Apparently, 9 out of 10 Backroomians agree
-
Nothing retarded about it. It represents a world view held by people who are largely more tolerant, more open minded, more intelligent than many of those who hold the opposite world view.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
more tolerant, more open minded, more intelligent
Yep. That describes Troy to a "T." :laugh: Face it, Stan, Ilion is the Nancy Pelosi of the Back Room - only without the strength of character.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Of all the things I've seen in this forum by far the most pathetic are topics started for no purpose other than insulting another member. Say hi to your mum for me ;)
-
Josh Gray wrote:
Say hi to your mum for me
chortle
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
more tolerant, more open minded, more intelligent
Yep. That describes Troy to a "T." :laugh: Face it, Stan, Ilion is the Nancy Pelosi of the Back Room - only without the strength of character.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
Face it, Stan, Ilion is the Nancy Pelosi of the Back Room - only without the strength of character
I understand perfectly how people who hold these views feel threatend by the social, cultural and political forces arrayed against them. These were solidly mainstream views not so very long ago and now they are advanced as evidence of some form of right wing extremism akin in some abstract way to Nazi death camps. I think a degree of hostility in response is to be expected and not at all out of line.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Oakman wrote:
Face it, Stan, Ilion is the Nancy Pelosi of the Back Room - only without the strength of character
I understand perfectly how people who hold these views feel threatend by the social, cultural and political forces arrayed against them. These were solidly mainstream views not so very long ago and now they are advanced as evidence of some form of right wing extremism akin in some abstract way to Nazi death camps. I think a degree of hostility in response is to be expected and not at all out of line.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
These were solidly mainstream views
Troy doesn't have views, he has neuroses. They would have made his disliked in my grandfather's day as much as in ours.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I think a degree of hostility in response is to be expected and not at all out of line.
A little hostility spices the message board; deliberate trolling does not - whether it comes from Gadzemski or Hailey.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Tim Craig wrote:
I'll bet my made up statistics are closer than his made up statistics
That's true 81% of the time.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Ilíon wrote:
to claim that Christian Graus is a willfully and deliberately ignorant fool is to make a statement which cannot be false.
:jig::jig::jig::jig::jig::jig::jig::jig::jig:
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "I am new to programming world. I have been learning c# for about past four weeks. I am quite acquainted with the fundamentals of c#. Now I have to work on a project which converts given flat files to XML using the XML serialization method" - SK64 ( but the forums have stuff like this posted every day )
-
Of all the things I've seen in this forum by far the most pathetic are topics started for no purpose other than insulting another member. Say hi to your mum for me ;)
-
Josh Gray wrote:
Of all the things I've seen in this forum by far the most pathetic are topics started for no purpose other than insulting another member.
You're so incredibly ignorant ... or dishonest.
-
I get the point. Let's recap 1 - you're trying to rile me up 2 - it's failing 3 - that's hurting you so bad, that you simply HAVE to respond 4 - and it's still not working and, PS, you're a sad, pathetic creature, is it any wonder that I don't give a damn what you have to say ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "I am new to programming world. I have been learning c# for about past four weeks. I am quite acquainted with the fundamentals of c#. Now I have to work on a project which converts given flat files to XML using the XML serialization method" - SK64 ( but the forums have stuff like this posted every day )
-
I get the point. Let's recap 1 - you're trying to rile me up 2 - it's failing 3 - that's hurting you so bad, that you simply HAVE to respond 4 - and it's still not working and, PS, you're a sad, pathetic creature, is it any wonder that I don't give a damn what you have to say ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "I am new to programming world. I have been learning c# for about past four weeks. I am quite acquainted with the fundamentals of c#. Now I have to work on a project which converts given flat files to XML using the XML serialization method" - SK64 ( but the forums have stuff like this posted every day )
Christian Graus wrote:
1 - you're trying to rile me up
Not at all.
Christian Graus wrote:
2 - it's failing
Too funny
Christian Graus wrote:
3 - that's hurting you so bad, that you simply HAVE to respond
Far too funny.
Christian Graus wrote:
4 - and it's still not working
Riiiight. You're *all* riled up, and you still *refuse* to see the clearly stated point, which was stated multiple times.
Christian Graus wrote:
and, PS, you're a sad, pathetic creature, is it any wonder that I don't give a damn what you have to say ?
And you're intellectually dishonest; you're a hypocrite.
-
Ilíon wrote:
You're so incredibly ignorant ... or dishonest.
I'd rather talk about your mum to be honest
Josh Gray wrote:
I'd rather talk about your mum to be honest
She's dead. She was a cripple ... and odds are that (until her old age) she could have whopped your ass. When she was still on crutches, as opposed to being wheelchair-bound, she might even have been able to run your ass down to give it that whopping.
-
Josh Gray wrote:
I'd rather talk about your mum to be honest
She's dead. She was a cripple ... and odds are that (until her old age) she could have whopped your ass. When she was still on crutches, as opposed to being wheelchair-bound, she might even have been able to run your ass down to give it that whopping.
-
Just because most men are stronger than most women doesn't mean that there are not some women stronger than most men.
-
Ilíon wrote:
Just because most men are stronger than most women doesn't mean that there are not some women stronger than most men.
Nor does it guarantee that your mum wasn't in fact your dad, but hey, I'm just speculating
-
Josh Gray wrote:
Nor does it guarantee that your mum wasn't in fact your dad, but hey, I'm just speculating
Unlike some, I at least had a dad; but hey, I'm just speculating.
-
Apparently, 9 out of 10 Backroomians agree that[^] Christian Graus is a willfully and deliberately ignorant fool[^] -- including, it seems, Mr Graus himself[^]. Now, as you all surely ought to know, I don't at all object to you agreeing with me in my assessment of Mr Graus. What I *do* object to is the risibly false assertion[^] that stating this fact about his character is a tautology. But, have it your way, you incredibly foolish children: to state that Christian Graus is a willfully and deliberately ignorant fool is to state a tautology. A tautology is, of course, a statement which, by its very nature, cannot be false. :laugh: :cool: :thumbsup: You children can be so very mildly amusing, at times. :rolleyes: :laugh:
Ilíon wrote:
But, have it your way, you incredibly foolish children: to state that Christian Graus is a willfully and deliberately ignorant fool is to state a tautology. A tautology is, of course, a statement which, by its very nature, cannot be false.
Redundancy: the fitting of duplicate electronic or mechanical components or backup systems that are designed to come into use to keep equipment working if their counterparts fail. Or is that not the definition you had in mind?
Ilíon wrote:
What I *do* object to is the risibly false assertion[^] that stating this fact about his character is a tautology.
It IS a tautology. Fatass.
-
I notice that none of you kiddies can actually bring yourselves to align yourselves with the truth when that means aligning with me. Have it your way: :rolleyes: to claim that Christian Graus is a willfully and deliberately ignorant fool is to make a statement which cannot be false.
You know that in the Bible there are two entirely different genealogies of Jesus? They are Matthew 1:6-16 and Luke 3:21-31. The most peculiar part of this is that the Bible specifically instructs you to avoid genealogies - Titus 3:9 and Timothy 1:4. Notable also is that the Bible is absolutely chockers with genealogies - Genesis 10:1-32, Luke 3:23, and the absolutely horrific first nine chapters of 1 Chronicles. :wtf: Tell me that's not the most boring thing you've ever read.
-
Ilíon wrote:
But, have it your way, you incredibly foolish children: to state that Christian Graus is a willfully and deliberately ignorant fool is to state a tautology. A tautology is, of course, a statement which, by its very nature, cannot be false.
Redundancy: the fitting of duplicate electronic or mechanical components or backup systems that are designed to come into use to keep equipment working if their counterparts fail. Or is that not the definition you had in mind?
Ilíon wrote:
What I *do* object to is the risibly false assertion[^] that stating this fact about his character is a tautology.
It IS a tautology. Fatass.