Your opinion doesn't mean crap!

[FreeThinker]

No, but there is a horny one. Be back in a while. Gotta go poke my wife

Wait wait wait I don't speak idiot. Wife means hand right?

 

[Naughty Nurse]

Wait wait wait I don't speak idiot. Wife means hand right?

Too cruel. :rofl

 

[FreeThinker]

I would say I didn't like someone (like FreeThinker and ptsdkid) if they were objectively rude to everyone, which they are.

I think that respecting your 7th grade understanding of politics and foreign policy enables you. I call you a fool because you madam, are a fool.

Knowing is half the battle.

 

[aps]

I think that respecting your 7th grade understanding of politics and foreign policy enables you. I call you a fool because you madam, are a fool.

Knowing is half the battle.

OMG, I am so hurt you called me a fool and said that my understanding of politics and foreign policy is at a 7th-grade level. Someone hold me.

FreeThinker, your opinion might be the one that means the least to me on this message board. You and ptsdkid.

 

[aps]

Who's bashing?...

The problem here is that your skipping the facts shown and going straight to your emotions...here's an example....

You mentioned a few posts ago that you agreed with FinnMacCool...This was AFTER I clearly pointed out this...



Once again, look at my second sentence of the original post...



See?...I say something, he tells me I'm pretending, then says that exact same thing I said...He totally missed it...You agreeing with him shows that you missed it, too, and just want to jump on the bandwagon instead of thinking for yourself...

Now let's see how you're shying away from your thoughts when we've had an ealier discussion...remember this?...



You didn't respond when I came back with this...



I also wrote this here...



Sorry to say, but when I wrote that, you came to mind...

Anyway...Back on topic...

I make an assertation and back it up using the same data available to every member of this forum...If you are under the assumption that I would never do something like this if a Conservative was flooding the forum...you would be wrong...

Don't believe me?...have a look yourself...Notice I even mention the same idea...diluting the forum...as I do right here...This difference was that I Moderated there because of copyright issues...with the current situation, I haven't...But hitting up a Conservative for doing the same thing?

Damn tootin'...

So what's on your mind now?...Maybe it should be that what I'm doing is informing the forum members so they can draw their own conclusions?...Maybe they'll start to think, "I respond in danarhea's threads, but he hardly ever responds to mine or anyone else's....Why should I give him consideration when he does not afford that consideration to the rest of the members?"...

What I've shown is available to all...Unlike other members who start threads down here with their baseless opinions, I have documented my research...And if you disagree with any of it, by all means...double check my work...

Unless, of course, you would like to ask the Administrator to stop making this public data available so the members can't see for themselves...

cnredd, you could insult me in every one of your posts, and it would not bother me. I am unimpressed by your level of maturity (or lack thereof) and by your analytical skills.

 

[cnredd]

cnredd, you could insult me in every one of your posts, and it would not bother me. I am unimpressed by your level of maturity (or lack thereof) and by your analytical skills.

If I were here to "impress" you, I wouldn't back up my assertions with facts and just spew the political lines you greedily consume without regard for truth or objectivity...

Just not my style...:2wave:

 

[aps]

If I were here to "impress" you, I wouldn't back up my assertions with facts and just spew the political lines you greedily consume without regard for truth or objectivity...

Just not my style...:2wave:

LOL Alright there, tough guy.

 

[danarhea]

Wait wait wait I don't speak idiot. Wife means hand right?

I was about to be angry with you for that remark, but then saw your mood as dead. Now I feel sorry for being angry with you. Now I understand why you confused a hand for a wife. Sorry your hand didnt work for you and sorry you cant get it up. Just look at the good side. At least you cant be distracted. Unless...... You arent gay, are you?

 

[RightinNYC]

Alright kids...A little bit of Stat Deduction 101...

Of course, most of us, if not all of us, have a slanted position when debating...we like people to hear our thoghts, and like it when they respond in kind...

But have you ever noticed how certain members don't like the idea of that two-way street?...Ever notice members only wanting to get out their agenda with little regard for YOUR opinions?...

Well, I've done a little research, and found the King of this...His name is danarhea...

If you don't know by now, his modus operandi is to flood the forums with op-ed pieces and Libertarian literature due to his feelings of betrayal from the republican party...sort of like a revenge tactic one would immaturely take out on their ex-spouse or ex-lover...They live for spite...

So that's the agenda...

But I'm more concerned with the other side of debate...Sure he wants you to know how he feels and he wants you to respond...But does he respond in kind to how YOU feel on YOUR threads and topics?

Not a chance in hell!...danarhea doesn't give a rat's ass what anyone on this forum thinks...unless, of course, it's said in HIS thread and HIS topic...If it's in YOUR thread with YOUR topics, he hardly knows you exist...

Here's the data...

Currently, danarhea has a total post count of 939...Here's a stat that should blow the mind away for any veteran member here...

Out of those 939 total posts, 232 of them were starting a new thread!...That's almost 1 out of every 4 posts!...

To give you a fair comparison for how out of whack that is, I have over 6,000 posts...and have started 190 new threads...

BUT...

As a Moderator, most of my threads are discussing issues in the Mod Forum in an administrative capacity...So how many have I started publicly?...

25...

To give you more of an idication of how one person's agenda is being shoved down your throats, I've looked up the members that have more than 2,500 posts...more than 3 times the number of danarhea's total number...The NEXT person in line with the greatest number of posts has 118...The person after that?...78...

That's right folks...The member with LESS than 1000 posts has started more threads than the next TWO members combined...AND they have more than 10 THOUSAND posts!...

For Wayne Gretsky, that would be admirable...In a debate forum, it's pretty friggin' sad...

But that's only half of the story...Here's the bigger issue the members should be concerned about...

Sure...danarhea has an agenda, but does he contribute to the forum by getting involved with everyone else and their discussions?...

Sadly, the answer is "no"...

I've looked up danarhea's last 250 posts...here's the breakdown of the number of posts that dealt with his own agenda compared to the number of his total posts...

20 out of the last 25
37 out of the last 50
53 out of the last 75
72 out of the last 100
90 out of the last 125
110 out of the last 150
140 out of the last 200
175 out of the last 250

By my trusty calculator, he attends to himself 70% of the time while contributing just 30% to the rest of the members.

Just a bit selfish, don't ya think?...

Who cares? I mean, I can say from my own experience that I've had many a good debate on a thread started by danarhea. I don't think threads started means much, and I think that the "percent of his posts that deal with his own agenda" is an even less important, more loaded statistic.

 

[cnredd]

Who cares? I mean, I can say from my own experience that I've had many a good debate on a thread started by danarhea. I don't think threads started means much, and I think that the "percent of his posts that deal with his own agenda" is an even less important, more loaded statistic.

Nobody's stopping you from having your own opinion...I throw out the stats and give my own assessment...If you choose a different assessment, have a blast...

If you asked 10 members what their 5 biggest issues are, you'd get about 35-45 different issues...

One of mine is members flooding the forum...

As far as you having "many a good debate on a thread started by danarhea", compared to the total number of threads started, you...and the forum ingeneral, have clearly NOT...

232 threads started...Wanna guess how many even went to a second page?

88..That's friggin' horrible for legitimate debate when you start 144 threads where you can't even get more than 10 responses, dontchya think?...

And you wanna call that legitimate debate?...

How about a step further?...Wanna take a shot where ZERO or ONE member responded to a danarhea thread?...

55!!!!!!...Read it again...Fifty f/uckin' five threads that were so lacking in legitimate debate that he couldn't even get TWO people to respond...

For a brief comparison, you wanna know how many threads YOU publicly started...

31...That's correct RightatNYU...danarhea has more threads that couldn't get two people to respond than you have TOTAL THREADS...And you have 3 times as many total posts as him...

How you consider 89 threads that can't get to a second page and an additional 55 that can't even get to a second response "legitimate debate" is beyond me...

 

[KCConservative]

31...That's correct RightatNYU...danarhea has more threads that couldn't get two people to respond than you have TOTAL THREADS...And you have 3 times as many total posts as him.(

:lol: :lol: :lol: Classic!

 

[RightinNYC]

Nobody's stopping you from having your own opinion...I throw out the stats and give my own assessment...If you choose a different assessment, have a blast...

If you asked 10 members what their 5 biggest issues are, you'd get about 35-45 different issues...

One of mine is members flooding the forum...

As far as you having "many a good debate on a thread started by danarhea", compared to the total number of threads started, you...and the forum ingeneral, have clearly NOT...

232 threads started...Wanna guess how many even went to a second page?

88..That's friggin' horrible for legitimate debate when you start 144 threads where you can't even get more than 10 responses, dontchya think?...

And you wanna call that legitimate debate?...

How about a step further?...Wanna take a shot where ZERO or ONE member responded to a danarhea thread?...

