I was trying to be nice to the OP. He had accused me of being lame and not a single example of my being lame could be found in the thread. I figured I would post one lame comment so that he would not look like a total buffoon.
You still should have kicked his puppy…
-XT
You make that sound like a bad thing.
For the record, I do not think Tomndebb is anything of the sort like an Anti-Semite. I don’t know who you are talking about.
Bullshit. It’s either fair to draw the parallel, which I did, or not. Did I take a snipe afterwards at Bush. Yeah, but so what. Der Tris, Elucidator and Shodan would be allowed to do it. Order applied unequally is neither order nor justice. It’s chaos.
Have a nice day yourself. If you got such a boner to open a thread about it, then do so. I don’t, and particularly not in your forum. You’ve already conceded that Der Tris, Elucidator and Shodan would not have drawn a snarky comment from you.
My primary purpose was to point out that the shot being made at FDR was far less well based than one could be made at Bush and his supporters about 9/11, which Polycarp has agreed to as far as Bush goes, but not as far as Republicans in general go. What seems to be the focus is that I can’t go on to point out that the sort of scum who level this assertion at FDR ignore much better evidence against the Bush regime. But had others done it, specifically Der Tris, Elucidator and Shodan, you, by your own admission would have done nothing with the mod hat on. Really, you should see a specialist about having that bug removed.
It wasn’t a hijack, it was a comparison that was a bit farther than others would have made. You weren’t being mean to me, you were being arbitrary in your application of your make up rules as you go application depending on the user name of the poster. The claim of me thinking you were being mean is just bizarre. You weren’t. You were arbitrary.
Ultimately the issue is that the idiotic and time worn assertion that FDR knew about and caused etc. Pearl Harbor by right wing nutjobs really only has the answer that I made. I’m not going to repeat it in your forum because you have asked me not to in a particular thread. Perhaps to protect the delicate sensibilities of conspiracy theorist nutjob Republicans. I’m not going to open a new thread on it because it is a supporting argument that I don’t care to debate in full. Particularly not in your forum. I am incensed at this idea of disposing of justice in favor of order and treating different posters differently. And just the bizarre calling of a one time non-belabored point a “disruptive hijacking”.
It’s like an NBA referee suddenly calling traveling on just one player. Really?
It’s lame. You just don’t have enough of a conception of justice or order to realize it.
The Second Stone, you’re on our side (unlike Sam Stone, whom I often almost mistake you for). Could you just take your lumps*, let it go, and not make people who hate GWB loook like monomaniacal idiots? That’s Der Trihs’s job. And before him it was Reeder’s
If Der Trihs goes on vacation, we’ll consider your application to fill in for him.
*I mean, sheesh, it’s not even like it was an official Mod Warning[sup]TM[/sup].
Alas, as much as I would have enjoyed another Roosh of someone, I just didn’t get the joke/reference. I’ve never seen City Slickers, and it was a movie that came out when I was just a kid and had no interest in it at the time, so I never got around to it. So yeah, I retract my statement then if it actually is a reference and is a joke.
Also for the record, I had no idea that **Tomndebb **could have been 2 people. I never thought the name meant “Tom and Debb”, I just figured it meant something, but people just easily liked to shorten it to Tom, and I never really thought about the ndebb part too much, (so yeah, the 4 cheeks reference was lost on me as well. I just thought you were insinuating that Tom’s Modding Posterior was so large that it was the size of double a normal man’s butt cheeks).
Carry on then, I have been educated doubly so.
You called Srdja Trifkovic as an anti-Semite. I was referring to the posts of edivincison, who appears to be blaming Pearl Harbor on a Jewish plot to kill the Egyptians or something insane like that.
Your first two paragraphs were totally on target. Comparisons of Pearl Harbor and September 11 can be valid. You lost the strand when you went off on how conservatives should stop criticizing FDR because he didn’t get a memo about the attack. It had nothing to do with nothing.
Apparently, you’re too young to remember the Jordan Rules.
So what if he’s got a little trouble walking? That’s just mean.
Actually, had Der Trihs or Elucidator posted the same thing you did, they’d have probably received the same admonition. (Shodan could not have done it regarding Bush, and would have had to find a way to attack someonme on the Left.)
You have misunderstood my comments to Liberal. I took the opportunity of Liberal’s observation to make a broader point. We have one poster who is under a bit of restriction regarding what he may post in GD. I rather frequently get questions as to why I do not impose similar (or harsher) conditions on a different poster. I posted my rationale, then noted two reasons for permitting some posters to express themselves intemperately–despite the feelings of some other posters. On the one hand, despite their ability to raise hackles, they generally did not cause threads to jump the rails. On the other hand, there is a danger of creating an ever-widening ripple of censorship. If I restrict Poster A, his partisans will demand that I censor Poster B. If I accede to their demands, then partisans of Poster B will insist that Poster C is equally deserving of restraint. If I limit Poster C, then his partisans will seek out a poster D to be restrained, etc.
By this point, my general observations had moved well beyond your little interruption and you are not even being included in my comments. (In fact, you were not mentioned in any part of my reply to Liberal, other than being one of hundreds who have, from time to time, submitted posts that were liable to cause disruptive hijacks.)
Well, at least we agree that you were posting an off-topic comment. You apparently refuse to see it, of course, because it was your off-topic comment, but here we have your admission, despite the fact that you choose to deny it later in your post. The issue of whether FDR conspired to encourage or permit a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor is not the same as whether “conservatives” (actually, very different humans 60 years apart), suffer some ethical lapse that causes them to attack FDR on that point while defending GWB from similar charges. “FDR knew” is a conspiracy theorist concept, not a conservative one.
Absolutely incorrect, for the reasons I noted, above. (You also missed the ellipsis. I did not name three posters who habitually hijack threads and get away with it. I specifically named two additional posters (among several others), about whom I have received challenges to their right to post despite the fact that they do not (generally) cause hijacks. I could have named five or seven or more, but I figured adding two would be sufficiently illustrative.)
Had you stopped short at simply noting that FDR and GWB were both accused of similar conspiracies, your post would not have attracted my attention. Your deliberate effort to maker it a “conservative” issue changes the both the content and the tenor of your post. Note that I did not respond to your entire post. I specifically quoted the following paragraph for criticism.
Had Der Trihs or Elucidator (or Tamerlane or Ed Zotti) posted that paragraph, they would have received exactly the same wrist tap.
One of the unfortunate byproducts of “wacky” sitcoms like Dharma and Greg is the mass impression that nuttiness is cute and/or endearing. It’s not. Being a nut means you’re determinedly ignorant and there are few things more shameful, I feel, for a member of homo sapiens sapiens to be.
Sweet story, “asshole,” but I bet DebB is cuter. And you can’t deny it, either! 
Was Lekatt banned? Did I miss it? Or have we just not had any threads about NDEs to attract him?
(too late for editing) The [del]love[/del] non-hate in this thread for Tom from all political fronts is is touching, but the old newspaper adage that, if everybody hates you, you are doing your job, says he ain’t doing it. Where’s the hayt?
Gratuitous smiley added in case someone didn’t know I was ribbing my pal, Tom.
You are not typing facts that are exactly accurate, and I believe that you knew that as you typed them. (Do you need a translation of that sentence?)
You’ve said in this thread that you would not do so for all posters, and you would be more restrictive for others. Which is it? In order to answer that question, I suppose we have to see how you are going to overreact to whatever shiny post has your attention at that moment.
Well, which is it? That is your post, isn’t it? Both of them are your posts, aren’t they? They are mutaually incompatible, aren’t they? Any rational reader would conclude that you ignore the “transgressions” of these certain posters. Do you ignore Der Trihs, lekatt, Elucidator and Shodan and interfere as sparingly as possible, or not? Personally, I love the posts of those posters, particularly the sign off: “Regards, Shodan” which makes me laugh at it every time I see it. Somebody commented it’s like a man throwing a purple feather boa over his shoulder that walking off. I just can’t stop laughing at that image. You ignore this priceless stuff and focus on my throwaway clauses?
No, I only agree that I finished the comment with the flouish. The flouish was perhaps not something somebody else would have chosen to say, but it is entirely appropriate to some the OPs publicizing a disgusting article about FDR. A tu quoquo is only a formal violation. It’s done all the time in informal debate. Frankly, a competent moderator who isn’t busy protecting Republicans from offense would have shut down the thread with an appropriate remark about how the nutty FDR theory could have been linked to an article without the anti-Semitic cranking despite the disclaimer. But rather than ask the OP to try again with a better link, the link and the various smears, implied and explicit, stand. And by implied, I mean the subtext that a conspiracy of Democrats (some of them Jews!) goaded the Japanese into bombing Pearl Harbor. (Of course, I think that FDR full well knew that his course of action would likely lead eventually to war a few years down the road, but I still think that the embargo was the only moral thing to do in the face of Japanese war crimes in Manchuria and China. But the usual charge is that Roosevelt knew the date and time of the attack, which is pure poppycock.)
He seriously should have kicked the OP’s puppy…
-XT
Is a flouish anything like a flourish?
And what’s the connection between tu quoquo and tu quoque?
And does anybody think that ANYONE in that thread gives that blogger any serious consideration?
Dude. Switch off the computer, call it a night, and get some rest.
With the possible exception of edivincison, of course.
Woooof. Just now caught that guy. :eek:
Tom’s not lame. The reason he walks that way? Well, let’s just say Debb’s a lucky woman.
I typed them very accurately and your willful misunderstanding of the meaning does not interest me. I was not posting for your benefit, anyway, but to those of the TM who could understand the points I was making.
No, it means that I don’t conform to an artificial norm that in fact nobody conforms to. The DSMIV has lots of definitions of nuts for particular diseases, so few of them having determinedly ignorant as a criteria (even in other words) that drawing a Venn diagram of your hypothesis has almost no overlap. But if I’m a nut, and you’re arguing with me, what does that make you? A nut baiter? If so, are you masterful at it?