1 edit
Originally posted by FMF"What?"
What is there "no evidence" of?
You have spoken out about these "What?" moments, but you persist in pretending that you "don't know" what your detractors are talking about.
And that's what brings the "What?"s to the yard.
(Oh, yeah, now the "deflection" crying starts.)
Originally posted by SuzianneYou said "There was no evidence of this last time you suggested this obvious control-freak idea, and there's no evidence of this now." What "obvious control freak idea" are you referring to? What "no evidence" are you talking about? What "evidence" do you need, and what for exactly?
"What?"
You have spoken out about these "What?" moments, but you persist in pretending that you "don't know" what your detractors are talking about.
And that's what brings the "What?"s to the yard.
(Oh, yeah, now the "deflection" crying starts.)
Originally posted by SuzianneI am a proponent of free speech, even more especially when I disagree with what a person is saying when they exercise their right to free speech. How on earth can you seek to characterize me as seeking to remove free speech, silence detractors, and silence disagreement? You are being utterly daft, Suzianne.
Perhaps you'd like to read your own posts.
Or can't you stand them either?
Originally posted by FMF to divegeesterdivegeester, see what I mean?
Just make an 'official' suggestion on the Site Ideas Forum ~ or perhaps here on the General Forum ~ that the identities of those giving Thumbs Up and Thumbs Down are shown, and see who gets really agitated and starts spluttering...
2 edits
Originally posted by FMFThat Suggestion has already been made...but the vote (with very small participation)
I'm not convinced it's as many as 3 or 4, more like 1 or 2. Much of the time I think it's just the one person, actually. The thumbs all appear in a short space of time when she (or - who knows - maybe it's a he) posts on a thread somewhere.
Just make an 'official' suggestion on the Site Ideas Forum ~ or perhaps here on the General Forum ~ that the identities ...[text shortened]... nd how they will cancel their subscription etc. etc.
That's probably the person who does it.
ended in favour of the state that is.
Thread 165951
Originally posted by FMFHa, now that is a joke. You denigrate nearly everyone who, in your mind, is unprincipled enough to disagree with you. And really, 'denigrate' doesn't begin to accurately reflect the nastiness you display daily.
I am a proponent of free speech, even more especially when I disagree with what a person is saying when they exercise their right to free speech. How on earth can you seek to characterize me as seeking to remove free speech, silence detractors, and silence disagreement? You are being utterly daft, Suzianne.
Originally posted by SuzianneI don't always see eye to eye with people, granted, but then, neither do you. What examples of this supposed "nastiness" can you cite from the last 72 hours?
Ha, now that is a joke. You denigrate nearly everyone who, in your mind, is unprincipled enough to disagree with you. And really, 'denigrate' doesn't begin to accurately reflect the nastiness you display daily.
Originally posted by Ponderable"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent."
That Suggestion has already been made...but the vote (with very small participation)
ended in favour of the state that is.
Thread 165951
-- Edmund Burke
