Hawkflyer
Founder's Club Member
imported post
AWDstylez wrote:
AWDStylezHead
AWDstylez wrote:
Swoosh!------>
AWDStylezHead
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Crime free society
- Thread starter AWDstylez
- Start date
AWDstylez
Banned
imported post
Hawkflyer wrote:
Oh, you were refering to yourself in this thread. Gotcha.
:quirky
Hawkflyer wrote:
Oh, you were refering to yourself in this thread. Gotcha.
:quirky
Alexcabbie
Regular Member
imported post
Well Styles I seem to remember caatching you red-handed jumping on one part of one of my posts without reading the rest and making a horses patoot outta yerself. In fact most of us here think you atr the resident expert on that. If anyone here does NOT think Styles is full of horse crap, post below
(CRICKETS)
Well Styles I seem to remember caatching you red-handed jumping on one part of one of my posts without reading the rest and making a horses patoot outta yerself. In fact most of us here think you atr the resident expert on that. If anyone here does NOT think Styles is full of horse crap, post below
(CRICKETS)
JT
Regular Member
imported post
AWDstylez wrote:
"After thinking about it for quite some time I'd challenge anyone that says no to thoroughly explain themselves and then take a careful look at their purpose for carrying a gun."
I still contend that, contrary to your assertion, one's answer to your hypothetical has nothing to dowith their purpose for carrying a gun in the real world. You challenged anyone who would answer no to such a question to "thoroughly explain themselves" and examine their motives. I answered your original question with a perspective you obviously don't like and asked you to explain your assertion in the statement above.Rather thananswer you pronounced me "wrong" and responded like someone had peed in yor wheaties.
I understand the agenda behind such a question, I also understand the propaganda value of the question.Youdemonstratedboth when youattributed to me varying degrees of "bias" and "fanaticism" when you didn't like my answer. I also believed that there were some differentpoints that could be made. It's a moot point now anyway. You have clearly shown that an honest discussion is the farthest thing from your mind.
AWDstylez wrote:
No, the problem is that you made this assumption and flamed away. I did read the entire thread. I simply disagree to some extentwith your premise about the original questionand I challenged you concerningthis statement you made in the original post.
"After thinking about it for quite some time I'd challenge anyone that says no to thoroughly explain themselves and then take a careful look at their purpose for carrying a gun."
I still contend that, contrary to your assertion, one's answer to your hypothetical has nothing to dowith their purpose for carrying a gun in the real world. You challenged anyone who would answer no to such a question to "thoroughly explain themselves" and examine their motives. I answered your original question with a perspective you obviously don't like and asked you to explain your assertion in the statement above.Rather thananswer you pronounced me "wrong" and responded like someone had peed in yor wheaties.
I understand the agenda behind such a question, I also understand the propaganda value of the question.Youdemonstratedboth when youattributed to me varying degrees of "bias" and "fanaticism" when you didn't like my answer. I also believed that there were some differentpoints that could be made. It's a moot point now anyway. You have clearly shown that an honest discussion is the farthest thing from your mind.
AWDstylez
Banned
imported post
JT wrote:
Here, I'll help you.
AWDstylez:
Everything you said has been covered already. Plain and simple. If you want me to repeat my responses to everyone else that said they exact same stuff as you, you're crazy. This thread is months old. While on the intranetz, always keep thread age in mind as well. When someone brings back and old thread from the dead, it doesn't mean the OP or anyone else automatically wants to keep the debate going. The thread died the first time around for a reason.
JT wrote:
Here, I'll help you.
AWDstylez:
Everything you said has been covered already. Plain and simple. If you want me to repeat my responses to everyone else that said they exact same stuff as you, you're crazy. This thread is months old. While on the intranetz, always keep thread age in mind as well. When someone brings back and old thread from the dead, it doesn't mean the OP or anyone else automatically wants to keep the debate going. The thread died the first time around for a reason.
AWDstylez
Banned
imported post
Alexcabbie wrote:
So about gay rights and you being flamed out of here...
Alexcabbie wrote:
So about gay rights and you being flamed out of here...
