South Carolina church shooting: Nine killed in Charleston

by Guest Thu Jun 18, 2015 6:32 am

First topic message reminder :

Nine people have died in a shooting at a historic African-American church in Charleston in the US state of South Carolina, officials say.
City police chief Gregory Mullen said eight of the victims were killed inside the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church on Thursday evening, while another person died shortly afterwards.
Police are now searching for a white male suspect in his 20s.
"I do believe it was a hate crime," Mr Mullen said.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-33179019

by Raggamuffin Wed Jun 24, 2015 5:01 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:No. Trayvon came back and confronted Zimmerman because he knew Zimmerman had been watching him.

There is no evidence to that effect. Of course, at some point Travon stopped, perhaps because Zimmerman grabbed him; perhaps because he stopped to ask why he (Zimmerman) was behaving so strangely. The pattern is clear: Zimmerman disobeys police and stalks > he catches up with Trayvon > he shoots Trayvon. All intervening facts are simply self-serving verbiage.

Where do you think Trayvon was when Zimmerman got out of his car? You've failed to answer that question three times now. Why is that?

You also consistently ignore the evidence from Jonathan Good.

by Raggamuffin Wed Jun 24, 2015 5:01 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Martin attacked zimmerman and was shot in self defence.

Case closed.

Correct.

by Original Quill Wed Jun 24, 2015 5:04 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:The case is closed. You two have made fools of yourselves, and you can't even answer simple questions.

Far from closed in the real world. Since Zimmerman murdered Trayvon, people have awakened to the fact of racism in America. From Trayvon Martin to the Charleston Massacre, it has been one display after another of southern racism.

It is unfortunate that any of them had to die (so many). But at least the cat is out of the bag. This won't be the end of it. When Congress is overtaken by Democrats in 2016, there are going to be massive amounts of laws enacted to prevent this in the future. So...there's a silver lining.

by Tommy Monk Wed Jun 24, 2015 5:12 pm

Racism cuts both ways.

Black on white crime rates are disproportionately high.

Martin attacked zimmerman and was shot in self defence.

Plus although about half the violent crimes are committed by about 3% of people in America, that being black males between the ages of 18-35... many more white people are killed when being apprehended by police.

by Original Quill Wed Jun 24, 2015 5:23 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Racism cuts both ways.

It can. But not in this case.

TM wrote:Black on white crime rates are disproportionately high.

You have yet to establish that. Whenever you are ready.

TM wrote:Martin attacked zimmerman and was shot in self defence.

Only by the self-serving account of the George Zimmerman. How many criminals do you believe, especially when they tell the story intended to get them off?

The only real evidence that we--the independent and disinterested parties--have, is that Zimmerman was gratuitously following an innocent youth, with no probably cause, and that in the end he murdered him.

But for the intervening racial leanings of a Florida jury, Zimmerman would have been convicted.

TM wrote:Plus although about half the violent crimes are committed by about 3% of people in America, that being black males between the ages of 18-35... many more white people are killed when being apprehended by police.

That's not believable, tommy. Whenever you get into statistical arguments you get confused. I would rather see the base data, and I'll sort it out for you.

by Tommy Monk Wed Jun 24, 2015 5:32 pm

Already posted the link with that info in.

PLenty of evidence of The high and disproportionate levels of black on white crime out there.

by Original Quill Wed Jun 24, 2015 5:45 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Already posted the link with that info in.

PLenty of evidence of The high and disproportionate levels of black on white crime out there.

And...I already showed you where you were wrong. Remember, you were confused and didn't understand what the statistics said?

I'm afraid you are back to square one, tommy. You need more familiarity with the import of quantitative expressions.

Sorry, but if you're gonna run with the big dogs, you've gotta learn to pee in the tall grass. Rolling Eyes

South Carolina church shooting: Nine killed in Charleston - Page 9 Can-stock-photo_csp10407675

by Tommy Monk Wed Jun 24, 2015 5:51 pm

Plenty of evidence out there of high and disproportionate levels of crime by blacks...

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/394489/new-data-its-still-about-black-black-crime-heather-mac-donald

Have A bit of a Google on The subject and evidence is easily found...

by Guest Wed Jun 24, 2015 6:24 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:

Plenty of evidence out there of high and disproportionate levels of crime by blacks...

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/394489/new-data-its-still-about-black-black-crime-heather-mac-donald

Have A bit of a Google on The subject and evidence is easily found...

Does this disproportion just take skin colour as the reason for these levels?
Can you explain the science behind this?

by Guest Wed Jun 24, 2015 6:26 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:

Nothing to refute my points more deflections

You haven't made any valid points. I answered your questions, but you couldn't answer mine - because you know that if you did, you would be forced to concede that Zimmerman acted in self defence.

I made plenty and you only offered deflections the more you became unstuck.
The only thing you asked me what direction or why he did not go home which nobody knows. Hence they were daft.
Facts remain, because of Zimmerman's actions a child died.
There is no disputing that fact, no matter how badly you try and worm out of that.

by Raggamuffin Wed Jun 24, 2015 6:29 pm

Cuchulain wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

You haven't made any valid points. I answered your questions, but you couldn't answer mine - because you know that if you did, you would be forced to concede that Zimmerman acted in self defence.

I made plenty and you only offered deflections the more you became unstuck.
The only thing you asked me what direction or why he did not go home which nobody knows. Hence they were daft.
Facts remain, because of Zimmerman's actions a child died.
There is no disputing that fact, no matter how badly you try and worm out of that.

Case is closed. Zimmerman acted in self defence and was acquitted. Now I don't intend to discuss it with you any further because we will never agree, and you will just get increasingly bumptious.

by Original Quill Wed Jun 24, 2015 6:29 pm

Tommy...what am I going to do with you child? The National Review? Look what it says in the very, very last paragraph, waaay at the bottom:

National Review wrote:Undoubtedly a large percentage of interracial killings involve gang killings among black and Hispanic gangs; the number of non-Hispanic whites who kill blacks is undoubtedly far lower than 193. (The number of non-Hispanic whites killed by blacks is also presumably lower than 431.)

Lower by how much? They are talking about gang wars, among teen-aged gangs. Hispanics are counted as whites, as they should. But they are essentially the same as blacks when it comes to gang wars. Neither blacks nor whites should engage in gang wars, but as they do, they constitute a category set aside from normal society.

I'll bet during the Viet Nam war, there were many more whites killed by Asians. Consider the activity in which they are engaged.

by Guest Wed Jun 24, 2015 6:32 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:

I made plenty and you only offered deflections the more you became unstuck.
The only thing you asked me what direction or why he did not go home which nobody knows. Hence they were daft.
Facts remain, because of Zimmerman's actions a child died.
There is no disputing that fact, no matter how badly you try and worm out of that.

Case is closed. Zimmerman acted in self defence and was acquitted. Now I don't intend to discuss it with you any further because we will never agree, and you will just get increasingly bumptious.

What case?

We are talking about who is responsible for the child's death.
Its not a court or a charge of murder, but responsibility which you fail to grasp.
You just got easily a lesson in what responsibility is.

by Raggamuffin Wed Jun 24, 2015 6:34 pm

Cuchulain wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Case is closed. Zimmerman acted in self defence and was acquitted. Now I don't intend to discuss it with you any further because we will never agree, and you will just get increasingly bumptious.

What case?

We are talking about who is responsible for the child's death.
Its not a court or a charge of murder, but responsibility which you fail to grasp.
You just got easily a lesson in what responsibility is.

I don't take lessons from you. I nearly left here yesterday partly because of you, and I don't intend to let you annoy me any longer.

Talk to yourself as you think you're so important.

by Guest Wed Jun 24, 2015 6:36 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:

What case?

We are talking about who is responsible for the child's death.
Its not a court or a charge of murder, but responsibility which you fail to grasp.
You just got easily a lesson in what responsibility is.

I don't take lessons from you. I nearly left here yesterday partly because of you, and I don't intend to let you annoy me any longer.

Talk to yourself as you think you're so important.

