Founding Fathers Debate -- Need Help

Storm Rucker · Post by **Storm Rucker** » 2003-05-06 04:42pm

Peace.

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2003-05-06 04:56pm

Storm Rucker wrote:Peace.

Always a good thing, I think. I like my forums clean

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-05-06 05:03pm

I always miss out on the really good flame wars. Damn it, I had the ConLaw kung-fu all ready to go.

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi · Post by **Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi** » 2003-05-06 05:12pm

Storm Rucker wrote:Peace.

What the...?

Is that your concession message or something?

Post by **Dalton** » 2003-05-06 05:20pm

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi wrote:
Storm Rucker wrote:Peace.
What the...?

Is that your concession message or something?

Let it go.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-05-06 05:36pm

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi wrote:
Storm Rucker wrote:Peace.
What the...?

Is that your concession message or something?

I suspect he is trying to figure out how to salvage his appearance after his little performance last night. Perhaps it occurred to him that mercilessly blasting Raoul for copying and pasting arguments looks pretty silly when their own arguments here consisted primarily of copied and pasted quote-lists and articles.

GC · Post by GC » 2003-05-06 11:06pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi wrote:
Storm Rucker wrote:Peace.
What the...?

Is that your concession message or something?
I suspect he is trying to figure out how to salvage his appearance after his little performance last night. Perhaps it occurred to him that mercilessly blasting Raoul for copying and pasting arguments looks pretty silly when their own arguments here consisted primarily of copied and pasted quote-lists and articles.

Couple of brief items of clarification, mainly for the benifit of those who want to become productive members here:

1. The major "evidence" contributions were mine. The Treaty peice WAS almost ntirely a cut&paste job, BUT, the list of quotes I spent three hours last night working up (before I found out where RDJ got his) that list. Some of them are copyied from other sites but the majority are hand transcribed from books in my library *though I suppose with enough time you could find most of them on-line somewhere. It is not a slap-dash job but involved some actual work because it is a subject I am somewhat passionate about. Additionaly, it seems disenguenios to deride my cotribution for being copy&paste when the list on your stiky-post is almost certainly likelwise the work of someone else copy&pasted here (didn't I see a reference to an aynrand page or something?).

2. My comment about this board "never being the same" was a bit over the top but it was based on having seen only two threads here which gave the impression of a group of like-minded folks congratulating each other on their correctness. I will accept on your testimony that the rest of the board has a more diverse range of opinion...but any objective observer would have reached the conclusion I did based on the two threads I read. Still, it was not at all my usual style and I regret the impression it made.

That said, your boards will, IMHO, change for the better because, contrary to RDJ'S assertions, there are only a small handful of trolls in TNZ, and most of them think like you guys politicaly/religiously speaking so they would not be inclined to troll here. OTOH, posters like Tamar and CapChewie will be fine contributors here if you give them the chance. Every board needs that. So while it was not actually my meaning to say that "your boards will be better" - in the light of a new day I will still say that they will. IF you give these folks a chance and not let their negative reaction to RDJ cloud your precption of them.
There are many many respectful discussions in TNZ in which people disagree strongly and yet respect each other. RDJ is flat out lying to you to imply it is nothing more than a troll fest.

3. My use of the term "Pagan" is entirely a personal idiocencrcy. It is not intended to be a dictionalry definition. One encounters all forms of beliefs on the 'Net and I have no intention of personnaly disecting each one. I confine my remarks to a defense of Christianity (not "religion" or "the church" but Christianity as defined in the Bible). To that end a for that purpose, I use the shotrhand of dividing the world into Christians (and Jews) on the one hand, and pagans on the other. It is simply MY way of saying things, it is not designed to be a technical referance.

4. Finally, while I do not intend to soften my apology for harsh words by saying this, I must ask, why are you suprised by "trolling" when your very frount pages proclaims members to be "flamewarriors" and instructs these members to "prepare the smackdown for (newbie)"

If I may ask how is this conducive to a civil first encounter with new posters? You are effectivly putting them on notice that agressivness is not only allowed but encouraged. That being the case, your reaction of shock and dismay that we would come here "spouting off about victory" rings a bit hollow. that said, I do not excuse what I siad as it does not meet MY standards for myself, regardless of yours.

So in conclusion, since I find it unlikely that I will be a major contrivutor here, I felt it necessary to tie up some lose ends sot that other of my fellow TNZ posters who might come here would not suffer unnecessary pre-judgement based on being associated with my posts.

