|
This thread is for discussing recent bans. Don't discuss other topics here. Take it to website feedback if you disagree with a ban or want to raise an issue. Keep it civil.NOTE: For those of you who want to find the actual ABL thread where the bans are posted. Please look in here: https://tl.net/forum/closed-threads/ |
On July 04 2013 06:54 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2013 06:27 Kamais Ookin wrote:On July 04 2013 06:14 kmillz wrote:On July 03 2013 00:28 docvoc wrote:On July 02 2013 14:06 Thieving Magpie wrote:
America, the country where you get shot if you get upset that your being followed.
I guess Snowden was right running to russia.
User was temp banned for this post. +1 ABL cred for me  . Finally..so sick of him shitting up that thread (and a couple other threads). Me too, I've been following the Trayvon thread closely and he is one of the few people in that thread who is very problematic, hell bent on zimmerman being the devil and all. Thread immediately got better when he was gone. Yeah, I'm glad to see they are cracking down on people hell-bent on judgment while ignorant of the facts. He's not the only one and I've noticed alot of other people have been recently banned in that thread too.
The thread draws the people with racially charged views in there like bugs to a bug zapper.
|
Magpie is normally alright, he was just getting testy because his horse was losing. It's no different than xDaunt getting more and more crotchety during the summer of the presidential election.
Ah, good times.
|
What I find most annoying is the blind US patriotism and blind US bashing in the Snowden related threads. I'm glad some of them are getting banned, but it really disappointments me that people are this close minded on the subject matter.
|
On July 04 2013 07:54 nunez wrote:
criminal magpie is not bad. half of the post he was banned for was not wrong, the other half was not tlpc. flip nations and nobody would raise a modbrow. but he's a rough bird who ruffles feathers and he will be forcefully migrated from time to time, like now. it is only natural.
No he's not bad when he isn't implying that racism against white people isn't as bad as racism against black people, using black/white logic (it was either THIS or THAT and nothing else), making wild assumptions without evidence, ignoring evidence, or making things up...
+ Show Spoiler +On July 02 2013 08:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 08:21 ZasZ. wrote:On July 02 2013 08:18 Ghostcom wrote:On July 02 2013 08:10 Kaitlin wrote:
To anyone of you who feel it was morally wrong for GZ to keep an eye on where Trayvon had gone, if GZ had stopped tracking where Trayvon went, and he found out the next day that one of his neighbors had experienced a home invasion and they had been killed, would that affect your analysis of what GZ did ? Short answer: No. Long answer: No because mob-justice and vigilantism goes against the foundations of a society build upon laws. What? Keeping an eye on suspicious individuals is the job of a neighborhood watch person. You can question the evidence surrounding the altercation itself all you want, but he was completely within his rights and his expectations as part of the neighborhood watch to keep an eye on Trayvon. It's not illegal to follow someone. It is illegal to assault someone. His neighborhood watch training specifically said not to follow suspects. The police told him he didn't have to follow. It's not about illegality, its about stupidity. It's not illegal to walk home after stopping by the store; but apparently that's enough to get shot. User was warned for this post On July 02 2013 08:20 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 08:15 SilverLeagueElite wrote:On July 02 2013 08:07 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 08:03 SilverLeagueElite wrote:On July 02 2013 07:36 Defacer wrote:On July 02 2013 07:27 SKC wrote:On July 02 2013 07:25 Defacer wrote:On July 02 2013 07:15 SilverLeagueElite wrote:
Tragic for the Martins but I'm kinda starting to feel bad for Zimmerman. He has a history of being sympathetic towards blacks but is having his life ruined because of perceived racism on his part. I don't feel bad for Zimmerman at all. He at least is getting his day in court, and is being tried by a court of law and his peers for his indiscretions Martin was sentenced to death by Zimmerman. It's like people are forgetting that he did technically kill a 17 year old who's only plans that night were to visit his dad. It might have been in self-defence but still. Worst. Neighborhood. Watch. Ever. Assuming Zimmerman's words are true, Martin sentenced himself to death. Well, that's when it becomes a question of morals. If someone you were following turns around and beats you up, does that mean he deserves to get shot in the chest? Punishment doesn't fit the crime, IMO. George Zimmerman may be innocent, and is probably only guilty of defending himself in the heat of the moment. But personally, I don't think Trayvon deserved to die for for how he reacted. It's a pitch black night with heavy rains. You're having your head dashed against the pavement after having your nose broken. You've been yelling for help for a good 40 secs but no one comes. At what point should you stop to consider whether or not to use deadly force? Around the point where you called the police, told them the guy ran off, and they suggested you not follow. So... not get out of the car? Unfortunately, that's not what happened. I know that's not what happened. There's a dead kid right now proving that that is not what happened. But if you ask when Zimmerman should have shot the kid--the answer is that he shouldn't have. The answer is that if you carry a gun with you while going vigilante that people will get hurt. The answer is somewhere along the time he called the police and the police answered his call is when he stops acting stupid. On July 02 2013 07:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 07:25 Defacer wrote:On July 02 2013 07:15 SilverLeagueElite wrote:
Tragic for the Martins but I'm kinda starting to feel bad for Zimmerman. He has a history of being sympathetic towards blacks but is having his life ruined because of perceived racism on his part. I don't feel bad for Zimmerman at all. He at least is getting his day in court, and is being tried by a court of law and his peers for his indiscretions Martin was sentenced to death by Zimmerman. It's like people are forgetting that he did technically kill a 17 year old who's only plans that night were to visit his dad. It might have been in self-defence but still. Worst. Neighborhood. Watch. Ever. Aims to protect neighborhood, shoots kid going home. Worst. Neighborhood Watch. Ever. Indeed. On June 28 2013 00:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 00:11 Kaitlin wrote:On June 28 2013 00:02 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 27 2013 23:54 Kaitlin wrote:On June 27 2013 23:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 27 2013 23:26 Kaitlin wrote:On June 27 2013 23:24 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 27 2013 23:16 dotHead wrote:On June 27 2013 23:15 Klipsys wrote:
cracker isn't a racist term because no one would ever get offended by being called a snack food And fag isn't offensive because it's a bundle of sticks. Sir Most american's use the phrase Gypped all the time when they feel cheated not realizing it's a racial slur against gypsies. They don't say it maliciously, nor was Trayvon using the term cracker maliciously. However, they're both "racist" terms, but cracker holds a lot less historical burden on it than either "nigger" or "faggot." Well, cracker is a term of disrespect / disdain for a white person. Yes... which is why I said 'they're both "racist" terms." The difference is historical context. Because whites were not a brutalized people in the US with a historical history of being oppressed specifically for being white, then being accused of having white skin does not have same type of negative connotation that accusing someone of having black skin has. It is more a backlash and an attempt to create an equalized state wherein blacks who feel oppressed attempt to balance the power dynamics by treating whites equally to how they perceived they are being treated. So while it is racist, it's also about as much a slur as saying "all Nazis are evil," which, even though its a racial slur, does not feel as hateful as saying all "Africans are evil" or "all Jews are evil." Historical context is the framework that reveals why some racist slurs are worse than others. Whatever the historical context, I doubt Trayvon was aware of the origination of the term. I do believe, however, that it shows an attitude of contempt / disdain that Trayvon had for the white guy and it shades the likelihood that Trayvon attacked Zimmerman at the physical confrontation. Zimmerman was a 17 year old football player who would no doubt be able to outrun Zimmerman, if he so chose. He chose not to. Her testimony that he used that term to describe the man following him provides some insight, for me, into his mindset of how he regarded Zimmerman. One doesn't need to know the origination of the term for one to use a term. Homophobes who call homosexuals faggots don't say that because they're describing people as sticks. They are simply brought up in a society who culturally associate's that word to mean A instead of B, carrying with it the historical baggage of its upbringing. Ten years from now we will still have american movies of good guys killing Nazi's/Russians/Middle Easterners in droves because it will seem normal for white protagonists to shoot those people; people don't need to be reminded about the holocaust/cold war/terrorism for those cultural norms to be continued. All Trayvon's use of the word shows meis that he is like most other lower class african american teens who spend their life getting police called on them causing them to have great distrust in the way they're treated by society at large; and it turned out that Trayvon had right to worry since he was shot soon after running away from Martin. Bold inserted to make it more accurate, as that's not what it shows me. As to the last sentence, yes, he was shot soon after running away, but clearly that leaves a lot left out, such as how the fuck did Zimmerman catch up to him unless Trayvon didn't actually run only "away" from Zimmerman. Two possible scenarios: Trayvon hid, but was found or Zimmerman continued looking for Trayvon There's a reason that they're closer to Tayvon's house than they are to Zimmerman's car even though they initially saw each other near Zimmerman's car. On June 27 2013 22:37 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 22:30 xDaunt wrote:
"Creepy ass cracker" apparently isn't a racial term.
