Surrendering to evil

[TPaine7]

There are profoundly different attitudes towards evil in America. At the risk of oversimplification, there are at least two schools:

School 1:

Leave it to the authorities, don't get involved, protect yourself, avert your eyes and surrender to the evil. This applies not only when one is dealing with rogue cops, street or motorcycle gangs, or organized crime--where interference is particularly dangerous--but to even the most apparently safe interventions. This school leads to people witnessing a hurt person bleeding out on the street, a woman being raped in New York City, or a young boy being anally raped in the shower and doing nothing--or nothing appropriate at least. People who interfere are "cowboys", "rednecks", "wanna-be cops" and have small penises--apparently even if they're women! (I guess the gutless wonder who didn't play the cowboy and stop the rape of a 10 you boy must be hung like a horse.)

Decent average people--who don't have badges--with the nerve to stop a crime are much more worse than street thugs. They are a clear and present danger to society. They deserve to have the full force of the law brought down on their heads, unlike home invaders, robbers rapists and the like.

School 2:

People should not stand by and watch rapes, child molestations, murders and the like. Evil should slink away, not good. Decent people should, when they can, use any force necessary to stop obvious, horrendous crimes from taking place in their presence. The climate should be such that evil people would slink and hide and quaver. A rapist should be terrified of raping on the street or in a public place in a crowd--for fear of possibly being stomped to death. The prospect of getting caught by a healthy football player while raping a boy in a shower should be terrifying to an old coach. He should think about it like he thinks about falling off of a cliff. Regardless of his personal "morality."

Here's our president's take:

Obama said that the scandal shows that “you can’t just rely on bureaucracy and systems in these kinds of situations. People have to step forward, they have to be tapping into just their core decency.” When kids are mistreated—or anyone, for that matter—“all of us have to step up, we don’t leave it to somebody else to take responsibility.”

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=ap-obama-paterno

I couldn't agree more.

These conflicting worldviews tie into the gun rights debate. Decent people have the right to protect themselves and innocent people from predators. To that end, they hire servants--police, DAs, FBI agents, sheriffs, judges and the like--to investigate crimes, to apprehend, arrest, try, convict and incarcerate or otherwise deal with criminals.

Police rarely walk up on such crimes in progress. Fortunately, the masters haven't given up their rights. Yes they have empowered servants with specialized training. But the people, collectively and individually, still retain the right to stop such crimes. The idea that a member of the public who walks up on a horrific crime in progress cannot use whatever is required to stop it--a loud voice, a fist, a 2" x 4", a tire iron, or yes, a gun--is barbaric.

The Bill of Rights implicitly assumes that individual citizens are, in general, competent to use arms defensively. This does not mean that people shouldn't be trained and that there shouldn't be regulation against unsafe gun handling. It also doesn't mean that they shouldn't be held accountable for their actions, as they are.

It means that the specter of a public who trembles in the face of evil, hoping their servants will show up in time is worse than the specter of an arms bearing citizenry--a tiny fraction of whom, though adult, sane and unconvicted, will commit gun crimes or have gun accidents.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

1. that reminds me of...

"...the sad story of Kitty Genovese."

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[gejohnston]

5. I don't think guns were necessarily the point

but the coach who said nothing should be thrown to the wolves. Even if it were my brother or dad, I would still feed his ass to the cops and DA.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

7. notice how he slipped in this statement --

You guys really ought not be able to pass the background checks to tote a gun.

I find the implication to be insulting.

Good thing I am not a guy ;)

[TPaine7]

8. Yeah, I saw that. And the crack about "second school."

There are just so many ways to make condescending people who make such statements look like fools, but I'm playing nice. Hoyt's insults are of such low quality that they make him look bad to discerning people.

[TPaine7]

6. Read the OP and think it through. Most adults should be able to follow the train of thought.

I neither said nor implied that he needed a gun to stop the crime; that wasn't the point.

I won't trade insults with you; I will point out that you shouldn't cast aspersions regarding others' abilities while you yourself are failing--at the very least--to exercise basic literacy.

[Hoyt]

9. You post about using a gun to stop crimes against others. Most can stop crime w/o a gun -- believe

it or not. But whatever, more guns in society today will only lead to more crime in the long run.

[TPaine7]

10. Read the OP again. It isn't about using guns to stop crimes. Really.

Most can stop crime w/o a gun

Then why to people tasked with investigating crime, apprehending suspects and (rarely) stopping crime carry guns? Why can't most of them "stop crime w/o a gun." How would you propose that a person physically weaker than the rapist in the shower stop that crime? How would you propose that anyone who is not more combat capable than an attacker "stop crime w/o a gun"? How would you propose that the average woman stop the average man's criminal assault "w/o a gun?"

And, if you don't mind sharing your source, how do you know that "most can stop crime w/o a gun"? Did you just make that up? Is it at least an opinion backed by some logic or some authoritative source?

[Hoyt]

14. It really is, especially when you post here. If you are only interested in stopping crime

without guns, why post in the friggin gungeon? Besides, you sure mention guns a bunch in your OP. Maybe they are just always on your mind, and strapped to your leg.

[TPaine7]

18. Nevermind.

It was about schools of thought to which pro and anti rights positions are naturally allied. I am interested in the mindset that approves intervention and the mindset that opposes intervention.

But don't bother worrying about it, I'll assume that you're honest and that you actually can't understand the point. That is the most honorable and flattering conclusion I can reach. And that's ok.

Never mind.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

26. "That is the most honorable and flattering conclusion I can reach"... LOL

The most honorable conclusion you come to is that the guy is an idiot... haha!
The part I find comical is that it's true. :rofl:

[rl6214]

61. "Maybe they are just always on your mind, and strapped to your leg."

You are just a joke.

[SteveM]

113. "...strapped to your leg?" Like John Dillinger? nt

[Union Scribe]

11. Tell us all the crimes you've stopped, oh vigilant one. nt

[Hoyt]

12. Hey, I don't strap guns to my body when venturing out. How about you?

I don't sleep with em either.

[Union Scribe]

13. No, I don't. But you said you can stop crimes without a gun. Tell us about it.

This is either from data or personal experience. Surely you'd like to share one or the other, or both.

[Hoyt]

15. People do it every friggin day, including the old lady who stopped Loughner.

[Union Scribe]

16. Yeah that was something. She could've been killed.

Was she brave? I'd say so. So why wouldn't you trust her with a gun?

"most people" like that would have to put themselves in grave danger to stop a crime. You're advocating a system where lots of innocent people wind up injured or killed, and that's okay as long as you're more comfortable because they don't have guns? Even though they're the brave people you're counting on to stop crimes WITHOUT the guns?

[gejohnston]

20. sure she was unarmed?

never said either way. Did she take him before or after his gun jammed? Both happens every day.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

27. Loughner was outnumbered... he was certainly at a collective disadvantage.

One on one, it's likely he would have defeated the old lady had she not received more aid... however he was outnumbered.

The fact that you cite that example only shows that someone with a gun can be effective even while at a severe disadvantage.

[Hoopla Phil]

46. Tell us again about all the times someone has illegally pulled a gun on you? What did

you do again? Did you "stop" them in their crime? Did you "detain" them? Did you even file a police report?

[rl6214]

63. IIRC he handled it on his own with no police involvement

Sounds like a great citizen, allowing someone to continue to be out on the street after they pulled a gun on him, something he rails against daily.

Again, I call BS

[rl6214]

60. You certainly can prove this with past experience, right?

Look at what crime has done historically with crimes going down while gun ownership goes up and get back with us on that one.

[iverglas]

17. "exercise basic literacy"

The thing contains within itself the seeds of its own utter dumbness, doesn't it?

You may have meant to say "exercise basic literacy skills". Really too bad you failed to do that yourself.

:rofl:

[TPaine7]

19. Keep laughing

World English Dictionary
literacy (ˈlɪtərəsɪ )
—n
1. the ability to read and write
2. the ability to use language proficiently

Source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/literacy

Let's substitute, shall we?:

exercise the basic "ability to read..."

or, if you prefer

exercise the basic "ability to use language proficiently"

Hysterical isn't it? Especially when we recall that you failed miserably on both counts in post 2.

The thing contains within itself the seeds of its own utter dumbness, doesn't it?

You may have meant to say "exercise basic literacy skills". Really too bad you failed to do that yourself.

I meant to say what I said. And I wouldn't call you a thing. But otherwise, you've succeeded again in perfectly summarizing your own situation. You really should consult competent authorities before posting on any subject whatsoever. But if history is any indication...

You've been caught condescending up again. You're wrong. It's been demonstrated. No doubt you have some homemade definition or sophistry up your sleeve, but I doubt I'll waste my time.

It never ceases to amaze me how utterly and how repeatedly you set yourself up. But by all means, keep laughing.

[jmg257]

21. Do you know many people from school 1?

"Decent average people...with the nerve to stop a crime are much more worse than street thugs. They deserve to have the full force of the law brought down on their heads, unlike home invaders, robbers rapists and the like."

Pretty nasty view for some people to have about other decent people.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

32. ok -- question

was he being sarcastic and it was lost on you.

or was he NOT being sarcastic and I am misunderstanding.

:shrug:

[jmg257]

35. Not sure if you posted in the wrong spot, but just so we are clear...

I am not being sarcastic. I asked a question I was curious about.

I don't know people who think this: "Decent average people--who don't have badges--with the nerve to stop a crime are much more worse than street thugs. They are a clear and present danger to society. They deserve to have the full force of the law brought down on their heads, unlike home invaders, robbers rapists and the like."

Now maybe if we throw a gun or 2 into the mix, some opinions might change a bit depending on situations, but the OP stated 'it wasn't about using guns to stop crime', so guns are irrelevant re: the 2 'simplistic views' described in the OP.

So I am interested in knowing who (or what) he based worldview 1 on, if he knows a lot of nasty people who thought like that. It would seem he does as he considers it a 'worldview'.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

36. He. I meant HE as in HE who posted the OP. I am of the opinion that HE

was being sarcastic. Either I am misunderstanding his intent or you are.

[jmg257]

37. Wow - I struggled a bit getting through it, but I NEVER considered it sarcasm. Why would you/we?

Paine has posted various similiar opinion-piece 'essays', never noticed them to be sarcastic before.
Why would this one be?

edit expanded thoughts

[Tuesday Afternoon]

41. are you being deliberately obtuse?

The whole piece is not in question.

The statement that YOU emboldened is the comment in question.

and. Yes. I took that statement to be a sarcastic way of saying that citizens are commiting a crime by stopping a crime and therefore MUST be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

[jmg257]

42. Why would I be obtuse??? HE made the comment as part of what he decribes

is a worldview.

He is stating that people from school 1 would have that view.

Why would you think he is being sarcastic??? Why would I think he is being sarcastic???

Are you saying he meant to imply that people from school 1 don't really think like that??

NOW I am confused!

:shrug:


"There are profoundly different attitudes ...

School 1:

Leave it to the authorities...
Decent average people--who don't have badges--with the nerve to stop a crime are much more worse than street thugs. They are a clear and present danger to society. They deserve to have the full force of the law brought down on their heads, unlike home invaders, robbers rapists and the like."

[Tuesday Afternoon]

44. oh shit. mea culpa.

:blush:

I got the 2 schools confused one with the other.

I am very sorry.

You are correct. He is not being sarcastic.

I blame it on multi-tasking.

Again, my most humblest of apologies.

[jmg257]

45. No worries...whew - thought I was missing something! :)

[Tuesday Afternoon]

48. whew. me too.

*wiping brow*

and, yes -- to answer your original question I do think that HE thinks there are people like that.

I could be wrong but, maybe it is like the old adage:

They will cut off their nose to spite their face.

:shrug:

They can't see the forest for the trees.

They want the letter of the law obeyed while totally misunderstanding the INTENT of the law.

They will throw away a nickel to save a penny.

in other words, using the current horror du jour:

I take it that he is implying that had

Mike stopped Sandusky, using any means necessary, in that shower room then Mike could have been charged with some type of assault on Sandusky.

[jmg257]

49. I think it is a lot uglier attitude then an opinion on McQueary's failure to do more.

The OP is saying that school 1 thinks the good samaritan (a would be McQueary) SHOULD be arrested/charged/etc. - which is bad enough (note 1), but even worse, Sandusky should NOT be (note 2)!?!

1) "They deserve to have the full force of the law brought down on their heads..."

2)"...unlike home invaders, robbers rapists and the like."

WHO thinks like this?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

50. ah yeah...because I think he is implying that the accused home invaders,

robbers, rapists etc will receive a "fair trial and appeals" BUT the good samaritan will be charged and face repercussions.

Kind of like there are no longer any Doctors in the house because they fear a potential lawsuit.


on edit: I think he was applying hyperbole to make a point. :shrug: NOT sarcasm, as I originally stated. duh! :dunce:

[jmg257]

52. Ok, so back to the question (which of course wasn't directed at you), but since you respond.. :)

Do you know anyone who thinks like that? ANYone who has that nasty view of good samaritans?

[TPaine7]

54. See post 53. I don't have time to look up references and PM you

but examples abound. On this site and on the interwebs in general.

[jmg257]

57. Got it, thanks. nt

[iverglas]

72. you're actually accepting that as an answer?

Damn, you're easy!

[jmg257]

73. Naa...just acknowledging the responses.

I started to reply after reading a bit, @53, then ended up responding w/some of those initial thoughts to another poster.

Probably too easy, for now - but I'll get there! I often need time to better articulate things.

edit: expanded thoughts

[Tuesday Afternoon]

93. when you get your thoughts together I would love to read something

[jmg257]

98. Sometimes it just doesn't seem worth the effort.

This is turning into one of those times. Trying to articulate meaningful comments that would add anything of value, that aren't obvious, that are fact-based, that don't get tedious real quick, etc. etc. is getting me nowhere.

Reading about people described in the OP on the web turns up a lot of opinions (one that was similar I don't think I could link to here), some speculation, some possibly valid notions, and a lot of valid complaints about vigilantism in situations that went past just stopping a crime (i.e. 'handing out justice').

I already commented on what I see the primary complaints here at DU seem to most often be about. The gun - it's use, and it's need - is the issue, and not the intervention of 'a decent person'.

Time to move on, I think.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

100. perhaps, you are right however the motivation behind the use or misuse of guns

and the subject of good and evil seem some how intertwined. It is an interesting premise but, the gungeon may not be the best place to attract our deepest thinkers/writers/philosophers.

Already this thread is riddled with deleted message/name removed.

~peace.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

101. double post

[Tuesday Afternoon]

59. .

never mind.

[TPaine7]

64. Yes. Indeed, sometimes they are. n/t

[Tuesday Afternoon]

55. indeed, I hope not.

[TPaine7]

107. See post 114 n/t

[We_Have_A_Problem]

69. Sadly there are many people...

...who think a citizen without a badge who stops a crime should be punished far more than the criminal himself.

They see the fact that the citizen did not cower in fear and ask the state to do the job as a greater crime than even murder.

[oneshooter]

75. There are certain Canadians who think that way. n/t

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TPaine7]

78. Oh I've read that sentiment here...

I have definitely heard that sentiment. Rapists don't deserve to be shot; to shoot one simply to stop a rape is "murder." Murder is worse than rape, therefore the "murderer" should face the full force of the law unlike the mere rapist.

By full force I meant that the book should be thrown at the "murderer"; the rapist doesn't deserve the same heavy-handed type of justice. No, they don't think that Sandusky shouldn't be arrested. But they do believe that people like him deserve more leniency than someone who resorts to potentially lethal force to stop him.

[oneshooter]

79. If I remember it was a northern member who wrote that

Rape is not a crime of violence, or some other drivel like that.

[iverglas]

81. I guess that's why laws in the US

historically define one offence as "forcible rape", and required that the woman have resisted with force in order to prove it.

Because there's no other kind of rape, I guess. Except that ... in US law ... there was, and is.

Here is what I actually said, since you don't seem to "remember" (with a slight edit to fix a mis-edit, and with emphasis to help you and your friends "remember").

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=459674&mesg_id=460066

A sexual assault is an assault that involves sexual contact.

Bodily harm is harm to the body.

Seeing it at all?

If you want someone to have sexual intercourse with <you>, and they do so, that person has not assaulted you.

If you want someone to pick you up and move you across a room, and they do so, that person has not assaulted you.

In either case, if you do not want the person to do so, then if the person does so they have assaulted you.

In neither case has the person caused you bodily harm.

Getting it?

A sexual assault is a serious assault, and a serious offence, even if no bodily harm is caused.

Similarly, locking someone in a room for a month, even if the person is fed on luxury foods and provided with all the comforts of home, is a serious offence.

An offence does not have to involve bodily harm in order to be serious.

And your efforts to portray me as minimizing the seriousness of sexual assault by stating the obvious fact that it does not necessarily involve bodily harm fail.

Oh, and by the way, "assault" is by definition a crime of violence, so you can take your it was a northern member who wrote that Rape is not a crime of violence and shove it up the barrel of the nearest gun.

And maybe y'all should get a more fulfilling hobby, since guns don't seem to help with this fixation on sexual violence against women that seems to need an outlet.

[TPaine7]

82. "there's no other kind of rape"

I guess that's why laws in the US

historically define one offence as "forcible rape", and required that the woman have resisted with force in order to prove it.

Because there's no other kind of rape, I guess. Except that ... in US law ... there was, and is.

And there bloody well should be.

The idea that forcible rape is the only kind is...

Never mind, I'll leave that for decent readers to fill in.

Suffice it to say that it is possible to rape a woman who, is unable--for any reason--to "resist with force." It is possible to rape a woman who, is unable--for any reason--to "give consent."

Guns and politics aside, that is one of the most amoral, misogynistic, incomprehensible loads of crap I have ever read.

When a guy "makes love" (I shouldn't call it rape, right?) to a girl he finds passed out in the back room at a party, that isn't rape?! When the orderly gets the woman in the coma pregnant that isn't rape?! What a guy "makes love" (I shouldn't call it rape, right?) to a psych patient in restraints, that isn't rape?! When a guy "makes love" (I shouldn't call it rape, right?) to a girl so terrified that she can't move, that isn't rape?!

What makes it rape is lack of competent consent, not lack of forcible resistance.

Your morality...

No, I won't finish that one either. And you have the nerve to look down your nose at US law.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

83. Let us not forget...

...statutory rape as well.

Like you, I do not understand the views of that poster and cannot read them without wanting to react very poorly. Ah well - that's what the ignore function is for.

[Simo 1939_1940]

105. "Ah well - that's what the ignore function is for."