G'Day all.

Post by **Dalton** » 2003-05-06 11:26pm

*snip*

GC wrote:4. Finally, while I do not intend to soften my apology for harsh words by saying this, I must ask, why are you suprised by "trolling" when your very frount pages proclaims members to be "flamewarriors" and instructs these members to "prepare the smackdown for (newbie)"

...this is supposed to be a joke. We're not serious about smacking down newbies like that.

Raoul Duke, Jr. · Post by **Raoul Duke, Jr.** » 2003-05-07 01:03am

GC wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:
Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi wrote: What the...?

Is that your concession message or something?
I suspect he is trying to figure out how to salvage his appearance after his little performance last night. Perhaps it occurred to him that mercilessly blasting Raoul for copying and pasting arguments looks pretty silly when their own arguments here consisted primarily of copied and pasted quote-lists and articles.
Couple of brief items of clarification, mainly for the benifit of those who want to become productive members here:

There are a couple thousand people who are already productive members here. Your track record on this board so far does not remotely recommend you as a mentor.

1. The major "evidence" contributions were mine. The Treaty peice WAS almost ntirely a cut&paste job, BUT, the list of quotes I spent three hours last night working up (before I found out where RDJ got his) that list. Some of them are copyied from other sites but the majority are hand transcribed from books in my library *though I suppose with enough time you could find most of them on-line somewhere. It is not a slap-dash job but involved some actual work because it is a subject I am somewhat passionate about. Additionaly, it seems disenguenios to deride my cotribution for being copy&paste when the list on your stiky-post is almost certainly likelwise the work of someone else copy&pasted here (didn't I see a reference to an aynrand page or something?).

In short, you copied the work, just as I did. Where you copied it from and how much effort was required is irrelevant. The fact that you put more effort into the argument is also irrelevant, as you failed to prove your point anyway.

2. My comment about this board "never being the same" was a bit over the top but it was based on having seen only two threads here which gave the impression of a group of like-minded folks congratulating each other on their correctness. I will accept on your testimony that the rest of the board has a more diverse range of opinion...but any objective observer would have reached the conclusion I did based on the two threads I read. Still, it was not at all my usual style and I regret the impression it made.

So on one hand, you regret your statement... and on the other, you stand by it. Exactly what are you trying to say here?

That said, your boards will, IMHO, change for the better because, contrary to RDJ'S assertions, there are only a small handful of trolls in TNZ, and most of them think like you guys politicaly/religiously speaking so they would not be inclined to troll here. OTOH, posters like Tamar and CapChewie will be fine contributors here if you give them the chance. Every board needs that. So while it was not actually my meaning to say that "your boards will be better" - in the light of a new day I will still say that they will. IF you give these folks a chance and not let their negative reaction to RDJ cloud your precption of them.

I have never known anyone on this board to prejudge. You and your fellow TNZ posters's arguments were judged on their own merits, and found lacking. My advice to you is, form better arguments.

There are many many respectful discussions in TNZ in which people disagree strongly and yet respect each other. RDJ is flat out lying to you to imply it is nothing more than a troll fest.

I have implied nothing. I have explicitly stated that the tolerance for trollery in "The Neutral Zone" is much higher than it is at this board. Consequently, there is a commensurately higher degree of trollery to be found there.

3. My use of the term "Pagan" is entirely a personal idiocencrcy. It is not intended to be a dictionalry definition. One encounters all forms of beliefs on the 'Net and I have no intention of personnaly disecting each one. I confine my remarks to a defense of Christianity (not "religion" or "the church" but Christianity as defined in the Bible). To that end a for that purpose, I use the shotrhand of dividing the world into Christians (and Jews) on the one hand, and pagans on the other. It is simply MY way of saying things, it is not designed to be a technical referance.

Having neither knowledge of, nor interest in, your subjective definition of the word "Pagan" I will leave it to others to address this point.

4. Finally, while I do not intend to soften my apology for harsh words by saying this, I must ask, why are you suprised by "trolling" when your very frount pages proclaims members to be "flamewarriors" and instructs these members to "prepare the smackdown for (newbie)"

Dalton has pointed out that this attitude is facetious. I tend to think of these phrases as disclaimers, i.e. If you come here to troll, you've been duly warned.

