Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
"If you're going to quote someone here it's very easy. The program does it for you. What you did in no way suggests you were quoting SECOND."


Do you not know what quotation marks mean??? I put them there to indicate I was *quoting* someone else, and that I wasn't the original author.

---

"If you're going to quote someone here it's very easy. The program does it for you. What you did in no way suggests you were quoting SECOND."

Oh look, I just quoted myself from another post. Get the point dummy.

Quote:

---

In his new book, The Great Leveler: Violence and the History of Inequality from the Stone Age to the Twenty-First Century, the Austrian historian Walter Scheidel puts forth a depressing and thought-provoking thesis: The only thing that can really dent rampant and long-lasting economic inequality is violence.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Jeez T.

Just because the website has a system for quoting people doesn't mean that supersedes the long established English language.

I'd think twice about calling somebody else a dummy when you are exhibiting dummy behavior yourself in the argument.

---

You think you are arguing against me. Instead you are arguing against the proper etiquette of quoting someone dummy. This is why people get an education. What kiki did is wrong. You don't quote someone and not inform the reader who it is you are quoting. Some here do it all the time.

I've seen SIG put things in quotes here and then argue against what she quoted. Funny thing is, she made up these quoted statements herself. She did this so she could pretend to make someone look stupid and herself superior.

People here do all kinds of things to confuse or make their point. They do it for many different reasons. They also intentionally misquote people here all the time. They argue points based on false and twisted concepts of anothers' post as well. Only your friends do that Jack. I'm talking about kiki, SIG and their sock puppets.

You'll argue anything without thinking it through won't you? It's what makes you someone to be ignored.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Jeez T.

Just because the website has a system for quoting people doesn't mean that supersedes the long established English language.

I'd think twice about calling somebody else a dummy when you are exhibiting dummy behavior yourself in the argument.

---

You think you are arguing against me. Instead you are arguing against the proper etiquette of quoting someone dummy. This is why people get an education. What kiki did is wrong. You don't quote someone and not inform the reader who it is you are quoting. Some here do it all the time.

I've seen SIG put things in quotes here and then argue against what she quoted. Funny thing is, she made up these quoted statements herself. She did this so she could pretend to make someone look stupid and herself superior.

People here do all kinds of things to confuse or make their point. They do it for many different reasons. They also intentionally misquote people here all the time. They argue points based on false and twisted concepts of anothers' post as well. Only your friends do that Jack. I'm talking about kiki, SIG and their sock puppets.

You'll argue anything without thinking it through won't you? It's what makes you someone to be ignored.

---

She DID put it in quotes. She just didn't put it in the FFF.NET system quotes.

Anybody with half a brain would have known that Kiki didn't write that.

I think we've cleared up the confusion about it.


And LOL that Kiki and I are friends. What, are you new here?

No offense, Kiki.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Jeez T.

Just because the website has a system for quoting people doesn't mean that supersedes the long established English language.

I'd think twice about calling somebody else a dummy when you are exhibiting dummy behavior yourself in the argument.

---

You think you are arguing against me. Instead you are arguing against the proper etiquette of quoting someone dummy. This is why people get an education. What kiki did is wrong. You don't quote someone and not inform the reader who it is you are quoting. Some here do it all the time.

I've seen SIG put things in quotes here and then argue against what she quoted. Funny thing is, she made up these quoted statements herself. She did this so she could pretend to make someone look stupid and herself superior.

People here do all kinds of things to confuse or make their point. They do it for many different reasons. They also intentionally misquote people here all the time. They argue points based on false and twisted concepts of anothers' post as well. Only your friends do that Jack. I'm talking about kiki, SIG and their sock puppets.

You'll argue anything without thinking it through won't you? It's what makes you someone to be ignored.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Jeez T.

Just because the website has a system for quoting people doesn't mean that supersedes the long established English language.

I'd think twice about calling somebody else a dummy when you are exhibiting dummy behavior yourself in the argument.

---

You think you are arguing against me. Instead you are arguing against the proper etiquette of quoting someone dummy. This is why people get an education. What kiki did is wrong. You don't quote someone and not inform the reader who it is you are quoting. Some here do it all the time.

I've seen SIG put things in quotes here and then argue against what she quoted. Funny thing is, she made up these quoted statements herself. She did this so she could pretend to make someone look stupid and herself superior.

People here do all kinds of things to confuse or make their point. They do it for many different reasons. They also intentionally misquote people here all the time. They argue points based on false and twisted concepts of anothers' post as well. Only your friends do that Jack. I'm talking about kiki, SIG and their sock puppets.

