CE, 9/11 Thread / Flames

[Guest Dames Edna]

Britney Spears > Avril Lavigne

 

proceed

[Guest treble charged]

Liar.

 

Oh, but I do like Britney's gloots, though.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Gee, it's far more fun to just throw out insults instead of making valid points.

When I make valid points you ignore them. It seems you get so blinded by rage you can't see anything but the insults.

 

it's far more fun to just throw out insults instead of making valid points. I should try to do it more often.

Since you seem intellectually incapable of answering anything of substance, yes, you probably should. But try to make them a bit better. "Whore" and "bitch" are sexist slurs, I don't find them funny coming from you, and you'll probably get slapped on the wrist with at least a warning if you keep it up.

 

Let's try it again:

 

Point #1 - Perfect Bo's allegations have no basis in fact. As such, they are not only false but obscene, since he claims the people who protect him cold-bloodedly murdered 3000 people last year and are now engaged in a vast conspiracy to cover up their crimes. He has not cited one single scrap of evidence for these allegations.

True or false?

 

Point #2 - You claimed that I was somehow stifling Perfect Bo's right to free speech by criticising him. That is obviously a delusion. I am as free to criticise his inane beliefs as he is to express them. Your argument was, essentially, "I agree with him and I disagree with you. Therefore you should have no right to express yourself and if you disagree with him you are stifling his right to express himself." You are a hypocrite.

True or false?

 

Point #3 - You claimed that I couldn't understand what it felt like to experience 9/11 without being there, and therefore anything I had to say about it was irrelevant. By that reasoning, no non-European Jew below 65 or so should be allowed to express her disgust at the Holocaust, because she obviously didn't experience it. The parallel is exact.

True or false?

 

Point #4 - When confronted with criticism your first response was to threaten to beat me up. When confronted with the fact that I am a woman you said you wouldn't beat me up, but then descended into a torrent of vile sexist abuse. I'm confused, was this supposed to put your chivalry on display? You are once more a hypocrite. "Kindly go eat a dick you whore" generally isn't accepted as a phrase used to denote respect for women.

True or false?

 

In closing:

I... don't need your respect

That's just as well, isn't it?

[Guest HVilleThugg]

Ohhhhh...I get it. Now that I've called you out on your childish name calling, you want to come with the logic. Ok, I"ll play your game...

 

Since you seem intellectually incapable of answering anything of substance, yes, you probably should. But try to make them a bit better. "Whore" and "bitch" are sexist slurs, I don't find them funny coming from you, and you'll probably get slapped on the wrist with at least a warning if you keep it up.

 

Riiiiight....so, it's ok for you to through out insults but not ok for me to do so? Sounds like you're the hypocritcal one...You can make reference to the size of my genitals, but I can't call you a bitch or a whore. Well, if that's not hypocracy, then I don't know what is. And if that is the case, I'll take my banishment with pride just so I can call you a fucking bitch ass whore just one more time.

 

Point #1 - Perfect Bo's allegations have no basis in fact. As such, they are not only false but obscene, since he claims the people who protect him cold-bloodedly murdered 3000 people last year and are now engaged in a vast conspiracy to cover up their crimes. He has not cited one single scrap of evidence for these allegations.

True or false?

 

In his mind, his claims have plenty of factual basis. Do I agree with him, no...I don't. But, that wasn't my point ever. My point has always been that, right or wrong, he is entitled to his opinion just like you are yours. If you wanted to generate a logical debate with him about his belief, that would have been fine, but instead you immediately delved into insulting him with childish name calling, prompting me to say something. In refuting his beliefs, you cited his lack of intelligence and many ofther supposed character flaws of his...which doesn't really make your point, but instead makes you look extremely dumb.

 

Point #2 - You claimed that I was somehow stifling Perfect Bo's right to free speech by criticising him. That is obviously a delusion. I am as free to criticise his inane beliefs as he is to express them. Your argument was, essentially, "I agree with him and I disagree with you. Therefore you should have no right to express yourself and if you disagree with him you are stifling his right to express himself." You are a hypocrite.

True or false?

 

I do recall you telling him that his remarks should not be on "your" thread...did you not? And my response was to the effect of who the hell are you to tell anyone what they can say or can't say. Stifling, no...his fingers certainly still work and if he were not spending the weekend with his daughter, I'm sure he'd be here to call you a bitch right along side of me. You are certainly free to criticize hyis beliefs...however, there's a mature way and a childish way to go about that. You chose the latter, which, again, prompted me to speak up. You attempted to bully him off of that thread with your big words and your so-called intelligence, and I was there to call you out on it. Apparently you didn't like anyone challenging the authority you don't really have, or possibly showing people that you are not nearly as smart as you claim to be.

 

Point #3 - You claimed that I couldn't understand what it felt like to experience 9/11 without being there, and therefore anything I had to say about it was irrelevant. By that reasoning, no non-European Jew below 65 or so should be allowed to express her disgust at the Holocaust, because she obviously didn't experience it. The parallel is exact.

True or false?

 

I never claimed that you couldn't understand what it was like to experience 9/11. I made a very exact claim saying that you didn't know what it was like to BE there. I'm almost certain that you and everyone else experience 9/11 in your own way, and I never said you didn't. However, you DO NOT know what it's like to have been there...were you there? Huh? Were you? Cause if you were, then I'll give you this point, but since you've yet to say that you were, I think it's pretty safe to assume that you were not. So, yes...you experience 9/11, but you do not know what it was like to be there. Also, I never said that your views were irrelavent...however, I did say that your insults were. And I did say that you can't tell him how to feel about it...because you don't know what it was like to him, so you can't tell him how to feel..period. As for the Holocaust...all Jews are allowed to express their disgust...sure...but regardless, they don't know what it was like to be there. They can be disgusted by it, yes...but they weren't there, so they don't know what that was like...period. That is fact. They can have beliefs and feelings on it, sure...just like you can about 9/11...but they certainly cannot tell a Holocaust survivor how to feel about it, nor can you tell Bo how to feel about 9/11.

 

Point #4 - When confronted with criticism your first response was to threaten to beat me up. When confronted with the fact that I am a woman you said you wouldn't beat me up, but then descended into a torrent of vile sexist abuse. I'm confused, was this supposed to put your chivalry on display? You are once more a hypocrite. "Kindly go eat a dick you whore" generally isn't accepted as a phrase used to denote respect for women.

True or false?

 

Hey, I never claimed to be a nice guy, nor did I claim to be politically correct. Did I say I was trying to respect women? Nope, sure didn't. However, I have nothing against women, and I tend to like them. However, when I don't like them, I feel perfectly comfortable calling them bitch and whore, much like I would insult a man if I didn't like him. Surely I didn't make any generalizations about women as bitches or whores...so I didn't really disrespect women...just you who happens to be a woman. And I said I wouldn't beat you up because I don't hit women...has nothing to do with me trying to show that I'm a nice or chivalrous guy...it has to do with my personal belief...period. Don't care what you say about that because I wasn't attempting to prove that I'm a good guy. I'm not a nice guy, and I don't care if people on these boards don't like me. I have nothing to prove to them or you...and hey Marney, if you're offended by my comments, great...because that was the fucking point.

 

So, are you going away from the childish insults and moving to actual logical debate, or are we just going to delve back into immature name calling? If we are going to use logic today, it would certainly be a welcome change from you...Or maybe you're going to try to bully me with your big words....well, sorry, I'm not impressed. And it seems that some of your peers are not impressed either.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Ohhhhh...I get it. Now that I've called you out on your childish name calling, you want to come with the logic.

Nope, you still don't get it. Quite simply, your obscene ranting was boring me. You started the name-calling; you're continuing it now, and your positions are logically indefensible. "Now that I've called you out" indeed. Lose the idiotic ghetto patois already, it's giving me a headache and you sound like a moron. I'm embarrassed to even be arguing with you.

 

so, it's ok for you to through out insults but not ok for me to do so? ...You can make reference to the size of my genitals, but I can't call you a bitch or a whore.

No, you can, but you shouldn't. There's a difference between an insult and a slur. A "reference to the size of [your] genitals" is clearly an insult and a metaphor for your whiny crybaby tone, and it has little relevance to an actual argument. "Bitch" and "whore" are gender-specific slurs which are meant simply to denigrate your opponent. Next.

 

In his mind, his claims have plenty of factual basis.

In the minds of drunks, pink elephants have plenty of factual basis. I don't have to respect them either.

Do I agree with him, no...I don't.

Good.

My point has always been that, right or wrong, he is entitled to his opinion just like you are yours.

Absolutely. Just as I'm entitled to call him an idiot for subscribing to his, because only an idiot would do so. If you're going to defend him, you have to defend his argument. It's not enough to say that he deserves my respect just because he does. Respect is earned, and he has failed to earn it.

