It's all relative, as they say in Kentucky.Also, to whoever called Havok "mild mannered":
Answering Ender, Per CmndrWilkens Request
Re: Answering Ender, Per CmndrWilkens Request
Re: Answering Ender, Per CmndrWilkens Request
As I said, it can be interpreted as support. But only if you take a very narrow focus and ignore the other context. Perhaps I didn't make that clear enough. I do not think he did, as I tend to look at the whole picture, not just parts of it.Elfdart wrote:I tell you what:
Leave the names of the posters out of it. Go back and re-type Havok's first post on the subject or put your thumb over his name on your monitor if you have to. Now read what he wrote. Be honest -who in his or her right mind could read that and come to the conclusion that Havok supports the use of child soldiers in real life? It's not just dishonest, it's deranged.
Warwolf Urban Combat Specialist
Why is it so goddamned hard to get little assholes like you to admit it when you fuck up? Is it pride? What gives you the right to have any pride?
–Darth Wong to vivftp
GOP message? Why don't they just come out of the closet: FASCISTS R' US –Patrick Degan
The GOP has a problem with anyone coming out of the closet. –18-till-I-die
Why is it so goddamned hard to get little assholes like you to admit it when you fuck up? Is it pride? What gives you the right to have any pride?
–Darth Wong to vivftp
GOP message? Why don't they just come out of the closet: FASCISTS R' US –Patrick Degan
The GOP has a problem with anyone coming out of the closet. –18-till-I-die
Re: Answering Ender, Per CmndrWilkens Request
Are you fucking kidding me? The thread is about reviewing someones history. Of course you post relevant information.Flagg wrote:If you have a problem with the nomination you vote "no" in the senate thread and say why. You don't fucking derail the nomination thread with links to threads where you 2 had a hissy fit because you personally dislike the member being nominated.Ender wrote:We are supposed to review the posting history of the person in question. How is bringing up past examples of their behavior, which is what we are directly required to do, a vendetta?Flagg wrote:Yeah, that post reeks of vendetta. A member of the senate should know better, frankly.
"If the facts are on your side, pound on the facts. If the law is on your side, pound on the law. If neither is on your side, pound on the table."
"The captain claimed our people violated a 4,000 year old treaty forbidding us to develop hyperspace technology. Extermination of our planet was the consequence. The subject did not survive interrogation."
"The captain claimed our people violated a 4,000 year old treaty forbidding us to develop hyperspace technology. Extermination of our planet was the consequence. The subject did not survive interrogation."
Re: Answering Ender, Per CmndrWilkens Request
Flagg already conceded on that point.
It's 106 miles to Chicago, we got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark... and we're wearing sunglasses.
Hit it.
Blank Yellow (NSFW)
Hit it.
Blank Yellow (NSFW)
"Mostly Harmless Nutcase"
Re: Answering Ender, Per CmndrWilkens Request
Sorry, I was just dumbfounded when I read that and posted without reading further.Havok wrote:Flagg already conceded on that point.
"If the facts are on your side, pound on the facts. If the law is on your side, pound on the law. If neither is on your side, pound on the table."
"The captain claimed our people violated a 4,000 year old treaty forbidding us to develop hyperspace technology. Extermination of our planet was the consequence. The subject did not survive interrogation."
"The captain claimed our people violated a 4,000 year old treaty forbidding us to develop hyperspace technology. Extermination of our planet was the consequence. The subject did not survive interrogation."