The New And Improved Fashion Board

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by dtb
Central Time?!? WTF?!?! What a FUCKING ASSHOLE!!!!

Yeah, I know I'm overreacting. Hence the sequestering.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I think what Ty meant was take your head out of your ass and then read it again.

Read the whole conversation again. How much of TMs post fits in the broader conversation? What he just responding to your one-liner? Was your one-liner even responsive to the broader discussion? Then read your subsequent attacks on TM. And about all the fronts you were attacking him on.

What broader conversation? That post I made was my first comment on the topic. That was the first thing I said on the subject, he quoted what I said directly and then critisized it. How can you think there is a broader topic.

And I attacked him? For the love of God, look at his post. He attacked me and accused me of saying all sorts of stuff I didn't say before I had ever even addressed a post to him:



"So don't give me that load of bullshit about slavery happening long ago and how you weren't personally involved. ... You can choose to walk around pretending that that time is long over, because the only negative impact you feel is when, as pony said, a black person can feel comfortable making a racial joke at your expense because of the truth of historical racism and who it affects. And look at the fit you throw when someone even mentions the prospect."

How was any of that justified from what I said? He started right off with a straw man attack. And you accuse me of attacking him?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Spanky
What broader conversation? That post I made was my first comment on the topic.

Hint: if you are going to read the broader conversation, you may want to start a page or two before your post, which was itself reacting to another post. You may want to look at what other people said. That's what "broader" means.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
TM posted at some length about a subject about which one could say a great many things. I'm not sure why you think the only issue he was addressing was the narrow question you are now focused on. You seem to think that he wrote at length to elliptically address the particular question that interests you rather than because he was trying to say directly a lot of other things. I tend to think it was the latter.

eta: Sorry about the split infinitive, but the alternatives seemed worse.

I only said one thing. His statement was clearly a criticism of me. What else could he have been critisizing? Had I said anything else on the subject.

I am not trying to narrow his comments down to stuff that interests me. That is ridiculous. I made a very specific statement and he attacked it and attacked me for making it.

Are you saying that his statement was not an attack on me and what I said. Does the tone of that statement sound like a general discussion to you. And if you agree it was an attack, what the hell else could he be attacking other than my statement?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Hint: if you are going to read the broader conversation, you may want to start a page or two before your post, which was itself reacting to another post. You may want to look at what other people said. That's what "broader" means.

He quoted my statement and then attacked what I said and attacked me. Do you deny that? Isn't this a lawyers board? Are we not supposed to understand that every discussion is broken down into issues and that we should focus on one issue at a time?

If a lawyer quotes a statement of mine, and then discusses that statement shouldn't I be able to assume that he or she is discussing the issue that is in the quote. If he is referring to another issue, would it be safe to assume that he or she would point out they were discussing other issues?

Why would he argue with me about a point I didn't make? If he had a disagreement with a point someone else made, shouldn't he have quoted their statement and then addressed that issue then?

Is it to much to expect people to be logical on a lawyers board?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Spanky
I only said one thing. His statement was clearly a criticism of me. What else could he have been critisizing? Had I said anything else on the subject.

I am not trying to narrow his comments down to stuff that interests me. That is ridiculous. I made a very specific statement and he attacked it and attacked me for making it.

I am glad that you are lightening this up with some humor.

Think hard about these statements juxtaposed against each other.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Spanky
Stuff about lawyers

Shall we commence jury selection on the issue?

Ever wonder why no one else seems to see it the same way as you?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
His statement was clearly a criticism of me. What else could he have been critisizing?

I think he said a bunch of stuff about race and America and the country's history and slavery and that sort of thing. It's pretty much there in his posts.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I am glad that you are lightening this up with some humor.

Think hard about these statements juxtaposed against each other.

Those sentences make perfect sense to me. Are you implying there is a flaw in my logic?

(and you accuse me of going off on tangets)

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I think he said a bunch of stuff about race and America and the country's history and slavery and that sort of thing. It's pretty much there in his posts.

Do you disagree that his post was a criticism of what I said and a direct criticism of me for making that particular statement?

And if it wasn't, why did he quote me and attack me? As I said the post he quoted, up till that time, was the only post I had made on that subject.

So if he wasn't attacking me for the only post I had made up till that time on the subject, why was he attacking me?

[Fugee]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
What kind of fucked up state is Minnesota where they don't know the difference b/w "stoner" and "casual pot smoker"?

Hey now. Don't judge us all by Flower.

[NotFromHere]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Yeah, I know I'm overreacting. Hence the sequestering.

How is Puerto Rico? It's cold here, but clear skies. At least it was until it got dark just now.

Very cold. Not as cold as Seattle, but coooollllllddddd. My water feature* was frozen this morning and the birds could not drink their morning water.

*this still cracks me up. In Washington, we call these fountains.

[SlaveNoMore]

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Ever wonder why no one else seems to see it the same way as you?

Dissent.

On the other Board, Spanky usually has my proxy.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Shall we commence jury selection on the issue?

Ever wonder why no one else seems to see it the same way as you?

There are many people on this board whose opinions I respect. None of them have weighed in on this conversation. So when you say "no one else sees the same way as you" it seems you are talkyou are simply telling me about a limited group of people whose opinions I don't respect.

Do you disagree with what I said:

"I believe in individual responsiblity, not familial or racial responisibilty. Am I responsible for my father's sins? - no. Am I responsible for the sins other people of my race have committed? - no.

Racism cannot be justified because you have been a victim of racism (or that other people of your race have been victims). Racism or racial slurs are either wrong or they are not."

If yes, what part do you disagree with, and if not why are you defending TM's criticism of what I said?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Dissent.

On the other Board, Spanky usually has my proxy.

on this, though?