Shrub wants to gut Endangered Species Act

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Doom and Gloom
Leave it to the worst president in modern history to try and scrap yet another law that has done so much good

Bardock42
Should watch the Penn and Teller episode on it.

Devil King
Originally posted by Bardock42
Should watch the Penn and Teller episode on it.

what is the subject of the program?

Bardock42
Originally posted by Devil King
what is the subject of the program?

Endangered Species, I think.

inimalist
although I do agree with much of the P&T episode, the proposal is that government investigators get to assess the environmental impact of a policy as opposed to scientists

Bardock42
Originally posted by inimalist
although I do agree with much of the P&T episode, the proposal is that government investigators get to assess the environmental impact of a policy as opposed to scientists

The problem on the whole is apparently that there (of course) aren't really enough people to assess the situations, so there are often blanket decisions made, which don't help any animals and hurt people. I suppose making them at least not necessary scientists would increase the amount of people to assess a situation, even though it would decrease the knowledge used for the task.

On the whole I think animals suck anyways, though.

Devil King
Right, this is a matter of self-regulation.

inimalist
indeed, I personally believe there should be a rational reason aside from simple biodiversity to protect the habitat of an animal, and that is obviously a decision that science can inform, but not make.

However, when it comes to actual measures of impact, it just seems more likely that political rather than factual motives will be at work if the government is allowed to assess for itself (I have no idea how it works now anyways, and I'm sure the gvt still gets to make the decisions). Even NASA scientists have said they have faced political pressure during previous administrations (not just Bush). Meh, not that I have any real point, just science should be done by scientists and should not be politically motivated, and while im at it I'm going to solve world hunger and dance on a rainbow.

dadudemon
In stark contrast to Bardock's position, I'm a strong proponent of human-nature harmonization. I don't think everything should be about human progress and f*** nature on the way there. We know better as a species. To go against our nice scientific data on best practices for expansion and growth is ignorant.

I don't want to live in huts in the amazon, but I don't want to destroy an environment so an entire city can go up.

I dunno, meh.

Bardock42
Originally posted by dadudemon
In stark contrast to Bardock's position, I'm a strong proponent of human-nature harmonization. I don't think everything should be about human progress and f*** nature on the way there. We know better as a species. To go against our nice scientific data on best practices for expansion and growth is ignorant.

I don't want to live in huts in the amazon, but I don't want to destroy an environment so an entire city can go up.

I dunno, meh.

That's not in contrast to my position. I am just against government interference.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Bardock42
That's not in contrast to my position. I am just against government interference.

I disagree with your above statement.


Originally posted by Bardock42 I care for the environment. I don't care for the unproven hysteria. Someone polluting water should be punished. But the reason for punishment comes from it harming humans, not from it harming the environment. If no human gets or will get harmed in the process of destroying every animal, plant and other living thing on this earth...it is absolutely alright. Environmentalism for humanity's sake, that's what we should keep in mind...and many eco-terrorists don't.

Bardock42
Originally posted by dadudemon
I disagree with your above statement.

Oh, well, I interpreted your "To go against our nice scientific data on best practices for expansion and growth is ignorant." as meaning just that. But fair enough, I will qualify my statement to say "I am a proponent of human-nature harmonization due to the many advantages for humanity". And still, your position is not contrary to mine, your reasons might be.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Bardock42
Oh, well, I interpreted your "To go against our nice scientific data on best practices for expansion and growth is ignorant." as meaning just that. But fair enough, I will qualify my statement to say "I am a proponent of human-nature harmonization due to the many advantages for humanity". And still, your position is not contrary to mine, your reasons might be.

"If no human gets or will get harmed in the process of destroying every animal, plant and other living thing on this earth...it is absolutely alright."

..


Is what I am in stark contrast to. I'm pretty damned sure there is a nice harmonious way to expand and develop without having to destroy teh animalz and evironmentz.



Also, you're allowed to change your position on your environmental policy anytime you want to. If you no longer hold the same position as you did from what I quoted, that's fine. I'm not going to accuse you of being a flip flopper...that's reserved for elected officials and those running for office. big grin

Bardock42
Originally posted by dadudemon



I'm pretty damned sure there is a nice harmonious way to expand and develop without having to destroy teh animalz and evironmentz.

So am I.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Also, you're allowed to change your position on your environmental policy anytime you want to. If you no longer hold the same position as you did from what I quoted, that's fine. I'm not going to accuse you of being a flip flopper...that's reserved for elected officials and those running for office. big grin

Haha, thanks, I will consider it. But I think I am still of the same opinion, it just seems to me you might interpret it a bit different than I do.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Bardock42
So am I.

