816 guests are online right now

buttercup · Post by **buttercup** » Thu Jan 04, 2007 1:13 am

Always amazes me the direction some threads take, who'd have thought 816 guests online could spawn such diversity.

buttercup;504656 wrote: Well he at least has to go for third time lucky Spot :rolleyes:

Yup thats us seen it 3 times now, would have multi quoted it but then it would have been 4.

spot;504752 wrote: There's around a thousand non-member humans a day[1] follow offsite links into a ForumGarden thread, most of which will be old material. Of those, some will browse to other pages here. A few of them (call it twenty) register. Some who register post. A couple a week might be spammers. Courtesy dictates that none of them are trolls.

[1]eta: call that two thousand tops, on reflection.

Thank you, Finally :wah:

flopstock;504753 wrote: :yh_rotfl

How sad is it that watching these two is the funniest thing i've seen in here lately?:wah:

Well thats Spot n Paul, been doing this for years now. Ding Ding round 3

Attached files

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Thu Jan 04, 2007 1:37 am

Clancy;505192 wrote: I haven't posted , or raised anti-American threads all over the board. With the exception of a small handful , most of my own threads moved completely off tangent, and off topic into related, and unrelated matters....but if your going to champion things like that stop...then, best of luck. I didn't for a moment suggest that you did, but you used "Certain member's" anti-american postings as justification for Anastrophe jumping all over Spot's posts about viewer counts. All I said was keep it where the problem is and not use every thread you can find. Clancy wrote: You have the time to call me out for an outburst, in light of what's awash on the "relevant" threads over the last 36 hours in here, did you take the time to mention those? I have very deliberately kept out of all of the stupid bickering over the past 36 hours making no comment on either side as the whole shebang has sickened me. If you'll also stop to have a look I was having a go at the pair of them for their childisness - it was only Anastrophe who tried a put down and told me to pi$$ off so it was only Anastrophe I responded to.

Post by **spot** » Thu Jan 04, 2007 1:44 am

buttercup;505242 wrote: Well thats Spot n Paul, been doing this for years now. Ding Ding round 3Back before the children were teenagers there was an odd spontaneous thing would occasionally break out. One or other of them would look at me and I'd look at them, one of us would start running and there would follow five minutes of mayhem as we chased each other round and round the ground floor, through the dining room, the hall, the kitchen, back through the dining room, occasionally stopping or doubling the other way while everyone else tried to ignore the racket or hide in a side room until the action abated and both parties said "I didn't start it!". The rules here seem very familiar except that with the children there was no trigger, no intention, just a riot. Here there's so few Paul-posts on any other topic that at least I now know who fires it off each time.

Post by **spot** » Thu Jan 04, 2007 2:03 am

Clancy;505192 wrote: It doesn't stop at the U.S. I had Remembrance day (Veterans Day) posts where, Spot tried to put the mockers on, rather than make his personal agenda in his own thread.... but I had been asked by a few others who I respect, to say nothing....so I said nothing.I made four posts in http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/showt ... hp?t=20997 and, looking back at them, I think they're reasonably appropriate contributions. Perhaps you could describe "the mockers" I put on the day, there or elsewhere? How uncontroversial can a poster get?

I also made a single post in http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/showt ... hp?t=21249 which said "Would it be out of order to extend at least a sense of loss to those conscripts of the Axis powers who fought in both world wars as well?" which appears to me, then and now, to be a dignified suggestion following your "To the millions of Allied troops who paid the ultimate sacrifice and died in foreign fields, I give you my thanks., my gratitude, and my respect". If you disagree then I'd be pleased to hear why, even at this belated stage. I have great sympathy and appreciation for all conscripts caught up in both world wars regardless of which side drafted them, as did a number of the soldiers at the time. The only route toward reconciliation between their descendants is to recognise the lack of choice they were all faced with, rather then continuing the contemporary propagandist fiction that "your grandad was one of those beastly murdering rapist Huns".

eta: For Paul... of the latest five threads, I note:

2 members and 0 guests What are you listening to right now

1 members and 0 guests Let's talk!

1 members and 8 guests This thread

1 members and 0 guests Mormon Women Demand to Share Husbands

1 members and 0 guests Finish the sentence

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Thu Jan 04, 2007 4:36 pm

spot;505255 wrote:

I also made a single post in http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/showt ... hp?t=21249 which said "Would it be out of order to extend at least a sense of loss to those conscripts of the Axis powers who fought in both world wars as well?" which appears to me, then and now, to be a dignified suggestion following your "To the millions of Allied troops who paid the ultimate sacrifice and died in foreign fields, I give you my thanks., my gratitude, and my respect". If you disagree then I'd be pleased to hear why, even at this belated stage. I have great sympathy and appreciation for all conscripts caught up in both world wars regardless of which side drafted them, as did a number of the soldiers at the time. The only route toward reconciliation between their descendants is to recognise the lack of choice they were all faced with, rather then continuing the contemporary propagandist fiction that "your grandad was one of those beastly murdering rapist Huns".

not addressed to me, but since you're spewing garbage, i'm going to jump in. here's a little hint/clue for those following along, who may have (quite easily and innocently) fallen into the word games spot is playing above.

please note these rather significant differences-

spot: "extend at least a sense of loss to those conscripts of the Axis powers"

clancy: "To the millions of Allied troops who paid the ultimate sacrifice"

at first blush, it seems the only material difference is that spot is referring to axis and clancy to allied. so in all innocence, it appears that spot is merely asking for the respect to be applied to both sides.

not a chance. here's where his deception is:

"conscripts" is not the same as "troops".

every reference spot makes in that post specifically refers to *conscripts*. not soldiers in general. spot has made it clear on numerous occasions that he feels that anyone who *volunteers* for military duty is morally bereft. he suggests that he's merely asking 'tit for tat' in expressing respect for those who died on both sides. but that's not what he's asking. he feels a sense of loss for those forced to go to war - but anyone who volunteered? professional killers. millions of men and women volunteered to fight in world war II. those volunteers who died enjoy no expression of respect from our resident fan of appeasement.

the moral derelict is the man who is blind to the two possible outcomes of world war II. he enjoys the ability to remain blind thanks to the sacrifice of millions who came before him. but he will never, ever, thank those who made that sacrifice willingly.

eta: For Paul... of the latest five threads, I note:

2 members and 0 guests What are you listening to right now

1 members and 0 guests Let's talk!

1 members and 8 guests This thread

1 members and 0 guests Mormon Women Demand to Share Husbands

1 members and 0 guests Finish the sentence

*WORD ASSOCIATION~PART ll* :Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 11 (2 members and 9 guests)

yeah, there's your proof. gotta be the most controversial thread on FG.

your claims are free of merit.

Post by **spot** » Thu Jan 04, 2007 4:48 pm

anastrophe;505753 wrote: not addressed to me, but since you're spewing garbage, i'm going to jump in.What a surprise. I'm inured.

Edit add: Having, on reflection, read what you wrote - by no means an invariable state of affairs - I note the difference in the thread you discovered compared to those I highlighted. It has 23,101 posts. The guests there, I suggest, are those who found a Google hit on a search request and followed it into the site. It's not an unreasonable interpretation.

As for the conscript comment, you're perfectly correct. There's not the slightest intention to deceive in my wording, merely a search for common ground.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Thu Jan 04, 2007 6:05 pm

spot;505769 wrote: What a surprise. I'm inured.

Edit add: Having, on reflection, read what you wrote - by no means an invariable state of affairs - I note the difference in the thread you selected compared to those I highlighted. It has 23,101 posts. The guests there, I suggest, are those who found a Google hit on a search request and followed it into the site. It's not an unreasonable interpretation.

it's nice that you can speculate. just don't present it as being based in fact.

As for the volunteer comment, you're perfectly correct. There's not the slightest intention to decieve in my wording, merely a search for common ground.

baloney. clancy asked for respect for all allied soldiers who gave the last full measure of their devotion in service to freedom. those who died in service to the expressed intent to enslave the human race (and kill those too undesireable to be slaves) do not deserve nor shall they ever have respect.

you're not looking for common ground if you exclude volunteers from the formula. no more so than i or anyone is looking for common ground when we ask that those who died 'on our side' deserve respect.

easy way to tell - i ask the audience, what do you think of the following constructed sentence - which should be accurate according to spot's claim:I have great sympathy and appreciation for all conscripts caught up in both world wars regardless of which side drafted them. I do not have any sympathy or appreciation for any who volunteered in both world wars, regardless of which side they fought on. On that basis, I ask only that we extend a sense of loss to the conscripts of the Axis powers who fought in both world wars, but not to any volunteers of either side.

there will always be poorly informed and narrow-minded people in the world who hold this (or any) generation culpable for the acts of their ancestor. that doesn't make them propagandists. certainly not nearly as propagandizing as your word play is.