JT
Regular Member
imported post
AWDstylezWrote:
Everything you said has been covered already. Plain and simple. If you want me to repeat my responses to everyone else that said they exact same stuff as you, you're crazy. This thread is months old. While on the intranetz, always keep thread age in mind as well. When someone brings back and old thread from the dead, it doesn't mean the OP or anyone else automatically wants to keep the debate going. The thread died the first time around for a reason.
hellfogg wrote:
Sorry, ifyou can't stomach the fact that I found your "answers" lacking. I noted that you didn't treat hellfogg with the same scorn for reopening the thread because you liked his reply. I just tried to get into a conversation that you had already re-engaged youself inand was met by rudeness that apparently stems from your feeling threatened by an opposing view point. I'm done responding to you. You aren't capable of an actual exchange of ideas.
AWDstylezWrote:
Everything you said has been covered already. Plain and simple. If you want me to repeat my responses to everyone else that said they exact same stuff as you, you're crazy. This thread is months old. While on the intranetz, always keep thread age in mind as well. When someone brings back and old thread from the dead, it doesn't mean the OP or anyone else automatically wants to keep the debate going. The thread died the first time around for a reason.
hellfogg wrote:
Hellfogg reopened this thread back on January 30th andI didn't post until yesterday. There are almost2 pages of posts between his and my original post and you accuse me of reopening a thread that has been dead for months? You have 6 posts between hellfogg's and my initial post. Who reopened a thread that was dead for months?Who exactly didn't read the thread? You are embarrassing yourself.
Sorry, ifyou can't stomach the fact that I found your "answers" lacking. I noted that you didn't treat hellfogg with the same scorn for reopening the thread because you liked his reply. I just tried to get into a conversation that you had already re-engaged youself inand was met by rudeness that apparently stems from your feeling threatened by an opposing view point. I'm done responding to you. You aren't capable of an actual exchange of ideas.
AWDstylez
Banned
imported post
JT wrote:
Where did I say you reopened the thread? You're really a glutton for hard lessons in intranetz usage, aren't you?
I said you need to pay attention to the age of the thread. That's all.
hellfogg brought the thread back to throw in his opinion and add an interesting new twist. You posted in an old thread with comments that have been posted infinite times already and you expected to not be flamed why? There's a big difference. You're repeating the same crap that's been spewed since page onewhile adding nothing new. hellfogg DID add something new, it was discussed, and now it's over. You missed the boat on the original discussion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9q2jNjOPdk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2XpnNcjpso&feature=related
JT wrote:
Where did I say you reopened the thread? You're really a glutton for hard lessons in intranetz usage, aren't you?
I said you need to pay attention to the age of the thread. That's all.
hellfogg brought the thread back to throw in his opinion and add an interesting new twist. You posted in an old thread with comments that have been posted infinite times already and you expected to not be flamed why? There's a big difference. You're repeating the same crap that's been spewed since page onewhile adding nothing new. hellfogg DID add something new, it was discussed, and now it's over. You missed the boat on the original discussion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9q2jNjOPdk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2XpnNcjpso&feature=related
Hawkflyer
Founder's Club Member
imported post
AWDstylez wrote:
Actually so are you. :lol:
For a guy who did not want an old thread reopened you sure are blabby.
You are just pissed because this JT fellow pegged you for the arrogant pile of alvine discharge you are in less than 3 posts. That may be a new record, but it shows that he actually DID read your childish temper tantrums. The fact that he disagrees with your point of view simply shows that he is also understood what you said clearly and that he was intelligent and thoughtful enough to dismiss you out of hand like many of the rest of the forum members have.
Now go away little boy, check with your professor so he can tell you what your response should be.
AWDstylez wrote:
Actually so are you. :lol:
For a guy who did not want an old thread reopened you sure are blabby.
You are just pissed because this JT fellow pegged you for the arrogant pile of alvine discharge you are in less than 3 posts. That may be a new record, but it shows that he actually DID read your childish temper tantrums. The fact that he disagrees with your point of view simply shows that he is also understood what you said clearly and that he was intelligent and thoughtful enough to dismiss you out of hand like many of the rest of the forum members have.
Now go away little boy, check with your professor so he can tell you what your response should be.
Alexcabbie
Regular Member
imported post
AWDstylez wrote:
So about calling people who disagree with you "homo" (in a sideways kinda way of course)........
Alot of people did not agree with my position on that particular issue. The diff between me and you is that I realized that MY arguments were, right or wrong, pissing people off, and people who I consider friends at that. So I just STFU and dropped it and let everyone simmer down. Now YOU bring it up again in an attempt to get aat least SOMEBODY to agree with you about SOMETHING and silence at least ONE critic in the process.
Since youre all fired up about gay rights today hows about you answer your own silly hypothesis re-worded a little:
IF AS A RESULT WORLD PEACE, FREEDOM AND PLENTY WOULD ENSUE AND CRIME FAMINE AND ALL THE ILLS OF THE WORLD WOULD BE REPLACED BY SWEETNESS AND LIGHT AS A RESULT; WOULD YOU GIVE DONALD RUMSFELD, DICK CHENEY, AND GEORGE W BUSH B.J.S?? AND IF NOT WHY??
As R.Lee Earmy said to Pvt Pyle: DON'T F%&$ WITH ME AGAIN BOY. :cuss:
AWDstylez wrote:
So about calling people who disagree with you "homo" (in a sideways kinda way of course)........
Alot of people did not agree with my position on that particular issue. The diff between me and you is that I realized that MY arguments were, right or wrong, pissing people off, and people who I consider friends at that. So I just STFU and dropped it and let everyone simmer down. Now YOU bring it up again in an attempt to get aat least SOMEBODY to agree with you about SOMETHING and silence at least ONE critic in the process.
Since youre all fired up about gay rights today hows about you answer your own silly hypothesis re-worded a little:
IF AS A RESULT WORLD PEACE, FREEDOM AND PLENTY WOULD ENSUE AND CRIME FAMINE AND ALL THE ILLS OF THE WORLD WOULD BE REPLACED BY SWEETNESS AND LIGHT AS A RESULT; WOULD YOU GIVE DONALD RUMSFELD, DICK CHENEY, AND GEORGE W BUSH B.J.S?? AND IF NOT WHY??
As R.Lee Earmy said to Pvt Pyle: DON'T F%&$ WITH ME AGAIN BOY. :cuss:
hellfogg
Regular Member
imported post
Damn, I didn't mean to start such a heated debate. Sorry guys and gals.
Can't we all just get along?
Damn, I didn't mean to start such a heated debate. Sorry guys and gals.
Can't we all just get along?
JT
Regular Member
imported post
hellfogg wrote:
hellfogg wrote:
No apology necessary. You didn't start anything.I just referenced you as the one who reopened the thread when it was stated that I earned the original poster's scorn whenI posted on the thread an opinion he didn'tlike.He referred to me assomeonewho "brings back and old thread from the dead"so I called him on it and pointed out that the thread had been reopened long beforeI posted and that he had been an active participant since you reopened it. My apologies if you thought I was inferring that you were somehow responsible for the currentdebate.
AWDstylez
Banned
imported post
Alexcabbie wrote:
What does a straight person performing a homosexual act have to do with gay rights?
I'm going to do what everyone else should have done in the other thread you got flamed off the board in and call you out on pretending to be gay. You're the biggest homophobe I've ever E-met and yet you claim to be gay. In reality you're just claiming homosexuality for yourself so you can hide behind that claim every time you make a homophobic comment.
Alexcabbie wrote:
What does a straight person performing a homosexual act have to do with gay rights?
I'm going to do what everyone else should have done in the other thread you got flamed off the board in and call you out on pretending to be gay. You're the biggest homophobe I've ever E-met and yet you claim to be gay. In reality you're just claiming homosexuality for yourself so you can hide behind that claim every time you make a homophobic comment.
Alexcabbie
Regular Member
imported post
I did not get "flamed off". I decided for the sake of harmony to STFU. You ought to try it sometime.
I did not get "flamed off". I decided for the sake of harmony to STFU. You ought to try it sometime.
BobCav
Founder's Club Member
imported post
This thread is the perfect example of why hypothetical questions should never be answered, or asked for that matter.
If I could close this thread, I would. How about everyone just let it die.
This thread is the perfect example of why hypothetical questions should never be answered, or asked for that matter.
If I could close this thread, I would. How about everyone just let it die.
Hawkflyer
Founder's Club Member
imported post
BobCav wrote:
BobCav wrote:
We had for over four days. Someone kept it from sinking out of sight.:banghead:
AWDstylez
Banned
imported post
BobCav wrote:
BobCav wrote:
You don't see the irony in you bringing it back from the dead to say let it die? :lol:
Hawkflyer
Founder's Club Member
imported post
AWDstylez wrote:
AWDstylez wrote:
I knew if we argued long enough we would agree on something.:lol:
AWDstylez
Banned
imported post
Hawkflyer wrote:
Well it isback, so if you want we can keep going.
Hawkflyer wrote:
Well it isback, so if you want we can keep going.
Alexcabbie
Regular Member
imported post
And yet another thread descends into Vaudeville....
And yet another thread descends into Vaudeville....