 

I do recall you telling him that his remarks should not be on "your" thread...did you not?

Absolutely. I said that because I was aware of the purpose of my thread, which was as I stated previously. It was not intended to be a forum for slandering the government.

You attempted to bully him off of that thread with your big words and your so-called intelligence

If "big words" make him feel insecure, perhaps he should get an education. If they don't, what was your point again?

and I was there to call you out on it.

I was wondering when we'd get to this. The noble defender of the public strikes again... amicus humani generis indeed. I'm curious, do you ever get tired of screeching your virtue from the rooftops?

Apparently you didn't like anyone challenging the authority you don't really have, or possibly showing people that you are not nearly as smart as you claim to be.

I've never claimed to have any authority on this message board, save on matters of policy and military affairs. I don't claim to be smart; other people reach that conclusion or the opposite on their own. You see, this is another point where we differ:

And it seems that some of your peers are not impressed either.

I don't predicate my behaviour on others' opinions. That seems to be your sole basis for speaking, however.

 

you DO NOT know what it's like to have been there...were you there? Huh? Were you? Cause if you were, then I'll give you this point, but since you've yet to say that you were, I think it's pretty safe to assume that you were not.

Nope. As I've already stated more than once, we were on vacation in Thailand.

And I did say that you can't tell him how to feel about it...because you don't know what it was like to him, so you can't tell him how to feel..period.

I never once told him how to feel. I told him that his views on the government were wrong, slanderous, and obscene, and that he was a contemptible shithead for daring to make such vile allegations without proof. I maintain that.

As for the Holocaust...all Jews are allowed to express their disgust...sure...but regardless, they don't know what it was like to be there... but they certainly cannot tell a Holocaust survivor how to feel about it

If a Holocaust survivor became a Holocaust denier, or claimed that the Jews had brought it on themselves, and that Hitler was a poor misunderstood man who had nothing to do with Auschwitz, every Jew in the world would be entitled to tell him that he was a worthless piece of garbage. One more time: suffering does not directly impart virtue. Bo's opinions are worthless, Bo's alleged suffering is irrelevant, and Bo is a waste of skin. Bo should be ashamed of attacking the people who defend him, and Bo should apologise for his absurd accusations, which even you don't support. "Period."

 

And if you feel "bullied" by big words, it speaks more about your personal insecurity than my approach to this most pointless of debates.

 

I don't hit women...has nothing to do with me trying to show that I'm a nice or chivalrous guy...it has to do with my personal belief...period.

And on just what is this "personal belief" based? You're painting yourself into a corner.

I'll take my banishment with pride just so I can call you a fucking bitch ass whore just one more time... hey Marney, if you're offended by my comments, great...because that was the fucking point.

Thank you, I think we've dealt with this particular aspect of the exchange adequately. I'll wait for a mod or an admin to express an opinion now.

[Guest chirs3]

In Thugg's first post, carried over from CE Folder, he didn't resort to any name calling.

 

In Marney's first response:

 

Took your time getting to the central hypocrisy of your post, didn't you, you pathetic little worm?

 

...then seeing deluded pissant assholes like Bo shrieking that you and your co-workers were behind it all in the first place?

 

You're an emotional little crybaby without decency or a sense of propriety. You want to continue this, you respond here, and you keep your fat, ignorant, hypocritical ass the fuck out of CE and the fuck out of my thread.

 

Who started it again, Marney?

[Guest Cancer Marney]

It was hostile and offensive, a clear and unequivocal flame. I responded in kind.

 

That's a real cock thing to say...

You don't know what he's been through...

you really have no right to say how people should feel or respond.

completely uncalled for and very childish.

you shut the fuck up

 

You can pick and choose your quotes all you want. The fact is that he set the tone for this exchange, and he has only himself to blame for it.

[Guest chirs3]

There's a difference between saying "That was uncalled for and childish, shut up" and "You're a crackhead/pathetic worm/etc."

 

Granted, it's all the same once you're in the flame war, but still...

[Guest Cancer Marney]

The difference is insignificant.

Again: he set the tone. He wanted a flame war, and he got one.

 

And, if he sincerely felt I was in the wrong and he wanted to correct me, he would have PMed me and addressed the matter privately. Bo's asinine post was no longer an active issue in the thread in question; it would never have come up again if HVilleThugg hadn't seen fit to resurrect it. He didn't do anything of the sort. Instead, he chose to make a public and antagonistic post which was clearly intended to be flamebait. And now he and you are claming that I started it? Please.

