kapkomet

QUOTE(Heads22 @ Sep 8, 2005 -> 07:02 PM) Wow, from Rehnquist to cyborgs. Wasn't Rehnquist a cybord? So THAT's why he was "conservative".

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Sep 8, 2005 -> 10:46 PM) Why is the heterosexual community so hung up on the word? Because the homosexuals are hung up on it, duuuuh...

QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Sep 8, 2005 -> 09:36 PM) Thank you. Experiment concluded. You have taken the debate to a wider scope which begs to ask the question should homosexual partners be given the same status in adoption rights as heterosexual couples? I say no. There should be greater scrutiny appled to that which we do not know. It's virtually an unknown as to whether homosex households will have an adverse affect on the rearing of the child. It should allowed but initially only in a limited scope that we can easily analyze & collect data on before expansion. How do you analyze something like this without causing huge problems?

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Sep 8, 2005 -> 08:22 PM) And herein lies the impasse. Setting aside the notion of marrying pets, inanimate objects, etc., same sex marriages cheapening the institution is a purely subjective belief. Agreat many people not too long ago believed interracial marriages did the same thing, but we have largely matured past that point as a society. I fully expect we will do the same here, but the timeframe remains to be seen. It is subjective, unless you start reading the bible, which is "subjective", too, some would say. Can o worms opening up with this one? Of course it's not like we haven't kicked the doo doo out of this in other threads, huh?

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Sep 8, 2005 -> 07:57 PM) I still don't understand how the importance, sanctity, uniqueness, etc., of your marriage would be at all affected by allowing same-sex marriages, but I appreciate your sharing your perspective. /Pours gas on the fire (somewhat tongue in cheek) Because it makes the institution of marriage cheaper. Heck, let's marry our cats and dogs, because we love them. In Tennessee, let's marry my sister, because we can. I mean, I'm a guy and she's a girl... nothing wrong with keeping *it* in the family... it ain't hurtin' no one. /uh oh...

QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Sep 8, 2005 -> 06:15 PM) It's the new me. Respective & cordial. I've decided to try a different experiment first. I am going to put forth my best effort to represent the minority opinion in a respective & cordial way. Let's see what happens. Good deal. I Think you'll find that a lot of us will be a lot more receptive of your views, then, even if they're wrong.

QUOTE(bmags @ Sep 8, 2005 -> 05:29 PM) i know...this thread weirded me out though. as well as a thread earlier today i read. Don't worry... this will be all over soon enough and we'll be back to the happy bickering on SLaP.

QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Sep 8, 2005 -> 05:32 PM) There is a way that I can prove/disprove the claim. Afford me the opportunity to test it. Allow me to create a new id that always takes the majority position. After 1 month's time I will reveal that it's really me Juggs & we can then look at the activity generated. Short of that there is plenty of evidence in the posts & threads. Including the topics I have created. You're afforded it now, you're still posting, right? /ok now that's really all.

QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Sep 8, 2005 -> 05:14 PM) I'm going to risk this post getting wiped out to clear the air on this. I firmly believe that if I had posted that I was 100% in favor of same-sex marriage or 100% in favor of Darwinism none of this activity is generated. Nor would a mod bother me. I could easily articulate posts supporting these positions & then there would be no opposing viewpoints in the forum. That type of bias does not sit well with me. Which is why I will continue to articulate the opposing viewpoints if for no other reason but to demonstrate that this is an open-mined forum. That's where you are incorrect. But now, the table is set. You are suggesting that we pick on you because of your viewpoints, and you are 100% wrong. It's your style and nitpicking that gets you in trouble. But hey, that's fine. You keep thinking what you are thinking, that way nothing will ever change. Your day will come. /that's all.

QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Sep 8, 2005 -> 05:00 PM) No. Not mocking or anything of that nature. Simply CYA. Why? So you can cry foul every 5 minutes that we are treating you unfair?

QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Sep 8, 2005 -> 04:49 PM) The phrase "you run around crying foul" can be construed as a personal attack & might be testing the guidlines as put forth by a mod. But in response I do no such thing. As long as I'm left alone to reply I say nothing. It is action imposed upon me by a mod that forces me to call for fairness. "You run around crying foul" = ATTACK? GMAFB. You're purposely baiting me. That in and of itself *should* warrant a suspension. I'm going to say this again, and let it get through this time. QUIT PLAYING GAMES. This discussion is over. You obviously don't get it, or you do and worse yet you're purposely pushing every button to push the boundaries. GET OVER YOURSELF. It's pretty clear to everyone except for you what is meant by "personal attack" and you're using it to fit ONLY your agenda. Enough, already. It amazes me how your participation in these threads always end up this way. I wonder why?

