Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
French card deck names 'most dangerous' U.S. leaders
- Thread starter NightTrain
- Start date
Ok, Bry, I'll give you a serious reply.
I post for my own interests, and I think we both know where they lie. Other than trying to keep the board neat and somewhat respectable, I'm just another poster like you.
I wasn't pouting then, and I'm not pouting now. My responsibilities haven't been "reduced". Although I disagree at times on what is "off topic", I chose to listen to those who spoke up.
You'll be hard pressed to find any of the regular posters here talking down to someone without some sort of provocation. I think everyone is quite respectful to one another. Everyone has done it, but the receiver usually asked for it.
She gave her 2 cents and so did you. I saw both of you make valid points and throw a few jabs at the same time. You are equally to blame. I don't think it is fair to label her or I as "flamers". She has made an impact in the few days she has been here, and it's been for the positive. I think I've given my fair share of contributions to the board.
You can't ignore me
I'm capable of a healthy debate and polite mannered conversation as well. The person I am debating with will dictate what type of responses they will get. I think you'll admit there is a trend. If you talk down to someone, you'll get it in return. You give a thoughtful and respectful reply, you'll get the same in return. If someone comes to the board and dives in head first, I'll empty the water from the pool. Do you agree?
I'm glad you've found your new and reduced responsibilities as moderator include "impartial" scorekeeper and neo-con cheer leader, jim. Just out of curiosity, how do you balance those two responsibilities without running into a conflict of interest?
I post for my own interests, and I think we both know where they lie. Other than trying to keep the board neat and somewhat respectable, I'm just another poster like you.
Or are you just still pouting from last night, jim?
I wasn't pouting then, and I'm not pouting now. My responsibilities haven't been "reduced". Although I disagree at times on what is "off topic", I chose to listen to those who spoke up.
Now, THAT's funny coming from you! You people take the hypocracy cake.
You'll be hard pressed to find any of the regular posters here talking down to someone without some sort of provocation. I think everyone is quite respectful to one another. Everyone has done it, but the receiver usually asked for it.
I'm not, by the way, taking my ball somewhere else, I'm simply not going to waste my time (again) responding to people like you who flame for the sake of flaming or people like lilcountriegirl (what the hell is "countrie" anyway? Is there some cute doublemeaning here that I just don't get?)
She gave her 2 cents and so did you. I saw both of you make valid points and throw a few jabs at the same time. You are equally to blame. I don't think it is fair to label her or I as "flamers". She has made an impact in the few days she has been here, and it's been for the positive. I think I've given my fair share of contributions to the board.
You too may now take a seat in the "being ignored" seat (again) until you come up with something to say that's worthy of response. (It's really a shame, 'cause with you, at least I know you're capable.)
You can't ignore me
I'm capable of a healthy debate and polite mannered conversation as well. The person I am debating with will dictate what type of responses they will get. I think you'll admit there is a trend. If you talk down to someone, you'll get it in return. You give a thoughtful and respectful reply, you'll get the same in return. If someone comes to the board and dives in head first, I'll empty the water from the pool. Do you agree?
Do you agree?
That lilcountriegirl has posted anything in the political section beyond peanut gallery commentary? no. That she took a perfectly good opportunity to make a valid point and wasted it by flaming one of the most participative and serious posters in the political section, going so far as to make me out as an appologist for Hitler? yeah, I agree with that. All things considered, I'd say ignoring her would be a mild response. As for emptying the water from the pool when someone dives in head first, I'd say only when the new poster in question is not generally in agreement with your own politics. In this case, as far as I am concerned, the some thing happened, but your response was to roll out the red carpet and set the band playing a welcome tune, only because she seems to be of your own political orientation.
That you don't flame on occasion unprovoked? no. At least it frequently comes across as flaming. Then again some accuse me of constantly talking down to people or being demeaning, though I find that accusation baffling. Maybe sometimes, it's just a misinterpretation. Tone is difficult to convey, sometimes, in print. I'm not sure why I should give you the benefit of the doubt, though, when you claim my posts are demeaning 90% of the time.
