Debates
20 Jan 06
23 Jan 06
Originally posted by STANG"don't have much time to debate"
I don't have access to the hundreds of millions of dollars that Bush used to spread his propaganda and buy votes. I also don't have much time to debate. I am a critic who believes that critics should be persistent.
One wonders why you are here then...
I'm sure that in the vast expanse of the internet there must be a "criticism forum" for you to inhabit. After all, how would critics measure their "persistance"? It's hardly likely that anybody other than critics will be able to keep up with you. Even if you paid them.
MÅ¥HÅRM
23 Jan 06
Originally posted by STANGOk I'm a newbie but I know Stang is a spammer who seems to really like to post the above link for whatever his reasons are and since I am new I am not sure if anyone has pointed this out before.
Who created this crap ?
http://photos1.blogger.com/hello/50/2707/400/LOOK%20AT%20THIS%20PICTURE.jpg
If you take a real critical look at the picture the argument could be made that it is a fake, either staged with ketchup or a Photoshop retouched picture.
At first glance the little appears to be badly hurt or dead and appears to have lost her foot.
If that were the case without immediate medical attention she probably would have bled to death.
The fact that her arm is not hanging down would suggest she is not dead but I would imagine anybody with those injuries would be in great pain.
Have a look at her face she is not wincing or anything and has a peaceful look on her face, in fact it is very close to a smile.
YOU DECIDE!
GV
23 Jan 06
Your posts in the Debates forum these days seem limited to arguing for STANG's removal; in your own way, you're just as much a "spammer" as he is. Are there no subjects in the world of slightly more importance for you that you'd like to discuss than getting a guy banned from the forums of an internet chess site??
23 Jan 06
Originally posted by no1marauderTypical, Lawyers only ask questions they already
Your posts in the Debates forum these days seem limited to arguing for STANG's removal; in your own way, you're just as much a "spammer" as he is. Are there no subjects in the world of slightly more importance for you that you'd like to discuss than getting a guy banned from the forums of an internet chess site??
know the answer to.
23 Jan 06
Originally posted by no1marauderIt's difficult to discuss other topics when one guy bumps 12 of his threads to the top of the thread list. It's infuriating when all of the posts contain exactly the same link. It's deliberate SPAM when a guy makes 19 posts containing the same link and nothing else. Such spammers ought to be excised like the cancerous tumors they are.
Your posts in the Debates forum these days seem limited to arguing for STANG's removal; in your own way, you're just as much a "spammer" as he is. Are there no subjects in the world of slightly more importance for you that you'd like to discuss than getting a guy banned from the forums of an internet chess site??
23 Jan 06
1 edit
Originally posted by xsAs usual you don't know what you're talking about. That "rule" is one that is applicable only for in-trial cross-examinations. A lot of a lawyer's work is getting factual answers to questions (it's called "discovery" in litigation).
Typical, Lawyers only ask questions they already
know the answer to.
23 Jan 06
1 edit
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemRidiculous. Who ever decides what threads to respond to based on where they are located on the thread list? Why is it soooooooooo "infuriating" to be given a link; do you automatically go to any link on the internet? You people need to grow up; STANG's mildly annoying but nothing more. Plenty of other posters post on the same topic over and over and over again and some provide the same links over and over and over again. If you're not interested in STANG's topics, don't post in the threads he starts; he's usually at least mildly on-topic in other people's threads. This whole vendetta of sasquatch's is absurd and ideologically based (he doesn't like STANG's view of the US). Get over it.
It's difficult to discuss other topics when one guy bumps 12 of his threads to the top of the thread list. It's infuriating when all of the posts contain exactly the same link. It's deliberate SPAM when a guy makes 19 posts containing the same link and nothing else. Such spammers ought to be excised like the cancerous tumors they are.
23 Jan 06
Originally posted by no1marauderLol, It was meant as a joke, leave it to you to debate it.
As usual you don't know what you're talking about. That "rule" is one that is applicable only for in-trial cross-examinations. A lot of a lawyer's work is getting factual answers to questions (it's called "discovery" in litigation).
And throw in one of your signature barbs to boot.
23 Jan 06
Originally posted by no1marauderI didn't go to any of the links that stang gave.
Ridiculous. Who ever decides what threads to respond to based on where they are located on the thread list? Why is it soooooooooo "infuriating" to be given a link; do you automatically go to any link on the internet? You people need to grow up; STANG's mildly annoying but nothing more. Plenty of other posters post on the same topic over and over and over ...[text shortened]... absurd and ideologically based (he doesn't like STANG's view of the US). Get over it.
The issue isn't links; it's spam. I brought up links because they are stang's spam of choice. Anytime a poster makes ~20 duplicate posts in the span of a few minutes, he's spamming. That's what I want to see stopped. There is no need to flood 10+ threads to get your point across!
Sasquatch isn't alone in wanting to see stang banned. Several others have posted indicating their support for it.