• 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.  

Bent Sailor

Members
  • Content count

    9,760
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

-23 Douchebag

About Bent Sailor

  • Rank
    Anarchist

Profile Information

  • Location
    Lake Macquarie
  • Interests
    Sailing
    Software Development
    A Good Yarn with Mates
  1. This is an example of why we don't trust Gun Grabberz

    Keep deluding yourself if you like.
  2. This is an example of why we don't trust Gun Grabberz

    Well put. Ideological purity about "need", "small government", and even the Constitution are all secondary to the fact that in a democracy - if the vast majority think the laws should change, then those laws can, will, and should change. The US makes a big deal about the value of democracy and how everyone should practice it as well as it does... That cuts both ways.
  3. Why the Focus on Gunz?

    Still saying "can't" when all you've got is "currently won't". I imagine if both sides of the gun debate hadn't got sick of your shit, that might have even passed the sniff test.
  4. Trimming the extraneous bullshit makes you sound like a reasonable person. Pity you will ruin that...
  5. Why the Focus on Gunz?

    One day it'll actually make it through to you that not engaging in your bullshit is not the same as being unable to. I won't be holding my breath.
  6. The part where not all editors are required or even tasked with vetting what they are editing for factual veracity. Reviewing content doesn't mean vetting it, no matter how hard you pound the table and insist otherwise. Google News also hires editors who are not responsible for the veracity of the articles Google News links to. That responsibility is on the part of the organisation writing the content. That's how content aggregation with partnered organisations work. Your claim that an editor finding a story of interest means they have vetted it for truth is either a deliberate lie or proving you know sweet fuck all about content aggregation services. I'm happy to accept either, as you've proven both dishonest and moronic in the past.
  7. Because the editor & his staff pick and choose what content would be of interest, he does not vet the content for truth and accuracy. Try again numb nuts and, this time, try not to expose how little you know about the Internet content aggregation business while you're at it.
  8. You're either being intentionally dishonest or live under a rock if you think it's rare for people on the right to dismiss a story based on whether or not it appears in their favoured/abhorred list of news sources. Someone doesn't know how portal content aggregators work. No, Yahoo doesn't "vet" stories. They have arrangements with a list of content providers and expect them to vet the content they provide. They wouldn't knowingly repeat a false story and they do that by not taking on the responsibility for knowing the veracity of the content they pass on (i.e. they don't vet it). The job of vetting the content is left to those that create it - Fox, Channel Seven, Associated Press, etc.
  9. US votes against anti Nazi resolution

    Honestly, because watching those that think they're informed and rational inevitably devolve into spittle-flecked rage when they undercut their own argument is amusing. Nah, I leave the ignore button for the stalkers. Stop poking the idiots and they go back to their incoherent mumbling. Stop responding to a stalker the way they want you to and they start going feral to get your attention. Not interested in that shit.
  10. US votes against anti Nazi resolution

    Imagine that I had to be agreeing with or commenting solely on the aspects of the issue that you agree with or find interesting. Just imagine! As per your source, when a (D) was in power - the issue was "noble belief in the freedom of speech". As per your other source, when an (R) is in power - the issue is the "noble belief in the freedom of speech". Not my fault you're whinging about an inconsistency in reporting you've just proven doesn't exist. How silly of me to think one might be able to comment in a discussion without checking with you first on exactly what aspects are allowed and whether or not I should agree or argue with you about those aspects of the issue. What a narcissistic, whiny little troll you've shown yourself to be here... as is normal for you I suppose.
  11. US votes against anti Nazi resolution

    So, by your own source above, you are saying that when an (R) is in the house, it's about the noble belief in the freedom of speech. Seems to me that you're whinging about nothing. Why should I do that? I never argued that to be the case.
  12. The fact that some in here make up shit and cannot find any news source to back them up is even more frightening than that.
  13. Misdemeanour on the part of the lady in question. Moronic short-term thinking on the part of the politician in question. Can the lady be charged - yes. Would it be smart of the politician to do so - no. Streisand effect will mean pressing charges keeps his sad dick pic in the headlines forever. He'll become known for it. He was an idiot to send them and a bigger idiot to threaten legal reprisals afterward. Well within his rights... but still a fucking idiot.
  14. US votes against anti Nazi resolution

    Feel free to provide those news articles stating that, when a (D) did it, it was all about a "noble belief in the freedom of speech". Your claim, your burden to prove you aren't full of shit. Just sayin' A policy that supports fascism is more newsworthy from a President that makes a habit of promoting and supporting fascists. What would otherwise be "business as usual" picks up something sensational (and hence "newsworthiness") when it can be connected to accepted flaws in a public personage. If this is news to you, you should crawl back under your rock.