I realize that Ben...you don't feel it is appropriate to call people names. I agree, but I am guilty of it. I was merely stating that I thought you targeted to point out how you felt about it when people were calling other people who agree with your political ideology names. You never said that wasn't true and I offered up numerous points to back up my accusation. I am not ignoring what you said, but you don't seem to be listening to me either.
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2002 4:13 PM To: CF-Community Subject: RE: Librals Suck ~ lol Kevin- This is not sarcasm. I made it clear earlier that I was commenting on attitude, not on politics. You seem to be ignoring that. Continuing this conversation is pointless. -Ben > Ben, > > Ahh...email it's hard to detect the sarcasm isn't it. > > I don't really mean that. But there comes a point in a debate where no > matter what I say someone will disagree with me. So I guess that was my > way of saying I give up. And my confrontation does have to do with you > political leanings and how you approached those of us who support them > and those of us who don't. > > > Kevin > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2002 4:04 PM > To: CF-Community > Subject: RE: Librals Suck ~ lol > > Kevin - > > you said: > > "It's great day when I can piss off more than one > person!" > > If that's really your attitude, and it appears to be, > then I think a lot of the confrontation you have been > complaining about on the list has nothing to do with > socio-political orientation (conservative, moderate, or > liberal). It seems you go looking for trouble, and find > it. Pity. > > -Ben > > > > > No. Michael, I never stated Ben had a viewpoint or an agenda. I > merely > > stated he didn't react the same way to everyone and offered an > > explanation for what I thought was the reason why. > > > > And I hate people that nit pick, (which you said you don't do in one > > sentence and then go on and do to me, so maybe you should look up > > hypocritical in the dictionary as well), other peoples grammar or > > understanding of the English language and then can't even run a > friggin' > > spell check on their own messages. Maybe you should look up how to > > spell conservative. > > > > It's great day when I can piss off more than one person! Especially, > > opps I almost called someone a name, like you. > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Michael Haggerty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2002 3:53 PM > > To: CF-Community > > Subject: RE: Librals Suck ~ lol > > > > Kevin, I am not interested in explaining everything to you or in > > nitpicking > > every comment anyone on this list has ever made. > > > > You said Ben is selective in who he will criticize for 'etiquitte' > based > > on > > their political beliefs. That statement implies Ben has an agenda in > his > > comments to this list. For that matter, you called it concervative. > > > > In this case, I used 'agenda' as a synonym for 'viewpoint', which was > > the > > original language you used. The word is more precise and (I am making > an > > assumption here) in keeping with the meaning of your original comment. > > > > Many people have agendas which are easy to discern. An obvious one you > > may > > be familiar with is the agenda Douglas Adams' puts forth in his > Dilbert > > comic strip. He is anti-stupid people. > > > > That being said, please spend more time reading that dictionary you > are > > so > > fond of before attacking me over my ability to understand the written > > word. > > > > M > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Kevin Schmidt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2002 3:54 PM > > To: CF-Community > > Subject: RE: Librals Suck ~ lol > > > > > > I never said he had an agenda, but rather merely pointed out that he > > hadn't reacted the same when the shoe was on the other foot. > > > > I personally am not against the death penalty, but I would be more > > persuaded to see someone suffer life in prison, if I saw them truly > > suffering, rather than watching cable TV and playing sports, working > out > > etc. I think prisoners have way too many luxuries these days. > > > > > > Of course we won't bother to get into the hypocrisy of supporting > > abortion and being against the death penalty and vice-versa. > > > > > > I once saw a bumper stickers on a car that said: > > > > "Meat is Murder" and "Pro-Choice" > > > > <cf_gross_point> > > I wanted to ask the driver if I ate aborted fetuses if it would be > > wrong? > > </cf_gross_point> > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Michael Haggerty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2002 2:27 PM > > To: CF-Community > > Subject: RE: Librals Suck ~ lol > > > > In Ben's defense, capital punishment is the ultimate conservative > > viewpoint. > > I have trouble seeing an agenda in his comments. > > > > Let's all play nice... some of us are active in anti-death penalty > > causes > > and prefer not to be referred to as pansies. > > > > One could argue the real pansies are people whose insecurities rule > them > > to > > the point the need to see others die to have a sense of justice in > this > > world. > > > > M > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Kevin Schmidt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2002 1:21 PM > > To: CF-Community > > Subject: RE: Librals Suck ~ lol > > > > > > Ben, > > > > I think we both know, that the name calling has gone both ways on this > > list. I myself have been guilty of it, however I have yet to see you > > ostracize someone when the person guilty of the name calling was > > pointing it in the direction of someone with a more conservative view > > point. > > > > Kevin > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2002 12:17 PM > > To: CF-Community > > Subject: Re: Librals Suck ~ lol > > > > Nate- > > > > Where do you get off calling names ("pansy liberals")? > > > > We have a strong tradition on this list of agreeing to > > disagree, but respecting each others' opinions. > > > > Some of the people on this lists are liberals, some are > > moderates, some are conservatives. > > > > We have some lively discussions, but not name-calling. > > > > Also, your venting might benefit from use of a spell > > checker. > > > > -Ben > > > > > Regardless, charges would need to be brought forward for such a case > > to be > > > brought to court. If consensual, who is filling the charges ? > > > > > > Your parents against your gf or bf ? I guess you should have payed > > more > > > attention to their rules. Also - likely this would be dropped, and > if > > not - > > > sentanced with a probation or community service, as minors wouldn't > be > > > charged as adults for such an act. > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Beth F" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2002 11:22 AM > > > Subject: Re: Librals Suck ~ lol > > > > > > > > > > ----- > > > > > > > > > > Hmmm, how old where you and your girlfriend when ....? Both over > > 18? > > > > > Even if it was consensual, I presume it was :), was it legal? > > > > > > > > > > > > > Most states in the US have a consensual age of 16. This means > that > > an > > > adult > > > > can't have sex with anyone under this age legally. It does NOT > mean > > that > > > two > > > > 14 year olds doing it is illegal. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
