INTENSITY²
Politics, Mature and taboo => Political Pundits => Topic started by: Yuri Bezmenov on October 19, 2017, 12:34:10 PM
-
... because we have super smart people like odeurn working for defense contractors!! :autism:
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/333710
-
Well, you can trust me. boobs2
-
Pissing off an admin is probably not a good idea. Just sayin'.
-
And about your accusation, Scrappy dear: the fact is that you don't know whom I've worked for and neither does Pea. Thing is, I'm utterly uninterested in discussing any of my past clients because a) it's none of your business and b) it gets you all worked up, and so you should probably stop your two dozen monkeys from producing anything you can't back up.
-
Pissing off an admin is probably not a good idea. Just sayin'.
Negative karma makes him look like a badass. :zoinks:
-
Pissing off an admin is probably not a good idea. Just sayin'.
Negative karma makes him look like a badass. :zoinks:
(http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/facebook/000/918/498/363.jpg)
-
And about your accusation, Scrappy dear: the fact is that you don't know whom I've worked for and neither does Pea. Thing is, I'm utterly uninterested in discussing any of my past clients because a) it's none of your business and b) it gets you all worked up, and so you should probably stop your two dozen monkeys from producing anything you can't back up.
It does answer a question unanswered though. Sates a curiosity. Prefer that to gossip or insinuations or speculation.
-
And about your accusation, Scrappy dear: the fact is that you don't know whom I've worked for and neither does Pea. Thing is, I'm utterly uninterested in discussing any of my past clients because a) it's none of your business and b) it gets you all worked up, and so you should probably stop your two dozen monkeys from producing anything you can't back up.
It does answer a question unanswered though. Sates a curiosity. Prefer that to gossip or insinuations or speculation.
What answers what, exactly?
-
And about your accusation, Scrappy dear: the fact is that you don't know whom I've worked for and neither does Pea. Thing is, I'm utterly uninterested in discussing any of my past clients because a) it's none of your business and b) it gets you all worked up, and so you should probably stop your two dozen monkeys from producing anything you can't back up.
It does answer a question unanswered though. Sates a curiosity. Prefer that to gossip or insinuations or speculation.
What answers what, exactly?
Well since you asked, I had wondered what this business was with the supposed hypocrisy of your gun control positions and your alleged dealings with guns. Scrap has brought up that you were somehow involved with defence contractors.
The fact that you are negging Hell out of him and threatening him with Admin abuse seems to bear out some truth to his claim.
Answers what was a left field claim. Now I know.
Now does it matter to me? Not really. I mean it may make your positions on gun control a little hypocritical but that is hardly your biggest contradiction or flaw. Hell, it is far more an issue you going Nazi Admin on another member for being angry. It is bad form. It also doesn't really bother me what or whom you have worked for or with particularly. It does answer a question though and sates my curiosity.
-
The fact that you are negging Hell out of him and threatening him with Admin abuse seems to bear out some truth to his claim.
The fact odeon has called him a liar in the karma logs suggest the opposite.
-
The fact that you are negging Hell out of him and threatening him with Admin abuse seems to bear out some truth to his claim.
The fact odeon has called him a liar in the karma logs suggest the opposite.
No, I think it looks like a tantrum. (Not saying it necessarily is).
If Odeon ignored or blew it off or simply flamed Scrap, I would likely think very little of the validity of this. That all being said I have no idea and do not care to know the position or what company or which clients or whether there was anything particularly nefarious that Odeon had in this alleged defence contractor business.....BUT his reaction says there is something to this narrative.
It is like how people don't believe that Jesus existed. I do not believe that Jesus was the son of God and doubt most of what is written about him is true BUT the fact that so much was written about him and all around the same era and location suggests some truth in his existence.
I no longer doubt that this left field claim made by Pea and its further clarification from Scrap has some truth in it. How much? Who knows? Not sure how much it matters in the universe of things.
-
What the link appears to imply about odeon probably deserves whatever response it gets.
-
And about your accusation, Scrappy dear: the fact is that you don't know whom I've worked for and neither does Pea. Thing is, I'm utterly uninterested in discussing any of my past clients because a) it's none of your business and b) it gets you all worked up, and so you should probably stop your two dozen monkeys from producing anything you can't back up.
It does answer a question unanswered though. Sates a curiosity. Prefer that to gossip or insinuations or speculation.
What answers what, exactly?
Well since you asked, I had wondered what this business was with the supposed hypocrisy of your gun control positions and your alleged dealings with guns. Scrap has brought up that you were somehow involved with defence contractors.
The fact that you are negging Hell out of him and threatening him with Admin abuse seems to bear out some truth to his claim.
Answers what was a left field claim. Now I know.
Now does it matter to me? Not really. I mean it may make your positions on gun control a little hypocritical but that is hardly your biggest contradiction or flaw. Hell, it is far more an issue you going Nazi Admin on another member for being angry. It is bad form. It also doesn't really bother me what or whom you have worked for or with particularly. It does answer a question though and sates my curiosity.
It doesn't answer anything because you have no facts to go on, just Scrap repeating an unfounded claim and you drooling over it. I have no interest in clarifying any of it because it's none of your business.
But then, your reasoning is rather left field itself and so I still suspect your interest is about the potential drama rather than anything else. Would a defence contractor always have to be against gun control?
-
And about your accusation, Scrappy dear: the fact is that you don't know whom I've worked for and neither does Pea. Thing is, I'm utterly uninterested in discussing any of my past clients because a) it's none of your business and b) it gets you all worked up, and so you should probably stop your two dozen monkeys from producing anything you can't back up.
It does answer a question unanswered though. Sates a curiosity. Prefer that to gossip or insinuations or speculation.
What answers what, exactly?
Well since you asked, I had wondered what this business was with the supposed hypocrisy of your gun control positions and your alleged dealings with guns. Scrap has brought up that you were somehow involved with defence contractors.
The fact that you are negging Hell out of him and threatening him with Admin abuse seems to bear out some truth to his claim.
Answers what was a left field claim. Now I know.
Now does it matter to me? Not really. I mean it may make your positions on gun control a little hypocritical but that is hardly your biggest contradiction or flaw. Hell, it is far more an issue you going Nazi Admin on another member for being angry. It is bad form. It also doesn't really bother me what or whom you have worked for or with particularly. It does answer a question though and sates my curiosity.
It doesn't answer anything because you have no facts to go on, just Scrap repeating an unfounded claim and you drooling over it. I have no interest in clarifying any of it because it's none of your business.
But then, your reasoning is rather left field itself and so I still suspect your interest is about the potential drama rather than anything else. Would a defence contractor always have to be against gun control?
Not at all. You can accuse me of wrongthink or drooling all you like. Doesn't make a case in just the accusation itself.
But here is an analogy:
Someone (new member, old member, active member, inactive member, unbanned, banned, whatever) suddenly makes the inference or claim that Odeon is gay. I would similarly say "What the fuck is this?"
Why? Because it is left field and does not seem to make sense.
Then Odeon takes umbrage and asks me to explain myself and I do. Bit of back and forth to further explain and I am still not really any wiser but am happy to dismiss it from my mind. Probably something in it but meh, not worth the investment of effort. I don't care that much.
Then a few days later I see the previous claim made a "little" more clear BUT Odeon is really shat off and hitting the neg button and going a little bit berserk. I go "Ah" I get it.
What do I get well if the original claim was completely untrue (COMPLETELY) then the reaction would not have been as it is. Again, I do not care too much one way or another and I am more than happy you or anyone else asking me about what I have said and to keep discussing it. I am also happy for this to not be discussed. I reply to being replied to. That is not investment that is simply discourse.
I would no more care if you were gay, a defence contractor in a previous life or whatever. None of that really matters much in online space.
As to whether there is hypocrisy working for a defence contractor and being a huge proponent of gun control, yes there is. NOW this is generalised. How much hypocrisy or whatever depends on a number of things which I do not care to actually know. If you worked in the laundry room of a company who had the laundry contract for defence, to put yourself through college as a late teen, then this is about as negligible as it gets. If you were senior management for a contractor actively engaged in making weapons specifically for deployment for Syria or Afghanistan (or any place that now makes up a large portion of the displaced immigrants that are flooding into Sweden and Europe generally) then yeah, probably more than a little hypocrisy.
Again, it probably doesn't matter that much but I will keep replying to or explain any questions put to me.
-
What's even being said here? The OP of this thread suggests odeon currently works for a defense contractor. Then the context changed to the past tense, and now appears to be present tense again. If this is past tense, is that even how hypocrisy works? People cant change what they do and think without being hypocrites about what they think, because of anything and everything they've ever done in the past which conflicts with what they currently think? Is there at least an expiration date on these things? If so, how much time has to pass before I can stop being a hypocrite about anything I've ever done?
-
What's even being said here? The OP of this thread suggests odeon currently works for a defense contractor. Then the context changed to the past tense, and now appears to be present tense again. If this is past tense, is that even how hypocrisy works? People cant change what they do and think without being hypocrites about what they think, because of anything and everything they've ever done in the past which conflicts with what they currently think? Is there at least an expiration date on these things? If so, how much time has to pass before I can stop being a hypocrite about anything I've ever done?
I dunno. Support then not support. Sounds like hypocrisy. What do I know? I don't really care that much. I was simply curious
-
Your analogy makes about as much sense as your argument--very little--but I'll say this: that's a lot of text for someone who claims not to care.
-
Your analogy makes about as much sense as your argument--very little--but I'll say this: that's a lot of text for someone who claims not to care.
I care about debate, argument and discussion. if I didn't, I would have never cme much less stayed on this forum. I'd have just got a diary. I write a lot of text on pretty much all my answers and it would be dishonest to imply a long text is symbolic of an attachment or investment. You are not going there are you Odeon?
-
I already did.
-
I already did.
Right, in that case, I would tell you that about 100% of the members here including yourself know that I have a well-known propensity to type long, boring diatribes in my posts here. Of the 16000 or so posts over 9 years. MOST of them have been very long.
The fact that I do this on just about every post and have done for about 9 years and I answer about 100% of every question put to me or any comment delivered my way regardless of what was being discussed would lay waste to your claim that I cared more than in a mere curiosity as indicated for what I wrote. It is NOT a case of me particularly caring and you, in fact, know this.
You are being dishonest. I am not sure exactly why? If I had to guess I would speculate that Peaguy claimed something. You got angry at him for bringing it up. You banned him. It had most of the forum disregarding it out of hand but a couple of us asking what the hell it was about. You got shitty at that. Then Scrap mentioned it again with more detail and you went bananas being an Admin Nazi and quite transparent in your use of the Admin platform to hit back at him. I commented on that and now you are getting shitty at me too. I tell you I don't care and you make preposterous claims that my posting something long is indicative of me caring about something. It is a claim that you know is not true and notwithstanding that I already said I did not care, you want to be snarky and disagreeable because you are upset. To that end you want to make batshit crazy claims and infer I am lying. How did I go? On the money?
I will not stop you picking fights. This one is a pretty stupid fight to pick though. You trying to make me overly care about something pretty lame and then when I comprehensively explain why it is negligible to me, you tell me I do not know my own mind. It is fucking stupid, isn't it? You are just being pissy and stupid. Whatever blows your hair back Odeon. You have hair right?
-
I blame my hypocrisy on binge drinking. :zoinks:
-
I'm not picking a fight, I'm simply reacting. I think you're bright enough to see why, which suggests to me that you're being less than honest. I can't prove it, of course, just as you can't prove any of your long-winded guesses, but that's where we are.
-
I'm not picking a fight, I'm simply reacting. I think you're bright enough to see why, which suggests to me that you're being less than honest. I can't prove it, of course, just as you can't prove any of your long-winded guesses, but that's where we are.
I am not doubting your reaction nor denying it. I ca guess why and I have.
So you HONESTLY think that me writing a long post Is indicative of me caring about the topic at hand OR do you HONESTLY think that most posts of mine, no matter what is discussed, will tend to be long regardless of any real interest or investment?
Similarly, was I HONEST about my claim that I reply to approximately 100% of anything put to me?
It was always going to be a very difficult barrow for you to push. The above gives credibility to you being dishonest about your representations on me. You say you were reacting? Yes you were, dishonestly.
I think you are upset and lashing out. Over very little and overreacting a little much.
Maybe we could change the subject to Radical Muslim Extremism or tge merit of all climate change reports or gun control? Alternatively, perhaps we could let this tempest in a teapot die.
-
Support then not support. Sounds like hypocrisy.
In a current context definitely. Have no trouble acknowledging my own hypocrisies and there's a couple of things I do while also believing I'm wrong to do them, and believing it's wrong for other to do it too. There's also a couple of things supported and done in the past which are now viewed as wrong, and personally don't feel like a hypocrite about those things at all, because I don't do it anymore.
-
And about your accusation, Scrappy dear: the fact is that you don't know whom I've worked for and neither does Pea. Thing is, I'm utterly uninterested in discussing any of my past clients because a) it's none of your business and b) it gets you all worked up, and so you should probably stop your two dozen monkeys from producing anything you can't back up.
It does answer a question unanswered though. Sates a curiosity. Prefer that to gossip or insinuations or speculation.
What answers what, exactly?
Well since you asked, I had wondered what this business was with the supposed hypocrisy of your gun control positions and your alleged dealings with guns. Scrap has brought up that you were somehow involved with defence contractors.
The fact that you are negging Hell out of him and threatening him with Admin abuse seems to bear out some truth to his claim.
Answers what was a left field claim. Now I know.
Now does it matter to me? Not really. I mean it may make your positions on gun control a little hypocritical but that is hardly your biggest contradiction or flaw. Hell, it is far more an issue you going Nazi Admin on another member for being angry. It is bad form. It also doesn't really bother me what or whom you have worked for or with particularly. It does answer a question though and sates my curiosity.
:indeed:
I can't plus you for this because, unlike odious, I can only plus once every half hour.
Odious is acting much like when he called Butterflies "an immoral person" when he had cheated on his wife.
He calls me a criminal accomplice to the Las Vegas shooting because I'm pro 2nd amendment (hypocritically he doesn't do the same to Dirt Dawg or PPK who have the same positions as myself).
Then Pea tells us that he did defense contact work. This not only makes odious a hypocrite on several levels, but one who projects as well.
It's almost as if there's a pattern of behavior here. :apondering:
-
I'm not picking a fight, I'm simply reacting.
The fuck you are! You picked a fight when you said that my political beliefs were responsible for the shootings in Las Vegas.
Funny how you don't accuse Dirt Dawg of this, who shares my opinions on this matter.
-
I'm not picking a fight, I'm simply reacting. I think you're bright enough to see why, which suggests to me that you're being less than honest. I can't prove it, of course, just as you can't prove any of your long-winded guesses, but that's where we are.
I am not doubting your reaction nor denying it. I ca guess why and I have.
So you HONESTLY think that me writing a long post Is indicative of me caring about the topic at hand OR do you HONESTLY think that most posts of mine, no matter what is discussed, will tend to be long regardless of any real interest or investment?
Similarly, was I HONEST about my claim that I reply to approximately 100% of anything put to me?
It was always going to be a very difficult barrow for you to push. The above gives credibility to you being dishonest about your representations on me. You say you were reacting? Yes you were, dishonestly.
I think you are upset and lashing out. Over very little and overreacting a little much.
Maybe we could change the subject to Radical Muslim Extremism or tge merit of all climate change reports or gun control? Alternatively, perhaps we could let this tempest in a teapot die.
I think your handling of a troll's claims is indicative of quite a lot, so no, I don't think you're being HONEST.
-
I'm not picking a fight, I'm simply reacting.
The fuck you are! You picked a fight when you said that my political beliefs were responsible for the shootings in Las Vegas.
Funny how you don't accuse Dirt Dawg of this, who shares my opinions on this matter.
This is not about you, Scrappy, and if I were to compare you to DD, you'd fail on each count.
-
Pissing off an admin is probably not a good idea. Just sayin'.
Especially when that admin is a thin skinned man child who chokes on a thimble full of the shit that he dishes out by the bucket. :zoinks:
-
I'm not picking a fight, I'm simply reacting.
The fuck you are! You picked a fight when you said that my political beliefs were responsible for the shootings in Las Vegas.
Funny how you don't accuse Dirt Dawg of this, who shares my opinions on this matter.
This is not about you, Scrappy, and if I were to compare you to DD, you'd fail on each count.
That's the thing, the opinion of a sensitive control freak with anger issues, doesn't matter. :zoinks:
-
Haha gopher features.
Usually I'd use them darn gophers as first rifle target practice and then when a few have been harvested, for a pair of furry winter slippers and gloves. But that is too true. LOL at 'choking on a thimblefull of own shit'
-
Haha gopher features.
Usually I'd use them darn gophers as first rifle target practice and then when a few have been harvested, for a pair of furry winter slippers and gloves. But that is too true. LOL at 'choking on a thimblefull of own shit'
That wasn't the gopher.
-
It was at the time of posting. Or at least somebody using the sock without changing the details before posting my reply. It looked like a gopher, it smelled funny like a gopher. Ergo it was, probably at least, a gopher. Or a pair of soft inside slippers that just need the feet and hands and head taking off and the bones removed first :P
-
I'm not picking a fight, I'm simply reacting. I think you're bright enough to see why, which suggests to me that you're being less than honest. I can't prove it, of course, just as you can't prove any of your long-winded guesses, but that's where we are.
I am not doubting your reaction nor denying it. I ca guess why and I have.
So you HONESTLY think that me writing a long post Is indicative of me caring about the topic at hand OR do you HONESTLY think that most posts of mine, no matter what is discussed, will tend to be long regardless of any real interest or investment?
Similarly, was I HONEST about my claim that I reply to approximately 100% of anything put to me?
It was always going to be a very difficult barrow for you to push. The above gives credibility to you being dishonest about your representations on me. You say you were reacting? Yes you were, dishonestly.
I think you are upset and lashing out. Over very little and overreacting a little much.
Maybe we could change the subject to Radical Muslim Extremism or the merit of all climate change reports or gun control? Alternatively, perhaps we could let this tempest in a teapot die.
I think your handling of a troll's claims is indicative of quite a lot, so no, I don't think you're being HONEST.
"Handling of a troll's claim"? Do you think this either dismisses a claim specifically or generally? Call a person a troll and any credibility or merit of a claim evaporates? It doesn't though. Open marketplace of ideas.
You know the idea may be right, wrong, good or bad. Maybe the person saying it is a troll or maybe not. Maybe he was trolling whilst making the claim. Maybe the claim WAS from a troll AND made with trollish intent BUT maybe be true, correct and right.
Waving it off with your hand and saying my being open to any claim as my shortcoming "Handling of a troll's claim" is understandable (you are a bit upset and embarrassed) but a little cheap.
No matter. How it is possibly dishonest on my part is another thing entirely
-
Quite. Simply thinking one can say 'well thats trollish' (which is often subjective on the part of the other, third,parties than the original poster of a post judged 'trollish by a second party)..that is not even a cheap shot. It simply has so little, hollow, pathetic of even a semblance of pseudo-credibility that its not even worth the effort to type it. It is empty of meaning, and definitely does not count towards jack fucking shite in rebutting or confirming anything, ever. Its pathetic, and crass if even that.
-
Quite. Simply thinking one can say 'well thats trollish' (which is often subjective on the part of the other, third,parties than the original poster of a post judged 'trollish by a second party)..that is not even a cheap shot. It simply has so little, hollow, pathetic of even a semblance of pseudo-credibility that its not even worth the effort to type it. It is empty of meaning, and definitely does not count towards jack fucking shite in rebutting or confirming anything, ever. Its pathetic, and crass if even that.
You are exactly right
-
Well of course I am yeh silly fuckin' bastard :P its ME. Its kind of in the definition:autism:
-
Whatever.
-
'fuck off jewboy'
See! look! I can do it too! Odeon must be a greedy defense contractor because he's I said he's a jew in my opinion and jews are all greedy moneygrubbers and thus 2 and 2 make 4 because I'm right and therefore he must be a defense contractor because they are moneygrubbers and so are jews. I say he's a jew so it 'logically' follows he must be a defense contractor too. And a jew-boy one at that!
Yeah, thats about the strength of these arguments. And as for 'whatever', as a response, its as strong as the utter crap I just posted above (deliberatey intended to be so, and in no way is actually intended to suggest odion is a jew-boy. But rather, to illustrate quite what vapid, empty bollocks being posted in way of dismissive, pathetic replies which command as much respect to the above, should that ever have been made as a serious statement, rather than a sarcastic one to illlustrate quite what rancid heaps of bollocks your refutations have become. Its beneath you.
-
Whatever.