View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
WMP
Joined: 30 May 2000 Posts: 671
|
Posted: Sun Sep 01, 2013 4:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
Honorable mention here that Iso is clearly the winner of the 2013 iWindsurf RTPC award (Rootin'est, Tootin'est Pissing Contest)...... that's quite an accomplishment folks! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
isobars
Joined: 12 Dec 1999 Posts: 20936
|
Posted: Sun Sep 01, 2013 6:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
I nominate the poster who repeatedly insists, in earnest, that two people threatened to kill each other, and that their denials are lies.
Good God, people ... can't you get within a light year of the truth, or even the topic? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
WMP
Joined: 30 May 2000 Posts: 671
|
Posted: Sun Sep 01, 2013 8:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
isobars wrote: | I nominate the poster who repeatedly insists, in earnest, that two people threatened to kill each other, and that their denials are lies.
|
Funny, we keep going around and around and around on this point.
Here's where the confusion comes in...
isobars wrote: |
my best friend attacked me verbally and physically
|
Now, maybe you can explain why your best friend attacked you? Obviously you two have managed to work things out, and I applaud you both for accomplishing that.
isobars wrote: |
Good God, people ... can't you get within a light year of the truth, or even the topic? |
Well, all I can say is I didn't make up this attack on you.... it did happen (in your own words). It is on the topic of irresponsible behavior. Perhaps I was given the wrong information?
Please correct me and give us all a detailed account of what REALLY happened in that fight you had. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
uwindsurf
Joined: 18 Aug 2012 Posts: 968 Location: Classified
|
Posted: Sun Sep 01, 2013 10:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
isobars wrote: | I nominate the poster who repeatedly insists, in earnest, that two people threatened to kill each other, and that their denials are lies.
Good God, people ... can't you get within a light year of the truth, or even the topic? |
Good God man, your opinion does not equal the truth. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
westender
Joined: 02 Aug 2007 Posts: 1288 Location: Portland / Gorge
|
Posted: Mon Sep 02, 2013 12:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
The important thing to remember is that these threads will be educational and we will learn from them. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
isobars
Joined: 12 Dec 1999 Posts: 20936
|
Posted: Mon Sep 02, 2013 8:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
youwindsurf wrote: | isobars wrote: | I nominate the poster who repeatedly insists, in earnest, that two people threatened to kill each other, and that their denials are lies.
Good God, people ... can't you get within a light year of the truth, or even the topic? |
Good God man, your opinion does not equal the truth. |
What "opinion" are you referring to ... your (false) opinion that Pete is telling the truth about these nonexistent threats, or the facts that:
• no one threatened to kill or even harm anyone.
• I have never been in a physical fight (exchange of blows) in my life (unless you count that definitively one-sided intervention in that skier's repeated physical assault of my wife).
• Pete publicly posted a confidential PM statement about a third party.
• His comment above about "claim[ing] that they are a child molester, and then never say[ing] "I'm sorry"" is an asinine misrepresentation and very often fully explained parody of what mac, KC, pueno, Chandler, et.al. do on a weekly to daily basis.
If that third party, an actual adult who desperately wants no part of this stupid argument, did not keep getting publicly maligned, this tete-a-tete would have become a simple "tete" days ago. Any moderator or forum host worth a crap would have deleted all negative comments about him days ago, as I did to the extent I can. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
isobars
Joined: 12 Dec 1999 Posts: 20936
|
Posted: Mon Sep 02, 2013 8:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
westender wrote: | The important thing to remember is that these threads will be educational and we will learn from them. |
That presumes three elements sorely missing here:
1. An open mind.
2. A mind.
3. Honesty. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
WMP
Joined: 30 May 2000 Posts: 671
|
Posted: Mon Sep 02, 2013 9:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
westender wrote: | The important thing to remember is that these threads will be educational and we will learn from them. |
Houston...... we have a problem. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
WMP
Joined: 30 May 2000 Posts: 671
|
Posted: Mon Sep 02, 2013 11:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
WMP wrote: | westender wrote: | The important thing to remember is that these threads will be educational and we will learn from them. |
Houston...... we have a problem. |
Funny how this board game can become so senseless and reckless.... someone plays dirty pool here. It certainly has been a jigsaw puzzle for me, but it's finally coming together and making an accurate picture.
My most sincere apology to Beric, I do not believe he's at fault here. The misinformation came from another source and that other source is not coming clean with his side of the story.
Looking forward to seeing you out there on the water Beric. Take care. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
isobars
Joined: 12 Dec 1999 Posts: 20936
|
Posted: Mon Sep 02, 2013 12:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Some of you asked my position on nanny states. I initially thought it should stay where it belongs -- in the political forums -- so I ignored the request (and ensuing demands from the control freaks and trolls). I was wrong; the nanny issue IS relevant to this thread's legitimate topic, in this way: Should the “state” (city, feds, courts, cops, legislature, etc.) be involved in protecting the public from someone’s reckless or aggressive behavior which endangers bystanders (e.g., Al Qaeda, sailors hucking big uncontrolled air into crowds)?
The obvious answer is, “Duh!”
The very broad legal answer is, “Yes, as derived from The Constitution, Article III, Section 2.”
Legal nitpicking the zones between those extremes is boring this side of a courtroom; yer on yer own there.
The law denies us any intermediate solutions (fists, guns, bazookas, arson, pit bulls, etc.) to such threats if talking fails, so we’re left with two options: civil or criminal court action if the threat has ended, self-defense means if the threat is grave and imminent. Within reason, the victim gets to determine how grave and imminent the threat is. The Constitution and I support that level of governmental involvement.
For the higher level nanny state activities I do not support, read the political threads.
Some people consider forum moderation as a nanny action. I, and apparently the law (see my earlier post), disagree. An unmoderated forum is like the phone company in that it has no practical, real-time, affordable means of controlling the string of obscenities we lay on telemarketers. Ma Bell thus has no vicarious liability OR implied responsibility for what is said. Customers talk and takes their chances.
This forum, though, claims to be moderated, and we clicked “I accept” to join it. Just as my swearing into the military obligated me to cut my hair and wear a frigging hat, our “I accept” subjugates our forum behavior to moderators. What the hell these moderators’ criteria are, I have no clue. They refuse to honor their implied promise* to control baseless personal attacks, so my respect for them is nil. HOWEVER, we did check “I accept”, so it’s each individual’s evolving choice whether to stay or go, read or not read, respond or not respond, etc.
*iW, OTOH, has invalidated the contract by refusing to moderate in accordance with their Terms and Conditions, which include:
<<You agree to not use the Service or any WeatherFlow product, website, or instrument to:
a. upload, post, email, transmit or otherwise make available any Content that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortuous [no comment ], defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of another’s privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically, or otherwise objectionable;
e. upload, post, email, transmit or otherwise make available any unsolicited or unauthorized advertising, promotional materials, “junk mail”, “spam”, “chain letters”, “pyramid schemes”, or any other form of solicitation ...
h. intentionally or unintentionally violate any applicable local, state, national, or international law
i. “stalk” or otherwise harass another person or thing.>>
I joined this forum BECAUSE it claimed to be moderated IAW those terms. IOW, I liked its promise of that degree of nannyism. When it reneged on the contract and very few of you objected to (hell, the less intelligent actually believe) the endless baseless ad hominem, I found a way to at least keep most of it off my own screen. The rest of you are free to enjoy it if that’s what you want.
And THAT’S why I have an onion on my belt. Sorry you asked? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You can attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
|
|
|