A good idea, yet it SHOULD go without saying so. We don't need anymore "Iraqis are terrorist whores" or "Zeus pwns jooor god" crap in the "Serious Talk" section.
I agree but then again, I always have!
I think this would be impossible for some . It would be nice though.SysTray wrote:
6. I will try not to appeal to one side or the other when posting a topic for debate, only when debating it.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
I agree.
I agree. And I ask all D&ST folk to round on idiocy, irrespective of your political persuasion. Let's observe higher standards of information gathering and presentation of logically thought through arguments.
My motto for the New Year:
THINK BEFORE YOU POST.
My motto for the New Year:
THINK BEFORE YOU POST.
does agreeing also count dealing with bubbalo's posts??
I am gunna need a little lattitude there.
I am gunna need a little lattitude there.
Last edited by lowing (2006-12-31 19:17:11)
Yeah, how can lowing be expected to do the right thing when faced with someone diametrically opposed to him?
I agree.
Easily, be fuckin' smart about it and not a smart ASS about it. There are plenty of people that I listen to that is opposed to me. YOU just ain't one of them.Bubbalo wrote:
Yeah, how can lowing be expected to do the right thing when faced with someone diametrically opposed to him?
LOL, and certainly not you eitherTeamZephyr wrote:
I agree.
Can I agree as well?
Oh yes, because running around not telling me why you think I'm wrong and instead accuse me of double talk is a really mature way to debate.lowing wrote:
Easily, be fuckin' smart about it and not a smart ASS about it. There are plenty of people that I listen to that is opposed to me. YOU just ain't one of them.Bubbalo wrote:
Yeah, how can lowing be expected to do the right thing when faced with someone diametrically opposed to him?
I agree.
Mainly because I stay as far away from D&ST as possible & only take a peek when I see an interesting looking topic on the home page
Oh ya, & I desperately feel the constant need to be part of something (i think i'm lonely )
Mainly because I stay as far away from D&ST as possible & only take a peek when I see an interesting looking topic on the home page
Oh ya, & I desperately feel the constant need to be part of something (i think i'm lonely )
QFTCameronPoe wrote:
My motto for the New Year:
THINK BEFORE YOU POST.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Lowing, I think he was agreeing with the OP, not Bubbalo... There's no need to already start breaking the 5 (or 6) tenets we're trying to implement.lowing wrote:
LOL, and certainly not you eitherTeamZephyr wrote:
I agree.
oops, my appologiesTurquoise wrote:
Lowing, I think he was agreeing with the OP, not Bubbalo... There's no need to already start breaking the 5 (or 6) tenets we're trying to implement.lowing wrote:
LOL, and certainly not you eitherTeamZephyr wrote:
I agree.
Yes, he's sorry that he accidently broke the rules because he disagreed with someone and then found out they didn't say what he thought they said, and that makes it all better. Until he disagrees with them again.lowing wrote:
oops, my appologiesTurquoise wrote:
Lowing, I think he was agreeing with the OP, not Bubbalo... There's no need to already start breaking the 5 (or 6) tenets we're trying to implement.lowing wrote:
LOL, and certainly not you either
Yeah, I was agreeing with the OP.
And don't forget, breaking any of the 6 tenets occurs the rath of Sithis.
And don't forget, breaking any of the 6 tenets occurs the rath of Sithis.
Sorry Bubbalo, all anyone can read in your posts is smart ass. Your main defense against a point proven against your posts is some wild ass "what if" scenerio, that barely fits into the discussion. That gem you are pulling in the "self defense" thread, where I say I have a right to self defense and you try and argue that a criminal has the same right when approached by a cop. You also take the meaning of a post and dissect it until it has lost its original meaning and been reshaped into something that is obviously wrong, so you can sit on your perch and shit all over it. IE. If I posted "The US is fighting Islamic radicalism because it is wrong", you would post, " Oh really, then how do you explain what your country did to the American Indians 150 years ago? You never ever, take a post and its meaning for face value or give credit to the poster for the gest of the post. You are one of the worst, in regards to trying to get someone to define "IS".Bubbalo wrote:
Oh yes, because running around not telling me why you think I'm wrong and instead accuse me of double talk is a really mature way to debate.lowing wrote:
Easily, be fuckin' smart about it and not a smart ASS about it. There are plenty of people that I listen to that is opposed to me. YOU just ain't one of them.Bubbalo wrote:
Yeah, how can lowing be expected to do the right thing when faced with someone diametrically opposed to him?
Jan 1st, go ahead and line my name out.
Last edited by lowing (2007-01-01 04:34:52)
another example^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Bubbalo wrote:
Yes, he's sorry that he accidently broke the rules because he disagreed with someone and then found out they didn't say what he thought they said, and that makes it all better. Until he disagrees with them again.lowing wrote:
oops, my appologiesTurquoise wrote:
Lowing, I think he was agreeing with the OP, not Bubbalo... There's no need to already start breaking the 5 (or 6) tenets we're trying to implement.
I will recognize when I am being personally harassed and try to disengage myself from that person. (For the sake of all other members)
Xbone Stormsurgezz
What the hell are you talking about?lowing wrote:
Sorry Bubbalo, all anyone can read in your posts is smart ass. Your main defense against a point proven against your posts is some wild ass "what if" scenerio, that barely fits into the discussion, like that gem you are pulling in the "self defense" thread, where I say I have a right to self defense and you try and argue that a criminal has the same right when approached by a cop, or to take the meaning of a post and dissect it until it has lost its original meaning and been reshaped into something that is obviously wrong, so you can sit on your perch and shit all over it. IE. If I posted "The US is fighting Islamic radicalism because it is wrong", you would post, " Oh really, then how do you explain what your country did to the American Indians 150 years ago? You never ever, take a post and its meaning for face value or give credit to the poster for the gest of the post. You are one of the worst, in regards to trying to get someone to define "IS".Bubbalo wrote:
Oh yes, because running around not telling me why you think I'm wrong and instead accuse me of double talk is a really mature way to debate.lowing wrote:
Easily, be fuckin' smart about it and not a smart ASS about it. There are plenty of people that I listen to that is opposed to me. YOU just ain't one of them.
Jan 1st, go ahead and line my name out.
Your picking up stuff from the cosmos, it's not even fucking there.
I think another point should be added to the list: WIKIPEDIA cannot be used to support an argument! dear god that site shits me to tears.
Another controversial site would soon take it's place..lolInvaderzim wrote:
I think another point should be added to the list: WIKIPEDIA cannot be used to support an argument! dear god that site shits me to tears.
At least with Wiki articles can be challenged
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Of what? You weren't apologising for doing the wrong thing in response to a post, you were apologising for misinterpreting the post.lowing wrote:
another example^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Bubbalo wrote:
Yes, he's sorry that he accidently broke the rules because he disagreed with someone and then found out they didn't say what he thought they said, and that makes it all better. Until he disagrees with them again.lowing wrote:
oops, my appologies