What's new
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.

The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Routine name-calling is so unimaginative, it reveals more about the speaker than the target. if you are trying to persuade it's definitely a non-starter, and if you are trying to show off, you've automatically failed at the outset!

On the other hand, something like "were all your parents' children born brain-damaged?" is slightly better, but not by much.

Then there's the story about the three-handed economist....


Best is when you lay a trap for the other person, have a two-step process in which the first comment induces a reply, for which you already have your retort ready and waiting.

The classic is the story about George Bernard Shaw (apparently not a very nice person), who at a dinner party asked the young woman next to him if she'd have sex with him for 250,000 pounds. She blushed demurely, flitted her eyelids, and said, "Oh, Mr. Shaw!"

Then he asked her if she'd have sex with him for two pounds six shillings half-pence. She replied "Of course not! What kind of woman do you think I am?"

and he calmly replied, "We've already established that earlier. Now we are merely negotiating price."


This story is repeated from a thread called "creative personalized insults" which has about 2 dozen good entries. It petered out but feel free to revive it!

Some of my other favorites are "person of pallor" and "adipose Americans" when describing special-interest groups....
 
Last edited:
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Sometimes, to make a person or group of people understand, you have to stoop down to their level. Your messiah dictator is an expert, given his State of the Union addresses could be understood by kindergarteners.
Pity was probably not your intended purpose with this post. Any dialog with you is like kicking a puppy.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Pity was probably not your intended purpose with this post. Any dialog with you is like kicking a puppy.

And you think dialogue with you is any better? I'd rather put my head in a letter press than try to engage in conversation with you.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Any dialog with you is like kicking a puppy.

I'll have to defer to your expertise in this matter. Tell me, what's your favorite method? soccer style? or straight on like and old-fashioned NFL kicker from the 1970s? perhaps you pick them up and drop-kick them? and do you aim them at a target, or strive for maximum distance? or perhaps you are trying to get a particular volume of whelping when you make contact?

and do you limit yourself to infant canines, or are you an equal-opportunity kicker? kittens, ducklings, chickens, too? perhaps even an occasional visit to the local maternity ward, just in case security is all on break?


It certainly sounds like you have plenty of practice!
 
Last edited:
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

And you think dialogue with you is any better? I'd rather put my head in a letter press than try to engage in conversation with you.
Why do you have to be such a tease? I do have a few available if you really want to.

I'll have to defer to your expertise in this matter. Tell me, what's your favorite method? soccer style? or straight on like and old-fashioned NFL kicker from the 1970s? and do you aim that at a target, or strive for maximum distance?
The style really doesn't matter, that's determined by the size of your target. Aim is the key, power means nothing if you miss.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

I'll have to defer to your expertise in this matter. Tell me, what's your favorite method? soccer style? or straight on like and old-fashioned NFL kicker from the 1970s? perhaps you pick them up and drop-kick them? and do you aim them at a target, or strive for maximum distance? or perhaps you are trying to get a particular volume of whelping when you make contact?

and do you limit yourself to infant canines, or are you an equal-opportunity kicker? kittens, ducklings, chickens, too? perhaps even an occasional visit to the local maternity ward, just in case security is all on break?


It certainly sounds like you have plenty of practice!

Probably this:

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/zkcNLtn2gtk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Oh good lord. :rolleyes:

I'm also married, and neither my wife nor I could give a flying fart about someone carcking a joke about us loving someone else. Hell, we do it to each other all the time.

You neg repped me for this? You think this was classless? Seriously?

Seriously Bob, You must be the life of the party whenever you leave your house.
 
Last edited:
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Guess that shows how we are different than one another. I figured it'd be too much for you to respect my seeing this my own way, and you didn't surprise me. I'm not telling you how you should be or haranguing anyone for not having my perspective, maybe someday you can learn to treat others that way. :rolleyes:
Ah yes, that calling card of the religious right. Whenever a nonsensical position is taken, claim offense and the moral high ground.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Sometimes, to make a person or group of people understand, you have to stoop down to their level. Your messiah dictator is an expert, given his State of the Union addresses could be understood by kindergarteners.

And reaching out to Republicans is a bad thing?
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Guess that shows how we are different than one another. I figured it'd be too much for you to respect my seeing this my own way, and you didn't surprise me. I'm not telling you how you should be or haranguing anyone for not having my perspective, maybe someday you can learn to treat others that way. :rolleyes:

Well spoken! A toast to personal choice!
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

You neg repped me for this? You think this was classless? Seriously?

Seriously Bob, You must be the life of the party whenever you leave your house.
You really aren't this clueless are you? You harrass me for respecting my wife and you think I should get a chuckle out of it? Yes, I guess you really are this clueless and don't realize that not everyone thinks about things exactly as you do. You become the second person on my ignore list. Too bad, as, unlike someone like Foxton who is totally unable to ever discuss things reasonably, I've seen you have that capability in the past. But, this goes beyond casual back and forth forum banter. My wife and I have a great time together and constantly joke about lots of things, but she appreciates that I don't joke about certain areas and I respect that, unlike you.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

You harrass me for respecting my wife and you think I should get a chuckle out of it?

To steal a line from a Tom Clancy novel, you're speaking Klingon.

I simply do not grasp your logic. The comment was "Bob loves Jan Brewer." It was clearly a joke about you basically agreeing with her entire political stance. You somehow interpreted this as someone saying you don't respect your wife. I really don't understand how you made that leap; it simply doesn't make sense.

Also, by saying you respect your wife and would never find such a joke funny, you essentially said by implication that anyone who does chuckle at such jokes disrespects their wives. I take major offense to that, if so intended.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Bob, from reading other posts on this board, you seem like a nice guy, and that is no small thing, but don't indulge the role of victim with such vigor--you'll hurt yourself.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Will someone come and get me when the derp level in this thread drops to a point where we're having a discussion at a minimum of a high school level?
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Will someone come and get me when the derp level in this thread drops to a point where we're having a discussion at a minimum of a high school level?

How's this:

For those of you who think our courts suck, Italy once again poves it's the leader in kangaroo courts. It just found seven scientists guilty of manslaughter because they said they couldn't predict a major earthquake following some early minor tremors.

http://reason.com/blog/2012/10/22/italian-court-convicts-scientists-for-no
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top