Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #450345 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-05-03 20:56 -0700 |
| Last post | 2018-05-04 17:41 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 64 — 7 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy
Who wants to control people more: American Christians or Muslims? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-03 20:56 -0700
Re: Who wants to control people more: American Christians or Muslims? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-04 04:07 +0000
Re: Who wants to control people more: American Christians or Muslims? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-03 21:10 -0700
Re: Who wants to control people more: American Christians or Muslims? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-04 04:33 +0000
Re: Who wants to control people more: American Christians or Muslims? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-04 05:39 +0000
Re: Who wants to control people more: American Christians or Muslims? Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-05-04 09:12 -0400
Re: Who wants to control people more: American Christians or Muslims? chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-04 09:00 -0500
Re: Who wants to control people more: American Christians or Muslims? Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-05-04 10:11 -0400
Re: Who wants to control people more: American Christians or Muslims? Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-04 07:19 -0700
Re: Who wants to control people more: American Christians or Muslims? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-04 14:30 +0000
Re: Who wants to control people more: American Christians or Muslims? Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-04 08:43 -0600
Re: Who wants to control people more: American Christians or Muslims? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-04 14:54 +0000
Re: Who wants to control people more: American Christians or Muslims? Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-04 10:00 -0700
Re: Who wants to control people more: American Christians or Muslims? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-04 14:28 +0000
Re: Who wants to control people more: American Christians or Muslims? Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-05-04 09:19 -0400
Re: Who wants to control people more: American Christians or Muslims? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-04 14:28 +0000
Re: Who wants to control people more: American Christians or Muslims? Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-04 08:45 -0600
Re: Who wants to control people more: American Christians or Muslims? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-04 14:54 +0000
Re: Who wants to control people more: American Christians or Muslims? Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-04 09:20 -0600
Re: Who wants to control people more: American Christians or Muslims? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-04 15:27 +0000
Re: Who wants to control people more: American Christians or Muslims? Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-04 09:30 -0600
Re: Who wants to control people more: American Christians or Muslims? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-04 08:37 -0700
Re: Who wants to control people more: American Christians or Muslims? Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-04 08:51 -0700
Re: Who wants to control people more: American Christians or Muslims? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-04 09:03 -0700
Re: Who wants to control people more: American Christians or Muslims? Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-04 10:18 -0600
Re: Who wants to control people more: American Christians or Muslims? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-04 09:32 -0700
Re: Who wants to control people more: American Christians or Muslims? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-04 16:40 +0000
Re: Who wants to control people more: American Christians or Muslims? Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-04 10:41 -0600
Re: Who wants to control people more: American Christians or Muslims? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-04 10:01 -0700
Re: Who wants to control people more: American Christians or Muslims? Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-04 11:05 -0600
Re: Who wants to control people more: American Christians or Muslims? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-04 12:36 -0700
Re: Who wants to control people more: American Christians or Muslims? Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-04 13:08 -0700
Re: Who wants to control people more: American Christians or Muslims? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-04 14:13 -0700
Re: Who wants to control people more: American Christians or Muslims? Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-04 14:40 -0700
Re: Who wants to control people more: American Christians or Muslims? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-04 16:50 -0700
Re: Who wants to control people more: American Christians or Muslims? Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-04 18:53 -0700
Re: Who wants to control people more: American Christians or Muslims? Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-05 10:21 -0600