EDIT: Apparently it is not offensive either. "Nigger" has historical implications and is a throwback to recent times of oppression (as early as the 1960's and realistically even after the civil rights movement) "Cracker" is more a reactionary backlash to black oppression, an attempt to equalize the hate affecting blacks being perpetrated by the white hierarchy. So one *feels* less hateful than the other due to historical context. (Similar to how saying "kill all Nazis" doesn't sound horrible while saying "kill all the Jews" does--if world war 2 hadn't happened, they would both sound equally horrible, but historical context makes one worse than the other) On June 26 2013 01:31 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 01:10 bugser wrote:On June 26 2013 00:59 Masq wrote:
The guy disobeyed 911 dispatch, disobeyed his community watch training and ended up killing someone.
Even if he had no intention of killing him, he recklessly escalated the situation and enabled that course of action. The guys liable for sure, the question is for what? You are wrong. He agreed with the dispatcher and stopped following. They mentioned that during opening statements. George Zimmerman is the victim, and he wasn't "asking for it" regardless of what the victim blaming people like to say. He agreed so much that he was near Martin's house, away from his car, while still holding his gun. Yup, sounds like he "agreed" alright. On June 26 2013 01:34 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 01:30 bugser wrote:On June 26 2013 01:13 Masq wrote:On June 26 2013 01:04 jeremycafe wrote:On June 26 2013 00:59 Masq wrote:
The guy disobeyed 911 dispatch, disobeyed his community watch training and ended up killing someone.
Even if he had no intention of killing him, he recklessly escalated the situation and enabled that course of action. The guys liable for sure, the question is for what? "The guy disobeyed 911 dispatch" No he didn't. 991 dispatch is not allowed to give orders. He simply suggested it was not needed to follow. By trying to safely follow Trayvon, in no way to Zimmerman break any laws. You cannot say Zimmerman "recklessly escalated" the situation. He was trying to keep a safe distance to report the location of Martin to the police. In no way was he trying to confront him or fight with him. Martin created a reckless situation by doubling back and attacking Zimmerman. He instigated a fight, and decided to continue attacking Zimmerman after making first contact. He had many opportunities to stay away from Zimmerman or stop attacking him. If Zimmerman was screaming to please stop, and he continued to attack after someone else in the area told him to stop as well, Zimmerman legally made the decision to protect himself. Very few people are 'allowed to give orders'. You mother telling you not to stick your hand in fire isn't an order, its common sense. When your doctor tells you not to take X with Y medication, its not an order. When a 911 dispatcher tells you to do something, its for a reason. Using that logic, if he was keeping a safe distance how did the kid engage him to physically attack him? I thought the general consensus was that they couldn't prove whom was screaming? Additionally, wasn't it stated (originally from Zimmermans father) that it wasn't him screaming? You can't really say such a thing with any credibility. Finally, why is Martin required to run away? Why didn't Zimmerman run away if Martin was going to engage him? You can flip that argument way too easily. The argument about disobeying is pointless, because Zimmerman agreed with the dispatcher and stopped following. Trayvon was able to attack him by approaching him from behind and ambushing him after George was finished on the phone call. He may have been lurking and waiting for an opportunity, or he may have been doubled back. He had a minute and a half while George was on the phone to leave the area if he wanted to. It was actually Trayvon's father who said it wasn't Trayvon's voice. A witness also saw George pinned on the ground being beaten and shouting for help, and George's account of events always included him shouting for help. Trayvon wasn't required to do anything. He could have stopped to talk, loitered around and not talked, he could have ran or leisurely walked away (he had a full 1:30). But he wasn't legally allowed to savagely clobber a neighborhood watchman for phoning police on him. Why are you turning this into a dogfight scenario? They weren't opposing sides at war. Zimmerman had 1:30 minutes to go home, but instead brought a gun with him to pursue a black kid. On June 03 2013 11:59 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2013 11:39 Millitron wrote:On June 03 2013 11:33 sluggaslamoo wrote:On June 03 2013 07:16 OuchyDathurts wrote:Just because you start something doesn't mean you the deserve to die, which is what you suggesting if you believe if you start a fight you have no right to defend yourself. Feasibly in your world I could punch some guy, he could mount me and start slamming my head into the ground and I should just accept that I deserve to die for throwing a punch instead of using any means to preserve my life from an unreasonable, inescapable response. Am I the only person raised to not start shit unless you can live with the consequences? I'm fairly sure this was part of the man code passed from father to son. There's even the saying "Don't let your mouth write checks your ass can't cash." If you swing on someone do you deserve to die? Most likely not, depends on the situation and background. But if you do swing on someone you've made your own bed at that point and the other guy is well within his right to beat the living shit out of you within an inch of your life. When you throw that punch you damn well better be at peace with the possible repercussions of your action. If you start a fight and get your ass whooped pulling out a gun makes you a pussy, flat out you're a bitch. Maybe I'm just old but growing up at least there was some code of conduct as a man. This is the problem with the whole debate and why the thread keeps exploding. Once I realised I was doing this myself, I stopped. The people saying Zimmerman is in the wrong (like me) are concerned about the moral issues, people saying Zimmerman are in the right are more concerned about the technical issues. In the end we are never going to come to a bipartisan conclusion, because we are arguing different things. In the end we all know that common sense would have stopped this from happening, however Zimmerman did have a right to do whatever he was doing, whether it was stupid or not is another matter. I'm not so sure the side who thinks Zimmerman is innocent are arguing pure technicalities, regardless of morals. The "technicalities" are a pretty important part of our legal system, the maintenance of which IS a moral issue, a bigger one in my opinion than Zimmerman's fate. Zimmerman technically murder someone after technically following him in the darkness while armed after he technically chased him. So, technically speaking, zimmerman chased, followed, and shot, someone who was part of the community he wanted to protect. Some people want to say he's innocent--because they think its more realistic that a black kid walking home someone attacks random people. Some people want to say he's guilty because it makes sense to them that people with guns who chases kids at night and end up shooting them a few minutes later are people who are guilty of shooting kids. On June 01 2013 04:22 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2013 04:21 Anesthetic wrote:On June 01 2013 04:08 Quexana wrote:
1.) Martin didn't know Zimmerman had a gun until the fight started. <---According to Zimmerman
2.) How would you respond personally in Martin's situation? As a teenager, your walking home from the convenience store after buying candy. you see a strange guy staring you down from his car. He gets out of his car. You run away. He runs after you and chases you.
3.) Look at your answer to question #2, if your answer is different from the way Martin acted, ask yourself if you deserve to live because you acted the way you acted and someone who acted differently than you would deserves to die. If Trayvon didnt know Zimmerman had a gun until the fight started then he shouldn't have felt his life was in danger and that he needed to defend himself unless Zimmerman actually confronted him right? At least thats my point of view, I dont see why he didn't just continue to run/walk away if Zimmerman didn't threaten him with a gun. Which is why Quex said "According to Zimmerman" Because no, it doesn't make sense why a kid who just ran away and was tired didn't walk away from zimmerman unless there was something to scare him--like a gun. On June 01 2013 03:13 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2013 03:04 Anesthetic wrote:On June 01 2013 00:46 Quexana wrote:You sort of missed a big step between "follow people at night" and "shoot them in self defense." Something along the lines of getting the crap beaten out of him by Martin.
Again, the case hinges on who initiated the altercation itself. Hypothetically, assume that the jury finds that the evidence shows that Martin initiated the fight, do you still believe Zimmerman was in the wrong for shooting him? You want people to lie down and die in a situation like that?
And what does Martin being a teen have anything to do with anything. That's just playing up bias. Teens are just as capable of abhorrent acts of violence as anyone else.
And for the record, I don't like guns, would never own a gun, and am all for stricter gun control. I also have ultimate respect for self-defense laws and believe that people, when their lives are in danger, are within their rights to do whatever it takes to reach safety. If Martin truly did start the fight and have Zimmerman on the ground bashing his head in, his life is forfeit. You miss a step too, the one where Martin runs away from Zimmerman. Again, if I'm a teenager and I see a stranger sitting in his car, staring at me, I'm gonna run away, just like Martin did. Zimmerman pursued him. If a guy whose been staring at me, starts chasing me down after I run from him, I'm gonna assume he means me harm and if cornered, fight. Zimmerman didn't identify himself as Neighborhood Watch or a concerned neighbor, which could have diffused the situation. According to Zimmerman's own account (we sadly don't have Martin's account), Martin either came out of nowhere, jumped out from the bushes, or emerged from the darkness (his accounts vary slightly), and asked Zimmerman "Do you have a problem", Zimmerman had the opportunity to explain why he was chasing a teen in the dark, could have said "Hey, I'm in the community watch and we've had some break-ins lately and you were looking suspicious" or something to that effect, but according to Zimmerman, he answered "No, I don't have a problem." That's when Zimmerman claims Martin said "Well, you do now." and jumped him. So, if I take Zimmerman at face value and believe every word he said on the matter, he stalked a teen through his neighborhood, then when the teen ran away, he got out of his car and chased him down, then when the teen gave him the opportunity to explain himself, Zimmerman offered no explanation. Only after all of that did Martin start to fight, and then during the fight, Martin realized that the guy who had been stalking and chasing him with no explanation was doing so carrying a gun! If I was Martin, I would have bashed his head in too. Everybody is willing to see Zimmerman's point of view and give him the benefit of the doubt that he was in fear for his life, but no one sees how Martin could have been in fear for his life after being stalked and chased by a stranger who was bigger than he was, who was carrying a gun who refused to identify himself when asked. I'm not saying it was murder, but this looks like textbook manslaughter to me. Zimmerman tried playing vigilante, but he guessed wrong and killed a kid unnecessarily. I really don't see why this is controversial. Even if I don't believe anything that was said by anybody except George Zimmerman's own words on the matter, I come to that conclusion. But then again, Zimmerman did lie in court about his finances, leading to his bail being revoked, so I'm not saying that Zimmerman should be taken 100% at his word. People in this thread keep trying to act as if Trayvon was somehow incapable of willingly initiating a fight, im sorry but it is NOT far fetched to believe that Trayvon could've simply changed his mind and decided he was tired of this guys shit and to try to beat him up for following him. I really dislike the fact that a lot of people in this thread are trying to play it off like there is no way in hell that Trayvon actually initiated the fight and worse off are the people that are trying to say "this is what a teenager would've done", news flash people, every person is unique and the whole purpose of this trial is to try to uncover what actually happened, so I suggest everyone here try to actually listen and follow the case instead of trying to push opinions one side or the other. Do we have evidence an armed man chased after and followed his victim? Yes. Do we have evidence that a kid walking home randomly attacked someone? No. Is it possible? I guess, but on what evidence do we go off of? On May 31 2013 09:10 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2013 09:08 kmillz wrote:On May 31 2013 08:03 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 31 2013 07:54 GwSC wrote:On May 31 2013 07:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 31 2013 07:44 GwSC wrote:On May 31 2013 07:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 31 2013 07:31 GwSC wrote:On May 31 2013 07:23 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 31 2013 07:19 GwSC wrote:
[quote]
Well what you choose to see as not being a possibility is certainly a possibility to me. You keep mentioning that he was following Martin holding a gun, when as far as I know it has not been established whether or not he had the gun out. If we go with the possibility that the gun was not out, and Martin was angered by something Zman said (whether it was an inflammatory remark or reasonable questions, or anything else), how can you not see a cause for Martin to attack if he had the temperament to do so? The only way I can see for you not believing this is possible is because in your own mind you already see Martin as "the good guy", or at least are choosing to believe specific things about his personality when you really have no idea.
