Chewbacca mom accused of white privilege

[Griever]

(06-23-2016, 04:12 PM)GMDino Wrote: The list of folks who call him out for his hypocrisy so he "won't respond" to them any more.

You should have passive-aggressively referred to him as a pinhead so he could respect you more.

maybe i'll just slap and seduce his kids

[fredtoast]

(06-23-2016, 03:46 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So now we must look past the race to find the priviledge.

Only in the case you cited.

But we were not talking about that case.  You just tried to vring it into a discussion where it did not belong.  It was nothing but a red herring.







BTW what is "priviledge" Mr. Grammar Nazi?

[Griever]

(06-23-2016, 04:30 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Only in the case you cited.

But we were not talking about that case.  You just tried to vring it into a discussion where it did not belong.  It was nothing but a red herring.







BTW what is "priviledge" Mr. Grammar Nazi?

maybe its a ledge that is privy to things it otherwise shouldn't know

[*bfine32*]

(06-23-2016, 02:43 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: making a typo on a phone isn't the same as declaring that you can make up new definitions of words, but this is counter productive.

Itd be nice if we existed in a reality where we could all be genuine with each other here, but alas thats impossible.

(06-23-2016, 04:30 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Only in the case you cited.

But we were not talking about that case.  You just tried to vring it into a discussion where it did not belong.  It was nothing but a red herring.







BTW what is "priviledge" Mr. Grammar Nazi?

Ah, yes. I point out someone's mistake when they are providing me with a lecture on proper word usage and I become the Grammar Nazi. Are you sure you're not a little biased in your assignment of titles?

[fredtoast]

(06-23-2016, 04:47 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Ah, yes. I point out someone's mistake when they are providing me with a lecture on proper word usage and I become the Grammar Nazi. Are you sure you're not a little biased in your assignment of titles?

No.  Not biased at all.  I could post multiple links to where you have done the same thing over and over again even when you are not being attacked for proper word usage.

Do you want to admit it or do you want me to prove it?

[GMDino]

(06-23-2016, 04:47 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Ah, yes. I point out someone's mistake when they are providing me with a lecture on proper word usage and I become the Grammar Nazi. Are you sure you're not a little biased in your assignment of titles?

Two separate issues:

1) you nitpick words all the time and then claim ignorance, meanwhile you refuse to admit when you are wrong about a definition.

2) You used spelling smack and claimed it was the same thing.

[*bfine32*]

(06-23-2016, 04:50 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No.  Not biased at all.  I could post multiple links to where you have done the same thing over and over again even when you are not being attacked for proper word usage.

Do you want to admit it or do you want me to prove it?

Yes, please "prove" where I started any such confrontation. I do freely admit I have used in in response. For example in another thread someone tried to prove a point that i was mistaken on the capabilities of a weapon. That person, in an attempt to "stump the chump" asked a question about the cyclical rate of fire and feigned surprise that I was unaware of where someone could find such information. I shared with him that the correct term was cyclic.

So yes, please provide "proof" that I just correct folk’s grammar without provocation. I may have done it once or twice; however, none immediately come to mind. I guess I just don’t obsess about my posts as much as others do.

[GMDino]

(06-23-2016, 05:01 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Yes, please "prove" where I started any such confrontation. I do freely admit I have used in in response. For example in another thread someone tried to prove a point that i was mistaken on the capabilities of a weapon. That person, in an attempt to "stump the chump" asked a question about the cyclical rate of fire and feigned surprise that I was unaware of where someone could find such information. I shared with him that the correct term was cyclic.

So yes, please provide "proof" that I just correct folk’s grammar without provocation.

(06-23-2016, 05:01 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I may have done it once or twice; however, none immediately come to mind. I guess I just don’t obsess about my posts as much as others do.

[*bfine32*]

Is this an example of black privilege?
https://www.yahoo.com/gma/supreme-court-upholds-texas-college-affirmative-action-plan-144504331--abc-news-topstories.html#

Quote:The Supreme Court today upheld the University of Texas’ policy that takes race into account as a component of its admissions process.

In a 4-3 vote, the justices upheld the judgment of the court of appeals, which ruled in favor of the state’s considering race in its admissions process.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(06-23-2016, 12:03 PM)bfine32 Wrote: ..and as I said, we can consider you the expert of the proper spelling of internet browsers; just leave the weapons and their functions to the experts.

Yeah, I guess that is why you were totally unaware of how ballistics are affected by the earth's rotation and why I explained to you snipers account for it when figuring out a firing solution in certain situations when you thought you would make fun of Neil deGrasse Tyson for another thing you don't understand.

I noticed you still haven't answered the question.  A novice level question should be pretty easy for an expert to answer.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(06-23-2016, 12:47 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Oh allow me to clarify and alleviate your confusion on the suggestion of attacking the message and not the messenger:

When you reply to a message and that reply is directly related to the original message then you are attacking the message, even if you through a little flair in there. For example:

Poster A: I would not hire a homosexual
Poster B: That is most likely because you are homophobic

While this reply points to the character of Poster A; it clearly is in direct response to the message; therefore, attacking the message.

When you reply to a message and that reply is not related to the original message then you are attacking the messenger. For example:

Poster A: Suddenly very interested in the specific study and the specific person. Answer my question and I'll answer yours. Sound fair enough?
Poster B: You're awfully pissy for a guy who still hasn't given me the answer for the cyclic rate for a M4.

or

Poster A: I think it only fair that the UK hold a vote to determine if they want to remain a member of the EU
Poster B: That’s because you are a racist, bigoted, homophobic idiot

Theses replies are in no way related to the topic at hand and brings up something from a totally unrelated subject; therefore, attacking the messenger.

Let me know if you require additional example for clarity, as I am sure I can find them for you. Perhaps in this very thread.

You were complaining, yet again, about someone not answering your question in yet another thread.  My comment was directly related to what you wrote which is a recurring theme with you.

Again, why do you feel others are obligated to answer your questions when you do the same thing you are repeatedly complaining about?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(06-23-2016, 05:01 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Yes, please "prove" where I started any such confrontation. I do freely admit I have used in in response. For example in another thread someone tried to prove a point that i was mistaken on the capabilities of a weapon. That person, in an attempt to "stump the chump" asked a question about the cyclical rate of fire and feigned surprise that I was unaware of where someone could find such information. I shared with him that the correct term was cyclic.

So yes, please provide "proof" that I just correct folk’s grammar without provocation. I may have done it once or twice; however, none immediately come to mind. I guess I just don’t obsess about my posts as much as others do.

(06-14-2016, 10:45 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: The Army has these things called TMs. Technical manuals. They contain technical information like cyclical rate of fire, sustained rate of fire, max effective ranges, muzzle velocity, etc, etc. Surprised you seem to be unaware. Why don't you look in the TM for the M4 and tell us what cyclical rate of fire is listed in the TM? Then tell us the max effective rate of fire and the sustained rate of fire. Finally, explain the difference. Thanks in advance.

I'm still surprised you can't answer the question.  Also, that wasn't "feigned surprise," that was sarcasm.  Additionally, am I supposed to pretend you don't know what Google is because you spelled it goggle to play along with your charade?

[*bfine32*]

(06-23-2016, 07:15 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: You were complaining, yet again, about someone not answering your question in yet another thread.  My comment was directly related to what you wrote which is a recurring theme with you.

Again, why do you feel others are obligated to answer your questions when you do the same thing you are repeatedly complaining about?

I'll will graciously explain the difference. The question you asked was one of fact. I provided a source where you or anyone else that wanted to obtain the answer could find it. The question I asked was one of opinion. The only person that can provide the answer is the one, to whom, the question was posed. Do you now see the difference?

You seem adamant on getting an answer about your M4 query so to follow a saying that I live by:

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B20VYXOOQPQ0MDhjZTNlZjEtYmNhNS00MjlmLThjOTMtOWM4MjA4MGRhMjli/edit?pref=2&pli=1

"Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach him how to fish, feed him for a lifetime. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(06-22-2016, 06:34 PM)bfine32 Wrote: If you were an employer and you knew "scientific studies" showed that one applicant was 3 times more likely to commit a violent crime than the other, would that  factor into your decision making?

(06-22-2016, 09:46 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Are you suggesting you wouldn't hire prior military?

(06-22-2016, 10:01 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course I would. Most have shown a strong work ethic and ability to work under adverse conditions. What does that have to do with committing violent crime? 

(06-23-2016, 07:46 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: According to the profile for lone shooters in the workplace, you and I are more likely to shoot and kill our co-workers compared to our civilian counterparts without military experience. 

You can goggle that shit, if you like, for confirmation.

So knowing that prior military experience increases the chances a prospective employee might one day blow your head off, would that factor into your decision making?

[*bfine32*]

(06-23-2016, 07:35 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: So knowing that prior military experience increases the chances a prospective employee might one day blow your head off, would that factor into your decision making?

Yes it would. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(06-23-2016, 07:33 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I'll will graciously explain the difference. The question you asked was one of fact. I provided a source where you or anyone else that wanted to obtain the answer could find it.

I provided the source . . .

(06-14-2016, 10:45 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: The Army has these things called TMs. 

. . . in the first sentence of my first response.  And you still haven't answered.

Quote:The question I asked was one of opinion. The only person that can provide the answer is the one, to whom, the question was posed. Do you now see the difference?

You seem adamant on getting an answer about your M4 query so to follow a saying that I live by:

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B20VYXOOQPQ0MDhjZTNlZjEtYmNhNS00MjlmLThjOTMtOWM4MjA4MGRhMjli/edit?pref=2&pli=1

"Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach him how to fish, feed him for a lifetime. 

Oh, so you don't believe you have to answer a question if the answer involves a fact.  That makes sense.

[*bfine32*]

(06-23-2016, 07:33 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Do you now see the difference?

(06-23-2016, 07:42 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Oh, so you don't believe you have to answer a question if the answer involves a fact.  That makes sense.

I guess not, but I take comfort in the fact that I tried. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(06-23-2016, 07:48 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I guess not, but I take comfort in the fact that I tried. 

Oh, so now you're giving out facts? Not that difficult, is it?