BS: OCDTrolls...

Subject: RE: BS: OCDTrolls...
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 22 Jun 12 - 12:09 PM

I have an idea for the album art. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: OCDTrolls...
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 22 Jun 12 - 12:10 PM

Charles and Camilla lighting their farts.

Subject: RE: BS: OCDTrolls...
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 Jun 12 - 12:13 PM

And you're still carping about some argument from last year ...

And what's more SRS, I admitted my attribution error at the time and apoligized for my error- it can be easily looked up and verified - but that apparently makes no difference to Mr. Beard.

As far as his vituperative campaign against the "MudElves", beats me.

NB: vide the "Histrionic Personality Disorder" thread.

Subject: RE: BS: OCDTrolls...
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 Jun 12 - 12:25 PM

So Bobert, what sort of fun DO you have with chinchillas? Sounds vaguely pornographic to me...

Subject: RE: BS: OCDTrolls...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Jun 12 - 12:36 PM

Greg F apologized ( eventually) for attributing the comment to me, but has never apologized to Mudcat as a whole for his interpretations of the post. THAT was racially offensive. JUst my mentioning it is enough to kill a thread- but Greg F. takes joy in having said it.




"Subject: RE: BS: Wall Street Protesters...
From: Greg F. - PM
Date: 10 Nov 11 - 02:00 PM

...
Beardie is also the guy that, in the thread about cash only for second-hand goods, wanted us to know that the sponsor of the bill was a Dumb Ni--er.

Gimmie a break.

Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate
Subject: RE: BS: Wall Street Protesters...
From: Greg F. - PM
Date: 10 Nov 11 - 02:31 PM

For Max and Beardie's benefit, from the archives:

Subject: RE: BS: Louisiana Makes It Illegal To Use Cash
From: pdq - PM
Date: 23 Oct 11 - 07:37 PM

Just for the record, the idiot behind this bill is a member of the Louisiana House of Representitives.

He is Black and a Democrat."






It is not the conservative, BUT THE SO_CALLED LIBERAL who reads "Black and a Democrat" as "Stupid n***ger"

Subject: RE: BS: OCDTrolls...
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 22 Jun 12 - 01:03 PM

When you change YOUR mind, and are willing to look at facts presented by sources that do NOT a priori agree with the point you wish to believe, you might have some worthwhile perspective to offer on some subject.

BB, your form of "argument" lacks solid fact or reasonable sources - I don't just read what I agree with. You can't seem to get beyond yellow journalism. You won't change my mind about any substantial issues because you hammer away with nonsense and hope that shouting at people will either defeat or influence them. My remark characterizing your behavior in these political threads was a consensus obtained when I spoke to several people about you, but I am not naming names, though I concur. The point is, you puzzle people. You need to act like the members of these threads are a real people you'll meet someday. You don't earn any respect because of the way you behave.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: OCDTrolls...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Jun 12 - 04:21 PM

SRS,

" I don't just read what I agree with."

This is NOT in accord with your claim of a number of years ago, when you refused to consider ANY information that came from ANY source that "did not a priori agree" with your viewpoint.

I hope you have changed.

Subject: RE: BS: OCDTrolls...
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 Jun 12 - 05:13 PM

The point is, you puzzle people.

He's never puzzled me, SRS - his behavioir and the forum consensus you cite have seemed patently obvious from the first.

In addition, he believes that he can tell what people are thinking, what they take joy in & what they don't and the like, and discern their hidden & ulterior motives for a whole host of things.

Royal Flaming Asshole sums things up quite succinctly.

Subject: RE: BS: OCDTrolls...
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 22 Jun 12 - 07:20 PM

You read my posts that closely that something I wrote years ago you remember? Not likely, but in any case, you remember wrong. I have never said that I refused to read things that didn't "a priori" agree with me. I have said that I don't bother reading spurious unsupported materials - i.e., I stick with good journalism and well-stated arguments. There is a difference.

So why the Jekyll and Hyde behavior? Why is "nasty as you want to be" your method online?

SRS