STANG drove me to it! Every time I see another one of his canned rants (re)appear, I feel this terrible compulsion to respond.
STANG is a loudmouth and a post-monger.
Surveys note that a high frequency of STANG posts is translating to a dislike of STANG and nutty anti-war activists in general.
STANG is your problem. Forum-ban his @$$ now!
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemIf they annoy you, then simply ignore his posts. There is absolutely no justification for banning STANG. These are public forums, and he has a right to air his views. If we banned everyone who offended, or annoyed another, or periodically spammed, then most of us would be banned (and that includes you). Further, STANG actually supports the site by contributing to it, whereas you simply freeload.
STANG drove me to it! Every time I see another one of his canned rants (re)appear, I feel this terrible compulsion to respond.
STANG is a loudmouth and a post-monger.
Surveys note that a high frequency of STANG posts is translating to a dislike of STANG and nutty anti-war activists in general.
STANG is your problem. Forum-ban his @$$ now!
Originally posted by bbarrWell said, and I agree completely. You get a wreck.
If they annoy you, then simply ignore his posts. There is absolutely no justification for banning STANG. These are public forums, and he has a right to air his views. If we banned everyone who offended, or annoyed another, or periodically spammed, then most of us would be banned (and that includes you). Further, STANG actually supports the site by contributing to it, whereas you simply freeload.
4 edits
Originally posted by Valerius PoplicolaKind of like killing saddam to protect his slaves?
One of the most fundamental tests of a person's commitment to liberty is not when the individual desires freedom to protect those things he agrees with; the test comes when the individual allows liberty to protect the right of o ...[text shortened]... o do that which he deems disagreeable or maybe even offensive.
Or are you saying "Protect Saddam to protect his slaves?" You ain't a bit clear with your nebulous "nitwitism".
<edit> Having "restudied" your nitwitism.... how is this for a translation? "As long as one is magnanimous, one can feel good and be an idiot and avoid the use of corny words like 'Patriot'"
That pretty close to your very intellectual and well reasoned nitwitism?
Originally posted by Valerius PoplicolaWhat? Figure what? Do you want to display your mighty intellect in a debate? This is the debates forum. You name the first subject. Ok? Come on. Let's have a bit of fun.
Think about it a bit, you dumb schmuck, maybe someday your limited intellect will figure it out.
1 edit
Originally posted by Valerius PoplicolaOne of the most fundamental tests of a person's commitment to liberty is
Think about it a bit, you dumb schmuck, maybe someday your limited intellect will figure it out.
Ok so far. Are you able to follow this? Publicus?
not when the individual desires freedom to protect those things he agrees with;
Say what? You just negated the first with the incorrect usage of "not"
Should have been "when the individual desires freedom to protect those things he agrees with"
That hurt yer' mighty intellect? It should. To totally negate your own argument with poor language skills seems to be a silly mistake for an intellectual giant.
<edit> Here is your post as you presented it.
"One of the most fundamental tests of a person's commitment to liberty is not when the individual desires freedom to protect those things he agrees with; the test comes when the individual allows liberty to protect the right of others to do that which he deems disagreeable or maybe even offensive."
Your "Not" implies the negation of both clauses. For if he truly believes in "liberty" he "allows liberty to protect the right of others to do that which he deems disagreeable or maybe even offensive". The "not" puts him in the opposite camp.
Originally posted by StarValleyWyYou aren't either intellegent or coherent enough to debate. Learn some decorum and stay on subject and maybe I would consider showing the world what a dunce you are. Then again you really don't need my help. You do a good job of making yourself look stupid without any help from anyone.
What? Figure what? Do you want to display your mighty intellect in a debate? This is the debates forum. You name the first subject. Ok? Come on. Let's have a bit of fun.
1 edit
Originally posted by Valerius PoplicolaOhhhh! Decorum. I love that. So I take it that you don't/can't/won't debate? Pitty. You being such an intellect. Oh well. We can even pick an easy subject. Anything you have learned so far.
You aren't either intellegent or coherent enough to debate. Learn some decorum and stay on subject and maybe I would consider showing the world what a dunce you are. Then again you really don't need my help. You do a good job of making yourself look stupid without any help from anyone.
Tell me. Has this intellectual cowardice served you well so far in life? Well... don't let five minutes of bravery screw-up your perfectly chicken-shit existence. That's for sure.
Originally posted by Valerius PoplicolaIm a Popperite. We don't have much use for your mom.
SVW- If you would kindly let me know what city you live in. I would be happy to find you psychiatric help in your area. It is clear that you do not think rationally and that you suffer from racing thoughts, typical of the bipolar and/or schizoid mind.
Racing thoughts are better than sheer terror at having been revealed as a know-nothing fool. How is your terror level?
Ok. I can see that you are just a frightened kid. How about "Thermo-nuclear War Is Unjustifiable Under Any Condition That Might Occur".
Do you want the positive or the negative?
1 edit
Come on Kid. I took the pressure off. You don't have to "think up" a subject for debate. You just have to stand up and argue logically for a while. You can do it. If you try.
Hell. I'll make up any question for debate that you like. What is your area of expertise? I'll pick that/those subjects. You do have an area of expertise. Don't you?