Sign in to follow this  
John Drake

The Tom Ray Thread

Recommended Posts

Discuss.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You can thank me later TR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guns. Corporate personhood. Done, thread's over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to know if Tom Ray's kids became truthful adults.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guns. Corporate personhood. Done, thread's over.

You forgot drugs. Also, don't forget to post over and over and over and over and over and over again despite getting no replies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Frankly I thinks his libertarian themes hold great merit.

But this isn't about that at all. Tom was complaining that ya'll should discuss the ideas rather than him. So to give you all an outlet, this thread is about Tom Ray the man. So that is the purpose. Not the libertarian ideals he espouses. So kindly keep this thread to personal attacks and/or personal accolades about the man himself.

 

 

And for the record, I think he is a stand up kinda guy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Guns. Corporate personhood. Done, thread's over.

You forgot drugs. Also, don't forget to post over and over and over and over and over and over again despite getting no replies.

 

 

Well if you recall my point in the other thread where I clearly state that I wouldn't have to remind you again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Frankly I thinks his libertarian themes hold great merit.

But this isn't about that at all. Tom was complaining that ya'll should discuss the ideas rather than him. So to give you all an outlet, this thread is about Tom Ray the man. So that is the purpose. Not the libertarian ideals he espouses. So kindly keep this thread to personal attacks and/or personal accolades about the man himself.

 

 

And for the record, I think he is a stand up kinda guy.

 

I agree with what I've bolded above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But the rest, not so much??

 

I disagree. He brings some very interesting perspectives and is always good at providing cites.

 

I have a degree in communications and have been in sales/marketing/PR for about 30 years. The only Issue I have with Tom is his belittling of people who agree with his Libertarian views because he assumes some of us are late to the game. Good on Libertarians for being against civil fortiture since the inception, but assuming we needed a Libertarian to help us make sense of it is a bit arrogant.

 

That is the kind of conversation I'd have with a friend, BTW. Nothing personal, Tom. If you want to convince people to support your views, don't assume they didn't support them until you came along or consider them late to the game. You bring interesting perspectives and write well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Frankly I thinks his libertarian themes hold great merit.

But this isn't about that at all. Tom was complaining that ya'll should discuss the ideas rather than him. So to give you all an outlet, this thread is about Tom Ray the man. So that is the purpose. Not the libertarian ideals he espouses. So kindly keep this thread to personal attacks and/or personal accolades about the man himself.

 

 

And for the record, I think he is a stand up kinda guy.

 

I agree with what I've bolded above.

 

I think Tom is too. You however, not so much. Hows sobriety treating you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Frankly I thinks his libertarian themes hold great merit.

But this isn't about that at all. Tom was complaining that ya'll should discuss the ideas rather than him. So to give you all an outlet, this thread is about Tom Ray the man. So that is the purpose. Not the libertarian ideals he espouses. So kindly keep this thread to personal attacks and/or personal accolades about the man himself.

 

 

And for the record, I think he is a stand up kinda guy.

 

I agree with what I've bolded above.

 

I think Tom is too. You however, not so much. Hows sobriety treating you?

 

 

Much better than retardation is treating you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Frankly I thinks his libertarian themes hold great merit.

But this isn't about that at all. Tom was complaining that ya'll should discuss the ideas rather than him. So to give you all an outlet, this thread is about Tom Ray the man. So that is the purpose. Not the libertarian ideals he espouses. So kindly keep this thread to personal attacks and/or personal accolades about the man himself.

 

 

And for the record, I think he is a stand up kinda guy.

I agree with what I've bolded above.

I do too, but I also think that Tom can take it as well as he dishes it out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Frankly I thinks his libertarian themes hold great merit.

But this isn't about that at all. Tom was complaining that ya'll should discuss the ideas rather than him. So to give you all an outlet, this thread is about Tom Ray the man. So that is the purpose. Not the libertarian ideals he espouses. So kindly keep this thread to personal attacks and/or personal accolades about the man himself.

 

 

And for the record, I think he is a stand up kinda guy.

I agree with what I've bolded above.

I do too, but I also think that Tom can take it as well as he dishes it out.

 

 

Agreed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to know if Tom Ray's kids became truthful adults.

Your parents are wondering where they went wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to know if Tom Ray's kids became truthful adults.

 

I have absolutely no doubt that they would be more honest than you.

 

I am not going to mention your kids, that's considered out of order here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know about "stand up guy." A stand up guy would back up this statement:

 

Tom Ray Posted 16 February 2015 - 06:08 PM

Gun control doesn't decrease homicide rates...

