Answering Ender, Per CmndrWilkens Request

A failed experiment whereby board users were invited to advise the Senate, and instead attempted to replace the Senate.
User avatar
Havok
Miscreant
Posts: 13016
Joined: 2005-07-02 10:41pm
Location: Oakland CA
Contact:

Answering Ender, Per CmndrWilkens Request

Post by Havok » 2009-04-08 09:03pm

Ender wrote:And as a counter, here we have Havok claiming that the use of child soldiers is something we should be doing, that we don't use them because we "coddle our children into their 20s and think they are complete fucking idiots" and objects to the idea it is a war crime.
Care to quote where I actually said that, or are you just going to keep harping on this after a year... hey isn't that a vendetta?... because you are too fucking stupid to get the point that the Star Wars universe is NOT ours? And correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't 18 the legal age, and in some cases 17, that teenagers can enter into military service? So my claim that we coddle children into their 20s actually has no bearing on your argument. Oops... my bad... you are already a Senator. Carry on with the vendetta.
I'd also cite the Poe thread as a reason against him, as that was just blustering posturing and flaming rather then the reasoned discourse we are supposed to strive for.
I would agree with this, as I was simply rising to the esteemed, well regarded, quality level of one of the Senate and ASVS members. Oh wait. I also answered all Poe points... repeatedly. He chose to ignore that, as apparently you do as well. Sorry you don't like the packaging. Need a tissue?
Image
It's 106 miles to Chicago, we got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark... and we're wearing sunglasses.
Hit it.
Blank Yellow (NSFW)
"Mostly Harmless Nutcase"

User avatar
Flagg
CUNTS FOR EYES!
Posts: 12797
Joined: 2005-06-09 09:56pm
Location: Hell. In The Room Right Next to Reagan. He's Fucking Bonzo. No, wait... Bonzo's fucking HIM.

Re: Answering Ender, Per CmndrWilkens Request

Post by Flagg » 2009-04-08 09:09pm

Yeah, that post reeks of vendetta. A member of the senate should know better, frankly.
We pissing our pants yet?
-Negan

You got your shittin' pants on? Because you’re about to
Shit. Your. Pants!
-Negan

He who can,
does; he who cannot, teaches.
-George Bernard Shaw

User avatar
Stark
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 36169
Joined: 2002-07-03 09:56pm
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Contact:

Re: Answering Ender, Per CmndrWilkens Request

Post by Stark » 2009-04-08 09:13pm

It's fascinating that Ender hates a lot of people (myself included) but poor old Hav gets this sort of thing. At least he's honest and doesn't say 'I choose not to vote because... um... cookies' or whatever.

User avatar
Flagg
CUNTS FOR EYES!
Posts: 12797
Joined: 2005-06-09 09:56pm
Location: Hell. In The Room Right Next to Reagan. He's Fucking Bonzo. No, wait... Bonzo's fucking HIM.

Re: Answering Ender, Per CmndrWilkens Request

Post by Flagg » 2009-04-08 09:30pm

Stark wrote:It's fascinating that Ender hates a lot of people (myself included) but poor old Hav gets this sort of thing. At least he's honest and doesn't say 'I choose not to vote because... um... cookies' or whatever.
My problem is that if he has an issue with a particular nominee he's free to vote "no" and say why in the senate thread as opposed to trying to sabotage the nomination with a bitchy post that has "vendetta" poorly scrawled all over it in red crayon.
We pissing our pants yet?
-Negan

You got your shittin' pants on? Because you’re about to
Shit. Your. Pants!
-Negan

He who can,
does; he who cannot, teaches.
-George Bernard Shaw

User avatar
Stark
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 36169
Joined: 2002-07-03 09:56pm
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Contact:

Re: Answering Ender, Per CmndrWilkens Request

Post by Stark » 2009-04-08 09:34pm

Well it wouldn't be an old boys club if they didn't complain about 'wrong' nominations or people who 'don't fit' being nominated. :) Remember when they were appalled that when the HoC nominated people, those people weren't orthodox? Amazing! :)

User avatar
Ender
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 11322
Joined: 2002-07-30 11:12pm
Location: Illinois

Re: Answering Ender, Per CmndrWilkens Request

Post by Ender » 2009-04-08 10:30pm

Havok wrote:
Ender wrote:And as a counter, here we have Havok claiming that the use of child soldiers is something we should be doing, that we don't use them because we "coddle our children into their 20s and think they are complete fucking idiots" and objects to the idea it is a war crime.
Care to quote where I actually said that,
That was a word for word quote from you from the thread I linked to. So yes, I did quote where you actually said that.
or are you just going to keep harping on this after a year... hey isn't that a vendetta?...
The topic brought up was your previous posting, making this directly relevant. So no, it is not a vendetta, it is me following the rules.
because you are too fucking stupid to get the point that the Star Wars universe is NOT ours?
The full body of that sentence was stating that it was not like modern earth, with you implicitly condemning the fact that earth does not allow child soldiers.
And correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't 18 the legal age, and in some cases 17, that teenagers can enter into military service?
You can sign up at that age but you are a ward of the service and will not see active duty until you are an adult.
So my claim that we coddle children into their 20s actually has no bearing on your argument. Oops... my bad... you are already a Senator. Carry on with the vendetta.
Yes, how dare I review your posting history when we are charged with reviewing your posting history.
I would agree with this, as I was simply rising to the esteemed, well regarded, quality level of one of the Senate and ASVS members. Oh wait. I also answered all Poe points... repeatedly. He chose to ignore that, as apparently you do as well. Sorry you don't like the packaging. Need a tissue?
As I said at the time, that was a pathetic showing from all sides that should be regarded as an embarrassment to the board. Further, the statement for what we should seek was made after that thread.


I request that this be folded back into the nomination thread, as Havok attacking me for carrying out my duties is yet another example as to why he should not be a Senator.
بيرني كان سيفوز
*
Nuclear Navy Warwolf
*
in omnibus requiem quaesivi, et nusquam inveni nisi in angulo cum libro
*
ipsa scientia potestas est

User avatar
Ender
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 11322
Joined: 2002-07-30 11:12pm
Location: Illinois

Re: Answering Ender, Per CmndrWilkens Request

Post by Ender » 2009-04-08 10:31pm

Flagg wrote:Yeah, that post reeks of vendetta. A member of the senate should know better, frankly.
We are supposed to review the posting history of the person in question. How is bringing up past examples of their behavior, which is what we are directly required to do, a vendetta?
بيرني كان سيفوز
*
Nuclear Navy Warwolf
*
in omnibus requiem quaesivi, et nusquam inveni nisi in angulo cum libro
*
ipsa scientia potestas est

User avatar
Flagg
CUNTS FOR EYES!
Posts: 12797
Joined: 2005-06-09 09:56pm
Location: Hell. In The Room Right Next to Reagan. He's Fucking Bonzo. No, wait... Bonzo's fucking HIM.

Re: Answering Ender, Per CmndrWilkens Request

Post by Flagg » 2009-04-08 10:43pm

Ender wrote:
Flagg wrote:Yeah, that post reeks of vendetta. A member of the senate should know better, frankly.
We are supposed to review the posting history of the person in question. How is bringing up past examples of their behavior, which is what we are directly required to do, a vendetta?
If you have a problem with the nomination you vote "no" in the senate thread and say why. You don't fucking derail the nomination thread with links to threads where you 2 had a hissy fit because you personally dislike the member being nominated.
We pissing our pants yet?
-Negan

You got your shittin' pants on? Because you’re about to
Shit. Your. Pants!
-Negan

He who can,
does; he who cannot, teaches.
-George Bernard Shaw

User avatar
Ender
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 11322
Joined: 2002-07-30 11:12pm
Location: Illinois

Re: Answering Ender, Per CmndrWilkens Request

Post by Ender » 2009-04-08 10:47pm

Flagg wrote:
Ender wrote:
Flagg wrote:Yeah, that post reeks of vendetta. A member of the senate should know better, frankly.
We are supposed to review the posting history of the person in question. How is bringing up past examples of their behavior, which is what we are directly required to do, a vendetta?
If you have a problem with the nomination, you vote "no" in the senate thread and say why. You don't fucking derail the nomination thread with links to threads where you 2 had a hissy fit because you personally dislike a member being nominated.
And then you get to have a hissy fit here because there is discussion going on in the voting thread? Because that's what happened last time. Let's put this in a hypothetical - for some reason we unban Warsie, and he gets nominated for the Senate. Is it your position that reminding people of his previous ban would constitute a vendetta instead of us conducting a proper review of his past behavior?
بيرني كان سيفوز
*
Nuclear Navy Warwolf
*
in omnibus requiem quaesivi, et nusquam inveni nisi in angulo cum libro
*
ipsa scientia potestas est

User avatar
Beowulf
The Patrician
Posts: 10548
Joined: 2002-07-04 01:18am
Location: 32ULV
Contact:

Re: Answering Ender, Per CmndrWilkens Request

Post by Beowulf » 2009-04-08 10:49pm

Flagg wrote:
Ender wrote:We are supposed to review the posting history of the person in question. How is bringing up past examples of their behavior, which is what we are directly required to do, a vendetta?
If you have a problem with the nomination, you vote "no" in the senate thread and say why. You don't fucking derail the nomination thread with links to threads where you 2 had a hissy fit because you personally dislike a member being nominated.
Because people are going to read the entire thread before the vote, *I'm a smarmy asshole*? And people who voted before they can read what Ender posts (because they aren't able to see into the future), and wouldn't vote for a candidate if they knew? Well they're just screwed, aren't they?
"preemptive killing of cops might not be such a bad idea from a personal saftey[sic] standpoint..." --Keevan Colton
"There's a word for bias you can't see: Yours." -- William Saletan

User avatar
Mr. Coffee
is an asshole.
Posts: 3258
Joined: 2005-02-26 07:45am
Location: And banging your mom is half the battle... G.I. Joe!

Re: Answering Ender, Per CmndrWilkens Request

Post by Mr. Coffee » 2009-04-08 10:54pm

So what you're saying is that the Senate doesn't actually read any of the "evidence" threads for a candidate in order to make an informed decision before they vote? Who knew...
Image
Goddammit, now I'm forced to say in public that I agree with Mr. Coffee. - Mike Wong
I never would have thought I would wholeheartedly agree with Coffee... - fgalkin x2
Honestly, this board is so fucking stupid at times. - Thanas
GALE ForceCarwash: Oh, I'll wax that shit, bitch...

User avatar
Flagg
CUNTS FOR EYES!
Posts: 12797
Joined: 2005-06-09 09:56pm
Location: Hell. In The Room Right Next to Reagan. He's Fucking Bonzo. No, wait... Bonzo's fucking HIM.

Re: Answering Ender, Per CmndrWilkens Request

Post by Flagg » 2009-04-08 11:03pm

Ender wrote:
Flagg wrote:
Ender wrote: We are supposed to review the posting history of the person in question. How is bringing up past examples of their behavior, which is what we are directly required to do, a vendetta?
If you have a problem with the nomination, you vote "no" in the senate thread and say why. You don't fucking derail the nomination thread with links to threads where you 2 had a hissy fit because you personally dislike a member being nominated.
And then you get to have a hissy fit here because there is discussion going on in the voting thread? Because that's what happened last time. Let's put this in a hypothetical - for some reason we unban Warsie, and he gets nominated for the Senate. Is it your position that reminding people of his previous ban would constitute a vendetta instead of us conducting a proper review of his past behavior?

No, because that's an administrative action taken against the person, not your personal dislike of positions (or your view of positions) that person has taken in past threads. Has Havok ever had an administrative action taken against him?
We pissing our pants yet?
-Negan

You got your shittin' pants on? Because you’re about to
Shit. Your. Pants!
-Negan

He who can,
does; he who cannot, teaches.
-George Bernard Shaw

User avatar
Flagg
CUNTS FOR EYES!
Posts: 12797
Joined: 2005-06-09 09:56pm
Location: Hell. In The Room Right Next to Reagan. He's Fucking Bonzo. No, wait... Bonzo's fucking HIM.

Re: Answering Ender, Per CmndrWilkens Request

Post by Flagg » 2009-04-08 11:13pm

Beowulf wrote:
Flagg wrote:
Ender wrote:We are supposed to review the posting history of the person in question. How is bringing up past examples of their behavior, which is what we are directly required to do, a vendetta?
If you have a problem with the nomination, you vote "no" in the senate thread and say why. You don't fucking derail the nomination thread with links to threads where you 2 had a hissy fit because you personally dislike a member being nominated.
Because people are going to read the entire thread before the vote, *I'm a smarmy asshole*? And people who voted before they can read what Ender posts (because they aren't able to see into the future), and wouldn't vote for a candidate if they knew? Well they're just screwed, aren't they?

I would hope they read the entire thread before they vote. If not then they aren't doing their fucking job and have no business being a senator, *I'm a smarmy asshole*? And it's not like they can't change their vote should new information surface.

Furthermore it's my understanding that the HoC nomination thread is for nominating members for the senate, not discussing whether or not a member should be nominated. Maybe there needs to be a discussion thread where people can pick apart the nominees, but at this time there is no such thread for that so the appropriate place for it (as far as I'm concerned) is in the voting thread where a senator can vote "no".
We pissing our pants yet?
-Negan

You got your shittin' pants on? Because you’re about to
Shit. Your. Pants!
-Negan

He who can,
does; he who cannot, teaches.
-George Bernard Shaw

User avatar
Ender
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 11322
Joined: 2002-07-30 11:12pm
Location: Illinois

Re: Answering Ender, Per CmndrWilkens Request

Post by Ender » 2009-04-08 11:41pm

Flagg wrote:No, because that's an administrative action taken against the person, not your personal dislike of positions (or your view of positions) that person has taken in past threads. Has Havok ever had an administrative action taken against him?
So administrative action qualifies, but not past performance in debates, even though past performance in debates is the criteria we judge people by when we consider their nomination?
بيرني كان سيفوز
*
Nuclear Navy Warwolf
*
in omnibus requiem quaesivi, et nusquam inveni nisi in angulo cum libro
*
ipsa scientia potestas est

User avatar
Flagg
CUNTS FOR EYES!
Posts: 12797
Joined: 2005-06-09 09:56pm
Location: Hell. In The Room Right Next to Reagan. He's Fucking Bonzo. No, wait... Bonzo's fucking HIM.

Re: Answering Ender, Per CmndrWilkens Request

Post by Flagg » 2009-04-08 11:41pm

Destructionator XIII wrote:NO CHATTER IN VOTE THREADS
Dalton wrote:If you must discuss a vote, please do so in the discussion thread for that vote. There is to be no chatting or discussion in vote threads.

At the same time:

Powers and Perks - The Rules *READ THIS FIRST*
CmdrWilkins (I think for the latest edit) wrote: B. Other nomination rules
I. Only nominations and comments on the nominee's may be put in a [Member] thread, if you don't agree on a nomination, then don't vote for that person. Any flames or arguments in that thread will be deleted - no exceptions!
What is the difference between a comment on a nominee and a flame? I'd say one brings up counter evidence and the other is just ad-hominums or red herrings.

Note that if the subject of discussion is a person's worth, attacking that person's worth is not an ad hominum fallacy, but rather the whole point of the debate.

Ender brought up counter-evidence, therefore, I'd consider it a comment on the nomination rather than a flame. Therefore, it belongs in the nomination thread rather than deleted.


In any case, it most certainly does NOT belong in the vote thread. Dalton's post is quite clear.

There is never a need to read a vote thread, since discussion in such threads are banned.
Fair enough.
We pissing our pants yet?
-Negan

You got your shittin' pants on? Because you’re about to
Shit. Your. Pants!
-Negan

He who can,
does; he who cannot, teaches.
-George Bernard Shaw

User avatar
Flagg
CUNTS FOR EYES!
Posts: 12797
Joined: 2005-06-09 09:56pm
Location: Hell. In The Room Right Next to Reagan. He's Fucking Bonzo. No, wait... Bonzo's fucking HIM.

Re: Answering Ender, Per CmndrWilkens Request

Post by Flagg » 2009-04-08 11:51pm

Ender wrote:
Flagg wrote:No, because that's an administrative action taken against the person, not your personal dislike of positions (or your view of positions) that person has taken in past threads. Has Havok ever had an administrative action taken against him?
So administrative action qualifies, but not past performance in debates, even though past performance in debates is the criteria we judge people by when we consider their nomination?
You're right. It's a valid point I hadn't considered.
We pissing our pants yet?
-Negan

You got your shittin' pants on? Because you’re about to
Shit. Your. Pants!
-Negan

He who can,
does; he who cannot, teaches.
-George Bernard Shaw

User avatar
Havok
Miscreant
Posts: 13016
Joined: 2005-07-02 10:41pm
Location: Oakland CA
Contact:

Re: Answering Ender, Per CmndrWilkens Request

Post by Havok » 2009-04-09 12:26am

*SIGH*
Ender wrote:
Havok wrote:
Ender wrote:And as a counter, here we have Havok claiming that the use of child soldiers is something we should be doing, that we don't use them because we "coddle our children into their 20s and think they are complete fucking idiots" and objects to the idea it is a war crime.
Care to quote where I actually said that,
That was a word for word quote from you from the thread I linked to. So yes, I did quote where you actually said that.
WHOOSH!! Care to quote where is said "the use of child soldiers is something WE SHOULD BE DOING," "OBJECTS to the idea it is a war crime."
Please, post the relevant quotes. Show where I advocate child soldiers and object to the fact that it should be a war crime.
or are you just going to keep harping on this after a year... hey isn't that a vendetta?...
The topic brought up was your previous posting, making this directly relevant. So no, it is not a vendetta, it is me following the rules.
Uh, no dumbfuck. The nomination thread is for nominations. I was nominated, seconded with links to my posting. Those are the "rules" for that thread.

Here, since you can't read. I'll even highlight the relevant parts for you.
CmdrWilkens wrote:As the Updated Sentate ruleset has passed nomination duties have fallen to the House of Commons. Within that context please utilize this thread to nominate or second any board member you feel should be considered for Senate membership.

Nominations will close on the 24th of each month (21st in Feb) so for December the window is short but all subsequent months will have the full period (2nd-24th) available for nominations from the HoC.

Remember this thread is for nominating members to the Senate or seconding the motion, extraneous comment is discouraged.
So whatever "rules" you are following appear to just be made up in your empty little head.

because you are too fucking stupid to get the point that the Star Wars universe is NOT ours?
The full body of that sentence was stating that it was not like modern earth, with you implicitly condemning the fact that earth does not allow child soldiers.
Oh really. Again, please cite where I IMPLICITLY CONDEMN the fact that Earth does not allow child soldiers.
And correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't 18 the legal age, and in some cases 17, that teenagers can enter into military service?
You can sign up at that age but you are a ward of the service and will not see active duty until you are an adult.
Oh my bad. So they train for combat and killing for 12 months before going into combat and kill. Man, you really shot my point down there. Y'know because 17 to 18 is such a huge jump in maturity. :lol:
So my claim that we coddle children into their 20s actually has no bearing on your argument. Oops... my bad... you are already a Senator. Carry on with the vendetta.
Yes, how dare I review your posting history when we are charged with reviewing your posting history.
Review it all you want.
If this was the first time you brought it up since then, I probably wouldn't have said anything, but surprise, it isn't.
Hey look... http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... &p=2843714
Ender wrote:
havokeff wrote:Ender
It's interesting that your bullshit example just jams a whole lot of new characters in and your Schumacher example just jams a whole lot of new characters in.

And you object to Robin, but want The Ventriloquist and his puppet. :roll:
No, I cited other possibilities while focusing on overall themes as the key strength of the new ones. You are a fucking moron, so I understand why you don't understand the difference. In your mind it is the color and effects that matter, not the story. We've spent the past two movies establishing Batman's mentality of isolating himself and not spreading the danger to others. This isn't some interpretation - Nolan's characters flat out state their motivation and inner thoughts. Now you want him to do a complete reversal and have a kid in a brightly colored unarmored suit running around. And you see completely discarding all the character that has been previously established as on the same level as having a Son of Sam style paranoid schizophrenic on screen.

But hey, having Robin gives you another child soldier on screen. And we all know you are a sick fuck who is down with that.
We must have been talking about my posting history in that thread too. OOPS. Man, I know we have a word for that around here... dangit, what was it again? Ohhh that's right.
I would agree with this, as I was simply rising to the esteemed, well regarded, quality level of one of the Senate and ASVS members. Oh wait. I also answered all Poe points... repeatedly. He chose to ignore that, as apparently you do as well. Sorry you don't like the packaging. Need a tissue?
As I said at the time, that was a pathetic showing from all sides that should be regarded as an embarrassment to the board. Further, the statement for what we should seek was made after that thread.
Why, because I made fun of your fatty friend? Again, I answered all his points and arguments. Should I put a bow on it and write you a little love note next time so you don't get offended?

And just to quote Mike's opinion on flaming from the thread you linked to...
Darth Wong wrote:The other reason not to quick-draw is simple: the correct time to blast someone is when he makes a really stupid or dishonest argument to support an opinion. Simply stating that he has an opinion is not the correct time.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure Poe fell into that category in that thread.
I request that this be folded back into the nomination thread, as Havok attacking me for carrying out my duties is yet another example as to why he should not be a Senator.
:lol: That's an attack? :lol: That's fine by me. Even though Wilkens wanted to avoid this, which is why I answered you here and not in the nominations thread, but hey, what does he know.

And just for the record, I say you are absolutely full of shit. If you really found Padawans, who are indeed child soldiers SOOO reprehensible, then how could you have possibly brought yourself to watch the two follow up prequel movies? You knew that George Lucas, who clearly advocates child soldiers, was making them and that there would be more evil Jedi who take kids into battle in them. For that matter, how can you even bring yourself to read Batman, let alone discuss him. He clearly advocates child soldiers. His comics must just be too repulsive to even read. I mean, really, all of DC comics must make you sick, since they publish Batman.
How can you STAND to read the EU, which is Jedi-centric and continually features child soldiers.

Indiana Jones, Paramount, Steven Speilberg.
Dumbledore, JK Rowling.
Captain Picard, Gene Rodenberry, Paramount.
Professor X, Marvel.

Man, it must suck not to be able to watch or read any of that stuff because of all the child soldier advocacy.

Or, maybe, just maybe, you realize that accepting something in a FICTIONAL world and not finding it reprehensible in that context, is not the same thing as advocating it in the REAL world.
Nah. Giving you to much credit.
Image
It's 106 miles to Chicago, we got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark... and we're wearing sunglasses.
Hit it.
Blank Yellow (NSFW)
"Mostly Harmless Nutcase"

User avatar
Crazedwraith
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 10888
Joined: 2003-04-10 03:45pm
Location: Cheshire, England

Re: Answering Ender, Per CmndrWilkens Request

Post by Crazedwraith » 2009-04-09 07:08am

'No Chatter In Vote' threads no longer applies to Senate Election threads.
To the brave passengers and crew of the Kobayashi Maru... sucks to be you - Peter David

User avatar
CmdrWilkens
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 9093
Joined: 2002-07-06 01:24am
Location: Land of the Crabcake
Contact:

Re: Answering Ender, Per CmndrWilkens Request

Post by CmdrWilkens » 2009-04-09 11:20pm

Crazedwraith wrote:'No Chatter In Vote' threads no longer applies to Senate Election threads.
Election and Nomination threads are different, the critical points here are:

1) Extraneous comments are "discouraged"
2) I am not the mod of this sub-forum so I can't MAKE you do anything other than express my displeasure
3) I think a debate on the merits of a candidate is fine BUT I would PREFER, as has happened in this thread, that they occur outside of the nomination thread.
Image
SDNet World Nation: Wilkonia
Armourer of the WARWOLVES
ASVS Vet's Association (Class of 2000)
Former C.S. Strowbridge Gold Ego Award Winner
MEMBER of the Anti-PETA Anti-Facist LEAGUE

"I put no stock in religion. By the word religion I have seen the lunacy of fanatics of every denomination be called the will of god. I have seen too much religion in the eyes of too many murderers. Holiness is in right action, and courage on behalf of those who cannot defend themselves, and goodness. "
-Kingdom of Heaven

User avatar
Elfdart
The Anti-Shep
Posts: 10329
Joined: 2004-04-28 11:32pm

Re: Answering Ender, Per CmndrWilkens Request

Post by Elfdart » 2009-04-10 12:13am

Stark wrote:It's fascinating that Ender hates a lot of people (myself included) but poor old Hav gets this sort of thing. At least he's honest and doesn't say 'I choose not to vote because... um... cookies' or whatever.
It's not surprising. Every time he tangles with me he gets beaten like a pinata. If he has this kind of grudge against the mild-mannered Havok, just imagine the hostility that lying douche nozzle has for others I could name.
:lol:

If I were to talk about Star Wars spin-off ideas and came up with some scene where the Tuskens beat Imperial Stormtroopers over the head with their gaffi sticks in a skirmish outside Mos Eisely, would anyone who isn't a dishonest little asshole with a vendetta against me try to make it out to be an endorsement for people to beat real-life policemen or soldiers with pointy sticks?

Exactly. So fuck you, Ender.

Thus in spite of Havok's status as a 49er fan :roll:, he has my full support. For whatever that's worth.
"One way we recognize a mass hysteria movement is that everyone who doesn’t believe is accused of being in on the plot. This has been going on virtually unrestrained in both political and media circles in recent weeks."

--Matt Taibbi

User avatar
Edi
Dragonlord
Dragonlord
Posts: 12444
Joined: 2002-07-11 12:27am
Location: Helsinki, Finland

Re: Answering Ender, Per CmndrWilkens Request

Post by Edi » 2009-04-10 06:54am

Elfdart, the problem with you and Ender is that because you two hate each other's guts, you often manage to talk completely past each other because you only see what you expect to see, not what is actually there.

Like the spat between you and him over the POW issue.

This child soldier crap seems more like the same because while Havok's words can be interpreted as support of using child soldiers, it is not what comes across as a blanket statement. Yet that discussion careened down that way because of either inability or unwillingness to consider a broader picture on one side or both. That thread does little credit to any of the main participants.

Nor was the Poe thread a very stellar example of what the debating standards on the board should be. It was two people flaming at each other and even though Havok beat Poe like a drum in it, it left a rather ugly aftertaste as these things go. And not out of any sympathy to Poe either, since I've had a history of flaming him to a cinder over politics threads.
Warwolf Urban Combat Specialist

Why is it so goddamned hard to get little assholes like you to admit it when you fuck up? Is it pride? What gives you the right to have any pride?
–Darth Wong to vivftp

GOP message? Why don't they just come out of the closet: FASCISTS R' US –Patrick Degan

The GOP has a problem with anyone coming out of the closet. –18-till-I-die

User avatar
Elfdart
The Anti-Shep
Posts: 10329
Joined: 2004-04-28 11:32pm

Re: Answering Ender, Per CmndrWilkens Request

Post by Elfdart » 2009-04-10 07:49am

I tell you what:

Leave the names of the posters out of it. Go back and re-type Havok's first post on the subject or put your thumb over his name on your monitor if you have to. Now read what he wrote. Be honest -who in his or her right mind could read that and come to the conclusion that Havok supports the use of child soldiers in real life? It's not just dishonest, it's deranged.
"One way we recognize a mass hysteria movement is that everyone who doesn’t believe is accused of being in on the plot. This has been going on virtually unrestrained in both political and media circles in recent weeks."

--Matt Taibbi

User avatar
Flagg
CUNTS FOR EYES!
Posts: 12797
Joined: 2005-06-09 09:56pm
Location: Hell. In The Room Right Next to Reagan. He's Fucking Bonzo. No, wait... Bonzo's fucking HIM.

Re: Answering Ender, Per CmndrWilkens Request

Post by Flagg » 2009-04-10 10:48am

The fact that Ender has brought up the ridiculous child soldier crap up in an unrelated thread before tells the tale here.
We pissing our pants yet?
-Negan

You got your shittin' pants on? Because you’re about to
Shit. Your. Pants!
-Negan

He who can,
does; he who cannot, teaches.
-George Bernard Shaw

User avatar
Phantasee
Was mich nicht umbringt, macht mich stärker.
Posts: 5776
Joined: 2004-02-26 09:44pm
Location: I have returned

Re: Answering Ender, Per CmndrWilkens Request

Post by Phantasee » 2009-04-10 01:25pm

God damn it Ender, now you've shown (in a roundabout way, through other people) that Havok is actually a decent candidate. Way to go, now I'll never get Balrog into the Senate.

Also, to whoever called Havok "mild mannered": :lol:
XXIX

User avatar
Elfdart
The Anti-Shep
Posts: 10329
Joined: 2004-04-28 11:32pm

Re: Answering Ender, Per CmndrWilkens Request

Post by Elfdart » 2009-04-10 02:31pm

Also, to whoever called Havok "mild mannered": :lol:
It's all relative, as they say in Kentucky.
"One way we recognize a mass hysteria movement is that everyone who doesn’t believe is accused of being in on the plot. This has been going on virtually unrestrained in both political and media circles in recent weeks."

--Matt Taibbi

Locked