Terrorist attacks

Discuss all the events of the day

Moderator: GH Moderators

User avatar
Schifty
Laurie Daley
Posts: 16311
Joined: March 14, 2010, 4:00 pm
Favourite Player: Josh Hodgson

Re: Terrorist attacks

Post by Schifty » March 17, 2019, 4:55 pm

I'm thinking these sort of people are going to start getting a lot more attention from security agencies...

Australian man is arrested after posting comments about the New Zealand terror attack which led police to seize weapons at his home: https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australi ... spartandhp

User avatar
LP Raider
Ricky Stuart
Posts: 9139
Joined: March 13, 2010, 8:44 am
Favourite Player: Lindsey Pelas

Re: Terrorist attacks

Post by LP Raider » March 17, 2019, 9:46 pm

And to think young kids died for this country.

User avatar
The Rickman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 44079
Joined: June 25, 2012, 9:53 am
Favourite Player: Hodgo
Location: Rockhampton, Central Queensland

Re: Terrorist attacks

Post by The Rickman » March 17, 2019, 9:48 pm

Schifty wrote:I'm thinking these sort of people are going to start getting a lot more attention from security agencies...

Australian man is arrested after posting comments about the New Zealand terror attack which led police to seize weapons at his home: https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australi ... spartandhp
Honestly, I think that’s the one positive to come from a horrific event like this


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Image
2012 Golden Boogs Newbie of the Year
2013 'Nella Awards Best Punter
2013 Boogs Thread of the Year ~ The Betting Thread
2014 Boogs Matthew Elliott Award Winner
2014 Boogs some award with Hanbush

User avatar
Schifty
Laurie Daley
Posts: 16311
Joined: March 14, 2010, 4:00 pm
Favourite Player: Josh Hodgson

Re: Terrorist attacks

Post by Schifty » March 17, 2019, 9:51 pm

Agreed.

Before the response to people calling this out would be that whole "You're againts free speech, trying to turn this into a PC world" BS

News corp has already started their back pedalling. They have a lot to answer for.

Image

That was just in one year..

gergreg
Steve Walters
Posts: 7229
Joined: June 24, 2008, 4:22 pm

Re: Terrorist attacks

Post by gergreg » March 18, 2019, 7:06 am

Ummm this is precisely what I was talking about above, but I get labelled Fraser Anning for it. This hateful speech has filtered down from the top and has to stop if we as a society want to change.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

Shoving it in your face since 2017

User avatar
The Rickman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 44079
Joined: June 25, 2012, 9:53 am
Favourite Player: Hodgo
Location: Rockhampton, Central Queensland

Re: Terrorist attacks

Post by The Rickman » March 18, 2019, 7:51 am

gergreg wrote:Ummm this is precisely what I was talking about above, but I get labelled Fraser Anning for it. This hateful speech has filtered down from the top and has to stop if we as a society want to change.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk
Settler down Anning, or TR will egg you


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Image
2012 Golden Boogs Newbie of the Year
2013 'Nella Awards Best Punter
2013 Boogs Thread of the Year ~ The Betting Thread
2014 Boogs Matthew Elliott Award Winner
2014 Boogs some award with Hanbush

User avatar
Manbush
Mal Meninga
Posts: 24636
Joined: March 14, 2008, 6:55 pm
Favourite Player: Luke Turner

Re: Terrorist attacks

Post by Manbush » March 18, 2019, 8:07 am

I see the government has backflipped on their backflip rebanning Milo due to his comments after this attack.
"My own opinion is enough for me and I claim the right to have it defended against any consensus, any majority, anywhere, any place, any time, and anyone who disagrees with this can pick a number, get in line and kiss my ass" Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
Manbush
Mal Meninga
Posts: 24636
Joined: March 14, 2008, 6:55 pm
Favourite Player: Luke Turner

Re: Terrorist attacks

Post by Manbush » March 18, 2019, 4:54 pm

Image


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
"My own opinion is enough for me and I claim the right to have it defended against any consensus, any majority, anywhere, any place, any time, and anyone who disagrees with this can pick a number, get in line and kiss my ass" Christopher Hitchens

Green eyed Mick
Laurie Daley
Posts: 13410
Joined: February 26, 2010, 6:01 pm
Favourite Player: Brett Mullins
Location: Canberra :(

Re: Terrorist attacks

Post by Green eyed Mick » March 18, 2019, 4:57 pm

That's a shame. White middle class losers pay a lot of money to have Milo affirm their status as a 'victim'

User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 15829
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: Terrorist attacks

Post by T_R » March 18, 2019, 4:57 pm

You weren't labelled Fraser Anning. I just pointed out that while the corpses of 49 people were still warm, you had the same obscene urge to start apportioning blame according to your own political beliefs. I think it's ugly; I'm sure you'll justify it to yourself.
Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.

User avatar
Manbush
Mal Meninga
Posts: 24636
Joined: March 14, 2008, 6:55 pm
Favourite Player: Luke Turner

Re: Terrorist attacks

Post by Manbush » March 18, 2019, 5:27 pm

TR do you think if we go through this thread we would find you doing similar when there’s been an Islamic terrorist attack killing innocents?
"My own opinion is enough for me and I claim the right to have it defended against any consensus, any majority, anywhere, any place, any time, and anyone who disagrees with this can pick a number, get in line and kiss my ass" Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 15829
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: Terrorist attacks

Post by T_R » March 18, 2019, 5:40 pm

I think we'd find examples of what you would interpret that as being. Why don't you post 'em up and let's see.
Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.

Green eyed Mick
Laurie Daley
Posts: 13410
Joined: February 26, 2010, 6:01 pm
Favourite Player: Brett Mullins
Location: Canberra :(

Re: Terrorist attacks

Post by Green eyed Mick » March 18, 2019, 6:44 pm

The coalition government have a long and repugnant history of islamophobic dog whistling.

If now is not the time to call it out, when is a good time?

gergreg
Steve Walters
Posts: 7229
Joined: June 24, 2008, 4:22 pm

Re: Terrorist attacks

Post by gergreg » March 18, 2019, 7:04 pm


T_R wrote:You weren't labelled Fraser Anning. I just pointed out that while the corpses of 49 people were still warm, you had the same obscene urge to start apportioning blame according to your own political beliefs. I think it's ugly; I'm sure you'll justify it to yourself.
Ok. So you let us know when we can discuss it then, seeing as you're the moderator of discussion, when the discussion can take place, and the apportioning any sort of responsibility. Let me guess, there will never be a good time to discuss, because in this instance it looks pretty ordinary for your political beliefs?

You think my actions are obscene and I think the actions of our parliamentarians as a whole and more specifically (and most recently) the liberal party are obscene and in some way have led us to this point in time, where there is plenty of intolerance of other people and their beliefs.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

Shoving it in your face since 2017

User avatar
Botman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 25912
Joined: June 18, 2013, 4:31 pm
Favourite Player: Nick Cotric

Re: Terrorist attacks

Post by Botman » March 18, 2019, 7:17 pm

Maybe when the other side of politics aren't trying to run on similar platforms. And maybe let's let the grieving families lay their dead to rest before we engage in political point scoring.

Neither the ALP or LIB party can hold their heads on these matters. Both clearly see (and sadly, rightly so) votes in this sort of politics. There is no moral high ground to be had here. Like almost everything in AUSPOL right now, its a race to the bottom.
CREATE PROCEDURE BotMan_Post AS
SELECT * FROM Previous_Post
EXEC quote_post
WHERE UserName = 'Aknalkfgnaa' OR 'Yeah Raiders' OR 'Billy B'
EXEC RAND(good_grief; cheak_notes; uh82cit;)

GO;

User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 15829
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: Terrorist attacks

Post by T_R » March 18, 2019, 7:37 pm


gergreg wrote:
T_R wrote:You weren't labelled Fraser Anning. I just pointed out that while the corpses of 49 people were still warm, you had the same obscene urge to start apportioning blame according to your own political beliefs. I think it's ugly; I'm sure you'll justify it to yourself.
Ok. So you let us know when we can discuss it then, seeing as you're the moderator of discussion, when the discussion can take place, and the apportioning any sort of responsibility.
Please show me where I tried to prevent you discussing anything. You had your opinion, and I shared mine, in this case that I considered your comments distasteful and inconsistent with the real politik we face.

