16 illegals sue Arizona rancher
-
Oh c'mon, don't be such a dick. You already know my stance. I don't agree agree with the way he's handling himself, but the soapbox isn't supposed to be held to the same high standards as the other forums, and should therefore be bereft of message purging (and your over-the-top handling of his messages just hurts the Soapbox). If his posts bother you so much, simply ignore them. It's easy. Really.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
Oh c'mon, don't be such a dick.
I'm not a dick, or a tom, or a harry. I was trying to be funny, though I suspect it wasn't one of my better efforts. :sigh:
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
You already know my stance
The problem is that you encourage him to post more of the same old crap, when many of us who prefer to hang out in the John Simmons Memorial Soapbox, have been eager to convince him to either change his ways or change his preferred place of posting. Just before he disappeared again, he was actually trying to play it straight, and maybe, if he continues in that vein, folks will change their minds about auto-reporting him. As I pointed out earlier, one of his messages has survived - the one where he actually admitted he didn't know anything about the subject under discussion. :-D As far as what the Soapbox should or shouldn't tolerate, I figger that's far more important to the folks who like to post here than the ones who come in occasionally and or the ones who stick to the lounge but make disparaging remarks about SB. And as far as your stance goes, I may not agree with it but I will fight to the death for your right to have it - unless I am in the next cubicle in the airport men's room. ;)
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
I stand with Jon on this one. People have specifically targeted Troy for posting a single link with no input. Its irrelevant if he discusses later. In fact, I once did the same, and later said I did it to inspire discussion that I wanted to contribute to and Oakman called me a troll. So, Jon is 100% correct. Its selective treatment for a single link posting style.
This statement is false
Synaptrik wrote:
Oakman called me a troll. So, Jon is 100% correct.
I'm glad you agree with me, rather than John.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
You're missing the point. Having provided a link, he will discuss it. He is not flooding us with links and then abusing us if we try to talk to him to work out the point he is trying to make.
I'm not missing anything. If he posts a link and doesn't want to engage afterwards, who really gives a flyin' fuck?
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
I'm not missing anything.
Yes, you are.
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
If he posts a link and doesn't want to engage afterwards, who really gives a flyin' fuck?
That's the point you are missing. Some of us do. I for one am sick and tired of him announcing that all true Christians hate all Muslims. Even though I'm not a true version of either, it pisses me off.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
I'm not missing anything.
Yes, you are.
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
If he posts a link and doesn't want to engage afterwards, who really gives a flyin' fuck?
That's the point you are missing. Some of us do. I for one am sick and tired of him announcing that all true Christians hate all Muslims. Even though I'm not a true version of either, it pisses me off.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
Oakman wrote:
I for one am sick and tired of him announcing
Oakman wrote:
, it pisses me off.
So ignore it, turn the other cheek, get on with your life and stop being so worked up about it. Chill.
___________________________________________ .\\axxx (That's an 'M')
-
-
Oakman wrote:
I for one am sick and tired of him announcing
Oakman wrote:
, it pisses me off.
So ignore it, turn the other cheek, get on with your life and stop being so worked up about it. Chill.
___________________________________________ .\\axxx (That's an 'M')
Maxxx_ wrote:
So ignore it, turn the other cheek, get on with your life and stop being so worked up about it. Chill.
I'm not real good at turning the other cheek. I leave that for the wussies.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
Maxxx_ wrote:
So ignore it, turn the other cheek, get on with your life and stop being so worked up about it. Chill.
I'm not real good at turning the other cheek. I leave that for the wussies.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
Oakman wrote:
I leave that for the wussies
Nothing wussy about it - you just need to be man enough to ignore it. If you're not man enough, then rattle your cage and vent your testosterone while you grow into maturity sufficiently to look back on your actions as the childish immaturities that they are.
___________________________________________ .\\axxx (That's an 'M')
-
"Mi perro tiene hambre y he' s hambriento para las nalgas." is now a phrase I will try to use daily!
___________________________________________ .\\axxx (That's an 'M')
My dog is hungry and he' hungry s for the rumps 5 for you sir!
