Answer the post, not the poster.

First topic message reminder :

I don’t know why this seems so hard for people to follow.

What is the point of clicking on a thread, reading the OP and then deciding you’re going to reply in a way that means you’re not addressing the actual point because of who posted it up?

There’s no point in deciding what someone’s “agenda” is and then posting a reply to that effect, that’s not debating, is it? Perhaps they do have an agenda - who knows - but the point of a debate is to address the post not the poster.

Let’s all try it and see what happens.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

He's just a dumb colonial septic.  

That's rich, coming from a klansman.

Do you know how hard it is to type while looking through a sheet with two eye holes?

For the record, not all Americans make broad generalities and stereotype like Quill.

I'm sure most of you know that and don't do that either.

Maddog wrote:For the record, not all Americans make broad generalities and stereotype like Quill.  

I'm sure most of you know that and don't do that either.  

Yep......I think most of us know that.

Original Quill wrote:

Fred M. wrote:I certainly don't doubt Wolfie's intelligence and wide-ranging knowledge, Jules (though, it's perhaps, not quite so wide-ranging as you appear to believe).

It's your word "eloquent" with which I would take issue, given his endless manic and almost obsessive deployment of derogatory and offensive adjectives when referring to some of us, usually when he is posting about the differences in opinion between his perceived saintly Left and his equally perceived evil Right in this place.

Now, for real eloquence I would much prefer the style of Falstaff's crony Gadshill in Shakespeare's Henry 1V:

I am joined with no foot-land-rakers, no long-staff sixpenny strikers, none of these mad mustachio purpole-hued maltworms...but but with nobility and tranquility.

So much more "eloquent" than "man-hating dried-up nasty old harridans" or "I don't have a single fucking clue what you're gibbering on about you slimy troublemaking troll..."

Let's stand back and take a look.  The English members here have a problem with Australians.  As an independent observer, thousands of miles away, I can see it.  Neither wolf nor veya please your highnesses.

You can see the abject hypocrisy, I might add as an aside, of your criticism of me and my dislike of eastern Europeans.

I think that the fact is that Australians have fallen out of love with you...and your British egos can't stand it.  Perhaps its the distance, but they don't seem to be a bit affected by you.  They talk across to you, not up as you would like.  You respond with a heavy dose of your typical British chauvinism.

Perhaps you might start by being nice, as Jules is doing.  If y'all start being nice to Australians, who knows...it might get me to reconsider eastern Europeans.

Sheesh Quill with this absolute BS again.

Once more I doubt if you've ever left your own town let alone travelled abroad.

Have you sensed this Brit/Aussie animosity between two people in the same room as you? I know it sounds cliche, but I have an Australian friend and neither of us ever held any such feelings toward one another. On this site I consider wolfie and veya 'online friends', as I'm sure many other Brit posters do. But the reasons some don't are likely more down to forum conflicts that nationality - hardly a stretch

Honestly, meet people, and you'll realise the simplistic baselessness of your generalisations.

Eilzel wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Let's stand back and take a look.  The English members here have a problem with Australians.  As an independent observer, thousands of miles away, I can see it.  Neither wolf nor veya please your highnesses.

You can see the abject hypocrisy, I might add as an aside, of your criticism of me and my dislike of eastern Europeans.

I think that the fact is that Australians have fallen out of love with you...and your British egos can't stand it.  Perhaps its the distance, but they don't seem to be a bit affected by you.  They talk across to you, not up as you would like.  You respond with a heavy dose of your typical British chauvinism.

Perhaps you might start by being nice, as Jules is doing.  If y'all start being nice to Australians, who knows...it might get me to reconsider eastern Europeans.

Sheesh Quill with this absolute BS again.

Once more I doubt if you've ever left your own town let alone travelled abroad.

Have you sensed this Brit/Aussie animosity between two people in the same room as you? I know it sounds cliche, but I have an Australian friend and neither of us ever held any such feelings toward one another. On this site I consider wolfie and veya 'online friends', as I'm sure many other Brit posters do. But the reasons some don't are likely more down to forum conflicts that nationality - hardly a stretch

Honestly, meet people, and you'll realise the simplistic baselessness of your generalisations.

It's why I call him Walter Mitty.


And his stereotypes of people from different countries, and different parts of the US are just weird as hell.

It goes well beyond differences in custom and culture, which do exist.

Maddog wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Let's stand back and take a look.  The English members here have a problem with Australians.  As an independent observer, thousands of miles away, I can see it.  Neither wolf nor veya please your highnesses.

You can see the abject hypocrisy, I might add as an aside, of your criticism of me and my dislike of eastern Europeans.

I think that the fact is that Australians have fallen out of love with you...and your British egos can't stand it.  Perhaps its the distance, but they don't seem to be a bit affected by you.  They talk across to you, not up as you would like.  You respond with a heavy dose of your typical British chauvinism.

Perhaps you might start by being nice, as Jules is doing.  If y'all start being nice to Australians, who knows...it might get me to reconsider eastern Europeans.

Sheesh Quill with this absolute BS again.

Once more I doubt if you've ever left your own town let alone travelled abroad.

Have you sensed this Brit/Aussie animosity between two people in the same room as you? I know it sounds cliche, but I have an Australian friend and neither of us ever held any such feelings toward one another. On this site I consider wolfie and veya 'online friends', as I'm sure many other Brit posters do. But the reasons some don't are likely more down to forum conflicts that nationality - hardly a stretch

Honestly, meet people, and you'll realise the simplistic baselessness of your generalisations.

It's why I call him Walter Mitty.


And his stereotypes of people from different countries, and different parts of the US are just weird as hell.

It goes well beyond differences in custom and culture, which do exist.  

He's surprisingly closed-minded for a 'liberal'. In fact he's a prime example of why stereotypes are usually BS

Eilzel wrote:

Maddog wrote:

It's why I call him Walter Mitty.


And his stereotypes of people from different countries, and different parts of the US are just weird as hell.

It goes well beyond differences in custom and culture, which do exist.  

He's surprisingly closed-minded for a 'liberal'. In fact he's a prime example of why stereotypes are usually BS

not really

being closed minded is a typical character trait for todays liberals

Maddog wrote:For the record, not all Americans make broad generalities and stereotype like Quill.  

I'm sure most of you know that and don't do that either.  

I think they can figure out things for themselves.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:For the record, not all Americans make broad generalities and stereotype like Quill.  

I'm sure most of you know that and don't do that either.  

I think they can figure out things for themselves.  

You lump people from the same country together. I just dont want that shout catching on around here.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:I  certainly don't doubt Wolfie's intelligence and wide-ranging knowledge, Jules  (though, it's perhaps, not quite so wide-ranging as you appear to believe).


Now, for real eloquence I would much prefer the style of Falstaff's crony Gadshill in Shakespeare's Henry 1V:

The Bard is your yardstick?
Good God, you've set the bar high!  
(I'm more of an Oscar Wilde lass myself, he had more life experiences, he was multilingual and is more relevant to this century than our Bill.)

Fred Moletrousers wrote:
I  certainly don't doubt Wolfie's intelligence and wide-ranging knowledge, Jules  (though, it's perhaps, not quite so wide-ranging as you appear to believe). . . . . It's your word "eloquent" with which I would take issue,  given his endless manic and almost obsessive deployment of derogatory and offensive adjectives when referring to some of us,."

It's not me who brought up that word, I was merely replying.  
I say he's eloquent, some say he's not.
♬ ♪ Tomato-patata-either-neither ♬ let's call the whole thing off. ♪ ♫


Both sides curse! - this very thread shows that.
Anyway it wasn't his cursing I was referring to when I said that he is as eloquent as his critics -
I meant his posts on economics, manufacturing, market forces, politics, environmental pollution, climatechange etc
He seems to have a damn good grasp of these subjects.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I think they can figure out things for themselves.  

You lump people from the same country together. I just dont want that shout catching on around here.

Excuse me?  For four centuries you southerners have been lumping blacks into slavery, peonage, Jim Crow laws, separate but equal, segregation and now just plain, ole racism.  Your grievance runs a bit hollow.

But southerners were never good at common logic.

Quill, were you, or a relative ever fighting in the Civil War ? If so what side were you on?

nicko wrote:Quill, were you, or a relative ever fighting in the Civil War ? If so what side were you on?

No.  My father's family was in Scotland.  My mother's folks were British loyalists at the time of the Revolutionary War and had escaped to the Bahamas, thence to Canada.  Formerly Virginians, they couldn't stomach slavery and wouldn't come back until after the emancipation proclamation and the Civil War.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

You lump people from the same country together. I just dont want that shout catching on around here.

Excuse me?  For four centuries you southerners have been lumping blacks into slavery, peonage, Jim Crow laws, separate but equal, segregation and now just plain, ole racism.  Your grievance runs a bit hollow.

But southerners were never good at common logic.

You southerners?

You just can't grasp it can you Walter?

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Excuse me?  For four centuries you southerners have been lumping blacks into slavery, peonage, Jim Crow laws, separate but equal, segregation and now just plain, ole racism.  Your grievance runs a bit hollow.

But southerners were never good at common logic.

You southerners?

You just can't grasp it can you Walter?

I grasp it quite well. Southerner = Racist.

Jules wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:I  certainly don't doubt Wolfie's intelligence and wide-ranging knowledge, Jules  (though, it's perhaps, not quite so wide-ranging as you appear to believe).


Now, for real eloquence I would much prefer the style of Falstaff's crony Gadshill in Shakespeare's Henry 1V:

The Bard is your yardstick?
Good God, you've set the bar high!  
(I'm more of an Oscar Wilde lass myself, he had more life experiences, he was multilingual and is more relevant to this century than our Bill.)

No, not a yardstick...it was just a scene in Henry 1V that I thought illustrated Wolfie's frequent and rather simplistic repetition of a list of "saints" (obviously everyone of his own political leaning) and "sinners" (those he identifies, not always accurately, in being "conservatives") and therefore, in his view, automatically climate change deniers, neo-cons, ultra Right, reactionary, racist, homophobic....etc, etc ad nauseam).

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

You southerners?

You just can't grasp it can you Walter?

I grasp it quite well.  Southerner = Racist.

quill : "southerner = racist"

also quill : "trump is a racist because he says mexicans = rapists"

smelly-bandit wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I grasp it quite well.  Southerner = Racist.

quill : "southerner = racist"

also quill : "trump is a racist because he says mexicans = rapists"

I quite agree with you, Russ.  There are many paths to racism.  Remember, back in the late 18th century, slavery was still legal even in New York...where Trump is from.

But New Yorkers didn't make a living off it. In the south it was ingrained economically.

Quill, you seem to have either totally lost the plot or to have turned into exactly what you claim to hate -- someone who stereotypes people whether it's fair or not.

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:Quill, you seem to have either totally lost the plot or to have turned into exactly what you claim to hate -- someone who stereotypes people whether it's fair or not.

Eerrrm bit late for YOU to start worrying about stereotyping people isn't it Ben??

Aren't you the driver of the "all orange-man-bad voters are stupid racist nazi pieces of shit" bandwagon??

smelly-bandit wrote:

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:Quill, you seem to have either totally lost the plot or to have turned into exactly what you claim to hate -- someone who stereotypes people whether it's fair or not.

Eerrrm bit late for YOU to start worrying about stereotyping people isn't it Ben??

Aren't you the driver of the "all orange-man-bad voters are stupid racist nazi pieces of shit" bandwagon??

I'm really not, and I would challenge you to back that statement up with proof.

I know decent people, people I like, who voted for Trump. And I firmly support and defend the right to vote for whoever you like because I believe in democracy.

In fact, the candidate I voted for was very precise when she did not label Trump supporters as such, if you would bother to look into the context of the phrase "basket of deplorables."

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

Eerrrm bit late for YOU to start worrying about stereotyping people isn't it Ben??

Aren't you the driver of the "all orange-man-bad voters are stupid racist nazi pieces of shit" bandwagon??

I'm really not, and I would challenge you to back that statement up with proof.

I know decent people, people I like, who voted for Trump. And I firmly support and defend the right to vote for whoever you like because I believe in democracy.

In fact, the candidate I voted for was very precise when she did not label Trump supporters as such, if you would bother to look into the context of the phrase "basket of deplorables."

What in the fuck is happening here??

I know I haven't changed, my views are constant and stable.

But you and a whole bunch of other members of the Lefty Mclunatic clan are starting to sound less deranged and hysterical than usual.

Have you all secretly agreed to give up booze and drugs for a month or something??

Has trump derangement syndrome worn off??

No its not possible, its a trick, you're trying to lure me in by sounding sane and reasonable.

It won't work Ben, I do the trapping around here

1) That was funny.

2) I still hate Trump.

3) If anything, I've increased the drink and drugs. WEEEEEE!

4) I think what you're seeing is that people are starting to realize that hate speech and tribalism don't work.

5) I still really fucking hate Trump.

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:Quill, you seem to have either totally lost the plot or to have turned into exactly what you claim to hate -- someone who stereotypes people whether it's fair or not.

You neglect to concern yourself with 'right' and 'wrong'.  Your approach contemplates all comers as merely competing alternatives.  Can you distinguish between Hitler and Churchill?  All right, let's try Trump and Obama.

I'm not the least bit worried about generalizations and stereotypes.  Everyone does that.  Science wouldn't be possible without generalizations: this microbe >> this disease.  This drug >> this cure.  Generalizations apply to politics as well: Democrats are more liberal; Republicans are more conservative.