[Guest HVilleThugg]

I don't even have to say it myself...others see it as well. As I was about to quote the same post, your peers come to the rescue to show you how wrong you are. You were the first person to start the name calling...to me and Bo. I just responded in the same manner. Who's the hypocrite now?

 

No, you can, but you shouldn't. There's a difference between an insult and a slur. A "reference to the size of [your] genitals" is clearly an insult and a metaphor for your whiny crybaby tone, and it has little relevance to an actual argument. "Bitch" and "whore" are gender-specific slurs which are meant simply to denigrate your opponent. Next.

 

Hmmmm...since a woman doesn't have a penis, I do believe insulting the size of mine would be considered as a gender slur. Also, bitch and whore, just like insulting my genitals, are only slurs if they are in the context as slurs. I called YOU and bitch and a whore...not ALL WOMEN. I call men bitches and whores as well...If you want to say that my words are gender slurs, then so are your references to the size of my penis. Oh, and my crybaby tone? Hmmm, that's interesting considering it's extremely hard to determine anything about my tone through posts on a message board. Sounds like the great Marney is making claims without factual basis.

 

Absolutely. I said that because I was aware of the purpose of my thread, which was as I stated previously. It was not intended to be a forum for slandering the government.

 

Hmmmm, sounds like a simple, "Hey, we'd all appreciate if we didn't have that kind of post on this thread. It's for remembering 9/11, so can you please take that kind of talk to another thread?" Gee, suddenly, I feel like compelled to start arguing with you. There's a mature way and an immature way to do things...you chose to immediately call him names and insult him instead of asking him to take his statement elsewhere as that was not the purpose of that thread.

 

I never once told him how to feel. I told him that his views on the government were wrong, slanderous, and obscene, and that he was a contemptible shithead for daring to make such vile allegations without proof. I maintain that.

 

You're proving my point...had you ended that statement by saying that his views were obscene and slanderous, that would be fine...but you seem to have a knack for throwing those insults on the end of there. That's my point...maybe you don't agree with his views, and you certainly have the right to express that. However, if you don't want a flame, then just say your piece and leave the insults out of it. You insulted him in your response, and my retort was to say that has a right to feel that way if he chooses to. And he has a right to NOT be called all kinds of names for doing so...if you wanted to simply say that you didn't agree with his views, that would be fine...but you have to throw that shithead and other random insults on there.

 

I'm going to leave that whold Holocaust discussion out of this, as I am not arguing about that...mainly because in my mind, there is no comparison between 9/11 and the Holocaust.

 

In my initial response, I made no insults nor name calling. I did convey an upset tone, but I still didn't call you names like you and Bob immediately did to me and Bo. I made a statement about how I felt about your statements to Bo (which, BTW, were nothing more than just insults and name calling, typical of all your arguments), and you came right out and insulted me and called me names. Maybe I went a little far with telling you to "shut the fuck up"...I"ll admit that. However, you immediately began flaming me with insults...you started that, not me.

[Guest redbaron51]

but see Marney, you are the one who is starting the flame war.

 

Bo just stated his opinions, which you then proceeded to throw shit on it, (and even when he got carried away, many forgave him, except you, and even Bob, which i was surprised.) You carried the flame war through out the whole time.

 

You see Marney, you just have to be right, you can not be wrong, because that is just you isn't it?

 

What makes Bo's point not valid? That you don't know him? That is hardly an excuse. And saying he is the scum basically a waste of fresh air, geez Marney you really are an egomaniac who thinks nothing but yourself, and that you Marney is the Queen of all Queens, the best from the rest, maybe you don't type it, but the way you type it makes you look like an arrogant bitch.

[Guest HVilleThugg]

And, if he sincerely felt I was in the wrong and he wanted to correct me, he would have PMed me and addressed the matter privately. Bo's asinine post was no longer an active issue in the thread in question; it would never have come up again if HVilleThugg hadn't seen fit to resurrect it. He didn't do anything of the sort. Instead, he chose to make a public and antagonistic post which was clearly intended to be flamebait. And now he and you are claming that I started it? Please.

 

Yes, that's right...I posted because I wanted to be flamed. In fact, being flamebait is one of my favorite pasttimes.

 

Where is my Sarcasm Tag?

 

I know you're used to people just letting you win...but I ain't gonna do that. Your post about Bo may have been a little deep in the thread, but that's only because Bo wasn't around to defend himself. You could have ended this at any time...as could I...however, there's no doubt that you started the flaming as you began the name calling....not me. I made a statement about what you said to Bo...you immediately jumped on me with insults and penis references. It's ok to admit you're wrong about something...I won't think any less of you.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

You were the first person to start the name calling...to me and Bo. I just responded in the same manner.

As stated already, it was your first post set the tone. You have no right to complain about being flamed in return after telling me to "shut the fuck up." And, as I said in my last post, I'm done with the sexist slur argument. It's a matter for the mods/admins now.

 

sounds like a simple, "Hey, we'd all appreciate if we didn't have that kind of post on this thread.  It's for remembering 9/11, so can you please take that kind of talk to another thread?"

So you agree with the substance, just not the tone. Fair enough.

 

had you ended that statement by saying that his views were obscene and slanderous, that would be fine...but you seem to have a knack for throwing those insults on the end of there.

Yep, because that's what I do when I feel contempt for someone.

 

he has a right to NOT be called all kinds of names for doing so...if you wanted to simply say that you didn't agree with his views, that would be fine...

He has no right not to be called names. If I think he's a shithead, I'll call him a shithead, just as he called me a mass murderer and a liar. Which is actionable, unlike "shithead."

 

In my initial response... I did convey an upset tone

To say the least. It was purely and simply flamebait.

 

However, you immediately began flaming me with insults...

As you should have expected. A reasonable person does not begin a reasonable conversation with "shut the fuck up." You want something other than a flame, you start with something other than a flame.

 

you started that, not me.

Wrong.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

but see Marney, you are the one who is starting the flame war.

No. I didn't.

 

Bo just stated his opinions

Which were filthy lies.

 

What makes Bo's point not valid?

The fact that the government was not responsible for the attacks of 9/11.

 

geez Marney you really are an egomaniac who thinks nothing but yourself, and that you Marney is the Queen of all Queens, the best from the rest, maybe you don't type it, but the way you type it makes you look like an arrogant bitch.

I may be an arrogant bitch, but I'm not a mass murderer and I'm not involved in a conspiracy to keep "the truth" from the American people. And I take extreme exception to anyone who implies that I am.

 

Fucking sue me.

[Guest bob_barron]

but see Marney, you are the one who is starting the flame war.

 

Bo just stated his opinions, which you then proceeded to throw shit on it, (and even when he got carried away, many forgave him, except you, and even Bob, which i was surprised.) You carried the flame war through out the whole time.

 

You see Marney, you just have to be right, you can not be wrong, because that is just you isn't it?

 

What makes Bo's point not valid? That you don't know him? That is hardly an excuse. And saying he is the scum basically a waste of fresh air, geez Marney you really are an egomaniac who thinks nothing but yourself, and that you Marney is the Queen of all Queens, the best from the rest, maybe you don't type it, but the way you type it makes you look like an arrogant bitch.

I didn't forgive Bo because what he said just really pissed me off and I just couldn't forgive him. He was trying to act like his opinions were valid because he was in NY or something like that.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

I know you're used to people just letting you win...but I ain't gonna do that.

Well aren't you just a shining example of perseverance and courage. Rosa Parks has nothing on you.

Here's a cookie.

 

you started the flaming as you began the name calling....not me.  I made a statement about what you said to Bo...

Your statement was hostile and antagonistic. You told me to "shut the fuck up." And now you're complaining that it got you into a flame war you didn't want? I can't decide whether to take you seriously and be amused at your naivete or continue to think you're a liar and be amused at your hypocrisy.

 

It's ok to admit you're wrong about something...I won't think any less of you.

Like that keeps me awake nights.

[Guest redbaron51]

Bob I was saying that you did not forgive Bo, not saying you did.

[Guest bob_barron]

I know I didn't forgive Bo and I won't cause he's a moron who didn't know what he was talking about.

[Guest HVilleThugg]

As stated already, it was your first post set the tone. You have no right to complain about being flamed in return after telling me to "shut the fuck up."

 

I already stated that I may have gone too far by telling you to shut the fuck up...however, how is my saying that different that the things you said to Bo prior. Also, I'd like to point out that you were the one that began with the name calling and insults...apparently you rationalized doing so based on some tone you thought I had. Well, I'll give you the satisfaction of telling you that I was upset when I made my first post, which I think is conveyed in the tone. However...I called you no names or made any insults...you started that.

 

Yep, because that's what I do when I feel contempt for someone.

 

Ok....so you are saying that it's ok to insult people if you don't like them. Ok...fine...then how can you complain that I insulted you? You are proving tthat you're wrong as you're telling me that it's ok to result to childish insults if you don't like someone.

 

As you should have expected. A reasonable person does not begin a reasonable conversation with "shut the fuck up." You want something other than a flame, you start with something other than a flame.

 

I never said that you shouldn't have flamed me. I only said that you started it...I don't consider an argument as a flame...it's a flame once you start to just insult them instead of actually arguing your point. And everyone here knows that you started doing that way before I did.

 

Bo just stated his opinions

Which were filthy lies.

 

For someone who claims to be so smart, you should know the difference between fact and opinion. By definition, only facts can be wrong, but opinions cannot. They are people's personal beliefs, and while you may not agree...they can never e wrong. Opinions are opinions and cannot be wrong unless they are being stated as fact.

 

Your statement was hostile and antagonistic. You told me to "shut the fuck up." And now you're complaining that it got you into a flame war you didn't want? I can't decide whether to take you seriously and be amused at your naivete or continue to think you're a liar and be amused at your hypocrisy.

 

Hey, I never complained that I was in a flame war that I didn't want. I'm just making the point that you started it. My post was slightly hostile, yes...but you still started the flaming...not me. I already mentioned about my shut the fuck up comment....however, I never resulted to name calling and insults. You did that...I was prepared to have a argument about it....but you took it straight to the insults...not me. I certainly knew I was going to get into an argument after my comments...however, I didn't realize that you and Bob would reply so immaturely. I"m just saying that you shouldn't get upset about me calling you names when you were the one who started us down that path of immaturity.

[Guest redbaron51]

What makes Bo's point not valid?

The fact that the government was not responsible for the attacks of 9/11.

That is an opinion Marney. As Thugg stated, Bo has his own opinion about how 9/11 came together.

 

And you know what, I agree with him, to a certain extent.

 

And where are you getting your "facts" from? American Media?

 

Please, the American media can easily bend the truth, to tell millions of mindless americans what really happened, saying act of terrorism, meanwhile go to Canada, Britian, or any high other technological nation, and they will have different opinons on what happened on 9/11? Are they wrong too because they don't agree with you?

[Guest Cancer Marney]

I already stated that I may have gone too far by telling you to shut the fuck up...however, how is my saying that different that the things you said to Bo prior.

It isn't at all. You're quite right. Of course, that was directed to Bo, so Bo had the right to respond in kind. Your response was a completely different matter. You had the opportunity to set a different tone in your exchange with me from the tone I had set in my exchange from Bo. You chose not to. That's your right, but then don't claim you didn't anticipate or want the consequences.

 

Also, I'd like to point out that you were the one that began with the name calling and insults...apparently you rationalized doing so based on some tone you thought I had.  Well, I'll give you the satisfaction of telling you that I was upset when I made my first post, which I think is conveyed in the tone.  However...I called you no names or made any insults...you started that.

Your tone justified all my insults, just as the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and their subsequent refusal to surrender justified the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. You start something, you pay the price. Suck it up.

 

Ok...fine...then how can you complain that I insulted you?

I have not once complained. I'm perfectly happy to be in a flame war; I enjoy spirited debate and I don't mind if people throw insults at me. Just keep the sexist slurs like "bitch" and "whore" out of it. Racist slurs aren't allowed even here; I see no reason why sexist slurs should be either. As I stated in the SF thread, gender is a more basic component of a person than race; if racism is considered unacceptably offensive, sexism should be considered doubly so.

 

And everyone here knows that you started doing that way before I did.

You are once again arguing as a demagogue and an orator. I am unconcerned with what "everyone here" knows or thinks they know. I am concerned solely with proving my point to you and to myself.

 

For someone who claims to be so smart

Again, I don't claim to be smart or stupid. That's a judgement for others to make, and not one that concerns me.

you should know the difference between fact and opinion.  By definition, only facts can be wrong

"Perfect Bo" presented his opinions as fact:

economically it was the united states...many things were missing, and information was currupted...they just want to take over the fuel from those countries over there, and what is the best way then by war...let the people get behind his decision because of the symbol, one of the symbol that symbolize America, and not only America, but New York City...the World Trade Center was attacked... what part of the pentagon was 'attack'? And who was the highest ranking officer that got killed in those 'attack'? Seems too perfect? Why is it that the fourth plane didnt hit the white house? Because then things will just get out of hand...attack the own white house? that's why the plane went down.

And even if he hadn't presented these obscene lies as facts I would have called him on the carpet to explain his opinions. There are stupid opinions and educated opinions. If all opinions were equal we would have a Joe Schmoe with a GED advising the Secretary of State on foreign affairs. We don't. We have qualified people who base their opinions on facts, experience, expertise, and logic.

...but opinions cannot.  They are people's personal beliefs, and while you may not agree...they can never e wrong.  Opinions are opinions and cannot be wrong unless they are being stated as fact.

Your writing is extremely confused, but what I think you're saying is still wrong. It might be someone's "opinion" that the earth is flat. That is demonstrably wrong. It might be someone's opinion that the US government murdered 3000 of its own citizens. That is wrong and disgusting.

 

Hey, I never complained that I was in a flame war that I didn't want.  I'm just making the point that you started it.  My post was slightly hostile, yes...but you still started the flaming...

Once again: your post was flamebait. You don't say "shut the fuck up" to someone and expect a nice response. You got what you wanted. Don't blame me.

 

I"m just saying that you shouldn't get upset about me calling you names when you were the one who started us down that path of immaturity.

You can call me all the names you want. When you call me a "bitch" and a "whore," however, that's abusive language which is at least on the same level as calling me a "cracker" or Dames a "spic" or Flyboy a "nigger." I'm glad to have a flamewar, but I will not be abused through my gender.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

...the government was not responsible for the attacks of 9/11.

That is an opinion Marney.

No. It's a fact. We have motive, method, videotapes of the act, and a videotaped confession. What is your standard of proof?

 

Bo has his own opinion about how 9/11 came together.

Yes, he does. And it is obscene, slanderous, unsubstantiated, and stupid. And he is a miserable excuse for a human being and a worse excuse for an American for holding it.

 

And where are you getting your "facts" from? American Media?

No. I'm one of the people your precious Bo slandered. I occasionally work in the Pentagon, among other places, and one of my friends was blown off her crutches and halfway down a radial hall by the force of the fireball. A few feet one way or the other and she would be dead. I don't appreciate some jackass on a message board coming along and stating that I and the people I work for cared so little for her life and the lives of others that we were willing to betray our sacred trust and sacrifice them in the pursuit of oil. That is not true, and if someone claims it is, damn straight I'm going to flame him.

 

go to Canada, Britian, or any high other technological nation, and they will have different opinons on what happened on 9/11? Are they wrong too because they don't agree with you?

Yes. Fuck them, fuck you, and fuck everyone else who thinks like you.

[Guest redbaron51]

wow Marney, you are a truley American when it comes to be easily blinded by the American media.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

If you believe my sources are suspect, please cite yours.

[Guest HVilleThugg]

Before I get to responding to the other parts of your posts, I will lay to rest this whole slur issue. If you're looking for an apolgy for the bitch and whore remarks, you got it...I went too far and I apologize. However, I will say that your insults promted those insults from me, just like my shut the fuck up comment promted your insults. You began by calling me names and making a ton of insults...I went too far with the so-called slurs, and I'll admit that. However, I think you have to admit that your insults were also out of line and childish.

 

It isn't at all. You're quite right. Of course, that was directed to Bo, so Bo had the right to respond in kind. Your response was a completely different matter. You had the opportunity to set a different tone in your exchange with me from the tone I had set in my exchange from Bo. You chose not to. That's your right, but then don't claim you didn't anticipate or want the consequences.

 

I never said that you didn't have to right to respond to me in the same manner in which I responded to you. I'm just saying that you started the name calling and insults...something that I never did. You certainly could have responded to me in a hostile manner without resorting to childish penis jokes and the like.

 

I don't know how many times that I have to say that I'm not complaining that I'm in a flame war. I'm happy to be in a flame war (except that I have other things that I should be doing). I do have a problem with someone complaining about me insulting her when she's the one that began the insults.

 

It might be someone's "opinion" that the earth is flat. That is demonstrably wrong. It might be someone's opinion that the US government murdered 3000 of its own citizens. That is wrong and disgusting.

 

Yes, I agree that you can PROVE that someone's opinion is wrong with facts. IE....the world is flat is a wrong opinion as it has been proven that the world is indeed not flat. However, you didn't provide concrete evidence that Bo's opinions were wrong. You just said he was wrong and began to call him names...and that's not enough to claim someone's opinions are wrong. And, while I don't necessarily agree with Bo's claim, I also do not think there's enough evidence out there to prove that he's completely off base either.

 

Your tone justified all my insults, just as the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and their subsequent refusal to surrender justified the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. You start something, you pay the price. Suck it up.

 

So, you are admitting that you started the insults. Hmm..that's different from before when you claimed that I started it.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Before I get to responding to the other parts of your posts, I will lay to rest this whole slur issue.  If you're looking for an apolgy for the bitch and whore remarks, you got it...I went too far and I apologize.

Good. Your apology is accepted.

 

I think you have to admit that your insults were also out of line and childish.

Childish, of course. All insults are childish. I amuse myself with them, but I don't take them seriously. As I've repeated several times now, however, I do not believe they were not out of line because they were the proper and adequate response to your tone. So I upped the ante. That's my call.

 

You certainly could have responded to me in a hostile manner without resorting to childish penis jokes and the like.

I could have, yes, but it was more fun my way. "Dickless" is a good metaphor. Hell, Peter Venkman said "This man has no dick" in Ghostbusters. You're going to quarrel with precedent like that?! Uh-huh. Step off!

 

I do have a problem with someone complaining about me insulting her when she's the one that began the insults.

Again, I've never had a problem with insults. Gender-based slurs were where I drew the line.

 

Yes, I agree that you can PROVE that someone's opinion is wrong with facts.  IE....the world is flat is a wrong opinion as it has been proven that the world is indeed not flat.  However, you didn't provide concrete evidence that Bo's opinions were wrong.  You just said he was wrong and began to call him names...and that's not enough to claim someone's opinions are wrong.  And, while I don't necessarily agree with Bo's claim, I also do not think there's enough evidence out there to prove that he's completely off base either.

There will never be enough evidence out there to convince people who declare that they will "die with this feel that it was AMERICA that this these attacks [sic, sic, sic, goddamnit, sic]." Such people also argue that Elvis is still alive. You want me to provide evidence for them too?

 

So, you are admitting that you started the insults.  Hmm..that's different from before when you claimed that I started it.

My claim has always been that you set the tone and I responded in kind. You're setting a different tone now, in response to my first bland post a page or so ago, and if you'll notice, I am again responding in kind. The lesson should be clear.

[Guest EL BRUJ0]

This thread is ghey.

[Guest HVilleThugg]

Well, from the looks of things, we have nothing more to argue about. I've admitted to going too far with the slurs...you admitted to starting the name calling...I've admitted to coming off hostile in my first post...you've admitted to the childish nature of the name calling...

 

I still have an issue with your claim that there will never be enough evidence...I mean, if you ask me, it's not as if Bo is saying something that's factually not true. Elvis is dead because his body was found and identified...so all those who believe he is still alive are certainly entitled to believe that, but that doesn't make it true. Much in the same manner, just because Bo thinks there's a conspiracy at work, doesn't make that true either. However, while there is physical evidence that Elvis is dead, there isn't such concrete evidence that there was no conspiracy...at least, not that I'm away of.

 

Anyway, I never had a problem with you disagreeing with Bo, as I have to admit that I disagree with him as well...My only gripe was with the way you went about refuting him...it was always about your method, but never your objection.

 

Although, I still stand by the point that there isn't concrete evidence to completely refute his claim.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

And I stand by my point that there will never, ever be enough concrete evidence to satisfy his like. Elvis's body was found and identified? It's a conspiracy. What, you're going to believe a coroner? A public official? You're going to take his word for that being the King's body? Don't you know it was a CIA plot all along? (It really wasn't. I like Elvis.)

Similarly: so what if bin Laden confessed on videotape? You think the government can't doctor a film? Besides, we funded him anyway (we didn't) and so we're responsible for everything he does (we aren't) and nothing you say can prove anything anyway because you work for the government too - obviously you're part of the conspiracy (I'm not).

Seriously, the burden of proof is on him. I don't need to present evidence to refute him so long as he doesn't present evidence to support himself.

Anyway, you just can't win with a conspiracy theorist. Argument is futile because argument is predicated on the assumption that both parties are reasonable. Conspiracy theorists aren't. All that's left is to call them names.

[Guest HVilleThugg]

Good point...I mean, I suppose that when you believe something, you can rationalize anything and come up with reasons why evidence is tainted or doctored or whatever.

 

From what I understood, we did fund bin Laden for a while didn't we?

 

And yes, I would agree that the burden is on Bo to present evidence to support his claim. I just didn't, and still don't, believe that name calling and character bashing is the way to address his radical opinion. I felt like a better way would have been to show evidence against his claim.