You'll argue anything without thinking it through won't you? It's what makes you someone to be ignored.

---

It is a bit chilly out, and we had snow on Saturday, but is Hell freezing over?
This is really hard to admit, but T has a point, several of them.
The rampant lack of attribution and unclear quotes gets quite confusing. Not to mention some posters replying BEFORE the quote they are REPLYING to. Like reversing chronological sequence.

---

At least you can separate out who said what when they reply above the quoted context, but I do get your point. I'm guilty of that myself at times. It's just that many times the quoted posts are just to long. If the response is at the top you can go to the quoted part being referred to instead of constantly having to read the entire post.

When you look at kiki's posts many many times they are a confusing mess. And much of the time SIGs' are made up or misquoted. If they won't clarify who they've quoted and quote them properly and accurately then the post should be dismissed as bogus.

Now, back to the countdown clock and news of the day shall we.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Jeez T.

Just because the website has a system for quoting people doesn't mean that supersedes the long established English language.

I'd think twice about calling somebody else a dummy when you are exhibiting dummy behavior yourself in the argument.

---

You think you are arguing against me. Instead you are arguing against the proper etiquette of quoting someone dummy. This is why people get an education. What kiki did is wrong. You don't quote someone and not inform the reader who it is you are quoting. Some here do it all the time.

I've seen SIG put things in quotes here and then argue against what she quoted. Funny thing is, she made up these quoted statements herself. She did this so she could pretend to make someone look stupid and herself superior.

People here do all kinds of things to confuse or make their point. They do it for many different reasons. They also intentionally misquote people here all the time. They argue points based on false and twisted concepts of anothers' post as well. Only your friends do that Jack. I'm talking about kiki, SIG and their sock puppets.

You'll argue anything without thinking it through won't you? It's what makes you someone to be ignored.

---

It is a bit chilly out, and we had snow on Saturday, but is Hell freezing over?
This is really hard to admit, but T has a point, several of them.
The rampant lack of attribution and unclear quotes gets quite confusing. Not to mention some posters replying BEFORE the quote they are REPLYING to. Like reversing chronological sequence.

---

At least you can separate out who said what when they reply above the quoted context, but I do get your point. I'm guilty of that myself at times. It's just that many times the quoted posts are just to long. If the response is at the top you can go to the quoted part being referred to instead of constantly having to read the entire post.

When you look at kiki's posts many many times they are a confusing mess. And much of the time SIGs' are made up or misquoted. If they won't clarify who they've quoted and quote them properly and accurately then the post should be dismissed as bogus.

Now, back to the countdown clock and news of the day shall we.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Jeez T.

Just because the website has a system for quoting people doesn't mean that supersedes the long established English language.

I'd think twice about calling somebody else a dummy when you are exhibiting dummy behavior yourself in the argument.

---

You think you are arguing against me. Instead you are arguing against the proper etiquette of quoting someone dummy. This is why people get an education. What kiki did is wrong. You don't quote someone and not inform the reader who it is you are quoting. Some here do it all the time.

I've seen SIG put things in quotes here and then argue against what she quoted. Funny thing is, she made up these quoted statements herself. She did this so she could pretend to make someone look stupid and herself superior.

People here do all kinds of things to confuse or make their point. They do it for many different reasons. They also intentionally misquote people here all the time. They argue points based on false and twisted concepts of anothers' post as well. Only your friends do that Jack. I'm talking about kiki, SIG and their sock puppets.

You'll argue anything without thinking it through won't you? It's what makes you someone to be ignored.

---

It is a bit chilly out, and we had snow on Saturday, but is Hell freezing over?
This is really hard to admit, but T has a point, several of them.
The rampant lack of attribution and unclear quotes gets quite confusing. Not to mention some posters replying BEFORE the quote they are REPLYING to. Like reversing chronological sequence.

---

At least you can separate out who said what when they reply above the quoted context, but I do get your point. I'm guilty of that myself at times. It's just that many times the quoted posts are just to long. If the response is at the top you can go to the quoted part being referred to instead of constantly having to read the entire post.

When you look at kiki's posts many many times they are a confusing mess. And much of the time SIGs' are made up or misquoted. If they won't clarify who they've quoted and quote them properly and accurately then the post should be dismissed as bogus.

Now, back to the countdown clock and news of the day shall we.

---

I was recalling that some sites include the date time of the original post being quoted. Very handy.

---

Yes, it's especially handy when dealing with people who are dishonest.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:

Yes, it's especially handy when dealing with people who are dishonest.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:
( Carter Paje testimony video )

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Jeez T.

Just because the website has a system for quoting people doesn't mean that supersedes the long established English language.

I'd think twice about calling somebody else a dummy when you are exhibiting dummy behavior yourself in the argument.

---

You think you are arguing against me. Instead you are arguing against the proper etiquette of quoting someone dummy. This is why people get an education. What kiki did is wrong. You don't quote someone and not inform the reader who it is you are quoting. Some here do it all the time.

I've seen SIG put things in quotes here and then argue against what she quoted. Funny thing is, she made up these quoted statements herself. She did this so she could pretend to make someone look stupid and herself superior.

People here do all kinds of things to confuse or make their point. They do it for many different reasons. They also intentionally misquote people here all the time. They argue points based on false and twisted concepts of anothers' post as well. Only your friends do that Jack. I'm talking about kiki, SIG and their sock puppets.

You'll argue anything without thinking it through won't you? It's what makes you someone to be ignored.

---

It is a bit chilly out, and we had snow on Saturday, but is Hell freezing over?
This is really hard to admit, but T has a point, several of them.
The rampant lack of attribution and unclear quotes gets quite confusing. Not to mention some posters replying BEFORE the quote they are REPLYING to. Like reversing chronological sequence.

---

At least you can separate out who said what when they reply above the quoted context, but I do get your point. I'm guilty of that myself at times. It's just that many times the quoted posts are just to long. If the response is at the top you can go to the quoted part being referred to instead of constantly having to read the entire post.

When you look at kiki's posts many many times they are a confusing mess. And much of the time SIGs' are made up or misquoted. If they won't clarify who they've quoted and quote them properly and accurately then the post should be dismissed as bogus.

Now, back to the countdown clock and news of the day shall we.

---

I was recalling that some sites include the date time of the original post being quoted. Very handy.

---

Yes, it's especially handy when dealing with people who are dishonest.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
You rarely ever quote him. Every time you do you have to edit your post to get rid of the pink on your own words.

I normally wouldn't point it out, in fact I've dealt with it for months now, but T goes out of his way to slam other people about their own posting etiquette.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
That being said, maybe the reason that Kiki didn't use the system quote there is because it wasn't actually Second that said that either.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:
I am going to quote this post and see for myself if my posting in pink causes a problem.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:
I am going to quote this post and see for myself if my posting in pink causes a problem.

---

OK, this time I am not posting in pink and I will see if someone replying to me is unduly inconvenienced.

Ok did it. It's easy as shit to just delete the color comand. You don't even have to delete the whole thing. I would add that I've been doing it for years here with SIG and kiki. kiki has been using different colors in the same post for years. And she and SIG both have had huge signatures I don't want to repost so I've deleted them first. No bitching from me.

How you quote someone has nothing to do with any of that. It's basic shit. When you quote someone you credit them. kiki thinks when someone responds to what she posts that the poster automatically knows who she is quoting. What she is doing is done out of laziness and is disrespectful to all here.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JO753:
I hav sum bad newz for you 3 (6, KIKI, Sig).

You are all sock puppets.

A special R&D group within the GRU had a mission to develop AI software that coud 'liv' on the internet, functioning at a level beyond wut a human can possibly achieve given our time limitationz. It woud need to be able to appear az input from a real human with no help from an operator.

They sekseeded.

This AI gets all the prosessing power it needz from massive supercomputerz in Russian server farmz, but also hijacks millionz uv computerz around the world. It sets up dozenz, even hundredz uv new marrionettes like you guyz every day. Part uv making you work properly iz to make you think you are real, so you hav a bunch uv subrutinez that simulate the ordinary real life activityz that humanz do - eating, sleeping, watching TV, paying taxez, taking a bath, feeding your pets, driving to the store etc. etc. etc. If you ever notis everything getting monotonous, repetitive or deja vu, it tossez in a little 'vacation' uv sum sort to make it all seem real agen. A car crash, a medical problem, maybe even a vacation!

Yes, your entire life iz an illusion. Your only real existens iz here on the web. Your only purpose iz to serve Putin.

(nise idea for a sifi story! But I'm sure its been ritten a million timez alredy, so this iz az far az I'm going with it.)


----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.7532020.com

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

You'll have to throw a little bit of time travel in there as well since I've been posting here since around 2006.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Oonjerah:
Ff FANs currently posting in RWED 22?

6Stringjack - 6Stringjoker
Auraptor - Reaverfan
1Kiki - Piratenews
Brenda - Riverlove  
Second - Bytemite  
Whozit - Shinygoodguy
Signym - Jayneztown
Thgrri - Jewelstaitefan
Jo753 - Rahlmaclaren
KPO - Wishimay
G - Oonjerah

However, this web site is much bigger than RWED.
There are plenty of other folks posting about other things.

... oooOO}{OOooo ...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Oonjerah:
Ff FANs currently posting in RWED 22?

6Stringjack = 6Stringjoker
Auraptor - Reaverfan
1Kiki - Piratenews
Brenda - Riverlove  
Second - Bytemite  
Whozit - Shinygoodguy
Signym - Jayneztown
Thgrri - Jewelstaitefan
Jo753 - Rahlmaclaren
KPO - Wishimay
G - Oonjerah

However, this web site is much bigger than RWED.
There are plenty of other folks posting about other things.

... oooOO}{OOooo ...

---

Interesting list. Some here, a select few, post in all of the sites venues. Chat and so on, I do.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JO753:

The Speaker replyz "Memberz are reminded to refrain from engajing in personalityz agenst the prezident".

Soundz like sumthing from Idiocrasy, like Steven Root az the juj.

---

It's very incendiary and only helps to prevent reason and logic from winning the day. This process has to play out and the rule of law should dictate the outcome. Not the ideology of a few on the left in this case. They don't realize it but they too are ignorant of the process and they too are a threat to our democratic institutions and way of life.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Oonjerah:
No, I am not G.
Since you, Jack, are listed twice at the top,
it's a 2-column list of 21 (not 22) people on the board.

Clearly, a lot of the folks on the list do not show up
to post here daily.

I, for one, miss some of the folks who used to post on RWED.

... oooOO}{OOooo ...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Oonjerah:
6ixStringJack: "I miss some of them too. I hope if they ever reboot
Firefly, they don't screw it up and maybe some of them will come back."

Well, now that Disney owns it, I wonder if they will reboot it.

In the meantime, how's the Mueller investigation going?


... oooOO}{OOooo ...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Oonjerah:
6ixStringJack: "I miss some of them too. I hope if they ever reboot
Firefly, they don't screw it up and maybe some of them will come back."

Well, now that Disney owns it, I wonder if they will reboot it.

In the meantime, how's the Mueller investigation going?


... oooOO}{OOooo ...

---

There's nothing that can be said about Mueller that isn't good. Unless it's a lie. Still some persist. Those who post negatively about him are the ones who have agendas or have succumb to an unrealistic, unhealthy ideology. Pretty much Jack, kiki, SIG, and JSF have responded in such a way so far.

The thing to know is that no matter what anyone here says, the rule of law will win out. Our democratic institutions including ( judicial and media ), will grow stronger because of this.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Oonjerah:
Ff FANs currently posting in RWED 22?

6Stringjack = 6Stringjoker
Auraptor - Reaverfan
1Kiki - Piratenews
Brenda - Riverlove  
Second - Bytemite  
Whozit - Shinygoodguy
Signym - Jayneztown
Thgrri - Jewelstaitefan
Jo753 - Rahlmaclaren
KPO - Wishimay
G - Oonjerah

However, this web site is much bigger than RWED.
There are plenty of other folks posting about other things.

... oooOO}{OOooo ...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Oonjerah:
What I like about PotUS, D. Trump:
He'll never resort to a press secretary.
He has no idea that he sounds so foolish.

---

Leo Strauss died in 1973. He had nothing to do with the invasion of Iraq. Your hypotheses is based on the men you mention having no other influences' in their lives other that Strauss. He was not in the room when the decisions were being made. I doubt you even understand what you posted. All it is, is speculation and subjective bullshit. None of which is based in fact.

A bit of advice. Those who may wish for Armageddon, may wish for it kiki, would include religious nuts and only religious nuts. You and sig are focused only on the most negative aspects of everything. Collectively your posts offer up a sad commentary about your make ups.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
"A lot of people in our government would actually like to see Armageddon."

That's not news. It's what got us Bush Jr's Iraq War.

(subscription only)

Atheist War Hawks Manipulate Believers to Beat the Drums of War

Leo Strauss is the father of the Neo-Conservative movement, including many leaders of the current administration.

Indeed, many of the main neocon players – including Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Stephen Cambone, Elliot Abrams, and Adam Shulsky – were students of Strauss at the University of Chicago, where he taught for many years.

The people pushing for war against Iran are the same neocons who pushed for war against Iraq. See this and this. (They planned both wars at least 20 years ago.) For example, Shulsky was the director of the Office of Special Plans – the Pentagon unit responsible for selling false intelligence regarding Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. He is now a member of the equivalent organization targeting Iran: the Iranian Directorate.

Strauss taught that religion should be used as a way to manipulate people to achieve the aims of the leaders. But that the leaders themselves need not believe in religion.

---