Don't we just love em!!!!
NOT!
Don't we just love em!!!!
NOT!
Lagomorph
Wow, you stereotyped a nation by the posting of a 16 year old child. I am getting sick of this Anti-American bullshit.Originally posted by peerzyboy@11 April 2004 - 22:37
that so amercain, I can bench press aload of shit so im much stronger and bigger than everyone else in the room, becuase i can lift up so much, im going to go walking around like im the rock out of wrestling. Maybe if i bench press about so much more im going to be the strongest man in the world, o well this guy looked at me wierd so im gonna go brag about how many little kids i beat the shit out of hen bench press his ass though a wall and call Bush to bomb his ass
Only in the USA
It is equivalent to racism and that is banned from the board. Why should anti-American people statements be allowed to stay, what is the difference?
Here, they are not only not banned, but usually applauded.
Thanks for your input, arsehole.
Aren't we in the trust tree, thingey?
Wow, you stereotyped a nation by the posting of a 16 year old child. I am getting sick of this Anti-American bullshit.Originally posted by hobbes+11 April 2004 - 22:06--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (hobbes @ 11 April 2004 - 22:06)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-peerzyboy@11 April 2004 - 22:37
that so amercain, I can bench press aload of shit so im much stronger and bigger than everyone else in the room, becuase i can lift up so much, im going to go walking around like im the rock out of wrestling. Maybe if i bench press about so much more im going to be the strongest man in the world, o well this guy looked at me wierd so im gonna go brag about how many little kids i beat the shit out of hen bench press his ass though a wall and call Bush to bomb his ass
Only in the USA
It is equivalent to racism and that is banned from the board. Why should anti-American people statements be allowed to stay, what is the difference?
Here, they are not only not banned, but usually applauded.
Thanks for your input, asshole. [/b][/quote]
You got me all wrong....
I don't sterotype people from hte USA into people like this guy, its just in the back of our minds we all have a thought about everyone. People proberly think becuase im from england im a stuck up posh twat, far fromit, i aint posh and i aint stuck up. Im just saying this guy is trying to act really hard and really powerfull, and all he is coming off as is a sterotypical usa twat, and its people like him making bullshit like this that gives you people a bad image in the back of my mind.
So I commend you for not understanding that his rant was a form of catharsis for an "event" which recently occurred, whatever the details may be. Rather than let him dissipate his anger you decided to call him a dickhead to restoke his fire. You then preceded on some ridiculous dissection of the events, to find that they did not unfold as originally detailed. Well, no shit sherlock.Originally posted by hobbes+11 April 2004 - 17:32--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (hobbes @ 11 April 2004 - 17:32)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> I fail to see where I stated that I believed his story. My first post addressed his emotional rant and I chose not to quibble the details as "something" did occur, of that I am certain.
To repeat:
<!--QuoteBegin-J'Pol@11 April 2004 - 10:34
Of course, as I said, the veracity of the claims are irrelvant to the emotion expressed. The thread was started because a young man became extremely upset.
It was not the purpose of the poster to be a "dickhead", but to release his anger/anxiety.
You can defend your concrete interpretaion ad infinitum, but you have missed the boat entirely. Congratulations on that.
BTW, I have read every single thread, every one. What sort of arrogance is that?
Naive? I understood a situation had occured which had prompted an emotional response. I could care less about the details, they are for the mindlessly concrete. I understood the words between the lines.
So rather than address the actual claims, I addressed his emotional state. That rant did not come from a vacuum.
And as far as supporting mindless violence, was this line too confusing?
By "going with the kid" I am saying that I understand his emotional response and I don't think he came in here from a vacuum to post that initial froth, simply to be a "dickhead". If I could change one word, it would be "would" to "might", because I am not 16. But sometimes, even us old gits lose control of our tempers.I'm going to have have to go with the kid on this one. Not because what he did was right, but I would have done the same thing.
As for being disappointed in me, blah, blah, I already heard that from Lefty. Some people need to use that trite old barb, it does you no credit. [/b][/quote]
Given that the events did not take place that entire post is nonsense.
It was an emotional response to nothing, it was a rant about nothing.
It was a lie to try to illicit some form of hero worship.
The reason I seek to find if the story is true or not, is that without it being true the reaction is not true.
Like I said you may inhabit a world of academic exercise. I inhabit one where the truth behind a situation must be decided, before we can even begin to contemplate the reaction to it and whether it was appropriate.
