Join Us @:
Free email alerts!
On a conservative site, you went and fragged your own. Not cool. And now you're paying the piper.
Now does all of us defending Teh Vet come off to you as a bit of a gang mentality, where we're all in lock-step? Guess what? We are a gang, of sorts. Conservatives -- on a conservative site -- who need to stick together when it comes to a good-for-nothing, lying, propagandizing liberal troll dropping junk every day on NB.
You shouldn't have done what you did. But you did.
- Shy Vinyl
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
How exactly did I "frag" The Vet?
By having a disagreement with him?
I've had pretty big disagreements with Mike Bratton and Liberallies. Both of them are conservatives. I don't recall you chiming in when that was going on.
Why is that?
Is it because I decided to take it to the Woodshed?
Go back to the original argument involving bob and CobraMan and actually read through all those posts.
I disagreed with The Vet. After some back and forth posting I told him I was dropping it.
In fact, not only didn't he, but he baited me to respond. He called me an idiot and a liar. If you need links, I can provide them.
So I did respond - here. In the Woodshed.
You're telling me I shouldn't have.
OK. I'm a conservative. If I start posting to you in that manner - I suppose you will just drop it - for the greater good here?
And how exactly am I "paying the piper"? Hate to tell you MrShy, but there are plenty of folks on here who don't dig me because I'm agnostic. It isn't like me having disagreements on this site is something new.
But somehow - me getting into it with The Vet - well that's just plain wrong. Why?
Because Teh Vet, while a hilarious and over the top guy with regards to his troll-pounding, has honor and honesty up the wazoo.
In my eyes, and MANY (most, even) here, he is untouchable.
EDIT: AND, because it's pretty clear to almost all of us here, that he works his *ss off in his liberal troll-pounding/exposing efforts. He -- as you indirectly jabbed at him when you impressed us all with how you have other things to do and you're not on here 24/7 -- DOES have a lot of time to zap trolls, and more power to him. And if I could do it more, I would. You've gone and mucked it all up. Deliberately.
- Shy Grooves
Could you give me a list of all the folks on NB who are untouchable - so that way I know not to ever ever disagree with them?
'Cause I'd hate to have this ever happen again.
And by the way - what world do you live in where acknowledging that you have a job and interests outside of this website counts as trying to impress people?
And I noticed you haven't actually commented on The Vet's roll in this dust up. Did you actually go back and read the posts in that thread?
So I suppose if The Vet turned on you, started calling you names, you would just take it like a good little boy?
...so that way I know not to ever ever disagree with them?
This was/is not about a disagreement. You didn't like the guy, so you saw a chance to show up Teh Vet in public, via siding with a troll.
Cause I'd hate to have this ever happen again.
You did it before, so you'd probably do it again. Not very honest, are you?
No, counts as implying that "some of us have lives" unlike Teh Vet. You are sounding more and more like Jer, you know?
I read and know everything. You went and smeared Teh Vet. None of this is rocket science, excuse the pun (as I'm told you are an expert there.)
He never would. I'd never frag him on the threads like you did. He once gave me his two cents on something as far as my posting/behavior. Guess what? He did it in private.
- Shy Shop
"You did it before, so you'd probably do it again. Not very honest, are you?"
Are you joining in with The Vet and pretending not to understand sarcasm. Or is it genuine stupidity?
Let me guess - you were being sarcastic about my sarcasm.
And again I ask - why didn't you chime in when I was going at it with Bratton or Liberallies? No answer for that one?
"No, counts as implying that "some of us have lives" unlike Teh Vet. You are sounding more and more like Jer, you know?"
I think more a matter of you inferring than me implying. Go back to that post. I was specifically addressing his suggestion that I was hiding from his posts. Funny how you didn't include that angle in your dig at me.
"I read and know everything. You went and smeared Teh Vet. None of this is rocket science, excuse the pun (as I'm told you are an expert there.)"
So when he was calling me here and here he wasn't baiting me to respond?
Sure about that?
"He never would. I'd never frag him on the threads like you did. He once gave me his two cents on something as far as my posting/behavior. Guess what? He did it in private."
If The Vet had chosen to deal with this in a PM, I'd have done it that way.
So I didn't.
But you know, it's pretty obvious that nothing I say and nothing I link to as far as your buddy's behavior will change your mind so what's the point in your responding to me?
But I might regret not saying something even more. So here goes.
Hydro, you and The Vet did have a PM discussion about your differences, the whole of which is copy-pasted somewhere in this thread. It looked to me like he went out of his way to be nice to you there, and you responded in such a way as to say that there was no problem. As far as The Vet knew, you guys were cool after that. Then you said something on that infernal LAT blog and that started this round.
