Gun nuts intimidate mothers in parking lot

[Ernie S.]

Amazing. When I said "go ahead, spin that" it was rhetorical snark. I didn't mean for you to actually try it.

I don't want to alarm you but you're getting into Windbag territory now...

Reread what she said. She said she hadn't put words in your mouth. You made the unsubstantiated claim which still hangs there on your to do list. THEN she said that she was at least as capable of mis stating your position as you seem to be with hers. It was very plain language, no spin at all.

Drop it Ernie. I've had it with this shit.

What you meant to say was I fucked up so I'll go on the offense.

Why don't you tell me to drop it in red next time, OK?

 

[Kroyd]

YOU should be gang negged until you turn red. ASSHOLE.

And you are impersonating a moderator.
Yes what he did was wrong, but you report it, don't assume you have authority and post in all red.

BULLSHIT.

You see the color choice up there?? You see how one of them is red?

Don't BULLSHIT me Ernie. I'm not having it. NOWHERE did I impersonate a fucking moderator.

My best guess is that both these bitches are twin accounts that carryover their losing ire from other forums

[youtube]rsCAy9ErdKY[/youtube]

 

[Ernie S.]

YOU should be gang negged until you turn red. ASSHOLE.

And you are impersonating a moderator.
Yes what he did was wrong, but you report it, don't assume you have authority and post in all red.

Maybe I'm naive but I still don't understand the actual implication???

My best guess is that someone is monetarily cranky???

You brought family into the discussion. It is one of the few Cardinal rules here. You just plain don't insult family. AT ALL! Understand?

 

[Ernie S.]

YOU should be gang negged until you turn red. ASSHOLE.

And you are impersonating a moderator.
Yes what he did was wrong, but you report it, don't assume you have authority and post in all red.

BULLSHIT.

You see the color choice up there?? You see how one of them is red?

Don't BULLSHIT me Ernie. I'm not having it. NOWHERE did I impersonate a fucking moderator.

Fuck, he's not here long enough to know moderators post in red. He hasn't even read the goddam site rules.

I would PM a moderator and ask, but I believe posting in all red is taboo.

 

[Kroyd]

And you are impersonating a moderator.
Yes what he did was wrong, but you report it, don't assume you have authority and post in all red.

Maybe I'm naive but I still don't understand the actual implication???

My best guess is that someone is monetarily cranky???

You brought family into the discussion. It is one of the few Cardinal rules here. You just plain don't insult family. AT ALL! Understand?

Quote it man! I'll retract if I actually did! But I have yet to see/smell/hear/feel or intellect any threat I made to anyone? My guess is this is yet another losing strategy by the ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_for_Radicalshttp://

You know this plan only goes so far don't you?

 

[Avatar4321]

Point taken but that does not change the fact that people have the right to being safe from armed gangs - no matter what their stated purpose is.

I would not knowingly sit in a restaurant with these people.

But, just like the rw hysteria over which bathroom transgender people are using, its very likely that I have been in restaurants where people were armed and did not know it.

As usual, the nutters want to protect their own rights at the expense of other people's rights.

Just because you are paranoid and delusional doesn't mean you have the right to take away the rights of others.

There is nothing wrong about carrying a gun. And there is absolutely nothing terrifying about people with guns posing for pictures.

 

[Ernie S.]

Go back a ways. The comment was replaced by 4 red X's, but survives as a subsequent quote. You insulted Pogo's mother.
That shit doesn't fly here. You have probably been notified by Connery who edited your post. I'd bet you have a couple private messages and a few rep notifications. Check the extreme upper right of the page.

 

[Kroyd]

Go back a ways. The comment was replaced by 4 red X's, but survives as a subsequent quote. You insulted Pogo's mother.
That shit doesn't fly here. You have probably been notified by Connery who edited your post. I'd bet you have a couple private messages and a few rep notifications. Check the extreme upper right of the page.

News to me twat! What kind of game do you "guys" have running here exactly?

Sounds like a stacked house affair to me. I think you may just be a little too successful in your game though...

Maybe if I helped a bit the game might actually survive.

 

[Ernie S.]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...te-mothers-in-parking-lot-57.html#post8186765

There's a link to the surviving post.

