No need to involve me with your deviance. Not that I’m judging in the newer kinder pit.
Yeah wouldn’t want someone like HD or WillF harming all these fine, upstanding folks with words such as statist or Hillary Clinton.
Come to think of it, why DON’T we have gold stars? :mad:
This. The checklist for me is as follows:
- are this poster’s posts usually true?
- if true, are this poster’s posts usually something that I wouldn’t be likely to see from another source?
When someone’s posts tend to fail both of these tests, I tend to hit the PLONK switch.
Keep an eye out for Cyclone Belachik…
:eek:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
<kaylasdad99 stops to catch his breath>
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Not sure what you’re laughing about. That you are not someone affiliated with the liberal/progressive side of politics?
The harm was preventing meaningful discussions. The tools were dishonest tactics, constant hijacks of threads(or at least attempts of), and what was functionally trolling even if the mods did not so label it. Wells that could have been plumbed 
were poisoned instead.
Proud to be affiliated with the liberal/progressive (or as sane and decent human beings people call it, the “reality-based) side of politics.
The hilarity is based on octopus’s conflation of that with “left wing.
Please accept my apologies for being so clumsy as to fail to adequately articulate that point.
Wishing for death for political figures is pretty far from sane.
I will graciously point out that there are outlier cases where it meets the ethical criterion of “greatest benefit/least harm.” I’m pretty confident that I’m firmly within the boundaries which encompass that criterion.
ETA: Also, painful, lingering death. Get it right. 
Which would be fine if there wasn’t a double standard where mentioning Clinton’s cankles risks a lecture and a banning.
I don’t recall having lectured OR banned anyone for anything even remotely like that.
Tornado Taylor?
Rain Arians?
Flash Flood Flores?
Chinook Shurmur?
Breeze Brees? (yeah, I know)
ETA:
Landslide Landry?
Windstorm Walsh?
Can we start to list ways in which octopus would fail to recognize intellectual dishonesty?
Octopus couldn’t recognize intellectual dishonesty because…
-intellectual dishonesty had on its Clark Kent glasses.
-intellectual dishonesty had just gotten a new haircut.
-intellectual dishonesty was leaning at a slight angle.
-intellectual dishonesty was wearing a loud jacket.
We’ve got a fail safe for that. When someone lectures someone about mentioning Clinton’s cankles then you lecture them. They lecture you back. Eventually the conversation implodes. See, that’s recursive.
-intellectual dishonesty was wearing the gag glasses+fake nose+moustache disguise
-intellectual dishonesty was using a fake Uzbek accent
-intellectual dishonesty had the White House Easter bunny costume on.
octopus, take this from somebody who is very non-partisan when it comes to American politics. You should really try to be a bit more introspective on what people are telling you. Try to take a step back and really reflect on it, because much of what people are posting about you is fairly accurate.
Hey now. Why don’t you take your friendly advice elsewhere.
You’re not the boss of me (now)!