I know you both, I've PM'd with you both about this, and you know that The Vet had absolutely no problem with you and in fact thought you were a cool guy. The only person giving him the impression that you aren't, is you.
P. S. Please do not go the route of referring to me as one of his sycophants who just doesn't like you and is looking for a reason to attack you, as I'm sure you must know that it isn't true.
Yes, we agreed to not interact.
And I broke that.
But I'll ask you what I asked MrShy above.
Are The Vet's accusations here against me justified?
You asked him several questions there, I'm going to assume you mean the one about being a troll.
If you define a troll as someone who is trying to get an emotional reaction from his target (troll def.#2-3) ....or as someone who picks fights over extremely trivial issues (troll def.#1).....
Are you going to make me type it out loud? I find this whole thing extremely painful and I really wish that when you had the urge to make the post that started this you'd gotten up and kicked the dog, instead. Or shaved the cat. Electroshocked a lab rat. Let the lab mice loose in the girls dorm. Run naked through the quad singing, "I feel pretty, so pretty, so pretty and witty and". No, scratch that. Oh crap, don't scratch that.
I'm up way, way, way too late. And I think my blood sugar is low.
The answer is yes, dammit. Dammit to hell. I told him you were a nice guy. Then you got really, really earnest about proving me wrong. I don't know about you, but I'm going to retire to my cave in disgust, now.
This one looks to be a question troll. Thinks we are his students.
... and public display of their full diapers.
Poor pissy whiny titty baby troll whines because The mean Veet taunted him. But the mean Veet already posted the diaper troll's lies and taunts that happened long before the mean Veet started to hurt the poor diaper trollies feelings.
Please Mr. Veet. Don't taunt me back azter I spent all day lying and taunting you. I gonna tell mumzies.
Your link doesn't go anywhere.
Much like your argument.
Didn't you? You know exactly what I was arguing because you spent the entire evening taunting me. But here it is for the LIAR that knows he was pushing me and then decided when the conversation ended and WHINES that I did not accept his forced bullshit.
And the link worked when I posted it. Ass. The New NewsBusters has been glitchy. Now lay it at my feet whiny pissy baby troll.
You can't even admit to messing up a link, can you?
I've posted a ton of links - and so have you - with no problem.
But I'm sure it was a glitch with the new website.
Kind of like your thinking one of mamabear's posts was mine.
How's that reputation thing workin' for ya?
Still acting like people can't go back and read what was said. Yeah, I start out addressing it to the failed teacher RIGHT IN THE SUBJECT LINE. And I ended combining the two names. But you go little girlytrollie. You is putting the hitz one the Veet. Really. Everonz belivz U.
And now it is getting down to hammering on broken links. Pathetic. What next typos? I am not going to sit here and explain what happens when I link. Piss off. I told you. You are the liar here. You now want to use this as some kind of indication of my intelligence JUST LIKE EVERY TROLL EVER.
Why don't you go over to Christmas Charity 3 where 50 links of mine got blown out. You can have a real whinefest there.
Not trollies. Not trollies at all to be pointing our link glitches, typos, and grammar of others at all.
Why do I smell trollie flop sweat then?
How exactly am I failed teacher?
Do you know me?
Oh wait, I asked that once before.
And by the way, regarding your failed link, I think the proper response is "no excuse".
Um, let's back up a bit:
If Teh Hydro had chosen to PM Teh Vet -- i.e., that Teh Vet might have been wrong about the idiot troll re: moons and CobraMan (in his opinion), so as not to frag him in front of everyone -- you'd not be in the mess you are now in.
Alas, you didn't go that route.
- Shy Shimmy
Actually, you might be right.
It never occurred to me at the time to just PM The Vet.
I'll acknowledge that as my fault.
But given what has happened since - and there's no way of turning back the clock now - do you think The Vet's accusations of me being a liar and an idiot and a retard and a troll are justified?
I've called him dense. I'll admit to that.
But I haven't called him a troll.
Do you side with The Vet on that one?
(I know The Vet selectively hates that)
You don't even make a good troll. Trolls have hide as thick as a grown monkeyman's thumb.
You getting butt hurt over being called a troll now?
If you ain't a troll. Then man up. Sheesh. Pathetic mewling because The Veet called you bad words now. Now I am calling you a sissy butt hurt troll that can't even handle a little name calling by the word bully.
Word Bully hurz trolliz?
This coming from a guy who cried:
"I pound on trolls here WITHOUT MERCY. I cannot afford to be wrong once. Do you understand that? Not once can I be wrong in front of the trolls."
Nothing like calling a guy a liar six times, taunting him over and over with needling like -
•Call me a troll.
•Gee, I don't know - maybe 'cause you call just about every other poster on this website a troll. Or maybe I'm just needling you.
•...give me one of your little pejorative nicknames...