That you are capable of healthy debate and well mannered conversation, I know to be true, though it doesn't seem always to be measured to the tone of whatever post you're responding to. Again, could be a misinterpretation. Yes, I like you, and when you use humor to disarm a tense exchange, it is even charming, and I appreciate it. If your control of the board was overbearing, I would have left a long time ago. That doesn't mean that I don't disagree with some of your characterizations, nor that I expect you to agree with mine.
So, thanks for your serious reply. I prefer to be on good terms with you than bad.
Originally posted by Bry
So, thanks for your serious reply. I prefer to be on good terms with you than bad.
I'm not going to get into a pissing contest about the rest of your reply. I'll let this last sentence stand and say that the feeling is mutual.
J
janeeng
Guest
I prefer to be on good terms with you than bad.
Bry, are you getting all mooshy on us now!
ok ok, just kidding!!!!!!
lilcountriegal
Senior Member
Let me just start by saying I'm tired and going to bed.... I only "skimmed" the last few responses since my last post. However, I will take the time to comment on one thing
I will agree that I misread the "cowboy" part of your post. Short of that being a mortal mistake, calm yourself.
When you re-read the posts, please also review the section on Hitler. I said "Had we chose you're "let them all just take care of themselves" attitude, then I believe Hitler would be ruling the world". No where in that statement do I make you out as an apologist for Hitler. I simply stated that if chose the 'let them take care of themselves' attitude, Hitler would still be in power.
My first post in this thread was meant to be an explanation of the deck of cards. There was nothing "flaming" or derogatory in that post. Before you start slinging mud, make sure you're ready to have some slung your way as well.
As for the rest of this thread, I may make another post after I read it better in the morning. Barring that, you know where I stand on the cards.
That she took a perfectly good opportunity to make a valid point and wasted it by flaming one of the most participative and serious posters in the political section, going so far as to make me out as an appologist for Hitler? yeah, I agree with that
I will agree that I misread the "cowboy" part of your post. Short of that being a mortal mistake, calm yourself.
When you re-read the posts, please also review the section on Hitler. I said "Had we chose you're "let them all just take care of themselves" attitude, then I believe Hitler would be ruling the world". No where in that statement do I make you out as an apologist for Hitler. I simply stated that if chose the 'let them take care of themselves' attitude, Hitler would still be in power.
My first post in this thread was meant to be an explanation of the deck of cards. There was nothing "flaming" or derogatory in that post. Before you start slinging mud, make sure you're ready to have some slung your way as well.
As for the rest of this thread, I may make another post after I read it better in the morning. Barring that, you know where I stand on the cards.
R
ranchu
Guest
lilcountriegal
Fine. Here is my first response to you. Where exactly do you see the fabled mudslinging, other than pointing out that you completely misread my post?
Perhaps it was the "give me a break" which made you feel entitled to call my post "meaningless" and attribute to my posts a "'let them take care of themselves' attitude"? Many of my posts are generally critical in nature, as in I tend to specifically target policies of the current administration rather than adding constructive alternatives, but I have in many posts talked about alternatives, and in any case, being against this war and this administration gererally is NOT reflective of a "let them take care of themselves attitude. There are other options, but you fail to recognize any of them: the typical "if you're not with us, you're against us".
I realize that there was no mudslinging in your original response, and I have never said otherwise. I only took issue with jim's post referring to your post as "fabulous", when it included a fundamental misreading of my post. Maybe you felt your post really was fantastic, and anyone contradicting that evaluation must be "slinging mud"? Yes, apart from that point, your post was substantive. Your second reply was not.
With regard to that deck of cards, as I said before, I find it representative of a very distasteful attitude on the part of this administration with regard to international relations. You raised some good points about the potential effectiveness of that deck of cards, but I still find it tasteless and insulting and think that there may be other ways to go about things. The FBI, for example, does not issue each year a deck of cards with pictures of the 52 most wanted criminals in the US. They seem to approach their task with a little more dignity. Sometimes. Of course, there are other examples like their handling of the crisis in Waco Texas years ago, but in that case, the seriousness with which they and Tobacco and Firearms handled that situation has been called into question, and there have been investigations.
Agree or disagree, it's all the same to me. But if you want responses, you'll have to work harder than your flaming and unsubstantive second response on this thread.
And thank you too for approaching all this a little more seriously.
Fine. Here is my first response to you. Where exactly do you see the fabled mudslinging, other than pointing out that you completely misread my post?
mmm, yes, fantastic post. Didn't even catch that i was referring to the jackasses that are currently running the country as cowboys, not the pictures on the cards.
You forgot to add the added benefit of the deck of cards: that semi-literate Americans who have trouble with pronouncing Iraqi names now have only to say "three of hearts" and everyone will know who is being referred to. Give me a break. There are more serious ways of hunting criminals than to stick their pictures on cards like some cheap pornographic gimic. (By the way, that's not a reference, again, to the famous cards produced, but rather a reference to the time- honoured tradition of putting pictures of naked ladies on playing cards.)
Perhaps it was the "give me a break" which made you feel entitled to call my post "meaningless" and attribute to my posts a "'let them take care of themselves' attitude"? Many of my posts are generally critical in nature, as in I tend to specifically target policies of the current administration rather than adding constructive alternatives, but I have in many posts talked about alternatives, and in any case, being against this war and this administration gererally is NOT reflective of a "let them take care of themselves attitude. There are other options, but you fail to recognize any of them: the typical "if you're not with us, you're against us".
I realize that there was no mudslinging in your original response, and I have never said otherwise. I only took issue with jim's post referring to your post as "fabulous", when it included a fundamental misreading of my post. Maybe you felt your post really was fantastic, and anyone contradicting that evaluation must be "slinging mud"? Yes, apart from that point, your post was substantive. Your second reply was not.
With regard to that deck of cards, as I said before, I find it representative of a very distasteful attitude on the part of this administration with regard to international relations. You raised some good points about the potential effectiveness of that deck of cards, but I still find it tasteless and insulting and think that there may be other ways to go about things. The FBI, for example, does not issue each year a deck of cards with pictures of the 52 most wanted criminals in the US. They seem to approach their task with a little more dignity. Sometimes. Of course, there are other examples like their handling of the crisis in Waco Texas years ago, but in that case, the seriousness with which they and Tobacco and Firearms handled that situation has been called into question, and there have been investigations.
Agree or disagree, it's all the same to me. But if you want responses, you'll have to work harder than your flaming and unsubstantive second response on this thread.
And thank you too for approaching all this a little more seriously.
lilcountriegal
Senior Member
Where exactly do you see the fabled mudslinging,
Here's just one example...
Now, run along liltrolliegirl. I won't respond to you again until you actually
The flaming and mudslinging began when I stated that I believed your post to be meaningless. I do stand behind that opinion, even though it was meant in no way to be offensive to you. I did not say that I believe you ramble on in meaningless posts throughout the message board... (and before you spout off at the mouth, I do not feel that way either... I think you make an excellent point in some topics and you give an A+ debate. I disagree with most of your views, but that doesnt mean I think you are a less intelligent individual, nor am I for diagreeing with your views).
I believe(d) the cards were being misunderstood for having been produced as a game. I simply stated the reasons it is not a game. Whether they are distasteful or not depends on which side of the table you are sitting on. (whether you look at the idea of the cards as a game versus my first post). This will have to be one of those "we agree to disagree" things.
Maybe you felt your post really was fantastic, and anyone contradicting that evaluation must be "slinging mud"? Yes, apart from that point, your post was substantive. Your second reply was not.
