'Tase me Bro...I deserve it...' by Hero

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Quote:
'Hero'

"If we can't laugh at some jackass getting tased...then where are we as a people?"

People who aren't sociopaths, like you obviously are.

Quote:
Causal

Mmm...ad hominem...

Just reflecting it back to 'Hero'. His post implies that if you don't find humor in people being hurt then you're a humorless drone. B/c don't real people find it funny ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 31, 2007 6:04 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
People are people. Who doesn't laugh when some jackass has something humiliating and painful (but with no real injury or long term damage) happen to them. Its like watching Funniest Videos of folk getting a ball hit into their crotch or falling down. Its funny. I've never seen a taser video that wasn't downright funny or at least midly amusing.

Oh.

Dear.

The real Hero just stood up.

QUICK! SIT DOWN! You're embarassing yourself!

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 31, 2007 6:15 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

S'wenyways, back on topic -

I find the use of tasers as a means of gaining compliance in EVERY situation - time limits on speaking for example - to be disproportionate. Whatever happened to gavelling a meeting back to order ? When it comes down to it, what Meyer did 'wrong' was to speak more than 1 minute. And for that he got physically apprehended and then tasered when he was already on the ground.

Also, I suspect coercion was a deciding factor in Meyer's 'apology'. Anyone who accepts the use of coercion in extracting confessions and apologies should take a look at the US NV POW confessions - because that is what you are ultimately supporting.

And while the police may have followed 'policy' it doesn't mean that policy will stand up to scrutiny. I'm not sure that it will be pursued though. Meyer has a good job already and may not have the time and interest in changing the policy which is clearly too broad and vague.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 31, 2007 6:33 AM

JARHEAD

The reason cops overuse their tasers is because in MOST people the effects wear off very quickly, unlike say cracking them over the head with a baton. Of course it hurts, thats why it works.

And besides, in this situation they were going to let the kid prattle on, but then he had to mention Skull & Bones - cue "cut" gesture from person in suit and several college cops ushering the guy out. Now everyone's sorry, noone is going to be sued, and as a consequence none(read tasree) is going to jail out of spite. All better now.

I’m never serious. Serious means something bad is about to happen.

98% of teens have smoked pot, if you are one of the 2% that haven't, copy this into your signature

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 31, 2007 6:42 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

The effect may wear off, the memory lingers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroshock_weapon
"Electroshock weapon technology uses a temporary high-voltage low-current electrical discharge to override the body's muscle-triggering mechanisms. The recipient feels great pain, and can be momentarily paralyzed while an electric current is being applied.

Although TASERs were originally proposed as alternatives to lethal force, they have entered routine use as a method to gain compliance at times when the use of firearms would not be considered.

Some TASER devices, particularly those used by police departments, also have a "Drive Stun" capability, where the taser is held against the target without firing barbs and is intended to cause pain without incapacitating the target. TASER defines "Drive Stun" as "the process of using the EMD weapon as a pain compliance technique."

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 31, 2007 6:47 AM

SUCCATASH

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
But the fact that you don't follow "the teachings of Jesus" is the main reason why I'm not overly concerned with your diagnosis of hypocrisy. You don't buy into Christianity, so why should I take seriously your interpretations of the same? ...but don't criticize me for being unfaithful to a faith you don't even believe to be true in the first place!

I don't understand your logic, Causal. The teachings of Jesus aren't a secret, and you don't have to be a Christian to know what he taught.

Al Gore preaches about Global Warming, but he has a huge house that wastes electricity. By your logic, only people who believe in global warming have the right to call him a hypocrite. But that doesn't make sense.

You can call anyone a hypocrite when they say one thing and do the opposite. It doesn't matter what team you're on or what group you belong to.

.

"Gott kann dich nicht vor mir beschuetzen, weil ich nicht boese bin."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 31, 2007 7:21 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Succatash:
I don't understand your logic, Causal. The teachings of Jesus aren't a secret, and you don't have to be a Christian to know what he taught.

Al Gore preaches about Global Warming, but he has a huge house that wastes electricity. By your logic, only people who believe in global warming have the right to call him a hypocrite. But that doesn't make sense.

You can call anyone a hypocrite when they say one thing and do the opposite. It doesn't matter what team you're on or what group you belong to.

"Gott kann dich nicht vor mir beschuetzen, weil ich nicht boese bin."

On the first point, what Jesus taught isn't the end of what Christianity teaches. Just a minor point, but one that bears pointing out. So we could be say instead "I understand what Christianity teaches" or "You're not adhering to what Christianity teaches." Because often I've observed that people criticize Christians for failing to follow "what Jesus taught"--but those same people reject the teachings of Paul or James or other parts of the NT or OT. And if one makes that sort of criticism, I feel pretty justified in ignoring them because it reflects a fundamental lack of understanding to think that one could divorce the teachings of Jesus from the rest of the biblical teaching. It would be something akin to saying, "Al Gore claims to be an environmentalist, but he drives a car!" Well, wait a tick, who said that you can't drive a car and be an environmentalist? Such a statement would indicate a lack of real understanding of what it means to be an environmentalist. Likewise, I think most people don't really understand what it means to be a faithful Christian and because they don't, their criticisms usually reflect on their own ignorance more than on the target of their criticism. No that's obviously not always the case, but that's what I've observed more often than not. In terms of the particular case at hand, Rue is using, for instance, the passage about loving one's enemy. But that kid isn't my enemy, and the issue for me isn't whether I love him or not. So while she's shown a capacity for finding and deploying a paraphrase of Jesus' sayings, they're not really being deployed in the right way.

On the second point, you say (quite rightly) that you can call someone a hypocrite any time they say one thing and do another, regardless of what "team" you're on. This certainly seems to be true. But when I say that I'm happy about the tasering story because it shows that the kid was, after all, in the wrong, I fail to see how this shows I'm saying one thing and doing another. My satisfaction with this whole story is that from the outset I thought the cops were in the right and the student in the wrong. So to have the student admit as much is satisfying to me. How does that show that I've said one thing and done another? "Mote in the eye" doesn't apply to the case at hand (that being my satisfaction with the story) nor does "love your enemy." In my perception, Rue is claiming that I'm being hypocritical by misapplying biblical sayings of Jesus, none of which actually demonstrate that I've said one thing and done another. I'm happy to grant you that an instance of saying one thing and doing another constitutes an act of hypocrisy, and that one need not be on the same team to call it such. But unless one really understands what would constitute saying one thing and doing another (and I've not seen such an understanding demonstrated) one can't accurately say that such an act of hypocrisy has occurred. If a hard-core determinist scientist says, "If we had perfect knowledge of the laws of nature and perfect knowledge of initial conditions, we could perfectly predict any event," and then says, "There's no way to tell if a quark is going to be an up-down quark or a spinny quark," do we get to call him a hypocrite? Maybe; but if we did, it would be because we don't know what he's talking about. If we did, we'd realize that the apparent conflict between the two statements arises out of misunderstanding on the listener's part, not inconsistency on the scientist's part. And the scientist would be right to ignore such a critic. I'm merely suggesting that my being accused of hypocrisy is the same sort of case. It might appear that two of my positions conflict; but that's because there is a misunderstanding of one or the other (or both).

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police
- Vote JonnyQuest/Causal, for Benevolent Co-Dictator of Earth; together, toward a brighter tomorrow!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 31, 2007 7:47 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"the kid was, after all, in the wrong"

That's the mote in your brother's eye you are so closely focused on. And in this case it clearly is a mote. His major crime was to take a few seconds too long at the microphone. Not threatening - just taking a few seconds - maybe 20 - too long. At least, that's what it was if you believe the police version of the story. I suspect if he'd taken too long praising Kerry he would have been allowed to go on - no matter how long it took.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 31, 2007 8:25 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I can't see that the young man was as wrong as the cops. His "crime" was to talk too long. OTOH, the cops tasered him while he was on the ground, under a pile of security. I understand he's not being charged, which is prolly the deal he got for apologizing. OTOH, I would really like to see the cops apologize for their various mistakes and mis-steps too.

---------------------------------
With great power goes great responsibility. Unless you're Hero, in which case you get to be a jackass.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 31, 2007 8:28 AM

LEADB

Sorry to interupt the religion discussion; feel free to carry on after this interuption...

Quote:
Originally posted by estead:
Originally posted by leadb:
Quote:
...I'm not clear they had the authority to do that; perhaps that has since been settled

http://www.president.ufl.edu/incident/FDLE-Executive-Summary.pdf

Thanks! Obviously, not everything is done 'cooking' yet; but it does apparently address most of my concerns. It would be nice to get Meyer's 'take' on the report; though at this point, he might be afraid to rock the boat and disagree with much in it.
It sounds like the police operated within policy, so they should be free of disciplinary action. I gather there is still a pending assessment as to whether Meyer's actions constituted an arrest-able action; but my guess is they will say the police were 'ok' in having made the arrest. At this point, I do hope they review policy and perhaps make a few changes to encourage more aspects of deescalation techniques.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 31, 2007 9:32 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Lawyer says student Tasered at Kerry speech won't be charged
ORLANDO, Fla. --A University of Florida student who was shocked with a Taser after persistently questioning Sen. John Kerry will avoid criminal charges by apologizing and complying with terms of a voluntary 18-month probation, authorities said Tuesday.

www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2007/10/30/
lawyer_says_student_tasered_at_kerry_speech_wont_be_charged/

URL broken up to prevent wide display

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 31, 2007 9:32 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
That says quite a bit about you. I'm not sure you should be admitting this in public as a public offcial, even anonymously. OOPS. Too late.

I guess you'd prefer I "feel their pain". The problem is I care, I really care about the jackasses who can't control themselves.

Thats why I much prefer them tased then seeing them killed or seriously injured

.

Perhaps my joy is partly because of my humanity and my knowledge that not so long ago it'd be billy clubs and boot heels

(or choke holds and tear gas...take your pick really).

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 31, 2007 9:34 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

If we can't laugh at some jackass getting tased...then where are we as a people?

I've never seen a taser video that wasn't downright funny or at least midly amusing.

Hero, YOUR problem is that you think tasing is FUNNY. I'll bet you thought Abu Ghraib was a laugh a minute! And waterboarding? Better than Jackass any day!

You have a sociopathic streak. It shows every now and then, altho you try to cover it up. Were you abused as a child?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 31, 2007 10:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"the kid was, after all, in the wrong"

That's the mote in your brother's eye you are so closely focused on. And in this case it clearly is a mote.

This is a signal example of the sort of misunderstanding I'm talking about. The mote-speck thing you bring up is from the beginning of Matthew chapter 7, verses 1 through 5. Jesus is exhorting his hearers not to be judgmental. He says, "Don't point out the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye when you have a giant log in your own!" That's just hypocritical--you've both got something in your eye, so don't judge your brother. What's in view here is judgment and hypocrisy. If I were lambasting Meyer for something I myself have done, that would be a clear case of hypocrisy. But that's not what's going on--I've never been in his position to have done things differently, so I'm not being hypocritical in that sense. Perhaps I'm being a hypocrite in the judgmental sense, though. Well, here is where the misinterpretation comes in. There's a difference between being discerning and being judgmental. Being discerning means looking at things clearly, understanding them for what they really are. Judgment, on the other hand, carries with it condemnation. I'm not saying, "Wicked, wicked Meyer! Sinner! Bound to burn in hell! Terrible person!" That would be judgment. I am, on the other hand, being discerning--he resisted arrested with violence (according to the police), and that's against the law; it's not judgmental to recognize that fact, it's discerning. And it is judgment that Jesus is talking about in Matthew 7, so the passage is misapplied.

Quote:
His major crime was to take a few seconds too long at the microphone. Not threatening - just taking a few seconds - maybe 20 - too long. At least, that's what it was if you believe the police version of the story. I suspect if he'd taken too long praising Kerry he would have been allowed to go on - no matter how long it took.

Well, his major crime was resisting arrest with violence, according to the police.

I don't really want to talk about this anymore, though, because this conversation has been really quite painful. I hold an opinion on the Andrew Meyer issue, and I understand that it's a minority opinion. But I'm being personally attacked, and I find that both emotionally painful and, frankly, very personally offensive. I'm not just wrong on the Meyer issue, I'm a bad person, and not only that, but I'm a bad Christian. That cuts right to the heart of who I am as a person, and to be honest it hurts. I find the propensity to make personal attacks on people deeply troubling; if you think I'm wrong on something, tell me why--maybe I'll come around, maybe we'll have to agree to disagree. But don't say, "You're a bad person, a hypocrite and a lousy Christian to boot." That's not an argument (in the classical sense)--that's just a fight. I'd like to think we could discuss these things with at least some degree of civility (if not calmness), but that just doesn't seem to be the case. I don't feel safe on these boards. Even if most people disagree with me, it would be possible to feel safe and welcome. But increasingly, I just don't feel safe or welcome here at Fireflyfans.net. And that just makes me really sad.

________________________________________________________________________

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 31, 2007 10:50 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Ye have become as the Pharisees who either love the fruit and hate the tree, or love the tree and hate the fruit.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 31, 2007 10:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Ye have become as the Pharisees who either love the fruit and hate the tree, or love the tree and hate the fruit.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

So, why do you keep doing it? That's all I really want to know. We disagree on the Meyer issue, and that's OK; but why do you continue to attack me personally?

________________________________________________________________________

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 31, 2007 10:56 AM

Because you smell of crusty old man juice.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 31, 2007 10:56 AM

Cheese, mouldy cheese.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 31, 2007 11:00 AM

I'd really like an answer, actually, funny though Citizen's theories are. Why would we start making personal attacks on each other like this? Why is this OK with us? Why do this?

________________________________________________________________________

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 31, 2007 11:19 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Hey CAUSAL I get your point: Your intepretation of Xtianity is not the same as Rue's and therefore in your intepretation you are not being hypocritical. Right?

So unless we want to go on a long discussion of whose interpretation of Xtianity is more valid, I suggest we just let this drop.

PS CITIZEN: Eeeeewwwww!!!!!

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 31, 2007 11:19 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"So, why do you keep doing it? ... why do you continue to attack me personally?"

It was addressing your position. I thought your parsing of the NT - the oft repeated lessons about NOT judging, NOT fault-finding - he who is without sin etc - was very - off the mark.

I could probably find a couple dozen parables and quotes that all say the same thing - don't be righteous, don't be judgmental, don't punish people, don't criticize, forgive ... LOVE above all - everyone - your neighbor, your friend, your enemy, the stranger - and even Meyer. And somehow you seem to miss the very point of the NT and find satisfaction that he was wrong and you were right, and that he was corrected to your way of thinking.

And when you parse out a word or two to completely miss the intent - Meyer isn't my enemy (or my neighbor, or brother, or a stranger lying by the side of the road) so this doesn't apply, exactly - it makes me think ye have become as the Pharisees - your postition is bass-ackwards to the meaning of the NT. You love the religion but not the message.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 31, 2007 11:38 AM

Theres a fair few arseholes on this site. And theres a few decent people. Theres a few decent people who get fucked off with the arseholes and occassionally end up acting like them.

Casual ain't an arsehole Rue, and neither are you. Careful who you take out the arsehole blowback on, know what I mean

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 31, 2007 11:50 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I hope that didn't come across as treating him like he's an arsehole. Did it ?? It's not what I meant.

He wanted to know what I had an issue with - and it's his position on religion, which I find to be strangely contorted. I was trying to use language - the Pharisee quote - I thought he might understand.

But if you really think it's not appropriate I'll take it down.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 31, 2007 11:58 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Thanks Cit.

Rue... we got it already.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 31, 2007 12:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Hey CAUSAL I get your point: Your intepretation of Xtianity is not the same as Rue's and therefore in your intepretation you are not being hypocritical. Right?

So unless we want to go on a long discussion of whose interpretation of Xtianity is more valid, I suggest we just let this drop.

Actually, it's not so much that as the personal attacks, but hey. We all pick our issues.

________________________________________________________________________

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 31, 2007 12:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"So, why do you keep doing it? ... why do you continue to attack me personally?"

It was addressing your position. I thought your parsing of the NT - the oft repeated lessons about NOT judging, NOT fault-finding - he who is without sin etc - was very - off the mark.

I could probably find a couple dozen parables and quotes that all say the same thing - don't be righteous, don't be judgmental, don't punish people, don't criticize, forgive ... LOVE above all - everyone - your neighbor, your friend, your enemy, the stranger - and even Meyer. And somehow you seem to miss the very point of the NT and find satisfaction that he was wrong and you were right, and that he was corrected to your way of thinking.

And when you parse out a word or two to completely miss the intent - Meyer isn't my enemy (or my neighbor, or brother, or a stranger lying by the side of the road) so this doesn't apply, exactly - it makes me think ye have become as the Pharisees - your postition is bass-ackwards to the meaning of the NT. You love the religion but not the message.

Of course, we both think the other is doing misinterpretation. That's not what bothers me, Rue. It's being personally attacked that bothers me. I think you're interpretation is flawed, but I'm not judging that. You think mine is flawed, and I have become as like unto the Pharisees (which is, by the way, from the Gospel of Thomas, which is recognized as canonical anyway). I can agree to disagree with you over the issue of Mr Meyer. But why does our disagreement allow for you to make personal attacks on me?

________________________________________________________________________

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 31, 2007 12:29 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I think the closest I came to criticizing you personally was the Pharisee quote - which btw I do know comes from the Gospel of Thomas - it's one of my favorite religious writings, along with the Tao ---- but I digress.

How can a person disagree with your logic, position or indeed any statement without you taking it as a personal attack ? How does it have to be couched ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 31, 2007 12:32 PM

Well, you seem to have been saying that you were saying that not only was I wrong, but that I was a hypocrite and a bad Christian to boot (you said I'd "missed the whole point of the NT"). I suppose it's possible that that wasn't your intent, though I'm confused why you would bring my faith into the matter if that were so. But it is, of course, also possible that I misinterpreted the whole thing. I'm only yet an imperfect creature.

________________________________________________________________________

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 31, 2007 12:40 PM

LEADB

"I'm only yet an imperfect creature. " Yeh, me too. Lots of that going around.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 31, 2007 12:48 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Sorry, I had some ahem work to do.

If I conclude that you are indeed "missing the whole point of the NT", is there a way for me to disagree with your interpretation without invoking in you a feeling of being personally attacked ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 31, 2007 12:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Sorry, I had some ahem work to do.

If I conclude that you are indeed "missing the whole point of the NT", is there a way for me to disagree with your interpretation without invoking a feeling of being personally attacked ?

Well, the eggs were already broken at that point, so to speak. We were talking about interpretation of faith because it seemed to me that you were calling me a hypocrite. And it was that that I objected to. No reason (that I can see) to draw a person's faith into the issue unless you want to show what an ass they are (e.g. "Look, everybody! He's a real hypocrite!"). Again, though, that may not have been your intent.

In brief, there's agreeing to disagree (which I'm OK with) and there's disagreement that becomes personal. It's the latter that I felt was happening, and that's what I objected to. I don't agree with your interpretation, but I'm not going to be so bold as to say, "You're missing the whole point." Because after all, I could be wrong, and so could you.

________________________________________________________________________

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 31, 2007 1:06 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Uh, the person to use the word hypocite was you.

I questioned your response, which I thought was uncharitable and contradicted by the NT. (And still do btw.) Since you posted your response, I discussed it. But you said disagreeing with your response was a personal attack.

So, how can one disagree with you and not have it taken as a personal attack ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 31, 2007 1:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I questioned your response, which I thought was uncharitable and contradicted by the NT. (And still do btw.) Since you posted your response, I discussed it. But you said disagreeing with your response was a personal attack.

Perhaps you can explain what Causal's interpretation of the NT has to do with the thread's topic for starters.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 31, 2007 1:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Uh, the person to use the word hypocite was you.

I questioned your response, which I thought was uncharitable and contradicted by the NT. (And still do btw.) Since you posted your response, I discussed it. But you said disagreeing with your response was a personal attack.

So, how can one disagree with you and not have it taken as a personal attack?

It's fine by me if you disagree with my interpretation, no problem. It's only ever the way it's gone about. I thought you were being a mite confrontational and personal (after all, one doesn't actually have to use the word "hypocrite" to call someone one!

).

________________________________________________________________________

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 31, 2007 1:36 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

BiggusD

Thread topic:
"Tase me Bro...I deserve it..." - with glee.

Sound like the NT message to you ? And, how could a religious person actually approve of this ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 31, 2007 1:38 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Causal -

I will try a different approach with you then. (And apologies ahead of time if I forget and slip up.)

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 31, 2007 1:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Thread topic:
"Tase me Bro...I deserve it..." - with glee.

Sound like the NT message to you ? And, how could a religious person actually approve of this ?

So it was an unprovoked challenge of another Posters beliefs. Gee, don't know how that could have been misconstrued.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 31, 2007 2:01 PM

BADKARMA00

Don't see what the big deal is. By the accounts I've read, the man was in the wrong, and the officers took him down using non-lethal means. And yes, I am aware that there have been serveral fatalities blamed on the use of electronic devices. The fatality rate for gunshots is still a bit higher though.
DOn't judge a police officer until you've worn his badge and walked his beat. It's not the safest job in the world, and they have as much right to protect themselves as any of us do.
There are officers, no question, who abuse their authority, I don't dispute that. But not all of them do, and most take their job very seriously.
Til ya been there, try not to judge.

Bad_karma

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 31, 2007 2:08 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

BiggusD

"another Posters beliefs"

Not his beliefs - his position. And aren't we here to - you know - discuss ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 31, 2007 2:11 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

You mighta missed the post where it says police routinely use tasers get compliance. It used to be a non-lethal way to stop an attack. Now it's a torture tool.

***************************************************************
Smile when you say that.

I said smile ... ZZZZZZZZZT !

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 31, 2007 2:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
So it was an unprovoked challenge of another Posters beliefs. Gee, don't know how that could have been misconstrued.

Since the two posters involved seem to have come to an understanding, maybe the best thing to do would be let it drop rather than try and stir it back up again, eh?

Quote:
Originally posted by badkarma00:
Til ya been there, try not to judge.

The Job of a police officer is to enforce the mandated authority of government. It is the job of members of society to question the actions of same.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 31, 2007 2:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Since the two posters involved seem to have come to an understanding, maybe the best thing to do would be let it drop rather than try and stir it back up again, eh?

I have been involved from the start and continue to be.

I was responding to Rue's post to me, not Causal.

I don't know how the rest of us managed in the
absence of your unbiased mediation.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 31, 2007 2:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
I don't know how the rest of us managed in the
absence of your unbiased mediation.

Well, they had you obviously.

Though what problem you could have with me asking some of the generally more reasonable members of the forum to back off a bit, I have no idea.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 31, 2007 2:33 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

BiggusD

OOOHHH - the voice of reason ! (not)

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 31, 2007 3:04 PM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Theres a fair few arseholes on this site. And theres a few decent people.

Its funny how often you mix the two up...especially when looking in the mirror.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 31, 2007 3:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Though what problem you could have with me asking some of the generally more reasonable members of the forum to back off a bit, I have no idea.

My apologies, I admit I was confused.
The last time we exchanged posts you spoke to my character and reasonable, from what I can remember, was not even on the map. Glad to see I'm growing on you.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 31, 2007 3:26 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

'Hero'

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Theres a fair few arseholes on this site. And theres a few decent people.

Originally posted by Hero:
Its funny how often you mix the two up...especially when looking in the mirror.

You're boring.

***************************************************************
And you have a really lame sense of humor, except when it's also creepy and sociopathic. And then you hit the trifecta.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 31, 2007 3:29 PM