Pasted from <http://forums.sailin...howtopic=163765> c

 

I've noticed a series of less than truthful statements:

 

The Tom Whoppers

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=163210&page=7#entry4838776>

Whopper of the Week

No, I have never advocated arming anyone.

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=165463&p=4988354

One recent whopper (used twice)

Tom Ray, Posted 10 June, 02:01 AM

The NRA paid little attention to second amendment rights up until about 2007-8

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=157817&p=4978325

The very basis of statistics is to compare likes to likes. Tom has shown a pattern of polluting gun violence comparisons with non-gun violence.

He has defended this, as well. The second example below was a repeat offender.

Dishonest Tomstats I, (featured on the day after Sandy Hook).

Responding to Pinoccio, Tom pretends to find a related link, and pulls the Brady Best trick again: violence comps in war zones are compared to gun homicides, by state

While trying to dissuade the U.S.'s 800% gun violence number, Mr. Ray avoided the same stat within his own source.

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=142774&p=3974848

Dishonest Tomstats II: The familiar "Brady Best" State Comps

Used frequently for a few years; were busted by random: they are unsourced, have no definitions of terms, and are employing non-gun-related stats.

Tom used non-gun violence stats to confuse gun violence data.

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=163210&p=4826155

To cover II, Tom claimed he had explained "Brady's Best." His explanation displayed a series of gaps.

Tom Ray, on 08 Apr 2015 - 05:33 AM, said:

Column one: the Brady Center's ranking of state gun laws. The source used: their collective ass, I suppose. Go find it yourself. I did.

Column two: the ten states with the lowest violent crime rate followed by the ten with the highest violent crime rate. I'm not sure how the US Census defined "violent crime rate" at the time, just reporting what they said. Their source, I presume, was some boondoggling bureaucracy.

Column three: the ten states with the lowest murder rate followed by the ten with the highest murder rate. I'm not sure how the US Census defined "murder rate" at the time, just reporting what they said.. Their source, I presume, was some boondoggling bureaucracy.

Column four: added to the image later, this one shows the gun ownership rate by state. It was a wild guess on my part. I thought about getting really wild and guessing out to two decimal places, but decided against it. The definition of "gun ownership rate" is whatever I decide it is. My source was my ass.

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=155279&p=4909998

Dishonest Tomstats III

Tom introduced Missouri's general murder rates to compare with the increased gun homicides caused by background check repeals).

When confronted, Tom dishonestly claimed he had used gun murder figures,

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=164214&p=4886950c

Aftermath:

To cover III, Tom then told a lie to cover the first lie:

See Post 394, Tom insisting he was citing the actual "gun murder stats…"

He wasn't. To confuse the 16% increase in gun murder rates, he quoted the non-gun murders, which had not risen. This misuse is similar to his pinoccio gambit.

<http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=164214&page=4#entry4886950>

Tom repeatedly denies the current blockage of gun violence research. I can demonstrate six examples, and can counter Tom's statements with a dozen sources…this one from the floor of Congress from last week:

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/245983-gop-panel-votes-to-keep-funding-ban-for-gun-violence-research> c

Tom, SIX "No such ban" whoppers

Example 1

Tom Ray, on 24 August 2013 - 2:51 AM, said:

“ The CDC flagrantly violated the NRA ban on research.” (they are able to get away with this

because that (research) "ban" does not exist outside the left wing noise machine)

Example 2. Tom Ray, on 06 Sept 2014 - 13:04, said:

You can knock off the nonsense about how Congress cut research funding. They didn't.

Example 3

Tom Ray, Post 244, 9-year old kills Uzi instructor thread

(the CDC's mandate to avoid study is being discussed)

It's (meaning the mandate for research prevention) is just backlash from using tax money to fund political propaganda. "Researchers" who object to that are most likely advocates.

Example 4

Tom Ray, on 22 Jan 2015 - 12:10, said:

There is no such ban, which is why the CDC did the study Obama requested. The one the author claims that gun nutz don't understand.

Example 5

Tom Ray, on 22 Jan 2015 - 12:10, said:

Presidential orders can't reverse funding bans imposed by Congress. There was no need to, since no research funding ban was imposed by Congress. The only thing banned was using taxpayer money for political advocacy.

Example 6

Tom Ray Posted 26 October 2013 - 12:53 PM

The NRA dictated nothing to "the research arm" of the federal government. The FBI does a lot of gun-related research, so the CDC cannot be called "the" research arm, and Congress, not the NRA, told them to stop funding political propaganda.

