Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Rue

  1. I defer to you. Yes. Lol! Humour much much appreciated. The inconsistency in moderation on this forum, specifically in regards to trolling, derailing, hijacking, insulting, who gets banned I believe has grown sufficiently inconsistent to the point it can appear unfairly selective as to older posters on this forum not just me. I argue a moderator will losevghdir neutrality if they stay in the position too long developing resentment and contempt for certain posters. Charles Taylor called me as liar let him explain why he trolled like that but will censor others for saying the same thing. What did I lie about? Please explain. What statement? Is my saying responding to a thread on the banning of a Churchill statute calling Trudeau out and discussing Trudeau as being off the topic of the thread as lie? Explain why. How is that a lie? Is Charles Taylor capable of questioning his own perspecyivebon shat HD thinks derailing, hijacking means? Is he using the same consistent standard for all when he thinks he must intervene? Instead of calling me a liar let him explain the standard he uses and how making subjective comments about Trudeau on a thread about Churchill is on topic. Explain how callingbthztbout as brilliant znzlysuxvis a dixciplinary offencd. Explain how challenging a poster who has openly stated white neo Nazi opinions on this board coming on the thread not ironic? Do I need to explain to the moderatorcsho Churchill defeated. Is saying thztvgoes zip over his head bannable? Of course I am spitting mad. This kind of moderation is so inconsistent as to appear petulant and overreacting due to over familiarity with me. It's not just me. Its many older posters. Do we have the right to express ourselves as about it since trying to get an answer from the moderator is not possible? I have asked for clarifications of rules. I am still waiting. Like other posterscwhdn we ask we get no answers. So we come to these CV off topic forum areas.
  2. That is right Dr Ow.... Michael Harder has been my sex therapist for many years now. He taught me never to say Regina when it's cold outside. I have been to Dildot, Newfoundland.
  3. The moderator has repeatedly in the past ignored me when I have reported posts and when I follow up so stop the crap with references to polite discussion. The point I made was and went zip over your head is that responding to something not considered of topic, I.e., derailing can't be unless it introduces a different topic that might be. It's not derailing to challenge an allowed subject. Ifanything what I might have been banned for was supposedly using insulting words. You even know what derailing means? You know what trolling means? When is something off topic? Are you telling me that when certain people go off topic on this forum they are moderated? You read the gawd damn posts. You see the double standard on who can say what whether it's off topic or rude. Itsvinconsusteng and it comes about based on a moderator becoming bias from moderating too long and losing their neutrality and listening to certain complaints but not others and cultivating negative familiarity. Telling someone their analysis was brilliant that is a point off? Why? Please tell me. Telling someone Churchill stands for the exact opposite of what they said for is insulting? That is unacceptable? Bullshit. Taxme who I directed that to has engaged in white supremacist neo Naxi opining on this board and I challenge it. You support his opinions good for you. I do not. On a thread with a Churchill statute ban as the topic what the phack did his comrade Trudeau have to do with it? How was that not derailing but my response to it was? How did I go off topic on something not off topic? Tell me how that works. Tell me how does Taxme sho supports racist views about whites support Churchill? Tell me? How is saying that point went zip over his head a point off? You explain. How am I a liar calling these inconsistencies out?Kind of ironic a moderator telling me not to insult responds clearly with one. Yah yah he can I can't. What if I say zip over your head will you call me a liar? Of course not. I have given up trying to figure out the inconsistencies of Taylor.. ...I also argue all moderators need to be changed they lose their objectivity. Moderation needs to be consistent with everyone equally. Ask Charles Taylor if he know the difference between a moderator and a prosecutor. Ask him if he really believes he is not overly familiar with certain posters from being a moderator too long and needs to call it quits now.
  4. What because I disagree with you I am a liar? I did not lie and my words are public domain. You know exactly what I wrote.Why would I lie? Charles Taylor you are out of line.
  5. His opinipn is based on subjective, selective standards as to who the poster is he feels is doing the insulting and that is evident on the kind of comments allowed on this forum with some but not others. The inconsistency in who he allows to insult and who he allows to be insulted has rendered his role as a moderator a farse. He is harming the forum and not protecting free speech but engaging in personal vendettas against certain forum members he likes and dislikes. That is unfortunate.
  6. Charles Taylor I think it is time you take a walk as moderator. Your selective bias is past acceptable. On a current thread Taxme on a thread about a Churchill statute and whether it should be banned derailed the thread referring to Trudeau. His comments clearly had nothing to do with the thread. I responded saying his analysis was brilliant and you gave me a point and force me to agree with you to get back on the forum. You consider calling his comments brilliant analysis a personal insult and you accused me of derailing the thread but you clearly allow him to derail the thread. This is precisely why I have zero respect for you now. You are two faced. You look the other way with certain posters and protect them. People have said far worse than what I did and you have never banned them or disciplined them. You are abusing your moderator power and making a mockery of applying consistent objective standards. This is because you have been a moderator too long. I ask you to leave as moderator. I ask Greg to find someone less familiar with the forum. You have turned into an illogical, agry, petulant, moderator.
  7. Bubber you and Shady could do less with the name calling and more with the references when making your comments. Take it from me who never calls anyone name syou two jack asses. (joking) Here to your point: https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/coronavirus-and-covid-19-younger-adults-are-at-risk-too Here to Shady's point https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra-precautions/people-with-medical-conditions.html The two are what both of you and many others base their perceptions. Bottom line is that most people who died or have had complications from Covid 19 have some kind of pre-existing medical issue that usally impacts on their immunity system that makes getting Covid 19 potentially life threatening, i.e., diabetes, asthma, lupus, any kind of cancer, heart disease, liver or kidney disease, any kind of blood clotting illness, hyper-thyroidism, smokers, people with CPD, who are overweight, have arthritis, psoriasis, ms, md, als, pretty much the xact same issue as with any flue or virus. Nothing has changed in that regard as Covid is just another virus and in that sense it brings along with it the same threats to people with compromised health. That said what makes it unique is that doctor's have no clue why some people show zero negative symptoms and others can die from it when BOTH have NO underlying medical conditions. Initial studies focused on people who died from it who were mostly older people with underlying issues or people with chronic conditions. Now as it has been around longer, and it has spread to otherwise healthy people, doctors think there are different strains of it now, and that your dna has a lot to do with whether it kills you, harms you, or does nothing to you. The problem is you can have it and have zero symptoms of any kind and therefore could easily be spreading it to others not knowing you have it. What we are now seeing are rates increasing with healthy young Americans who have been gathering in condensed crowds on beaches or at parties. We now know speaking, singing, yelling transmits microscopic water droplets. When you are out in the open maintaining space, those droplets are much more likely to travel and drop and not on you or your clothes . If you are in a crowded outdoor place, yes you can catch it from healthy people of course if you are not properly spaced. We have seen healthy athletes trying to quarantine failing to avoid it. We also know if you go inside poor air circulation and air conditioning systems incubate and spread it. Like any virus confined poor circulating air re-pumped provides a moist place to grow. You are both right in the sense that many healthy people do not get it but other healthy people have. The stats are not definitive but I go with John Hopkins on this as are most doctors arguing safe distancing is a must outside and inside. I think because of our existing laws, since employers are obliged to guarantee safe work places, poor air circulation is going to make it problematic for many employers to take back workers in phase 3 or any other return phase without facing major liability exposure. Bottom line-I would think until they come up with a vaccine there is no way to stop the spread and even that vaccine may have limitations for only certain strains or for limited time period. What is also known for sure now is people who have had Covid 19 do not build up a permanent herd immunity At best they have a temporary immunity of a few weeks. So anyone can get it, get it again and spread it no differently that any virus, including the common cold and flu.
  8. Your post does not discuss the issue at all. Trudeau is not the issue. Stop derailing the thread.
  9. You are referring to this inaccurate pulled out of context quote: "The Dalai Lama, head of Vajrayana Buddhism is quoted as saying, " If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun. " (Seattle Times, May 15, 2001) " from Wikipedia. The problem with quoting wikipedia is if it quotes a newspaper article and you simply parrot the news article they reproduced, it may not be accurate. Any Buddhist will tell you the concept of "ahimsa" is fundamentally opposed to any concept of anger or violence.There is a history of discussing and defending armed force: http://himalaya.socanth.cam.ac.uk/collections/journals/ret/pdf/ret_31_28.pdf .However it would be inaccurate to equate such discussions with justifying people having political tantrums and destroying property. It completely removes the reference you use and others out of their SPECIFIC not unlimited contexts. Buddhists will and have engaged in protest against governments. They are usually peaceful or at their worst and we saw it in Vietnam they will light themselves on fire, no one else. In fact Buddhist doctrine is not clear at all on how much force is considered reasonable to defend oneself and when one can or can not defend themselves.It certainly would not condone using it as a choice of expression of a view, and only endorse it in a specified context as a limited, unemotional controlled exercise and as a last resort in saving of a life. The current Dalai Lama did not lament over Ben Laden's death but to say he endorses violence is bullshit. Next contrary to popular belief he is not the expression of unified agreement of all Buddhists. The most accurate description if you must stereotype Buddhists if of their use of martial arts. To use self-defence it would have to be disciplined, never initiated, done with complete control of emotions, with strategic purpose and only as is necessary to defend against not initiate violence and with absence of malice and anger. The idiots we are talking about smashing property and screaming are spoiled brats acting out feelings of self entitlement. They engage in the very behaviour Eastern disciplines like Taoism and Buddhism sought to evolve past.
  10. That sounds more like you. Add in this Senior, pinkish-grey-green man who thinks the word "systemic" is meaningless and that every human is an ist or ism in one degree or another but the way Singh uses it trivializes it and makes it absolutely meaningless and moronic. If he can not find any other issues to concern himself with its time he run along. He is so elitist out of touch this is about the only issue he can run with. It requires only a few syllables of posed outrage. If he had to discuss the economy it might cause his limited pee-brain to misfire.
  11. Its not just from the travel. You ever head some of the speeches from WE. Full of talk very little in terms of actual work done. I like smaller charities that actually DO something like Unitarian Service Committee or if you are gonna be big then follow the model set by the Salvation Army consistently spending the majority of its money on charitable exercises NOT employees and speeches of them. I support good charities. I am uncomfortable when government favours certain ones as Trudeau has in such a blatant patronage manner.
  12. Come on I was peeing. Let me finish before I respond. I can't do both. Sheesh you demand immediate response. At my age? Just changing the diaper takes awhile. Actually I was reading this Bogesy: https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/justin-trudeau-drops-into-another-pitfall-of-his-own-making/ar-BB16BGQS It does make you wonder. He's not stupid. Well I mean he is....but this show's you he is arrogant and petulant. Why be surprised. He is a spoiled rich boy. He thinks he is above the laws of we ordinary shmos. It repeats his constant pattern of thinking he is above the law of we mere toadstools. Send Besty to visit Lord Justin of Trudeau and give him a good wack with her wooden spoon on his keester.
  13. Men with big breasts are not uncommon. We have many elected to office. The key is to wear larger suits and shirt sizes not restrict them so we can see when they are cold. That is the concept of democracy. Accommodate individual characteristics if possible and it causes no harm to society. On the other hand can we get real and not have people using their altered chemistry for unfair advantage.
  14. While I am sympathetic its not democratic or how Parliament works. Parliament does not prohibit any political parties. Laws limit hateful content of what we all say but not the right to form political parties based on religious or specific views that you and I consider extremist and often undemocratic or bigoted. I may not agree with many things the Christian Heritage Party stands for but I absolutely defend their right to exist as a political party in Canada. Same goes with the NDP who to me are today a fringe party. We can't prohibit ideologies we don't like. Its more complex than that. I think the problem is not so much fringe parties as it would be proportional representation with voting if you had many parties given seats by virtue of percentage of votes. The current system manages it pretty well. I mean the Bloc Quebecois is as fringe as it gets. Only in Canada would we pay people to be against Canada and break it up. (well Israel too). Its a fringe group but other than be monumentally a two faced joke what has it achieved for its separatists living off of fat federal pensions.
  15. Oh they let me out of the cooler for now Besides I only rant in this section. I know better. I know you and Mr. H do not take me too seriously. I am annoyed as snot though. I think for a forum member within one post to insult the entire forum and not be called out on it is bullshit. I also have to ask, why do so many of these one timers hit and run and we never see them again. The pattern is there. So is the pattern of clumsy transference from an old troll to a new one in the same thread or the writer;s cognitive dissonance a phenomena that arises when someone writing is conflicted with the identities they are assuming and it interferes in what they write. Syntax, context, cognitive dissonance, is shit I worked with for years. Yah it gives me a short fuse with people playing the forum with different names and I get being told not to use inappropriate language but I have not. I have challenged words not people and challenged identities when the people are trolling yes. My frustration is with inconsistency in what people say. It is true the longer you are on any forum your familiarity breeds contempt with the moderator as well as making older members too familiar with each other causing contempt. Both phenomena occur. This is what annoys the snot out of me really. Moderators get overly familiar with older posters and hold them to a different standard and that is annoying as hell. I do admit some of the older posters probably can not stand me from familiarity or maybe vice versa, but the majority of us ignore each other when we have lost it and police ourselves. Its only a handful of trolls really and most leave after they burn out their one trick pony approach to trying to incite anger and get attention. The anti American trolling is bloody obvious how suddenly someone shows up, rants about something in general about the US and asks people to join in and then people do like sheep not noticing the poster is brand new and simply engage din a rhetorical accusation or subjective opinion with swet phack all to base it.
  16. Why is it bad form? Why is he not allowed to be annoyed and ask for feedback? I share his frustration and not being properly told how my posts have crossed the line but others identical to them have not been censored or removed. There are a lot of arbitrary decisions made by Charles Taylor. A lot. They cause frustration. Rather than call them bad form can you not simply acknowledge them and move on? I had a royal tantrum with the guy. I admit it. I sent him choice words. I am annoyed as hell. I put my heart and soul into my responses and try support posters on this forum even those I disagree with. Its very frustrating for some of us dealing with the arbitrary interventions and no explanations and then excuses being made and telling us its bad form. Oh its bad form I lost in on Charles Taylor and this is my apology to him because his job stinks but damn it we posters get frustrated and angry when you don't take the time to talk to us and be consistent in your policies, that is all. I have to support New World Order. He is one of your model posters. Never a rude word from him. He was dead on. There you me saying I am an asshole and a pain in your ass and Charles Taylor's ass and I know it and I am admitting I am an asshole to both of you but Newworld come on he is trying to be honest and candid with you. Try work with him please. Don't call it bad form. If he did not respect your rules, he wouldn't have written you as I am now publically apologizing to Chuck Taylor if he thinks I have been unfair to posters and keeps censoring me from the forum. I completely disagree with his last bannings as I do your merging NewWorld Order's thread but its your prerogative or Chuck's. Also I am going to keep calling him Chuck because I am immature and still having a tantrum and my medication has to take time to kick in.
  17. I focus on the above words I parsed from Gooverkind's comments as I was told not to reproduce entire posts of others. Since the post with the above words was submitted the person who submitted it who did not come back to defend it and explain its basis I ask why? The postwith the above words made no coherent sense and when I read it, I found the syntax, grammar and disjointed pattern of writing almost identical to the words and syntax of Tdot on this thread who also seems to have gone. Does anyone other than I or Michael Harder find the thread inflammatory? Was this a thread and subject a genuine discussion or was its purpose to simply crap on gay people for being gay with rhetorical disparaging stereotypes? How is this thread and such comments not a prop or excuse to piss on gays for being gay? I challenge this thread and its the responses from Tdot and the above poster to be hateful subjective opinions that are intended to present hateful stereotypes of gays. If I came on here and took the word gay out and put "white male" or "Christian" or "Jew" or "Muslim" or "women" or "conservative" or "liberal" I would make the same critical response and also challenge it for the exact same reasons. I have been censored twice on this thread for challenging it. This is my third attempt to make the point. Perhaps my words are now more acceptably put.
  18. No our national sports are: 1-complaining about line-ups at Tim Horton's; 2-complaining about the weather; 3-complaining about taxes 4-sending obese Quebec males in speedos to parade up and down beaches in Florida. Next may I say I love you and Ah Mare Eekah. Very nice country. Many guns. Much bad beer. Very nice country. Melania me love you.
  19. No and I think you are well aware of the one time posts or trolls that are coming on line and then vanish. I appreciate though you love Taxme. The fact that I and others find him to provide racist trailer trash sputum is not the issue. I am talking about one time posters that clearly provide inflammatory headlines that do not ask for discussion but make a rhetorical statement. This is supposed to be a discussion forum. Many make a statement and do not ask for discussion or give a God damn about discussion. That is a fact. When it happens repeatedly with new posters its a pattern and there is a reason for the pattern. Most of it is spam. Its automated spam coming out of Russia, Turkey, Iran, North Korea, Syria and it repeats on many forums. I am also talking about identical syntax that gives people with multiple identities away. They use identical grammar and phrases, identical headlines except for changing the topic and they stick to one theme usually it is to say something negative about the US or to incite hatred of the US. Its transparent, its repetitive and its annoying as hell but yah its not my forum. I should just ignore it and let it spread like cancer producing threads that simply incite negative rhetorical comments and soon go off rail. You know I am ranting nothing else. I doubt anyone but me gives a shit. I appreciate Monsieur Harder knows my frustration and I am not asking to censor anyone just challenge their words which I have. Never ceases to amaze me how quick these spam trolls are to come and go. I am fed up with troll headlines. There is a double standard on what new and old forum members post. There is a double standard as to what certain older forum members are allowed to do once others complain about them. I have been censored because of complaints by posters who do the exact thing they accuse me of. I have a right to be snot nosed annoyed. So I am venting it. Consider this sneezing back at the source of my snot nosed sniffeling. I have only begun to snit back the snot. Why the phack are you and I sounding like Gen. McArthur anyways. I never liked him. Showboating fascist. The best US Generals in WW2 were Omar Bradley and obviously Eisenhower. Admiral Halsey no.1. I know my US military history. The American's were lucky our soldiers taught them how to be disciplined in the First Special Services Forces. I was brought up to catch the piss in a bucket and splash it back whence it came unless the idiot is pissing up wind. I am pissed at people pissing me off. Now excuse me while I sulk some more O.W. I am gonna hold my breath and turn blue and maybe bust a hemmeroid. Bah.
  20. I am fed up with the moderation. One timer trolls are coming in . I have been censored by Charles Taylor for calling out such posters or posters with different names using the exact same syntax or trolling. I am the first to welcome or complement a new forum member but when a first post starts off with inflammatory and trolling remarks sure they should be challenged. I find the moderation completely inconsistent. I now have been banned 3 times for calling out trolling posts which violate all the rules of trolling. I also find it ridiculous the inconsistency in calling out certain board members for derailing while allowing others to derail. There is zero consistency.I find his moderation best summarized as PMS. Regards Steve McQueen In The Cooler
  21. 1. Asking her name. 2. Waiting for her to ask you. 3. Brushing your teeth and showering and getting all your shots before 1 and 2. 4. Identifying and successfully treating any usual growths, lesions, wounds prior to 1 and 2. 5. Making sure you are wearing clean underwear. 6. Cutting your finger and toe nails. 7. Avoiding the use of these words: lpork, kant, puh-c. 8. Cutting your nose hairs, ear hairs, cleaning the skunk from your eyes and belly button and between your toes. Clear up all acne and fungi. Rocket science Cougar. Sheer rocket science. For Gawd's sake man buy a bottle of wine, some candles, and try Gato Barbieri's Last Tango in Paris or anything Marvin Gaye, Midnight At The Oasis by Maria Muldaur, ( all classic make out music). Geezuz man some breath mints too. I had no idea you needed dating tips. I myself find holding doors open, kissing hands, offering roses, avoiding at picking or grabbing or scatching at any of your body parts as well as not burping, passing gas, helps as well. You also may want to leave the trailer. Maybe splurge and rent a room at Motel 66.
  22. Nonsense. The phrase "whites are the slaver drivers of the human race and blacks are the sole victims" is a subjective statement or opinion. Wes then took thissubjective statement which is clearly defective as it generalizes an entire category of individuals defined by an ambiguous term preventing true identification of that group and any similar characteristics and counters it not with facts but more subjective generalizations equally as irrational. His comments are not fact nor are they "truth". Of course he responded to the original statement because he thought it was unfair. That is precisely why he and you and Argus responded as you did. You think the statement is unfair. A subjective statement can not be true. It has no facts. Until it is presented with objective facts its neither true or untrue, its just a speculated subjective opinion. Wes advanced the concept of white pride in response to this subjective statement which is an emotional response and emotional responses are based on emotion not rational thought process. Please provide the specific arguments that show I am incorrect. Don't just say they are incorrect. You disagree with them that is your absolute right but at least make an effort to debate them. Finallym the only divisive comments on this thread are the statements feeling the need to counter a clearly defective subjective opinion about race with others that do the same thing. I have argued the thread is about taking a divisive racist statement and responding to it with racist statements. Both are equally as pointless and show in your response in particular as well as the other responses you, Argus and Wes are caught up in divisive, emotional, subjective generalizations about others.
  23. You clearly are obsessed with homosexuality. Why? Now for some coded messages: J. Edgar Hoover. Cary Grant. Batman and Robin. Robin and his Merry men.The Friendly Giant. Mr. Dress Up. Mr. Rogers. Wayne and Shuster. Laurel and Hardy. The Rat Pack. Sky King. Dr. Kildare.
  24. You breath long enough you are gonna say something stupid. Now the thing with stereotypes is no one minds them if they are positive. It's when they are negative the shit hits the fan but the issue with them is their accuracy. On that note all people on this forum are nutz, spazzo and twitcho.
  25. Your thread appears from content and title to advance the premises that all "white" people have been unfairly accused of slavery and because of that so damaged they now need to cherry pick selective passages from history to heal their trauma. I would argue that premises is problematic because : 1-the need to feel "pride" does not make a deed good, the merit of the deed itself will; 2- further to 1 the emotion of humility might help the transmitter of a deed define its merit because it focuses on the impact on others of the deed; inversely pride might not, because it is an expression of ego that misdirects the focus of awareness of the merit of tye deed back to the feelings of the transmitter and not the impact of the deed on others; 3-further to 1 and 2 the merit of a deed can be objectively measured in the amount of postive or negative actions it generates in others but inversely the feelings of the transmitter of the eed might not be accurate because humans often feel bad when they do something right and might also feel good when they do something wrong ; 3- the assumption that all whites have been traumatized from learning the origins of slavery and therefore need to repair damaged self esteem through selective analysus of history s illogical in that it sssumesc all whites were traumatized to the same relevant degree to infer they now all need to engage in this selective analysis of history; 4- using a colour to define a group is so subjective construct and general in context as to defy a clear basis of common characteristics to provide a base point from which to extrapolate any common patterns of behaviour in its alleged category. My take is that you are reacting to what you see is unfair characterization of whites by blacks triggered by the Floyd shooting. So I have to ask what injustices as a "white" person have caused you so much damage you need to draw solace from white people who were against slavery? What the phack does that mean? Since when did you need to feel good about yourself for being white? By thec way your reference to Ezra L has nothing to do with the pemises you advance. Please show me his words where he suggested white pride needed and we should selectively analyze history to incite it.
  • Create New...