QUOTE(Controlled Chaos @ Sep 8, 2005 -> 02:24 PM) They have apparently seized on the Katrina disaster to harm the president politically. Criticism of the federal government's response is fair and warranted. But putting full responsibility for this disaster on the Bush administration is way over the top. Primary responsibility for this disaster remains with local officials like Nagin and Blanco, not President Bush. Stop being so logical. We wouldn't or couldn't have that around here.

QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Sep 8, 2005 -> 03:56 PM) Because I firmly believe the forum needs at least one visible conservative minded voice. It's pretty clear what that means in America today. Now truth be it told my personal opinion is not always as conservative minded as my posts. In fact I'm considered liberal on many ideas. But considering the ovewhelming number of lib-speak posts in this forum it's of greater value to the forum if I articulate the con-speak view. As for the guidelines an influential mod has outlined his position such that it's a very fine line as to what constitutes flaming in a post. Generally speaking "missing the point" can be construed as "ignorant of what I'm saying". I can respect that. However, I rarely see you bend on ANY issue, and "destroying" our arguments no matter right or wrong, according to your/our views. Then, you run around crying foul about things and how they're ran - especially when the heat gets turned up a little on you (self-imposed heat, IMO.) I guess a little more open-mindedness and an occasional dose of humble pie might be suggested, however, I don't think you feel that's necessary. Therein lies the problem, or at least some of it.

QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Sep 8, 2005 -> 03:48 PM) Again I think the media is partly to blame. How many columnists actually celebate in their posts this incredible season? Mariotti writes one post saying we won't choke & then follows it up later with "we are hopeless" emphasizing that we are not good against contenders. When this message is trumpeted again & again the psychological impact is such that games against non-contenders are meaningless to the fair-weather fan. So now the general belief amongst the non die-hard is that we will have an early exit. That reduces the buzz factor of the team. It's really unforunate. If this were the Cubs, you would be seeing blue ink on the Tribune through and through. Granted, a different following, but this team needs our support, Kansas City or the Yankees.

And I see Flaxx beat me to the punch. So, why is it you post here again, Juggs? It's a fair question.

QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Sep 8, 2005 -> 03:12 PM) In accordance with the new guidelines I ask that you refrain from personal references in your posts. Statements such as "you miss the point completely" will undoubtedly be followed up with "No, you have" & vice versa & flamatory remarks will escalate. It is best to mold your posts in a general context having no personal reference to any single poster. For example: There is nothing preventing two same-sex people from getting married in some cultural circle in America that chooses to celebrate that union with them. This issue is about forcing a paradigm on other social & cultural circles who choose not to celebrate that union with them & the entitlements that are afforded to that union. Likewise because of the entitlements it definitely does have an economic impact on tax payers & the insured who choose not to recognize the union. This is rich. Now you're telling everyone how to post. You know YOU escalate the remarks if you CHOOSE to escalate them. "You miss the point" is stating that you're missing the point that the poster was trying to communicate, not saying you're "ignorant". So now, you're trying to out-smart the "rules". Oh what a joy you are.

QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Sep 8, 2005 -> 02:23 PM) That post is both offensive & flamatory to those of us who do not share your opinion. LMAO. Wow. Just... Wow. Now we're going to play this cat and mouse game. Should be fun.

Perfect Golf Shot Bob stood over his tee sot for what seemed an eternity. He waggled, looked up, looked down, waggled again, but didn't start his backswing. Finally his exasperated partner asked, "what the hell is taking so long?" "My wife is up there watching me from the clubhouse," Bob explained. "I want to make a perfect shot." "Good lord!" his companion exclaimed. "You don't have a snowball's chance in hell of hitting her from here."

QUOTE(Balance @ Sep 8, 2005 -> 03:59 AM) I added the emphasis in the quoted text. I have not been a member of this board for very long, but I have to disagree with your self-assessment. I have not seen you post any politically-themed post which has a valid factual basis. When this is drawn to your attention, you seem to escalate the rhetoric, without providing any facts, and seem to think (as you've posted above) that you've "destroy[ed]" the counter-argument. So you've described a pattern you're experiencing when dealing with the other posters here. You take a course of action, and the other posters here uniformly react unfavorably to your points of view. You then choose to believe that the problem is all the other posters on the board, who are united against you, bent on persecuting you for your beliefs. Have you considered that the one with the problem just might be you? Have you considered that when people disagree with you, there's an off chance that you might be wrong? The vast majority of people on this and any other internet discussion board are able to discuss controversial issues with each other, from various different points of view, without it becoming a huge incident. From what SouthSider2k5 has posted, it appears that you're the only person who draws the kind of vitriol, animosity, and complaints to the degree that you do. Now, you can choose to believe that you're the persecuted victim. You can go to bed pouting. I can't see why you'd want to stick around in such an environment, when there are lots of other internet forums filled with people who share your views. Or you can honestly evaluate what's going on, and see if there might be a way you can present yourself and your arguments without drawing a bull's eye on your chest. In the end, it's up to you. I hope I've helped. Balance, BINGO. You restated what southsider wrote. And Juggs, you still don't get it, and with this, I personally now know you will NEVER get it. Your self-assessment basically states that anyone who disagrees with you, you are out to "destroy" them, not "debate" them. You are so hell-bent on being right that if a damn get a clue brick were whopped upside that head of yours, you STILL wouldn't get it, because you have the "destroy what is wrong" mentality. Southsider clearly aired out what we've been talking about for a while, a fine balance of letting you be you (ie expressing yourself with all the "ignorant" references and comments (your words, not mine), and not allowing it to cross a line. When I came along earlier and asked for a different tone, you mocked it. Then, you decided that we're personally attacking you. HOLY s***, YOU'RE NEVER WRONG! :rolly I'm probably knocking on the door of a suspension here, and there's a lot more I want to say, but you know, it's already been said clearer then I can say it. We allow you to post here, which says more then enough about how we are trying to run things here. You're entitled to your opinions, but this "destroy my opponents" mentality is what gets you in trouble, and it's quite sad. /Off my soapbox

Hey wait, posting at 6:30 - does this mean you have *gasp* internet at the new house? RUN!!!!!!!!

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Sep 7, 2005 -> 09:08 PM) A condescending elephant however, I'm sure is fine. Blast this place and it's secret right-wing innuendoes!!!

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Sep 7, 2005 -> 08:53 PM) If I swear at someone...but I do so in Klingon...do I get banned for nerdiness? Ayyy caramba. Oh wait. Klingon. ASDGSDAFHAERHSDFHSDAFBSDH DSFJHADFHJAETJDAFHJADFGJRTJKDFG Now what did I say? Seriously, Juggs. I think he did that because he didn't have time to sit there and meticulously remove the "ignorant" sentance. I think it's one thing to call a poster ignorant (which frankly is a negative connotation and why we don't want it used) vs. saying... "I don't agree with your views, and here is where we differ." It's all about that. I know I'm being sarcastic here at times, but at the same time, I want you to get what we're trying to say. I'm not speaking for southsider, but a lot of people do get their feathers ruffled when you call them ignorant. ACCORDING TO YOU, they're ignorant, yet, they truly may not be. Hence, the way we'd like you to try and post is, "I disagree with your use of "ignorant", and this is why". You're too smart for your own good. No joke. I'm going to start calling you Mr. Spock. And I mean that as a compliment, I think.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Sep 7, 2005 -> 08:37 PM) According to the definition of "ignorant", I suppose. But leave it alone, and things will go better. Deal? I have to do this. HOGWASH! There. I'm done... and you're writing a book, so this ought to be fun.

QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Sep 7, 2005 -> 08:35 PM) I'll try & make the logic simple on this. If you present a fact & someone calls it hogwash without prioviding a factual basis to refute it is that not a demonstration of ignorance? According to the definition of "ignorant", I suppose. But leave it alone, and things will go better. Deal?

QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Sep 7, 2005 -> 08:29 PM) No. It's just someone immature who believes wiping out a fact is better than debating one. :rolly If you would stick to the "facts" as you see them and not call anyone "ignorant" because they don't know something that you think you know, you'd be fine. But, "someone" is too immature to leave out the "ignorant" comments. You're going to be taking a break pretty soon if you can't leave out the "ignorant" comments. Your "facts" are fine. Stick to them, and the "soxtalk world" will be much better. :rolly