USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
Nice Planet 2012
- Thread starter Old Pio
- Start date
- Status
Re: Nice Planet 2012
Good for the father. Got right on top of fixing that sick pervert.Not sure if this belongs here or the genuinely nice planet thread.
Foxton
Banned
Re: Nice Planet 2012
Since I know it's one of your ticks, you can have the last word. Wouldn't want your caretaker to have more work.
It's hard not to have a smidgeon of respect for you, it must be an incredibly feat just for you to get through the day without choking on your own saliva.
Since I know it's one of your ticks, you can have the last word. Wouldn't want your caretaker to have more work.
ExileOnDaytonStreet
Drunkard
Re: Nice Planet 2012
Based on 18 scorecards from boxing reporters, Ken Pomeroy claims that there is a 0.03% chance that Bradley would have been randomly been judged as the winner.
And that's with a statistical study that's biased towards Bradley.
I'm not sure if this would really go here, compared to whatever other thread people might use to talk about the fight, but this is worth chewing on.
Based on 18 scorecards from boxing reporters, Ken Pomeroy claims that there is a 0.03% chance that Bradley would have been randomly been judged as the winner.
And that's with a statistical study that's biased towards Bradley.
Re: Nice Planet 2012
If you're going to quote me (and I understand the impulse) why not do it in context, just for the novelty? Why don't you explain what your "point" was here? Or did you have one? And why not source your quotes? Or has there been some change in the libtard style guide?
If you're going to quote me (and I understand the impulse) why not do it in context, just for the novelty? Why don't you explain what your "point" was here? Or did you have one? And why not source your quotes? Or has there been some change in the libtard style guide?
Last edited:
duper
Well-known member
Re: Nice Planet 2012
The thing about this point for me is that I think Jehovah's witnesses are a little nuts, but I have met at least one other Jehovah's Witness who did believe that to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance was a form of idolatry. I think that's goofy, but if that's what her religion tells her, assuming that she really believes that, and it seems to mesh with what some other people of the same religion believe, I think people need to let it go.
By "griping" that she doesn't stand for the Pledge, they are tacitly saying that her religion is less valid than their religion, or lack thereof, or whatever. I would be willing to bet that all staff knows why she doesn't stand for the Pledge, but they have no respect for her religion. In other words, they are, to me, the same as her; they want to get respect without feeling the need to give it.
Re: Nice Planet 2012
The only one doing anything wrong here is this racist, evangelical Jehovah's Witness moonbat. She is a teacher. And she should try to set an example for the children in her care. I'm not astonished (a little surprised) that you leap to her defense. How is it possible to defend her actions in walking in on rehersal and demanding that the music be stopped? And then announcing that a song proclaiming pride in America be dropped. Couldn't this have been discussed with the teachers involved and not in front of the kids? How does that not make her an agressive, evangelical, racist b*tch? What "other cultures" is she concerned about?
She's free to leave the room (or stay outside) when the pledge is recited. But that isn't quite as much fun as refusing to stand, is it?
The only one doing anything wrong here is this racist, evangelical Jehovah's Witness moonbat. She is a teacher. And she should try to set an example for the children in her care. I'm not astonished (a little surprised) that you leap to her defense. How is it possible to defend her actions in walking in on rehersal and demanding that the music be stopped? And then announcing that a song proclaiming pride in America be dropped. Couldn't this have been discussed with the teachers involved and not in front of the kids? How does that not make her an agressive, evangelical, racist b*tch? What "other cultures" is she concerned about?
She's free to leave the room (or stay outside) when the pledge is recited. But that isn't quite as much fun as refusing to stand, is it?
Last edited:
duper
Well-known member
Re: Nice Planet 2012
I'm trying to find the comment where I leap to her defense.
One is a school principal who made a unilateral judgment on behalf of her school that was not in the school's interest. That's messed up. I don't agree with that at all. I have had bosses pull that shyte, as I'm sure we all have, and it sucks. I certainly don't defend it. And I'm not sure what gave the impression that I did defend that. Somehow "I don't like it" doesn't strike me as a defense of the action. Neither does referring to her as intolerant and ignorant. But maybe that's just me.
Second is the fact that the article, which certainly doesn't seem to be biased TOWARD this woman, does mention that some teachers "griped" about her not feeling the same way about the Pledge of Allegiance that they do. Maybe you don't get that her religion does not ALLOW her to stand for the Pledge. Maybe you just don't care about people who subscribe to religions you think are crazy (and I assure you that I agree that this is a crazy religion). Maybe you think that because someone's honestly held religious views are stupid, they have different rights to them than the rest of us. Maybe you think nationalism is more important than individual freedom. Who knows. But I will defend the right of someone to sit during the Pledge of Allegiance if their religious views DEMAND it. No one ever asks you to leave a public place because of your religious views. Why should you, or anyone else, suggest that she should leave a public place because of her religious views?
Frankly, it never occurred to me that pointing out that the bigots who believe her particular religion's view of idolatry is unacceptable in a public place in a free country would be even remotely controversial. Especially since I did it in a post in which I made it pretty clear that the decision that formed the crux of the article was one I don't like.
I'm trying to find the comment where I leap to her defense.
Nope. Not here. Unless not liking it and acknowledging her intolerance and ignorance are leaping to her defense.
Not here, either. Somehow, saying I think people need to let it go doesn't seem to me to qualify as leaping to her defense.
In point of fact, I think this one makes it clear that I have very little respect for anyone involved in this little tiff.duper said:
I am likewise not astonished, or even a little surprised, that you totally mischaracterized my comments. In my mind, there are two things here.
One is a school principal who made a unilateral judgment on behalf of her school that was not in the school's interest. That's messed up. I don't agree with that at all. I have had bosses pull that shyte, as I'm sure we all have, and it sucks. I certainly don't defend it. And I'm not sure what gave the impression that I did defend that. Somehow "I don't like it" doesn't strike me as a defense of the action. Neither does referring to her as intolerant and ignorant. But maybe that's just me.
Second is the fact that the article, which certainly doesn't seem to be biased TOWARD this woman, does mention that some teachers "griped" about her not feeling the same way about the Pledge of Allegiance that they do. Maybe you don't get that her religion does not ALLOW her to stand for the Pledge. Maybe you just don't care about people who subscribe to religions you think are crazy (and I assure you that I agree that this is a crazy religion). Maybe you think that because someone's honestly held religious views are stupid, they have different rights to them than the rest of us. Maybe you think nationalism is more important than individual freedom. Who knows. But I will defend the right of someone to sit during the Pledge of Allegiance if their religious views DEMAND it. No one ever asks you to leave a public place because of your religious views. Why should you, or anyone else, suggest that she should leave a public place because of her religious views?
Frankly, it never occurred to me that pointing out that the bigots who believe her particular religion's view of idolatry is unacceptable in a public place in a free country would be even remotely controversial. Especially since I did it in a post in which I made it pretty clear that the decision that formed the crux of the article was one I don't like.
Last edited:
ExileOnDaytonStreet
Drunkard
To be fair, a truly bigoted person is likely to find that kind of controversy anywhere they see a worldview that isn't compatible with theirs.
Re: Nice Planet 2012
She's a bully and a petty tyrant, in addition to her other shortcomings. You have decided, absent any evidence, that the victims of her caprices are "idiots" and "bigots." Why? The 5 year olds in her care are being taught to show respect for their country and flag by standing. Is it "age appropriate" for her not to stand? Is it possible to adequately explain to 5 year olds the nuances of her religion? Should anybody even try? And what is she doing in a classroom when the pledge is recited anyway? Doesn't she have an office? And isn't that office where she generally belongs? Did your principal show up in classrooms every day for the pledge? Mine didn't. Generally the only time I saw him was when I was referred to his office for an attitude adjustment. This babe LIKES not standing up for the pledge, and evidently seeks out opportunities where she can show the kiddies her a*s. She has responsibilities that extend beyond her own personal religious beliefs. And if she can't conform her behavior to what it generally expected of a principal in a public school she should find another job.
If she were a snake handler, I'd expect her to leave the rattlers at home. I once had a Christian Science teacher, in front of the class, offer her opinions about what was REALLY wrong with me when I had an attack of appendicitis. My old man, the chest cutter, peeled a couple of layers of her skin off (and the principal, too). The issue was not her adoration of Mary Baker Eddy, it was sharing it with me and my classmates. Same thing here. It seems clear she goes out of her way to shove her beliefs in the kids faces. To me, that's not appropriate for a teacher, and especially for a principal. And I don't think a school is a "public place" in the commonly accepted sense of that phrase. You and I, for instance, would have a heap of explaining to do if we were to just walk in off the street into a "public" school. In this instance, "public" refers to the way the school is paid for, not an invitation for every stinky OWS loser to set up house keeping.
She had made comments in the past about the new "black" regime at her school which is replacing the "jews." After first offering the ridiculous indefensible notion about other "cultures" being "offended" by a patriotic song,she changed her tune to whether or not the lyrics were "age appropriate." Well, apart from "Twinkle, twinkle Little Star," and "I Love You, You Love Me," there aren't that many "age apprioriate" songs out there for 5 years olds. And if that is the standard, then maybe some of those kiddies can explain what "indivisible" means.
This babe is not worthy of your defense. She's a loser. And should be dismissed immediately.
She's a bully and a petty tyrant, in addition to her other shortcomings. You have decided, absent any evidence, that the victims of her caprices are "idiots" and "bigots." Why? The 5 year olds in her care are being taught to show respect for their country and flag by standing. Is it "age appropriate" for her not to stand? Is it possible to adequately explain to 5 year olds the nuances of her religion? Should anybody even try? And what is she doing in a classroom when the pledge is recited anyway? Doesn't she have an office? And isn't that office where she generally belongs? Did your principal show up in classrooms every day for the pledge? Mine didn't. Generally the only time I saw him was when I was referred to his office for an attitude adjustment. This babe LIKES not standing up for the pledge, and evidently seeks out opportunities where she can show the kiddies her a*s. She has responsibilities that extend beyond her own personal religious beliefs. And if she can't conform her behavior to what it generally expected of a principal in a public school she should find another job.
If she were a snake handler, I'd expect her to leave the rattlers at home. I once had a Christian Science teacher, in front of the class, offer her opinions about what was REALLY wrong with me when I had an attack of appendicitis. My old man, the chest cutter, peeled a couple of layers of her skin off (and the principal, too). The issue was not her adoration of Mary Baker Eddy, it was sharing it with me and my classmates. Same thing here. It seems clear she goes out of her way to shove her beliefs in the kids faces. To me, that's not appropriate for a teacher, and especially for a principal. And I don't think a school is a "public place" in the commonly accepted sense of that phrase. You and I, for instance, would have a heap of explaining to do if we were to just walk in off the street into a "public" school. In this instance, "public" refers to the way the school is paid for, not an invitation for every stinky OWS loser to set up house keeping.
She had made comments in the past about the new "black" regime at her school which is replacing the "jews." After first offering the ridiculous indefensible notion about other "cultures" being "offended" by a patriotic song,she changed her tune to whether or not the lyrics were "age appropriate." Well, apart from "Twinkle, twinkle Little Star," and "I Love You, You Love Me," there aren't that many "age apprioriate" songs out there for 5 years olds. And if that is the standard, then maybe some of those kiddies can explain what "indivisible" means.
This babe is not worthy of your defense. She's a loser. And should be dismissed immediately.
Last edited:
leswp1
Well-known member
Re: Nice Planet 2012
Ignore is a wonderful thing. When you see' this post is blocked' you don't waste the time reading what you didn't know you were saying.
Re: Nice Planet 2012
Blah, blah, blah "ignore." Blah, blah, blah "ignore." Got anything new to say?
Ignore is a wonderful thing. When you see' this post is blocked' you don't waste the time reading what you didn't know you were saying.
Blah, blah, blah "ignore." Blah, blah, blah "ignore." Got anything new to say?
Last edited:
dxmnkd316
Lucia Apologist
Re: Nice Planet 2012
No. Every time les posts that you're on ignore, I come *this* close putting les on ignore. Unoriginal, uninspired, and childish. *yawn*
No. Every time les posts that you're on ignore, I come *this* close putting les on ignore. Unoriginal, uninspired, and childish. *yawn*
ExileOnDaytonStreet
Drunkard
Re: Nice Planet 2012
In a way, pointing out that you have someone on ignore defeats at least part of the purpose.
In a way, pointing out that you have someone on ignore defeats at least part of the purpose.
dxmnkd316
Lucia Apologist
Re: Nice Planet 2012
I usually tell the person once that I put them on ignore and try to never respond to them again. If I'm feeling adventurous, sometimes I view his or her comments, but rarely respond.
I usually tell the person once that I put them on ignore and try to never respond to them again. If I'm feeling adventurous, sometimes I view his or her comments, but rarely respond.
Re: Nice Planet 2012
Was this really necessary?
http://charlotte.cbslocal.com/2012/...-old-woman-attempting-hit-officers-with-cane/
Was this really necessary?
http://charlotte.cbslocal.com/2012/...-old-woman-attempting-hit-officers-with-cane/
dxmnkd316
Lucia Apologist
Re: Nice Planet 2012
In today's day and age, you never know when someone is going to swing a cane and go down like a house of cards or pull out a gun and shoot you (or chew your face off for that matter). When someone is disturbed, you never take chances.
My mom lives next to a paranoid schizo. Every so often the lady calls the cops on my mom or screams at her. My mom, being the incredibly personable and genuinely nice person she is, has made attempts to reduce the tension and become more friendly with her. I have warned my mom a number of times to not go near the lady. If she comes into possession of a weapon, who knows what could happen. I say, if someone is butt-*** naked and clearly disturbed, tase the hell out of them.
In today's day and age, you never know when someone is going to swing a cane and go down like a house of cards or pull out a gun and shoot you (or chew your face off for that matter). When someone is disturbed, you never take chances.
My mom lives next to a paranoid schizo. Every so often the lady calls the cops on my mom or screams at her. My mom, being the incredibly personable and genuinely nice person she is, has made attempts to reduce the tension and become more friendly with her. I have warned my mom a number of times to not go near the lady. If she comes into possession of a weapon, who knows what could happen. I say, if someone is butt-*** naked and clearly disturbed, tase the hell out of them.
- Status