I don't think of Martin as a good guy. But I require evidence to believe someone would attack someone. Zman has taped evidence of him chasing/following after Martin even getting a bit peeved that martin was getting away. He is asked not to follow martin, he does so anyway, and Martin ends up dead. That shows that he already had an agenda towards martin, that he was actively pursuing Martin, and then upon meeting up with Martin ends up killing Martin. There is no evidence showing that Martin had any reason to attack Zman. There is evidence that shows why Zman would attack Martin. That's what the facts say, the rest is up for debate. There is evidence that a guy on neighborhood watch had an "agenda" of following someone who he said looked suspicious to him. The fact that you see that as evidence of Zman having a reason to attack Martin is purely based on your own bias, because in reality the altercation could have gone any number of ways, and either man could have been at fault. The fact is that on its own, your own presumptuous opinion that Zman was following Martin with the intent to do harm is not "evidence". It is more evidence than the assumption that Martin would attack Zman--which there is none. What I have is circumstantial. The evidence I have is Martin was seen as a threat, followed, and then shot. Because he Zman said he was a threat, because zman did follow him, and because zman did shoot him. Those are my facts. Most of the other evidence on this case have experts on both sides arguing on it and hence are not facts yet, just evidence up for debate. The fact that we know more about what Zman was doing at the time does not automatically make it any more or less likely that it was his fault that a physical fight started, and that as a result Martin ended up dead. You are again using your own words to twist things around. Zman never said he saw Martin as a "threat" which would imply he already inclined to be defensively aggressive. He simply said he thought Martin was "suspicious", and decided to investigate. My continuing issue with your arguments is your refusal to acknowledge any possibility that Martin may have acted irrationally and started the fight. Its not my refusal--it's me not wanting to make accusations against someone without evidence. Us having evidence of Zman calling martin suspicious, high, etc... and then evidence of him following martin and the actual fact of him shooting martin after doing all that is simply what the evidence shows us. We could either follow the evidence, or we could pretend evidence doesn't matter and pretend that martin was the aggressor. Yet that first part is exactly what you are doing in assuming that Zman shot Martin without having a good reason to do so (i.e., if he was attacked first and was afraid for his life). The facts we have that tell us Zman decided to follow Martin because he thought he looked suspicious are not even close to being evidence of that. We do not know at all what happened when the two men met, or why they got into a fight, but you have already decided it was Zman's fault. Do we have evidence that Martin started anything? No. Do we have evidence that Zman was suspicious of Martin? Yes. Because he called the police. Do we have evidence of Zman chasing Martin? Yes. Because he was running at the time of the phone call. Do we have evidence of Zman following martin after he was told "you don't have to do that"? Yes. Because he didn't go back to his car and was now near the victim's house. Do we have evidence that when Zman reached his victim that in 1-2 minutes the victim was shot? Yes. Because of a fucking gun shot a minute or two after Zmann reached Martin. Did Zman stalk his prey like a serial killer? Possibly not, we don't have evidence for that. Did Zman go after someone he felt suspicious about and then shot him? Yes. That we can prove. Do you have to be a serial killer to kill people? Hell no. Did Zman kill someone? Yes. Do we have evidence that Zimmerman was the one who initiated? No. Innocent until proven guilty. We only have proof than at armed man tracked, followed, and shot a kid who was walking home. That is all.
|
On July 04 2013 10:42 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2013 07:54 nunez wrote:
criminal magpie is not bad. half of the post he was banned for was not wrong, the other half was not tlpc. flip nations and nobody would raise a modbrow. but he's a rough bird who ruffles feathers and he will be forcefully migrated from time to time, like now. it is only natural. No he's not bad when he isn't implying that racism against white people isn't as bad as racism against black people, using black/white logic (it was either THIS or THAT and nothing else), making wild assumptions without evidence, ignoring evidence, or making things up...
Yeah, that pretty much sums up my issues with him as well.
|
On July 04 2013 10:42 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2013 07:54 nunez wrote:
criminal magpie is not bad. half of the post he was banned for was not wrong, the other half was not tlpc. flip nations and nobody would raise a modbrow. but he's a rough bird who ruffles feathers and he will be forcefully migrated from time to time, like now. it is only natural. No he's not bad when he isn't implying that racism against white people isn't as bad as racism against black people, using black/white logic (it was either THIS or THAT and nothing else), making wild assumptions without evidence, ignoring evidence, or making things up... + Show Spoiler +On July 02 2013 08:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 08:21 ZasZ. wrote:On July 02 2013 08:18 Ghostcom wrote:On July 02 2013 08:10 Kaitlin wrote:
To anyone of you who feel it was morally wrong for GZ to keep an eye on where Trayvon had gone, if GZ had stopped tracking where Trayvon went, and he found out the next day that one of his neighbors had experienced a home invasion and they had been killed, would that affect your analysis of what GZ did ? Short answer: No. Long answer: No because mob-justice and vigilantism goes against the foundations of a society build upon laws. What? Keeping an eye on suspicious individuals is the job of a neighborhood watch person. You can question the evidence surrounding the altercation itself all you want, but he was completely within his rights and his expectations as part of the neighborhood watch to keep an eye on Trayvon. It's not illegal to follow someone. It is illegal to assault someone. His neighborhood watch training specifically said not to follow suspects. The police told him he didn't have to follow. It's not about illegality, its about stupidity. It's not illegal to walk home after stopping by the store; but apparently that's enough to get shot. User was warned for this post On July 02 2013 08:20 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 08:15 SilverLeagueElite wrote:On July 02 2013 08:07 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 08:03 SilverLeagueElite wrote:On July 02 2013 07:36 Defacer wrote:On July 02 2013 07:27 SKC wrote:On July 02 2013 07:25 Defacer wrote:On July 02 2013 07:15 SilverLeagueElite wrote:
