uebermann wrote:exploited wrote:Actually, Indy said that he was sick of a foreign leader dictating American Foreign Policy.Indy wrote:BTW Bibi needs to STFU. I am so tired of hearing the PM from another country dictate U.S. foreign policy.
You have to remember that Indy has historically confused people, for instance, he can often be found referring to Dick Cheney as President, even though Dick Cheney was never President.
I'm just asking him to not tell lies is all. Bibi isn't dictating American Foreign Policy. Period.
Cut the shit. Stop purposefully agitating people. Last warning on this before you go on permanent post approval. With no chance of getting out for good behavior. All of the mods are getting sick of it dude. You guys get heated, whatever. But this deal where you keep trying to purposefully piss people off with shit like this needs to stop.
I just want to clear up if being irritating to other posters is now against the rules? Because it looks like I'll soon be placed on permanent post approval, not because I insulted anyone, or slandered anyone, or even said something dishonest, but because I argued with Indy about his choice of words. Which is funny, because:
John Galt wrote:uebermann wrote:It couldn't be more damn clear and yet somehow you are trying to spin this into something it isn't. It doesn't say that they disagreed. It doesn't say that they agreed that Jefferson was wrong. Its validating the point. If they didn't agree with Jefferson's statement, they sure wouldn't have been quoting him and using his phrase in cases that declare a "separation of Church and state" as that would be completely absurd and contradictory.
I'm not sure why you are having such problems reading this but I think its due to you wanting it to be something it isn't, instead of just reading it as it is.
al·most - adverb - not quite
do you have a learning or a reading disability
Or a little more recent...
John Galt wrote:Spider wrote:Um. Wut. You should probably re-read. What I said, in plain English, is that calling an unknown gender male by default is sexist. And it is. RE: "if the sex is unknown, then the pronoun used to refer to that person is "he".
Obviously, I said nothing that could conceivably lead you to think that "he" is somehow sexist when applied to people it actually describes. Silly little reach, that. What I'm talking about is the idea that male should be the default for an unknown.
the default for unknown is "he" because that's what it always has been; the alternative is "it" which is worse to describe someone as an "it". for example we talk about "mankind" and that includes all humans. when describing an unknown person people say "he" when referring to "him" knowing full well it could be a man or a woman. however, when the sex is known and talking about an individual it's inappropriate to use the wrong pronoun. it's offensive. but none of it even matters because we're talking about people who want to change their sex, which is folly as that is not possible, and who expect others to follow along with their madness and get their panties in a bunch when someone doesn't. excuse me, you're the one assaulting the english language, not me. you're the one demanding something mean something different, a novel concept that you people keep on bringing up ("obviously you don't know the difference between sex and gender" /smug). well fine, they are separate concepts. so don't co-opt the one that means sex. make up new ones, i don't care. if you want a separate concept then make them separate. what i'm against is not the separate concept. i'm against the insidious attempt to eviscerate the concept of sex and replace it with gender. that cannot stand.
And we wonder why the rules are being broken left and right, and nobody really gives a shit (this is where you guys feign innocence and pin it on a few "trouble posters," then immediately revert to the same shitty behaviour that has driven this board into the ground). The members of PCF's Old Boy Club* are notoriously lacking any sort of self-awareness, which is typically fine, except they have a tendency of going after people they don't like, while ignoring their own behaviour.
Honestly, can we just not have any moderation here? At this point, its very, very clear it can't be done properly, so why bother doing it at all?
*you know who you are