 

 

He clipped a quote to turn the meaning 180 degrees. Not very stand up.ManondikeTomscredibility_zps39935104.png

 

Is extended race baiting considered "stand up"?

Tom repeated different race-based gags for more than a month...until the Charleston church shooting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ya know Jokeral, this was meant to be fun. A good spirited poke at Tom because of his comment in another thread regarding focusing on issues not on him. I didn't expect anyone to actually take cheap shots at one of PA's most passionate contributors.

 

All I can say is, keep it up and you're next. Be like shooting fish in a barrel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jocal you are one of the most dishonest posters around. I'm sure much fun could be had with a 'jocal' thread but youd consider the attention a good thing because you've became adept at lying to yourself. Schmuck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ya know Jokeral, this was meant to be fun. A good spirited poke at Tom because of his comment in another thread regarding focusing on issues not on him. I didn't expect anyone to actually take cheap shots at one of PA's most passionate contributors.

 

 

 

Are you new here? You should have expected it, along with the attempt by jocal to drag family into it. That's exactly what I expected when I saw the thread title.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And what are you gonna do about it mister? Take a live and let live stance???

 

Sorry, was that too obvious?

Need snaggie to come along and impart some wisdom here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Ya know Jokeral, this was meant to be fun. A good spirited poke at Tom because of his comment in another thread regarding focusing on issues not on him. I didn't expect anyone to actually take cheap shots at one of PA's most passionate contributors.

 

 

 

Are you new here? You should have expected it, along with the attempt by jocal to drag family into it. That's exactly what I expected when I saw the thread title.

 

 

The creepiest thing is that jocal is obviously hot for your mom.

 

CREE

 

PEE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Ya know Jokeral, this was meant to be fun. A good spirited poke at Tom because of his comment in another thread regarding focusing on issues not on him. I didn't expect anyone to actually take cheap shots at one of PA's most passionate contributors.

 

 

 

Are you new here? You should have expected it, along with the attempt by jocal to drag family into it. That's exactly what I expected when I saw the thread title.

 

 

The creepiest thing is that jocal is obviously hot for your mom.

 

CREE

 

PEE

 

 

Before you pronounce this obsession as "creepy" - have you seen Tom's Mom? She might be a hottie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Feel free to lay out any dishonesty, boys.

I read upthread this was about "pro or con" views of Tom's contributions. I said my bit.

I've laid out a pattern of untruthfullness, evidently.

Tom made these many statements, over a period of three years, and can't defend them.

 

I prefer passionate and well-grounded, to passionate and dishonest.

I not saying Tom isn't popular, or isn't dedicated. I'm just debunking his bogus forum content. Passionately.

Because his misguided, dumbass gun policies are killing people.

 

 

"Keep it up, and you're next"? No. 6, you are thumping your hairy chest.

I've stayed close to the viewpoints of social scientists on the gun issue; I welcome any honest, intelligent, sourced discussion.

Personal attacks won't get 'er done: you're going to need to know what you're talking about wrt the gun violence issue in the USA.

To discredit me, you'll need to study the U.S. gun violence issue better than I have. Go to work.

 

Let's be specific. Which Tom Whoppers in Post 28 are not dishonest? Which were not said by Tom?

 

--Tom can't even name the Hijacking the name of MLK to purposes contrary to Mr. KIng's beliefs is dishonorable.

--Introducing Rev. Mosteller (twice) and maintaining racial confusion is what it is, and seems bigoted.

 

How bad-ass is Tom? Two of his much- repeated positions show he is a lightweight:

--If you don't support "shall issue," you are racist.

--If you don't support arming American women, you are pro-rape.

 

 

TOM HAS GOOD REASONS TO BE DODGY. Tom is a soap bubble of gun violence knowledge. A joke.GunlobbyspokesmanTomRay_zps58dda322.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Ya know Jokeral, this was meant to be fun. A good spirited poke at Tom because of his comment in another thread regarding focusing on issues not on him. I didn't expect anyone to actually take cheap shots at one of PA's most passionate contributors.

 

 

 

Are you new here? You should have expected it, along with the attempt by jocal to drag family into it. That's exactly what I expected when I saw the thread title.

 

 

The creepiest thing is that jocal is obviously hot for your mom.

 

CREE

 

PEE

 

 

Before you pronounce this obsession as "creepy" - have you seen Tom's Mom? She might be a hottie.

 

 

I have found a pattern of open dishonesty. I have sourced and documented it.

 

Setting romance and family bashing aside, the question is, did Tom's environment contribute?

Was the pattern passed on?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Ya know Jokeral, this was meant to be fun. A good spirited poke at Tom because of his comment in another thread regarding focusing on issues not on him. I didn't expect anyone to actually take cheap shots at one of PA's most passionate contributors.

 

 

 

Are you new here? You should have expected it, along with the attempt by jocal to drag family into it. That's exactly what I expected when I saw the thread title.

 

 

The creepiest thing is that jocal is obviously hot for your mom.

 

CREE

 

PEE

 

 

Before you pronounce this obsession as "creepy" - have you seen Tom's Mom? She might be a hottie.

 

 

I have found a pattern of open dishonesty. I have sourced and documented it.

 

Setting romance and family bashing aside, the question is, did Tom's environment contribute?

Was the pattern passed on?

 

 

Do not involve me in your attempts to cross that line. I was responding to JBSF.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How sweet!! A personal attack thread for another contributor.

Joining:

Cleveland Steamer

Happy Jack

Bull Gator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

The creepiest thing is that jocal is obviously hot for your mom.

 

CREE

 

PEE

 

 

Before you pronounce this obsession as "creepy" - have you seen Tom's Mom? She might be a hottie.

 

 

I have found a pattern of open dishonesty. I have sourced and documented it.

 

Setting romance and family bashing aside, the question is, did Tom's environment contribute?

Was the pattern passed on?

 

 

Do not involve me in your attempts to cross that line. I was responding to JBSF.

 

 

I rest my case. CREE PEE

 

PS - this thread is BS. Tom is a valuable contributor, despite his being a bit pedantic. I have no problems with attack threads when its warranted and the recipient is a douchebag. But Tom is not in that category. I wish #6 could delete this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So do I JB, so do I. I sent apologies to Tom. The thread was a tongue in cheek humorist thread.... not like those about BG or BL, but rather a good hearted jibe at TR.

Jokeral has gone completely off the rails but the height of it is this..."Personal attacks won't get 'er done: " but that is exactly what you have entered into here jokeral.

Damn shame we can't all have a little fun 'round here. Damn shame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I ten to drift toward libertarian. So, I don't have a problem with Tom's viewpoint(s). I also like his sense of humor and enjoy his posts. I think those that disagree need to lighten up (you're wound a bit tight).

 

Jocal - I think you're pretty creepy with the thread chasing to show Tom as a liar. IMHO, you come across as a stalker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I ten to drift toward libertarian. So, I don't have a problem with Tom's viewpoint(s). I also like his sense of humor and enjoy his posts. I think those that disagree need to lighten up (you're wound a bit tight).

 

Jocal - I think you're pretty creepy with the thread chasing to show Tom as a liar. IMHO, you come across as a stalker.

 

I am confronting Tom, yes. It's Political Anarchy.

These documented examples of fibbing didn't get discussed, on ANY thread, did they?

Maybe they found the right thread here. (See thread title.)

 

There's a quality control issue in play. Linear discussions stop dead in the midst of dishonest denial.

In the town where I came from, stand up guys can back up their statements.

--The "Gun control doesn't decrease homicides" statement kinda went unanswered, eh?

--The ENTIRE SA Gun Club is trapped with Tom, complicit in present-tense gun research denial. Interesting.

 

 

I'm weary of all the Badgeless Dodges. For example, I can disprove the following statement. But if Tom acknowledges nothing, the disproving might be presented again.

 

Crime causes gun control but gun control does not affect crime.

From <http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=131105&page=22#entry3687518>

 

I notice that Tom hops threads with past statements, confrontating Olsonist, Sol, Mark K, Wofsey, and myself.

He uses petty details...yo, I am confronting the very basics, and dishonesty itself.

 

And take a good look: I have solid research which back up my points of view.

Here are nine current studies which demonstrate the effectiveness of gun control.

 

Take care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

The creepiest thing is that jocal is obviously hot for your mom.

 

CREE

 

PEE

 

 

Before you pronounce this obsession as "creepy" - have you seen Tom's Mom? She might be a hottie.

 

 

I have found a pattern of open dishonesty. I have sourced and documented it.

 

Setting romance and family bashing aside, the question is, did Tom's environment contribute?

Was the pattern passed on?

 

 

Do not involve me in your attempts to cross that line. I was responding to JBSF.

 

 

I rest my case. CREE PEE

 

PS - this thread is BS. Tom is a valuable contributor, despite his being a bit pedantic. I have no problems with attack threads when its warranted and the recipient is a douchebag. But Tom is not in that category. I wish #6 could delete this.

 

 

No. 6 sure opened the door, didn't he?

 

Let's take post 28 one line at a time. Which Tomquote there is an honest statement?

Do the various examples show a pattern?

 

I kinda like Tom. I've learned some things from him. My issue is with untruthful statements...especially if expressed as a habit on PA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom has been caught attempting to mslead us multiple times. At first I thought the was just being over zealous, or made the mistake of not checking stuff that looked supporting to his case ... but see this one where he admitted "The definition of "gun ownership rate" is whatever I decide it is. My source was my ass."

 

Now with that behind us, an admission of fabrication. He posts it again.

 

Which prompts my response:

 

"Tom, seriously I have been giving you some benefit of the doubt, that you are a zealot and make mistakes. But this is over the fucking top.

 

On 29 Jan I asked you to explain how the table above works, some references, definitions, needed to understand if I should bother trying to understand the confusion that it is.

 

You could not. Now weeks after I pointed out that it is complete crap, you are posting it again???!!!!

 

Others have claimed that you are dishonest, now here is the evidence. You have knowingly posted a table that you cannot explain to support your POV.

 

I hope others who have been communicating with you read this and just stop listening because of it. What is the point of arguing/debating with someone who will do such a thing. Seriously you have no shame."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I ten to drift toward libertarian. So, I don't have a problem with Tom's viewpoint(s). I also like his sense of humor and enjoy his posts. I think those that disagree need to lighten up (you're wound a bit tight).

 

Jocal - I think you're pretty creepy with the thread chasing to show Tom as a liar. IMHO, you come across as a stalker.

I am confronting Tom, yes. It's Political Anarchy.

These documented examples of fibbing didn't get discussed, on ANY thread, did they?

Maybe they found the right thread here. (See thread title.)

 

There's a quality control issue in play. Linear discussions stop dead in the midst of dishonest denial.

In the town where I came from, stand up guys can back up their statements.

--The "Gun control doesn't decrease homicides" statement kinda went unanswered, eh?

--The ENTIRE SA Gun Club is trapped with Tom, complicit in present-tense gun research denial. Interesting.

 

 

I'm weary of all the Badgeless Dodges. For example, I can disprove the following statement. But if Tom acknowledges nothing, the disproving might be presented again.

 

Crime causes gun control but gun control does not affect crime.

From <http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=131105&page=22#entry3687518>

I notice that Tom hops threads with past statements, confrontating Olsonist, Sol, Mark K, Wofsey, and myself.

He uses petty details...yo, I am confronting the very basics, and dishonesty itself.

 

And take a good look: I have solid research which back up my points of view.

Here are nine current studies which demonstrate the effectiveness of gun control.

 

Take care.

 

Fuck off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom has been caught attempting to mslead us multiple times. At first I thought the was just being over zealous, or made the mistake of not checking stuff that looked supporting to his case ... but see this one where he admitted "The definition of "gun ownership rate" is whatever I decide it is. My source was my ass."

 

Now with that behind us, an admission of fabrication. He posts it again.

 

Which prompts my response:

 

"Tom, seriously I have been giving you some benefit of the doubt, that you are a zealot and make mistakes. But this is over the fucking top.

 

On 29 Jan I asked you to explain how the table above works, some references, definitions, needed to understand if I should bother trying to understand the confusion that it is.

 

You could not. Now weeks after I pointed out that it is complete crap, you are posting it again???!!!!

 

Others have claimed that you are dishonest, now here is the evidence. You have knowingly posted a table that you cannot explain to support your POV.

 

I hope others who have been communicating with you read this and just stop listening because of it. What is the point of arguing/debating with someone who will do such a thing. Seriously you have no shame."

Look in the mirror. You are dishonest regarding your gun posts. You have no retort other than to be dishonest because you know no better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a dog ... Ooooo, more claims that cannot be supported. And getting slightly agressive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So do I JB, so do I. I sent apologies to Tom. The thread was a tongue in cheek humorist thread.... not like those about BG or BL, but rather a good hearted jibe at TR.

 

 

 

 

Mark made me laugh with this one, but in a thread that was supposed to be about some other topic...

 

 

Fourteenth Amendment.

 

 

 

 

ps: second amendment

 

Ookookcachookius

 

 

If I ever do set up a sock account here, I'm definitely naming myself Ookookcachookius.

 

Crap, now that I've let the cat out of the bag, some douche will probably register that one just like happened with the one I never got around to creating.

 

Oh well. Life without a round tuit. It's hard.

 

Sincerely,

 

Publius

Ookookcachookius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

blah blah blah CREE PEE Blah

Fuck off.

 

 

Would you mind not quoting the stalker if all you're going to do is tell him to fuck off? Thanks in advance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's sum this situation up. If one is "in" with a certain crowd on Political Anarchy, one's sourced dishonesty is not a factor.

 

By the way, I warned Tom Ray he would become a punching bag around here if he didn't clean it up.

He didn't.

 

He may have felt he didn't need to clean it up. If so, this also indicts the credibility of his elk.

Where is the forum outrage for a guy who leaves a trail of fibs behind...while making more than a dozen edgy racial jibes? (Can cite.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jocal you are one of the most dishonest posters around. I'm sure much fun could be had with a 'jocal' thread but youd consider the attention a good thing because you've became adept at lying to yourself. Schmuck.

 

Go ahead. Source my dishonesty, if any.

You could use actual content in your posts, in general.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

blah blah blah CREE PEE Blah

Fuck off.

 

 

Would you mind not quoting the stalker if all you're going to do is tell him to fuck off? Thanks in advance.

 

 

Translation: please join me, in my chosen state of ignorance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's sum this situation up. If one is "in" with a certain crowd on Political Anarchy, one's sourced dishonesty is not a factor.

 

By the way, I warned Tom Ray he would become a punching bag around here if he didn't clean it up.

He didn't.

 

He may have felt he didn't need to clean it up. If so, this also indicts the credibility of his elk.

Where is the forum outrage for a guy who leaves a trail of fibs behind...while making more than a dozen edgy racial jibes? (Can cite.)

 

I didn't realize Scot made you a moderator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm no moderator, I'm a forum member on a site which thrives on anarchy (i.e. calling bullshit on inferior product).

The site thrives on credible sources to do this.

Where are Tom's sources to support his statements?

And what's up with the lack of uproar at the untruthfulness laid out in Post 28?

 

I see what you've done.

You have a little cult here, swallowing Tom's dishonest propaganda.

And No. 6 is now holding court, supporting a messenger who must pollute his own message

with un-sourced mis-truths.Tom%20Ray%20Pied%20Piper_zpsfuw088sv.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ignore works

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ignore some bogus cult that could use some anarchy?

Hells bells, O.R., thirty years of ignoring of the NRA and SAF are responsible for the present level of damage.

 

The Art of War suggests knowing one's enemy, so here I am.

Tom's positions are running up big, deadly statistical numbers...

and his elk are ignoring those numbers FOR us.

 

I think I shall fight with Tom, straight up, on the gun issue.

Ignorance is for the other guys, mate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jocal seems like a lefty Happy Jack looking for an answer from Tom and Tom is refusing to engage.

If I were Tom I would ask Jocal if he has quit beating his wife. Of course we all know how that worked for me ...., even my lovable sock puppets got smeared.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gouv, you and your sock are both Gay AND homo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jocal seems like a lefty Happy Jack looking for an answer from Tom and Tom is refusing to engage.

If I were Tom I would ask Jocal if he has quit beating his wife. Of course we all know how that worked for me ...., even my lovable sock puppets got smeared.

 

Hi Gouv. You are MUCH sharper than that.

The "have you stopped beating your wife" bit in an informal fallacy, called the loaded question.

Tom already uses that gag:

Don't you wish Mrs Mason shot her rapist dead with a gun?

--(Tom Ray) If you don't support arming American women, you are pro-rape.

Don't you wish MLK had "shall issue" laws in place?

--(Tom Ray, for 40 days) If you don't support "shall issue," you are racist.

The problem with the logic lies in the question itself.

 

But I am asking an honest, direct question, about something quite basic to the gun issue: I am asking Tom to source a few of his own declarative sentences. I'm asking for sources: it's a fair question. It's how we do it on PA.

 

Tom has no possible credible answer, because his position is a sham.

A sustained lack of response shows his position lacks merit. Just sayin'.

 

**********************

 

Whoops, the link to the nine sources disputing Tom's sweeping statements didn't work above.

So here it is, full text with link. (Gouv, please give this dispute some decent, informed consideration.)

 

Tom Ray, on 28 Jun 2015 - 03:49 AM, said:

Yes, there's evidence every day that gun control doesn't work.

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=166644#entry4995853>

Jocal Posted 27 June, 09:37 AM

Then present such evidence. Let's compare it to other evidence.

Because after a lot of reading, I think your claim is bogus, that it lacks any evidence-based foundation.

Source 1.

Here's a recent peer-reviewed 2015 study which relates that background checks were working in Missouri before the gun lobby repealed them in 2007.

