[R.M. Schultz]That Axis History Forum Guy Again...

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2006-10-16 08:28pm

Keevan_Colton wrote:
Einhander Sn0m4n wrote:
General Zod wrote:How about addressing my other point fuckwit? Where is the harm in any of these actions? Or do you mindlessly believe that 'I don't like something' is justification enough to put a law in place and enforce it?
I have every reason to believe that's his exact outlook on morality. Ergo, he is worse than useless.
The Yosemite Bear wrote:did he just register with a new account whilst under a banwatch?
Wait, same IP?! Kill him. Kill him now. </Palpatine>
Not the same IP, do you think I'd let that slide?

Sorry I doubted you, Keevan.

R.M. Schultz · Post by **R.M. Schultz** » 2006-10-16 08:31pm

The above post by me has been altered and no longer reads as I wrote it but simply as I thought it, as helpfully translated by the friendly neighbourhood horseman. This position of mine is the very height of dishonesty and I refuse to be a better person and am fit only to be part of a forum that allows this kind of falsification to take place.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2006-10-16 08:31pm

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Big Orange · Post by **Big Orange** » 2006-10-16 08:33pm

Don't mind Beppo Schmidt, he is much more honest and is not cranky like R.M. Schultz is (plus he was there when I first started my interminable argument with Schultz about gay rights and the ethics of Alan Turing's persecution).

Post by **Dalton** » 2006-10-16 08:33pm

Is it me, or did R.M. Schultz claim that it was against the law to be black?

R.M. Schultz wrote:Parks broke the law for being who she was

Yup, guess he did.

R.M. Schultz wrote:The above post by me has been altered and no longer reads as I wrote it. This is the very height of dishonesty and I refuse to be a part of a forum that allows this kind of falsification to take place.

Actually, nothing that you've said has been removed or changed in any way. It's just been "horsemanized" in an effort to mock you relentlessly. Welcome to the SDN Hall of Shame. I see you're too much of a fucking crybaby to stick around, so why don't you go out and play.

Beppo Schmidt · Post by **Beppo Schmidt** » 2006-10-16 08:34pm

Alan Turing was an enfranchised citizen with fewer rights than other citizens, neither Rosa Parks nor any statistically significant number of Southern Blacks were though since they could have been if they passed certain almost impossible standards then it's their actions that kept them from being enfranchised. Thus, Turing owes the law a respect that does not bind Parks despite the law disrespecting them both.

Secondly, Alan Turing broke the law by his actions, Parks broke the law for being who she was, an important difference as no one gives full consent of the will to being of a certain race though I must admit that Rosa was free not to sit at the front of the bus and it was her actions that got her in shit

I think it could be argued that Alan Turing broke the law by being who he was too, although I guess if I believe homosexuality is innate and you don't, then we'll never agree on that point. But as you say yourself, Rosa Parks could have given up her seat and it technically was her actions that got her in trouble. It doesn't mean she should have had to, anymore than Alan Turing should have had to repress himself from acting on his sexual orientation. Rosa Parks' act was a display of civil disobedience- citizens refusing to follow a law which they felt was immoral and illegitimate. If Rosa Parks had the right to do, how can we deny the same to Alan Turing or other homosexuals?

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2006-10-16 08:36pm

Big Orange wrote:Don't mind Beppo Schmidt, he is much more honest and is not cranky like R.M. Schultz is (plus he was there when I first started my interminable argument with Schultz about gay rights and the ethics of Alan Turing's persecution).

So this is not an invasion of any sort? He seems more amenable to adapting to the conditions of another forum, as well as amenable to reason, than Shithead. of course, just about anyone is, essentially.

R.M. Schultz wrote:The above post by me has been altered and no longer reads as I wrote it. This is the very height of dishonesty and I refuse to be a part of a forum that allows this kind of falsification to take place.

Image macros removed.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2006-10-16 08:36pm

Who cares? Get this - discrimination is wrong, and it's a hilarious absurdity that Turing was imprisioned and died because he was gay. But hey, democracy = it's his fault, right?

Imperial Overlord · Post by **Imperial Overlord** » 2006-10-16 08:37pm

He's surprised to be horsemanized? Isn't it described in the forum rules, which he should have read? Which of course means another rules violation for his Senate ban poll (not that he really needs any more).

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2006-10-16 08:37pm

Stark wrote:AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

I quite agree

Post by **Simplicius** » 2006-10-16 08:38pm

R.M. Schultz wrote:The above post by me has been altered and no longer reads as I wrote it. This is the very height of dishonesty and I refuse to be a part of a forum that allows this kind of falsification to take place.

Maybe if you hadn't been such a dishonest cunt, you wouldn't have reason to whine about established and clearly explained board tradition and policy.

Don't forget to take that tail out from between your legs when you get home, wuss. You know what they say: heat, kitchen, etc. Good riddance.

Ryushikaze · Post by **Ryushikaze** » 2006-10-16 08:39pm

Y'know, I've mostly stayed out of this thread because anything I was going to say to you had already been said thrice by the time I got here, but I'd like to extend to RM Schulz the hearty imperative of 'go suck on a live wire and do something productive for once in your life' before he goes. So, off you go. Remember, the lower the Ohms, the better.

Good day, and in all certainty, goodbye. Your stay has been short, and it won't be getting longer.

Beppo Schmidt · Post by **Beppo Schmidt** » 2006-10-16 08:57pm

Well...as much as I disagree with R.M. Schultz about homosexuality, I have to say...

A very reasonable assessment. I would concur, adding only that the key variable in whether a genuine change can occur is strength of will (or sexual dominance because lets face it, I really secretly want fucked in the ass by a donkey, but I dont have the stength of will to do it alone...I need a dominant donkey to liberate me to be a interspecies eroticist.).

That was childish. What are you, ten?

Wyrm · Post by **Wyrm** » 2006-10-16 08:59pm

R.M. Schultz wrote:A specious analogy for two reasons:

Alan Turing was an enfranchised citizen with fewer rights than other citizens, neither Rosa Parks nor any statistically significant number of Southern Blacks were though since they could have been if they passed certain almost impossible standards then it's their actions that kept them from being enfranchised. Thus, Turing owes the law a respect that does not bind Parks despite the law disrespecting them both.

Secondly, Alan Turing broke the law by his actions, Parks broke the law for being who she was, an important difference as no one gives full consent of the will to being of a certain race though I must admit that Rosa was free not to sit at the front of the bus and it was her actions that got her in shit...oops, please ignore me I'm a fuckwit.

Hmmm, I might have commented on this, but looks like a passing horseman beat me to the major points. (Edi? Was that you?) So I'll just point and laugh.

R.M. Schultz wrote:
Beppo Schmidt wrote:Oh sure, sexuality can be fluid. Many people (most?) do not fit neatly into categories of 100% straight, 100% gay, or 50/50 bisexual, nor should they have to. We are "more than the some of our parts", so to speak; many "straight" people have a few homosexual encounters at some point or other, and vice versa, especially in their youth. But this very fact makes it hard to determine who really changes their sexual orientation and who doesn't. And a society which has and unfortunately sometimes continues to compel people to feel that they have to pretend to be or even force themselves to be a certain sexual orientation in order to be socially accepted makes it doubly hard to determine. How can we be sure that these people truly changed their sexuality or simply forced themselves to conform to what society thinks they should be?
A very reasonable assessment. I would concur, adding only that the key variable in whether a genuine change can occur is strength of will ...

Learn to read, fuckwit. Beppo was NOT agreeing with you; indeed, his point destroys yours.

R.M. Schultz wrote:The above post by me has been not been altered and no longer reads as I wrote it but simply as I thought it, as helpfully translated by the friendly neighbourhood horseman. This position of mine is the very height of dishonesty and I refuse to be a better person and am fit only to be part of a forum that allows this kind of falsification to take place.

Didn't you notice the pretty colors, you witless turd? We can easily tell between your actual position and the passing horseman's mocking of it. And didn't you read the forum rules? The Horsmen of the Apocalypse have leave to edit any post they want.

By the way, HAHA!!

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2006-10-16 09:00pm

Who cares? He's throwing around baseless supposition like valid arguments. He's clearly an idiot or poor debater, and the rules clearly state what happens to people who make claims and refuse to defend them. Take your style-over-substance crap and find a gentlemanly forum.

Wanderer · Post by **Wanderer** » 2006-10-16 09:02pm

Beppo Schmidt wrote:Well...as much as I disagree with R.M. Schultz about homosexuality, I have to say...

A very reasonable assessment. I would concur, adding only that the key variable in whether a genuine change can occur is strength of will (or sexual dominance because lets face it, I really secretly want fucked in the ass by a donkey, but I dont have the stength of will to do it alone...I need a dominant donkey to liberate me to be a interspecies eroticist.).
That was childish. What are you, ten?

You want the attention of the Horsemen, keep it up. It comes with being in this here Hall of Shame. Consider this a friendly heads up.

Wanderer · Post by **Wanderer** » 2006-10-16 09:05pm

R.M. Schultz wrote:
A specious analogy for two reasons:

Alan Turing was an enfranchised citizen, neither Rosa Parks nor any statistically significant number of Southern Blacks were . Thus, Turing owes the law a respect that does not bind Parks.

Secondly, Alan Turing broke the law by his actions, Parks broke the law for being who she was, an important difference as no one gives full consent of the will to being of a certain race.

Are you going to prove that fucktard or ignore our calls for proof?

Beppo Schmidt · Post by **Beppo Schmidt** » 2006-10-16 09:06pm

oh woohoo...I'm scared.

You said in this forum you call a spade a spade. Well, I did. So I'm following your forum rules.

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2006-10-16 09:07pm

Wanderer wrote:
Beppo Schmidt wrote:Well...as much as I disagree with R.M. Schultz about homosexuality, I have to say...

A very reasonable assessment. I would concur, adding only that the key variable in whether a genuine change can occur is strength of will (or sexual dominance because lets face it, I really secretly want fucked in the ass by a donkey, but I dont have the stength of will to do it alone...I need a dominant donkey to liberate me to be a interspecies eroticist.).
That was childish. What are you, ten?
You want the attention of the Horsemen, keep it up. It comes with being in this here Hall of Shame. Consider this a friendly heads up.

Notice he removes the colorcoding as well. VERY dishonest.

Beppo Schmidt · Post by **Beppo Schmidt** » 2006-10-16 09:09pm

Whatever some of you may think, I didn't show up here looking to pick a fight.

Beppo Schmidt · Post by **Beppo Schmidt** » 2006-10-16 09:11pm

Notice he removes the colorcoding as well. VERY dishonest.

Oh please. That's the way it came out when I quoted it in my post. But I'm sure you know that perfectly well.

Are we going to have any further debate or are you going to gang up on me now?

CDiehl · Post by **CDiehl** » 2006-10-16 09:11pm

A specious analogy for two reasons:

Alan Turing was an enfranchised citizen with fewer rights than other citizens, neither Rosa Parks nor any statistically significant number of Southern Blacks were though since they could have been if they passed certain almost impossible standards then it's their actions that kept them from being enfranchised. Thus, Turing owes the law a respect that does not bind Parks despite the law disrespecting them both.

Secondly, Alan Turing broke the law by his actions, Parks broke the law for being who she was, an important difference as no one gives full consent of the will to being of a certain race though I must admit that Rosa was free not to sit at the front of the bus and it was her actions that got her in shit...oops, please ignore me I'm a fuckwit.

The fact that you can place Turing in some invented classification called "enfranchised citizen" doesn't excuse subjecting him or anyone else to abuse or discrimination, no matter how you argue that he has some sort of ability to redress that treatment. By that rule, all anyone has to do to be able to mistreat a group of people is to make up a way to characterize them as "enfranchised," then all the abuse magically becomes OK. It would be just as much a load of bullshit as your claim that what happened to Turing is justified because it's being done to an "enfranchised citizen."

The above post by me has been altered and no longer reads as I wrote it. This is the very height of dishonesty and I refuse to be a part of a forum that allows this kind of falsification to take place.

Well, don't let the door hit you, I guess.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2006-10-16 09:12pm

Beppo Schmidt wrote:oh woohoo...I'm scared.

You said in this forum you call a spade a spade. Well, I did. So I'm following your forum rules.

Hilarious, since you clearly haven't READ the rules. Maybe you should do so?

Big Orange · Post by **Big Orange** » 2006-10-16 09:13pm

I had very a hearty chuckle as well when R.M. Schultz had his recent posts mocked and "improved" by the admins.

And Beppo Schmidt as long as you don't antagonise other users, post silly or wrong opinions and present fundamentally flawed arguments that R.M. Schultz has been doing here, you won't be openly derided and mocked like he has in this thread. You're free to drop by.

Big Orange · Post by **Big Orange** » 2006-10-16 09:19pm

CDiehl wrote:
The fact that you can place Turing in some invented classification called "enfranchised citizen" doesn't excuse subjecting him or anyone else to abuse or discrimination, no matter how you argue that he has some sort of ability to redress that treatment. By that rule, all anyone has to do to be able to mistreat a group of people is to make up a way to characterize them as "enfranchised," then all the abuse magically becomes OK. It would be just as much a load of bullshit as your claim that what happened to Turing is justified because it's being done to an "enfranchised citizen."

You could argue that the Jews in Germany and Austria were fully enfanchised when the Nazis seized power in 1933 and were still full citizens with full rights (until of course the Nazis gradually introduced laws to rob them of their citizenships and rights throughout the rest of the 1930s).