Its not a case of taking but giving you one a lesson.
Its no concern if you fail to learn from that experience.
You even admitted TM would still be alive if Zimmerman had stayed in his car.
His actions led to TM dying.
He is responsible for his death.

by Raggamuffin Wed Jun 24, 2015 6:36 pm

Fuck off Didge.

by Guest Wed Jun 24, 2015 6:37 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:Fuck off Didge.

And we are back to Miss Potty Mouth.

by Raggamuffin Wed Jun 24, 2015 6:37 pm

Plenty more where that came from. Now leave me alone.

by Guest Wed Jun 24, 2015 6:38 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:Plenty more where that came from. Now leave me alone.

I know the evidence is staggering you have a Potty mouth.

by Tommy Monk Wed Jun 24, 2015 7:07 pm

Plenty of evidence about many aspects.

Read the rest where it shows the percentage of police who are killed by black people...

And what percentage of population are they?

Loads of evidence out there... similar picture in USA and here in UK.

But you lefties remain in denial while everyone suffers.

Can't tell the truth about it because it makes some people look bad ..

by eddie Wed Jun 24, 2015 7:10 pm

Cuchulain wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:Fuck off Didge.
And we are back to Miss Potty Mouth.

You,know what didge?
Go and tKe a look at the post you made to me the other day! It was not deserved at all!
I was very upset by you actually.

Before you go,around calling people "potty mouth" you need to look at how you, speak to others.

I've stayed quiet long enough but I'm not taking it from you anymore.
I am never rude to you but you have quite often bit aggressive to me.

by Guest Wed Jun 24, 2015 7:14 pm

eddie wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:
And we are back to Miss Potty Mouth.

You,know what didge?
Go and tKe a look at the post you made to me the other day! It was not deserved at all!
I was very upset by you actually.

Before you go,around calling people "potty mouth" you need to look at how you, speak to others.

I've stayed quiet long enough but I'm not taking it from you anymore.
I am never rude to you but you have quite often bit aggressive to me.

Caught out lying again.
Yes you have been rude to me and on this forum, where we both were rude to each other in the past.
You need to stop lying.
I make no apology for what I said.
Suck it up.

by Guest Wed Jun 24, 2015 7:15 pm

FBI’s most recent homicide numbers available, from 2011, a staggering 83 percent of white murder victims were killed by fellow Caucasians. (Of murders committed by Blacks, only 14 percent were of whites.) And because whites are the majority in the country —there are six times as many whites as there are Blacks — that means they commit the most murders.

http://atlantablackstar.com/2015/03/03/9-facts-white-white-crime-far-exceeds-black-black-crime-media-conceals/2/

by Raggamuffin Wed Jun 24, 2015 7:26 pm

eddie wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:
And we are back to Miss Potty Mouth.

You,know what didge?
Go and tKe a look at the post you made to me the other day! It was not deserved at all!
I was very upset by you actually.

Before you go,around calling people "potty mouth" you need to look at how you, speak to others.

I've stayed quiet long enough but I'm not taking it from you anymore.
I am never rude to you but you have quite often bit aggressive to me.

I know that Didge speaks to most people on here the same way, so it's probably not personal, but his style of posting just annoys me, so I either have to ignore him or get annoyed.

by Guest Wed Jun 24, 2015 7:30 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
eddie wrote:

You,know what didge?
Go and tKe a look at the post you made to me the other day! It was not deserved at all!
I was very upset by you actually.

Before you go,around calling people "potty mouth" you need to look at how you, speak to others.

I've stayed quiet long enough but I'm not taking it from you anymore.
I am never rude to you but you have quite often bit aggressive to me.

I know that Didge speaks to most people on here the same way, so it's probably not personal, but his style of posting just annoys me, so I either have to ignore him or get annoyed.

You have no reason to get annoyed, though it happens to us all as things get heated.
Its just a forum.
Eddie is poor to say she has never been rude, but she has. I do not deny I have been rude to her sometimes, but aggressive is a falsehood.
I have said some crappy things of which I apologise for, but for swearing at her being underhanded. In that instance I see no reason to.
She is just playing the victim card well, just as you do at times.

by Raggamuffin Wed Jun 24, 2015 7:47 pm

Cuchulain wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

I know that Didge speaks to most people on here the same way, so it's probably not personal, but his style of posting just annoys me, so I either have to ignore him or get annoyed.

You have no reason to get annoyed, though it happens to us all as things get heated.
Its just a forum.
Eddie is poor to say she has never been rude, but she has. I do not deny I have been rude to her sometimes, but aggressive is a falsehood.
I have said some crappy things of which I apologise for, but for swearing at her being underhanded. In that instance I see no reason to.
She is just playing the victim card well, just as you do at times.

It's the way you can't disagree with someone without saying they're wrong, they're reasoning is "poor", they're being childish, or that they need educating, etc. Why can't you say that you disagree without getting insulting and personal? I have asked you to do so before, but you refuse.

by Guest Wed Jun 24, 2015 7:49 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:

You have no reason to get annoyed, though it happens to us all as things get heated.
Its just a forum.
Eddie is poor to say she has never been rude, but she has. I do not deny I have been rude to her sometimes, but aggressive is a falsehood.
I have said some crappy things of which I apologise for, but for swearing at her being underhanded. In that instance I see no reason to.
She is just playing the victim card well, just as you do at times.

It's the way you can't disagree with someone without saying they're wrong, they're reasoning is "poor", they're being childish, or that they need educating, etc. Why can't you say that you disagree without getting insulting and personal? I have asked you to do so before, but you refuse.

In my view they are wrong and I tend to prove my point. If not I agree I am wrong.
I am yet to see you admit you are wrong. So where does that leave yourself based on your views? Why can you not disagree without being insulting?
It works both ways.

by Guest Wed Jun 24, 2015 7:52 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:

Then he is responsible for his death.
That is you admitting he is following him.
He is thus responsible for TM's death

No, that's completely illogical. I said all along that Zimmerman followed him at first. He stopped following him and lost him.

Evidence number 1

by Guest Wed Jun 24, 2015 7:52 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:

No its very logical, he went looking for him.
He was told not to.
He clearly continued to look for him.
Did he head back to his car and wait for the Police?
No

He didn't get a chance to get back to his car.

Your arguments are illogical, and I think you know that, otherwise you would answer my questions.

Evidence number 2

by Guest Wed Jun 24, 2015 7:53 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:The arguments you guys are coming out with are laughable. It's particularly laughable coming from Quill, who claims to be a lawyer.

Evidence number 3

by Raggamuffin Wed Jun 24, 2015 7:53 pm

Cuchulain wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

It's the way you can't disagree with someone without saying they're wrong, they're reasoning is "poor", they're being childish, or that they need educating, etc. Why can't you say that you disagree without getting insulting and personal? I have asked you to do so before, but you refuse.

In my view they are wrong and I tend to prove my point. If not I agree I am wrong.
I am yet to see you admit you are wrong. So where does that leave yourself based on your views? Why can you not disagree without being insulting?
It works both ways.

So just say that you disagree instead of all this aggressive "you are wrong" business.

I just have no option other than to ignore you a lot of the time because I find your style so patronising and bumptious. If I do ignore you, you start bumping your own posts and demanding an answer. If you want an answer, try being more polite and less up yourself.

by Guest Wed Jun 24, 2015 7:53 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:The case is closed. You two have made fools of yourselves, and you can't even answer simple questions.

Evidence number 4

by Raggamuffin Wed Jun 24, 2015 7:54 pm

Of course - in the end it becomes so annoying that I tell you that you're wrong as well, and it escalates from there, but it's your habitual posting style which is the problem.

by Guest Wed Jun 24, 2015 7:55 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:Fuck off Didge.

Evidence number 5

I can continue this.
If you are going to speak out on someone Rags, do not do as you state of others.

Its okay to say someone is wrong.

by Guest Wed Jun 24, 2015 7:58 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:

In my view they are wrong and I tend to prove my point. If not I agree I am wrong.
I am yet to see you admit you are wrong. So where does that leave yourself based on your views? Why can you not disagree without being insulting?
It works both ways.

So just say that you disagree instead of all this aggressive "you are wrong" business.

I just have no option other than to ignore you a lot of the time because I find your style so patronising and bumptious. If I do ignore you, you start bumping your own posts and demanding an answer. If you want an answer, try being more polite and less up yourself.

How is saying "you are wrong" aggressive?
The problem stems from yourself in how you interpret the words to you.
If something is not answered and important, then it should be repeated. What you asked of me had no relevance to my point on responsibility.
What you are saying is you do not lie being told you are wrong.
That again is you with the issue.
I mean how do you expect anyone to learn unless they are told that they are wrong and proven wrong?
If you do not believe you are wrong, then that is up to you.
There is nothing wrong with telling someone they are wrong.
People do this constantly on here.
Yet you choose to speak only to me on this.
Do you want me to highlight every time someone does this?
When someone says they disagree, they mean you are wrong.
Its the same thing, people just perceive it to read better than reading the word "wrong".

by Raggamuffin Wed Jun 24, 2015 8:08 pm

Just a random selection of patronosing and insulting posts from you Didge.

Your reasoning again is absurd.

poor comments

The problem is when you make absurd claims as you have done on things you do not even understand.

No you are a fucking idiot easily gullible to other idiots swayin you with bullshit.

Use the brain you were given, because its not stupid

So that means you have no case.
How easy for me again

You are talking utter bullshit

Again you are missing the whole point here.

All irrelevant.

The rest of your post is just made up babble.

What an absurd reply.

You need to understand you are utter bullshit

I see Rags is to stupid to answer simple questions on biology

And I might add on a par with stupidity with Rags

In your own time dummy?

Then you are a complete idiot as seen.

This is why you are so utterly stuipid

Its not difficult even for someone as stupid as you.

Only a pair of idiots would say such stupidity.

grow the fuck up

by Raggamuffin Wed Jun 24, 2015 8:09 pm

It's the relentlessness of it all. It just annoys me.

by Guest Wed Jun 24, 2015 8:13 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:It's the relentlessness of it all. It just annoys me.

Then you are the one that has the issue are you not Rags?
If it annoys you, then you should be asking yourself why are you allowing it to annoy you. Its not me annoying you. Its you allowing yourself to be annoyed. That is not being patronizing but pointing out it is ourselves that allow things to annoy us.
If I see something that is poor, I will ridicule it, I have no hesitation in doing that especially on matters that relate to the well being and equality for groups of people. You deal with the problem that allows this to happen within yourself. Ignoring or pushing the problem to one side will not resolve this from happening again.

We could all be as nice as pie with cherries on top, but at some point something we all do not like allows us to bite or snap. It happens to many. So its a case of looking at ourselves and not allowing things to annoy us. Easier said than done, but the problem stems from within.

by Raggamuffin Wed Jun 24, 2015 8:15 pm

Dodge?
What the fuck?
No you are a fucking idiot easily gullible to other idiots swayin you with bullshit.
What facts?
I do not assume anything I look at the evidence which again only a idiot like yourself has not done and only an idiot would just go off conspiracy idiots and insult the victims by not explain how the people who carried out this atrocity did this because they hated America. Sorry Eddie I like you but you are one dumb idiot easily taken in by bullshit. Like I said if you have really looked at the evidence which is plain you have not, you would not be coming out with the bullshit you are .
I will change my username as I wish and has fuck all to do with you or the debate, so stop trying to deflect and grow the fuck up with your stupidity buying into conspiracies.
Use the brain you were given, because its not stupid

by Guest Wed Jun 24, 2015 8:16 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Dodge?
What the fuck?
No you are a fucking idiot easily gullible to other idiots swayin you with bullshit.
What facts?
I do not assume anything I look at the evidence which again only a idiot like yourself has not done and only an idiot would just go off conspiracy idiots and insult the victims by not explain how the people who carried out this atrocity did this because they hated America. Sorry Eddie I like you but you are one dumb idiot easily taken in by bullshit. Like I said if you have really looked at the evidence which is plain you have not, you would not be coming out with the bullshit you are .
I will change my username as I wish and has fuck all to do with you or the debate, so stop trying to deflect and grow the fuck up with your stupidity buying into conspiracies.
Use the brain you were given, because its not stupid

Yes i said that again I make no excuses for this.
Again you were the one claiming you do not do the same.
As seen you do and have sounded off onto me many times Rags.
I do not deny things I do.
So what does the above prove, when I admit my faults?

by Raggamuffin Wed Jun 24, 2015 8:17 pm

Cuchulain wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:It's the relentlessness of it all. It just annoys me.