I repeat I am surprised at you, it is no form of tactic. The one thing we do know is that you would have reacted in the way described. You would have attacked and violently beaten someone who, from what I can read was no immediate threat. Rather than getting the Police to deal with the situation. I really and truly am surprised at this. Not only that you would have done it, but that you would tell this to the young.
That is how you supported the violence, by saying that you would have done the same thing. You are telling someone that you believe to be a 16 year old, that what he did was wrong, but that you would act in the same way. That's support in my view.
Oh and I only called him a dickhead after it was apparent that the story was nonsense. I fail to see how that stoked anything.
Lagomorph
On to another topic then, as I think an impasse has been reached. I don't think the story was a complete fabrication, but probably heavily embellished.
Did he admit that everything was false, if so, then you are completely correct.
I reviewed some of his prior posts and he has been here for over a year and then out of nowhere this rant? It doesn't make sense to me that this would come from a vacuum.
I think the key is that we each approached the post from a different tack. You were offend by his superheroesque manner of righting wrongs and you chose to debunk this sensational story by causing him to trip over his embellishments and fabrications.
I took the approach of analyzing the reason why someone can get so infuriated over losing silly material objects. I wanted to explain how it is not the objects that generate the strong emotion, but the sense of violation and impotence that such an act can illicit.
In the course of the thread our light sabres crossed and thus here we are.
I'm done, and ready for something new.
Aren't we in the trust tree, thingey?
I agree.Originally posted by hobbes@11 April 2004 - 23:38
On to another topic then, as I think an impasse has been reached. I don't think the story was a complete fabrication, but probably heavily embellished.
Did he admit that everything was false, if so, then you are completely correct.
I reviewed some of his prior posts and he has been here for over a year and then out of nowhere this rant? It doesn't make sense to me that this would come from a vacuum.
I think the key is that we each approached the post from a different tack. You were offend by his superheroesque manner of righting wrongs and you chose to debunk this sensational story by causing him to trip over his embellishments and fabrications.
I took the approach of analyzing the reason why someone can get so infuriated over losing silly material objects. I wanted to explain how it is not the objects that generate the strong emotion, but the sense of violation and impotence that such an act can illicit.
In the course of the thread our light sabres crossed and thus here we are.
I'm done, and ready for something new.
I also think you are well aware of the reason we took the approaches we did.
As ever thanks for that.
Lagomorph
For Peerzboyz,
Are you aware that the poster lives in Canada, not the USA? Bush does not drop bombs for Canadians.
I guess you are right, those Canadians are a bunch of macho steroid freaks looking for a fight.
Aren't we in the trust tree, thingey?
Lagomorph
I agree.Originally posted by J'Pol+11 April 2004 - 23:42--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (J'Pol @ 11 April 2004 - 23:42)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-hobbes@11 April 2004 - 23:38
On to another topic then, as I think an impasse has been reached. I don't think the story was a complete fabrication, but probably heavily embellished.
Did he admit that everything was false, if so, then you are completely correct.
I reviewed some of his prior posts and he has been here for over a year and then out of nowhere this rant? It doesn't make sense to me that this would come from a vacuum.
I think the key is that we each approached the post from a different tack. You were offend by his superheroesque manner of righting wrongs and you chose to debunk this sensational story by causing him to trip over his embellishments and fabrications.
I took the approach of analyzing the reason why someone can get so infuriated over losing silly material objects. I wanted to explain how it is not the objects that generate the strong emotion, but the sense of violation and impotence that such an act can illicit.
In the course of the thread our light sabres crossed and thus here we are.
I'm done, and ready for something new.
I also think you are well aware of the reason we took the approaches we did.
As ever thanks for that. [/b][/quote]
You may be smarter then you look, Martha. Or is it Loretta?
Aren't we in the trust tree, thingey?
I really and truly hope I am smarter than I look. Now move along.
1)Peerzyboy NOT PeerzyboyzOriginally posted by hobbes@11 April 2004 - 22:42
For Peerzboyz,
Are you aware that the poster lives in Canada, not the USA? Bush does not drop bombs for Canadians.
I guess you are right, those Canadians are a bunch of macho steroid freaks looking for a fight.
2)Yeah maybe i did make a anti usa comment about a Canadians but even in your post you admit that USA people are alot like that:
i thought he was an amercain so you're impling thatI guess you are right, those Canadians are a bunch of macho steroid freaks looking for a fight.
Face it we all have a sterotipical image of everyone from everywhere, with every different thing its life.I guess you are right, those USA's are a bunch of macho steroid freaks looking for a fight.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks