First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
'victim' of police brutality
Posted 1/2/17 , edited 1/3/17

Xxanthar wrote:

http://www.clickorlando.com/news/cops-man-urinates-on-deputy-after-disney-arrest-says-f-trump


LAKE BUENA VISTA, Fla. - A 20-year-old man was arrested on Disney property early New Year's Day, accused of yelling profanities at law enforcement officers and urinating on a trooper's leg.



Murphy was placed in the trooper's patrol cruiser, where he began banging his head against a partition and tried to choke himself, the report said. Murphy was yelling "police brutality" as he kept banging his head, the affidavit said.


Why? Also why did the officer let the man urinate his leg? I mean unless the guy dick is so small, he didn't see it coming?
Posted 1/2/17 , edited 1/3/17


Where is this BS that you accuse me of? I provided a link to the full article. I included 2 quotes from the article. The only thing I personalized was the title. In fact, if someone were to only the title they would think that a Hillary supporter was beaten by a cop. If anyone should be offended by an inaccurate title it should be a police officer. Headlines often don't match the main body of the topic, this is nothing new. I picked the title, it's flavored with a bit of 'salt' not too much, by most forums' standards, and certainly not by Crunchyroll standards.
3208 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / F / The margins
Offline
Posted 1/2/17 , edited 1/3/17

Xxanthar wrote:



Where is this BS that you accuse me of? I provided a link to the full article. I included 2 quotes from the article. The only thing I personalized was the title. In fact, if someone were to only the title they would think that a Hillary supporter was beaten by a cop. If anyone should be offended by an inaccurate title it should be a police officer. Headlines often don't match the main body of the topic, this is nothing new. I picked the title, it's flavored with a bit of 'salt' not too much, by most forums' standards, and certainly not by Crunchyroll standards.


Well, facts aren't independent of their context or presentation - this is both something the left loves to say, and is the basis of the right's accusation of bias in the mainstream media. The article states the man was drunk, but you left this out - and in your subsequent posts made him into the Florida DNC chair and mocked transgender issues. You're framing this silly incident as indicative of liberal behavior. All these things are BS. You're entirely free to say them, but you don't get to dictate to people how what you said ought to be interpreted. People aren't necessarily experts on their own behavior.

You know, I imagine you think that you're trolling me into talking further. This works on a lot of people, as humans tend to get invested in things when you strike a nerve. But really I want to believe that, somewhere in there, you realize that you are indeed BSing, that you haven't actually addressed anything I'm saying, and that the way you post around here is selfish and unproductive. That you replaced my quote with "*SNIP*" fascinates me, because it was almost certainly intended to piss me off but instead highlights that you're hoping you can get away with not responding to any of my points. You got caught sneaking cookies out of the jar; you can't talk your way out of it.
21205 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / SoFlo
Offline
Posted 1/2/17 , edited 1/3/17
I did virtually the same thing after watching Country Bear Jamboree.
3208 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / F / The margins
Offline
Posted 1/2/17 , edited 1/3/17
By the way, I'm not sure why someone reported the original post to moderators. It looks like it follows forum rules to me.
12131 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Offline
Posted 1/2/17 , edited 1/3/17

auroraloose wrote:

By the way, I'm not sure why someone reported the original post to moderators. It looks like it follows forum rules to me.


If I recall correctly they have a rule against just posting a link and some quotes from a news story. They require that you add something original to it.
Posted 1/2/17 , edited 1/3/17

octorockandroll wrote:


auroraloose wrote:

By the way, I'm not sure why someone reported the original post to moderators. It looks like it follows forum rules to me.


If I recall correctly they have a rule against just posting a link and some quotes from a news story. They require that you add something original to it.


That is not listed in the forum rules.
Posted 1/2/17 , edited 1/3/17

Xxanthar wrote:


octorockandroll wrote:


auroraloose wrote:

By the way, I'm not sure why someone reported the original post to moderators. It looks like it follows forum rules to me.


If I recall correctly they have a rule against just posting a link and some quotes from a news story. They require that you add something original to it.


That is not listed in the forum rules.


The word you are looking for is this.

We let our mods interpret the rules however we want and you must do what they say mere mortal!
Well that been their answer by pretty much every site I ever used when I point that out too. .
12131 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Offline
Posted 1/2/17 , edited 1/3/17

Xxanthar wrote:


octorockandroll wrote:


auroraloose wrote:

By the way, I'm not sure why someone reported the original post to moderators. It looks like it follows forum rules to me.


If I recall correctly they have a rule against just posting a link and some quotes from a news story. They require that you add something original to it.


That is not listed in the forum rules.


So? It's still a standard the mods hold us to. Just ask redokami.
Posted 1/2/17 , edited 1/3/17

TwinBlast wrote:

The word you are looking for is this.

We let our mods interpret the rules however we want and you must do what they say mere mortal!
Well that been their answer by pretty much every site I ever used when I point that out too. .


There is a definite political bias among many the mods here, but it's not smothering like on many other places. I think I've finally managed to get the hang of how to avoid being banned here as much, but I'll probably slip again in the future. You have to keep the temperature of posts from getting hot enough to melt snowflakes. I'd say the forum rules and how they are enforced are reasonable enough, most of the time, for a site like this.
Posted 1/2/17 , edited 1/3/17

octorockandroll wrote:


So? It's still a standard the mods hold us to. Just ask redokami.


It can't really be a standard if I haven't seen some kind of rule or something. It's not like I'm constantly starting topics with no context in the first post. I usually always provide context and even if I don't, I don't abandon topics that I start. I generally give plenty of 'context/content' in subsequent posts if requested. Since this was a short article I didn't feel that I needed to add anything else in the first post.

It strikes me as funny how some can post whatever they like, no questions asked, yet I have to explain myself a million times. Questions of a threads 'correctness' never seem to pop up unless it's about something that is negative toward their beliefs or ideology.
Posted 1/2/17 , edited 1/3/17

Xxanthar wrote:
There is a definite political bias among many the mods here, but it's not smothering like on many other places. I think I've finally managed to get the hang of how to avoid being banned here as much, but I'll probably slip again in the future. You have to keep the temperature of posts from getting hot enough to melt snowflakes. I'd say the forum rules and how they are enforced are reasonable enough, most of the time, for a site like this.


While I know that the moderators have their own political views, I don't think it impacts their judgment on bans/threads (at least, I haven't seen it yet). There are a few far-right conservatives that have been banned for posting blatant racist threads just to stir up trouble (including yourself a few times). To be fair, I'm certain at least a handful of those that were banned knew they what they were doing and expected to be banned. As long as personal insults aren't flying, a thread is mostly safe from what I can see.

As for bans - during the election period, I've seen both conservatives and liberals/Democrats being banned on here for getting into a mudslinging tournament rather than trying to have a constructive or informal conversation.

---
On Topic:

It was a bit of a stretch to assume that the person was a Clinton supporter. While there is a plausible logic to assume this, it's also debatable due to your logic being subjective to your views on those you consider liberal/Democrats. Both sides are equally whiny, crazy, and have their fair share of people who would do something exactly like this.
12131 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Offline
Posted 1/2/17 , edited 1/3/17

Xxanthar wrote:


octorockandroll wrote:


So? It's still a standard the mods hold us to. Just ask redokami.


It can't really be a standard if I haven't seen some kind of rule or something. It's not like I'm constantly starting topics with no context in the first post. I usually always provide context and even if I don't, I don't abandon topics that I start. I generally give plenty of 'context/content' in subsequent posts if requested. Since this was a short article I didn't feel that I needed to add anything else in the first post.

It strikes me as funny how some can post whatever they like, no questions asked, yet I have to explain myself a million times. Questions of a threads 'correctness' never seem to pop up unless it's about something that is negative toward their beliefs or ideology.


Oh, sure. It's not that a standard for discussion is being enforced on an internet forum, it's that the eeeeeevil liberals are out to get you. Clearly that is the most reasonable explanation.
Posted 1/2/17 , edited 1/3/17

octorockandroll wrote:


Xxanthar wrote:


octorockandroll wrote:


So? It's still a standard the mods hold us to. Just ask redokami.


It can't really be a standard if I haven't seen some kind of rule or something. It's not like I'm constantly starting topics with no context in the first post. I usually always provide context and even if I don't, I don't abandon topics that I start. I generally give plenty of 'context/content' in subsequent posts if requested. Since this was a short article I didn't feel that I needed to add anything else in the first post.

It strikes me as funny how some can post whatever they like, no questions asked, yet I have to explain myself a million times. Questions of a threads 'correctness' never seem to pop up unless it's about something that is negative toward their beliefs or ideology.


Oh, sure. It's not that a standard for discussion is being enforced on an internet forum, it's that the eeeeeevil liberals are out to get you. Clearly that is the most reasonable explanation.


That's not what I said, I was saying it can't really be a 'standard' if nobody knows it's a 'standard' in the first place. There is no need to be mocking in your reply.
12131 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Offline
Posted 1/2/17 , edited 1/3/17

Xxanthar wrote:

That's not what I said, I was saying it can't really be a 'standard' if nobody knows it's a 'standard' in the first place. There is no need to be mocking in your reply.


Oh sure, nothing in your response was ever supposed to accuse mods of a political bias. Normally I would just show you your own words, but screw that, I'm much more interested in hearing more from you about how I shouldn't act mockingly. Because you're totally one to talk there.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.