The wrong side must not win by canttakesky

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
CTS, I didn't lie, I misremembered.

People who misremember apologize for misremembering and mischaracterizing the other person's position.

If it were truly a genuine mistake, apologize. I will acknowledge and forgive the mistake and take back what I said about your lying.

If not, it was a lie that you got caught at.

Hehe. And I'm the "dishonest" one. Funny how projection works.

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

Saturday, September 8, 2012 10:02 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Quote:
The issue as I see it is that america has moved quite far right. I don't see extremism in both parties, I see extremism in the republicans. I see that that far right christian ideology as being the prevalent force, and that ROmney himself probably more of a pragmatist business bent has had to embrace that ideology.

Magons, I would say you see us pretty damned accurately.

And I agree with

Quote:
it is dangerous to caste the two candidates/parties as being the same. They may not represent what you want from a government, and the best you may be able to do is choose the one that will do the least harm.

Maybe Romney/Ryan would make things no different than Obama has. But you see, we already KNOW what Obama as President would do, because he's already done it--or tried to. Obama was really big on bipartisanship, which may be one of the reasons the Repubs reacted as they did. Given they knew his willingness to compromise, they certainly did a great job of making him compromise his socks off, and then voting against anything anyway. But what he TRIED to do had merit in it.

All we know about Romney/Ryan is what they SAY they will do. If they're only saying it to get elected, that's one thing. But what they've SAID, if it's the path they truly intend to follow, isn't healthy for the country in my opinion. I wasn't particularly disappointed by Obama since I didn't expect much, tho' he did disappoint me when it came to Gitmo, Patriot Act and a few other things. But I also know what he actually TRIED to do, and some of those programs I approve. I'm not willing to take the chance that Romney/Ryan are saying they'll do what they will just to get elected and, once in office, will do the right thing. For one thing, there's too much in their background (especially RYAN!) that indicates they'd try to do exactly what they say.

While I definitely agree that big money in politics is what creates a LOT of the problems with governing once elected, I don't see any conspiracies. I think lobbyists get what they want out of either side sometimes, but working together is just too out there for me...if they worked together, the Repubs wouldn't have spent so MUCH time, energy and money to obstruct Obama. If the idea is that Obama and the Repubs were working together just to put on a show, I reject that idea.

When you look at the past, there have been MAJOR differences between what Republicans have done and what Dems have done. There are opposing ideologies behind each party, and whoever they get elected follows those ideologies as best they can. It's perfectly clear from our history. I reject the notion the whole thing is a conspiracy.

As to

Quote:
You have to look at results. Actions, not words.

Is Guantanamo closed? Do we have nationalized health care? Have we stopped murdering innocent civilians overseas? Have we stopped spying on and violating our own citizens?

I think the actions speak pretty well that there's no conspiracy. Obama has managed, for the first time in history despite virtually every President talking about it, to START us on the way to nationalized healthcare. We are still at war in only one place, and have a (supposed) timeline to get out of that one--which, from what they have said, Romney and Ryan don't WANT to do (pull out). There's even been hints in what they've said that they might try to involve us in OTHER wars, which Obama has worked not to do (Libya, for example). Gitmo, spying and civil-rights violations? The first; Obama TRIED to close Gitmo:

Quote:
For more than two years, the White House’s plans had been undermined by political miscalculations, confusion and timidity in the face of mounting congressional opposition, according to some inside the administration as well as on Capitol Hill. Indeed, the failed effort to close Guantanamo was reflective of the aspects of Obama’s leadership style that continue to distress his liberal base — a willingness to allow room for compromise and a passivity that at times permits opponents to set the agenda.

He was ineffectual, as in many things he tried to do, but IF Congress hadn't been bent on obstructionism, maybe he'd have managed it. Instead, he put all his efforts into health care, which he believed he COULD accomplish. What he did accomplish on that count is far less, again, than what he might have accomplished if Republicans hadn't erased the word "compromise" from their dictionary..

As to the second two, those have been going on forever. There is also the concept that power, once put in place by one President, will not be abdicated by future Presidents...he's no different than any other in that respect. I can just imagine Obama contemplating trying to end them, given what he's up against, that being at the same time his attempts to prosecute Khalid Sheik Mohammed in federal court, which also died abornin'. Weak, yes; too willing to believe compromise was possible, yes. But conspiring with the Right to look incompetent? I strongly doubt it.

Quote:
If you truly care about ideology, then stop voting for hypocrites who present no tangible difference in the big picture from people with the OPPOSITE ideology.

First off, I don't think that's true. Obama tried, and in some cases managed, to do things I cannot imagine a Republican President trying OR doing.

Lilly Ledbetter. It's not yet been enforced to the extent it needs to, but it gives women the right to sue for equality.

Do you really believe the Republicans would have worked for Wall Street Reform? Repealed Don't Ask Don't Tell?

Could you see Romney nullifying

Quote:
Two days after taking office, nullified Bush-era rulings that had allowed detainees in U.S. custody to undergo certain “enhanced” interrogation techniques considered inhumane under the Geneva Conventions. Also released the secret Bush legal rulings supporting the use of these techniques.

Especially Two days after taking office?

How about that he kicked the banks out of the Federal Student Loan Program, or expanded the Pell Grant spending?

The auto bailout? Romney said quite plainly "let them go bankrupt". He also said plainly that we should let foreclosures run until the market "stabilized"...would Obama have done that?

Would a Republican President have increased support for veterans?

Quote:
Obama increased 2010 Department of Veterans Affairs budget by 16 percent and 2011 budget by 10 percent. Also signed new GI bill offering $78 billion in tuition assistance over a decade, and provided multiple tax credits to encourage businesses to hire veterans.

How about Obama's

Quote:
New EPA restrictions on mercury and toxic pollution, issued in December 2011, likely to lead to the closing of between sixty-eight and 231 of the nation’s oldest and dirtiest coal-fired power plants. Estimated cost to utilities: at least $11 billion by 2016. Estimated health benefits: $59 billion to $140 billion. Will also significantly reduce carbon emissions and, with other regulations, comprises what’s been called Obama’s “stealth climate policy.”

How about credit-card reform? It prohibits credit card companies from raising rates without advance notification, mandates a grace period on interest rate increases, and strictly limits overdraft and other fees

You really think Romney would have instituted the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act, which boosts the Food and Drug Administration’s budget by $1.4 billion and expands its regulatory responsibilities to include increasing number of food inspections, issuing direct food recalls, and reviewing the current food safety practices of countries importing products into America?

Would Romney have expanded national service through the Serve America Act, which authorized a tripling of the size of AmeriCorps. Program grew 13 percent to 85,000 members across the country by 2012, when new House GOP majority refused to appropriate more funds for further expansion.

Obama put into place the Omnibus Public Lands Management Act, which designated more than 2 million acres as wilderness, created thousands of miles of recreational and historic trails, and protected more than 1,000 miles of rivers.

How about the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, which mandates that tobacco manufacturers disclose all ingredients, obtain FDA approval for new tobacco products, and expand the size and prominence of cigarette warning labels, and bans the sale of misleadingly labeled “light” cigarette brands and tobacco sponsorship of entertainment events.

How about the Children’s Health Insurance Authorization Act, which allows the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) to cover health care for 4 million more children, paid for by a tax increase on tobacco products.

Or ended further purchases of Lockheed Martin single-seat, twin-engine, fighter aircraft, which cost $358 million apiece. Though the military had 187 built, the plane has never flown a single combat mission. Eliminating it saved $4 billion.

There's more, but that should be sufficient to show the differences--if a Republican President had done any number of these things, they would NEVER have gotten a second term, or if in their second term would have set the Republicans up for defeat in the next election. Obama did it in his first term, and in my opinion, some of them are extremely worthwhile actions.

In other words, we have Obama's ACTIONS to judge, while all we have from the Republicans are promises to fix things--with no details--and promises of tax cuts for the rich, extending the war in Afghanistan, and by Romney's own words, building the military back UP. They hint at a federal anti-abortion law, no doubt would put enforcement of DOMA back, reduce regulation about everywhere, possibly do away with the EPA entirely, and on and on.