+1

[Name removed]

85. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

92. okay ... so what ARE you blinded by?

And there bloody well should be.

The idea that forcible rape is the only kind is...

Never mind, I'll leave that for decent readers to fill in.


... is ... false.

You've heard of "statutory rape"?

There is also rape by threat, which is NOT "violent" if no resistance is offered.

What makes you so invested in this?

What makes you unable to accept the fact that sexual assault is a SERIOUS OFFENCE no matter what the circumstances?

Compelling another person to engage in an act of sexual intercourse, or any sexual contact, is a serious offence. It doesn't matter whether it is accomplished through threat of violence or threat of loss of employment, through deception, through the use of force, through manipulation of a child, however. It is a SERIOUS OFFENCE.


What makes it rape is lack of competent consent, not lack of forcible resistance.

What I said was: what makes it FORCIBLE rape is the use of force to which resistance is offered.

Read your own fucking laws. If there were no distinction between forcible rape and other non-consensual acts of sexual intercourse, there would be no offence called FORCIBLE rape.


We know what makes you so invested in this. Well, on the surface, anyway.

If you can't define all sexual assault as VIOLENT than you can't justify your approval of killing people to avoid it.

Well, newsflash: you can't. Just get over it and move on with your life.


When a guy "makes love" (I shouldn't call it rape, right?) to a girl he finds passed out in the back room at a party, that isn't rape?! When the orderly gets the woman in the coma pregnant that isn't rape?! What a guy "makes love" (I shouldn't call it rape, right?) to a psych patient in restraints, that isn't rape?! When a guy "makes love" (I shouldn't call it rape, right?) to a girl so terrified that she can't move, that isn't rape?!

And take your sneering vulgar rude crude ugly insinuations and bile and pack them up somewhere and bury them deep, and you and the world will be the better for it.

And no, that is NOT an insult or personal attack. It is my opinion of the sneering vulgar rude crude ugly insinuations and bile and my advice about what to do with them.

[TPaine7]

106. "you can't justify your approval of killing people to avoid {rape}"

Yes, iverglas, you are one of the main proponents of the "protect the felon" "don't use potentially deadly force to stop rape" school of thought. And there's your eternal distortion--it's not approval of killing people, it's approval of using POTENTIALLY deadly force to STOP OR PREVENT rape.



Let's appy iverglassian principles to the shower scene (remember, you raised the issue of a gun being used in the Penn State story):

Let us say that Penn State allowed concealed carry by licensed, law abiding adults. A small old janitor came upon the coach raping the boy. The coach yelled at him to leave. The janitor drew his concealed weapon--realizing that he couldn't win a physical contest. He ordered the coach to stop his assault, but the coach called his "bluff"--"what are you going to do, shoot me???!"

I say the answer should be yes. Shoot him. And if the first shot doesn't stop the rape, repeat as necessary. (Assuming, of course that you can do so without danger of injuring the boy.)

I am not in the school of thought that believes that the janitor is obliged to physically fight the coach or to allow the rape to continue--hoping that the police will arrive soon (assuming that there is even reception there and he was able to make a call). I do not believe that shooting the coach to stop the rape ("attempted murder"?!) is worse than defensively shooting the coach to stop that horrific crime. I don't believe that shooting the coach to stop the rape is a crime, never mind a more severe one than the rape.

Anyone who wants some background on the "protect the felon" "don't use potentially deadly force to stop rape" school of thought can read up:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=231574&mesg_id=231574 (take special note of post 18)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x241317 (see the subthread starting at post 52)

[iverglas]

108. the shower scene!

Oh. Damn. I thought we were revisiting your fantasy about the naked lady in the shower ...

But enough of your fantasies for this week.

One does begin to wonder whether you might be "an small old janitor" ...

I am not in the school that believes ... well, I am not of the school of thought that believes much of anything you come up with, and in this case I just don't believe that most child molestors are quite as, hm, cocky as your imaginary one here. And if that one was, and he had reason to believe there might be "an small old janitor" with a gun prowling the precincts (who wouldn't suspect that? you did!), he'd have kept his own piece at hand.

Anyone who wants to grow up to be a valuable member of their society will of course not be affected in the least by your snot-nosed sneering and will simply rely on their own inherent decency to tell them that people don't (as a normative thing) kill people for any reason other than to avoid serious bodily harm or death, and that those who do or who advocate doing so are beyond the pale, and that people don't (as an observed phenomenon thing) kill their intimates unless they themselves have a personality disorder, and that those who pretend otherwise have a great big ... or teeny-weeny ... axe to grind.

[TPaine7]

109. Exhibit A:

Anyone who wants to grow up to be a valuable member of their society will of course not be affected in the least by your snot-nosed sneering and will simply rely on their own inherent decency to tell them that people don't (as a normative thing) kill people for any reason other than to avoid serious bodily harm or death, and that those who do or who advocate doing so are beyond the pale, and that people don't (as an observed phenomenon thing) kill their intimates unless they themselves have a personality disorder, and that those who pretend otherwise have a great big ... or teeny-weeny ... axe to grind.

If anyone can find such vitriol directed, by iverglas, towards a murderer, a rapist, a child molester, or even a practicer of genocide--please let me know. (I can think of such vitriol directed against those who oppose abortion).

And the great big...or teeny weeny axe to grind thing was clever. I'm sure it escaped our resident scientist.

And you want me to name your school?!

I think it's so much more effective when you do it.

[iverglas]

110. "a murderer, a rapist, a child molester, or even a practicer of genocide"

.......... any of them posting at DU?

:rofl:


Oh, oops, I neglected your education again: that's practitioner of genocide. I'll bet "practicer" is a word, I've just never seen anybody try to use it in a sentence before ...

[DanTex]

111. I think what he's saying is that...

...everytime you criticize anyone, you need to immediately follow it up with "but Pol Pot was much worse". Otherwise we'll just have to conclude that you think Pol Pot was a swell guy.

Come to think it, I don't remember you saying single bad thing about Pol Pot in any of your posts here... Is there something you'd like to share with the group?

[iverglas]

112. well ...

I have to confess I did in fact post a thread about Cambodia yesterday ... and nary a whisper of disapproval aimed at Pol Pot. I think that's evidence enough. You have caught me out. Either that or you're stalking me ... too.

Or it's as I first thought ... our minds are more than ad idem, they are one ...

