountered that message.
I also used boldface. Randye. Randye's. To further ensure...
Precision. Consistency. Clarity. That's what I aspire to, in that message.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 02-23-2022).]
From this end it looks like a group of people are ganging up on Randye.
It's hard to ignore people that post in every other post in every political post. That's not an attack, I like the interaction, but you can't post like that and then accuse someone else of "fixating" on you. You keep dancing in front of us like shiny damned bait on a hook.
The reason I posted the comment that I did in Cliff's thread, specifically calling out Randy, is because despite some recent "waking up" where people have had enough, there is typically one instigator.
quote
Originally posted by randye without provocation here:
You can keep on braying like a jackass about that website, but....
quote
Originally posted by randye without provocation here:
EDIT:
Proving the old saying: "Even a blind squirrel eventually gathers a random nut", our PENNOCKS PURVEYOR OF PERJURY actually somehow managed to get one right.
I just read through the federal grand jury indictment.
It is 11 people indicted for "seditious conspiracy".
The way that bizarre "group indictment" is written in the header is confusing at first.
As is usual with his posts though, it doesn't mean much of anything in the grand scheme of things and is meant primarily for propaganda and / or trolling.
^I thought this one was particularly interesting, because this is how he said the other user was right... by calling them a "PENNOCKS PURVEYOR OF PERJURY ."
quote
Originally posted by randye without provocation here:
Just about EVERYTHING....
.... but, as I pointed out, your lack of competence in this has been absolutely no barrier to your inflated self assessment that you know better than the authors, researchers and publishers of that medical study.... (See: Dunning - Kruger reference)
...
Since this is likely to be extremely tedious and also likely to be completely unproductive with you, let's start with what should be the simplest thing:
IF you had the competence to understand what you presumably read you would NOT have ridiculously asked "Has this been peer reviewed?"
...
Even a casual, lay, reader should have at least questioned where the study came from as evidenced by it's header, but you are completely oblivious and incurious.....
...and your clear incompetence with the subject matter at hand is then demonstrated with your question: Has this been peer-reviewed?
I'll leave you to go back again and try desperately to ferret out what the "control group" in that study is.
It's clearly there and it's as obvious as the peer review you aren't competent in this area to understand.
...
quote
Originally posted by randye with some provocation, depending on how you read the comments, here:
...
I'm not sure I have enough time or crayons to explain it to you so that you will understand, ...
quote
Originally posted by randye without provocation here:
What it really is, is a deleted double post I made. I then decided it was also a convenient "place holder" for an additional comment later.
The post after it is proof positive that I have a Leftist troll shadowing me after every post that I make in this and other threads.
^On its own? Not a big deal. But then when that person responded, he said he never called them by name so it was proof they were following them around... but Randy had clearly spoken about one person being that each comment in every thread is placed sequentially. This is how he gets around the "personal attack" rule - by either branding them as a "Leftist" then speaking against Lefists, or by talking about a particular comment without calling them by name.
quote
Originally posted by randye without provocation here:
So instead of answering my direct question posed to you, you simply chose to ignore it and then literally reject factual reality and substitute your opinion.
The best summation of that is: "There was an "attempted insurrection" because I want to believe there was".
Insisting that something is true simply because you want it to be true is most often described as delusional.
^The comments between Randy and myself here really demonstrate the point. Look how I respond to him, then look at how he responds to me.
quote
Originally posted by randye without provocation here:
Like I said: "Most people have the ideological IQ of a tree stump" and nothing illustrates that better than the young "Dub" has here.
It is amusing though to read the gobbeldy-gook, mish-mash of contradictory and irreconcilable political posturing that he attempts to assemble into some vaguely coherent "position" that is anything but "libertarian".
It's what you get when a Leftist tries to "identify as" something else.
Everyone else sees him as just a guy in a dress. He just thinks you won't see him for what he really is if tries hard enough to get you to share his delusion.
^Calling a user (me) out by name after stating "most people have the ideological IQ of a tree stump." Honestly, the colorful language is kind of funny, but come on, it's also clearly against forum rules.
quote
Originally posted by randye without provocation here:
Oh my God!, Are you really that dimwitted?
...
You predictably MADE MY POINT FOR ME by spewing a bucket of textual diarrhea that reads like a mediocre high school student's term paper...
...and, as if that wasn't enough, you drove my point further home by simply linking a few lazy, sophomoric, references to lp.org and Wikipedia !
For crissakes, it barely gets much dumber than that.
...
If THAT isn't the definition of DUMB and GULLIBLE then nothing is.
You're obviously free to believe whatever dumb nonsense you want, even as delusional as what you peddle here, but you're not free to demand that other's participate in your personal delusion and ignorance. or even demand that anyone stop calling it as DUMB as it obviously is.
quote
Originally posted by randye without provocation here::
It never ceases to amaze how absolutely GULLIBLE and DUMB you Leftist children are.
No wonder you so willingly swallow all the propaganda that you do. You're completely absent any critical thinking skills whatsoever.
All Stephie had to do was "tell CNN" an unverifiable tale and PRESTO!...it's instantly fixed forever as a "fact" inside your tiny little leftie minds.
^This whole thread was a burning pile of trash, mostly led by Randy.
I didn't have to go very far to find all of this, and there is plenty more. What's worse, is that most of the forum either applauds it or ignores it. So when I see people speaking out against it, I don't see it as bullying anymore, I see it as speaking up against the bully.
The forum will do as it wills, and besides the few applauds or many ignores of his comments, I think ratings bars show that this type of behavior is acceptable to most users.
[This message has been edited by theBDub (edited 02-23-2022).]
"A lot of words to tell us that we need to scroll past Randye's posts without reading them. Do we need to scroll past Randye's posts without reading them? . . . This is the easiest job I've ever had."
Click to show
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 02-23-2022).]
I'm more scatterbrained about it. I didn't pay any attention in English class as a kid. I write a name and I try to capitalize it because it's a name. But then the next time I may just copy it with lowercase. I think once I wrote it "Randy". Lately I've been utilizing the bold option or italics depending, more to try to show a little emotion on the text than anything.
^This whole thread was a burning pile of trash, mostly led by Randy.
I didn't have to go very far to find all of this, and there is plenty more. What's worse, is that most of the forum either applauds it or ignores it. So when I see people speaking out against it, I don't see it as bullying anymore, I see it as speaking up against the bully.
The forum will do as it wills, and besides the few applauds or many ignores of his comments, I think ratings bars show that this type of behavior is acceptable to most users.
I once had a guy at work complain that I was always on break... Every time he went in the break room I was there.
I see certain people, and tend to respond to certain people on here more than to others. Not because they post more, or say things that call for more discussion. They just seem to be on a similar schedule and we get to talk more.
But "applauds or many ignores" ????? Really? It's a no win situation there. You set up a scenario where no matter what happens, you will be upset. Are you my wife?
I once had a guy at work complain that I was always on break... Every time he went in the break room I was there.
I see certain people, and tend to respond to certain people on here more than to others. Not because they post more, or say things that call for more discussion. They just seem to be on a similar schedule and we get to talk more.
But "applauds or many ignores" ????? Really? It's a no win situation there. You set up a scenario where no matter what happens, you will be upset. Are you my wife?
Firstly, I get your point. I certainly ignore a lot of posts from users. Like ray b - I don't know if I've ever responded to him, because I can barely comprehend his posts half the time. I don't know that I've ever thought about it from a scheduling perspective, since posts are pervasive and it's not really a real-time chat forum, but I get the point.
What I'm driving at here is that while Randy is ignored for his posts that go against forum decorum, other users aren't ignored for their posts that go against forum decorum. People act like rinselberg and Patrick are just being rude all over the place, even when they're directly responding to a more targeted attack. Randy said Patrick was braying like a jackass, Patrick said it was better to bray like one than be one, and multiple users then hounded Patrick for being rude. They had said essentially the same thing, except Randy's was unprovoked while Patrick's was in response.
Randy likes to point to what he says in an "objective measure," the ratings bar. If users really had a problem with how things are said and not the content of what's said, Randy would have received negatives for the posts I outlined. But people don't really have a major issue with his posts. They ignore it.
All of this is just to say, that based on the behavior I've seen, I don't think of speaking out against this as teaming up on Randy anymore. Randy has been posting direct attacks on people and following them around then acting like he's being stalked when people reply to his behavior. If we just look at this thread, sure, he didn't say anything inflammatory yet. But when you look at how he speaks to people across multiple threads, it makes more sense.
Originally posted by theBDub: All of this is just to say, that based on the behavior I've seen, I don't think of speaking out against this as teaming up on Randy anymore. Randy has been posting direct attacks on people and following them around then acting like he's being stalked when people reply to his behavior. If we just look at this thread, sure, he didn't say anything inflammatory yet. But when you look at how he speaks to people across multiple threads, it makes more sense.
OK, so the solution is to post direct attacks on him? I really don't see it. But with all due respect man, cowboy up a little bit and stop letting strangers on the internet get your panties all bunched up and your world becomes a lot more fun. If he offended you, ask for an apology. Send him a message or post a thread if you feel it's better out in the open. The drama is just... I don't know, kinda meh.
We can't see the little stuff online that we normally see in real world conversation. Personally, I think more people are laughing and having fun when they post a lot of stuff here, but type takes away a lot of the emotion.
Like I said, I've had times where I felt like I was stalking a few people. I was constantly replying to them. Most of the time they had posted right before I logged on, other times they quoted me. I had a few that I thought were stalking me too. But in the end I was just being paranoid.
Originally posted by theBDub: Randy said Patrick was braying like a jackass, Patrick said it was better to bray like one than be one, and multiple users then hounded Patrick for being rude. They had said essentially the same thing, except Randy's was unprovoked while Patrick's was in response.
Jackasses, also known as donkeys bray. They make a lot of noise for no reason. People can bray like a jackass.
You can be like a lot of things. That doesn't make you one, you are like the thing.
BUT, the response was "you are a jackass."
That isn't saying he was acting like something, it said he was something. It's a difference that matters.
[This message has been edited by Fats (edited 02-23-2022).]
OK, so the solution is to post direct attacks on him? I really don't see it. But with all due respect man, cowboy up a little bit and stop letting strangers on the internet get your panties all bunched up and your world becomes a lot more fun. If he offended you, ask for an apology. Send him a message or post a thread if you feel it's better out in the open. The drama is just... I don't know, kinda meh.
We can't see the little stuff online that we normally see in real world conversation. Personally, I think more people are laughing and having fun when they post a lot of stuff here, but type takes away a lot of the emotion.
Like I said, I've had times where I felt like I was stalking a few people. I was constantly replying to them. Most of the time they had posted right before I logged on, other times they quoted me. I had a few that I thought were stalking me too. But in the end I was just being paranoid.
He doesn't bother me himself; you can see the way I respond to his attacks towards me as evidence. What bothers me more is watching other users get blamed for reacting to these unprovoked messages. What bothers me more is watching him tank multiple threads to the Trash Can, then having everyone else act like it wasn't him. It's like everyone has polarized glasses that filter out Randy's comments but they target others, or I'm in some Twilight Zone.
The reason it's a topic today is specifically because of Cliff's reaction. I don't believe I'm being dramatic, just stating a case as a reaction to this entire thing. In my mind, I don't see this as a "Politics" issue. I see it as a Randy issue.
quote
Originally posted by Fats:
Jackasses, also known as donkeys bray. They make a lot of noise for no reason. People can bray like a jackass.
You can be like a lot of things. That doesn't make you one, you are like the thing.
BUT, the response was "you are a jackass."
That isn't saying he was acting like something, it said he was something. It's a difference that matters.
All of his other comments taken into context, I don't think it's a difference that matters all that much. But that's just my take, won't try and argue that point.
OK, if he's not doing it to you, just other people. Why can't they stand up for themselves? Why are you the one taking up the cause for all these offended people?
Can they not defend themselves on here? I understand if someone isn't mentally able to take care of themselves (cough cough me), but I really don't think many (if any) of these people are weak minded at all, I think the opposite for almost everyone here. That's what makes the debates fun. Nobody (that really wants to debate) wants to do it with feeble minded people. And for the record, I think Patrick is one of the members that is more than able to defend himself. Sure he can be rude, we all can be. We're adult males defending what we believe to be right. We have passion about our beliefs. Even you man. I'm sure that somewhere in that adolescent head, you have some feeble thought that you think is important.... Not that we care.... (Joking on that last part!)
Edit to add: There is more irony here that I hope someone recognizes, or it's not fun anymore.
[This message has been edited by Fats (edited 02-23-2022).]
...it's right on the tip of my brain...
