3rdnlng Posted September 9, 2020 Share Posted September 9, 2020 6 minutes ago, SectionC3 said: I’m gonna Rule #2 the last sentence. Explanation, please. You’d think with only two rules these guys would be able to follow them. Guess what? You don't get to make the rules. You're still a relative newbie who is on shaky ground, in line to be voted onto OUR list called the Irreverent Few. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SectionC3 Posted September 9, 2020 Share Posted September 9, 2020 Just now, 3rdnlng said: Guess what? You don't get to make the rules. You're still a relative newbie who is on shaky ground, in line to be voted onto OUR list called the Irreverent Few. Hoax. Also, copying the libs to own the libs. Well done. I guess. FYI, I didn’t make Rule #1. Here’s my Rule #2 explanation for how I didn’t make Rule #1. I strongly encourage you to familiarize yourself with those rules. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted September 9, 2020 Share Posted September 9, 2020 3 minutes ago, SectionC3 said: Hoax. Also, copying the libs to own the libs. Well done. I guess. FYI, I didn’t make Rule #1. Here’s my Rule #2 explanation for how I didn’t make Rule #1. I strongly encourage you to familiarize yourself with those rules. Funny how you and Gary forget the totality of the proposed rule (in addition to refusing to read). That means sticking around to have an adult conversation, not just throwing bombs or insults then fleeing the scene. If someone is unwilling to engage or back up their work, they should be treated in accordance to the 1st ROE and ignored. Call it a good old fashioned shame shunning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WEATHER DOT COM Posted September 9, 2020 Share Posted September 9, 2020 (edited) 3 minutes ago, GG said: Funny how you and Gary forget the totality of the proposed rule (in addition to refusing to read). That means sticking around to have an adult conversation, not just throwing bombs or insults then fleeing the scene. If someone is unwilling to engage or back up their work, they should be treated in accordance to the 1st ROE and ignored. Call it a good old fashioned shame shunning. We're discussing facts and figures while other posters crusade against us, including you, refusing to discuss the facts and figures. Edited September 9, 2020 by wAcKy ZeBrA 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted September 9, 2020 Share Posted September 9, 2020 Just now, wAcKy ZeBrA said: We're discussing facts and figures while other posters crusader against us, including you, refusing to discuss the facts and figures. Quite the contrary. Don't confuse your laziness to read the proper thread as us not providing detailed back up. Par for the course, of course, and is expected of lawyers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snafu Posted September 9, 2020 Share Posted September 9, 2020 4 hours ago, wAcKy ZeBrA said: Personally I don't like the fact that one of the most popular Buffao Bills forums is an alt-right echo chamber. I invoke Rule #2. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SectionC3 Posted September 9, 2020 Share Posted September 9, 2020 (edited) 4 minutes ago, GG said: Funny how you and Gary forget the totality of the proposed rule (in addition to refusing to read). That means sticking around to have an adult conversation, not just throwing bombs or insults then fleeing the scene. If someone is unwilling to engage or back up their work, they should be treated in accordance to the 1st ROE and ignored. Call it a good old fashioned shame shunning. I’m going to Rule #2 your contention about the absence of “adult conversation,” the hurling of “bombs,” and the flight from the scene. Also, to the best of my recollection, you have several Rule #2 requests outstanding from this morning. Perhaps it is that you, sir, are the one in violation of Rule #1 here. Or perhaps it is that you would like to shame-shun yourself. How that would be accomplished is beyond me, but you are the intellectual standard bearer of the alt-wrong, so if anyone can figure it out, it’s you. Edited September 9, 2020 by SectionC3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted September 9, 2020 Share Posted September 9, 2020 (edited) 1 minute ago, SectionC3 said: I’m going to Rule #2 your contention about the absence of “adult conversation,” the hurling of “bombs,” and the flight from the scene. Also, to the best of my recollection, have several Rule #2 requests outstanding from this morning. Perhaps it is that you, sir, are the one in violation of Rule #1 here. Or perhaps it is that you would like to shame-shun yourself. How that would be accomplished is beyond me, but you are the intellectual standard bearer of the alt-wrong, so if anyone can figure it out, it’s you. Again, the data was provided in the applicable thread, not the narcissistic flame bomb that you live to start. Are you upset that nobody has died in a protest this week? Edited September 9, 2020 by GG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SectionC3 Posted September 9, 2020 Share Posted September 9, 2020 Just now, GG said: Again, the data was provided in the applicable thread, not the narcissistic flame bomb that you live to start Add another Rule #2 request to your pile, sir! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WEATHER DOT COM Posted September 9, 2020 Share Posted September 9, 2020 Just now, snafu said: I invoke Rule #2. This is a thread So is this and this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted September 9, 2020 Share Posted September 9, 2020 Just now, SectionC3 said: Add another Rule #2 request to your pile, sir! Do your own homework Sue. Notice that you don't care about the moronic study anymore, now that the numbers don't add up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SectionC3 Posted September 9, 2020 Share Posted September 9, 2020 Just now, GG said: Do your own homework Sue. Notice that you don't care about the moronic study anymore, now that the numbers don't add up. Rule #2, sir. Another one for your list! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted September 9, 2020 Share Posted September 9, 2020 Just now, SectionC3 said: Rule #2, sir. Another one for your list! Lazy & dishonest. Typical. Address the substance for a change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WEATHER DOT COM Posted September 9, 2020 Share Posted September 9, 2020 3 minutes ago, GG said: the numbers don't add up. Yes, they do. Read the study 5G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SectionC3 Posted September 9, 2020 Share Posted September 9, 2020 Just now, GG said: Lazy & dishonest. Typical. Address the substance for a change. I’m asking you to address the substance. That’s what these Rule #2 requests are all about. Please stop hurling “bombs” (a Rule #1 issue) and get to work on your Rule #2 assignments. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snafu Posted September 9, 2020 Share Posted September 9, 2020 2 minutes ago, wAcKy ZeBrA said: This is a thread So is this and this These aren't good examples of an alt-right echo chamber. There are opposing opinions contained within those threads. Do you want me to quote all the anti-Trump threads and call those "liberal echo chambers"? You see the board the way you want to see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted September 9, 2020 Share Posted September 9, 2020 1 minute ago, wAcKy ZeBrA said: Yes, they do. Read the study 5G. I thought you left? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WEATHER DOT COM Posted September 9, 2020 Share Posted September 9, 2020 Just now, snafu said: These aren't good examples of an alt-right echo chamber. In my opinion they are alt-right topics in a Buffalo Bills forum. Thank you for the respectful discussion. It was a pleasure going through Rule #2 with you. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted September 9, 2020 Share Posted September 9, 2020 2 minutes ago, SectionC3 said: I’m asking you to address the substance. That’s what these Rule #2 requests are all about. Please stop hurling “bombs” (a Rule #1 issue) and get to work on your Rule #2 assignments. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. I did. Read the proper thread. Lazy liar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SectionC3 Posted September 9, 2020 Share Posted September 9, 2020 1 minute ago, GG said: I thought you left? Less chitchat, more Rule #2, please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts