I punched “send” when I meant to hit “preview.” To my last post please add: 
Hey, give me a break, Gelding. I just finished a godawful gigantic appellate brief a couple days ago. My billables are more than set for this week (not to mention the last three). Today is just a leisurely stroll through the Texas case law on special appearances, getting ready for the reply brief I’m writing at home this weekend. 
Nectar of the gods, ain’t it, xeno?
Not even close.
raises pint of Caley 80
{Rod Stewart raspy voice on} You wear it well…{Rod Stewart raspy voice off}
Yeah pardon me while I don’t kiss his ass.
His reaction to me was far beyond the proportion that was necessary, but his attitude was ‘Hey, it’s the Pit, I can say whatever I want.’
So, hey, it’s the Pit, and I still think he’s a jerk.
Still couldn’t find anything, huh?
Adds catsix to the moron list. Hmm, at this rate I am going to need a bigger list. . . . :rolleyes:
catsix, Good Lord. If your find yourself in a hole, stop digging.
However, this is the pit, and I would like to offer this to both ex-tank and minty green:
FUCK YOU![sup]*[/sup]
[sub]*you are, of course, permitted to use the playboy playmate of your choice to perform the aforementioned act. ;)[/sub]
True, he does represent the pro-control crowd better (he never resorts to the “If you own a gun, then you’re responsible for Columbine!”-type arguments). And, typically, I’m in opposition to him on the whole gun control/ownership issue and have gotten heated with him in the past… but, hey, now’s as good a time as any to say that I respect the [gratuitous Pit language]motherfucker[/gratuitous Pit language].
I have to chime in here too - I don’t participate in gun control debates either (well, save for one bumper sticker thread), but I’m certainly pro-gun control.
That being said, when I’ve read posts by Ex Tank I’ve always been impressed with how well he’s presented his side of the issues. His arguments are always well thought out and persuasive - perhaps not persuasive enough to change my opinion, but persuasive and deserving of respect.
Bravo, Mr. Tank
And of course, Minty Green on this issue I always agree with everything you say - so, um, I guess that means YOU ROCK! 
Ah, SPOOFE . . . I didn’t know you cared. :sniff:
(In all seriousness, though I was righteously pissed off at you last year, I too have developed a substantial amount of respect for you. I regret certain unbecoming personal comments at the time. Consider my retraction issued.)
So, alice . . . how YOU doin’?
Yeah. And before that, your reaction to him went far beyond what was necessary, especially since you were being a complete dolt.
He just didn’t drone on and on and on about it…
Among the questions left unanswered:
This is a thread about Ex Tank and minty green’s reasonbility in gun debates. I posted on that subject. How is that a hijack?
Whether he has followed me around, or simply happened to end up in the same thread as me, I don’t know. But I do know that he has made snippy comments towards me in other threads, without offerering any real rebuttal to my position. Kind of like what you’re doing here.
So you’re peeved at me because I didn’t answer rhetorical questions? C’mon, man, ask something with a little substance now and again! Anyway, the answers are (a) and we were correct to get into WWII. What the fuck either of those have to do with anything of any import, I have no idea.
Ryan. While minty missed it in your first post in this thread, I caught it.
My reading of your statement is that you are accusing minty of stalking you from thread to thread. If you meant it in some other manner, you should have been clearer in your post.
That’s why I said
(boy I like saying that). minty has better things to do than chase you around the board. You’d be cutting into his drinking time.
So, again, get the FUCK over yourself.
Let me add to the praise of Ex Tank, both for his insight and grace in gun control threads and his expertise on other matters.
I’m still blown away by discussion on tanks that occurred in Fall 2000.
The way you dismiss other people’s questions as “rhetorical” and without “substance” is what prompted me to respond to this thread.
In the first question, the import is that you were criticizing the positions of me and SenorBeef on the basis that you claimed that they were anti-democratic, and yet you yourself now say that this, in of itself, is not enough to condemn a position. As for the second, it contradicts your statement
[quotew]
Silly me, I tend to think that we’re better off not killing each other over political disputes, even heated ones,
[/quote]
Piffle. Balderdash, tommyrot, and unaldulterated horseshit, my semantic-minded friend. Do you really think I haven’t reconciled my positions on your rhetorical questions with my statements in that thread?
(1) Some issues should be subject to democratic action. Guns are one of them. Some issues should not be subject to democratic action, such as matters of individual conscience. Are you clear on the distinction?
(2) Uh, yeah. WWII was a “political dispute.” Never mind that we were attacked by Japan and had war declared on us by Germany. :rolleyes:
Well, frankly, I shoulda been brought to the Pit. Even a SPOOFE can get out of line. Anyway, retraction accepted in the good spirit it was offered.