No disrespect intended... I make no posts and sit back wondering what other people think of them; whether they believe them to "suck" or to be "fantastic". When I read a topic that I am passionate about and I have a comment/suggestion/question/reply, I post. I dont "spell check" or "grammar check", I hit reply and type what I feel without worrying about what others think of me. If you agree, you agree. If you do not, you don't. That's what makes this country so awesome... having that right to decide for yourself.
But if you want responses, you'll have to work harder than your flaming and unsubstantive second response on this thread.
Again, no disrespect intended... it makes no difference to me if I receive responses or not. Its a discussion... I add my two cents... period.
I will admit some fault on the flaming and such in later posts... however, you yourself are guilty of the same. You cant cry foul because someone is doing an action that you, yourself, are performing.... life doesn't work that way.
Again, this will just have to be something that we agree to disagree on. Like Jim, I'm not getting into a pissing contest over it. I had an opinon regarding the cards and wanted to state that opinion.
P.S.
Yes, apart from that point, your post was substantive. Your second reply was not.
Let me just say... "thanks". I think this is about as close to a compliment that I'll get from you.
Funny. You think the actual chronological sequence of this exchange is going to just disappear with a few backhanded compliments?
That's true enough, and it continued when you compared me to an ostrich and was capped off when you implied that if my "attitude" had prevailed, Hitler would still be in power. You can say you stand by whatever unsubstantiated insults you want, but in so doing, you can expect to get identified as the troll that you are and ignored, which is exactly what happened. Maybe you really don't care if people reply to your posts, in which case this half-assed defense of your posts and attempt to implicate me in what you did are really superfluous.
Maybe you would be so kind as to indicate how I might be implicated in a share of "guilt" when you flamed me and I replied in kind?
Maybe you could explain this view that we were somehow flaming simultaneously, in light of having acknowledged that the mudslinging began with your second post to this thread?
What you had was an opinion about me personally, and you expressed it in the form of insults. And while you're at it, maybe you could explain this:
You called my post meaningless, figuring I'd take it as less than a personal attack? I suppose you feel the same about the ostrich and hitler references? Could you possibly be more disingenuous?
Scrap it all, lil. The stupid cards aren't really that important.
The flaming and mudslinging began when I stated that I believed your post to be meaningless.
That's true enough, and it continued when you compared me to an ostrich and was capped off when you implied that if my "attitude" had prevailed, Hitler would still be in power. You can say you stand by whatever unsubstantiated insults you want, but in so doing, you can expect to get identified as the troll that you are and ignored, which is exactly what happened. Maybe you really don't care if people reply to your posts, in which case this half-assed defense of your posts and attempt to implicate me in what you did are really superfluous.
however, you yourself are guilty of the same.
Maybe you would be so kind as to indicate how I might be implicated in a share of "guilt" when you flamed me and I replied in kind?
You cant cry foul because someone is doing an action that you, yourself, are performing
Maybe you could explain this view that we were somehow flaming simultaneously, in light of having acknowledged that the mudslinging began with your second post to this thread?
I had an opinon regarding the cards and wanted to state that opinion.
What you had was an opinion about me personally, and you expressed it in the form of insults. And while you're at it, maybe you could explain this:
I do stand behind that opinion, even though it was meant in no way to be offensive to you.
You called my post meaningless, figuring I'd take it as less than a personal attack? I suppose you feel the same about the ostrich and hitler references? Could you possibly be more disingenuous?
Scrap it all, lil. The stupid cards aren't really that important.
lilcountriegal
Senior Member
This is my last post to you in this regard.
To compare the Iraqi most wanted cards to pornographic cards is meaningless in my opinion. Borderline ridiculous. If you dont agree, then so be it. Other than to compare the Iraqi most wanted cards to naked women playing cards, the only other purpose of your post was to point out my misinterpretation of your statements. God forbid.
The mudslinging and name calling was initiated by you, not me. You took offense to my calling the post meaningless and with that toddler mentality, threw a tantrum. I dont believe we flamed simultaneously... you lit that torch, I just tossed it back your way.
That is about the only thing you and I agree on. I'm through arguing over "who started what". You can take your frustrations out on someone at the playground during recess. I'm through catering to your childish attention seeking.
My views on this topic are known. Whether people like yourself agree or disagree with me are irrelevant.
To compare the Iraqi most wanted cards to pornographic cards is meaningless in my opinion. Borderline ridiculous. If you dont agree, then so be it. Other than to compare the Iraqi most wanted cards to naked women playing cards, the only other purpose of your post was to point out my misinterpretation of your statements. God forbid.
The mudslinging and name calling was initiated by you, not me. You took offense to my calling the post meaningless and with that toddler mentality, threw a tantrum. I dont believe we flamed simultaneously... you lit that torch, I just tossed it back your way.
Scrap it all, lil. The stupid cards aren't really that important.
That is about the only thing you and I agree on. I'm through arguing over "who started what". You can take your frustrations out on someone at the playground during recess. I'm through catering to your childish attention seeking.
My views on this topic are known. Whether people like yourself agree or disagree with me are irrelevant.
The mudslinging and name calling was initiated by you, not me. You took offense to my calling the post meaningless and with that toddler mentality, threw a tantrum.
Hehehe. if you're going to revise history, be a little more subtle. here's the post where you called my post meaningless, and added a few more things to boot.
Ahhh Bry... such a refreshing reply. Pretty much meaningless, but refreshing nonetheless.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are more serious ways of hunting criminals than to stick their pictures on cards like some cheap pornographic gimic.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And what do you suppose those more serious ways of hunting criminals to be? From reading some of your posts, I picture you like an ostrich hiding its head in the sand.
Had we chose you're "let them all just take care of themselves" attitude, then I believe Hitler would be ruling the world. Ahh, we'd all be better off that way, eh?
Heil!
I really shouldn't have to reprint what is right there for anyone to look at. Talk about a toddler mentality. Get your damn hand out of the cookie jar and go to your room.
lilcountriegal
Senior Member
Impressive. I'll sleep much better tonight knowing that you have mastered the quote feature. 
As I've said... I'm through wasting my time on you. Anyone reading the thread can decide for themselves. Your posts are beginning to bore me more and more every time I see your name.
Oh... and P.S... next time you decide to rifle through posts and pull different things out of the threads, make sure you pull some of offensive shit flowing out of your mouth. By purposefully skipping over your rude, assinine comments, you make it blatantly obvious that you're hiding guilt.
Seriously.. move along Bry. The only thing you are doing is burying yourself deeper and deeper in that hole and making yourself look more stupid (if thats possible) with each post.
You have a lovely evening.
As I've said... I'm through wasting my time on you. Anyone reading the thread can decide for themselves. Your posts are beginning to bore me more and more every time I see your name.
Oh... and P.S... next time you decide to rifle through posts and pull different things out of the threads, make sure you pull some of offensive shit flowing out of your mouth. By purposefully skipping over your rude, assinine comments, you make it blatantly obvious that you're hiding guilt.
Seriously.. move along Bry. The only thing you are doing is burying yourself deeper and deeper in that hole and making yourself look more stupid (if thats possible) with each post.
You have a lovely evening.
R
rtm
Guest
hahahaha
Who's the joker incase I want to play wizard?
Who's the joker incase I want to play wizard?
Originally posted by rtm
hahahaha
Who's the joker incase I want to play wizard?
From the intellect you've shown so far, you will only qualify for court jester. Sorry!
J
janeeng
Guest
I think your better off with old maid myself!
Similar threads
- Replies
- 3
- Views
- 293
- Replies
- 14
- Views
- 1K
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 158
- Views
- 2K
- Replies
- 5
- Views
- 15
- Replies
- 107
- Views
- 329
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8037
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 468
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-