If I may ask how is this conducive to a civil first encounter with new posters? You are effectivly putting them on notice that agressivness is not only allowed but encouraged. That being the case, your reaction of shock and dismay that we would come here "spouting off about victory" rings a bit hollow. that said, I do not excuse what I siad as it does not meet MY standards for myself, regardless of yours.

You and your friends came here presuming victory before you had earned it. Additionally, you collectively posted flamebait, and then got flamed for it. It's a little late to cry about it now.

So in conclusion, since I find it unlikely that I will be a major contrivutor here, I felt it necessary to tie up some lose ends sot that other of my fellow TNZ posters who might come here would not suffer unnecessary pre-judgement based on being associated with my posts.

G'Day all.

To summarize, you realize you've made an ass of yourself and hope that we won't expect your TNZ cohorts to behave in similar fashion.

My fellow SDN members, I can assure you, will not prejudge. I will likewise not prejudge -- but keep in mind that I won't have to. I've already witnessed the general trollery spewed forth by most TNZ regulars. In short, I can't pre-judge, because I've already seen you all in action on your home turf.

There is an interesting addendum to this little invasion; it may be a digression and totally unconnected, but maybe not. I received a most enlightening piece of (shit) correspondence from Chris Hurst, a TNZ moderator known as Worf412.

The title of the message was "I roxsor, you suxsor, WOOO!!!" Actually, I received six copies of this message, all sent rapid-fire. This is an unprecedented at of trollishness (at least, in my personal experience) and it was committed by no less than a Moderator of your vaunted forum.

Do you realize the image your moderator's actions lend your forum?

GC · Post by GC » 2003-05-07 02:11am

I'll let my comments stand along side yours. I see no profit in point by point debates. Each reader is free to take them as they will.

I would only correct one point in particular:

I neither, claim, desire, or feel worthy of any sort of "mentor" role. I don't really see how you read anything like that into the point but, to clarify:

I'm only saying judge each poster from TNZ as an individual, not as a part of a collective. The "invasion" was not an orcastrated effort (at least so far as i know - my participation certainly wasn't) so if anyone here is offeneded by my comments, don't let that cloud your impression of other newbies. My comments don't really even represent my own usual habits very well. They certainly don't represent theirs.

Also, an addindum. I can see why the regulars here would be a bit confused. From what few posts I've read by you here...including the one above, you comport yourself far more maturely here than over there. So I'm sure that your friends here might be skeptical of the general assesment of you as a "troll" on TNZ.

Perhaps this higher level of toleration you mentioned over there went to your head or something but I can assure you that if you had posted in TNZ in the same mature manner you answered my post above, none of this would ever have happened.

It does not excuse my bahavior or anyone elses from TNZ to say this, but the fact remains that the motivation to do what we did last night arises solely from your profain, agressive, trollish behavior on those boards. I personaly would have been far more pleased to have debated respectfully with "Raul Duke, Jr." than to have constantly put up with the nonsense of "visionrazor"...

In the end, we've all lost something in the matter.
It's too bad, really.

Raoul Duke, Jr. · Post by **Raoul Duke, Jr.** » 2003-05-07 02:26am

GC wrote:I'll let my comments stand along side yours. I see no profit in point by point debates. Each reader is free to take them as they will.

I would only correct one point in particular:

I neither, claim, desire, or feel worthy of any sort of "mentor" role. I don't really see how you read anything like that into the point but, to clarify:

I'm only saying judge each poster from TNZ as an individual, not as a part of a collective. The "invasion" was not an orcastrated effort (at least so far as i know - my participation certainly wasn't) so if anyone here is offeneded by my comments, don't let that cloud your impression of other newbies. My comments don't really even represent my own usual habits very well. They certainly don't represent theirs.

I'll take this statement at face value... for now. You got pretty trollish here last night/this morning, but if you say that's unusual for you, I'll personally give you the benefit of the doubt. Moving on.

Also, an addindum. I can see why the regulars here would be a bit confused. From what few posts I've read by you here...including the one above, you comport yourself far more maturely here than over there. So I'm sure that your friends here might be skeptical of the general assesment of you as a "troll" on TNZ.

Perhaps this higher level of toleration you mentioned over there went to your head or something but I can assure you that if you had posted in TNZ in the same mature manner you answered my post above, none of this would ever have happened.

I'm not sure which threads of mine you've read there. I advise you to find my first thread, in which I behaved there precisely as I do here, and met with the trollery of such noted TNZ luminaries as Storm Rucker, nozdormu, faseint, T'Pol'sBoyToy (I'm sorry, that handle will never fail to get a laugh out of me) The Great Brain and others. To clarify for you, that original thread included such <sarcasm>humane and well-researched</sarcasm> notions as hunting homeless people for sport and turning them into meat-based Slushees.

Now, I admit that my reactions to these people were hostile, but I never offered hostile comments without the merit of logical argument to back them up. The same, unfortunately, cannot be said for my opponents; but I digress. Moving on.

It does not excuse my bahavior or anyone elses from TNZ to say this, but the fact remains that the motivation to do what we did last night arises solely from your profain, agressive, trollish behavior on those boards. I personaly would have been far more pleased to have debated respectfully with "Raul Duke, Jr." than to have constantly put up with the nonsense of "visionrazor"...

As I stated above, I think the very misjudgement you fear here is what led you to jump on the "Anti-VR" bandwagon at TNZ. You'll find that when I encounter blatant stupidity here (which is rare) I approach it with the same vigor I applied to it in TNZ -- that is, if the scraps of the proverbial troll have not already been laid bare by the fortunate ones to spot the troll first.

In the end, we've all lost something in the matter.
It's too bad, really.

Yes. I've lost my TrekBBS account, for no discernable reason. That really is a shame; I'm rather intrigued by what sort of shit may be in the talking in TNZ.

Slartibartfast · Post by **Slartibartfast** » 2003-05-07 02:28am

If you mean the language, let me just tell you that it is common practice here to use swear words and insults when they are deserved, and as long as they are in addition, not in place, of rational arguments. And people who complains about others' language in a sad attempt to claim victory are, well, to put it gently, mocked. Which is all fine with me.

In other words, we despise people who hide behind a veil of civility while using holier-than-thou attitudes, etc. Maybe you think Raoul is more "trollish" or "flaming" in your forums because of bad language or insults. These are accepted practice here as long as there's some constructive purpose.

In other words, saying "I don't want to offend anyone, but 2 + 2 is 5" isn't more valid than saying "2 + 2 = 4, asshole!". In fact, it's the other way around.

Raoul Duke, Jr. · Post by **Raoul Duke, Jr.** » 2003-05-07 02:36am

Sorry, slightly OT question for you, Slartibartfast... I just realized that your av appears to be some Very Old Biblical Type Guy holding a sock-monkey -- no -- that's a Spock-monkey!

Where the hell did you find that?

Post by **Dalton** » 2003-05-07 02:45am

Raoul Duke, Jr. wrote:Sorry, slightly OT question for you, Slartibartfast... I just realized that your av appears to be some Very Old Biblical Type Guy holding a sock-monkey -- no -- that's a Spock-monkey!

Where the hell did you find that?

Appears to be a modded grab of Slartibartfast from the Hitchhiker's Guide TV series they did.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-05-07 09:13am

Yes. I've lost my TrekBBS account, for no discernable reason.

They banned you?

CaptainChewbacca · Post by **CaptainChewbacca** » 2003-05-07 10:50am

Yeah, I think it was because of his previous acts with causing trouble in the TrekTech forum. Once they found out about his double-life and his "trouble-stirring" actions, I think that was too much.

When someone gets perma-banned, no one talks about it. They just "disappear".

Slartibartfast · Post by **Slartibartfast** » 2003-05-07 12:04pm

Raoul Duke, Jr. wrote:Sorry, slightly OT question for you, Slartibartfast... I just realized that your av appears to be some Very Old Biblical Type Guy holding a sock-monkey -- no -- that's a Spock-monkey!

Where the hell did you find that?

I made it

Actually, the old guy is Slartibartfast from the BBC site about the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy TV show. The Spock-monkey I found somewhere.

Raoul Duke, Jr. · Post by **Raoul Duke, Jr.** » 2003-05-07 12:06pm

CaptainChewbacca wrote:Yeah, I think it was because of his previous acts with causing trouble in the TrekTech forum. Once they found out about his double-life and his "trouble-stirring" actions, I think that was too much.

When someone gets perma-banned, no one talks about it. They just "disappear".

Ahhh, yes. The "Star Wars Tech Is Completely Fanboy & Implausible" thread, with which some of us are already quite familiar.

And for more TrekBBS troll fun, see:

<http://w>ww.trollkingdom.com/showthread.php?threadid=5303&goto=newpost

(Just copy & paste into your browser's navigation window, removing the <> brackets. I don't want to give them a linkback to us.)

Yes, I now have my very own impersonator! Wee!!! (Very wee.)

Raoul Duke, Jr. · Post by **Raoul Duke, Jr.** » 2003-05-07 12:19pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Yes. I've lost my TrekBBS account, for no discernable reason.
They banned you?

Indeed they did. Apparently, under their rather bizarre and contorted definition of "trolling", it's okay for their regulars to flamabait, flame and/or spam threads and users -- but calling someone an idiot who is clearly behaving like an idiot is a big no-no.

Ah, and more of my "flatterer's" handywork:

<http://w>ww.trollkingdom.com/showthread.php?s=797374df5fb8f61de2dde9a0f0f6b357&postid=83808#post83808

I think he's making a statement here that he doesn't intend to, though: Obviously, this is someone from TrekBBS (notice that he registered as "Visionrazor" when I'm Raoul Duke, Jr. on this board and Daniel Kaden" on my site). Now, most of the people on TrekBBS who discussed the site labelled the work as "crap" -- one of them actually reproduced three complete stories on their board for the purpose of mockery.

Now we have Mr. Cock-Gobbler here. Mr. Cock-Gobbler seems to know exactly when and where my work is mentioned on TrollKingdom, and makes the same (non) statement about it. Unfortunately, what our little troll here is saying is that, "Cock gobblers think this work sucks -- or should that be, "suxsor -- WOOOO!!!"?)

It is my intuition (though I can't prove it) that young Mr. Hurst, or Worf412 as he is known at TrekBBS, is taking his personal trollery a step further.

Anyone know how I can have TrollKingdom delete the "Visionrazor" account?

GC · Post by GC » 2003-05-07 12:45pm

RDJ, be advised, when you are replying to full time trolls like The "Great" Brain with hostile words, you have my full support. Honestly, I didn't even follow the homeless report threads.
And the things I were thinking of were not exclusive to you, in fact, there are 3-4 over there who routinly act in a manner far worse than you ever did but for some reason, they haven't "pushed the right button"
(The "Great" Brain being one of them)

BUT, you CLEARLY behave in an antagonistic manner, particularly in relation to the subject of Christianity.

As an example, the thread "Practical use for Christians? Anybody?"

How can this be anything but baiting a particular group?

Here's your first major contribution to that thread after starting it:

Posted by Retrotrek:
Why do debated involving Christians and Athiests end in mud slinging name calling contest?

Anyway... I believe that God has a plan, and no matter what you do, it's all part of the plan. Each experience is used to shape you into what you are destined to become. That involves both ideas, I suppose. Some might call that a "calling" rather than a destiny, but I think that the two are related.
I believe that my left shoe has a plan, and no matter what your ass does, it's all part of my shoe's plan. Each angle and acceleration of my left shoe shapes the destiny of your ass. Some might call that a "kicking" rather than a destiny, but I think that the two are related.

I'm sorry, but I just don't see how this furthers the debate or makes any sort of point.

Another example:

I think Christians should be used for money. Yes. You would think, though, that their God is perpetually broke, but I hear he doesn't make withdrawals very often, himself, and there are a whole shitload of gullible puppyfuckers out there sending Him their social security checks...

And:

I think I've shot down a good share of stupid fundie bullshit in here lately. (Of course, the fundies in question are too pitifully brainless to realize it.)

And in the thread that started all this, Captain Chewbacca posted THIS:

I would submit that your quotes provide that the founding fathers have strong feelings on religion. I see no quote in which any of them says "I hate religion" or "religion should be abolished." or "Christianity is bad." Many of them only feel that religion should not be given undue authority or wieght in matters of governance.

Most of these quotes say only that religion and government should be kept separate, and provide excellent reasons for that, as Jefferson's bit about "Jew and Gentile, Mohammaden..." They wanted to build an egalitarian, tolerant nation.

If you could find quotes where they speak AGAINST religion or God, then please highlight those. Its like trying to find needles in a shitstack.

Note please, no aspersion on your character or intellegence, only one instance of a harsh word at the ned and that not personnaly directed, yet you replied:

BRRRRRZZZZTTT!!! WRONG, ASSHOLE!
<snip>
Wrong, asshole
<snip>
Already done, shit-for-brains.

So the "victim" buisness will only get you so far.

Now, you specificly asked that I find your first thread and see what happened, as far as I can see, this is the first one since you returned:

That's right, I'm back. And if you thought I was a pain in the ass before, you ain't seen nothin' yet. I will redouble my spotlighting of your stupidity. I will redouble my mockery of your cherished illogic. I will redouble my napalm illustration of your ignorance! YEEEEEE-HAW! Send in the clowns, let the rodeo begin!

no the way you want to start a thread in which you are going to complain about being met with "trollery"

Anyways, the point is that I'm not talking about replyng in kind - by all means meet agression with agression. I'm talking about "first strike" trolling.

But anyway, I've already presued this way further than I meant to.

As O'Rilley says: I'll give you the last word."

Raoul Duke, Jr. · Post by **Raoul Duke, Jr.** » 2003-05-07 12:58pm

GC wrote:RDJ, be advised, when you are replying to full time trolls like The "Great" Brain with hostile words, you have my full support. Honestly, I didn't even follow the homeless report threads.
And the things I were thinking of were not exclusive to you, in fact, there are 3-4 over there who routinly act in a manner far worse than you ever did but for some reason, they haven't "pushed the right button"
(The "Great" Brain being one of them)

BUT, you CLEARLY behave in an antagonistic manner, particularly in relation to the subject of Christianity.

As an example, the thread "Practical use for Christians? Anybody?"

How can this be anything but baiting a particular group?

TNZ posters claiming allegiance to this group made it known, in threads such as "God Is Real?" and "Christian Government" that this kind of behavior is their standard operating procedure.

Here's your first major contribution to that thread after starting it:

Posted by Retrotrek:
Why do debated involving Christians and Athiests end in mud slinging name calling contest?

Anyway... I believe that God has a plan, and no matter what you do, it's all part of the plan. Each experience is used to shape you into what you are destined to become. That involves both ideas, I suppose. Some might call that a "calling" rather than a destiny, but I think that the two are related.
I believe that my left shoe has a plan, and no matter what your ass does, it's all part of my shoe's plan. Each angle and acceleration of my left shoe shapes the destiny of your ass. Some might call that a "kicking" rather than a destiny, but I think that the two are related.
I'm sorry, but I just don't see how this furthers the debate or makes any sort of point.

I'm tempted to call that my reply to RetroTrek's post an exaggeration of RetroTrek's statement in order to demonstrate the statement's absurdity. But in retrospect, maybe it didn't quite fulfill that function.

Another example:

I think Christians should be used for money. Yes. You would think, though, that their God is perpetually broke, but I hear he doesn't make withdrawals very often, himself, and there are a whole shitload of gullible puppyfuckers out there sending Him their social security checks...
And:

I think I've shot down a good share of stupid fundie bullshit in here lately. (Of course, the fundies in question are too pitifully brainless to realize it.)

Okay, the first one is clearly an example of what is sometimes called "going native". Probably not the right thing for me to have said, I'll admit.

And in the thread that started all this, Captain Chewbacca posted THIS:
I would submit that your quotes provide that the founding fathers have strong feelings on religion. I see no quote in which any of them says "I hate religion" or "religion should be abolished." or "Christianity is bad." Many of them only feel that religion should not be given undue authority or wieght in matters of governance.

Most of these quotes say only that religion and government should be kept separate, and provide excellent reasons for that, as Jefferson's bit about "Jew and Gentile, Mohammaden..." They wanted to build an egalitarian, tolerant nation.

If you could find quotes where they speak AGAINST religion or God, then please highlight those. Its like trying to find needles in a shitstack.
Note please, no aspersion on your character or intellegence, only one instance of a harsh word at the ned and that not personnaly directed, yet you replied:

BRRRRRZZZZTTT!!! WRONG, ASSHOLE!
<snip>
Wrong, asshole
<snip>
Already done, shit-for-brains.

Please quote the snipped parts; your above quote makes it appear as if the insults were all I delivered in that reply, when you and I both know that isn't the case.

So the "victim" buisness will only get you so far.

Now, you specificly asked that I find your first thread and see what happened, as far as I can see, this is the first one since you returned:

That's right, I'm back. And if you thought I was a pain in the ass before, you ain't seen nothin' yet. I will redouble my spotlighting of your stupidity. I will redouble my mockery of your cherished illogic. I will redouble my napalm illustration of your ignorance! YEEEEEE-HAW! Send in the clowns, let the rodeo begin!

That was not my first thread -- that was the first thread I opened after coming off of a ban for calling an idiot an idiot. Big difference there, Chief.

no the way you want to start a thread in which you are going to complain about being met with "trollery"

I had already been dealing with TNZ Reg trollery for a couple weeks at the time that post was made. You're not making a very good case here.

Anyways, the point is that I'm not talking about replyng in kind - by all means meet agression with agression. I'm talking about "first strike" trolling.

And you've failed to establish any "first strike." My first thread was entitled, "Homelessness In America: An Investigative Report".

But anyway, I've already presued this way further than I meant to.

As O'Rilley says: I'll give you the last word."

Why? If you think you can prove your claims, I'm interested in watching you try.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-05-07 05:43pm

GC, those quotes you posted in an attempt to prove that RDJ was "trolling" your board were obviously humourous. Come on, the bit about "my left shoe" tracing destiny? Did you sell your sense of humour to gypsies or something? Are you really expecting to prove to anyone that he was being a horrendous troll with that, especially when compared to the way you people conducted yourselves during your little board invasion?

And regarding profanity, I hate to break it to you, but there's this thing called the "style over substance" fallacy that you will find in any logic textbook, and seizing upon profanity as proof of illogic is a fine example of that fallacy. If I say "wrong, asshole", you may not like it, and you would certainly have the right to respond with similar language, but it is NOT any less valid a reply than "you are completely incorrect, my good sir".

GC · Post by GC » 2003-05-07 06:23pm

I'm not talking about logic.
I AM talking about style.

But it's cool.
I understand.
I've got too much to do to add one more message board to my overfed pc habit.
Every time I reply I open up another tangent and I really don't want to presue the subject.
I offered him the last word and I shall maintain that position. My life will not be more or less fullfilling if I win or lose this or anyother debate here.

I concede the floor without animosity.

I look now in the mirror and say to myself:
"Don't go away mad - just go away"

Have fun, guys.

Raoul Duke, Jr. · Post by **Raoul Duke, Jr.** » 2003-05-07 06:58pm

GC wrote:I'm not talking about logic.
I AM talking about style.

But it's cool.
I understand.
I've got too much to do to add one more message board to my overfed pc habit.
Every time I reply I open up another tangent and I really don't want to presue the subject.
I offered him the last word and I shall maintain that position. My life will not be more or less fullfilling if I win or lose this or anyother debate here.

I concede the floor without animosity.

I look now in the mirror and say to myself:
"Don't go away mad - just go away"

Have fun, guys.

GC, I have some concerns about you. I think you know what they are. I don't think you're stupid, pal, but you're no pro. It's time for you to give "Visionrazor" up.

GC · Post by GC » 2003-05-07 10:01pm

Raoul Duke, Jr. wrote:
GC wrote:I'm not talking about logic.
I AM talking about style.

But it's cool.
I understand.
I've got too much to do to add one more message board to my overfed pc habit.
Every time I reply I open up another tangent and I really don't want to presue the subject.
I offered him the last word and I shall maintain that position. My life will not be more or less fullfilling if I win or lose this or anyother debate here.

I concede the floor without animosity.

I look now in the mirror and say to myself:
"Don't go away mad - just go away"

Have fun, guys.
GC, I have some concerns about you. I think you know what they are. I don't think you're stupid, pal, but you're no pro. It's time for you to give "Visionrazor" up.

O-HO!
So you CAN find a way to get me to reply!

Let me put it this way. The person whom you aledge is posing as "visionrazor" has loaded his each and every post at TK with much profanity.

You know from TreekBBS that I am a "right wing Fundie" and you have never once saw my name attached to a post which contained so much as a "damn" that wasn't a quote from someone else.

You REALLY want to crawl out on that limb and accuse me of making those posts?

Look it up hotshot...find out the ISP numbers or whatever technical mumbo-jumbo is necessary (all that stuff is way over my head) and find out...
I CHALLANGE YOU.
If you are actually so deluded as to think I would lower my standards to post stuff like that just to yank your chain, then PROVE it.

BUT, when you find out who it really is (and as God is my witness I have no idea whether it's really you or an imposter or what), if you are the man you challange us to be - come back to this very thread and admit your error like a man.

I'm NOT a poser on any board I'm on. I really am what my profile on TBBS says I am. I am too old to play these childish games, and when I say "as God is my witness" it's as serious to me as my wedding vows.

So, I really don't know what kind of psycological problems that you have to go down this road, but whether you have made a fool of yourself before or not, (and the consensus on TNZ seems to be that you have in spades) this will certainly put you over the top.

The nerve.