 

[Kroyd]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...te-mothers-in-parking-lot-57.html#post8186765

There's a link to the surviving post.

Really? This is your last surviving breath...

[YOUTUBE]rsCAy9ErdKY[/YOUTUBE]

Fucking losers!

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I'm sure the NRA is digging it all....all we can hope for is a Sandyhook at the gunshow....

You can hope all you want. there will never be a mass shooting at a gun show.

 

[koshergrl]

They've long since been reduced to arguing with the dictionary. And putting words in others' mouths.

"Here's my argument: it depends on what the meaning of is is".

Pathetic.

Aren't you the one who decided I abandoned this discussion? Glass houses/rocks?

Ernie, that's in no way a reference to you. Earlier I told Spoonman how this thread isn't about a question of laws but about ethics, which Koshergrrrrrr morphed into "unethical". Then even after I post the definitions for both, she continues to pretend they're the same thing. Windbag tried that too, but then that's Windbag.

That's when I needed you here, Ernie -- to tell them both they're full of shit.

Actually it's not too late...


Lemme show you what went down at the same time elsewhere...

I didn't insert any words into your mouth, moron. You keep saying stuff, then denying you said it, or claiming that I said it.

you're a nitwit.

Word fascist...HAHAHAHAH...Yes, I will rewrite you. I'll do it often, and I'll continue to make you look like an idiot when I do.

"I didn't insert any words into your mouth" followed immediately by "Yes, I will rewrite you. I'll do it often"
:

No please, go ahead... spin that one.

Yes, you questioned the ETHICS of protesters who legally protested with their legal arms. The implication that you made, repeatedly, was that although it was LEGAL to protest with weapons, it was UNETHICAL, based on your QUESTIONING of the ethics of the protesters.

I love that not only do we have to explain and re-explain our own posts to you...over and over again when you repeatedly attempt to assign false stances to us..but we also have to repeatedly remind you of what YOU have said, and explain it to you.




It's a mental illness thing. Poor mite.

 

[koshergrl]

I'm sure the NRA is digging it all....all we can hope for is a Sandyhook at the gunshow....

You can hope all you want. there will never be a mass shooting at a gun show.

Naw, the douchebags who shoot up innocents do their research and choose un-protected, un-armed targets.

Which is why libs like to broadcast "GUN FREE ZONES" and fight so hard to make sure everybody knows our kids aren't protected at schools.

It's more fun than abortion!

 

[Pogo]

Aren't you the one who decided I abandoned this discussion? Glass houses/rocks?

Ernie, that's in no way a reference to you. Earlier I told Spoonman how this thread isn't about a question of laws but about ethics, which Koshergrrrrrr morphed into "unethical". Then even after I post the definitions for both, she continues to pretend they're the same thing. Windbag tried that too, but then that's Windbag.

That's when I needed you here, Ernie -- to tell them both they're full of shit.

Actually it's not too late...


Lemme show you what went down at the same time elsewhere...

"I didn't insert any words into your mouth" followed immediately by "Yes, I will rewrite you. I'll do it often"
:

No please, go ahead... spin that one.

Yes, you questioned the ETHICS of protesters who legally protested with their legal arms. The implication that you made, repeatedly, was that although it was LEGAL to protest with weapons, it was UNETHICAL, based on your QUESTIONING of the ethics of the protesters.

I love that not only do we have to explain and re-explain our own posts to you...over and over again when you repeatedly attempt to assign false stances to us..but we also have to repeatedly remind you of what YOU have said, and explain it to you.




It's a mental illness thing. Poor mite.

YOU are a known and quanifiable LIAR.

Here's what I actually posted, which is why a fucking liar like you doesn't dare quote it:

This is not a thread about what the law is or who broke it or didn't break it. It's about psychological tactics. The law is not at issue.

Nor did anyone say they "shouldn't be allowed to congregate". That would be law yet again. Leave all that behind. It's not a discussion of laws; more a discussion of ethics. That's why we have differences of opinion -- the law is clear, you either break it or you don't. In ethics it's not cast in stone. All we can do here is offer views.

eth·icsˈeTHiks/Submit
noun
1.
moral principles that govern a person's or group's behavior.
"Judeo-Christian ethics"
synonyms: moral code, morals, morality, values, rights and wrongs, principles, ideals, standards (of behavior), value system, virtues, dictates of conscience More
the moral correctness of specified conduct.
"the ethics of euthanasia"
2.
the branch of knowledge that deals with moral principles.

un·eth·i·cal
ˌənˈeTHikəl/Submit
adjective
1.
not morally correct.
"it is unethical to torment any creature for entertainment"
synonyms: immoral, amoral, unprincipled, unscrupulous, dishonorable, dishonest, wrong, deceitful, unconscionable, unfair, fraudulent, underhanded, wicked, evil, sneaky, corrupt

DUH.

You claim, laughngly, to be a "writer" yet you find a way to utterly flummox yourself on the distinction between the study of ethics and the judgement of "unethical". These aren't obscure terms, yet you're willing to appear this fucking stupid on their disctinction.

Not to mention the latter of which, as a matter of opinion if rendered, is something we all have a right to, like it or lump it, sweetfart.

Let's illustrate the difference: "Ethics" is a study of principles. There's no judgement rendered in the fact that the process of study exists. It does.
"Unethical" is a judgement. See the synonyms unscrupulous, dishonorable, dishonest etc above. It describes, say, the practice of morphing other people's words into something you wish they had said, so you can knock down strawmen, because you're too much of a lying pissant to deal with the point directly.

Hope this helps.

So crawl back into whatever hate infested worm hole you oozed out of. Nobody in the world buys your extraneous bullshit.

 

[koshergrl]

So when you question the ETHICS of protest, you are questioning whether protesting is ETHICAL, or UNETHICAL...right? So when you said it was a question of ETHICS, the implication is that it's UNETHICAL, not ILLEGAL, to protest.

That's what you assert.

Fucking retard. I tutored know-nothings like you in college, at the behest of the English dept. head, because people like you so enraged her...she gave me the loons who couldn't/wouldn't learn, and I was their last hope before she booted them from the class.

 

[Pogo]

So when you question the ETHICS of protest, you are questioning whether protesting is ETHICAL, or UNETHICAL...right? So when you said it was a question of ETHICS, the implication is that it's UNETHICAL, not ILLEGAL, to protest.

That's what you assert.

Fucking retard. I tutored know-nothings like you in college, at the behest of the English dept. head, because people like you so enraged her...she gave me the loons who couldn't/wouldn't learn, and I was their last hope before she booted them from the class.

Then I pity them.

But at the same time I have faith that kids are resilient enough to get over amateur hacks like you.

Let's face it, as far as simple reading comprehension all that can be advised is.. don't quit the day job. Unless this is it, which it appears to be.

 

[koshergrl]

And my advice to them, as to you, is #1, don't use words you don't use, and #2, don't make assertions you can't back up.

You can't launch a discussion about ETHICS, then claim that you had no intention of referencing the UNETHICAL. Well, you can...but then you would be branded a pedant and a fool...which you have been branded as.

 

[koshergrl]

Don't pity them, they passed because of me. And they learned how to write like scholars, instead of like 2nd graders.

 

[Pogo]

Don't pity them, they passed because of me. And they learned how to write like scholars, instead of like 2nd graders.

So you kept the latter for yourself.

 

[koshergrl]

Your mo is to post garbage, then to deny that you posted garbage, then to pretend someone else posted the garbage, then to fall back on refusing to acknowledge the garbage you posted.

So tell me...how do we discuss the *ethics* of protest, per idb?? What are your thoughts on the ethics of protest?

I'm all ears (whoops, this is an internet forum..I'm all EYES...because if I don't fix that then you'll come back with "you're an idiot, you can't hear me!") If you can show me that idb was not implicating that the gun owners were UNETHICAL in their protest when he questioned their ETHICS, I'll buy you a new car.

So tell me how you question the ethics of the protest..but that questioning the ethics of the protest in no way implies they were UNETHICAL in the way they carried out the protest.

I keep asking you to elucidate, and you keep dodging.

You can't, because that is exactly what was implied, repeatedly. I am not the one who, out of the blue, introduced ethics into the convo, as you stated.