I see big differences. Not as big as I'd like, but unquestionable differences. The last question of course is, given our situation, if we don't get our voices heard to elect the "least worst" candidate, what other options do we HAVE? I'm voting Green...if people in enough states which are considered soldily red or blue were to vote for another party, perhaps we could grow one. As it stands, we only have two choices. How do we improve on that, pray tell?

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

Saturday, September 8, 2012 10:12 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

CTS.. Apologize? After you jumped down my throat and called me a liar? Yanno, I dislike you intensely. I find you to be so intellectually dishonest that you give rappy a run for his money, and I have a hard time, sometimes, just being civil to you. You, OTOH, get your panties in a bunch over little things, and the FIRST thing that you do is whine and complain that people done you wrong, especially that they "misrepresent" you. Wow. Poor misunderstood you.

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

Saturday, September 8, 2012 11:15 AM

FREMDFIRMA

You lied, Sig, and you did it on purpose, with malice aforethought.
Spinning, projecting and sympathy baiting just makes it worse.
Seriously, let it go.

-F

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

Saturday, September 8, 2012 1:00 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
You lied, Sig, and you did it on purpose, with malice aforethought.

No, I did not.

But now YOU assume you know what was going on in my head too???? Pulling the old Geezer trick of TELLING me what I meant?

If I really were trying to lie, I wouldn't have promised to look it up. I wouldn't have found the thread, and I wouldn't have LINKED it either, you fucking idiot. So if you don't trust me, and if I don't have a history of being straightforward and saying things as I see them, and if none of that history matters... then use your head and some logic. Because if I REALLY wanted to lie??? I would have done NONE of those things. Or you can go fuck yourself. Whichever.

And the only thing I'm letting go of is caring about your opinion of me because clearly you have not a friggin' clue of who I am and what I'm all about, and your insight and judgment is for shit.

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

Saturday, September 8, 2012 1:48 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Oh yeah, cause I obviously can't see your blatantly glaring personal grudge here, and have no experience whatsoever with you carrying it into discussion after discussion, nor with your overblown and hysterical denials when called out on it.

You got a really serious personal beef with someone else who dared to repeatedly call into question your science-as-religon dogma and whom you attack on sight with misrepresentations, distortions and outright lies (in this case) every chance you get, and then you want to shill denial at someone who has actually sat here and watched you do this time and time again ?

Oh I think not - you wanna argue a point, you argue the fuckin POINT, right ?
You don't bring in some side argument for the specific reason of setting up a verbal onslaught at someone who did no more than question your preciously held beliefs, as you did theirs, and I make no statement to the validity of either cause that ain't the goddamn point.

Do you at any time realize the hypocrisy of your own actions here ?
Sure, I hold grudges, but I don't for a second pretend innocent mistake when called on them.
And I certainly don't attempt to do so once the credibility of the pretense has slipped far into the negative.

You owe an apology here, a real one, not no halfassed backhand, and you need to acknowledge ownership of your own conduct, because your intentions were VERY clear in advance to anyone who's been around here long enough to know of your pet grudgematch, which is most of us.

-Frem

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

Saturday, September 8, 2012 1:56 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

YES, I dislike CTS intensely. I believe I have made that perfectly plain. So what?

But do you HONESTLY believed I lied? That I accurately remembered what she said from a 4-page thread that was several years old, and decided to say something else? Seriously???? And THEN linked it???

Really???

I don't like CTS, and I disagree with her on a whole bunch of things, but is that the same as lying? And if not, then why would you accuse me of it?

I misremembered. I SAID I did. What should I apologize for? For misremembering? For not liking CTS? For disagreeing with her? For thinking the worst of her? For linking the definitive thread? Because her panties got in a twist? I'm sure NOT going to apologize for lying because that I did NOT do.

And the rest of the stuff... that's what people deal with here in this forum. We don't all agree, we don't all like each other, and we don't all remember perfectly. The best we can expect sometimes is a frosty civility and certain amount of intellectual honesty. I'm sure not going to apologize for that either.

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

Saturday, September 8, 2012 2:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
What should I apologize for? For misremembering?

Yes, for misremembering and accusing me wrongly.

It's called common courtesy. It looks something like this.

Siggy: You said Somalia is a great example of anarchy.
CTS: No, I did not.
Siggy: Yes, you did. You want to make me dig it up and prove it?
CTS: Yes, dig it up and prove it.
Siggy: Oh, I dug it up, and I was wrong about that. Sorry.

But what actually happened was:

Siggy: You said Somalia is a great example of anarchy.
CTS: No, I did not.
Siggy: Yes, you did. You want to make me dig it up and prove it?
CTS: Yes, dig it up and prove it.
Siggy: Fine, here it is. You think you deserve an apology, you stone cold dishonest bitch?

The apology is for accusing me of saying something I didn't and more importantly, REFUSING to accept my denial of said accusation. In other words, when I said, "No I did not say that" and you refused to accept it, you effectually called me a liar first.

It is one thing to misremember. It is another thing to INSIST, despite my protests and denial, that I lied about not having made such statements. When you insist, falsely and without proof, it certainly appears that you are intent on misportraying my character--in other words, intent on lying about me. So yes, you called me a liar indirectly. I called you a liar back; I was just more upfront about it.

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

Saturday, September 8, 2012 3:08 PM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
but both sides are clearly not the same.
Hitler and Stalin are clearly not the same. But I would be hard-pressed to vote for either of them.

I'd rather have a third or fourth choice. And I think that is the point of this piece.

You DO have a third or fourth choice.

You can vote for a third-party candidate. You can't hope to make much difference, but you can do it as a protest. I am. You can write in Mussolini, or Franco, or Mao, or Jesus, or Mickey Mouse, or anyone you want. Vote for a dead guy if you want. Or gal.

You can do nothing at all. You can stay home and say it's not even worth trying, because everyone sucks anyway. Just please don't bitch about what you get as a result, because there isn't a bit of difference anyway, right? ;)

You have lots of choices and options. And every time you don't exercise them, you run the risk of losing them.

Don't like your choices? Too bad. Suck it up and run for office yourself. Change things.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

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

Saturday, September 8, 2012 3:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Quote:
But beyond all that, it is dangerous to caste the two candidates/parties as being the same. They may not represent what you want from a government, and the best you may be able to do is choose the one that will do the least harm.

Well, my particular problem is that I see them as being in cahoots, but that's probably more paranoia than it is reason or logic. But you can see how if someone like me thought that it was all a show and all the appearances were calculated, and that behind the curtain it's all deals that will benefit the lobbyists, that someone like me would think that the same policies and even wars would happen no matter who controls congress or who is president.

But I admit that I can't prove that's what's really going on. Even so, I can't shake the perception.

I think you've got the wrong impression of things, Byte. You say you see them as being "in cahoots", while what I see is two sides being funded by the same people, and then being egged on to fight each other. The corporation has bet on both sides, and is going to win no matter what, but that doesn't mean the two sides agree with each other or like each other.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

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

Saturday, September 8, 2012 3:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:

Well, my particular problem is that I see them as being in cahoots, but that's probably more paranoia than it is reason or logic. But you can see how if someone like me thought that it was all a show and all the appearances were calculated, and that behind the curtain it's all deals that will benefit the lobbyists, that someone like me would think that the same policies and even wars would happen no matter who controls congress or who is president.

But I admit that I can't prove that's what's really going on. Even so, I can't shake the perception.

the system you have, is the system you have and both sides enter into its machinations, because frankly they have no choice. I think the biggest issue is how much money you have to spend to get elected as pres, which means either you have to have a very deep back pocket, or you have to find those who do to back you. In which case, you have the powerful and the wealthy's interests always at the forefront. Yes, I believe this too.

And that is not a problem with CANDIDATES and PARTIES, but with CAMPAIGN FINANCE.

We can pass laws regarding these things.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

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

Saturday, September 8, 2012 3:48 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Oh, yeah, poor misunderstood CTS.

Except this is how it REALLY went - with quotes- and not the way you would like us to think...

Quote:
Yeah well, you think Somalia is a pristine example of the greatness that is anarchy.- Kiki

Um, no. I do not.-CTS

Um, you did. I can resurrect the thread for you, if you wish. So you'll pardon me if I don't take YOUR judgment as an example to follow. -Signy
Frem, I did not say that Somalia was a great example of anarchy, CTS did. Signy

I absolutely wish. In fact, I dare you to find that thread. I absolutely NEVER said any such thing. I DARE you to prove I did. No end to your outright lies is there?- CTS

Okey dokey, then. I'll do my best to find and resurrect the thread. It may take me a week because I'll be out of town on business, but in the meantime, in that thread you started with a story about how your husband had traveled to that part of the world. Ringing any bells now?-Signy

Yeah, you do that. (Snicker. Snort.) You'll need to invent more lies, cause I never ever said any such thing. -CTS

HEY CTS, I think this is the thread Kiki and I were thinking of... http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=32253&mid=5
75743 -Signy

Great. You proved I said that Somalia is NOT an example of anarchy. Thank you for your support. It is so rare that it almost makes up for the lie you and Kiki told about me in the first place.

CTS, I didn't lie, I misremembered.-Signy

So you accused me of lying right off the bat, not once but three times and YOUR panties are in a twist??? And FREM thinks I'M sympathy-baiting?? Wow. If anyone owes anyone an apology, I think you and Frem both owe me one... From YOU something along the lines of... I'm sorry I accused you of lying, but thanks for posting the link so we can ALL see what I wrote would be appropriate. And from FREM, something along the lines of I'm sorry I also accused you of lying, despite all evidence to the contrary would be fair. But seeing as you like to martyr yourself (OH POOR ME!!) and Frem buys into it, I won't expect it from either of you.

Back to the original discussion at-hand. I'm with Kwicko on this one. If you absolutely FORCE me to choose between more evil and less evil, I will choose less evil. But fortunately, those aren't our only choices. Dreamtrove (remember DT?) once said that the best time to influence parties is in the primaries. If the two party candidates are not to your liking, vote third-party. NOT voting is truly a waste, as political parties correctly discount non-voters. Or you can run for office yourself.

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

Saturday, September 8, 2012 4:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
So you accused me of lying right off the bat,

Um, you're MISREMEMBERING again. Read what you just posted, you misremembering bitch.

I accused you of lying AFTER you refused to accept my correction of Kiki's misremembrance. Which is to say, after you accused me of lying first.

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

Saturday, September 8, 2012 4:51 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Uhm, you did. See the post WITH QUOTES.

But why should you believe your own lying eyes? damn them!

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

Saturday, September 8, 2012 4:53 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

CTS... Wow, so I refuse to accept your word about something???
STOP THE PRESSES!!
And that automatically means I "accuse you of "lying"??
PRINT NEW HEADLINES!

So...can I provide you with a cross so you can crucify yourself in front of us, and tell us (once again) "OH POOR ME!!" ?

There are several reasons why two people might have a disagreement over what was said:

One- or both- parties misremember what was said. Given the problems with eyewitness testimony, that happens a lot.

One party was not clear in representing, or the other party was not clear in comprehending, the content of the statement- or both. This ALSO happens a lot. Now, I have not actually had time to devote to parsing through every single thing you said in that thread -it twas four pages- but you said a lot, and one of the things that you said was than Somalia might be a great example of anarchy if only everyone was armed. Given that a lot of people spend a lot of time warring in that nation already, it seems as "more guns" is not a realistic answer.

One or both parties DELIBERATELY misrepresents what the other party said. Given that (in this case) the other party offered to go back in history and find the fortuitously recorded statements... do you really credit this as a possibility?

Usually, when I come to complete loggerheads over who said what, I tend to work through the first two possibilities first because that is where the problem usually is. That's assuming the other party isn't whinging and crying about how they're being "lied" about. At THAT point, in non-legal circumstances, I tend to resort to "FUCK YOU" - and with good reason.

Oh, and BTW FREM...?

"Science" is not a priesthood nor is it a canon. It is an activity linking evidence to theory. If you want to be anti-science, just remember that means also being "anti-evidence". After you....

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

Saturday, September 8, 2012 5:04 PM

...We need a trainwreck emoticon.

Invectives were said on both sides, and it doesn't really matter who started it. CTS was not incorrect about what she said about Somalia, which is the original point of contention. All previous arguments are not part of this conversation. No one expects anyone to apologize. There does not need to be a new point of contention about who is lying or dishonest or not; it's just escalating the bad blood into another flame war.

I would suggest everyone takes a breather. You don't have to follow my advice, but I don't think it will do any of you any good to keep going.

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

Saturday, September 8, 2012 5:09 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Invectives were said on both sides

Yes, but who started it?

I think I showed remarkable forbearance, considering. I truly detest CTS, with good reason.

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

Saturday, September 8, 2012 5:13 PM

As I said, the only thing that matters here is the outcome, and this can have absolutely no good end for either of you.

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

Saturday, September 8, 2012 5:18 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Byte

Just to refresh your memory of the actual posts:

Quote:
Yeah well, you think Somalia is a pristine example of the greatness that is anarchy.- Kiki

Um, no. I do not.-CTS

Um, you did. I can resurrect the thread for you, if you wish. So you'll pardon me if I don't take YOUR judgment as an example to follow. -Signy

Frem, I did not say that Somalia was a great example of anarchy, CTS did. Signy

I absolutely wish. In fact, I dare you to find that thread. I absolutely NEVER said any such thing. I DARE you to prove I did. NO END TO YOUR OUTRIGHT LIES is there?- CTS

Okey dokey, then. I'll do my best to find and resurrect the thread. It may take me a week because I'll be out of town on business, but in the meantime, in that thread you started with a story about how your husband had traveled to that part of the world. Ringing any bells now?-Signy

Yeah, you do that. (SNICKER. SNORT.) You'll need to INVENT MORE LIES, cause I never ever said any such thing. -CTS

HEY CTS, I think this is the thread Kiki and I were thinking of... http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=32253&mid=5
75743 -Signy

Great. You proved I said that Somalia is NOT an example of anarchy. Thank you for your support. IT IS SO RARE THAT IT ALMOST MAKES UP FOR THE LIE you and Kiki told about me in the first place.

CTS, I didn't lie, I misremembered.-Signy

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

Saturday, September 8, 2012 5:20 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

What is "the outcome"? If people - including Frem and you- have not yet figured out by now that I try to be a straight shooter and especially that I do NOT deliberately lie about what people have said, nor do I deliberately bring false information to the board, then what else can happen? My word here is worth nothing already. And if that can happen because CTS got her knickers in a twist because I didn't AUTOMATICALLY accept her word on something, then I'm posting to the wrong people.

I'm willing to say I mis-remembered, I'm willing to accept that misunderstandings and suchlike occur. But if some of you can't work through that without getting out the six-shooters at ten paces, then...

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

Saturday, September 8, 2012 5:44 PM

You and kiki are going to argue with everyone about this? The outcome is whether you want the board to line up on sides like it already is. Frankly, this is between you and CTS, it is not my concern who said what to who and when. How far you go is up to you, but you ought to ask yourself if it's even worth the emotional investment.

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

Saturday, September 8, 2012 5:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
CTS... Wow, so I refuse to accept your word about something???

Not just anything. That SOMETHING is my own personal beliefs. There is no way to get my own beliefs wrong. If I misrepresent them, I must be lying about them.

BTW, I detest you too, Siggy. Let's go get a room, and leave these poor folks be.

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

Saturday, September 8, 2012 5:53 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

No, Byte, Me and CTS, not me and Kiki. If YOU keep misrepresenting how this all came about and who's at the other end of this argument (and who really escalated things along) then I'll prolly wind up saying regretful things about you too. Best step out.

CTS- I'm going to say this slowly and hope you catch up. IF you had said something to the effect of "SIGNY SAID that Obama is the best thing since sliced bread" and I said "No I did not" and you said "OH yes you did and I'll find the thread" I would prolly react the same as you: "PROVE IT."

But if you came back with the link, the first, last and middle things I would NOT do is accuse you of lying. We might talk about what I said, what you heard and so forth and maybe even come to some kind of understanding. That would be the adult, non-histrionic thing to do. But, no. That didn't happen. You climbed up on a cross, nailed yourself to it and cried out how I had done you such horrible wrong. So let's just end this discussion with mutual animosity: I think you're a snake and I would hate to be your child. You prolly think horrible things of me too.

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

Saturday, September 8, 2012 5:54 PM

I'm holding you to that, CTS.

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

Saturday, September 8, 2012 5:56 PM

Kiki also responded to me, Sig, defending you. It's good to have friends.

But in any case, where do you see this going? I see it going that there's going to be even more arguments and people will be asked to pick sides. I'm saying that doesn't need to happen, it's just you and CTS. Right now, you seem to have decided I'm against you, but I have no dog in this fight.

Quite simply, and I'm repeating myself I know, but this really doesn't end well for anyone. You and CTS want to fight, that's fine, but I don't want to fight with you or her over what she said to you or what you said to her.

Instead, I'm going to have dinner, and play video games. Maybe read, and respond to emails.

EDIT: Looks like you've already decided to do the same. I'll see you all tomorrow I suspect. Night guys.

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

Saturday, September 8, 2012 6:03 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Not asking anyone to pick sides. FREM did that, by not only accusing me of lying but also accusing me of "sympathy baiting". Well, I have a few pithy things to say about Frem as well, but that's between me and him

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

Saturday, September 8, 2012 6:07 PM

Yeah, I know you're not, but that's what's happening anyway.

I'm sorry for stepping in as I did, it's pretty high handed of me. You seem to have resolved this yourself.

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

Saturday, September 8, 2012 6:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
I would hate to be your child.

However much I detest you, I would have never hit that low. That is abominable, even for you.

You're dead to me.

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

Saturday, September 8, 2012 6:31 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"You and kiki are going to argue with everyone about this?"

So even though I made the initial comment I should shut up and sit down? I'm to have nothing to say about the topic? Wow. Mighty mighty of you.

"The outcome is whether you want the board to line up on sides like it already is."

Like you're doing? Like Frem did? You mean like that? But Signy and I are now supposed to shut up and sit down to keep things all nicey nicey after YOU TWO stepped in and 'lined up' on 'YOUR SIDE'??

"How far you go is up to you, but you ought to ask yourself if it's even worth the emotional investment.'"

Not that you will, but maybe you should take your own advice ...

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

Saturday, September 8, 2012 6:33 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"You're dead to me."

Oh pretty please, can I be too? What do I have to say to have you do that?

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

Saturday, September 8, 2012 6:38 PM

Quote:
Like you're doing? Like Frem did? You mean like that? But Signy and I are now supposed to shut up and sit down to keep things all nicey nicey after YOU TWO stepped in and 'lined up' on 'YOUR SIDE'??

1kiki, I have apologized for my intrusion, and seriously, I have no side. I offered advice, which you seem to agree is good advice. I will also take your advice now.

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
I would hate to be your child.
However much I detest you, I would have never hit that low. That is abominable, even for you.

You're dead to me.

...That is not holding to it.

Well, in that case, there is only one option left for this thread.

http://nukeitfromorbit.com/

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

Saturday, September 8, 2012 6:44 PM

Wow, does this place need a joint and a group hug!

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

Saturday, September 8, 2012 6:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:

Well, in that case, there is only one option left for this thread.

http://nukeitfromorbit.com/

Quite possibly the only option left, but hugs are cheaper and kill fewer living things.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

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

Saturday, September 8, 2012 7:12 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Wow, does this place need a joint and a group hug!

Yup. Light one up Kwicko. I think a few joints might be needed before the hug.

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

Saturday, September 8, 2012 7:15 PM