Originally Posted by playwrite

Whatever this "wholly-created internet personality" may or may not be, it has clearly been shown capable of handily demonstrating the moronic thought processing that passes as 'thinking' by those here lost in various false mythologies of the Right.

I'm okay with that.

"'58 Flat," on the other hand, is intended as a tribute to the coolest dude on the planet: TVG's Matt Carothers (TVG is an interactive horse racing channel, on which Carothers hosts a segment called ":58 Flat," 58 seconds being a pretty good five-furlong workout time for a thoroughbred. Carothers appears to be a 1968 cohort BTW).

I guess we can safely say that Obama's confusion of Star Wars and Star Trek may have qualified as one of his less brilliant moments. But the fact that he pretty much had to sign off on all the sequester cuts will probably hurt more deeply, and we have to hope it doesn't affect him too badly. But then, he won't be facing re-election now that he has won his second term.

Originally Posted by The Rani

I had the same experience, minus the problem with hitting the target. The recoil kept jamming the damned gun. Now I know why Sarah Connor had to get pumped up in Terminator 2.
Playdude, why don't you just STFU already. Nobody cares about your (shriveled up geriatric) penis but you.

I was wondering where you've been. You add so much to any conversation.

Seems you're as schlong fixated as the rest of them. Maybe you could offer Justin or Copperhead something to nudge them toward actually showing their claims of prowess with their various guns. They seem a little camera shy. I wonder why? Well, not really, one thing everyone of you have done is fold when it gets down to actually backing up that faux Xer bravado.

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

Tsk-tsk. So now, because I have implied publicly that I recognize who I believe
is "losing the argument", I have joined some mythical club* that you've created?
Talk about "no suprise"!

You see Mr. Playwrite, IMO, you don't even know what you're arguing about anymore.
Justin(and Copper) have dismantled your assertion quite thoroughly, IMO.
And I'm certainly not going to alert you to it because I don't want to spoil the fun!
(and it is sort of fun watching you weasel!!).
[Note: BTW, I already learned enough about your lack of knowledge(and logic skills), and
general debating/arguing-MO when we were discussing your understanding of the MMT-POV].

So, what next? Are you going to say that I'm expressing a
"psychology of a cult"*; Or will it be that "affinity thing"*?

ETA:

LMAO! And there it is!
(and only one post later!)


Prince



Well, since I didn't know I was auditioning for the mythical club*, I really can't say.
But, if what you say is indeed true, I believe they would be occuring as we speak!


------------------
*some of your imaginary friends

Let's review just to see how much of a boot-lickin moron you are.

My assertion is that a revolver would have much less potential for, and in, a mass killing due, in part, to the time it takes to reload a revolver compared to a semi-automatic weapon.

Justin claimed that a revolver could be reloaded and fired comparable to a semi. He posted a video of guy loading individual cartridges on a table. I posted a video showing a guy firing 33 rounds from a Glock that makes his time comparison of the two weapons idiotic. Justin then pivoted to a time analysis of the Newtown shooting to support a claim that within the total time period of the actual shooting, one could get 100 rounds off using a revolver. I labeled this as the "fish-in-a-barrel" paradigm where all targets remain frozen during each of the shooter’s reloads. I not only doubted that would happen but led Justin to find a description of the last mass killing (in Rio) by a shooter with a revolver (actually two) where the recycle times ACTUALLY resulted in the targets (in a classroom by the way) having the time to escape, the shooter having to go searching for more targets, and the shooter eventually getting trapped and killed before he could inflict more damage.

There has been no ATTEMPT to counter where I left the argument let alone any credible rationale presented. I left it to them to provide a video proving Justin's assertion, accepting that either of them probable represents the typical skills of the typical bozo who owns a revolver. They have not posted anything along those lines. I guess with their familiarity, if not prowess, with firearms, it must be because they are unskilled or perhaps even fearful of cameras - you know, like what most cell phones today are capable of doing.

Now there's my argument. Can you show me what they have brought to refute it, i.e. can you indicate why you are not a moron?

But I think the bigger characteristic here is not you being a moron, it's instead the boot-lickin. And I think that is more about your affinity toward Copperhead.

So, was it his bringing up speedloaders? While that has nothing to do with Justin assinine sub-issue of loading 33 individual cartridges on a table (Justin's video, not mine), it could have a bearing on the real issue of whether you could reload/shoot a revolver 100 times on average of 3-20 seconds and still hit the barn door as oppose to putting a bullet in your leg. Again, I stand ready to accept their video proof - so that can't be the basis of your blind acceptance of Copperhead's viewpoint. It could, however, be the boot lickin thingee though. Am I right or at least on the right track?

Or was it Copperhead’s implying my use of the word "slug" was somehow exemplary of my lack of knowledge, i.e., I should have said "bullet?" I would imagine not only police and gang members who have seen bullet-ridden bodies and referred to slugs interchangeable without skipping a beat would find that funny but so would most anyone if given just a second thought about it. Again, not really a rational basis here for your total acceptance of his mastery, but maybe it really sounded macho to you and got you salivating for some boot time? Am I getting closer?

Or was it his posting a Google'd image of a 44 magnum? Now that must of put you into a tizzy! I beat the inclusion of the cigar in the photo might have even put you over the edge, hey?

Or was it his obsession with Dirty Harry and sharing his Google-obtained info on film mistakes? I bet you remember the length of that barrel on Harry’s gun, no?

Or was it just his repeated mouthing-off of how knowledgeable he was - without, you know, one shred of evidence to that effect?

Or, be honest here, was it his bringing up his dreamy schlong size?

Am I missing anything? Can you point to anything else in any of his responses? You know, anything that supports an actual rational valid point that would prove you're not a moron for accepting his "argument" Or, barring that, what was it that really got you off - I'm interested in what drives a boot licker. Please share.

Originally Posted by The Rani

See the "where the women at" thread.

You got that one backwards. Sorry man, I love you (sort of) but I'm as convinced as the rest of them that you're FOS when it comes to your own creds.

Don't be sorry; given your credibility on this thread, you're doubt is incredibly supportive. That is, if I gave a rat's ass - I don't.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Let's review just to see how much of a boot-lickin moron you are.

"boot-lickin' moron"? That's the best you can come-up with, PW?
(You should know by now that your insults don't work with me; I think they're funny).

Originally Posted by PW

My assertion is that a revolver would have much less potential for, and in, a mass killing due, in part, to the time it takes to reload a revolver compared to a semi-automatic weapon.

Justin claimed that a revolver could be reloaded and fired comparable to a semi. He posted a video of guy loading individual cartridges on a table. I posted a video showing a guy firing 33 rounds from a Glock that makes his time comparison of the two weapons idiotic. Justin then pivoted to a time analysis of the Newtown shooting to support a claim that within the total time period of the actual shooting, one could get 100 rounds off using a revolver. I labeled this as the "fish-in-a-barrel" paradigm where all targets remain frozen during each of the shooter’s reloads. I not only doubted that would happen but led Justin to find a description of the last mass killing (in Rio) by a shooter with a revolver (actually two) where the recycle times ACTUALLY resulted in the targets (in a classroom by the way) having the time to escape, the shooter having to go searching for more targets, and the shooter eventually getting trapped and killed before he could inflict more damage.

There has been no ATTEMPT to counter where I left the argument let alone any credible rationale presented. I left it to them to provide a video proving Justin's assertion, accepting that either of them probable represents the typical skills of the typical bozo who owns a revolver. They have not posted anything along those lines. I guess with their familiarity, if not prowess, with firearms, it must be because they are unskilled or perhaps even fearful of cameras - you know, like what most cell phones today are capable of doing. <snip roll-eyes>

Now there's my argument. Can you show me what they have brought to refute it, i.e. can you indicate why you are not a moron?

I'm really not interested in winning any argument(least of all, this one).
IOW, your dis-agreement is with Justin and Copper; not me.
IOW, you're trying to have an argument with a moron, you imbecile!
(Hey, at least I didn't call you an "idiot"!)

Originally Posted by PW

But I think the bigger characteristic here is not you being a moron, it's instead the boot-lickin. And I think that is more about your affinity toward Copperhead.

I do indeed have an affinity for Copper, but what I believe you describe as "boot licking",
I describe as "respect". I respect Copper's knowledge and overall way I see his mind as
operating. Justin's too, for that matter. I don't think you're stupid, PW; But, generally-speaking,
I really don't respect you. Something to consider.

Originally Posted by PW

So, was it his bringing up speedloaders? While that has nothing to do with Justin assinine sub-issue of loading 33 individual cartridges on a table (Justin's video, not mine), it could have a bearing on the real issue of whether you could reload/shoot a revolver 100 times on average of 3-20 seconds and still hit the barn door as oppose to putting a bullet in your leg. Again, I stand ready to accept their video proof - so that can't be the basis of your blind acceptance of Copperhead's viewpoint. It could, however, be the boot lickin thingee though. Am I right or at least on the right track?

Or was it Copperhead’s implying my use of the word "slug" was somehow exemplary of my lack of knowledge, i.e., I should have said "bullet?" I would imagine not only police and gang members who have seen bullet-ridden bodies and referred to slugs interchangeable without skipping a beat would find that funny but so would most anyone if given just a second thought about it. Again, not really a rational basis here for your total acceptance of his mastery, but maybe it really sounded macho to you and got you salivating for some boot time? Am I getting closer?

Or was it his posting a Google'd image of a 44 magnum? Now that must of put you into a tizzy! I beat the inclusion of the cigar in the photo might have even put you over the edge, hey?

Or was it his obsession with Dirty Harry and sharing his Google-obtained info on film mistakes? I bet you remember the length of that barrel on Harry’s gun, no?

Or was it just his repeated mouthing-off of how knowledgeable he was - without, you know, one shred of evidence to that effect?

Am I missing anything? Can you point to anything else in any of his responses? You know, anything that supports an actual rational valid point that would prove you're not a moron for accepting his "argument" Or, barring that, what was it that really got you off - I'm interested in what drives a boot licker. Please share.

It's actually Justin that has dismantled your arguments using his nomal high-level of precision;
Your responses to Copper have uncovered completely different aspects of what makes you
so enjoyable. But as I have stated before, I don't want to ruin the fun!


Prince

PS:

Originally Posted by PW

Or, be honest here, was it his bringing up his dreamy schlong size?

"There you go again"!
("dreamy"; Too funny!)

Originally Posted by playwrite

Justin claimed that a revolver could be reloaded and fired comparable to a semi.

Again, I did no more or less than factually dispute your claim that a semiautomatic with a "massacre clip" was a necessary component of a mass shooting being as bad as it was. My proof lay simply in the fact that as many, if not more, bullets can be fired from a traditional six-shooter revolver in the same period as were fired during the Newtown shooting. That is, that a revolver is indeed sufficient tool to get that one particular set of results (which you had mistakenly claimed were exclusively due to a big scary gun and clip).

The rest of the revolvers-versus-semiautomatics argument is all just you and your imaginary friends.

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

"boot-lickin' moron"? That's the best you can come-up with, PW?
(You should know by now that your insults don't work with me; I think they're funny).

And yours are not. So PW is superior to you. He wins.

I'm really not interested in winning any argument(least of all, this one).
IOW, your dis-agreement is with Justin and Copper; not me.
IOW, you're trying to have an argument with a moron, you imbecile!
(Hey, at least I didn't call you an "idiot"!

You argue, and then hide behind the pretense that you are not arguing. A passive-aggressive Aries tactic. And since you DID call ME an "idiot," mostly just because I disagree with you, I don't think much of your qualification to judge..... sir

I do indeed have an affinity for Copper, but what I believe you describe as "boot licking",
I describe as "respect". I respect Copper's knowledge and overall way I see his mind as
operating. Justin's too, for that matter. I don't think you're stupid, PW; But, generally-speaking,
I really don't respect you. Something to consider.

Something to consider; who cares if you don't respect him?

It's actually Justin that has dismantled your arguments using his normal high-level of precision;
Your responses to Copper have uncovered completely different aspects of what makes you
so enjoyable. But as I have stated before, I don't want to ruin the fun!

You are arguing by proxy. I guess you think that's fun; I don't. I prefer to make my own arguments and standing by them, not hiding from them like you do, sir.

"There you go again"!
("dreamy"; Too funny!)

You claim he is not your hero. I won't press the point. But RR is your role model in this case. He won the debate with the people, not by winning on the merits, but by making that meaningless but charming rejoinder.

OK, back to ignoring you.

Originally Posted by The Rani

This is a good Xer motto.

Yes, I agree. If they can live up to it.

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

"boot-lickin' moron"? That's the best you can come-up with, PW?
(You should know by now that your insults don't work with me; I think they're funny).



I'm really not interested in winning any argument(least of all, this one).
IOW, your dis-agreement is with Justin and Copper; not me.
IOW, you're trying to have an argument with a moron, you imbecile!
(Hey, at least I didn't call you an "idiot"!)



I do indeed have an affinity for Copper, but what I believe you describe as "boot licking",
I describe as "respect". I respect Copper's knowledge and overall way I see his mind as
operating. Justin's too, for that matter. I don't think you're stupid, PW; But, generally-speaking,
I really don't respect you. Something to consider.



It's actually Justin that has dismantled your arguments using his nomal high-level of precision;
Your responses to Copper have uncovered completely different aspects of what makes you
so enjoyable. But as I have stated before, I don't want to ruin the fun!


Prince

PS:


"There you go again"!
("dreamy"; Too funny!)

Let's just note that you didn't point to one post or segment that refutes my argument. It's been "dismantle" because you got 'da faith'.

I'll stay with boot lickin moron - it fits you well.

You entered the argument when you offered your judgement of it. If you don't want to be in it, the answer is pretty simple - even for you.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Again, I did no more or less than factually dispute your claim that a semiautomatic with a "massacre clip" was a necessary component of a mass shooting being as bad as it was. My proof lay simply in the fact that as many, if not more, bullets can be fired from a traditional six-shooter revolver in the same period as were fired during the Newtown shooting. That is, that a revolver is indeed sufficient tool to get that one particular set of results (which you had mistakenly claimed were exclusively due to a big scary gun and clip).

The rest of the revolvers-versus-semiautomatics argument is all just you and your imaginary friends.

Then I was wrong about you. You are incapable of grasping that the issue isn't total time available; instead, (as I have repeatedly said) it is about the reactions by the targets/responders within that total time period and whether the reloading/firing cycle allows more degrees-of-freedom for the targets/responders to act to reduce the carnage (as in Rio) within that total time period.

I thought this was a pretty easy concept to grasp and that the lack of either you or Copperhead from producing the video counter evidence was just due to your brainstems actually grasping the concept sufficient enough to know you are wrong and going ‘radio silent’ to avoid the embarrassment of being shown to being pawned once again by a Boomer - by video no less (or more accurately, your lack of video). Or perhaps, both of you have spend so much on your arsenals that you have nothing left over for a pretty cheap cell phone or camera?

At last, apparently your brainstems can't grasp the concept to begin with. This may be a subconscious defensive mechanism to hide your incompetence from yourself. Unfortunately, it doesn't work on me; I love tearing you all a new one.

Originally Posted by The Rani

This is a good Xer motto.

Yep, until their 'thinking' is shown to be complete idiotic machismo.

Then they just whine about being right because, well, they're right and they don't have to prove nothin to nobody. Because? Well, that's just how they roll.

Apparently, they got fan clubs though - I'll say that much for them.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Don't be sorry; given your credibility on this thread, you're doubt is incredibly supportive. That is, if I gave a rat's ass - I don't.

Visual display of an actual rat's ass has been provided for educational content.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

And yours are not. So PW is superior to you. He wins.

Eric. An "insult" is a statement. A statement may be intended as an "insult", or a
statement may be interpreted as an "insult". So, I may make a statement that's
intended to be an "insult", but the receiver may not interpret it as "insulting". But,
I may make a statement that's not intended as an "insult", and the receiver may
interpret it as "insulting". I find that many times my statements directed towards
you that are not intended as insults, are interpreted as being insulting.

It's actually somewhat tragic(and pretty frustrating for me) because there have been
many times where I would like to back you up on an observation, but choose not to
because it's very difficult to make a statement and not have it twisted around for your
own purposes(eg: Spirituality). You see, I really don't mind that you appear to be stuck
in your beliefs(I'm not attempting to change your mind); Being stubborn is the flip-side
of commitment, IMO. So for me, it's not good or bad; It just is. But, that same
stubbonness/commitment also makes it difficult to interact with you on anything that
might take some degree of drill-down, or open-mindedness on your part, IMO. And I say
this because, despite what you might think, I actually like you as a person. You see, you
want to discuss issues, but it's your MO that's in the way of discussing issues, IMO. You
may not agree with me on this, but I believe it's something you may want to at least
consider if you find yourself having trouble communicating with others.
IOW, "Help me...help you"....

Originally Posted by Eric

Something to consider; who cares if you don't respect him?

IMO, it's not about whether I personally respect him, or not; What matters is whether or
not he(or you for that matter) is interested in being respected by anyone. It certainly doesn't
matter what I think about either of you(I'm just some troll(!) on the internet). But if you
want to be respected, it's something that is "earned". Copper and Justin have earned my
respect through interacting with them(again, not that having my respect matters).
Mr. Playwrite has not(again, not that it matters). That is all. But that's not to say that he,
or anyone else, couldn't earn my respect over time(if that matters to them).
[Note: Apparently Mr. Playwrite served in the US Military; If true, I am appreciative and
thankful for that service whether it was voluntary, or involuntary(this goes for anyone else
that may have served, as well.)]

Originally Posted by Eric

You are arguing by proxy. I guess you think that's fun; I don't. I prefer to make my own arguments and standing by them, not hiding from them like you do, sir.

I'm not arguing the "revolver vs. gun-clip at Sandy Hook"-thingy. I only stated that, IMO,
Justin has dismantled PW's original argument to my satisfaction. I could go-through and
say exactly why there's an apparent mis-communication occuring, but Justin has attempted
to do that a number of times(and unsuccessfully, it seems). And as I've already stated, it
might ruin the fun that Justin and Copper(and PW, I might add!) appear to be having.

Originally Posted by Eric

You claim he is not your hero. I won't press the point. But RR is your role model in this case. He won the debate with the people, not by winning on the merits, but by making that meaningless but charming rejoinder.

Yes, I don't despise RR(you can't even say his name!), but it was just a reference to
the words(I really hadn't even considered how annoying that would be for either of you.
Thanks!)

BTW, how could RR be my hero if I've stated many times before that Iran/Contra
occurred on his watch(Alzheimer's or not). Iran/Contra was un-acceptable, IMO.
Plus, I voted for Bill Clinton twice! So, blow it out your ass!<razz!>

FWIW, if you really want to know, my hero is probably Branch Rickey.

Originally Posted by Eric

OK, back to ignoring you.

Ho-hum.


Prince

PS: I saved this one for the "PS:" (heh-heh)

Originally Posted by Eric

You argue, and then hide behind the pretense that you are not arguing. A passive-aggressive Aries tactic. And since you DID call ME an "idiot," mostly just because I disagree with you, I don't think much of your qualification to judge..... sir

Actually I called you a complete "idiot"(and clueless for that matter!). It wasn't
because Idisagreed with you and I even explained why. See, here's the interaction:

Oh wait.
Someone appears to have deleted their response, Eric. How could that have happened?
No problem. I've got your original(un-deleted) response in my response!, so, here it is:

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

Prophet-Boomers made some really good movies and music, IMO.
I wouldn't be as optimistic as I am without growing-up as a kid
in that time-period(1970's and 1980's).

Prince

Originally Posted by Eric the Green
Excellent. Those are the "right dreams." And by that I mean, the dreams that come from the higher source, when we tune in to the one mind, and can listen to others as well. The "right dreams" come when we are open to receive them in our hearts and minds. If I have an idea what some of those are, it is only because I have been open. And I seek to remain open. And because, like you, I experienced what others offered to us in the 60s and 70s, and even beyond the mainstream culture, in the 80s and 90s.

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

Eric. The FACT that you responded and defined my statement
without asking me what I meant is a major aspect of why I think you're a complete idiot.
You are clueless. Seriously.

So, for that, you get a video.


Prince

"The Right Dreams". <Prince, still shaking my head in dis-belief>

[Note: For the record, I want it noted that I left off the Bugs Bunny-graphic at the end,
(but left the vid!(heh heh), not to attempt fraud, but out of consideration for your feelings,
Eric. I certainly have no problem re-posting it all in its entirety if that's what you desire.

BTW, this post took me a long time to construct. I doubt I will devote this much
time in the future. Just sayin.

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

Eric. An "insult" is a statement. A statement may be intended as an "insult", or a
statement may be interpreted as an "insult". So, I may make a statement that's
intended to be an "insult", but the receiver may not interpret it as "insulting". But,
I may make a statement that's not intended as an "insult", and the receiver may
interpret it as "insulting". I find that many times my statements directed towards
you that are not intended as insults, are interpreted as being insulting.

Your statements to me were clearly insults, and intended as such. However, it is wise for me not to be too offended, as The Rani pointed out. Only egos are offended, not real souls.

It's actually somewhat tragic(and pretty frustrating for me) because there have been
many times where I would like to back you up on an observation, but choose not to
because it's very difficult to make a statement and not have it twisted around for your
own purposes(eg: Spirituality). You see, I really don't mind that you appear to be stuck
in your beliefs(I'm not attempting to change your mind); Being stubborn is the flip-side
of commitment, IMO. So for me, it's not good or bad; It just is. But, that same
stubbornness/commitment also makes it difficult to interact with you on anything that
might take some degree of drill-down, or open-mindedness on your part, IMO. And I say
this because, despite what you might think, I actually like you as a person. You see, you
want to discuss issues, but it's your MO that's in the way of discussing issues, IMO. You
may not agree with me on this, but I believe it's something you may want to at least
consider if you find yourself having trouble communicating with others.
IOW, "Help me...help you"....

I do my best, given what I know. I am stubborn. I think being stubborn applies to virtually every person who has ever posted here; I am no different.

IMO, it's not about whether I personally respect him, or not; What matters is whether or
not he(or you for that matter) is interested in being respected by anyone. It certainly doesn't
matter what I think about either of you(I'm just some troll(!) on the internet). But if you
want to be respected, it's something that is "earned". Copper and Justin have earned my
respect through interacting with them(again, not that having my respect matters).
Mr. Playwrite has not(again, not that it matters). That is all. But that's not to say that he,
or anyone else, couldn't earn my respect over time(if that matters to them).
[Note: Apparently Mr. Playwrite served in the US Military; If true, I am appreciative and
thankful for that service whether it was voluntary, or involuntary(this goes for anyone else
that may have served, as well.)]

It just appears to me an unnecesary comment. If you don't interact with him well, then you don't have to interact with him. Everyone knows he calls people names; that's not news to anyone. That's part of his MO. I respect what he says, and that's more important to me. I think if you have an opinion on guns, you would do better to enter the arena and defend your views, instead of just alluding to them and then backing away from your position. It does not exhibit the "authenticity" which you claim I don't have.

PS: I saved this one for the "PS:" (heh-heh)

Originally Posted by Eric
You argue, and then hide behind the pretense that you are not arguing. A passive-aggressive Aries tactic. And since you DID call ME an "idiot," mostly just because I disagree with you, I don't think much of your qualification to judge..... sir
Actually I called you a complete "idiot"(and clueless for that matter!). It wasn't
because I disagreed with you and I even explained why. See, here's the interaction:

Oh wait.
Someone appears to have deleted their response, Eric. How could that have happened?
No problem. I've got your original(un-deleted) response in my response!, so, here it is:

Originally Posted by princeofcats67
Prophet-Boomers made some really good movies and music, IMO.
I wouldn't be as optimistic as I am without growing-up as a kid
in that time-period(1970's and 1980's).

Prince
Originally Posted by Eric the Green
Excellent. Those are the "right dreams." And by that I mean, the dreams that come from the higher source, when we tune in to the one mind, and can listen to others as well. The "right dreams" come when we are open to receive them in our hearts and minds. If I have an idea what some of those are, it is only because I have been open. And I seek to remain open. And because, like you, I experienced what others offered to us in the 60s and 70s, and even beyond the mainstream culture, in the 80s and 90s.
Originally Posted by princeofcats67
Eric. The FACT that you responded and defined my statement
without asking me what I meant is a major aspect of why I think you're a complete idiot.
You are clueless. Seriously.

So, for that, you get a video.


Prince
"The Right Dreams". <Prince, still shaking my head in dis-belief>

[Note: For the record, I want it noted that I left off the Bugs Bunny-graphic at the end,
(but left the vid!(heh heh), not to attempt fraud, but out of consideration for your feelings,
Eric. I certainly have no problem re-posting it all in its entirety if that's what you desire.

BTW, this post took me a long time to construct. I doubt I will devote this much
time in the future. Just sayin.

OK I respect that.

It seems if I think some dreams are right and others not, I am entitled to that opinion. You disagree apparently that there is such a thing as "the right dreams," if I understand you correctly. If I agree with something, (e.g. that prophet-boomers made some really good movies and music) that means in other words that I think or experience that it is "right." That's all it means.

And sometimes I err in labeling or attributing things to others or the way I word things. If I make a mistake, that doesn't mean I am a complete idiot. I meant the post in question to be a compliment. I might make that mistake again, but if I can learn and do better, I will. In my opinion, it is more important to forgive people for the way they word things, and try to understand instead what people are saying. I do like it when mutual communication happens.

I think there is way too much judgement about boomers and Xers and millies and cuspers going on here. Can't we just look at people as individuals and be concerned with issues sometimes?

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

Visual display of an actual rat's ass has been provided for educational content.

Actually, Rags, if one turns said rat over -



- one can discern that what was thought of as being the derrière is actually a pair of a certain type of male appendage.

Please note that both photos are of the domestic version; the wild cousin is typically much more endowed with his pair.

This is considered required as well as general knowledge amongst those who live in the Big Apple. One does not let one's dog or cat wonder freely in the city - it's not so much their becoming lunch but the potential for some very weird and dangerous species cross-breeding.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Your statements to me were clearly insults, and intended as such. However, it is wise for me not to be too offended, as The Rani pointed out. Only egos are offended, not real souls.

Eric, my statements were intended to get you to think about what you were saying. If you were
offended(which you have now stated), you are always free to ask me to stop. And yes, I agree
with you and Rani. Only Egos are offended. As to a soul, I have no idea what you're talking about.

Originally Posted by Eric

I do my best, given what I know. I am stubborn. I think being stubborn applies to virtually every person who has ever posted here; I am no different.

Stubborn=Commited. It's only "good/bad" depending on situation and POV, IMO. As humans,
I believe we all have these traits to some degree or another. IMO, you are generally more "commited"
to your beliefs than some(ie: me). It really depends on what belief we're talking about, though. I have
certain beliefs that I have a strong commitment towards, but they are more along the lines of how
things operate, as opposed to actual outcomes. It's not all-or-nothing with me; Both matter.
Note: I'm not implying here that you are only interested in outcomes.

Originally Posted by Eric

It just appears to me an unnecesary comment. If you don't interact with him well, then you don't have to interact with him. Everyone knows he calls people names; that's not news to anyone. That's part of his MO. I respect what he says, and that's more important to me. I think if you have an opinion on guns, you would do better to enter the arena and defend your views, instead of just alluding to them and then backing away from your position. It does not exhibit the "authenticity" which you claim I don't have.

Of course I'm fine with you respecting what PW says. I'm fine with people respecting what anyone
says(I would think would be "a given"). See Eric, I don't have an opinion on guns(i/r/t their debate/argument).
In fact, I don't believe I ever mentioned anything even related to an opinion on guns in my response.
Let's have a look.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

Congratulations, you got all three. You officially know more about firearms than Clown Shoes! <snip cool-smiley>

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

Well, I wouldn't go that far, but I believe I know enough to know
who's losing the argument between You & Justin and Playdude!<snip ultra-smiley>
(and more importantly, who I'd want by my side if things get "dodgy"<snip cool-smiley>).

Nope. I responded to Copper after he had posed some questions about a scene from Dirty Harry.
I even went as far as to distance myself from agreeing to "officially know more about
firearms than Clown Shoes!". And, I'll add that, at that time, I hadn't even stated who
I thought was losing the argument(although I certainly implied that it was indeed: "Clown Shoes"!).
And, I haven't backed-away from my position that Justin(and Copper)have dis-mantled PW's
original argument to a degree that is sufficient, IMO. And, I've stated that the reason that I haven't
stated the reasons for that belief are because I'm not interested in "ruining the fun" that Justin, Copper
(and Mr. Playwrite, I might add) appear to be having.

So that's that(as far as I'm concerned).


Prince

PS: Note: I'm really not that interested in describing this sort of thing,
and will most likely refrain from doing so in the future. Just sayin.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

OK I respect that.

It seems if I think some dreams are right and others not, I am entitled to that opinion.

Of course you're entitled to your opinion; It's an opinion. I respect all opinions
for being an opinion(ie: someone's personal belief). That doesn't mean I respect
the content of their opinion. But respecting their opinion, in-and-of-itself(ie: as a thing),
is pretty much, again: "a given", IMO.<grin>

Originally Posted by Eric

You disagree apparently that there is such a thing as "the right dreams," if I understand you correctly.

Yup. Big time.

Originally Posted by Eric

If I agree with something, (e.g. that prophet-boomers made some really good movies and music) that means in other words that I think or experience that it is "right." That's all it means.

Well, using the term: "right" in place of "I think it's "good", or "I like it" is problematic, IMO.
The complement of "right", is "wrong". Are there such things as "wrong" dreams?
And, if you were using "right" in place of "correct", that's a completely different issue.
And if you were using "right" in place of "affirmative", then I don't know what you meant.
And if you were using "right" instead of "a positive reponse i/r/t "yes" /"no", then I think
you probably don't even know what you meant.
(And I know that you weren't using "right" as opposed to "left"!
Hmm. The "right" dreams. I kinda like the sound of that!)

And that doesn't even touch-on the whole concept of "meaning".

Anyway, you added-in all that other stuff. You don't know that I meant that(and, in fact,
I did not mean that). There was no discussion on the matter as far as meaning. I said that
I believe I wouldn't be as optimistic as I am if I didn't grow-up as a kid in the '70's/'80s. You
started defining what I stated as being "right"(in your opinion; as if someone can even do
that ie: have an objective perception) and started adding a bunch of stuff such as a
"Higher Power" and "One Mind". And, even if I did believe that stuff, or even believed that it
was something that's characteristic of Boomer-created Art, the concept of "the right dreams"
being some sort of objective-thing and defining my statement, superceded that. IOW, even if
I agreed with you, the manner and concept that you are using to communicate is
dis-agreeable to me in-and-of-itself. That's one of the reasons why I say that it's difficult
for me i/r/t having any "deep" discussions(that usually require some drill-down, IME), and/or
complicated issues.

Originally Posted by Eric

And sometimes I err in labeling or attributing things to others or the way I word things. If I make a mistake, that doesn't mean I am a complete idiot.

Of course not Eric. But this is pretty much a re-occuring thing with you(eg: Libertarian Xers).
Look, as long as you don't chase me around the forum with that crap(which you have ceased,
and I thank you for that), I really don't have a problem, other than: The re-occuring issue of
making statements that have a certainty to them, that I would define as "Arrogance". And,
I'm not saying that you "should" stop doing that; I'm asking you to stop doing that with me,
because I find it extremely problematic i/r/t carrying-on any sort of meaningful discussion with
you(ie:i/r/t "deep"/complicated topics).

Originally Posted by Eric

I meant the post in question to be a compliment.

Well thanks Eric. But as I stated above, it looks as if you were only complimenting yourself.
No biggie; I'm used to it!

Originally Posted by Eric

I might make that mistake again,...

I'm pretty certain you will.

Originally Posted by Eric

...but if I can learn and do better, I will. In my opinion, it is more important to forgive people for the way they word things, and try to understand instead what people are saying. I do like it when mutual communication happens.

Excellent, Eric. I agree. Forgiveness belongs to us as Individuals(ie: it is in our power),
IMO/IME.

And I might add that understanding what someone is actual "saying" is important, as well as
what they "mean" with those statements. Meaning. Communication. Understanding.
I believe you and I may be on the "right" track, Eric.

Originally Posted by Eric

I think there is way too much judgement about boomers and Xers and millies and cuspers going on here. Can't we just look at people as individuals and be concerned with issues sometimes?

Eh? I believe there's a decent amount of truth in some of those stereo-types. But, not everyone
has the "non-judgemental personality" to handle the type of drill-down necessary to reach those
levels. That's what I'm getting-at(and I believe pretty much always have been) i/r/t getting past
what I perceive as a "communication-barrier" with you.


Prince

PS: So, going-forward, if you are acting in the manner that I have stated above as being
problematic(ie: certainty of opinion), I would ask that you be open to my observations, and/or
criticisms. I will attempt to be less offending i/r/t those interactions(ie: observations/criticisms).

And if this is all too much for you(ie: too complicated/boring/not understandable),
we really don't have to communicate and you can just as easily put me back on ignore.
Why not give it a try and see how it goes?

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

Eric, my statements were intended to get you to think about what you were saying. If you were offended(which you have now stated), you are always free to ask me to stop. And yes, I agree
with you and Rani. Only Egos are offended. As to a soul, I have no idea what you're talking about.

"complete idiot" is very thorough and final and does not allow me much room for thought or maneuvre with you. If you would like to retract your label of me as a complete idiot, and just say instead that you hope I would think more about what I'm saying, that would reassure me that communication with you may still be possible. So that is what I "ask."

I have certain beliefs that I have a strong commitment towards, but they are more along the lines of how
things operate, as opposed to actual outcomes. It's not all-or-nothing with me; Both matter.
Note: I'm not implying here that you are only interested in outcomes.

I am quite the reverse, although it's not all or nothing with me either. That would appear to me to be a generational difference (quite in accord with S&H theory).

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

Of course you're entitled to your opinion; It's an opinion. I respect all opinions
for being an opinion(ie: someone's personal belief). That doesn't mean I respect
the content of their opinion. But respecting their opinion, in-and-of-itself(ie: as a thing),
is pretty much, again: "a given", IMO.<grin>

Yup. Big time.

I do think there is such as thing as "the right dreams." But I agree the word "right" is problematic, especially if it has an authoritarian connotation. I have certain visions myself about where the country or the world or I myself could go that I prefer. They are my opinions, which are in turn my best estimate of what is actually and in fact "better," and I think it's possible to make such estimates. But it is only my best perception and guess, and I understand that opinions and experiences differ. Such visions are important and valuable to me, and I see that (for example) world peace, ecological sustainability, and profound beauty of design and expression, are better dreams than (for example) unregulated free enterprise, greater power for traditional religious authority, or my nation being militarily #1. And I think dreams and visions are more important to manifesting reality, than methods and processes of getting there; even though the methods and processes are part of how we get there.

Well, using the term: "right" in place of "I think it's "good", or "I like it" is problematic, IMO.
The complement of "right", is "wrong". Are there such things as "wrong" dreams?
And, if you were using "right" in place of "correct", that's a completely different issue.
And if you were using "right" in place of "affirmative", then I don't know what you meant.
And if you were using "right" instead of "a positive reponse i/r/t "yes" /"no", then I think
you probably don't even know what you meant.
(And I know that you weren't using "right" as opposed to "left"!
Hmm. The "right" dreams. I kinda like the sound of that!)

And that doesn't even touch-on the whole concept of "meaning".

Anyway, you added-in all that other stuff. You don't know that I meant that(and, in fact,
I did not mean that). There was no discussion on the matter as far as meaning. I said that
I believe I wouldn't be as optimistic as I am if I didn't grow-up as a kid in the '70's/'80s. You
started defining what I stated as being "right"(in your opinion; as if someone can even do
that ie: have an objective perception) and started adding a bunch of stuff such as a
"Higher Power" and "One Mind". And, even if I did believe that stuff, or even believed that it
was something that's characteristic of Boomer-created Art, the concept of "the right dreams"
being some sort of objective-thing and defining my statement, superceded that. IOW, even if
I agreed with you, the manner and concept that you are using to communicate is
dis-agreeable to me in-and-of-itself. That's one of the reasons why I say that it's difficult
for me i/r/t having any "deep" discussions(that usually require some drill-down, IME), and/or
complicated issues.

"Right" meant in general I had a "positive response"

Communication skill is important, and I agree my "compliment" to you was worded poorly, and assumed too much, and I take it back. Let's just say instead that I am encouraged that your experience of boomer music and movies gives you a more optimistic view. Many other Generation Xers here don't get that from boomer music or movies, it seems to me.

And I might add that understanding what someone is actual "saying" is important, as well as
what they "mean" with those statements. Meaning. Communication. Understanding.
I believe you and I may be on the "right" track, Eric.

The right track. Good. I guess "right" is OK with processes, but not with outcomes. Just kidding, I don't know

Eh? I believe there's a decent amount of truth in some of those stereo-types. But, not everyone
has the "non-judgemental personality" to handle the type of drill-down necessary to reach those
levels. That's what I'm getting-at(and I believe pretty much always have been) i/r/t getting past
what I perceive as a "communication-barrier" with you.

I can't say that I understand what you mean here.

PS: So, going-forward, if you are acting in the manner that I have stated above as being
problematic(ie: certainty of opinion), I would ask that you be open to my observations, and/or
criticisms. I will attempt to be less offending i/r/t those interactions(ie: observations/criticisms).

And if this is all too much for you(ie: too complicated/boring/not understandable),
we really don't have to communicate and you can just as easily put me back on ignore.
Why not give it a try and see how it goes?

OK, that sounds good, and we'll see how things go in response to these posts. Actually, you are still technically on ignore, but we'll see how it goes.

Originally Posted by The Rani

I'm going to butt in here and agree with you that "complete idiot" is objectively an insult.
However, whether you get all pouty about it is up to you.

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

Eric, my statements were intended to get you to think about what you were saying. If you were
offended(which you have now stated), you are always free to ask me to stop. And yes, I agree
with you and Rani. Only Egos are offended. As to a soul, I have no idea what you're talking about.

Thinking is not something that Eric the Obtuse is really capable of.

Originally Posted by Galen

Thinking is not something that Eric the Obtuse is really capable of.

Yes I am. I think I'll keep Galen on ignore!

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Yes I am. I think I'll keep Galen on ignore!

No you are not capable of thinking, but thanks for keeping me on ignore since it cuts down on the amount of stupidity I have to deal with.