Post by **spot** » Thu Jan 04, 2007 11:53 pm

anastrophe;505863 wrote: it's nice that you can speculate. just don't present it as being based in fact.We can't use similar standards, then? "yeah, there's your proof. gotta be the most controversial thread on FG" didn't seem particularly robust on examination.

As for your "following constructed sentence" I remember a time when you wouldn't have sunk so low or sounded so pointless. If you can't get anywhere commenting on what I actually write, give up. Inventing Aunt Sally just to knock her over is only fit for the kindergarten.

A Buddhist, a Hindu and a Christian are in a pub and decide to publish a joint declaration on the Truth. The Buddhist considers for a bit and proposes "All things come to fruition". The Hindu offers "All that is desirable lies beyond illusion". The Christian thinks hard for a long while and tables a clause that "Nobody can come to the Father except through His Son Jesus Christ".

Enough of yourfoolery, Paul, you'll go on until Doomsday if you just keep sniping and time doesn't grow on trees. If you want a laudable socially-relevant task, go and read Frank and Glaswegian and do something about them.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Fri Jan 05, 2007 1:15 am

spot;506004 wrote: We can't use similar standards, then? "yeah, there's your proof. gotta be the most controversial thread on FG" didn't seem particularly robust on examination.

As for your "following constructed sentence" I remember a time when you wouldn't have sunk so low or sounded so pointless. If you can't get anywhere commenting on what I actually write, give up. Inventing Aunt Sally just to knock her over is only fit for the kindergarten.

A Buddhist, a Hindu and a Christian are in a pub and decide to publish a joint declaration on the Truth. The Buddhist considers for a bit and proposes "All things come to fruition". The Hindu offers "All that is desirable lies beyond illusion". The Christian thinks hard for a long while and tables a clause that "Nobody can come to the Father except through His Son Jesus Christ".

Enough of yourfoolery, Paul, you'll go on until Doomsday if you just keep sniping and time doesn't grow on trees. If you want a laudable socially-relevant task, go and read Frank and Glaswegian and do something about them.

translation: "the constructed sentence is accurate".

Post by **spot** » Fri Jan 05, 2007 1:23 am

anastrophe;506026 wrote: translation: "the constructed sentence is accurate".
I'll make you a fair offer, Paul. I'll discuss the difference between conscripts and volunteers in the armed forces, or any variation of proposal you prefer, in a limited-post Westcliffe Debate with you. You can choose whether to have just the two of us or to include seconds, and you can choose how many posts each side makes, and we can present as complete a disparagement of each other's views as we can manage while making sense of our own positions in the process. What I can't see is the benefit of flogging horses interminably over it.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Fri Jan 05, 2007 2:26 am

spot;506030 wrote: I'll make you a fair offer, Paul. I'll discuss the difference between conscripts and volunteers in the armed forces, or any variation of proposal you prefer, in a limited-post Westcliffe Debate with you. You can choose whether to have just the two of us or to include seconds, and you can choose how many posts each side makes, and we can present as complete a disparagement of each other's views as we can manage while making sense of our own positions in the process. What I can't see is the benefit of flogging horses interminably over it.

no thanks. the westcliffe forum is...unclean... as far as i'm concerned.

Post by **spot** » Fri Jan 05, 2007 2:28 am

anastrophe;506061 wrote: no thanks. the westcliffe forum is...unclean... as far as i'm concerned.
You did your level best to pollute it, I'll give you that.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Fri Jan 05, 2007 2:33 am

spot;506062 wrote: You did your level best to pollute it, I'll give you that.

it's always good to expose abuse of power within the ne'er-do-well's lair.

i'm off to bed, it's 1:33am here. have a pleasant evening, er, day. i think i'll put you back in the box, where you should be. i lapsed and began clicking again.

Post by **spot** » Fri Jan 05, 2007 3:01 am

anastrophe;505863 wrote: you're not looking for common ground if you exclude volunteers from the formula. no more so than i or anyone is looking for common ground when we ask that those who died 'on our side' deserve respect.Just to clean up an inaccuracy, I didn't at any stage "exclude volunteers from the formula", as you put it. I invited no exclusions at all. I asked only whether Axis conscripts could be included. The reason I left out Axis volunteers is that I could see perfectly legitimate reasons for that causing offence, and I was seeking a specific inclusion which would be more tolerable to Clancy. While you're quite correct that I have further views on the difference between conscripts and volunteers, those didn't form any part of my reason for the wording I chose on Armistice Day or in this thread.