• Announcements

    • Zapata

      Abbreviated rules   07/28/2017

      Underdawg did an excellent job of explaining the rules.  Here's the simplified version: Don't insinuate Pedo.  Warning and or timeout for a first offense.  PermaFlick for any subsequent offenses Don't out members.  See above for penalties.  Caveat:  if you have ever used your own real name or personal information here on the forums since, like, ever - it doesn't count and you are fair game. If you see spam posts, report it to the mods.  We do not hang out in every thread 24/7 If you see any of the above, report it to the mods by hitting the Report button in the offending post.   We do not take action for foul language, off-subject content, or abusive behavior unless it escalates to persistent stalking.  There may be times that we might warn someone or flick someone for something particularly egregious.  There is no standard, we will know it when we see it.  If you continually report things that do not fall into rules #1 or 2 above, you may very well get a timeout yourself for annoying the Mods with repeated whining.  Use your best judgement. Warnings, timeouts, suspensions and flicks are arbitrary and capricious.  Deal with it.  Welcome to anarchy.   If you are a newbie, there are unwritten rules to adhere to.  They will be explained to you soon enough.  

A guy in the Chesapeake

Members
  • Content count

    13,319
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About A guy in the Chesapeake

  • Rank
    Anarchist
  • Birthday 12/04/2006

Profile Information

  • Location
    Virginia

Recent Profile Visitors

10,524 profile views
  1. Winner!
  2. By "current fuss" - I was referring to those who were advocating the removal of statues, while ignoring the perspective of those who want to see them preserved, and suggesting that those who were pushing their perspective as the only viable alternative were wrong for doing so. This wasn't an R /vs/ D thing at all.
  3. You expected something different?
  4. CH, Bus - thanks. CH - I accept that you disagree - but I'd like everyone to understand that my interest in this isn't constrained to the current flap over Confederate monuments - it's the idea that if something offends someone, it should be eradicated, removed from public existence. Who gets to decide who's offense matters and who's doesn't? I remember BJ crowing about a wooden sculpture for Satanists as a counter to publicly displayed "conventional" religious symbols. I'm bothered by that - but, would be branded with all kinds of shit if I suggested that the people who wanted it shouldn't have it because its offensive to practitioners of "conventional" religions. SO? I recognize that if I expect to enjoy the rights and protections granted to me as a citizen of this country, that I am in turn obligated to support other's exercise of those rights and protections, even if I am offended by the way that they choose to do so. In the current fuss? I feel like only one perspective is being permitted a voice - and don't think that that's right.
  5. Did they help last weekend?
  6. https://www.balticyachts.fi/baltic-175-pink-gin-vi-takes-road/
  7. The 1/2 ton Dodge diesels are coming back out for the '18 model year......
  8. ^^^ Yup. The example of handling this that I like, and have referenced often, is Richmond, VA's Monument Ave - lovely blvd, grand statues up & down. A statue commemorating the contributions of Arthur Ashe is now included. Sharing perspectives to gain understanding with the idea to bring people together should be the objective of any commemoration, wouldn't ya think?
  9. Sorry Patriot Guard Riders - we rode our motorcycles to gather and form a silent human wall between the Westboro Baptist Church goofs and the mourners at funerals they were protesting.
  10. I don't think for some that it matters that I'm not a Trump supporter - my perspective on most things aligns right, that makes everything I say/think wrong. I'm OK w/that - disagreement can often provide positive outcomes.
  11. Thank you sir - that's exactly what I was hoping to better understand.
  12. That I didn't mention your other points doesn't mean that I discounted them. I agree completely with what you're saying w/r/t the alt-right jackasses appropriating the monuments and claiming associations that are unwanted by those who simply appreciate the history, and the fact that that appropriation will indeed adversely flavor opinions and flame discontent. There seems to be a plethora of folks who simply want to create a venue for a confrontation, and hope that they are able to inflame people on "the other side" to exhibit the worst behavior imaginable so that they can point to that as justification for their prejudicial attitudes. Aside from adopting a PGR-like stance, I don't know how to shut them down w/out giving them the confrontation that they want.
  13. Yup....
  14. I didn't say that at all - what I said was that advocacy isn't the same as a threat- If my understanding is correct, "I wish" /vs/ "Let's make it happen". "If you try to hurt that person, I'm gonna kick your ass" is advocacy - stating " I'm gonna fuckin' kill you jackass" is a threat. It's a fine line, and freedom of speech means that we (sometimes unfortunately) have to wait until an actionable threat exists before authorities can intervene. I agree that once a threat has been issued, it needs to be addressed. IANAL, so I'd appreciate it if Sol or any of our other esteemed esquires would like to weigh in on this question - what is the legal distinction between opinion and an actionable threat?
  15. I'm not seeing it now either - it popped up in a newsfeed I monitor. The initial report was that a white Ford Focus had blasted thru cops at a checkpoint and got out of the car shooting. I'll be happy if it turns out to have been false.