•..things have gotten a little slow around here. If you want to try to do to me what you do to the "trolls", I'll welcome the change...
•...bizarre borderline paranoid behavior you have exhibited here.
•What's next - you'll accuse me of being a plant?
Let's see. You insult, taunt and needle. And then YOU decide when the conversation is over.
Frell off again.
I'll assume you didn't see my post to Rukus.
The second time YOU decide it is over when YOU feel like calling it quits.
I offered you the chance to have the last word and end this.
That's for the record of any of your sycophants who want to criticize me for keeping this up after this point.
And believe me, I will.
Maybe this should stop. We shouldn't feed on our own, The Vet is a patriotic conservative and hydro is a conservative science guy, this is getting too personal and I hope the libby blogs aren't picking this up as we are feeding on ourselves. Maybe it should "we disagree badly, but maybe we should just let it go... for now". I like both The Vet and Hydro, it's sad they have devolved to this (not saying anything bad about either). I want The Vet to keep on pounding the hell out of trolls and Hydro to keep giving scientific facts to us here. JMHO. Vet, Hydro, just drop it, it serves us no purpose at this point, Grislybear... pack sand!
I appreciate your even handed comment here - unlike some who want to somehow peg this all on me or suggest (laughably) that I'm the one being mean or uncivil or nitpicky.
So I'm willing to offer an end to this.
The Vet has responded to my last couple of posts.
I won't respond, thereby giving him the last word.
As long as The Vet doesn't continue to post here, neither will I.
Conservatives, on a conservative site, are exactly the kind of place where you should be able to hold each other to account, if you had any backbone at all. This is NOT a place where you need to stick together to defend yourselves against an onslaught of enemies. You aren't in enemy territory. This is your house, as the Vet put it, and you only hurt yourselves by letting people who do disagree with you drive you to fling garbage around the place..
This is NOT a place where you need to stick together to defend yourselves against an onslaught of enemies.
Says who? You? It absolutely is, for me. You can make NB whatever you want, for you... which you're doing. You're not a conservative.
This is your house
and you only hurt yourselves by letting people who do disagree with you drive you to fling garbage around the place..
To you, sure. But again.... You. Are. Not. A. Conservative.
And yes, you ARE our enemy. In the arena of social and fiscal politics. That's why there are "sides" and "parties".
Now leave me alone with your liberal PC pitter patter. This is MY house.
You may WANT to stick together, that's not my point. I'm saying you don't NEED to. You are on home turf, safe territory, friendly ground. You clearly don't care what your internet-house looks or smells like, and that's a lifestyle decision that I won't judge! I just think it's a little unhealthy to live in one's own filth.
A life style you won't judge? You have done NOTHING, BUT judge conservatives on this site! LOL WOW!
If you truly didn't want to judge, you would stay out of it!
The Liberals biggest lie is that they don't judge the behaviors and life style of others....hahaha!! Liberals love judging and attacking the life style choices of anyone who disagrees with them.
As I said, and you proved it, Liberalism=Hypocrisy.
What a meanie
As a liberal on a conservative site do you really think your opinion in this has any validity at all? Or are you just trying to keep things going so you can gleefully jump in and throw gas on the flames while pretending to be completely innocent? So why don't stay out of it and go find a study linking homosexuality to the size of your big toe or some other such nonsense.
For a week now I have been trying to point out to you that you are in the wrong place. Your last post confirms. If you are going to pontificate and co author a thread, then this is where you should be sharing your wisdom on other's conduct.
If hypocrisy really doesn't bother you, I know I'm not going to convince you to care. But it does bother me, and if maybe one time I can make it difficult for someone to get away with it, then I'm making a point I think is important. Your approval of how I do that is really not important to me in any way.
If you truly cared about hypocrisy and holding people accountable for being hypocrites, you would not be a Liberal!!!
Being a Liberal=Being a Hypocrite.
From someone who believes in sucking the brains out of a baby to prevent it from suffering from possible hunger at some later date, hypocrisy is not something you can lecture me on.
And you know, as well as I so, that you aren't here to fight the noble fight against hypocrisy. You're here to creep around and cause some discord, to try to get some little thrill. As I said before, you aren't changing anyone's minds on this site because your arguements have all been refuted.
Go find some group of pre teen girls to try this bull on. Maybe they can feed your ego.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
And God love CobraMan, he should of put the word moon in quotes or italics since he was disagreeing with common usage of the word. But he didn't. I understood what he was saying. Everyone else that has remarked on it understood what he was saying except for bob loblaw/hydrodynDM/mamabear.
And for this guy to continue to make out that I am some kind of a fool or liar is beyond the pale. He created this forum. He can stop it anytime he wants. Admit I was not wrong. But he keeps walking down this pier in stating I was somehow mistaken in understanding what was said.
Um, OK. Even if bob misinterpreted what CobraMan meant, how does the NASA link contradict or disagree with what bob said? I mean, you did say “disagree” and “contradict” right?
For the last friggin' time you Retard.
Bob's link to this site >>>>>- http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/profile.cfm?Object=Mars&Display=Moons <<<< That site
CONTRADICTS. DISAGREES. PARTIALLY CONTRADICTS OR ANY ONE OF THE 40 DIFFERENT WAYS I HAVE HAD TO PUT IT TO YOU BECAUSE YOU ARE RETARDED.
It contradicts this statement from the idiot troll
...NASA disagrees with you...
In fact, NASA did not entirely disagree with CobraMan. They both said the natural satellites were captured (trapped) asteroids.
But then I have said the like 14 different times in 14 different ways to you. And I showed it to the troll whose honor you are hell bent on defending twice. You keep falling on that sword for all the nasty little trolls that have crawled out of the woodwork since.
Now FRELL OFF for the last FRELLING time.
OK, let's look at this from a purely logical standpoint:
Let me define the following:
A = Mars has moons
B= The objects orbiting Mars are captured asteroids
I think you would agree that the first part of CobraMan's statement - Mars doesn't have any moons. Those are trapped asteroids ... - is the same as ~A&B with the "&" being logical "and" and "~" being logical "not".
I think you will also agree that bob's NASA link supports the assertion A&B (that Mars does have moons and that they are captured asteroids.
Then the conjunction of what CobraMan said and what the NASA links says is (~A&B)&(A&B) which generates a formal contradiction (meaning that no matter what combination of truth values - true or false - you assign to A and B, all combinations result in a truth value of false).
So I guess bob was right. The NASA link does disagree (or contradict) what CobraMan wrote - not partially or kinda-sorta (which would imply that some combination of truth values of A and B would generate a true statement) - but formally and completely contradicts (or disagrees) what CobraMan said from a formal logic standpoint.
Now if you would like to put together a little truth table to show me I'm wrong on this, be my guest.
bob was right and you were wrong... again.
In order to justify his attack on me, failuredyn is now trying to break apart CobraMan's paragraph into two separate independent sentences that have no relation to each other. But it was a paragraph wasn't it?
paragraph a : a subdivision of a written composition that consists of one or more sentences, deals with one point or gives the words of one speaker, and begins on a new usually indented line
deals with one point
His first sentence is not out there standing alone in outer space orbiting a planet like a moon. It goes hand in hand with the second sentence to from one point.
Pack sand failuredyn. Keep twisting. Try again. I am not stupid. Nor are the people that come here to read what we are saying. With the exception of course of your doppleganger that is currently brainless what with you using it at the moment.
doppleganger - 1 : a ghostly counterpart of a living person
Yes - in my evil attempt to disingenuously make my point I deceptively decided to pull a fast one by breaking apart CobraMan's paragraph by putting an "and" ("&") between those two statements.
Do I need to post a link to the definition of "and" for you?
Yeah, now act like you were not pretending CobraMan was saying there were no natural satellites around Mars by putting your tilde before it.
...CobraMan's statement...is the same as ~A&B ... "~" being logical "not".
Wha...? CobraMan is saying this is false?
The Vet repeating himself again: CobraMan was only speaking as the the CLASSIFICATION of the natural satellites not the EXISTENCE.
To quote CobraMan: "Mars doesn't have any moons."
Do you need a link to "doesn't"?
Mars doesn't have any moons. Those are trapped asteroids.
What do you think the word THOSE was referring to? Could it be the two, those being plural, natural satellites?
those: plural of that
that: 1a : the person, thing, or idea indicated, mentioned, or understood from the situation <that is my father>
...mentioned, or understood from the situation...
Should I repeat my post about paragraphs containing one point?
You do realize things are not going well for you?
I could repeat my line from the original LAT... blog where I state it is clear you do not teach English.
Look, I get that CobraMan probably expressed what he was trying to say poorly when he wrote "Mars doesn't have any moons. Those are trapped asteroids".
But the fact is, he wrote it poorly and his first sentence is incorrect. They are moons. They used to be asteroids but since they now orbit Mars and not the Sun (which is a necessary condition for being an asteroid) they are moons and his sentence is incorrect.
bob's NASA link doesn't contradict bob's assertion that the link disagrees with CobraMan. It does disagree with CobraMan's post by virtue of disagreeing with his first sentence. The fact that his second sentence is basically correct doesn't negate that fact.
For you to try to tell us what CobraMan really meant (about "natural satellites") is irrelevant to what he actually wrote.
Editor at Large
Michael M. Bates
P. J. Gladnick
D. S. Hube
Julia A. Seymour
Dialog New Media
Copyright © 2005-2013 NewsBusters.