55!!!!!!...Read it again...Fifty f/uckin' five threads that were so lacking in legitimate debate that he couldn't even get TWO people to respond...

For a brief comparison, you wanna know how many threads YOU publicly started...

31...That's correct RightatNYU...danarhea has more threads that couldn't get two people to respond than you have TOTAL THREADS...And you have 3 times as many total posts as him...

How you consider 89 threads that can't get to a second page and an additional 55 that can't even get to a second response "legitimate debate" is beyond me...

I'm still not sure as to what this is supposed to mean...so he posts a lot of new threads, big deal. There have been many times that I've seen a tidbit of news and have gone to make a new thread, but he beat me to it because he was quick on the ball. Some of these threads don't take off. Who cares? That's the nature of debate. If it's not brought up in the first place, it can't be discussed. If you go back and actually look at the threads he starts, the majority are reasonable and sourced with real news articles. I'd rather see ten threads started by danarhea than one started by navy, ptsdkid, freethinker, et al.

I just really don't understand why its a problem that someone comes to a debate forum and throws out lots of topic for debate. I haven't seen anyone claiming that he clutters the forum, so what's the issue?

 

[Deegan]

I'm still not sure as to what this is supposed to mean...so he posts a lot of new threads, big deal. There have been many times that I've seen a tidbit of news and have gone to make a new thread, but he beat me to it because he was quick on the ball. Some of these threads don't take off. Who cares? That's the nature of debate. If it's not brought up in the first place, it can't be discussed. If you go back and actually look at the threads he starts, the majority are reasonable and sourced with real news articles. I'd rather see ten threads started by danarhea than one started by navy, ptsdkid, freethinker, et al.

I just really don't understand why its a problem that someone comes to a debate forum and throws out lots of topic for debate. I haven't seen anyone claiming that he clutters the forum, so what's the issue?

Well you almost had me, then you went and made a fatal error, you showed your bias. First I thought you were just defending Dan's right to post, then you just went and showed us all how "impartial" you are by mentioning Navy, ptsdkid, and freethinker. Shame on you sir, if it is your contention that everyone has the right, and it's "no big deal" why single out these folks? Two are still members here I might add, and even if they have been banned, they served their time, and this should not be an issue.

That said, I think Dan has the right to post whatever he wants, he is breaking no rule, and cnredd has not indicated he has. He however, does have the right to bring this to Dan's attention, and these stats are important to send that message home. I like Dan, I think others would like him as well, had he taken more time to join other debate, and not spend all his time on this one administration. Join us Dan, you have much to contribute, don't alienate yourself.

 

[MSgt]

So what are you saying, that you're not a leader?

I believe his point (and I agree) was to show the difference between debating and starting threads for the sole purpose of complaining and bitching with very little debate to go with it. You must admit, the numbers are astronomical. It's a bit rediculous.

It is safe to assume that if President Bush went over his pre-paid minutes on his cell phone, "danarhea" would start a thread.

 

[FreeThinker]

I'm still not sure as to what this is supposed to mean...so he posts a lot of new threads, big deal. There have been many times that I've seen a tidbit of news and have gone to make a new thread, but he beat me to it because he was quick on the ball. Some of these threads don't take off. Who cares? That's the nature of debate. If it's not brought up in the first place, it can't be discussed. If you go back and actually look at the threads he starts, the majority are reasonable and sourced with real news articles. I'd rather see ten threads started by danarhea than one started by navy, ptsdkid, freethinker, et al.

I just really don't understand why its a problem that someone comes to a debate forum and throws out lots of topic for debate. I haven't seen anyone claiming that he clutters the forum, so what's the issue?

Look at this douche: trying to defend a guy that spams the boards with as many articles he can find supporting his viewpoint.

If I wanted to be a jerk I would google some websites that are pro-bush and post their articles. Does that make me a good debater? No. It makes me a thief of ideas.

If you want to defend someone because you agree with their viewpoints, then do so on that basis. But please stop trying to hide your true intentions. They are as plain as daylight and as subtle as a nuclear bomb.

 

[RightinNYC]

Well you almost had me, then you went and made a fatal error, you showed your bias. First I thought you were just defending Dan's right to post, then you just went and showed us all how "impartial" you are by mentioning Navy, ptsdkid, and freethinker. Shame on you sir, if it is your contention that everyone has the right, and it's "no big deal" why single out these folks? Two are still members here I might add, and even if they have been banned, they served their time, and this should not be an issue.

That said, I think Dan has the right to post whatever he wants, he is breaking no rule, and cnredd has not indicated he has. He however, does have the right to bring this to Dan's attention, and these stats are important to send that message home. I like Dan, I think others would like him as well, had he taken more time to join other debate, and not spend all his time on this one administration. Join us Dan, you have much to contribute, don't alienate yourself.

They just happened to be the first three that came to my mind. Add in 26x, vandeervecken, mikeey, and canuck if it makes you feel better. I don't see the supposed bias you're talking about.

 

[RightinNYC]

Look at this douche: trying to defend a guy that spams the boards with as many articles he can find supporting his viewpoint.

If I wanted to be a jerk I would google some websites that are pro-bush and post their articles. Does that make me a good debater? No. It makes me a thief of ideas.

If you want to defend someone because you agree with their viewpoints, then do so on that basis. But please stop trying to hide your true intentions. They are as plain as daylight and as subtle as a nuclear bomb.

I'd be curious to hear what my true intentions are here. I mean, I thought I knew what I was posting for, but I guess I must have been wrong. Please, enlighten me.

 

[Deegan]

They just happened to be the first three that came to my mind. Add in 26x, vandeervecken, mikeey, and canuck if it makes you feel better. I don't see the supposed bias you're talking about.

You know what I'm talking about, you said you would "take ten of Dan's, to one of theirs" this is biased, as you often disagree with these folks. I thought your initial response was to, allow all of us as many topics as we choose, but then you lost me, that's all I'm saying.

 

[RightinNYC]

You know what I'm talking about, you said you would "take ten of Dan's, to one of theirs" this is biased, as you often disagree with these folks. I thought your initial response was to, allow all of us as many topics as we choose, but then you lost me, that's all I'm saying.

Oh, no, I'm not saying that anyone should be limited in what they post (within reason of course). I'm just saying that I personally find more value in some of dans posts than I do in many of many peoples posts. Yes, its a reflection on personal preference (although I've most certainly had some serious arguments with him as well), but I don't see how that's a bad thing. I'm not arguing against them, but rather for dan.

 

[Deegan]

Oh, no, I'm not saying that anyone should be limited in what they post (within reason of course). I'm just saying that I personally find more value in some of dans posts than I do in many of many peoples posts. Yes, its a reflection on personal preference (although I've most certainly had some serious arguments with him as well), but I don't see how that's a bad thing. I'm not arguing against them, but rather for dan.

I'm just saying it's hard to fight for Dan's rights, while decimating those of others, we'll just drop it.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

One of mine is members flooding the forum...

Mine too. I agree that it is a crucial issue that the forum will always face.
In the past I have used posting statistics to rant about a few different posters. I've also used them to draw a line between spammer and legitmate participant.

Among my top ten pet peeves is posters who post OPs w/o participating in other folks' threads. Even worse is when they don't even participate in their own threads.

88..That's friggin' horrible for legitimate debate when you start 144 threads where you can't even get more than 10 responses, dontchya think?...

How about a step further?...Wanna take a shot where ZERO or ONE member responded to a danarhea thread?...

55!!!!!!...Read it again...Fifty f/uckin' five threads that were so lacking in legitimate debate that he couldn't even get TWO people to respond...

Several unnamed someone elses I know (names beginnning w/ c, S, and T) have trouble getting many responses to their threads. I find no fault with them (on that count anyway) though.

How you consider 89 threads that can't get to a second page and an additional 55 that can't even get to a second response "legitimate debate" is beyond me...

Not all of his OPs rise to the level of greatness, but, at least dana doesn't do the c&p or the link-and-leave numbers that're completely worthless.

I whole-heartedly support your right to rant and raise your objections, and half-heartedly support your objections in general.

 

[cnredd]

To put things into persective, this post here is #48...

As of this post, danarhea has started 235 threads...(That's right...3 more in the last 48 hours)...:roll:

This current thread, which was started less than 48 hours ago and containing my assessment that what danarhea throws out is lacking in legitimate debate, is larger than ALL BUT 24 of them!!!

Sink in yet?...

This ONE THREAD that discusses HIM has more content than 211 of the threads that HE started!!!!:rofl

Ain't that simply amazing?...(by "amazing", I, of course, mean "pathetic")...

A thread talking about a member is doing better at debate than 89.8% of what that member talks about!

I understand that there have been INSTANCES where the debate on his threads have been legitimate, but comparing it to the VAST AMOUNTS of useless threads is laughable...Even a blind squirrel can accidentally find a nut...

Compared to this very thread, danarhea's batting .102...If this were a baseball team...well...I think you know what would happen...

 

[MSgt]

To put things into persective, this post here is #48...

As of this post, danarhea has started 235 threads...(That's right...3 more in the last 48 hours)...:roll:

This current thread, which was started less than 48 hours ago and containing my assessment that what danarhea throws out is lacking in legitimate debate, is larger than ALL BUT 24 of them!!!

Sink in yet?...

This ONE THREAD that discusses HIM has more content than 211 of the threads that HE started!!!!:rofl

Ain't that simply amazing?...(by "amazing", I, of course, mean "pathetic")...

A thread talking about a member is doing better at debate than 89.8% of what that member talks about!

I understand that there have been INSTANCES where the debate on his threads have been legitimate, but comparing it to the VAST AMOUNTS of useless threads is laughable...Even a blind squirrel can accidentally find a nut...

Compared to this very thread, danarhea's batting .102...If this were a baseball team...well...I think you know what would happen...

I know what you are saying. It annoys me too. Sadly, many of the posters on this thread know what you are saying too but are instead choosing to be "politically correct" in recognizing his right to post what ever dribble spews forth.

Maybe I should start 800 threads in the next month. I'll make them on anything I can dig up about how much I hate Brussel Sprouts. As far as a concentrated debate within....that won't be my concern. I merely want to start threads.

 

[danarhea]

To put things into persective, this post here is #48...

As of this post, danarhea has started 235 threads...(That's right...3 more in the last 48 hours)...:roll:

This current thread, which was started less than 48 hours ago and containing my assessment that what danarhea throws out is lacking in legitimate debate, is larger than ALL BUT 24 of them!!!

Sink in yet?...

This ONE THREAD that discusses HIM has more content than 211 of the threads that HE started!!!!:rofl

Ain't that simply amazing?...(by "amazing", I, of course, mean "pathetic")...

A thread talking about a member is doing better at debate than 89.8% of what that member talks about!

I understand that there have been INSTANCES where the debate on his threads have been legitimate, but comparing it to the VAST AMOUNTS of useless threads is laughable...Even a blind squirrel can accidentally find a nut...

Compared to this very thread, danarhea's batting .102...If this were a baseball team...well...I think you know what would happen...

First of all, content is relative to whoever is reading it. True, I dont get a lot of response on some threads, and other times, I get a lot of response. Are you going to insinuate that those threads I get a lot of discussion in, some of them over 100 posts, is because those who participate are assholes? Kind of a ****ed up attidude on your part, wouldnt you think?

Secondly, I dont seem to be breaking any rules posting what I am posting. As far as an agenda, sure I have one, just as you do. Unlike you, however, I will proudly admit that I do have one, which is to post corruption in both the Democratic and Republican parties. When Clinton was in office, I got a lot of whining from them, in the same style that you are whining. Now it is buttheads like you. No biggie. Like they say, sticks and stones.

Now to the meat of my reply, which will consist of 2 instances:

1) I dont see you complaining against those who continually bash Democrats. Stinger for instance, has never had anything good to say about them. Why? Because he has an agenda too (I actually happen to agree with most of it). Why arent you ever whining about his agenda? Could it be because his is against Democrats?

2) I have also bashed John Kerry, Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy, and especially Hillary Clinton. Where is your whining there? It is completely missing. Of course, that is because in those cases, I am bashing Democrats.

Put it all together, and you are either the most ignorant person on this board, or you are a freeper. Whichever it is, I have no idea, but I do know this, and can sum you up with a little riddle:

q: What word starts with an "h" and ends with an "e"?

a: Hypocritical asshole. (actually 2 words, but the biggest hypocritical assholes cannot be defined with only one word). Consider that a compliment.

Now whine some more. BTW, I know you have a huge hardon for me, but sorry to disappoint you. I am not gay.

 

[MSgt]

q: What word starts with an "h" and ends with an "e"?

a: Hypocritical asshole. (actually 2 words, but the biggest hypocritical assholes cannot be defined with only one word). Consider that a compliment.

Actually, by stating "actually 2 words" you are stating that two different words start with "h" and end in "e." Sort of like....

Hare Horse

BTW, I know you have a huge hardon for me, but sorry to disappoint you. I am not gay.

That's not what Naughty Nurse and Jallman said.