HEY!

You don't correct my ellipsis. mad (I was remotely accessing someone's computer at the time and I was fixing a Java RE problem...forgive my hurried reply?)


Just so you know, your post earlier in this thread reminded me of the previous conversation we had that I quoted. You said:

Originally posted by Bardock42
On the whole I think animals suck anyways, though.

Bardock42
Originally posted by dadudemon
HEY!

You don't correct my ellipsis. mad (I was remotely accessing someone's computer at the time and I was fixing a Java RE problem...forgive my hurried reply?)


Just so you know, your post earlier in this thread reminded me of the previous conversation we had that I quoted. You said:

I know, I added it for comedy purposes, as you might or might not now, I just got my girlfriend a dog, which I quite adore.

Doom and Gloom
Originally posted by Bardock42
That's not in contrast to my position. I am just against government interference.

Government is the only tool we have to keep corporations from turning us all ito a bunch of serfs.

Government is also the only means ro keep corporations from plundering the remaining wilderness areas for financial gain.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Doom and Gloom
Government is the only tool we have to keep corporations from turning us all ito a bunch of serfs.

Yeah, always smart to make yourself the slave of a government in order to avoid potential servitute.

Originally posted by Doom and Gloom
Government is also the only means ro keep corporations from plundering the remaining wilderness areas for financial gain.

Nah, there'd be multiple means, we just rely too much on the government, which then lets itself be bought by the corporations and actually gives them the power they shouldn't have and that so many people were afraid of them getting. Irony is a weird thing, isn't it.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Bardock42
I know, I added it for comedy purposes, as you might or might not now, I just got my girlfriend a dog, which I quite adore.

Obviously it wasn't intended as your literal opinion, but it does ring nicely with your previous sentiments.


That's why it "reminded" me of our previous conversation.



And I'm not sure about your sincerity about the dog.........that dawgy cost you some money.

Bardock42
Originally posted by dadudemon
Obviously it wasn't intended as your literal opinion, but it does ring nicely with your previous sentiments.


That's why it "reminded" me of our previous conversation.



And I'm not sure about your sincerity about the dog.........that dawgy cost you some money.

Actually, that comment didn't really fit in with what I said earlier. What I said earlier was a declaration of indifference, while that latter comment was in a negative tone.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Bardock42
Actually, that comment didn't really fit in with what I said earlier. What I said earlier was a declaration of indifference, while that latter comment was in a negative tone.

You can spin it however you like. no expression

Bardock42
Originally posted by dadudemon
You can spin it however you like. no expression

Nah, no need, the difference between "then it's alright" and "They suck" are extremely apparent without any sort of spinning.

Grand_Moff_Gav
Why shouldn't the government intervene in the environment?

Bardock42
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Why shouldn't the government intervene in the environment? It shouldn't intervene in anything, cause it shouldn't exist.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Bardock42
Nah, no need, the difference between "then it's alright" and "They suck" are extremely apparent without any sort of spinning.
You can justify it however you'd like. no expression

Bardock42
Originally posted by dadudemon
You can justify it however you'd like. no expression

Can and did.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Bardock42
Can and did.


So how did either of those statements negate the fact that you said:

"On the whole I think animals suck anyways, though."

Not remind me and not seem sentimentally similar to this:

"If no human gets or will get harmed in the process of destroying every animal, plant and other living thing on this earth...it is absolutely alright."

?


Hmm?


I'll help you a bit...sentimental does not equal logical.

You can have as much word play as you like and be right, but you're not arguing with anyone but yourself.

Bardock42
Originally posted by dadudemon
So how did either of those statements negate the fact that you said:

"On the whole I think animals suck anyways, though."

Not remind me and not seem sentimentally similar to this:

"If no human gets or will get harmed in the process of destroying every animal, plant and other living thing on this earth...it is absolutely alright."

?


Hmm?


I'll help you a bit...sentimental does not equal logical.

You can have as much word play as you like and be right, but you're not arguing with anyone but yourself.

I never said that it isn't sentimentally similar to you. What I said is that it "actually didn't fit in" with the other, nothing else.

Just to be anal. And I do realize that you were trying to be, but you did kinda fail at that, hun.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Bardock42
I never said that it isn't sentimentally similar to you. What I said is that it "actually didn't fit in" with the other, nothing else.

I've got the last word. Na na!

Originally posted by Bardock42
Just to be anal. And I do realize that you were trying to be, but you did kinda fail at that, hun.

I wasn't trying to be anal. no expression

It's rather simple: your post reminded me of one of your past posts. no expression

chillmeistergen
What a waste of a page.

Bardock42
Originally posted by dadudemon
I've got the last word. Na na!



I wasn't trying to be anal. no expression

It's rather simple: your post reminded me of one of your past posts. no expression

A-and I told you the differences in the posts. God damn you, dadudemon! You ****in' *******! Everything's a ****in' travesty with you, man!

dadudemon
Originally posted by chillmeistergen
What a waste of a page.


thumb up

Originally posted by Bardock42
A-and I told you the differences in the posts. God damn you, dadudemon! You ****in' *******! Everything's a ****in' travesty with you, man!

You want to argue about something that is not there.

Fine. no expression

Bardock42
Originally posted by dadudemon
thumb up



You want to argue about something that is not there.

Fine. no expression

I don't want to argue. I didn't really want to debate petty semantics, you just went on talking about it in an inane manner, so I had to set you straight. Wasn't the most fun I ever had, but you had no intention to debate the issue of this topic, yet kept addressing me, I suppose I should have just ignored it, though.

Grand_Moff_Gav
Originally posted by Bardock42
It shouldn't intervene in anything, cause it shouldn't exist.

Well, while that might sound like a nice idea...back in the real world the remit of a government is to govern and defend a nation. This includes stopping companies from polluting river supplies, destroying forestry and disturbing the ecology.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Well, while that might sound like a nice idea...back in the real world the remit of a government is to govern and defend a nation. This includes stopping companies from polluting river supplies, destroying forestry and disturbing the ecology.

That obviously depends on your view of government, which widely differ. I am, of course, arguing for what I believe should be, not what is...that would make for a very boring thread, after all.

inimalist
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Well, while that might sound like a nice idea...back in the real world the remit of a government is to govern and defend a nation. This includes stopping companies from polluting river supplies, destroying forestry and disturbing the ecology.

actually, what is being done with this law is government is giving itself the ability to assess the impact of environmental policy and supersede what professional scientists in the field have shown.

essentially, the government feels its hands are tied/authority undermined by science, and there is ample evidence that all administrations work in this way. The government wants less regulation on its ability to sell development contracts to people and doesn't want pesky environmental science getting in the way.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Bardock42
you had no intention to debate the issue of this topic,

With posts like


"You can spin it however you like. "

"You can justify it however you'd like. "

"...but you're not arguing with anyone but yourself."

I'm fairly sure it was clear that I wasn't debating anything with you.

It was fun while it lasted.

Bardock42
Originally posted by dadudemon
With posts like


"You can spin it however you like. "

"You can justify it however you'd like. "

"...but you're not arguing with anyone but yourself."

I'm fairly sure it was clear that I wasn't debating anything with you.

It was fun while it lasted.

No, you weren't debating, you were addressing me though and implying things about my posts, eh? I bet you feel like quite the puppet master. Take your last word now, please, I think everything has been said on my part.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Bardock42
No, you weren't debating, you were addressing me though and implying things about my posts, eh? I bet you feel like quite the puppet master. Take your last word now, please, I think everything has been said on my part.


I thought you were cute in the picture with the doggie in the OTF thread your lady posted.

You take great care of her.

I also noticed a littel facial hair.


Back on topic.


I don't see in the near future, little doggies becoming extinct. As long as there's a demand for cute little puppies...

I do see continued extinctions due to human expansion and development. Instead of altering or loosening the interpretation of Endangered Species Act, maybe we should look at ways for improving our expansion? Is not like we don't have the know-how. In fact, doesn't it cost less, in the long run, to build those ultra efficient buildings with the materials that are less toxic to the environment?

chillmeistergen
Originally posted by dadudemon
I thought you were cute in the picture with the doggie in the OTF thread your lady posted.

You take great care of her.

I also noticed a littel facial hair.

Gay.

Bardock42
Originally posted by dadudemon

I don't see in the near future, little doggies becoming extinct. As long as there's a demand for cute little puppies...

I do see continued extinctions due to human expansion and development. Instead of altering or loosening the interpretation of Endangered Species Act, maybe we should look at ways for improving our expansion? Is not like we don't have the know-how. In fact, doesn't it cost less, in the long run, to build those ultra efficient buildings with the materials that are less toxic to the environment?

As I stated earlier, the problem with the endangered species act is that it is harmful to real human people. And yes, ultra efficient buildings sound nice, but the endangered species act is not really a problem for billionaires that can afford fancy new technology (even if it might be cheaper in the long run). Also, do you have any ****ing clue what you are talking about? Efficient buildings don't really have shit to do with the act. You seem to try to make it about a general eco topic, while it is only about the particular topic. Stop that, maybe?

dadudemon
Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Gay.

RvUIoXmIgJA

Originally posted by Bardock42
As I stated earlier, the problem with the endangered species act is that it is harmful to real human people. And yes, ultra efficient buildings sound nice, but the endangered species act is not really a problem for billionaires that can afford fancy new technology (even if it might be cheaper in the long run). Also, do you have any ****ing clue what you are talking about? Efficient buildings don't really have shit to do with the act. You seem to try to make it about a general eco topic, while it is only about the particular topic. Stop that, maybe?

I'm sorry you can't make the connection between clean and efficient buildings and less of an impact on "nature". It may come to you one day.

Doom and Gloom
Originally posted by Bardock42
It shouldn't intervene in anything, cause it shouldn't exist.

What kind of world do you think we'd have without government.

One where there's absolutely no individual rights. One where even people's lives would be viewed as commodities. One where corporations would have absolute power (though it's becoming that way anyway).

You believe in a Libertarian utopian fairy tale.

Humans are hiearchical and someone will always be in charge and restrict the freedoms of others. As imperfect as it is, government is far preferable to the alternative.

Bardock42
Originally posted by dadudemon

I'm sorry you can't make the connection between clean and efficient buildings and less of an impact on "nature". It may come to you one day.

Quite contrary to what I said.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Bardock42
Quite contrary to what I said.

So, my friend, do tell what this discussion is really about. I'm too stupid to read the article posted, and I'm also too stupid to realize the implications of a relaxtion on the Endangered Species Act.

Doom and Gloom
Originally posted by Bardock42
As I stated earlier, the problem with the endangered species act is that it is harmful to real human people.?

Really? How exactly is that? The more species that go extinct the more unhealthy the earth is. These species evolved over the ages to form a balanced world. The more species that are out there indicate a healthy vibrant world that in the end is better for every one and everything....including humans.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Doom and Gloom
What kind of world do you think we'd have without government.

At the moment? A pretty chaotic one, thanks to government propaganda...potentially? A very, very great one.

Originally posted by Doom and Gloom
One where there's absolutely no individual rights. One where even people's lives would be viewed as commodities. One where corporations would have absolute power (though it's becoming that way anyway).

Nah, that would probably actually be less bad as it is now, with the government being the little ***** of corporations already.

Originally posted by Doom and Gloom
You believe in a Libertarian utopian fairy tale.

Meh, you reject it on the grounds of being a corporate dystopia and rather prefer the corporate dystopia you already have.

Originally posted by Doom and Gloom
Humans are hiearchical and someone will always be in charge and restrict the freedoms of others. As imperfect as it is, government is far preferable to the alternative.

Oh, you fully convinced me, I never heard that "argument" before, in fact, I didn't give it any thought at all...heureka, I am cured.

chithappens
Can someone give me a reason for this? It doesn't seem to have a real purpose.

Bardock42

dadudemon
Originally posted by Bardock42
No, you are talking about general environment issues. They are off-topic.

I understand that that is your point. I'm telling you that you aren't acknowledging HOW these species become endangered. (I said "acknowledging" because I'm fairly sure you know.)

Do you honestly not know how more energy efficent buildings built with less toxic materials help reduce the decay of the numbers in many different species affected by human development?

inimalist
Originally posted by Doom and Gloom
What kind of world do you think we'd have without government.

what kind of world exists with government?

oh wait, this is an intro for you to tell us what you think the world would be like without government. What a clever rhetorical device smile

Originally posted by Doom and Gloom
One where there's absolutely no individual rights. One where even people's lives would be viewed as commodities. One where corporations would have absolute power (though it's becoming that way anyway).

I'm sorry, which government is it that is preventing corporate consolidation of power or that is truely interested in preserving individual rights?

NGOs by and large are the groups that do this... and they are normally grass roots organizations, and even larger ones still show the ethos of people working together without gvt intervention.

Originally posted by Doom and Gloom
You believe in a Libertarian utopian fairy tale.

You have a deluded view of what the role of government in society is

Originally posted by Doom and Gloom
Humans are hiearchical and someone will always be in charge and restrict the freedoms of others.

please to elaborate, my brain not fast for you

Originally posted by Doom and Gloom
As imperfect as it is, government is far preferable to the alternative.

yes, when the only alternative you propose is a nonsensical version of society nobody is suggesting, it is very easy to make whatever you like look really nice.

Bardock42
Originally posted by dadudemon
I understand that that is your point. I'm telling you that you aren't acknowledging HOW these species become endangered. (I said "acknowledging" because I'm fairly sure you know.)

Do you honestly not know how more energy efficent buildings built with less toxic materials help reduce the decay of the numbers in many different species affected by human development?

Could you please just stop addressing me when unwilling to discuss the issue. As I told you, it's not about environmental issues in general (which, as you correctly pointed out, are the reason for why species get endangered), but instead about the US Law that tries to deal with the issue. I am sure there is some Eco Love Thread where you can state your stuff, and we can all happily agree there, but if you need to reply to me at all times, can you at least focus on what I am talking about instead of pretending that the broader issue that you talk about is also what I am referring to?

And could you stop implying things about my post that aren't stated or meant at all? Thanks.

inimalist
Originally posted by Doom and Gloom
The more species that are out there indicate a healthy vibrant world

that would indicate that the world is at one of its healthiest points as biodiversity is higher now than at, iirc, any point in history.

Mandos
Politics and governments fail miserably. And yet, without them, we'd be in a worst position. It's hopeless. I'll just go and live in a tropical brasilian tribe and be free of all this.

chillmeistergen
Originally posted by Mandos
Politics and governments fail miserably. And yet, without them, we'd be in a worst position. It's hopeless. I'll just go and live in a tropical brasilian tribe and be free of all this.

Good luck with that.

Schecter
yet another topic dragged into irrelevance and destroyed by dadouchebag.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Bardock42
Could you please just stop addressing me when unwilling to discuss the issue. As I told you, it's not about environmental issues in general (which, as you correctly pointed out, are the reason for why species get endangered), but instead about the US Law that tries to deal with the issue. I am sure there is some Eco Love Thread where you can state your stuff, and we can all happily agree there, but if you need to reply to me at all times, can you at least focus on what I am talking about instead of pretending that the broader issue that you talk about is also what I am referring to?

And could you stop implying things about my post that aren't stated or meant at all? Thanks.


Great. Fine and dandy.


But you can't pass off my post as off topic because you wanted to argue about something that wasn't there to argue about, again.

By the way, environmentally friendly buildings are far from the only example. You do realize that, right?







When we talk about the endangered species act, were are talking about rules, restrictions, guidelines, etc. that must be adhered to before, during, and/or after human operations can be carried out or there could be penalties. It can include direct interaction with the animals listed or just simply a type development of land. If we talk about the relaxation of those items, what does that mean? Don't you think it would be easier to get around the ESA if all development was eco friendly?

Which brings me back to my point.

"Instead of altering or loosening the interpretation of Endangered Species Act, maybe we should look at ways for improving our expansion?"

I disagree with what the government wants to do. I think they are taking this in the wrong direction. I think they should update the act with MORE requirements and higher building standards as it relates to the safety of ecosystems.


Originally posted by Schecter
yet another topic dragged into irrelevance and destroyed by dadouchebag.

Reported.

Bardock42
Originally posted by dadudemon
blah blah blah

Great contribution again, ddm, so, what do you think of the problems with the current Act?

dadudemon
Originally posted by Bardock42
Great contribution again, ddm, so, what do you think of the problems with the current Act?


You mean the alterations being propsed to the current act?

Bardock42
Originally posted by dadudemon
You mean the alterations being propsed to the current act? No, what I said.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Bardock42
No, what I said.


Well, considering you haven't named those problems, name them.


If you're talking about the circumvention of the entire reason for the ESA and actually doing more harm than good, great. Maybe those holes should be plugged and compensation given to those "confiscated".

Bardock42
Originally posted by dadudemon
Well, considering you haven't named those problems, name them.


If you're talking about the circumvention of the entire reason for the ESA and actually doing more harm than good, great. Maybe those holes should be plugged and compensation given to those "confiscated".

Did.

Nevermind though, shall just ignore you and discuss with people actually interested in discussion.

Schecter
Originally posted by dadudemon

Reported.

laughed at

jalek moye

Bardock42
Originally posted by jalek moye
in that situation i belive that although the people should be informed about an endangered species living on there property as long it remains suitable for the creature they shouldnt have to set any of it aside.

Yeah, thing with your beliefs is that they COST A BITCHLOAD OF MONEY, in reality.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Bardock42
Did.

If you're talking about "the problem with the endangered species act is that it is harmful to real human people", it's just one problem and it's already be discussed. We discussed that, so to speak, in the previous thread I quoted you from as well.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Nevermind though, shall just ignore you and discuss with people actually interested in discussion.

Thus far, you've argued about two things that were a waste of time on both our parts. You argued an irrelevant point and an incorrect point. Schecter talks about me derailing this thread, yet, I'm not the one coming up with reasons to incorrectly argue.

It can't be Bardock, Schecter, can it? It has nothing to do with him, does it? no expression

Originally posted by Schecter
laughed at

I'm glad you're still using trolling as a way to get your laughs.

Schecter
no i just get a laugh when you troll me in one thread and then report and cry like a sissy in another.

jalek moye
Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, thing with your beliefs is that they COST A BITCHLOAD OF MONEY, in reality.
what? in that guys situation it seemd like they would have been fine and so would he if he didnt have to set any land aside.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Schecter
no i just get a laugh when you troll me in one thread and then report and cry like a sissy in another.

Because you're looking for a reason to quarrel, you didn't realize that I was taking up for you and mocking KR and then have a laugh about you trolling me in the past.

Could you try to be a little less hostile all the time? Maybe that shit wouldn't go over your head, then.

Schecter
Originally posted by dadudemon
Because you're looking for a reason to quarrel, you didn't realize that I was taking up for you and mocking KR and then have a laugh about you trolling me in the past.

Could you try to be a little less hostile all the time? Maybe that shit wouldn't go over your head, then.

oh you're doing that thing where you say something and then say you said something else. thats so cute. its like when a toddler covers their eyes and they think they're invisible.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Schecter
oh you're doing that thing where you say something and then say you said something else. thats so cute. its like when a toddler covers their eyes and they think they're invisible.

Really?


Why don't you quote me, point out where I'm mocking you, and make me eat my words?

I'm more than happy to admit I'm wrong and hypocritical...if it's true.


Edit-It's off topic for this thread. You may want to do it in the thread you're referring to, then post the link to your post here or PM me the link. no expression

Schecter
you just dont get it. your insults mean nothing to me. however they do give those whom you aim them at the right to call you a hypocritical sissy when you cry and report. why should i go on quoting every insult you ever posted about me? for what?

Mandos
Would all of you guys just cut off your penis, your ego and everything else that's off topic and just give it to Sanctuary's dog. This thread is going nowhere.

chillmeistergen
Go away, Mandos.

Mandos
Go away chillmeistergren.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Schecter
you just dont get it. your insults mean nothing to me. however they do give those whom you aim them at the right to call you a hypocritical sissy when you cry and report. why should i go on quoting every insult you ever posted about me? for what?

I thought you were referring to a specific instance...like the one to occurred recently that you misinterpreted.

If you're referring to the past*, great. We've gotten into trouble for those, remember? I'm through with the childish insult games with you...all it does it gets threads closed and warnings/bans dished out.

*Just in case you wanted to be a smart about that, I'm referring to stuff from a few months ago and back...you know, when we got threads closed n shit.

Originally posted by Mandos
Would all of you guys just cut off your penis, your ego and everything else that's off topic and just give it to Sanctuary's dog. This thread is going nowhere.

I've already said I would admit hyprocisy or fault if he quoted.

Also, bards was arguing with himself earlier.


You see, I'm a perfect little angel.

Schecter
Originally posted by Mandos
Would all of you guys just cut off your penis, your ego and everything else that's off topic and just give it to Sanctuary's dog. This thread is going nowhere.

how does one cut off their ego?

Originally posted by dadudemon
I thought you were referring to a specific instance...like the one to occurred recently that you misinterpreted.

If you're referring to the past, great. We've gotten into trouble for those, remember? I'm through with the childish insult games with you...all it does it gets threads closed and warnings/bans dished out.

still whining? maybe just report me a few more times while crying and eating bonbons. or you can just never address me again. that would suffice, but of course it will never happen.

chillmeistergen
Originally posted by Mandos
Go away chillmeistergren.

Reported.

Bardock42
Originally posted by dadudemon
I thought you were referring to a specific instance...like the one to occurred recently that you misinterpreted.

If you're referring to the past, great. We've gotten into trouble for those, remember? I'm through with the childish insult games with you...all it does it gets threads closed and warnings/bans dished out.



I've already said I would admit hyprocisy or fault if he quoted.

Also, bards was arguing with himself earlier.


You see, I'm a perfect little angel.

Delusional.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Bardock42
Delusional.


Oblivious.

Bardock42
Originally posted by dadudemon
Oblivious.

Yeah, me and everyone else that thinks you are a ****.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, me and everyone else that thinks you are a ****.

Name those people and then those people need to agree.


Other than that, it is just more "hot gas".

Bardock42
Originally posted by dadudemon
Name those people and then those people need to agree.


Other than that, it is just more "hot gas".

Hahahaha

Schecter
yes bardock, spend the next hour compiling irrefutable evidence so that it will be swiftly ignored and danced around. what more incentive to you need?

dadudemon
Originally posted by Bardock42
Hahahaha

hahahahahaha!



Told ya it was hot gas.

What have you got. You? Schecter? Anyone else?

Bardock42
Originally posted by dadudemon
hahahahahaha!



Told ya it was hot gas.

What have you got. You? Schecter? Anyone else?

Go suck an exhaust.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Schecter
yes bardock, spend the next hour compiling irrefutable evidence so that it will be swiftly ignored and danced around. what more incentive to you need?

Right, because it would take an hour to do that, wouldn't?

Maybe you both should spend more time getting your jollies in a different way?

Maybe?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Go suck an exhaust.

"Go suck and exhaust PIPE", maybe?

Bardock42
Originally posted by dadudemon
Right, because it would take an hour to do that, wouldn't?

Maybe you both should spend more time getting your jollies in a different way?

Maybe?



"Go suck and exhaust PIPE", maybe? We probably should. But at least we aren't spending our time trolling. Either way, I don't need to give you names (deluded as you are you'll put out a hit on the people I name), it doesn't change the fact that you are mindlessly trolling as well as you being absolutely unaware of your multiple shortcomings. But **** it, could we please talk about this stupid ****ing act again, as I tried to earlier in this thread before you trolled around.

Oh, so you got it? Seems as if my omission was well chosen.

Mandos
I'm afraid if it is left in that situation, general forum users will become an endangered specy.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Bardock42
We probably should. But at least we aren't spending our time trolling.

You should. Also, you two constantly harass and troll on these boards. Calling me a troll because I wouldn't bite into you first argument and then I showed you rather quickly why you were arguing for the sake of arguing and failing, is not trolling. It's the opposite. I know you get bored sometimes. It's okay. Just don't take your boredem out on the boards.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Either way, I don't need to give you names (deluded as you are you'll put out a hit on the people I name),

You certainly need to back up your trolling when you say stuff like "Yeah, me and everyone else that thinks you are a ****."

You know that's not true. It's a very few and select group that can fit on one hand. no expression

You were just trolling again. I know you didn't think it would cause my world to come crashing down on me because you though it was a true earth shattering revelation.

Originally posted by Bardock42
it doesn't change the fact that you are mindlessly trolling

Who's delusional now?

Originally posted by Bardock42
as well as you being absolutely unaware of your multiple shortcomings.

Right, because I said I was a perfect angel in seriousness. wink

Originally posted by Bardock42
But **** it, could we please talk about this stupid ****ing act again, as I tried to earlier in this thread before you trolled around.

Wrong. You tried arguing about nothing for the sake of arguing. That's what you do. I forgive you for it.

I've brought up a very nice argument for the anti-ESA peeps. Shouldn't that be a nice starting point?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Oh, so you got it? Seems as if my omission was well chosen.

Sure I could take a stab and guess what you were saying. Doesn't change the fact that "go suck an exhaust" is missing the necessary noun. The next time you hear an English* say that, let me know.


*Yes, it's supposed to say "English speaker".

chillmeistergen
You clearly don't understand how ellipses works, at all.

Bardock42
Originally posted by dadudemon
You should. Also, you two constantly harass and troll on these boards. Calling me a troll because I wouldn't bite into you first argument and then I showed you rather quickly why you were arguing for the sake of arguing and failing, is not trolling. It's the opposite. I know you get bored sometimes. It's okay. Just don't take your boredem out on the boards.

Delusional.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You certainly need to back up your trolling when you say stuff like "Yeah, me and everyone else that thinks you are a ****."

Nah.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You know that's not true. It's a very few and select group that can fit on one hand. no expression

Nah

Originally posted by dadudemon
You were just trolling again. I know you didn't think it would cause my world to come crashing down on me because you though it was a true earth shattering revelation.

Nah

Originally posted by dadudemon
Who's delusional now?

You.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Right, because I said I was a perfect angel in seriousness. wink

Point in case.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Wrong. You tried arguing about nothing for the sake of arguing. That's what you do. I forgive you for it.

Nah.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I've brought up a very nice argument for the anti-ESA peeps. Shouldn't that be a nice starting point?

Where.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Sure I could take a stab and guess what you were saying. Doesn't change the fact that "go suck an exhaust" is missing the necessary noun. The next time you hear an English* say that, let me know.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/exhaust

Originally posted by dadudemon
*Yes, it's supposed to say "English speaker".

Sad.

Bardock42
Originally posted by chillmeistergen
You clearly don't understand how ellipses works, at all. He really doesn't, does he?

dadudemon
Originally posted by chillmeistergen
You clearly don't understand how ellipses works, at all.

I know how to use them, when to use them, and I use them. I explained why they cannot be grammatically correct in the OTF as well.

Remember?


ZOMG, I just used an ellipsis.

Do you REALLY hear people say "suck an exhaust"? Which was my point.

And, no, I don't go around correcting people like that, just Bardock.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Delusional.



Nah.



Nah



Nah



You.



Point in case.



Nah.



Where.



http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/exhaust



Sad.

Yah, to everyone of your "nahs". stick out tongue

"Point in case." I don't know how you could miss the sarcasm two time in a row.

"Where." You'll figure it out, I'm sure.

I know it's "Sad." that you criticise others for their posts but can't handle being criticized. No definition will change your awkward mistake. You already admitted that it was supposed to be "pipe". No amount of "machinery" definitions can change that. big grin

Bardock42
Originally posted by dadudemon
I know how to use them, when to use them, and I use them. I explained why they cannot be grammatically correct in the OTF as well.

Remember?


ZOMG, I just used an ellipsis.

Do you REALLY hear people say "suck an exhaust"? Which was my point.

And, no, I don't go around correcting people like that, just Bardock.



Yah, to everyone of your "nahs". stick out tongue

"Point in case." I don't know how you could miss the sarcasm two time in a row.

"Where." You'll figure it out, I'm sure.

I know it's "Sad." that you criticise others for their posts but can't handle being criticized. No definition will change your awkward mistake. You already admitted that it was supposed to be "pipe". No amount of "machinery" definitions can change that. big grin What exactly gave you the impression that I can't handle being criticized? Just the fact that I don't agree with your assessment?

I still think that there shouldn't be legislation about endangered species. Can you tell me why there should be?

dadudemon
Originally posted by Bardock42
I still think that there shouldn't be legislation about endangered species. Can you tell me why there should be?

Because the animals can't lobby for themselves???

chillmeistergen
Originally posted by dadudemon
I know how to use them, when to use them, and I use them. I explained why they cannot be grammatically correct in the OTF as well.

No, I never read any such revolutionary post.

Ellipses can be grammatically incorrect, however, I've never seen Bardock use it as such. The fact is that you seem to regard it as a fundamental error whenever it's used. Well, whenever it's used by someone you dislike.

dadudemon
Originally posted by chillmeistergen
No, I never read any such revolutionary post.

Use the search feature. It was in the OTF...picture thread, I think.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Ellipses can be grammatically incorrect, however, I've never seen Bardock use it as such.

You don't understand ellipses, then. Usually when you use an ellipsis, it is incorrect English. Bardock is a big offender of this. He knows this. You can't run around eliminating ESSENTIAL portions of a sentence.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
The fact is that you seem to regard it as a fundamental error whenever it's used.

I don't regard it as a fundamental error...just a rubbish way of posting. It works fine in a conversation when voice inflection and body language can be used.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Well, whenever it's used by someone you dislike.

I don't dislike Bardock, nor do I dislike Tattoo.

Bardock42
Originally posted by dadudemon

Usually when you use an ellipsis, it is incorrect English. Bardock is a big offender of this. He knows this.

He does?

lord xyz
Originally posted by dadudemon
You don't understand ellipses, then. Usually when you use an ellipsis, it is incorrect English. Bardock is a big offender of this. He knows this. You can't run around eliminating ESSENTIAL portions of a sentence...I don't regard it as a fundamental error... I smell conrtradiction.

Grand_Moff_Gav
dadudemon I am an idiot, how does one go about using an ellipse...incorrectly.

chillmeistergen
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
dadudemon I am an idiot, how does one go about using an ellipse...incorrectly.

Are we getting into a discussion on mathematics now?

dadudemon
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
dadudemon I am an idiot, how does one go about using an ellipse...incorrectly.

Ask.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Are we getting into a discussion on mathematics now?

laughing

Originally posted by lord xyz
I smell conrtradiction.

No, you just can't read.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.