I did promptly get spammed by 10 posts advertising drugs or fake drugs or something. That will fix me.

[TPaine7]

117. I'm sorry to hear that you think I'm stalking you, iverglas.

What was it that crossed the line?

Was it my response to your suggestion that I propose?:

iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sun Sep-07-08 12:36 PM
Response to Reply #40
53. "Isn't psychiatric care free in Canada?"


Why? Can't afford it at home?

I'm always up for marrying some poor unfortunate victim of the US military industrial complex.

Feel free to submit your application.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=184743&mesg_id=184881

Was this not the correct response?

TPaine7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Mon Sep-08-08 05:23 PM
Response to Reply #53
80. It nearly worked. Updated at 5:10 PM

It would have been the perfect crime--murder by humor, over the internet. The jury would have never bought it. And they never would have appreciated the suffering involved in laughing to death. It hurts.

As it was, there was someone there to resuscitate me. And distract me with tragedies. The Bush presidency, famine, plague and pestilence. And the prospect of actually marrying iverglas (as opposed to her diabolically clever joke weapon). Tragedy indeed.

It would take the bard himself to write the tale.

Can't you hear the desperation and shock in our hero's voice?:

What pow'rs against me are arrayed,
that I have come to such a pass?
Is there no shelter in the grave,
that I must marry iverglas!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=184743&mesg_id=185051

Was that love poem not to your liking? Awwwwww!

[iverglas]

118. res ipsa loquitur

I'm sure it was saying something, I just don't really give a fig.

[TPaine7]

120. Learn English first... n/t

[TPaine7]

116. After careful "scientific" evaluation of the evidence presented,

you probably do think that.

It's "the more rational and scientifically minded" approach in action.

[TPaine7]

115. You've shown you ignorance twice, so this time you pre-emtively admit that I am correct?

And yet you're still laughing?

Wow, just wow. That's pathetic, even for you.

And I bet you haven't seen anyone use it in a sentence. Just like you didn't know the meanings of "assert" and "literacy." But I'm not responsible for your ignorance of the English language or for the ignorance of people you associate with. It's sad that you think that your ignorance is a reason to laugh at someone who doesn't share it.

And no, as far as I know there are no practicers of genocide posting on DU (though statistically, there probably are the other categories).

But that wasn't the point. In discussing crimes and defensive shootings, we discuss the activities of the attacker and the defender. It is your general practice (not to say ironclad principle) to minimize and excuse the acts of the attacker and condemn and criticize the acts of the defender. You wear your bias on your sleeve.

For example, by your corrupt and disgusting principle, had the janitor in my scenario shot the rapist to stop the rape, you would have condemned him for it. Better to let a rape continue than to use potentially deadly force in the face of craven evil.

Protecting craven evil is craven evil.

[iverglas]

119. it seems to be the witching hour

Or is it happy hour?

Don't worry; be happy!

[Name removed]

86. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[oneshooter]

88. Seems that I may have touched a nerve, not that I really care. n/t

[Name removed]

89. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

99. hahahahaha

Looks like I'm the one who touched the nerve!

:rofl:

[iverglas]

80. I actually don't know what Sandusky is

But I sure do know what you are.

[Name removed]

84. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SteveM]

114. I believe there is a little PSP in some anti-self-defense folks...

As in let me take care of the poor sick puppy, who has been so mistreated, abused, neglected, fired from jobs, etc., and protect him from the home-owner cowering in the bedroom with his .38.

Outlaw romance is the next room down in that hotel.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

68. Just because we have tasked...

...the police department with investigating crimes and arresting offenders does not in any way mean we have given up the right to protect our own property.

Stopping criminal behavior is neither the exclusive domain of the police, nor is it even their job. Funny thing is, when police departments first came into existence, and even until relatively recently, even the cops didn't expect to be the only one's doing that job. When the mentality shifted to the point where we believed we must cede all of that power to the state is beyond me.

[jmg257]

70. I agree with that. Citizen Arrests or detentions are lawful in

every state. And rightly so.

There seems to be much more condemnation of the idea of vigilantism when the action of 'taking the law into your own hands' gets passed just stopping the crime & detaining the perp, and moves into deciding on-the-spot justice. (ignoring things like racism, mob mentality, etc.)

It is along these lines where I see most of the complaints occur. Strong enough when mistakes are perceived, and they seem to grow when deadly weapons are introduced, and when deadly force is used - or over-used (or allowed to be used by law), especially when the use of force is deemed avoidable or not necessary or by the one complaining.

[iverglas]

33. I hereby give my consent

for TPaine7 to name me as one of the people who belong to school 1 if that is his claim. (He may have made that claim already, but I won't repost anything not currently visible.)

If he does not do that, it will be understood that he is assigning me to school 2.

Anybody want to join me?

There will be no repercussions for TPaine7's claim with respect to me. I consent to him simply making whichever claim he makes, as a matter of information. I mean, he might want to back it up, and that would be fine too. But just some straightforward clarity is all that's really needed.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

39. oh. good lord.

NOW you are giving your consent. Last night it was FOUL.

[TPaine7]

40. iverglas, iverglas

There will be no repercussions, huh? Is there something you'd like to tell us, iverglas? Have you purchased DU? Do you have a deal with Skinner or the moderators? Or do you think that any reply you can muster qualifies as a "repercussion"?

And I love your challenge. I must name you as being in one school or you will understand that I am assigning you to another? Understand what you will, iverglas. I am sure that 99% of the readers have a clear understanding of your status and did before I posted the OP.

You have named yourself. Public opinion follows your lead. Recognition of reality is not the strange, dark art that you imagine it to be.



Naturally, you probably think that the OP was about you, don't you, "Goddess of Truth and Beauty"? And you claim I'm a narcissist!

Here's a free clue. Joe Blow may be a pathetic fool, but that does not mean that every time someone discusses pathetic fools they have Joe Blow in mind. There are other pathetic fools. There are people who talk about pathetic fools who don't even know that Joe Blow exists. But if Joe Blow is a narcissist as well as a pathetic fool, he will assume that they all have him, personally, in mind.



When I choose to unmask you, I never require your consent. When you offer your consent, it will not induce me to unmask you.

To put it bluntly, your consent is inconsequential.

[Union Scribe]

87. Carly Simon 2011

"You're so vain...you probably think this post is about you..."