Effects of the Repeal of Missouri’s Handgun Purchaser Licensing Law on Homicides

Tom, please note: gun murder rates went up 14%!

Quote

Dishonest Tomstats III

Tom introduced Missouri's general murder rates to compare with the increased gun homicides caused by background check repeals).

When confronted in this link, Tom dishonestly claimed he had used gun murder figures.

http://forums.sailin...64214&p=4886950

Source 2.

Connecticut handgun licensing law associated with 40 percent drop in gun homicides

Tom, "right to carry" has already been proven dangerous, by a variety of researchers. Here are three of them:

Source 3.

Stanford research confirms that right-to-carry gun laws are linked to an increase in violent crime.

(The study found that homicides increased in eight states that adopted right-to-carry laws during 1999-2010.)

Source 4.

M Rosengart, et al in 2005, found “that when a ‘shall issue’ law was present, the rate of firearm homicides was greater, RR 1.11 (95% confidence interval 0.99 to 1.24), than when the law was not present.

The study concluded that implementing a shall-issue law with few restrictions on obtaining or carrying a concealed weapon may be linked to increased firearm homicide rates.

http://people.uwplat...per example.pdf

Source 5. The Impact of Right to Carry Laws

Overall, the most consistent, albeit not uniform, finding to emerge… using three different specifications is that aggravated assault rises when RTC laws are adopted. …There is always evidence within the four estimates for each of the seven crime categories that RTC laws are associated with higher rates of crime. In six of the seven crime categories, the finding that RTC laws increase crime is statistically significant at the .05 level, and for robbery, it is statistically significant at the .10 level. It will be worth exploring whether other methodological approaches and/or additional years of data will confirm the results of this panel-data analysis.

The comparison between good gun control and weak state laws is dramatic, based on TEN indexes of violence. These sources help to demonstrate that:

Source 6.The link between high levels of gun violence and weak state gun laws

Source 7. Fleegler 2013: States with more gun laws have less gun violence

Source 8. Economist Mark Duggan: Rate Of Gun Ownership "Significantly Positively" Correlated With Incidence Of Homicide.

Source 9. SIEGAL 2013: The Relationship Between Gun Ownership

and Firearm Homicide Rates

in the United States, 1981–2010.

Largest Gun Study Ever: More Guns, More Murder

Results. Gun ownership was a significant predictor of firearm homicide rates…

Conclusions. We observed a robust correlation between higher levels of gun ownership and higher firearm homicide rates. Although we could not determine causation, we found that states with higher rates of gun ownership had disproportionately large numbers of deaths from firearm-related homicides.

http://forums.sailin...howtopic=159770>

From <http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=166644#entry4995853>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gouv, you and your sock are both Gay AND homo.

Aww!! If having a crush on the girl in that avatar is gay, my guess is most men are flaming faggots

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the smartest, best informed, most thoughtful posters here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of knowledge.... When can we get another infusion of your brilliance??

Lots a good lunch spots we haven't tried

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom is intellectually honest

 

Tom, like many, favors a strong version of civil liberties. Like few, he is willing to extend them, a priori, to people he may not like and perhaps even to people he mistrusts

 

Tom believes in limits to the state monopoly on force and follows that belief to its logical conclusion re the death penalty

 

Tom does not advocate violence in earnest or in jest

 

Tom does not use racist, misogynist, or homophobic language

 

Tom does not make generic or personal characterizations of those who hold opposing views

 

Tom does not appear to hate or resent any class of people

 

Tom is unfailingly civil and respectful

 

Tom can take a joke

 

Tom likes the Socratic method

 

Tom can be annoying

 

Cruisin Loser is a notorious Dickweed and wanton destroyer of porcelain marine sanitary devices. He should be hounded into obscurity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the legend of Cruising Loser spreads.....

 

hmmm, maybe a new thread needed for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom is intellectually honest

 

Tom, like many, favors a strong version of civil liberties. Like few, he is willing to extend them, a priori, to people he may not like and perhaps even to people he mistrusts

 

Tom believes in limits to the state monopoly on force and follows that belief to its logical conclusion re the death penalty

 

Tom does not advocate violence in earnest or in jest

 

Tom does not use racist, misogynist, or homophobic language

 

Tom does not make generic or personal characterizations of those who hold opposing views

 

Tom does not appear to hate or resent any class of people

 

Tom is unfailingly civil and respectful

 

Tom can take a joke

 

Tom likes the Socratic method

 

Tom can be annoying

 

Cruisin Loser is a notorious Dickweed and wanton destroyer of porcelain marine sanitary devices. He should be hounded into obscurity

That's CAPTAIN Dickweed to you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Tom is intellectually honest

 

Tom, like many, favors a strong version of civil liberties. Like few, he is willing to extend them, a priori, to people he may not like and perhaps even to people he mistrusts

 

Tom believes in limits to the state monopoly on force and follows that belief to its logical conclusion re the death penalty

 

Tom does not advocate violence in earnest or in jest

 

Tom does not use racist, misogynist, or homophobic language

 

Tom does not make generic or personal characterizations of those who hold opposing views

 

Tom does not appear to hate or resent any class of people

 

Tom is unfailingly civil and respectful

 

Tom can take a joke

 

Tom likes the Socratic method

 

Tom can be annoying

 

Cruisin Loser is a notorious Dickweed and wanton destroyer of porcelain marine sanitary devices. He should be hounded into obscurity

That's CAPTAIN Dickweed to you!

 

Aye, so it is, Sir, so it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Carbon fiber toilets painted orange are much faster anyway. Good for CL breaking that old junk.

Yes, but the such would have clashed with the cabinetry, marquetry, and coquetry of his vessel's Herrschaft interior. It was replaced with another of Wilcox and Crittenden's finest vitreous chalices, with reinforcing butt-resses for upwind "work," offshore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Tom. That pussy Moe has some strange aversion to beta testing a plastic bucket in big seas and 30+ knot winds, preferring to leave the experimental science to real men like Innocent Bystander (who scores total respect, BTW).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Tom. That pussy Moe has some strange aversion to beta testing a plastic bucket in big seas and 30+ knot winds, preferring to leave the experimental science to real men like Innocent Bystander (who scores total respect, BTW).

I alpha'd in it a few times, but beta just wan't happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think CL was talking about you Gouv!

 

I thought he was addressing the thread topic .

CL generates a mighty interesting conversation and once in a while he passes through and shares some of it.

 

The conversation generally includes my wishful idealism and his very informed pragmatic realism.

Neither of us is considering a run for political office.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Video or it didn't happen.

Video not required. I trust the gentleman involved.

 

 

Killjoy. I believe him too, but a video would be hilarious I'm sure. Besides, it's an extension of the "Pics or..." tradition. You like tradition don't you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the smartest, best informed, most thoughtful posters here.

 

Why, thank you! I do try..... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A belated congratulations Tom on your own personal thread. Keep up the good work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Video or it didn't happen.

Video not required. I trust the gentleman involved.

 

 

Killjoy. I believe him too, but a video would be hilarious I'm sure. Besides, it's an extension of the "Pics or..." tradition. You like tradition don't you?

 

Video, hell! I just wish I could bring you the odor of that bucket, being carried through the hot, wet, and virtually unventilated, below-decks of a boat close-reaching through the Gulf Stream in frankly snotty conditions. Of course, we'd have to prep you with syrup of ipecac and bad moonshine for the full effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Smellavision is one of the dreams of Mike Rowe, the Dirty Jobs guy, too.

 

Probably one of those cases where wanting something turns out to be far better than actually having it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I don't think CL was talking about you Gouv!

 

I thought he was addressing the thread topic .

CL generates a mighty interesting conversation and once in a while he passes through and shares some of it.

 

The conversation generally includes my wishful idealism and his very informed pragmatic realism.

Neither of us is considering a run for political office.

 

I am humbled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably one of those cases where wanting something turns out to be far better than actually having it.

Like sex with supermodels and film stars. When will I learn?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The supermodels fled pretty quickly when they saw this.

 

 

 

SparkyToilet_zps5ieykyjb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see you have it positioned in case certain SA contributors want a seat

 

 

 

 

 

 

Each of you may choose your own favorites and don't bother to tell us. We each have our own unique selections for who fits the joke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The supermodels fled pretty quickly when they saw this.

 

 

 

SparkyToilet_zps5ieykyjb.jpg

CL,

 

I do like how you have embraced your failings but you promised me supermodels when I signed on.

 

Moe used his prestigious title and position as chief medical officer to warn us of the dangers of resisting and now has the temerity to complain about regular sailors, even in a blow. Or is that sailors who are regular, even in a blow? It would have been an insult to the chef to not fully digest his fine mealtime offerings. Moe just had the unpleasant duty to be on the same watch rotation as me for most of the snotty stuff. Being a regular guy also meant I was patient and polite to the customs officer at RHADC, not dancing around like a toddler with a pressing issue.

 

I have no idea how we got here from Jocal beating up on Tom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites