Etiquette on forums.
- Thread starter Chance3290
- Start date
check out dave emory, a tireless and dedicated research authority.
the ultimate go-to guy for the "behind-the scenes" political history.
www.wfmu.org/playlists/DX
the ultimate go-to guy for the "behind-the scenes" political history.
www.wfmu.org/playlists/DX
Wurm said:
Serious questions? Spout off some conspiracy **** and then you try to claim that those are "serious" questions? Are they "serious" because you say they are? And yes you are right, your conspiracy ******** questions still don't work, dipshit.Wurm said:
Serious questions? Spout off some conspiracy **** and then you try to claim that those are "serious" questions? Are they "serious" because you say they are? And yes you are right, your conspiracy ******** questions still don't work, dipshit.Wurm said:
Seeing as this thread is about etiquette, I can't help but notice the last few posts of the thread contain insults on the part of folks who disagree with one another. Kind of ironic.
I don't know whether posters get upset over the highly charged nature of the soapbox or whether people have thick skin and brush it off.
To be honest, though, I think whenever people disagree (especially over politics and religion) you can say you disagree without calling the guy you happen to disagree with a fool e.t.c.
Of course, on this forum you have die-hard liberals arguing politics with hard-core Bush supporters. I doubt we will ever see eye to eye.
The thing is, if these liberals on the forum met up with the Bush supporters, I imagine relationships wouldn't be quite so charged. Everyone on the forum is into cycling so that means we all have one thing in common, regardless what political views people have.
If I met a hard-core Bush supporter while he (or she) was out riding a bike, I'd be more likely to discuss cycling rather than poke fun at Bush Junior. The soapbox is really intended to let off steam and get things off your chest - hence it's volatile nature.
I don't know whether posters get upset over the highly charged nature of the soapbox or whether people have thick skin and brush it off.
To be honest, though, I think whenever people disagree (especially over politics and religion) you can say you disagree without calling the guy you happen to disagree with a fool e.t.c.
Of course, on this forum you have die-hard liberals arguing politics with hard-core Bush supporters. I doubt we will ever see eye to eye.
The thing is, if these liberals on the forum met up with the Bush supporters, I imagine relationships wouldn't be quite so charged. Everyone on the forum is into cycling so that means we all have one thing in common, regardless what political views people have.
If I met a hard-core Bush supporter while he (or she) was out riding a bike, I'd be more likely to discuss cycling rather than poke fun at Bush Junior. The soapbox is really intended to let off steam and get things off your chest - hence it's volatile nature.
Instead of marching in lockstep (Heil ******!) to the typical Rovian tactic of attacking the messenger and spewing the party line, why don't you do something useful like giving sound reasons for the various unanswered problems with the official Neo-Con account of the 9/11 murders?Colorado Ryder said:
I've said it before and I'll say it again: IF you GOP supporters had a shred of integrity and true patriotism left, THEN you'd be interested in finding out the actual facts - ie: the truth - about everything that's happened since 9/11, no matter where that truth would lead and regardless of whom would be found to be complicit in breaking the laws of this nation.
You see CR, for me it's not about party affiliations or ideologies. It's about America being taken from one form of democracy into a totalitarian corporate theocracy. If you can't see that that's what's now taking place, then you deserve everything you get from the criminals you've been supporting.
It doesn't matter to me what label these thugs happen to be wearing at the time - Dem, Repub, Indy, whatever. Eg: I was 100% against Clinton on the NAFTA and GATT treaties, and now the Bushites on CAFTA. Much of the voting public in America have been duped into voting directly against their own interests, and often there are not the choices in candidates that would bring a different result in policies.
In the case of Gore vs. Bush and Bush vs. Kerry however, the Dem candidates were the MUCH lesser of the 2 evils.
I told you that you are an idiotic bum who thinks loss of lives in London caused by the bombing are more important than other peoples.Chance3290 said:Or the lack of it here, anyway. On most forums you can start a thread to send condolences or express a thought to someone we know, or to a specific incident (The London bombings, etc). But some people here seem to be confused by this.
Some seem unable to control themselves, while others seemed to have missed their meds.
You write a line, or two at most, expressing your sorrow and best wishes, then shut the hell up.PERIOD. You don't rattle on, you don't say "My tragedy is worse than your tragedy." And, I think most of us will agree, you don't insult the people with moronic statements. Just because a stupid thought goes into your head, that doesn't mean it HAS to come out on the keyboard.
Whether you're pro-this or anti-that shouldn't matter. Where not talking about the "Your president is a bigger crook than my president" threads. I'm talking about the threads where someone, or all of us, have suffered a tragedy or loss.
And I'm sure a few with flame onto this thread. So, in advance, here's my replies:
"Oh Yeah!"
"Says You!"
"Your Mother wears army boots!"
"I'll get you at recess."
"So there"
So to prove the point I have just looked through your precious Bike Cafe threads and can't find any sympathy for the more than 100 Egyptians who died at the hands of a terrorist bomb in Sharm el Sheikh. Care to comment?
Wurm said:
I completely agree w/ this Colorado Ryder. You could give it some creedence by acknowledging it's probability, however remote. The fact is, if one does'nt make more than "X" amt. of $'s, then the Repub's ARE NOT working for your interest's whether you know/believe this or not is irrellevant. They are literally pillaging the treasury, the likes of which would make, many a one, s. american dictator shed a tear or two in admiration/envy. They perpetrate this theft whilst "window dressing" w/ flag & marriage amendments & such so as to create a diversion. It's criminal. That's all for now
"I told you that you are an idiotic bum who thinks loss of lives in London caused by the bombing are more important than other peoples."
Thank heavens somebody else is experiencing the wrath of Fred instead of yours truly.
What can be said? Peoples' lives have meaning whatever nationality they happen to be.
However, it's worrying that a fragment of British moslems have become radicalised enough to turn themselves into human bombs. The worrying thing about that is they don't see legitimate protest, demonstration or political action as an option.
Muhammad Ali and the Nation, as I recall, never condoned violence and he basically challenged the system as an American citizen (not fleeing to Canada when he could have done).
No further comment.
Thank heavens somebody else is experiencing the wrath of Fred instead of yours truly.
What can be said? Peoples' lives have meaning whatever nationality they happen to be.
However, it's worrying that a fragment of British moslems have become radicalised enough to turn themselves into human bombs. The worrying thing about that is they don't see legitimate protest, demonstration or political action as an option.
Muhammad Ali and the Nation, as I recall, never condoned violence and he basically challenged the system as an American citizen (not fleeing to Canada when he could have done).
No further comment.
FredC said:
Look here Carrera, I'm not having a go at you because I understand? your misguided liberalism and general concern for people.Carrera said:"I told you that you are an idiotic bum who thinks loss of lives in London caused by the bombing are more important than other peoples."
Thank heavens somebody else is experiencing the wrath of Fred instead of yours truly.
What can be said? Peoples' lives have meaning whatever nationality they happen to be.
However, it's worrying that a fragment of British moslems have become radicalised enough to turn themselves into human bombs. The worrying thing about that is they don't see legitimate protest, demonstration or political action as an option.
Muhammad Ali and the Nation, as I recall, never condoned violence and he basically challenged the system as an American citizen (not fleeing to Canada when he could have done).
No further comment.
You can hardly call a few suicide bombers as a general part of our multicultural, multifaith attitude in general.
The religious leaders of Moslems have distanced themselves from that attitude. You will find that in general people in this country accept that principle, therefore the status quo is maintained.
Now tell me this. When the IRA were active on the mainland over here was there any vendetta against Roman Catholics?
BTW. The extremists don't see anything as a political option , or party simply because the don't have one.
And one of mine is a 747 pilot who brought over the Al Thani family from Qatar last week. They were a bit apprehensive about the reception they might get, but by the time they got here they were totally reassured.
The issue is complicated. My feeling is the Government has done a lot to encourage the present situation. I was comforted by the fact the president of Pakistan came out and attacked Blair. Good for him!
Why?
Well, simply because there are extremist groups based in this country that called for Pakistan's president to be assassinated (a fatwa or whatever).
So, the president of Pakistan is asking what has the U.K. Government done? Has it closed down the organisation in question. No. Has anyone been arrested or even cautioned, No. Yet Blair is blaming Pakistan for running radical schools.
I share your view that not all Moslems are to blame for these terrorist attacks. I was also horrified that a Brazilian citizen was gunned down while he posed no threat at all. I'm aware many Moslems are horrified by violence and condemned the London attacks.
However, I think the French and the Pakistani President have a good point. For too long we've had these radical clerics preaching hate outside Finsbury mosque or elsewhere and the Government not even issuing so much as a caution. It's not just me, but the French, Americans, Israel and Pakistan reiterate that the U.K. is becoming a base for radical, extremist groups.
In my view, we should get out of Iraq but we should kick the extremists out and close down their publications.
Just my view, of course.
Why?
Well, simply because there are extremist groups based in this country that called for Pakistan's president to be assassinated (a fatwa or whatever).
So, the president of Pakistan is asking what has the U.K. Government done? Has it closed down the organisation in question. No. Has anyone been arrested or even cautioned, No. Yet Blair is blaming Pakistan for running radical schools.
I share your view that not all Moslems are to blame for these terrorist attacks. I was also horrified that a Brazilian citizen was gunned down while he posed no threat at all. I'm aware many Moslems are horrified by violence and condemned the London attacks.
However, I think the French and the Pakistani President have a good point. For too long we've had these radical clerics preaching hate outside Finsbury mosque or elsewhere and the Government not even issuing so much as a caution. It's not just me, but the French, Americans, Israel and Pakistan reiterate that the U.K. is becoming a base for radical, extremist groups.
In my view, we should get out of Iraq but we should kick the extremists out and close down their publications.
Just my view, of course.
FredC said:
Back to your normal rubbish now I see.Carrera said:
What the hell has Pakistan got to do with this, apart from persistently allowing terrorists to set up camp there, even during the Afghani debacle.
Even more **** is spewing forth. Now the President can't run his own country and blames Blair for it. This ploy will not gain any support from the Pakistanis who live here.
There probably are radical schools in Pakistan, but that's the Presidents job to root out the dissentors.
I think that you miss completely the assessment issue of radicals. For example, let Finsbury Mosque be but investigate all its adherents. That way you find a network.
You're just feckin' thick. ********.
I think you seem to be dismissing the situation a bit lightly? Didn't you hear that, not only Pakistan, but the Saudis have complained that radical groups are being allowed to flourish over here? Add to that the fact Israel, Russia and the U.S. have all made vigorous complaints.
Whether we like it or lump it, the U.K. is now the only country in Europe that has home grown suicide bombers with British passports. There are no French suicide bombers, no Italian bombers and no Germans who are committed to such radicalism.
This is pretty serious and the President of Pakistan is within his rights to point out Blair should sort it out.
But to be honest, the problem seems to go down deep beyond political roots. It seems to me that everyday people tend to be excusing Islamic extremism in this country, especially people such as Ken Livingstone. For me the excuses simply don't wash. So far as I'm concerned extremist mosques that preach hatred and glorify suicide bomber should be shut down. Period! The whole system needs shaking up and I hope other countries such as Pakistan, the U.S., Russia and France keep the pressure on Blair.
I mean, how come he's so keen on attacking Iraq when he supports extremist Islamic groups himself? Some of those London bombers, it now turns out, were drawing welfare.
Whether we like it or lump it, the U.K. is now the only country in Europe that has home grown suicide bombers with British passports. There are no French suicide bombers, no Italian bombers and no Germans who are committed to such radicalism.
This is pretty serious and the President of Pakistan is within his rights to point out Blair should sort it out.
But to be honest, the problem seems to go down deep beyond political roots. It seems to me that everyday people tend to be excusing Islamic extremism in this country, especially people such as Ken Livingstone. For me the excuses simply don't wash. So far as I'm concerned extremist mosques that preach hatred and glorify suicide bomber should be shut down. Period! The whole system needs shaking up and I hope other countries such as Pakistan, the U.S., Russia and France keep the pressure on Blair.
I mean, how come he's so keen on attacking Iraq when he supports extremist Islamic groups himself? Some of those London bombers, it now turns out, were drawing welfare.
FredC said:
Irwin Stelzer writes with regard to the above:
So British policy remains: easy entry for potential terrorists; benefits for them while they are in the country; and relative safety from deportation and detention as enemy combatants. Little wonder that Britain's security services say another strike, more lethal than the one last Thursday, is a virtual certainty.’
So British policy remains: easy entry for potential terrorists; benefits for them while they are in the country; and relative safety from deportation and detention as enemy combatants.
Little wonder that Britain's security services say another strike, more lethal than the one last Thursday, is a virtual certainty.’
Again, you have not show any of my posts where I put the lives of those in London above any others (except yours, of course). Therefore, I will say that you are a LIAR and a COWARD. You make things up and put words where there are no words.FredC said:
The words, or in this case, the post of a LIAR mean no more than the **** of an ant.
Now, of course, you'll come back with more LIES or more or your ****.
So, I wave my pretty parts at your Aunties.
Now go away or I shall taunt you for a second time.
Goodbye, ****-ANT.
More trash Carrera. Two of them arrested for the London bombings have been here since they have been 11 and 14 years of age. Comments please.Carrera said:Irwin Stelzer writes with regard to the above:
So British policy remains: easy entry for potential terrorists; benefits for them while they are in the country; and relative safety from deportation and detention as enemy combatants.
Similar threads