Then you are the one that has the issue are you not Rags?
If it annoys you, then you should be asking yourself why are you allowing it to annoy you. Its not me annoying you. Its you allowing yourself to be annoyed. That is not being patronizing but pointing out it is ourselves that allow things to annoy us.
If I see something that is poor, I will ridicule it, I have no hesitation in doing that especially on matters that relate to the well being and equality for groups of people. You deal with the problem that allows this to happen within yourself. Ignoring or pushing the problem to one side will not resolve this from happening again.

We could all be as nice as pie with cherries on top, but at some point something we all do not like allows us to bite or snap. It happens to many. So its a case of looking at ourselves and not allowing things to annoy us. Easier said than done, but the problem stems from within.

There you go again - blaming everyone except yourself. The problem is with you and your attitude, not with me. I've asked you to tone down your patronising manner and insults, but you refuse. I just can't be doing with you - you simply will not acknowledge that anyone else but you has a valid opinion. I therefore have no option but to ignore you and not reply to your posts if you annoy me.

by Guest Wed Jun 24, 2015 8:22 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:

Then you are the one that has the issue are you not Rags?
If it annoys you, then you should be asking yourself why are you allowing it to annoy you. Its not me annoying you. Its you allowing yourself to be annoyed. That is not being patronizing but pointing out it is ourselves that allow things to annoy us.
If I see something that is poor, I will ridicule it, I have no hesitation in doing that especially on matters that relate to the well being and equality for groups of people. You deal with the problem that allows this to happen within yourself. Ignoring or pushing the problem to one side will not resolve this from happening again.

We could all be as nice as pie with cherries on top, but at some point something we all do not like allows us to bite or snap. It happens to many. So its a case of looking at ourselves and not allowing things to annoy us. Easier said than done, but the problem stems from within.

There you go again - blaming everyone except yourself. The problem is with you and your attitude, not with me. I've asked you to tone down your patronising manner and insults, but you refuse. I just can't be doing with you - you simply will not acknowledge that anyone else but you has a valid opinion. I therefore have no option but to ignore you and not reply to your posts if you annoy me.

Really, last post I just admitted I have faults and do not deny when I am wrong, that is not blaming everyone else is it?
The above includes me as well where at times I do snap and lash out. I am human after all. What I am trying to point out which you clearly did not understand is you do as I do at times. I take things to heart, even Eddie did today, but she did not lash out, though she has before. People react differently at times dependent on the situation. I not going to do anything you ask of me unless you can show you can do as you ask of me. Which you do not. Lead by example if you wish others to do something, not do as they do. Again the fact is when we all get annoyed we have allowed ourselves to get annoyed, yet you at no point here are admitting to anything. You deflect anything away from yourself. Where as I again admit I have faults.
If you are annoyed you have allowed yourself to be annoyed.

by eddie Wed Jun 24, 2015 8:29 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:It's the relentlessness of it all. It just annoys me.

Then you are the one that has the issue are you not Rags?
If it annoys you, then you should be asking yourself why are you allowing it to annoy you. Its not me annoying you. Its you allowing yourself to be annoyed. That is not being patronizing but pointing out it is ourselves that allow things to annoy us.
If I see something that is poor, I will ridicule it, I have no hesitation in doing that especially on matters that relate to the well being and equality for groups of people. You deal with the problem that allows this to happen within yourself. Ignoring or pushing the problem to one side will not resolve this from happening again.

We could all be as nice as pie with cherries on top, but at some point something we all do not like allows us to bite or snap. It happens to many. So its a case of looking at ourselves and not allowing things to annoy us. Easier said than done, but the problem stems from within.

There you go again - blaming everyone except yourself. The problem is with you and your attitude, not with me. I've asked you to tone down your patronising manner and insults, but you refuse. I just can't be doing with you - you simply will not acknowledge that anyone else but you has a valid opinion. I therefore have no option but to ignore you and not reply to your posts if you annoy me.

I agree and this is pretty much how I feel.
I tend to tune out and not reply to him when he gets like that.
From now on though, I will simply be as rude as he is.

I'm sick of it after the last nasty and unwarrented attack.

by Raggamuffin Wed Jun 24, 2015 8:38 pm

eddie wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

There you go again - blaming everyone except yourself. The problem is with you and your attitude, not with me. I've asked you to tone down your patronising manner and insults, but you refuse. I just can't be doing with you - you simply will not acknowledge that anyone else but you has a valid opinion. I therefore have no option but to ignore you and not reply to your posts if you annoy me.

I agree and this is pretty much how I feel.
I tend to tune out and not reply to him when he gets like that.
From now on though, I will simply be as rude as he is.

I'm sick of it after the last nasty and unwarrented attack.

I've tried that a few times, but he loves it, so it just goes round in circles. Mad

It's also not that natural to me to be insulting for the sake of it. If I tell him to eff off, it's because I can't stand it any longer.

by Original Quill Thu Jun 25, 2015 5:32 am

I think that didge is one of the best posters on here. Look at yourself Raggs...you and eds have spent the last half-page of this thread railing on didge, and not discussing the topic.

We all have rough edges at times, but what I like about didge is that he sticks to the point. He rarely goes off arguing examples and/or analogies.

Raggs, you must admit that you care about winning more than truth. You cherry-pick subjects and arguments. Like a lot of lawyers I know, you use easy language rather than getting to ideas. If you find yourself in an inconvenient position, you change the subject. And no matter how many times you are proven wrong, five posts later you return and make the same point over again.

Nuff said. This thread is not about any one of you. Let's get back to the subject matter: the Charleston massacre.

by Guest Thu Jun 25, 2015 6:06 am

Original Quill wrote:I think that didge is one of the best posters on here. Look at yourself Raggs...you and eds have spent the last half-page of this thread railing on didge, and not discussing the topic.

We all have rough edges at times, but what I like about didge is that he sticks to the point. He rarely goes off arguing examples and/or analogies.

Raggs, you must admit that you care about winning more than truth. You cherry-pick subjects and arguments. Like a lot of lawyers I know, you use easy language rather than getting to ideas. If you find yourself in an inconvenient position, you change the subject. And no matter how many times you are proven wrong, five posts later you return and make the same point over again.

Nuff said. This thread is not about any one of you. Let's get back to the subject matter: the Charleston massacre.

Its called poor deflections Quill and again if person does not like being told they are wrong the issue is not with the person saying this but with the person taking issue with this.
Can you imagine teaching where you never had to correct students or they got to upset being corrected when wrong. There is pshychology behind Rags's problem. If you notice they use an excuse to when they are rude when there never is an excuse and I do not offer up any excuse when I am which is the difference between Rags and I. They even both ignored where I was saying about many people including myself and was not blaming others and freely admitted my faults. They ignored this, because they were looking to pick a fight. I starved the situation of this and they both stopped.

Having said that I did snap at Eddie and in hindsight she may have made a typo, but like I said at the time its easier said than done when you see something which can be taken the wrong way, of which I did and freely admit I could have been wrong and apologise now to Eddie. Last night I did not because she jumped in here looking for a fight. She knows me well enough to allow me to apologise for myself, otherwise I will stick in my heels and be stubborn if she pushes it Who is correct I did over react. Rags though is jumping on the band wagon who as seen can be just as rude when she does not like something and is being very hypocritical. Thank you though.

What Rags needs to understand:

The more rigid your personality, the more difficulty you will have in being wrong.
On Sunday, May 27, Drew Gilpin Faust (link is external), President of Harvard was interviewed in the NY Times Sunday Book Review (link is external). What caught my attention was her answer to this question:
Is there any book you wish all incoming freshmen at Harvard would read?
Kathryn Schulz’s Being Wrong (link is external) advocates doubt as a skill and praises error as the foundation of wisdom. Her book would reinforce my encouragement of Harvard’s accomplished and successful freshmen to embrace risk and even failure.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/just-listen/201206/being-wrong-why-people-cant-stand-it

It certainly is not rude or aggressive to say someone is wrong. Rags needs to learn its not a crime to say someone is wrong.

So lets get back to talking about why there is a real problem in America with racism.

by Original Quill Thu Jun 25, 2015 6:28 am

Didge wrote:The more rigid your personality, the more difficulty you will have in being wrong.
On Sunday, May 27, Drew Gilpin Faust (link is external), President of Harvard was interviewed in the NY Times Sunday Book Review (link is external). What caught my attention was her answer to this question:
Is there any book you wish all incoming freshmen at Harvard would read?
Kathryn Schulz’s Being Wrong (link is external) advocates doubt as a skill and praises error as the foundation of wisdom. Her book would reinforce my encouragement of Harvard’s accomplished and successful freshmen to embrace risk and even failure.

My daughter is a graduate of Harvard University. She also has a Harvard MBA, and a Harvard law degree.

My father was a graduate of Harvard Medical School, and taught there for a number of years. His father was a graduate of Glasgow University, but his uncle attended Harvard as well.

Needless to say, I am fond of Harvard University.

by Raggamuffin Thu Jun 25, 2015 6:29 am

Original Quill wrote:I think that didge is one of the best posters on here. Look at yourself Raggs...you and eds have spent the last half-page of this thread railing on didge, and not discussing the topic.

We all have rough edges at times, but what I like about didge is that he sticks to the point. He rarely goes off arguing examples and/or analogies.

Raggs, you must admit that you care about winning more than truth. You cherry-pick subjects and arguments. Like a lot of lawyers I know, you use easy language rather than getting to ideas. If you find yourself in an inconvenient position, you change the subject. And no matter how many times you are proven wrong, five posts later you return and make the same point over again.

Nuff said. This thread is not about any one of you. Let's get back to the subject matter: the Charleston massacre.

I think it's you who cares about winning more than truth. You read some stuff on the internet and take the path of least resistance - you go with the flow and just agree with whatever fits your own prejudices and bias. You also make a lot of assumptions based on your own prejudices, and at times you actually invent things to fit your agenda.

I look at things properly, I don't just accept what someone says, I look at the evidence and see if it's logical. You go more on knee-jerk reactions and hysteria. You can never prove me wrong - you're a bit like Didge in that you think that only your opinion is valid. You and Didge make the same points over and over again in the hope of bludgeoning someone into agreeing with you.

No wonder you admire him so much - birds of a feather and all that. Wink

by Raggamuffin Thu Jun 25, 2015 6:31 am

Original Quill wrote:I think that didge is one of the best posters on here. Look at yourself Raggs...you and eds have spent the last half-page of this thread railing on didge, and not discussing the topic.

You really don't see your own hypocrisy do you? Laughing

by Raggamuffin Thu Jun 25, 2015 6:33 am

Original Quill wrote:
Didge wrote:The more rigid your personality, the more difficulty you will have in being wrong.
On Sunday, May 27, Drew Gilpin Faust (link is external), President of Harvard was interviewed in the NY Times Sunday Book Review (link is external). What caught my attention was her answer to this question:
Is there any book you wish all incoming freshmen at Harvard would read?
Kathryn Schulz’s Being Wrong (link is external) advocates doubt as a skill and praises error as the foundation of wisdom. Her book would reinforce my encouragement of Harvard’s accomplished and successful freshmen to embrace risk and even failure.

My daughter is a graduate of Harvard University. She also has a Harvard MBA, and a Harvard law degree.

My father was a graduate of Harvard Medical School, and taught there for a number of years. His father was a graduate of Glasgow University, but his uncle attended Harvard as well.

Needless to say, I am fond of Harvard University.

Oh dear ...

Let's get back to the subject matter: the Charleston massacre.

by Sponsored content