You really are completely and thoroughly out of your flipping mind. I’ve seen misprints on The New York Times, do you think we should all have to research any article we post from them to be accurate? The misprints I’ve seen in newspapers are FAR bigger than a fucked up area code in a phone number, you clueless fuck. If someone asks for a recipe they can’t find should I have to cook the item myself if I find one and link to it?
When I was moving from Ohio to Nevada I had Yahoo Maps tell me to take I70 EAST toward Indianapolis to start my journey. Should I now call Yahoo and ask them to talk to the person who drove the route first and make sure all directions are 100% accurate? I could go on and on but I believe even a mentally deficient person such as yourself can get the point I’m making.
What makes your assertion that much more HILARIOUS is your stupid actions from one of the previous Lib pittings when you declared something full of lies but wouldn’t even entertain the thought of telling us what those lies were, yet here you sit telling me that if I’m going to use a website as proof of something that I should CALL the numbers and verify all of their info first. When asked you told us “I don’t have to!” when we asked about the lies. So, for tomndebb the rules are that you can make any and all accusations and not even clarify them, let alone prove how they are lies. For anyone else they need to be sure to contact the source and question them completely about the subject at hand before they post it. Being as stupid as you are, how is it that you get around in the world unassisted?
Sleeps, I don’t have a dog in this hunt, and I like you from your activity on other boards. But I’d like to show you this from a neutral perspective:
You offered a link to a non-authoritative site in order to discredit another poster. tom~ found errors in that citation and pointed them out. In such a case, you can either find a cite which more successfully upholds your position, or you can reconsider the point.
But if you’re out to disprove something about which you are not expert, and you only do a cursory websearch, then I suggest that complaining about the standards for proof isn’t a tactic that’s well suited to making your case.
He is complaining about an error in THE AREA CODE of the phone number. THE AREA CODE. Please look at that from ANY kind of perspective.
What amuses me more than anything is that this moderator (who can’t stop himself from humping Lib’s leg) has different rules for himself than everyone else. He’s a joke.
Are you prepared to stand by the accuracy of your initial citation? Because you don’t seem to be arguing that tomndebb is wrong about the cite, just that he’s right for the wrong reasons.
If you are defending your original citation, then giving reasons why tom~'s a weenie doesn’t actually make that case.
So, scalporf was banned. No notice in ATMB, which I understand is usually only done for long-time posters. Was he/she a sock, as accused? Am I the only one curious?
Hmm. Let’s see. An account is created in Sept '08. Comes out to post a few Lib-hate posts here and to try to hate-troll here. (The thread that spawned this one.) Then banned. What conclusions do you draw?
I can tell you mine: There are people here seriously fucked up in the head. But then some of the other people posting in this thread had already convinced me of that.
Sounds more like he’s just plain wrong in trying to discredit everything on the site because of a typo. A typo on a website? Please, that’s no reason to discount the whole page. That the phone number is cut-and-pasted is hardly shocking since it’s there as a reference to the other place, presumably copied from their website. I know nothing of the whole issue being discussed on that site but that is the lamest attempt to discredit a source. The implication is that if they erred there, good lord, how can we trust anything else they say? That’s pretty weak.
That may be your inference, but that’s not the implication I get from tom~'s posts. The posts in question are HERE and HERE, for your reference.
The criticism by tomndebb of the website cited by Sleeps With Butterflies breaks down into two points: 1) The cite is to a “second source”; a different organization than the organization which actually makes and enforces the rules to tribal membership, which has its own accessible website, and 2) the website linked by Sleeps With Butterflies has duplicated an error from yet another second source (US Dept. of Interior), indicating the accuracy of the information should not be taken as given.
tom~ made an additional point in his criticism of the line of argument itself, which, while it has no bearing on the second source cited by Sleeps, is appropriate: This is the type of issue that’s been interpreted and reinterpreted by differing sets of authorities within the very organization in question. Getting a concensus statement of the requirements for membership in any of the bands of Cherokee still in existence is and has been a moving target. “Settling” the question to the satisfaction of Lib’s critics is most likely an impossible task when differing requirements are bound to be listed depending on the location and
date of the citation.
Quick note: I’m going to nod out of the thread for the next 20 hours or so for sleep, work and travel. I’ll check tomorrow to see if there’s anything I need to reply to directly, but if not, I’ll probably not be posting until the weekend again.
Yeah, I read both those posts and neither of them hammer the source on anything other than a typo. I note for my own amusement that he spelled correctly incorrectly in the second link there but that’s not enough to discredit what he says entirely. I’m sure the site would correct the phone number if they were informed of it. Many people would copy the information on a site without verifying the fax number and postal code are correct. That’s not enough to imply that everything there is now of dubious value. It’s the Internet for fuck’s sake, you have to take everything with a grain of salt. By the way, did you know Sleeps With Butterflies is actually a 90-year-old man? It’s true.
Regardless, Liberal’s only proof of Cherokee membership is his grandmother’s spade nose and high cheekbones. It doesn’t matter if there is a typo for that website, if it is accruate or if it is even relevant.
Liberal is a liar. He needs to end the delusion that he is Cherokee. If he were, he’d actually try to build ties to the community instead of posting his nonsense to a message board.
Liberal is either (1) a big fat liar who churns this Cherokee nonsense as a way of garnering sympathy, or (2) part Cherokee who churns this Cherokee nonsense as a way of garnering sympathy. Either way, he’s an indefensible embarrassment and someone who exploits racial guilt for his own sick gain. He’s got the moral standing of a fake accident victim, arriving on the scene with a handful of bandages and hope in his eyes. If sympathy were pennies, this asshole would be camped on your doorstep every morning, clinking a little tin cup and begging for whatever he could get. I’m honestly surprised he’s not a Cherokee *war veteran *who had his legs blown off in Nam, except that could be proven either way. The fact that this board permits it, NAY, encourages and protects it, is equally embarrassing. If it was any other minority group in question, people here wouldn’t stand for it. But it’s the poor Indians, the inviolate chapel of white guilt, so it just gets a pass, and Liberal laps it up like the mongrel he so fervently, and frequently, claims to be.
Also: this pitting is total crap and I couldn’t read past post 5 or 6 because it was total crap.
Moreover: Can we cuss in this forum? I’m not sure. So just replace “nonsense” with “bullshit”, Liberal with “shitwad” and yourself with someone who isn’t a complete douche. Thanks!
Meh, I can believe he’s Cherokee. It doesn’t proclude being obsessed about how Andrew Jackson raped his teddy bear.*
*Two things:
-If my guess is correct, Lib is a Boomer, right? So he’d be the same age as MY parents, which would mean that his grandmother would have been born in the 1880s, I’m guessing. So it would have been HER grandparents, or even her GREAT-grandparents, who were actually on the “Trail of Tears.” The way he talks about it, it seems it happened to her personally.
-What kind of person tells their grandchildren (when they’re small enough to sit on your freaking lap, that is!), stories about rape and pillaging and starvation and plague and freezing to death? When I was that age, my grandparents’ used to sit me in their laps and give me money and take me to the playground and Pizza Hut. And my DAD’S parents used to take my cousins and I to Idlewild Park and Storybook Forest and stuff like that. I think the worst thing I can think of is hearing Pap ranting about various political stuff. (We just ignored him)
I mean, I can see telling an older kid about things like that – (when I was a junior in high school, a friend and I interviewed my grandfather about the Great Depression for a class project) – but honestly, how is a little kid going to understand that, or whatever? I’m not for sheltering kids, but I don’t think that the Trail of Tears makes an appropriate bedtime story for a four year old.
So, he has to be embellishing to make it sound more picturesque (“on my grandmother’s knee”), or she had no idea of what kinds of things are well, appropriate to do with her grandkids.
(I DID know, however, that my great-grandfather used to make moonshine!)