You can apply the same method of generalizing to other gatherings as well, for the good and for the bad.  For example, southerners tend to generalize: blacks = criminals >> must be killed.  And so we have the 'black lives matter' movement.  Incidentally, that's a bad use of generalization.

On the other hand, you might have northerners (or Californians) tending to say: all people deserve equality  >> equal protection clause, which in turn leads to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  That's a good use of generalization.

I think the confusion is with my abruptness, and willingness to apply the methodology to heretofore uncovered subjects.  By now, people are used to my opinions about southerners, and it is pretty much backed up by every story we read about southern life, southern culture and southern values.  Likewise, Republicans.  But when I say the same about eastern Europeans, it raises eyebrows.  I'm drawing the same conclusions based upon the same type of evidence, but it simply hasn't been heard before.

The proper response isn't to deny it, or express shock, but to ask what proof exists to draw such conclusions.  Then we get into a discussion about incidents and data that either confirm or disconfirm the conclusion.  We might then discuss Bolshevik culture and the harsh treatment of the Soviets, influencing Bulgaria >>  leading Mehmet Ali Ağca, a Turk, to attempt to assassinate the Pope on behalf of Bulgaria.  We might delve into the human trafficking and prostitution engaged in by the easterners.  There are a million ways to discuss proof, the main point is that the discussion permit harsh conclusions, and discussion of proof be allowed.

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

Eerrrm bit late for YOU to start worrying about stereotyping people isn't it Ben??

Aren't you the driver of the "all orange-man-bad voters are stupid racist nazi pieces of shit" bandwagon??

I'm really not, and I would challenge you to back that statement up with proof.

I know decent people, people I like, who voted for Trump. And I firmly support and defend the right to vote for whoever you like because I believe in democracy.

In fact, the candidate I voted for was very precise when she did not label Trump supporters as such, if you would bother to look into the context of the phrase "basket of deplorables."

Who decided that the Orange, Shit Eating Gibbon thing was clever?

Did Quill give you that idea?

Maddog wrote:

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

Eerrrm bit late for YOU to start worrying about stereotyping people isn't it Ben??

Aren't you the driver of the "all orange-man-bad voters are stupid racist nazi pieces of shit" bandwagon??

I'm really not, and I would challenge you to back that statement up with proof.

I know decent people, people I like, who voted for Trump. And I firmly support and defend the right to vote for whoever you like because I believe in democracy.

In fact, the candidate I voted for was very precise when she did not label Trump supporters as such, if you would bother to look into the context of the phrase "basket of deplorables."

Who decided that the Orange, Shit Eating Gibbon thing was clever?  

Did Quill give you that idea?      

Is the Orange Shit Eating Gibbon thing about Trump's supporters or about Trump?

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Who decided that the Orange, Shit Eating Gibbon thing was clever?  

Did Quill give you that idea?      

Is the Orange Shit Eating Gibbon thing about Trump's supporters or about Trump?

Both.

And it sets the tone around here.

But this is your house, do as you like.

"Orange shit eating Gibbon" When I first saw these words I thought what Dickhead thinks this should describe POTUS , I still think that , And it's childish get rid of it !

nicko wrote:"Orange  shit eating Gibbon"   When I first saw these words I thought what Dickhead thinks this should describe POTUS ,  I still think that ,  And it's childish get rid of it !

''

It is sad, isn't it? The POTUS shouldn't be described this way. That's why it's a shame that the position of POTUS was taken up by a Cheeto-Faced Ferret-Wearing Shit Gibbon.

Eilzel wrote:

nicko wrote:"Orange  shit eating Gibbon"   When I first saw these words I thought what Dickhead thinks this should describe POTUS ,  I still think that ,  And it's childish get rid of it !

''

It is sad, isn't it? The POTUS shouldn't be described this way. That's why it's a shame that the position of POTUS was taken up by a Cheeto-Faced Ferret-Wearing Shit Gibbon.

Sometimes I wish ingrats like you could have experienced a Clinton administration.

I don't think you would enjoy the front lines elizel.

smelly-bandit wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

nicko wrote:"Orange  shit eating Gibbon"   When I first saw these words I thought what Dickhead thinks this should describe POTUS ,  I still think that ,  And it's childish get rid of it !

''

It is sad, isn't it? The POTUS shouldn't be described this way. That's why it's a shame that the position of POTUS was taken up by a Cheeto-Faced Ferret-Wearing Shit Gibbon.

Sometimes I wish ingrats like you could have experienced a Clinton administration.

I don't think you would enjoy the front lines elizel.

Since neither of us is American, a rather moot point. Clinton presided over a period of economic prosperity in any case. Much better than the mess that followed under your man Bush.

Clinton was a centrist Democrat who made compromises that were unsurprising for the time (assuming you are referring to DADT). To be fair though, I doubt I'd enjoy the front lines now, never mind then

Still think it's childish, like children in a Play ground circling around a child chanting and bullying the poor sod . Your a "Teacher", aren't you ? Would you you allow that in your play ground ? I don't like Trump , but I still think it's childish !

nicko wrote:Still think it's childish,   like children in a Play ground circling around a child chanting and bullying the poor sod .  Your a "Teacher",  aren't you ?   Would you you allow  that in your play ground ?     I don't like Trump , but I still think it's childish !

So do I. This is supposed to be a news discussion forum, not a playground.

nicko wrote:Still think it's childish,   like children in a Play ground circling around a child chanting and bullying the poor sod .  Your a "Teacher",  aren't you ?   Would you you allow  that in your play ground ?     I don't like Trump , but I still think it's childish !

Maybe. So was everyone calling Obama a communist/socialist and trying to make out he wasn't a real American (led by Cheeto-Faced Ferret-Wearing Shit Gibbon himself, no less)

Take a hundred lines, " I will not be so childish in calling people names,as a TEACHER I should know better"

It's the way that his title and name have been "autocorrected" by the admin which is childish. I don't expect my posts to be changed automatically to something very childish.

nicko wrote:Take a hundred lines,  " I will not be so childish in calling people names,as a TEACHER I should know     better"

Raggamuffin wrote:It's the way that his title and name have been "autocorrected" by the admin which is childish. I don't expect my posts to be changed automatically to something very childish.

Set up your own forum where everyone uses niceties and is super respectful

Eilzel wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:It's the way that his title and name have been "autocorrected" by the admin which is childish. I don't expect my posts to be changed automatically to something very childish.

Set up your own forum where everyone uses niceties and is super respectful

You completely missed the point. If you, Ben, and others want to call P.resident Trump childish names, that's up to you, but others shouldn't be forced to do so by default. This is supposed to be a news forum with civil debate, or that's how it's advertised.

See what I had to do there?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:It's the way that his title and name have been "autocorrected" by the admin which is childish. I don't expect my posts to be changed automatically to something very childish.

Set up your own forum where everyone uses niceties and is super respectful

You completely missed the point. If you, Ben, and others want to call P.resident Trump childish names, that's up to you, but others shouldn't be forced to do so by default. This is supposed to be a news forum with civil debate, or that's how it's advertised.

See what I had to do there?

Try not to take it too seriously.

Eilzel wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:It's the way that his title and name have been "autocorrected" by the admin which is childish. I don't expect my posts to be changed automatically to something very childish.

Set up your own forum where everyone uses niceties and is super respectful

She has one Eilzel. It is very polite on there tbh, though we do call a spade a spade.  

Eilzel wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You completely missed the point. If you, Ben, and others want to call P.resident Trump childish names, that's up to you, but others shouldn't be forced to do so by default. This is supposed to be a news forum with civil debate, or that's how it's advertised.

See what I had to do there?

Try not to take it too seriously.

You take it seriously enough if someone insults Obama.

Syl wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Set up your own forum where everyone uses niceties and is super respectful

She has one Eilzel. It is very polite on there tbh, though we do call a spade a spade.  

I don't use childish autocorrects.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You completely missed the point. If you, Ben, and others want to call P.resident Trump childish names, that's up to you, but others shouldn't be forced to do so by default. This is supposed to be a news forum with civil debate, or that's how it's advertised.

See what I had to do there?

Try not to take it too seriously.

You take it seriously enough if someone insults Obama.

Do I?

Eilzel wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

Sometimes I wish ingrats like you could have experienced a Clinton administration.

I don't think you would enjoy the front lines elizel.

Since neither of us is American, a rather moot point. Clinton presided over a period of economic prosperity in any case. Much better than the mess that followed under your man Bush.

Clinton was a centrist Democrat who made compromises that were unsurprising for the time (assuming you are referring to DADT). To be fair though, I doubt I'd enjoy the front lines now, never mind then

since RUSSIA is on the eastern fringe of your beloved EU, i think you will find its not a moot point, espeicallly since clinton would have started a war with them the first chance she got.

What other names around here autocorrect?

Maddog wrote:What other names around here autocorrect?

d e a n, has been sabotaged

The Devil You Know

Why?