Tales of The Midde Kingdom - Life in China

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Considering that you knuckleheads are still piling on when he's not even here anymore... Besides, he correctly identified a "nit-picking lefty." That's what I suggested he was correct on.

Really? The man issued an unprovoked attack on me and you say I am piling on him.
You are as full of shat as Christmas turkey, dude.
Had that been the case he's still be here and supported by many..
You spit that shat out while ignoring the comments by Kat, Jeff and Dragonstryke shows a screw loose in your head. Are they too, piling on with their impartial comments ?
I suggest that you read Dragon's cage thread if you have not already done so.
You must be blind as bat amigo to utter such rubbish as that. --Tyr

[Drummond]

Considering that you knuckleheads are still piling on when he's not even here anymore... Besides, he correctly identified a "nit-picking lefty." That's what I suggested he was correct on.

So ... you're NOT trying to make capital out of this yourself, FJ ?

He 'correctly identified a nit-picking lefty', you say ? NO, HE DID NOT.

You, too, then, are fond of libel ? In between displays of egotism .. ?

You seem to identify strongly with our apparently now-departed newcomer. Strangely, I'm not surprised.

It'll be interesting to see if you continue to drag out the potential for controversy long after it should've all died a death.

[fj1200]

Really? The man issued an unprovoked attack on me and you say I am piling on him.

So the one who fashions himself as the toughest guy on the board gets all in a kerfuffle because of some words on a screen? If you knuckleheads would spend more time discussing than whining like stuck pigs anytime someone dares have a differing opinion then maybe we'd get some new blood.

[fj1200]

He 'correctly identified a nit-picking lefty', you say ? NO, HE DID NOT.

... drag out the potential for controversy ...

Your blustery sputtering aside I'm sure that you're too stupid to realize that it's your buddy who took the time to single out my post long after this issue was dead. Yeah, you're too much of a hypocritical moron to understand that. FWIW, you are the very definition of "nit-picking" and we know you love your big government.

And you care about libel now? Interesting.

[sundaydriver]

And I thought they acted like children before all this.

I see John V has joined another board I belong to. There is a note of condensation is some of his posts when he turns to lecturer, but his posts are ORIGINAL, coherent, and well thought out. No copy/paste, no ranting, and no trolling.
Too bad ( see Drummond, I know the proper use) the few that are intolerant of a different viewpoint as well as being shown how hollow their arguments are remind me of an old proverb.

The empty cart rattles the loudest.

[Drummond]

Your blustery sputtering aside I'm sure that you're too stupid to realize that it's your buddy who took the time to single out my post long after this issue was dead. Yeah, you're too much of a hypocritical moron to understand that. FWIW, you are the very definition of "nit-picking" and we know you love your big government.

And you care about libel now? Interesting.

I don't recall adding a 'blah' smilie to my post, FJ. But of course, YOU have because you're back to your usual, provocative, abusive ways.

If you consider yourself innocent of any charge of prolonging this, aka 'flogging a dead horse', then why do you continue to post on this ? What you accuse 'my buddy' of, you are certainly culpable of yourself.

Which was, after all, the point I was suggesting before, which you are working to prove valid ...

Why wouldn't I care about libel ? What are you talking about ?? Such as ...

we know you love your big government.

For you to know it, it would have to be true. A pity for you, then, that it isn't.

You are well aware of where I stand on 'big Government' .. that it is neither to be preferred nor sought if it is unnecessary. Where and when it IS necessary, then that's a different matter.

And if you were the 'one true Thatcherite' you like to abusively claim yourself to be, you'd be 100 percent in agreement with that.

You're not, though. Proof of FRAUDULENT bona fides.

[fj1200]

I don't recall adding a 'blah' smilie to my post, FJ.

...Defense of Big Government Hackery...

I was boiling your post down to its essence. It's a service I do for the board.

Do you have any more hypocrisy to add? Oh, and there's a thread or twenty that you've been avoiding because you suck at this.

[Drummond]

And I thought they acted like children before all this.

I see John V has joined another board I belong to. There is a note of condensation is some of his posts when he turns to lecturer, but his posts are ORIGINAL, coherent, and well thought out. No copy/paste, no ranting, and no trolling.

No trolling, you say ? That's very good news, Sundaydriver. Long may it continue to be so.

I take it, then, given the truth of that .. that John V has now learned not to send bullying PM's to anyone choosing to oppose him, nor to refer to PM exchanges in public ? If he's learned those minimal standards, then his time here wasn't wasted.

Too bad ( see Drummond, I know the proper use)

... Congratulations !

the few that are intolerant of a different viewpoint as well as being shown how hollow their arguments are remind me of an old proverb.

The empty cart rattles the loudest.

I'm unclear as to your intended context. Are you somehow claiming that your charge of intolerance didn't apply to John V ?

He was intolerant of the usual practice of people posting online proofs of their arguments, requiring instead that media sources be scorned as offered evidence.

His intolerance extended to trying to bully people to conform to what he expected from them.

Sundaydriver, are you saying that this is permissible from certain people, but not others ?

[Drummond]

I was boiling your post down to its essence. It's a service I do for the board.

Do you have any more hypocrisy to add? Oh, and there's a thread or twenty that you've been avoiding because you suck at this.

Abusing the quoting of other peoples' posts is not any form of 'service', FJ.

I have added no hypocrisy whatever. If I'm to be accused of such a thing ... as they say, 'put up, or shut up'. Make your case.

After all, it helps drag out gratuitous contention. And yes ... I must say, you do NOT suck at that. Must be all the practice you get ...

[fj1200]

Make your case.

I already did. Do you need the definition?

I'm unclear as to your intended context.

Possibly because you're not very bright.

[Drummond]

I already did. Do you need the definition?



Possibly because you're not very bright.

Evasion doesn't help you, FJ. Neither does gratuitous abuse.

If you can't get down to specifics, my suggestion is that you stop wasting my time, and give it a rest !

[fj1200]

Evasion doesn't help you, FJ.

If you can't get down to specifics, my suggestion is that you stop wasting my time, and give it a rest !

the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform;

That would be you. It's called a link; that must be where you're confused. Trolling is OK as long as you or one of your knucklehead friends is the one doing. Can I get me a Thatcherite diversion???

Maybe make your next post in all caps and bold. That seems to work for you.

[Drummond]

That would be you. It's called a link; that must be where you're confused.

Still no specifics, I see. Ho hum.

On your 'It's called a link' point ... your friend John V wasn't himself fond of them. As for myself .. I have a history, on this forum, of posting links when I consider evidence to support my argument(s) is required. This - except for you, apparently ? - must surely be a well known fact about me.

Trolling is OK as long as you or one of your knucklehead friends is the one doing.

Trolling is trolling. Since when was trolling OK ?

I'm sorry to note that you make the case for the admission of 'certain' trolling. But then, considering the nature of your posting, FJ, you could hardly do otherwise.

Can I get me a Thatcherite diversion???

You mean, the false bona fides of being 'The One True Thatcherite', the implied insult being - you'd hope - a continued diversion from actual truth ?

Maybe make your next post in all caps and bold. That seems to work for you.

Well, since it's your recommendation, I'm assuming it actually works for YOU.

Anything I can do to help you assimilate the sheer commonsense of my material, FJ, I will gladly do.

[fj1200]

Still no specifics, I see. Ho hum.

On your 'It's called a link' point ... your friend John V wasn't himself fond of them.

You don't know specifics when I slap you in the face with them. Friend? I acknowledge that he can see through your nitpicky prattle and that makes him my friend? Your imagination is quite endless as I've been pointing out. Nevertheless links are how I demonstrate fact to you, fact that you ignore.

[Drummond]

You don't know specifics when I slap you in the face with them. Friend? I acknowledge that he can see through your nitpicky prattle and that makes him my friend? Your imagination is quite endless as I've been pointing out. Nevertheless links are how I demonstrate fact to you, fact that you ignore.

You don't have the ability to 'slap me in the face' AT ALL. You just wish you did.

Yes, 'friend'. I'm unsure whether you have too little experience of it to understand the concept, but given that you do, it could explain your approach to John V, and your motivation behind trying to defend him, NOW.

Your 'friend' went so far as to try and suggest Leftieism on my part. THAT is how lacking in truth he was when trying to characterise me. So why would 'nitpicky prattle' be any more true ?

I think, in fact, that its your imagination that's run away with itself. For example, consider your 'Thatcherite' claim. That has no grounding in reality at all.

As for ...

Nevertheless links are how I demonstrate fact to you

... it's probably just as well your 'friend' is no longer here. He'd disapprove of that.