On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 2:03 PM, Rick Faircloth <r...@whitestonemedia.com> wrote:
> > On 9/9/2014 1:54 PM, Scott Stroz wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 1:44 PM, Rick Faircloth <r...@whitestonemedia.com > > > > wrote: > > > >> I'm glad you enjoy me throwing your language back in your face, Scott. > >> Glad it made you > >> think about resorting to such childish behavior. > >> > > Actually, it made me think about how much you cannot think on your own. > > Something you have shown in other posts. > > Your right, I do have trouble being original when it comes to childish > insults... > Your lack or originality is not limited to insults...take your stance on any political issue..right out of the Conservative Playbook. Good job, Rush and the others would be extremely proud. > > > >> Now, more to the point... > >> > >> Can you quote me stating that violence is the best option when one's > >> life is not in danger? > >> > > I do not recall stating that you did, only that it is something we have > > tried to instill in our children. If you misinterpreted that, I > apologize. > > You should apologize, since you have continuously misinterpreted my words. > Wait...you misinterpreted my words and I apologize means I need to apologize when I misinterpret yours? That there is some special logic.. > > > >> Can you quote me stating that he she be exonerated because of her > >> aggression? > >> > > When you said 'she was looking for trouble', that was the implication. > > No implication on my part. I state what I mean, exactly. Your own > refusal to understand > common English causes your bias towards my remarks. > Deny it all you want, the implication was there. 'She was looking for trouble'...and she found it, right? > > > >> Can you quote me stating that is perfectly ok for a 200+lb professional > >> athlete to punch > >> a much smaller woman in the face? > >> > > When you said 'she was looking for trouble', that was the implication. > > See my states above in response. > > > >> And finally, would you advice your sons to allow a woman who began to > >> beat them with > >> a baseball bat not to hit the woman if that was the only way to prevent > >> their death? > > (And this is not to be conflated with the Ray Rice situation...) > > Other than to get me to admit that it is OK to hit a woman, this has no > > bearing on the discussion at hand. > > I'm trying to determine if your "don't hit a female" applies under every > circumstance > or only in times that you determine appropriate. In other words, do you > have situational > ethics or consistent ethics. > If someone is being beaten with a baseball bat, I think that would, in most cases, fall under the 'life at risk' clause that previously stated. > > > > Ray Rice's life was not in danger. She did not have a baseball bat, or > any > > kind of weapon. He is much bigger and stronger than she is. He needed to > > show restraint. He did not. Now he is paying the price for his actions. > He > > is lucky that jail time is not likely to com into play. > > Didn't I mention that the "baseball bat" scenario had nothing to do with > the Ray Rice > situation? It was simply a means to determine the level of your > convictions. > But it did have something to do with Ray Rice...why else bring it up in a conversation about Ray Rice? -- Scott Stroz --------------- You can make things happen, you can watch things happen or you can wonder what the f*&k happened. - Cpt. Phil Harris http://xkcd.com/386/ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:372220 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