As for my political beliefs, I won't be voting LNP at the next election, and I didn't vote for them at that the last one. For the record, my vote went to someone pretty far to the left of the ALP, and it will most likely do so again.

So there you go.
Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.

gergreg
Steve Walters
Posts: 7229
Joined: June 24, 2008, 4:22 pm

Re: Terrorist attacks

Post by gergreg » March 18, 2019, 8:03 pm

I've been unlucky enough to be stuck on the lounge in front of the tv over the past six weeks and battling with insomnia and one of the few things to put me to sleep is the 24/7 ABC news and their regular cuts to Morrison's speeches on the medevac bill/debate and question time. Again, I am unlucky to have seen more live debate/speeches on this issue than anybody participating in this discussion here and Scomo has been ruthless, absolutely disgusting as I stated earlier.

When directly questioned about the intricacies of the Bill he stated that people smugglers weren't interested in the nuances of the Bill and he repeatedly came back to that point. He also (as per the link provided) pointed to the potential for rapists, paedophiles and murderers entering the country because of the introduction of the Bill. Now he could well have been referring to the actual asylum seekers who would try to use this new Bill to their advantage but if you are going to suggest that people smugglers aren't interested in the 'nuances' then you could also suggest that any asylum seeker or newly arrived immigrant would also not give a **** about the 'nuances' of his language. And this in turn fuels the far right who already are regularly told that housing costs are high because of immigration, infrastructure cannot cope because of immigration and that doesn't even touch on the 'terrorism' threat narrative posed by Islam and by extension immigrants.

Now during this debate Labor has tried to avoid discussing it and yes that is because of the very real fear that this was an issue they could lose the election on, but let's not forget that the Labor party were a large part of this Bill, introduced solely to improve the health of asylum seekers. You can claim there is little difference between the parties policy on this matter all you want but it's right there for all to see. The Labor party looks to have moderated their stance on the treatment of asylum seekers by way of this Bill and the Liberal party has doubled down on there's, by how they have reacted to the introduction of the Bill.

Parties are allowed to change their stance on particular policy and if the Labor party have indeed changed their policy on asylum seekers then they should be commended for it. You cannot commend the liberal party for changing their policy on same sex marriage, as many of you have done, and not then commend the Labor party for changing their stance.

There will never be a good time to discuss it because we live in a 24 hour news cycle. This atrocity has affected and will continue to affect a lot of people but the nature of the media is that this issue will sadly be bypassed by something else, probably by next week given how **** up the world is at the moment, so I don't think it is unreasonable to discuss it now.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

Shoving it in your face since 2017

User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 10063
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Terrorist attacks

Post by gangrenous » March 18, 2019, 8:04 pm

T_R wrote: As for my political beliefs, I won't be voting LNP at the next election, and I didn't at that the last one. For the record, my vote went to someone pretty far to the left of the ALP, and it will most likely do so again.
Turns out politics would upset a flat earther. Keep sailing left of the greens and eventually you hit the right hand side of Tony Abbott Image

gergreg
Steve Walters
Posts: 7229
Joined: June 24, 2008, 4:22 pm

Re: Terrorist attacks

Post by gergreg » March 18, 2019, 8:05 pm

T_R wrote:
gergreg wrote:
T_R wrote:You weren't labelled Fraser Anning. I just pointed out that while the corpses of 49 people were still warm, you had the same obscene urge to start apportioning blame according to your own political beliefs. I think it's ugly; I'm sure you'll justify it to yourself.
Ok. So you let us know when we can discuss it then, seeing as you're the moderator of discussion, when the discussion can take place, and the apportioning any sort of responsibility.
Please show me where I tried to prevent you discussing anything. You had your opinion, and I shared mine, in this case that I considered your comments distasteful and inconsistent with the real politik we face.

As for my political beliefs, I won't be voting LNP at the next election, and I didn't at that the last one. For the record, my vote went to someone pretty far to the left of the ALP, and it will most likely do so again.

So there you go.
Yes you've stated this repeatedly yet you're awfully defensive of this government which makes it very difficult to believe.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

Shoving it in your face since 2017

User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 15829
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: Terrorist attacks

Post by T_R » March 18, 2019, 8:07 pm

You see one good party and one bad party and I see two parties both manipulating the situation to a perceived advantage. I think using 50 deaths for political point scoring is ugly, be it on the left or the right, an insomniac on a forum or a lunatic Senator, and nothing you've said has changed my thinking on that.

Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.

User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 15829
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: Terrorist attacks

Post by T_R » March 18, 2019, 8:13 pm

gergreg wrote:
T_R wrote:
gergreg wrote:
T_R wrote:You weren't labelled Fraser Anning. I just pointed out that while the corpses of 49 people were still warm, you had the same obscene urge to start apportioning blame according to your own political beliefs. I think it's ugly; I'm sure you'll justify it to yourself.
Ok. So you let us know when we can discuss it then, seeing as you're the moderator of discussion, when the discussion can take place, and the apportioning any sort of responsibility.
Please show me where I tried to prevent you discussing anything. You had your opinion, and I shared mine, in this case that I considered your comments distasteful and inconsistent with the real politik we face.

As for my political beliefs, I won't be voting LNP at the next election, and I didn't at that the last one. For the record, my vote went to someone pretty far to the left of the ALP, and it will most likely do so again.

So there you go.
Yes you've stated this repeatedly yet you're awfully defensive of this government which makes it very difficult to believe.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk
Pretty hard to respond to that. Firstly, I couldnt care less what you think. Secondly, I think your perception of my views may be coloured by your own.

I guess if you were keen enough you could ask one of the many people here on my FB account about my regular interactions and warm relationship with the local member in question, but I'm certainly not fussed enough about what you believe to be true or not to bother.
Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.

Keghead
Noa Nadruku
Posts: 159
Joined: August 5, 2018, 6:34 pm

Re: Terrorist attacks

Post by Keghead » March 18, 2019, 8:20 pm

T_R wrote:
March 18, 2019, 8:13 pm
gergreg wrote:
T_R wrote:
gergreg wrote:
T_R wrote:You weren't labelled Fraser Anning. I just pointed out that while the corpses of 49 people were still warm, you had the same obscene urge to start apportioning blame according to your own political beliefs. I think it's ugly; I'm sure you'll justify it to yourself.
Ok. So you let us know when we can discuss it then, seeing as you're the moderator of discussion, when the discussion can take place, and the apportioning any sort of responsibility.
Please show me where I tried to prevent you discussing anything. You had your opinion, and I shared mine, in this case that I considered your comments distasteful and inconsistent with the real politik we face.

As for my political beliefs, I won't be voting LNP at the next election, and I didn't at that the last one. For the record, my vote went to someone pretty far to the left of the ALP, and it will most likely do so again.

So there you go.
Yes you've stated this repeatedly yet you're awfully defensive of this government which makes it very difficult to believe.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk
Pretty hard to respond to that. Firstly, I couldnt care less what you think. Secondly, I think your perception of my views may be coloured by your own.

I guess if you were keen enough you could ask one of the many people here on my FB account about my regular interactions and warm relationship with the local member in question, but I'm certainly not fussed enough about what you believe to be true or not to bother.
EDIT

gergreg
Steve Walters
Posts: 7229
Joined: June 24, 2008, 4:22 pm

Re: Terrorist attacks

Post by gergreg » March 18, 2019, 8:24 pm


T_R wrote:You see one good party and one bad party and I see two parties both manipulating the situation to a perceived advantage. I think using 50 deaths for political point scoring is ugly, be it on the left or the right, an insomniac on a forum or a lunatic Senator, and nothing you've said has changed my thinking on that.
We've had this discussion before. I don't see one good party and one bad party. I see one party that is a self serving pack of **** and one that is slightly worse. Of course I'm going to support the one I think is least worse. That's the nature of politics. And there you go again trying to align me with Anning. Does that make you feel better about yourself?

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

Shoving it in your face since 2017

User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 15829
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: Terrorist attacks

Post by T_R » March 18, 2019, 8:28 pm

Actually, I contrasted you to him.

Pretty simple grammar.
Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.

gergreg
Steve Walters
Posts: 7229
Joined: June 24, 2008, 4:22 pm

Re: Terrorist attacks

Post by gergreg » March 18, 2019, 8:39 pm

T_R wrote:Actually, I contrasted you to him.

Pretty simple grammar.
Haha, things are pretty **** desperate when you start claiming victory on the internet over grammar.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

Shoving it in your face since 2017

User avatar
Schifty
Laurie Daley
Posts: 16311
Joined: March 14, 2010, 4:00 pm
Favourite Player: Josh Hodgson

Re: Terrorist attacks

Post by Schifty » March 18, 2019, 9:49 pm

Can we talk about how David Koche tried to give the "Tough questions" to after spending a decade promoting the racist?

User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 15829
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: Terrorist attacks

Post by T_R » March 18, 2019, 11:20 pm

gergreg wrote:
T_R wrote:Actually, I contrasted you to him.

Pretty simple grammar.
Haha, things are pretty **** desperate when you start claiming victory on the internet over grammar.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk
Back to making up arguments? You took offence at being compared to Anning. I explained that I had in fact constrasted him to you.

You're just being obstreperous, and it's boring to me.
Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.

User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 10063
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: Terrorist attacks

Post by gangrenous » March 19, 2019, 5:19 am

I don’t want a dog in this fight.

But what are you claiming from your initial posts as demonstrating contrast over comparison?

User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 15829
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: Terrorist attacks

Post by T_R » March 19, 2019, 5:30 am

gangrenous wrote:
March 19, 2019, 5:19 am
I don’t want a dog in this fight.

But what are you claiming from your initial posts as demonstrating contrast over comparison? Image
He was referring to the post immediately above.
Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.

gergreg
Steve Walters
Posts: 7229
Joined: June 24, 2008, 4:22 pm

Re: Terrorist attacks

Post by gergreg » March 19, 2019, 6:16 am

T_R wrote:
gergreg wrote:
T_R wrote:Actually, I contrasted you to him.

Pretty simple grammar.
Haha, things are pretty **** desperate when you start claiming victory on the internet over grammar.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk
Back to making up arguments? You took offence at being compared to Anning. I explained that I had in fact constrasted him to you.

You're just being obstreperous, and it's boring to me.
You won the internet grammar award for the day now you're making a run for the ridiculously obscure word award, and you managed to use it in a sentence. Aren't you just the cleverest person on the internet? Let's just cut to what you're trying to achieve here - you have a higher education than me - congratulations.
I honestly don't think my description of the events that took place are that unrealistic or biased but you want to argue over grammar rather than the content? If this discussion bores you then why don't you ignore it? Why have you singled out me for this nonsense when others are freely commenting on the matter, on the social media, media and political aspects?

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

Shoving it in your face since 2017

User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 15829
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: Terrorist attacks

Post by T_R » March 19, 2019, 6:25 am

gergreg wrote:
March 19, 2019, 6:16 am
T_R wrote:
gergreg wrote:
T_R wrote:Actually, I contrasted you to him.

Pretty simple grammar.
Haha, things are pretty **** desperate when you start claiming victory on the internet over grammar.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk
Back to making up arguments? You took offence at being compared to Anning. I explained that I had in fact constrasted him to you.

You're just being obstreperous, and it's boring to me.
You won the internet grammar award for the day now you're making a run for the ridiculously obscure word award, and you managed to use it in a sentence. Aren't you just the cleverest person on the internet? Let's just cut to what you're trying to achieve here - you have a higher education than me - congratulations.
I honestly don't think my description of the events that took place are that unrealistic or biased but you want to argue over grammar rather than the content? If this discussion bores you then why don't you ignore it? Why have you singled out me for this nonsense when others are freely commenting on the matter, on the social media, media and political aspects?

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk
With all due respect, you've lost the plot. The only grammar reference I made was to the fact that you misinterpreted my comment, and I assumed you had done so deliberately. The obsession since has been entirely your own.

What are you talking about obscure words?? Do you mean 'obstreperous'? Obscure? My 11 year old had it in his bloody spelling words for homework last year. If you think I'm being clever by using primary school vocab, that's on you, too.

This conversation has more than run its course. Have a good day.
Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.

User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 10063
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: Terrorist attacks

Post by gangrenous » March 19, 2019, 6:30 am

T_R wrote:
gangrenous wrote:
March 19, 2019, 5:19 am
I don’t want a dog in this fight.

But what are you claiming from your initial posts as demonstrating contrast over comparison? Image
He was referring to the post immediately above.
Nope, not seeing it. Can you quote this example of contrast over comparison for me?

User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 15829
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: Terrorist attacks

Post by T_R » March 19, 2019, 6:36 am

gangrenous wrote:
March 19, 2019, 6:30 am
T_R wrote:
gangrenous wrote:
March 19, 2019, 5:19 am
I don’t want a dog in this fight.

But what are you claiming from your initial posts as demonstrating contrast over comparison? Image
He was referring to the post immediately above.
Nope, not seeing it. Can you quote this example of contrast over comparison for me?


"I think using 50 deaths for political point scoring is ugly, be it on the left or the right, an insomniac on a forum or a lunatic Senator, and nothing you've said has changed my thinking on that."

I can't remember what you call that.... rhythmic contrast? A vs B, A vs B ..... Black vs white, noun vs noun. However you want to read it, there's certainly nothing there likening anyone to anyone else.

Honestly, I've lost interest in this a long time ago and it's clearly getting others worked up, and it's nudging 10pm here and I'm ready for a shower. I'd prefer to leave it there.
Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.

gergreg
Steve Walters
Posts: 7229
Joined: June 24, 2008, 4:22 pm

Re: Terrorist attacks

Post by gergreg » March 19, 2019, 6:40 am


T_R wrote:
gergreg wrote:
March 19, 2019, 6:16 am
T_R wrote:
gergreg wrote:
T_R wrote:Actually, I contrasted you to him.

Pretty simple grammar.
Haha, things are pretty **** desperate when you start claiming victory on the internet over grammar.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk
Back to making up arguments? You took offence at being compared to Anning. I explained that I had in fact constrasted him to you.

You're just being obstreperous, and it's boring to me.
You won the internet grammar award for the day now you're making a run for the ridiculously obscure word award, and you managed to use it in a sentence. Aren't you just the cleverest person on the internet? Let's just cut to what you're trying to achieve here - you have a higher education than me - congratulations.
I honestly don't think my description of the events that took place are that unrealistic or biased but you want to argue over grammar rather than the content? If this discussion bores you then why don't you ignore it? Why have you singled out me for this nonsense when others are freely commenting on the matter, on the social media, media and political aspects?

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk
With all due respect, you've lost the plot. The only grammar reference I made was to the fact that you misinterpreted my comment, and I assumed you had done so deliberately. The obsession since has been entirely your own.

What are you talking about obscure words?? Do you mean 'obstreperous'? Obscure? My 11 year old had it in his bloody spelling words for homework last year. If you think I'm being clever by using primary school vocab, that's on you, too.

This conversation has more than run its course. Have a good day.
Of course. We use obstreperous regularly in the T_R household, but probably about 4 times a half when I'm rubbing elbow patches with my colleagues at a Brumbies vs Reds game - in the Corporate box I should add.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

Shoving it in your face since 2017

User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 10063
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: Terrorist attacks

Post by gangrenous » March 19, 2019, 6:42 am

You’re discussing the same attribute you’re ascribing to gerg and the senator.

Sounds more like a comparison than contrast to me. Think your grammar argument is Bull.

Post Reply