Tragic for the Martins but I'm kinda starting to feel bad for Zimmerman. He has a history of being sympathetic towards blacks but is having his life ruined because of perceived racism on his part. I don't feel bad for Zimmerman at all. He at least is getting his day in court, and is being tried by a court of law and his peers for his indiscretions Martin was sentenced to death by Zimmerman. It's like people are forgetting that he did technically kill a 17 year old who's only plans that night were to visit his dad. It might have been in self-defence but still. Worst. Neighborhood. Watch. Ever. Assuming Zimmerman's words are true, Martin sentenced himself to death. Well, that's when it becomes a question of morals. If someone you were following turns around and beats you up, does that mean he deserves to get shot in the chest? Punishment doesn't fit the crime, IMO. George Zimmerman may be innocent, and is probably only guilty of defending himself in the heat of the moment. But personally, I don't think Trayvon deserved to die for for how he reacted. It's a pitch black night with heavy rains. You're having your head dashed against the pavement after having your nose broken. You've been yelling for help for a good 40 secs but no one comes. At what point should you stop to consider whether or not to use deadly force? Around the point where you called the police, told them the guy ran off, and they suggested you not follow. So... not get out of the car? Unfortunately, that's not what happened. I know that's not what happened. There's a dead kid right now proving that that is not what happened. But if you ask when Zimmerman should have shot the kid--the answer is that he shouldn't have. The answer is that if you carry a gun with you while going vigilante that people will get hurt. The answer is somewhere along the time he called the police and the police answered his call is when he stops acting stupid. On July 02 2013 07:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 07:25 Defacer wrote:On July 02 2013 07:15 SilverLeagueElite wrote:
Tragic for the Martins but I'm kinda starting to feel bad for Zimmerman. He has a history of being sympathetic towards blacks but is having his life ruined because of perceived racism on his part. I don't feel bad for Zimmerman at all. He at least is getting his day in court, and is being tried by a court of law and his peers for his indiscretions Martin was sentenced to death by Zimmerman. It's like people are forgetting that he did technically kill a 17 year old who's only plans that night were to visit his dad. It might have been in self-defence but still. Worst. Neighborhood. Watch. Ever. Aims to protect neighborhood, shoots kid going home. Worst. Neighborhood Watch. Ever. Indeed. On June 28 2013 00:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 00:11 Kaitlin wrote:On June 28 2013 00:02 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 27 2013 23:54 Kaitlin wrote:On June 27 2013 23:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 27 2013 23:26 Kaitlin wrote:On June 27 2013 23:24 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 27 2013 23:16 dotHead wrote:On June 27 2013 23:15 Klipsys wrote:
cracker isn't a racist term because no one would ever get offended by being called a snack food And fag isn't offensive because it's a bundle of sticks. Sir Most american's use the phrase Gypped all the time when they feel cheated not realizing it's a racial slur against gypsies. They don't say it maliciously, nor was Trayvon using the term cracker maliciously. However, they're both "racist" terms, but cracker holds a lot less historical burden on it than either "nigger" or "faggot." Well, cracker is a term of disrespect / disdain for a white person. Yes... which is why I said 'they're both "racist" terms." The difference is historical context. Because whites were not a brutalized people in the US with a historical history of being oppressed specifically for being white, then being accused of having white skin does not have same type of negative connotation that accusing someone of having black skin has. It is more a backlash and an attempt to create an equalized state wherein blacks who feel oppressed attempt to balance the power dynamics by treating whites equally to how they perceived they are being treated. So while it is racist, it's also about as much a slur as saying "all Nazis are evil," which, even though its a racial slur, does not feel as hateful as saying all "Africans are evil" or "all Jews are evil." Historical context is the framework that reveals why some racist slurs are worse than others. Whatever the historical context, I doubt Trayvon was aware of the origination of the term. I do believe, however, that it shows an attitude of contempt / disdain that Trayvon had for the white guy and it shades the likelihood that Trayvon attacked Zimmerman at the physical confrontation. Zimmerman was a 17 year old football player who would no doubt be able to outrun Zimmerman, if he so chose. He chose not to. Her testimony that he used that term to describe the man following him provides some insight, for me, into his mindset of how he regarded Zimmerman. One doesn't need to know the origination of the term for one to use a term. Homophobes who call homosexuals faggots don't say that because they're describing people as sticks. They are simply brought up in a society who culturally associate's that word to mean A instead of B, carrying with it the historical baggage of its upbringing. Ten years from now we will still have american movies of good guys killing Nazi's/Russians/Middle Easterners in droves because it will seem normal for white protagonists to shoot those people; people don't need to be reminded about the holocaust/cold war/terrorism for those cultural norms to be continued. All Trayvon's use of the word shows meis that he is like most other lower class african american teens who spend their life getting police called on them causing them to have great distrust in the way they're treated by society at large; and it turned out that Trayvon had right to worry since he was shot soon after running away from Martin. Bold inserted to make it more accurate, as that's not what it shows me. As to the last sentence, yes, he was shot soon after running away, but clearly that leaves a lot left out, such as how the fuck did Zimmerman catch up to him unless Trayvon didn't actually run only "away" from Zimmerman. Two possible scenarios: Trayvon hid, but was found or Zimmerman continued looking for Trayvon There's a reason that they're closer to Tayvon's house than they are to Zimmerman's car even though they initially saw each other near Zimmerman's car. On June 27 2013 22:37 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 22:30 xDaunt wrote:
"Creepy ass cracker" apparently isn't a racial term.
EDIT: Apparently it is not offensive either. "Nigger" has historical implications and is a throwback to recent times of oppression (as early as the 1960's and realistically even after the civil rights movement) "Cracker" is more a reactionary backlash to black oppression, an attempt to equalize the hate affecting blacks being perpetrated by the white hierarchy. So one *feels* less hateful than the other due to historical context. (Similar to how saying "kill all Nazis" doesn't sound horrible while saying "kill all the Jews" does--if world war 2 hadn't happened, they would both sound equally horrible, but historical context makes one worse than the other) On June 26 2013 01:31 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 01:10 bugser wrote:On June 26 2013 00:59 Masq wrote:
The guy disobeyed 911 dispatch, disobeyed his community watch training and ended up killing someone.
Even if he had no intention of killing him, he recklessly escalated the situation and enabled that course of action. The guys liable for sure, the question is for what? You are wrong. He agreed with the dispatcher and stopped following. They mentioned that during opening statements. George Zimmerman is the victim, and he wasn't "asking for it" regardless of what the victim blaming people like to say. He agreed so much that he was near Martin's house, away from his car, while still holding his gun. Yup, sounds like he "agreed" alright. On June 26 2013 01:34 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 01:30 bugser wrote:On June 26 2013 01:13 Masq wrote:On June 26 2013 01:04 jeremycafe wrote:On June 26 2013 00:59 Masq wrote:
The guy disobeyed 911 dispatch, disobeyed his community watch training and ended up killing someone.
Even if he had no intention of killing him, he recklessly escalated the situation and enabled that course of action. The guys liable for sure, the question is for what? "The guy disobeyed 911 dispatch" No he didn't. 991 dispatch is not allowed to give orders. He simply suggested it was not needed to follow. By trying to safely follow Trayvon, in no way to Zimmerman break any laws. You cannot say Zimmerman "recklessly escalated" the situation. He was trying to keep a safe distance to report the location of Martin to the police. In no way was he trying to confront him or fight with him. Martin created a reckless situation by doubling back and attacking Zimmerman. He instigated a fight, and decided to continue attacking Zimmerman after making first contact. He had many opportunities to stay away from Zimmerman or stop attacking him. If Zimmerman was screaming to please stop, and he continued to attack after someone else in the area told him to stop as well, Zimmerman legally made the decision to protect himself. Very few people are 'allowed to give orders'. You mother telling you not to stick your hand in fire isn't an order, its common sense. When your doctor tells you not to take X with Y medication, its not an order. When a 911 dispatcher tells you to do something, its for a reason. Using that logic, if he was keeping a safe distance how did the kid engage him to physically attack him? I thought the general consensus was that they couldn't prove whom was screaming? Additionally, wasn't it stated (originally from Zimmermans father) that it wasn't him screaming? You can't really say such a thing with any credibility. Finally, why is Martin required to run away? Why didn't Zimmerman run away if Martin was going to engage him? You can flip that argument way too easily. The argument about disobeying is pointless, because Zimmerman agreed with the dispatcher and stopped following. Trayvon was able to attack him by approaching him from behind and ambushing him after George was finished on the phone call. He may have been lurking and waiting for an opportunity, or he may have been doubled back. He had a minute and a half while George was on the phone to leave the area if he wanted to. It was actually Trayvon's father who said it wasn't Trayvon's voice. A witness also saw George pinned on the ground being beaten and shouting for help, and George's account of events always included him shouting for help. Trayvon wasn't required to do anything. He could have stopped to talk, loitered around and not talked, he could have ran or leisurely walked away (he had a full 1:30). But he wasn't legally allowed to savagely clobber a neighborhood watchman for phoning police on him. Why are you turning this into a dogfight scenario? They weren't opposing sides at war. Zimmerman had 1:30 minutes to go home, but instead brought a gun with him to pursue a black kid. On June 03 2013 11:59 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2013 11:39 Millitron wrote:On June 03 2013 11:33 sluggaslamoo wrote:On June 03 2013 07:16 OuchyDathurts wrote:Just because you start something doesn't mean you the deserve to die, which is what you suggesting if you believe if you start a fight you have no right to defend yourself. Feasibly in your world I could punch some guy, he could mount me and start slamming my head into the ground and I should just accept that I deserve to die for throwing a punch instead of using any means to preserve my life from an unreasonable, inescapable response. Am I the only person raised to not start shit unless you can live with the consequences? I'm fairly sure this was part of the man code passed from father to son. There's even the saying "Don't let your mouth write checks your ass can't cash." If you swing on someone do you deserve to die? Most likely not, depends on the situation and background. But if you do swing on someone you've made your own bed at that point and the other guy is well within his right to beat the living shit out of you within an inch of your life. When you throw that punch you damn well better be at peace with the possible repercussions of your action. If you start a fight and get your ass whooped pulling out a gun makes you a pussy, flat out you're a bitch. Maybe I'm just old but growing up at least there was some code of conduct as a man. This is the problem with the whole debate and why the thread keeps exploding. Once I realised I was doing this myself, I stopped. The people saying Zimmerman is in the wrong (like me) are concerned about the moral issues, people saying Zimmerman are in the right are more concerned about the technical issues. In the end we are never going to come to a bipartisan conclusion, because we are arguing different things. In the end we all know that common sense would have stopped this from happening, however Zimmerman did have a right to do whatever he was doing, whether it was stupid or not is another matter. I'm not so sure the side who thinks Zimmerman is innocent are arguing pure technicalities, regardless of morals. The "technicalities" are a pretty important part of our legal system, the maintenance of which IS a moral issue, a bigger one in my opinion than Zimmerman's fate. Zimmerman technically murder someone after technically following him in the darkness while armed after he technically chased him. So, technically speaking, zimmerman chased, followed, and shot, someone who was part of the community he wanted to protect. Some people want to say he's innocent--because they think its more realistic that a black kid walking home someone attacks random people. Some people want to say he's guilty because it makes sense to them that people with guns who chases kids at night and end up shooting them a few minutes later are people who are guilty of shooting kids. On June 01 2013 04:22 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2013 04:21 Anesthetic wrote:On June 01 2013 04:08 Quexana wrote:
1.) Martin didn't know Zimmerman had a gun until the fight started. <---According to Zimmerman
2.) How would you respond personally in Martin's situation? As a teenager, your walking home from the convenience store after buying candy. you see a strange guy staring you down from his car. He gets out of his car. You run away. He runs after you and chases you.
3.) Look at your answer to question #2, if your answer is different from the way Martin acted, ask yourself if you deserve to live because you acted the way you acted and someone who acted differently than you would deserves to die. If Trayvon didnt know Zimmerman had a gun until the fight started then he shouldn't have felt his life was in danger and that he needed to defend himself unless Zimmerman actually confronted him right? At least thats my point of view, I dont see why he didn't just continue to run/walk away if Zimmerman didn't threaten him with a gun. Which is why Quex said "According to Zimmerman" Because no, it doesn't make sense why a kid who just ran away and was tired didn't walk away from zimmerman unless there was something to scare him--like a gun. On June 01 2013 03:13 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2013 03:04 Anesthetic wrote:On June 01 2013 00:46 Quexana wrote:You sort of missed a big step between "follow people at night" and "shoot them in self defense." Something along the lines of getting the crap beaten out of him by Martin.
Again, the case hinges on who initiated the altercation itself. Hypothetically, assume that the jury finds that the evidence shows that Martin initiated the fight, do you still believe Zimmerman was in the wrong for shooting him? You want people to lie down and die in a situation like that?
And what does Martin being a teen have anything to do with anything. That's just playing up bias. Teens are just as capable of abhorrent acts of violence as anyone else.
And for the record, I don't like guns, would never own a gun, and am all for stricter gun control. I also have ultimate respect for self-defense laws and believe that people, when their lives are in danger, are within their rights to do whatever it takes to reach safety. If Martin truly did start the fight and have Zimmerman on the ground bashing his head in, his life is forfeit. You miss a step too, the one where Martin runs away from Zimmerman. Again, if I'm a teenager and I see a stranger sitting in his car, staring at me, I'm gonna run away, just like Martin did. Zimmerman pursued him. If a guy whose been staring at me, starts chasing me down after I run from him, I'm gonna assume he means me harm and if cornered, fight. Zimmerman didn't identify himself as Neighborhood Watch or a concerned neighbor, which could have diffused the situation. According to Zimmerman's own account (we sadly don't have Martin's account), Martin either came out of nowhere, jumped out from the bushes, or emerged from the darkness (his accounts vary slightly), and asked Zimmerman "Do you have a problem", Zimmerman had the opportunity to explain why he was chasing a teen in the dark, could have said "Hey, I'm in the community watch and we've had some break-ins lately and you were looking suspicious" or something to that effect, but according to Zimmerman, he answered "No, I don't have a problem." That's when Zimmerman claims Martin said "Well, you do now." and jumped him. So, if I take Zimmerman at face value and believe every word he said on the matter, he stalked a teen through his neighborhood, then when the teen ran away, he got out of his car and chased him down, then when the teen gave him the opportunity to explain himself, Zimmerman offered no explanation. Only after all of that did Martin start to fight, and then during the fight, Martin realized that the guy who had been stalking and chasing him with no explanation was doing so carrying a gun! If I was Martin, I would have bashed his head in too. Everybody is willing to see Zimmerman's point of view and give him the benefit of the doubt that he was in fear for his life, but no one sees how Martin could have been in fear for his life after being stalked and chased by a stranger who was bigger than he was, who was carrying a gun who refused to identify himself when asked. I'm not saying it was murder, but this looks like textbook manslaughter to me. Zimmerman tried playing vigilante, but he guessed wrong and killed a kid unnecessarily. I really don't see why this is controversial. Even if I don't believe anything that was said by anybody except George Zimmerman's own words on the matter, I come to that conclusion. But then again, Zimmerman did lie in court about his finances, leading to his bail being revoked, so I'm not saying that Zimmerman should be taken 100% at his word. People in this thread keep trying to act as if Trayvon was somehow incapable of willingly initiating a fight, im sorry but it is NOT far fetched to believe that Trayvon could've simply changed his mind and decided he was tired of this guys shit and to try to beat him up for following him. I really dislike the fact that a lot of people in this thread are trying to play it off like there is no way in hell that Trayvon actually initiated the fight and worse off are the people that are trying to say "this is what a teenager would've done", news flash people, every person is unique and the whole purpose of this trial is to try to uncover what actually happened, so I suggest everyone here try to actually listen and follow the case instead of trying to push opinions one side or the other. Do we have evidence an armed man chased after and followed his victim? Yes. Do we have evidence that a kid walking home randomly attacked someone? No. Is it possible? I guess, but on what evidence do we go off of? On May 31 2013 09:10 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2013 09:08 kmillz wrote:On May 31 2013 08:03 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 31 2013 07:54 GwSC wrote:On May 31 2013 07:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 31 2013 07:44 GwSC wrote:On May 31 2013 07:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 31 2013 07:31 GwSC wrote:On May 31 2013 07:23 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 31 2013 07:19 GwSC wrote:
[quote]
Well what you choose to see as not being a possibility is certainly a possibility to me. You keep mentioning that he was following Martin holding a gun, when as far as I know it has not been established whether or not he had the gun out. If we go with the possibility that the gun was not out, and Martin was angered by something Zman said (whether it was an inflammatory remark or reasonable questions, or anything else), how can you not see a cause for Martin to attack if he had the temperament to do so? The only way I can see for you not believing this is possible is because in your own mind you already see Martin as "the good guy", or at least are choosing to believe specific things about his personality when you really have no idea.
I don't think of Martin as a good guy. But I require evidence to believe someone would attack someone. Zman has taped evidence of him chasing/following after Martin even getting a bit peeved that martin was getting away. He is asked not to follow martin, he does so anyway, and Martin ends up dead. That shows that he already had an agenda towards martin, that he was actively pursuing Martin, and then upon meeting up with Martin ends up killing Martin. There is no evidence showing that Martin had any reason to attack Zman. There is evidence that shows why Zman would attack Martin. That's what the facts say, the rest is up for debate. There is evidence that a guy on neighborhood watch had an "agenda" of following someone who he said looked suspicious to him. The fact that you see that as evidence of Zman having a reason to attack Martin is purely based on your own bias, because in reality the altercation could have gone any number of ways, and either man could have been at fault. The fact is that on its own, your own presumptuous opinion that Zman was following Martin with the intent to do harm is not "evidence". It is more evidence than the assumption that Martin would attack Zman--which there is none. What I have is circumstantial. The evidence I have is Martin was seen as a threat, followed, and then shot. Because he Zman said he was a threat, because zman did follow him, and because zman did shoot him. Those are my facts. Most of the other evidence on this case have experts on both sides arguing on it and hence are not facts yet, just evidence up for debate. The fact that we know more about what Zman was doing at the time does not automatically make it any more or less likely that it was his fault that a physical fight started, and that as a result Martin ended up dead. You are again using your own words to twist things around. Zman never said he saw Martin as a "threat" which would imply he already inclined to be defensively aggressive. He simply said he thought Martin was "suspicious", and decided to investigate. My continuing issue with your arguments is your refusal to acknowledge any possibility that Martin may have acted irrationally and started the fight. Its not my refusal--it's me not wanting to make accusations against someone without evidence. Us having evidence of Zman calling martin suspicious, high, etc... and then evidence of him following martin and the actual fact of him shooting martin after doing all that is simply what the evidence shows us. We could either follow the evidence, or we could pretend evidence doesn't matter and pretend that martin was the aggressor. Yet that first part is exactly what you are doing in assuming that Zman shot Martin without having a good reason to do so (i.e., if he was attacked first and was afraid for his life). The facts we have that tell us Zman decided to follow Martin because he thought he looked suspicious are not even close to being evidence of that. We do not know at all what happened when the two men met, or why they got into a fight, but you have already decided it was Zman's fault. Do we have evidence that Martin started anything? No. Do we have evidence that Zman was suspicious of Martin? Yes. Because he called the police. Do we have evidence of Zman chasing Martin? Yes. Because he was running at the time of the phone call. Do we have evidence of Zman following martin after he was told "you don't have to do that"? Yes. Because he didn't go back to his car and was now near the victim's house. Do we have evidence that when Zman reached his victim that in 1-2 minutes the victim was shot? Yes. Because of a fucking gun shot a minute or two after Zmann reached Martin. Did Zman stalk his prey like a serial killer? Possibly not, we don't have evidence for that. Did Zman go after someone he felt suspicious about and then shot him? Yes. That we can prove. Do you have to be a serial killer to kill people? Hell no. Did Zman kill someone? Yes. Do we have evidence that Zimmerman was the one who initiated? No. Innocent until proven guilty. We only have proof than at armed man tracked, followed, and shot a kid who was walking home. That is all.
Yes, I agree.
Magpie is awesome LOL.
(seriously, he just needs to chill out for a bit)
|
Racing for a girl
Nobody noted this ban yet? The OP and the reactions are hilarious^^
Thread-spoiler and ban-reason spoilertag:
+ Show Spoiler +And complete and utter nonsense.... No TL movie in the making yet
-----------------
MindBreaker was just temp banned for 30 days by Manifesto7.
That account was created on 2011-04-01 03:36:07 and had 361 posts.
Reason: Brian: Hey, wait, hold up! I don't have any cash, but I do have the pink slip to my car
Jesse: Wait, you just can't climb in the ring with Ali 'cause you think you box!
Brian: [points to Vince] He *knows* I can box! So check it out, it's like this: If I lose, winner takes my car clean and clear. But if I win, I take the cash, *and* I take the respect girl.
-----------
|
On July 04 2013 12:21 venomium wrote:Racing for a girlNobody noted this ban yet? The OP and the reactions are hilarious^^ Thread-spoiler and ban-reason spoilertag: + Show Spoiler +And complete and utter nonsense.... No TL movie in the making yet
Lol wow...that's some funny shit. I'm kinda surprised he was banned.
+ Show Spoiler +I like how there are over twice as many votes for the Cobalt
|
Great, now I need closure too
|
On July 04 2013 12:21 venomium wrote:Racing for a girlNobody noted this ban yet? The OP and the reactions are hilarious^^ Thread-spoiler and ban-reason spoilertag: + Show Spoiler +And complete and utter nonsense.... No TL movie in the making yet
+ Show Spoiler +Was it Manifesto who got him? I remember he posted an ultimatum somewhere in the thread. I was believing it until he stated providing updates.
|
On July 04 2013 10:22 AlternativeEgo wrote:Show nested quote +GorbadTheGreat was just banned by KadaverBB.
That account was created on 2013-07-02 00:24:40 and had 22 posts.
Reason: PBU GoobyPlox might be a little funny but this one carries weight to it.
bye bye zaqwe
|
On July 04 2013 13:59 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2013 10:22 AlternativeEgo wrote:GorbadTheGreat was just banned by KadaverBB.
That account was created on 2013-07-02 00:24:40 and had 22 posts.
Reason: PBU GoobyPlox might be a little funny but this one carries weight to it. bye bye zaqwe
Why did he get banned originally again?
|
On July 04 2013 14:21 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2013 13:59 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 04 2013 10:22 AlternativeEgo wrote:GorbadTheGreat was just banned by KadaverBB.
That account was created on 2013-07-02 00:24:40 and had 22 posts.
Reason: PBU GoobyPlox might be a little funny but this one carries weight to it. bye bye zaqwe Why did he get banned originally again?
On June 25 2013 04:11 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 04:08 Alryk wrote:
I really, really hate Christian bashing. What does it serve? Christians are a very passive and meek religion. It satisfies everyone's inner bully to push them around and shit on their beliefs. You don't see many atheists or pro-homophile activists eager to criticize Islam. Because Islam is violent and scary and bullies only pick on weaklings who don't stand up for themselves (i.e. Christians). User was temp banned for a history of poor quality posting, low content posts and repeated consistent attempts to start arguments, flame wars and derail topics in the General Forum.
|
On July 04 2013 14:28 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2013 14:21 Defacer wrote:On July 04 2013 13:59 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 04 2013 10:22 AlternativeEgo wrote:GorbadTheGreat was just banned by KadaverBB.
That account was created on 2013-07-02 00:24:40 and had 22 posts.
Reason: PBU GoobyPlox might be a little funny but this one carries weight to it. bye bye zaqwe Why did he get banned originally again? Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 04:11 Zaqwe wrote:On June 25 2013 04:08 Alryk wrote:
I really, really hate Christian bashing. What does it serve? Christians are a very passive and meek religion. It satisfies everyone's inner bully to push them around and shit on their beliefs. You don't see many atheists or pro-homophile activists eager to criticize Islam. Because Islam is violent and scary and bullies only pick on weaklings who don't stand up for themselves (i.e. Christians). User was temp banned for a history of poor quality posting, low content posts and repeated consistent attempts to start arguments, flame wars and derail topics in the General Forum.
Jeeeeeez. Not only is that needlessly inflammatory, it's historically wrong. Islam faces constant criticism, especially from highly vocal and visible atheists like Sam Harris, Dawkins, Bill Maher et al. And Christianity has a remarkably violent history of persecuting anyone that isn't Christian.
Seriously, talk about having your head up your ass. Good ban.
|
On July 04 2013 12:21 venomium wrote:Racing for a girlNobody noted this ban yet? The OP and the reactions are hilarious^^ Thread-spoiler and ban-reason spoilertag: + Show Spoiler +And complete and utter nonsense.... No TL movie in the making yet
-----------------
MindBreaker was just temp banned for 30 days by Manifesto7.
That account was created on 2011-04-01 03:36:07 and had 361 posts.
Reason: Brian: Hey, wait, hold up! I don't have any cash, but I do have the pink slip to my car
Jesse: Wait, you just can't climb in the ring with Ali 'cause you think you box!
Brian: [points to Vince] He *knows* I can box! So check it out, it's like this: If I lose, winner takes my car clean and clear. But if I win, I take the cash, *and* I take the respect girl.
-----------
Yeah I just noticed it. I love the Fast & Furious reference in the ban. But to me it just seems like a guy boasting or trying to be funny in a blog. I don't really see why that should be a bad. Dit anyone heck his history?
|
On July 04 2013 18:59 Sjokola wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2013 12:21 venomium wrote:Racing for a girlNobody noted this ban yet? The OP and the reactions are hilarious^^ Thread-spoiler and ban-reason spoilertag: + Show Spoiler +And complete and utter nonsense.... No TL movie in the making yet
-----------------
MindBreaker was just temp banned for 30 days by Manifesto7.
That account was created on 2011-04-01 03:36:07 and had 361 posts.
Reason: Brian: Hey, wait, hold up! I don't have any cash, but I do have the pink slip to my car
Jesse: Wait, you just can't climb in the ring with Ali 'cause you think you box!
Brian: [points to Vince] He *knows* I can box! So check it out, it's like this: If I lose, winner takes my car clean and clear. But if I win, I take the cash, *and* I take the respect girl.
----------- Yeah I just noticed it. I love the Fast & Furious reference in the ban. But to me it just seems like a guy boasting or trying to be funny in a blog. I don't really see why that should be a bad. Dit anyone heck his history?
TL has an unwritten rule (mostly by Rekrul) to ban posters who lied basically. It's ok if he says it's a joke and all good fun, but when you went on with it and started to make false promises, especially when it hyped ppl up so much, then we have a problem.
|
I hope MindBreaker gets unbanned if he PMs a mod photos of the race. I also really hope they didn't actually race, lol.
|
I really wanted to see that race 
|
On July 04 2013 19:23 vndestiny wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2013 18:59 Sjokola wrote:On July 04 2013 12:21 venomium wrote:Racing for a girlNobody noted this ban yet? The OP and the reactions are hilarious^^ Thread-spoiler and ban-reason spoilertag: + Show Spoiler +And complete and utter nonsense.... No TL movie in the making yet
-----------------
MindBreaker was just temp banned for 30 days by Manifesto7.
That account was created on 2011-04-01 03:36:07 and had 361 posts.
Reason: Brian: Hey, wait, hold up! I don't have any cash, but I do have the pink slip to my car
Jesse: Wait, you just can't climb in the ring with Ali 'cause you think you box!
Brian: [points to Vince] He *knows* I can box! So check it out, it's like this: If I lose, winner takes my car clean and clear. But if I win, I take the cash, *and* I take the respect girl.
----------- Yeah I just noticed it. I love the Fast & Furious reference in the ban. But to me it just seems like a guy boasting or trying to be funny in a blog. I don't really see why that should be a bad. Dit anyone heck his history? TL has an unwritten rule (mostly by Rekrul) to ban posters who lied basically. It's ok if he says it's a joke and all good fun, but when you went on with it and started to make false promises, especially when it hyped ppl up so much, then we have a problem.
I wonder how many writers would get banned under the strict interpretation of that rule.
*cough*cough*
|
On July 04 2013 20:38 Caihead wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2013 19:23 vndestiny wrote:On July 04 2013 18:59 Sjokola wrote:On July 04 2013 12:21 venomium wrote:Racing for a girlNobody noted this ban yet? The OP and the reactions are hilarious^^ Thread-spoiler and ban-reason spoilertag: + Show Spoiler +And complete and utter nonsense.... No TL movie in the making yet
-----------------
MindBreaker was just temp banned for 30 days by Manifesto7.
That account was created on 2011-04-01 03:36:07 and had 361 posts.
Reason: Brian: Hey, wait, hold up! I don't have any cash, but I do have the pink slip to my car
Jesse: Wait, you just can't climb in the ring with Ali 'cause you think you box!
Brian: [points to Vince] He *knows* I can box! So check it out, it's like this: If I lose, winner takes my car clean and clear. But if I win, I take the cash, *and* I take the respect girl.
----------- Yeah I just noticed it. I love the Fast & Furious reference in the ban. But to me it just seems like a guy boasting or trying to be funny in a blog. I don't really see why that should be a bad. Dit anyone heck his history? TL has an unwritten rule (mostly by Rekrul) to ban posters who lied basically. It's ok if he says it's a joke and all good fun, but when you went on with it and started to make false promises, especially when it hyped ppl up so much, then we have a problem. I wonder how many writers would get banned under the strict interpretation of that rule. *cough*cough*
No one in the ABL thread lies, for example. No one. Ever. Honest Sams all around, here. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