[TPaine7]

53. Yes, there are people who are aghast at the thought of people

"taking the law into their own hands." There are police officers (especially in big cities), mayors, DAs and many many ordinary people who reflexively oppose people taking action instead of waiting for the police.

They are all over the interwebs. Do a search on "vigilantes" "taking the law into your own hands." Check out the insults for people who stop armed robberies or other violent crimes. Read the second guessing of every detail. Read the insults--cowboy, yahoo, redneck, dumb-ass, hillbilly. Especially if the person used a gun. Some even think people should be obliged to flee their own homes rather than resist deadly assaults.

It is obvious, to me at least, that many of them think that people who resist crime are more deadly than violent felons. People here have said they fear legally armed CCW permit holders more than armed thugs. People here often call for the book to be thrown at someone who defends himself.

Keep reading.

[DWC]

22. Extremely well stated.

In a nutshell:

Herd Mentality vs Individual Empowerment is the essence of the gundgeon debate.

Semper Fi,

[DanTex]

23. LOL. "At the risk of oversimplification..."

...there are two profoundly different kinds of people in America.

The first kind likes to fantasize about heroic gunners shooting down bad guys and saving the day. They often conjure up gruesome images, children being raped, people bleeding in the street, to make the fantasies more dramatic. And, they talk about penis size a lot.

And then you have the more rational and scientifically minded people. They benefit from having several extra hours a day that aren't spent fantasizing about violence. They like to read books and vote for Democrats, and are concerned about the fact that US, with it's lax gun laws, has by far the highest homicide rate in the industrialized world.

[gejohnston]

24. at the risk of sounding rational

There are two groups of people:
People who are nondogmatic critical thinkers.

And you have people who pretend to be rational and scientifically minded, but are just as dogmatic and narrow-minded as creationists. This group likes to ponder the penis sizes of their "other".
The only people I see talking about penis size is your side.

[Simo 1939_1940]

58. "The only people I see talking about penis size

is your side."

Among the many things I find astonishing about the pro-restrictionists is their complete inability to recognize how the low level to which they stoop destroys their cred.

[iverglas]

25. and here we have another of those times

where I was all over it already saying exactly almost word-for-word what you've said here ... you just didn't get a chance to see it. ;)

It's okay to post some things in this forum, but it isn't okay to post other things.

The damned thing is that it's hard for some people to figure out which is which!

I'm one of 'em ...

:headscratch:

[Tuesday Afternoon]

29. as for you --- are you trying to continue a deleted subthread?

pray tell . . . .

do continue . . . . .

[iverglas]

30. as some of my esteemed colleagues would say and have said

I wasn't talking to you.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

31. yeah, but -- you're cuter than your esteemed colleagues

:*

[Tuesday Afternoon]

28. are you saying that school one does NOT vote democrat??

pray tell ....

do continue . . . . . . . .

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DanTex]

38. LOL. A personal attack directed straight at me...

Funny what people will resort to when defending the indefensible. Particularly amusing is your attempt to resurrect and distort arguments that you lost a long time ago.

I guess the difference between the "new you" and the person I discussed with in those threads is that, in those older threads, you first attempted to carry on a rational, scientific debate, and only after failing catastrophically on that front did you resort to personal attacks. Apparently you've now decided to drop even the pretense that your ideology has a logical foundation, and instead you proceed directly to the hyperbole and the character attacks on those you disagree with.

[Remmah2]

43. It's not about you.

Some anti2A advocates post from a logical view but the logical view is that of limited logic and experience. In addition to limited logic the arguments also lack abstract reasoning and intuitive observation. This accounts for problems being solved from a microscopic level rather than addressing the big picture. It solves the problem for the present and fails to account for problems created in the future.

[iverglas]

74. hmm

Looks like it was ...

[TPaine7]

47. Read post 23. That was your personal attack.

I really hope you aren't another one who thinks the OP was about you personally. If not, the "personal attacks" between us started with your distortion of the penis reference in the OP.

And anyone who reads those threads that I "lost" can see that you carefully avoided answering simple, fair and direct questions, that you applied double standards, and that you acted as if statistical methodology was the beginning and end of the scientific method. Enjoy your "victory."

The difference between my posting then and now was that I suspected then that you might be a decent opponent--knowledgeable, honest and someone who holds a different opinion.

You definitely hold a different opinion. You might be knowledgeable--perhaps it's extreme bias and not scientific illiteracy that lead you to misrepresent/misinterpret that study. But your repeated failure to address a simple, straightforward, question destroyed the third leg of the worthy opponent stool:

One last time--would you uncritically accept a source that cited the NRA thus?:

The tracing data used in this paper are based upon a study by the National Rifle Association (2010). Their key
finding is that {key finding of NRA study}.

We build upon this literature in several ways...

Yes or no.

If you lack the integrity to address this issue, your professed knowledge of statistics, science or any other subject is quite irrelevant to the trustworthiness of your assertions.

Source: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=473803&mesg_id=474395

Your insistence on double standards and evasion led me to conclude that you are not worthy of serious effort. You lack the integrity. The only reason to deal substantively with anything you say is to help others avoid being deceived or to make them aware of your character.

[DanTex]

51. Umm... that was not a personal attack, it was a parody of the OP.

Your OP was an incoherent tirade filled with violent imagery. I think I did a pretty good job with my response: parodying the simplistic "two schools" point of view is so common among small-minded pro-gunners, while making a hyperbolic yet still accurate point about the difference between your OP and the more measured and scientific approach to the gun issue that the pro-control side takes.

And you can keep attacking my integrity over and over again all day if you want. It just goes to show that you have nothing to contribute on the substantive front. I trust that anyone who reads that thread can understand the difference between your approach to science and mine. And, really, given that you hold large numbers of highly reputable scientists in the same low regard, and you have shown yourself to be pretty much incapable of reading a scientific text beyond the names of the authors, I'll take it as a complement.

You are far from the first pro-gunner to resort to character attacks when you logic and reason fail you. And it's not just pro-gunners. You might want to look into global warming denial, I think it would really suit your personality type...

[Tuesday Afternoon]

56. .

never mind.

[TPaine7]

62. Yeah, more measured and scientific approach to the gun issue that the pro-control side takes.

All things are science and all science is statistics, right?

The OP wasn't about science. There are other realms of knowledge. Law for instance. (BTW I've noticed that whenever I've contested a legal point of yours you've never engaged--not that I particularly want to discuss the law with someone of your intellectual honesty.)

I said there were at least two schools, and I did not imply that they covered everyone. In fact, I made clear that I was aware that they didn't--at least for literate people. The small mindedness and simplistic thinking was yours, despite your attempt to impute it to me.

In case you haven't noticed, the "measured and scientific approach to the gun issue that the pro-control side takes" includes veiled and not so veiled comments about the endowment of CCW holders. I know that must be the result of a careful statistical study--I'm just glad the anti-gun "scientists" have never made detailed reports on the methodology. (And to be clear, I'm not talking about you here. I don't recall you making such comments.)

Yes the OP had violent imagery. This forum is related to violence, so you should not be surprised to see violence discussed. There are those who oppose violence--except violence hired out to the state. There are those who disagree. It is hard to discuss their differences without discussing the situations that would justify principled violence. So I did.

Perhaps you should consider trying to start a knitting forum. Or a statistics forum. They probably won't have violent imagery. You'll just have to bring the knitting folks up to speed on your more measured and scientific approach to making socks.

LOL.

Logic and reason. It took weeks for you to stop "refuting" my point that experiment (or reality) trumps theory. You still apparently can't grasp that (anti-gun) advocacy groups aren't trustworthy sources of "science," nor are the "studies" they hire people to perform.

Interestingly enough, I have recently had occasion to read and investigate this very thing on a totally unrelated subject. I have gotten first hand accounts from an eminent scientist on just such situations--advocacy groups influencing "studies" over several decades as seen from the inside. His accounts are more or less precisely what I posted in those debates you "won." And he has no knowledge of or interest in gun rights as far as I know. (And calm yourself, it has nothing to do with global warming or creationism, either.)

Of course my logic has failed. I can see that the Joyce Foundation and the MAIG are as legitimate sources as the NRA. I can see that motivation is a huge issue in science. I can see that double standards are not legitimate. I am not "scientific" enough.

[DanTex]

71. I agree, the OP was not about science.

And neither was my response. I had no intention to turn it into a scientific debate. You were the one who jumped back into your whole tirade about the Joyce foundation, and it was you who brought back those other threads. It was you who attacked my integrity (literally, using the word "integrity"), now you accuse me of turning everything into science, of ignoring some legal point you made somewhere (?), something about experiment trumping reality, the Joyce Foundation again... Honestly, re: Joyce or science vs. legal or any of this other stuff, right now I really have nothing to add to what I've already said elsewhere, so go re-read those other threads if you want my opinion. I get that you think I lack integrity (you've said it how many times now), and I'll point out again that I'm not too worried about that. Looks like we'll have to agree to disagree.

But now back to this thread, and my point, which is still valid: pro-gunners are very often motivated by fear, violent imagery, and are ideologically driven, in contrast to the more measured and scientific approach which pro-control people take. Your OP was a great example. It was wildly hyperbolic and inaccurate, and full of straw arguments. It seems that if you had something intelligent to say, then you wouldn't rely on comparing your opponents to those who think innocent people defending themselves are worse than rapists. Do you think anyone besides a hardened pro-gunner would really take any of that seriously?

Maybe the word "science" triggered some involuntary reflex in you. By a "measured and scientific approach", I mean to examine policy options rationally and then select based on costs and benefits. I would guess that, if we were discussing another issue in which you weren't so ideologically invested, you'd agree that such a measured and scientific approach is a good thing, and I think you'd even agree that "measured and scientific" is a pretty accurate choice of words.

[TPaine7]

76. I do agree to disagree.

But now back to this thread, and my point, which is still valid: pro-gunners are very often motivated by fear, violent imagery, and are ideologically driven, in contrast to the more measured and scientific approach which pro-control people take. Your OP was a great example. It was wildly hyperbolic and inaccurate, and full of straw arguments. It seems that if you had something intelligent to say, then you wouldn't rely on comparing your opponents to those who think innocent people defending themselves are worse than rapists. Do you think anyone besides a hardened pro-gunner would really take any of that seriously?

I am sure that your psychoanalysis is worth every penny I paid for it. I will give it all the respect it deserves. (Actually I've already been too generous.)

You may not understand yet how common the sentiments I discussed are in this place--that may be honest error. But its hard for me to believe that even you think most of the people IN THIS PLACE who favor ideas like yours take a measured and scientific approach. And even if I cared enough to prove what I'm saying point by point, my posts would be deleted. Its against the rules to call people out. (That's people, not person for a certain character who may read this.)

The OP wasn't directed at you. It was directed at the mindset of too many posters here and elsewhere on the web as well as in the anti-gun world.
And that includes characters in anti-gun organizations. As such, it was not "wildly hyperbolic and inaccurate" it was on point.

There are people who are more outraged, and who use more epithets, insults, criticisms and vitriol against innocent people defending themselves than they do against criminal perpetrators. They are here. Perhaps you are too biased or too new to see them.

If you have the slightest interest in the truth, read some posts about someone defended him or herself with a gun, especially outside the home. Look at the reactions of people who strongly oppose gun rights. Make your own analysis of the level of condemnation for the criminals vs the level of condemnation of the defender. Look at the second guessing. Look at the assumptions used to fill in the information gaps. If you put a little effort into it, you can probably find people saying that they fear CCW holders more than criminals. You will definitely get people calling for harsh penalties for innocent people defending themselves with guns, complete with all the necessary assumptions to cast them in the worst possible light. You will definitely find fanciful alternative tactics the victims should have used.

But by all means, take seriously whatever you want to. I agree to disagree.

[DanTex]

96. So, basically, the OP was one big straw man.

True, I haven't been here too long, but in that time I've noticed that the people who use the word "penis" have been almost all pro-gunners. And they use it in the same way as you did: as a straw argument, insisting that pro-controllers have some penis obsession. The problem is, the pro-control people don't actually make the "penis size" argument very often at all. The same goes for "confiscation". Hardly a day goes by without some pro-gunner talking about some hypothetical gun grabbers who want to confiscate all guns. And then there's the argument from the OP about people who think self-defenders are worse than rapists. Again, nobody actually thinks this, but I see pro-gunners making this accusation all the time.

On the other hand, there is not much need to stretch the truth in order to paint pro-gunners, here or elsewhere, in an unfavorable light. How often have we heard, for example, the loony theory that Fast and Furious was a conspiracy by the administration to get stronger gun control laws? This belief clearly disqualifies anyone from being a sane, rational human, and yet, even on this board you'll find support for it.

And then we have the sources pro-gunners here link to. Fox News, Washington Times, even WorldNetDaily! Seriously, I'm not making this up. Pro-gunners on this board actually link to places like Fox and WND regularly! Not to mention the more or less open disdain towards so many liberals and Democrats, except, of course, for the most conservative ones (e.g. Heath Shuler).

And the situation gets much worse if you move beyond DU and examine the views and writings of pro-gun advocates at large. In the real world, links to WND from gun blogs are no surprise because -- duh! -- the pro-gun movement is very much a right-wing movement. I have often compared pro-gunners to global warming deniers because both hold the same anti-scientific outlook, but if you look at prominent pro-gun advocates out in the real world, they don't just resemble GW deniers. They actually are GW deniers. Honestly, outside this board, I have not met a single staunch pro-gunner who does not also firmly believe that GW is a liberal conspiracy.

Of course, even global warming denial is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to insane things that pro-gunners say on a regular basis. The GW denial is what you'll get from the "intellectuals" of the pro-gun movement, the David Kopel types. But you move on to Wayne LaPierre and the teabaggers in congress who push the pro-gun NRA agenda, and it gets much uglier than that. And then you move even further right to the likes of Dave Vanderboegh, hero of the gun blogs, the same guy who proudly incited violence against Democratic offices after the HCR vote. Actually, he's the origin of the loony Fast and Furious conspiracy theory that you see people tossing around -- it all ties together...

Anyway, none of this would matter much if the pro-gunners actually had some sort of defensible policy arguments. A point I've made many times, I prefer to discuss the actual substance rather than the character attacks. The fact that most pro-gunners are right-wing crazies doesn't automatically mean they're wrong (though it's a pretty good indication...).

But, if you are going to be making your case through character attacks on certain pro-controllers that may have rubbed you the wrong way, then I would suggest that you take a look around and see who you're really getting in bed with with those extreme pro-gunner views of yours. That is, "if you have the slightest interest in the truth", as you put it.

[iverglas]

97. "the loony theory that Fast and Furious was a conspiracy"

This belief clearly disqualifies anyone from being a sane, rational human, and yet, even on this board you'll find support for it.

See post 101. ;)

Just wanted to add to your hall of famers: Kim du Toit. I never like to forget him. A good white supremacist South African should never be forgot.

I did find it funny that during one of the semi-regular outpourings of praise for a little website called "cornered kitty" (okay, I won't leave you guessing: it's about guns for ladies!!), when I pointed out that one of its featured contributors was "Mrs. du Toit", which kinda killed it for me, everybody here responded with blank stares.

[gejohnston]

103. I remember when you

first mentioned it. I went through the site looking for this Mrs. du Toit, could not find any reference.
Kim du Toit is not likely to be a household name around here or in the US for that matter. So, what kind of people have you been hanging around with?

[gejohnston]

104. or hay

True, I haven't been here too long, but in that time I've noticed that the people who use the word "penis" have been almost all pro-gunners. And they use it in the same way as you did: as a straw argument, insisting that pro-controllers have some penis obsession. The problem is, the pro-control people don't actually make the "penis size" argument very often at all.

Actually they use it as a slur, not as an argument. It is used as a slur often. If you have not seen pro control people use it, then you don't read closely. You are one of the very few that attempts a rational argument.

This belief clearly disqualifies anyone from being a sane, rational human, and yet, even on this board you'll find support for it.

I could picture Nixon or Reagan doing it, but not this one.

Of course, even global warming denial is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to insane things that pro-gunners say on a regular basis. The GW denial is what you'll get from the "intellectuals" of the pro-gun movement, the David Kopel types.

I fail to see what one has to do with the other. I noticed that you whine about and personally attack anyone that dares to criticize any academic you like, but you have no problem making baseless and condescending remarks about those you disagree with without any substantive reason why.

Anyway, none of this would matter much if the pro-gunners actually had some sort of defensible policy arguments. A point I've made many times, I prefer to discuss the actual substance rather than the character attacks. The fact that most pro-gunners are right-wing crazies doesn't automatically mean they're wrong (though it's a pretty good indication...).

You define substance as "if you question me, I'll call you stupid in ten paragraphs."

But, if you are going to be making your case through character attacks on certain pro-controllers that may have rubbed you the wrong way, then I would suggest that you take a look around and see who you're really getting in bed with with those extreme pro-gunner views of yours. That is, "if you have the slightest interest in the truth", as you put it.

I think there is a logical fallacy for that.

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TPaine7]

67. Perhaps I erred.

I took your comments about penis talk as an intentional misrepresentation and thus a personal attack. I was not talking about penises to talk about them, I was talking about them to answer those in the first school who obsess over them (and only recently were forbidden by the rules to blatantly use them as insult material).

Perhaps you are unaware of this.

If so, I erred.

[gejohnston]

90. parody?

I suggest you don't use it as part of a portfolio to SNL.

[iverglas]

91. snork

Have you watched SNL lately? They should come looking for him and beg him to sign up. Along with moi, of course. It might keep my household from changing the channel. We endure it long enough to catch the news segment ... and last week we kicked ourselves in the head for doing that, even. What a bunch of talentless hacks, bar one or two.

I watched an hour of Gilda Radner's SNL highlights last week. Those were the days.

One can only hope that Lorne whatsisname has turned in his Canadian citizenship. His baby has become an embarrassment.

[gejohnston]

94. actually no

I rarely turn on the idiot box these days for anything, so I didn't know SNL went that far down hill.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

102. it actually seems to rise and fall with each week. I enjoy some seasons

and cast members better than others. Kristen Wiig, Amy Poehler, Tina Fey are talents that can not be denied.

[rl6214]

65. LOL is right

only the laughing is AT you for a post like this.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

95. there is the school of thought that good and evil are subjective

and as such, neither really exist.

[Remmah2]

123. Actually evil and good are relative.

You need to meet my cousins and in-laws.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

121. Evil men are not as bad as...

...the indifference of good men.

[Remmah2]

122. +1 nt

nt