MrPlankton
“If I had my choice I would kill every reporter in the world but I am sure we would be getting reports from hell before breakfast.” William Tecumseh Sherman -
My dog is hungry and he' hungry s for the rumps 5 for you sir!
MrPlankton
“If I had my choice I would kill every reporter in the world but I am sure we would be getting reports from hell before breakfast.” William Tecumseh Sherman -
I am honoured to receive your five, Sir, though beg that the true recipient should, perhaps, be babelfish.
___________________________________________ .\\axxx (That's an 'M')
True sir, but I thought your blog worthy of research!
MrPlankton
“If I had my choice I would kill every reporter in the world but I am sure we would be getting reports from hell before breakfast.” William Tecumseh Sherman -
But wouldn't what happened to Arizona rancher give you pause?
MrPlankton
“If I had my choice I would kill every reporter in the world but I am sure we would be getting reports from hell before breakfast.” William Tecumseh ShermanPause? Me?
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001 -
Maxxx_ wrote:
So ignore it, turn the other cheek, get on with your life and stop being so worked up about it. Chill.
I'm not real good at turning the other cheek. I leave that for the wussies.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
It's obvious that your current approach is having no effect. He continues to do shit that pisses you off (at least I assume he does - by the time I get back in here, his messages have been removed). There are much better discussions going on in here for you to worry about Ilion.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001 -
I don't know if Arizona has a similar law, but we have "the castle doctrine" here in Texas, and I'm tellin' you - there'd be some dead Mexicans on my lawn if they pulled that crap here.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
there'd be some dead Mexicans on my lawn if they pulled that crap here.
That's a rather interesting thing to claim....what "crap" that they've been accused of exactly would you say justified a death penalty? Vandalism? Trespass? Being "not from around these parts boy?"
C# has already designed away most of the tedium of C++.
-
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
there'd be some dead Mexicans on my lawn if they pulled that crap here.
That's a rather interesting thing to claim....what "crap" that they've been accused of exactly would you say justified a death penalty? Vandalism? Trespass? Being "not from around these parts boy?"
C# has already designed away most of the tedium of C++.
If I "fear for the safety or security of my family or property", they're legal "targets".
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001 -
It's obvious that your current approach is having no effect. He continues to do shit that pisses you off (at least I assume he does - by the time I get back in here, his messages have been removed). There are much better discussions going on in here for you to worry about Ilion.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
It's obvious that your current approach is having no effect. He continues to do shit that pisses you off (at least I assume he does - by the time I get back in here, his messages have been removed).
Not at all. Since Chris lowrered the threshhold for removing messages we have enjoyed two Ilion-free periods - the second of which seems to be continuing.
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
There are much better discussions going on in here for you to worry about Ilion.
I hadn't even thought about him in the last couple of days, until you decided to remind everyone of his existence.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
If I "fear for the safety or security of my family or property", they're legal "targets".
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
If I "fear for the safety or security of my family or property", they're legal "targets".
OK, that's a nice potted response, but what exactly does that mean to you personally? Would an act of vandalism really cause you to think that the only legitimate response would be to kill someone, which is implied by the "or property" bit above? Does the person doing the vandalism make any difference - I mean, would it be any different if rather than a Mexican, it were a Canadian, or perhaps a fellow American? I'm not looking here for the legal justification you'd potentially use after the fact, I'm curious as to what moral / ethical / behavioural threshold must be crossed for you to consider killing....it seems that you have the attitude that "if you're on my property without my permission, not only are you fair game, then you deserve to die for it because I'm scared you may do 'something'" (Not looking for an argument either - I'm genuinely interested in why you'd hold such an attitude)
C# has already designed away most of the tedium of C++.
-
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
If I "fear for the safety or security of my family or property", they're legal "targets".
OK, that's a nice potted response, but what exactly does that mean to you personally? Would an act of vandalism really cause you to think that the only legitimate response would be to kill someone, which is implied by the "or property" bit above? Does the person doing the vandalism make any difference - I mean, would it be any different if rather than a Mexican, it were a Canadian, or perhaps a fellow American? I'm not looking here for the legal justification you'd potentially use after the fact, I'm curious as to what moral / ethical / behavioural threshold must be crossed for you to consider killing....it seems that you have the attitude that "if you're on my property without my permission, not only are you fair game, then you deserve to die for it because I'm scared you may do 'something'" (Not looking for an argument either - I'm genuinely interested in why you'd hold such an attitude)
C# has already designed away most of the tedium of C++.
RichardGrimmer wrote:
Would an act of vandalism really cause you to think that the only legitimate response would be to kill someone
Yes. 0) The person who vandalized my property probably doesn't have the financial capability to repair the vandalism. That means an out-of-pocket expense for me. 1) Suing the person would the next best thing to pointless. He's an illegal immigrant, and therefore has no address at which he can be served (much less being found by anything resembling a government representative). Since he probably won't show up in court, I'll probably win the summary judgment, but that would be akin to a judge telling me that a turnip at the grocery story owes me a dollar. last I checked, there were millions of turnips at the grocery store, and I've never seen one that carried pocket change. In essence, I end up paying court costs (more out-of-pocket expense) and I still have to collect the award myself. No matter what happens, I end up paying money because some asshole from another country broke the law to get here, and then vandalized my property. With today's harsh financial climate, I'm not willing to spend any more money than it takes to buy a bullet (and I already have plenty of those). I have no sympathy at all for people that break the same laws that I'm expected to obey.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001 -
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
If I "fear for the safety or security of my family or property", they're legal "targets".
OK, that's a nice potted response, but what exactly does that mean to you personally? Would an act of vandalism really cause you to think that the only legitimate response would be to kill someone, which is implied by the "or property" bit above? Does the person doing the vandalism make any difference - I mean, would it be any different if rather than a Mexican, it were a Canadian, or perhaps a fellow American? I'm not looking here for the legal justification you'd potentially use after the fact, I'm curious as to what moral / ethical / behavioural threshold must be crossed for you to consider killing....it seems that you have the attitude that "if you're on my property without my permission, not only are you fair game, then you deserve to die for it because I'm scared you may do 'something'" (Not looking for an argument either - I'm genuinely interested in why you'd hold such an attitude)
C# has already designed away most of the tedium of C++.
RichardGrimmer wrote:
it seems that you have the attitude that "if you're on my property without my permission, not only are you fair game, then you deserve to die for it because I'm scared you may do 'something'"
I'd give a single warning to leave - in English. After a silent five count (and/or they move toward me), they took to long to interpret and take action, so I take action myself.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001 -
RichardGrimmer wrote:
Would an act of vandalism really cause you to think that the only legitimate response would be to kill someone
Yes. 0) The person who vandalized my property probably doesn't have the financial capability to repair the vandalism. That means an out-of-pocket expense for me. 1) Suing the person would the next best thing to pointless. He's an illegal immigrant, and therefore has no address at which he can be served (much less being found by anything resembling a government representative). Since he probably won't show up in court, I'll probably win the summary judgment, but that would be akin to a judge telling me that a turnip at the grocery story owes me a dollar. last I checked, there were millions of turnips at the grocery store, and I've never seen one that carried pocket change. In essence, I end up paying court costs (more out-of-pocket expense) and I still have to collect the award myself. No matter what happens, I end up paying money because some asshole from another country broke the law to get here, and then vandalized my property. With today's harsh financial climate, I'm not willing to spend any more money than it takes to buy a bullet (and I already have plenty of those). I have no sympathy at all for people that break the same laws that I'm expected to obey.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001You're not seriously judging the value of a person's life by the cost of the bullet you'd use to kill them are you? Giving you the benefit of the doubt on that one, and whilst I agree that there should be no sympathy for lawbreakers, would you agree that you have a fairly "extreme" view, or is it one that you belive many to hold? You didn't clarify on my other point - what if they were Americans?
C# has already designed away most of the tedium of C++.