Re: Who wants to control people more: American Christians or Muslims? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-05 10:37 -0700
Re: Who wants to control people more: American Christians or Muslims? Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-05 11:19 -0700
Re: Who wants to control people more: American Christians or Muslims? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-05 11:31 -0700
Re: Who wants to control people more: American Christians or Muslims? Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-05 12:03 -0700
Re: Who wants to control people more: American Christians or Muslims? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-05 12:58 -0700
Re: Who wants to control people more: American Christians or Muslims? Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-05 13:15 -0700
Re: Who wants to control people more: American Christians or Muslims? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-05 13:19 -0700
Re: Who wants to control people more: American Christians or Muslims? Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-05 13:25 -0700
Re: Who wants to control people more: American Christians or Muslims? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-05 13:42 -0700
Re: Who wants to control people more: American Christians or Muslims? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-05 13:56 -0700
Re: Who wants to control people more: American Christians or Muslims? Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-05 15:40 -0600
Re: Who wants to control people more: American Christians or Muslims? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-05 17:27 -0700
Re: Who wants to control people more: American Christians or Muslims? Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-07 14:22 -0700
Re: Who wants to control people more: American Christians or Muslims? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-07 14:29 -0700
Re: Who wants to control people more: American Christians or Muslims? Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-07 14:38 -0700
Re: Who wants to control people more: American Christians or Muslims? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-07 14:42 -0700
Re: Who wants to control people more: American Christians or Muslims? Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-07 14:54 -0700
Re: Who wants to control people more: American Christians or Muslims? Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-08 04:33 -0700
Re: Who wants to control people more: American Christians or Muslims? Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-08 02:46 -0700
Re: Who wants to control people more: American Christians or Muslims? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-07 14:30 -0700
Re: Who wants to control people more: American Christians or Muslims? Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-07 15:20 -0700
Re: Who wants to control people more: American Christians or Muslims? Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-04 16:31 -0700
Re: Who wants to control people more: American Christians or Muslims? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-04 10:06 -0700
Re: Who wants to control people more: American Christians or Muslims? Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-04 11:16 -0600
Re: Who wants to control people more: American Christians or Muslims? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-04 12:34 -0700
Re: Who wants to control people more: American Christians or Muslims? Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-04 10:48 -0700
Re: Who wants to control people more: American Christians or Muslims? Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-05-04 17:41 -0400
Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 Next page →
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-05 12:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <12b14682-4337-4003-86f5-5616459578b8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #450529 |
On Saturday, May 5, 2018 at 12:31:42 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > On 5/5/18 11:19 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: > > On Saturday, May 5, 2018 at 11:37:35 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > >> On 5/5/18 9:21 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: > >>> On 2018-05-04 23:50:56 +0000, Snit said: > >>> > >>>> On 5/4/18 2:40 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > >>>>> On Friday, May 4, 2018 at 3:14:01 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > >>>>>> On 5/4/18 1:08 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > >>>>>>>> Which Muslim countries? It is not as cut and dried as many think > >>>>>>> As not as peachy as liberal propaganda would have one think: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I pointed to Politifact... not any "liberal propaganda". > >>>>> > >>>>> LOL! > >>>>> > >>>>> The way they amass data to produce what they do is goofy. > >>>>> You actually believe that bizarre method is on the level? They > >>>>> rated HRC as the most honest politician to run for POTUS > >>>>> in the last decade, which is *off the chart* ridiculous. > >>>>> > >>>> Where do they rate ANY politician as honest or not? They rate > >>>> STATEMENTS as honest or not, but as far as I know not politicians. > >>> > >>> There are 3rd parties that analyze their conclusions on the whole. > >> > >> Yes: I have seen people saying so-and-so is X% honest. This is a > >> misreading of what Politifact claims. I will even go so far as to say > >> Politfact sometimes encourages such misreadings, such as on this page: > >> > >> <http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/lists/people/comparing-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-truth-o-met/> > >> OR <https://goo.gl/VM5dN7> > >> > >> Still, if you look at their methodology page there is nothing to suggest > >> they are rating any given person on their level of honesty OVERALL: > >> > >> <http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2018/feb/12/principles-truth-o-meter-politifacts-methodology-i/> > >> OR <https://goo.gl/fTuK4s> > >> > >>> When you look at the whole a pattern emerges. > >>> > >>> In a famous example of how they do what they do, the Ron Paul 1913 > >>> income tax claim was labeled as "Half true". Some democrat made the same > >>> claim and it was rated "Mostly true". Politifact was even forced to walk > >>> it back when this was pointed out... and they weren't even forthcoming > >>> in *why* they 'reconsidered' it: > >>> > >>> <https://me.me/i/half-true-ron-paul-pol-act-says-the-u-s-federal-3128238> > >>> > >>> From Politifact: > >>> "Correction (Dec. 20, 2016): This fact-check initially published on Aug. > >>> 24, 2015, and was rated Mostly True. Upon reconsideration, we are > >>> changing our ruling to Half True. The text of the fact-check is unchanged." > >>> > >>> <http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2015/aug/24/jim-webb/jim-webb-says-us-didnt-have-income-taxes-until-191/> > >> > >> I certainly do not claim they are perfect. Heck, my "favorite" (though > >> unsupportable") example of this is how they rated a Sanders' comment as > >> not true when he was asked some question and started his response by > >> saying he did not know but would guess whatever. > > > > Sanders was actually ahead of Hillary in one of the 3rd party > > analyzations I saw. > > If just one I would not take it to mean that much... Like I said, even *they* have done such ratings. I saw 1 between HRC and Trump, some Truth-O-Meter bit comparing how honest they are (you seem to believe they've never done it, they have). > but given how the > DNC and the media pushed Clinton he did unbelievably well... and is > still the most popular politician in the country (or was with the last > polls I saw). Given how both Clinton and Trump were the two least liked, > I think there is little doubt he would have beaten Trump. > > >> His guess, clearly > >> stated as a guess, was incorrect. Perhaps he should have know the actual > >> answer (cannot even recall what it was) but they rated his comment as > >> untrue... as if he lied. > >> > >> They later removed that page > > > > This is exactly the kind of crap they do, which is why they > > are not a reliable source. > > I am OK with them removing pages... but I think it is a mistake to have > no mention of it. Maybe they do and I just have not seen it... Maybe they do a lot of stuff you haven't seen. > but I > have looked. Wish I had a screenshot of the page or whatever but not > knowing it was going to go away I never thought to get it. > > I did reference it, I think, on some old Facebook posts, so I *might* be > able to find more info on it. That is assuming you can find anything on > Facebook's insane system. > > >> -- and there is no mention of it anywhere I > >> can find so I cannot prove it or get more details. > >> > >>> The idea they're playing fair and square is bogus. > >>> > >>>> As far as Clinton, she is deeply dishonest... > >>> > >>> Yet, when looking at Politifact claims on the whole, she comes out above > >>> Obama. > >> > >> Based on a misreading of their comments, sure. > > > > The ones I've seen are based on how Politifact rates the comments. > > Do you have examples. I don't even look at this kind of crap anymore. Anyone can claim that any outfit is this or that, what they can't do is conclusively prove it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-05 12:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fl6gn3FpicrU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #450533 |
On 5/5/18 12:03 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: ... >>> Sanders was actually ahead of Hillary in one of the 3rd party >>> analyzations I saw. >> >> If just one I would not take it to mean that much... > > Like I said, even *they* have done such ratings. I saw 1 between > HRC and Trump, some Truth-O-Meter bit comparing how honest > they are (you seem to believe they've never done it, they have). Would love to see it. Have a link? ... >> I am OK with them removing pages... but I think it is a mistake to have >> no mention of it. Maybe they do and I just have not seen it... > > Maybe they do a lot of stuff you haven't seen. I read only a tiny percentage of their pages. They post a LOT of things I have not seen. Sure. ... >>>>>> As far as Clinton, she is deeply dishonest... >>>>> >>>>> Yet, when looking at Politifact claims on the whole, she comes out above >>>>> Obama. >>>> >>>> Based on a misreading of their comments, sure. >>> >>> The ones I've seen are based on how Politifact rates the comments. >> >> Do you have examples. > > I don't even look at this kind of crap anymore. Anyone can claim that > any outfit is this or that, what they can't do is conclusively prove it. OK, so you have no examples. Meanwhile I look to the evidence and find Politifact to be a reputable organization (which does not mean perfect). -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-05 13:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5fb86c65-ddc0-4285-915b-232c01c20c22@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #450538 |
On Saturday, May 5, 2018 at 1:58:29 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > On 5/5/18 12:03 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > ... > >>> Sanders was actually ahead of Hillary in one of the 3rd party > >>> analyzations I saw. > >> > >> If just one I would not take it to mean that much... > > > > Like I said, even *they* have done such ratings. I saw 1 between > > HRC and Trump, some Truth-O-Meter bit comparing how honest > > they are (you seem to believe they've never done it, they have). > > Would love to see it. Have a link? <http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/lists/people/comparing-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-truth-o-met/> > >> I am OK with them removing pages... but I think it is a mistake to have > >> no mention of it. Maybe they do and I just have not seen it... > > > > Maybe they do a lot of stuff you haven't seen. > > I read only a tiny percentage of their pages. They post a LOT of things > I have not seen. Sure. > > ... > >>>>>> As far as Clinton, she is deeply dishonest... > >>>>> > >>>>> Yet, when looking at Politifact claims on the whole, she comes out above > >>>>> Obama. > >>>> > >>>> Based on a misreading of their comments, sure. > >>> > >>> The ones I've seen are based on how Politifact rates the comments. > >> > >> Do you have examples. > > > > I don't even look at this kind of crap anymore. Anyone can claim that > > any outfit is this or that, what they can't do is conclusively prove it. > > OK, so you have no examples. Nor would I waste time trying to get some. I don't feel the need to try and disprove someone when they make the claim that this outfit is more *fill in the blank* than that one. As I said, I already know neither can conclusively be proven. Elsewhere, you just equated policing with college and job related issues; were I to bother, you'd be the last person I'd tried to convince.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-05 13:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fl6hveFpr0cU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #450543 |
On 5/5/18 1:15 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Saturday, May 5, 2018 at 1:58:29 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >> On 5/5/18 12:03 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: >> ... >>>>> Sanders was actually ahead of Hillary in one of the 3rd party >>>>> analyzations I saw. >>>> >>>> If just one I would not take it to mean that much... >>> >>> Like I said, even *they* have done such ratings. I saw 1 between >>> HRC and Trump, some Truth-O-Meter bit comparing how honest >>> they are (you seem to believe they've never done it, they have). >> >> Would love to see it. Have a link? > > <http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/lists/people/comparing-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-truth-o-met/> I meant a link backing what you say, where they make a claim about which politician is more honest than another. Which, of course, was obvious with the context. ... >>>>> The ones I've seen are based on how Politifact rates the comments. >>>> >>>> Do you have examples. >>> >>> I don't even look at this kind of crap anymore. Anyone can claim that >>> any outfit is this or that, what they can't do is conclusively prove it. >> >> OK, so you have no examples. > > Nor would I waste time trying to get some. I don't feel the need to try > and disprove someone when they make the claim that this outfit is more > *fill in the blank* than that one. OK, so you have no support. I am OK with that. You have an unsupported opinion. That is fine. > As I said, I already know neither can > conclusively be proven. Elsewhere, you just equated policing with > college and job related issues; I did no such thing. > were I to bother, you'd be the last person > I'd tried to convince. Ah, you blame ME for your lack of support... what a surprise! -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-05 13:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2d99ca25-f6de-4c47-b46a-dcff3f29c337@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #450545 |
On Saturday, May 5, 2018 at 2:20:00 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > On 5/5/18 1:15 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > > On Saturday, May 5, 2018 at 1:58:29 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > >> On 5/5/18 12:03 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > >> ... > >>>>> Sanders was actually ahead of Hillary in one of the 3rd party > >>>>> analyzations I saw. > >>>> > >>>> If just one I would not take it to mean that much... > >>> > >>> Like I said, even *they* have done such ratings. I saw 1 between > >>> HRC and Trump, some Truth-O-Meter bit comparing how honest > >>> they are (you seem to believe they've never done it, they have). > >> > >> Would love to see it. Have a link? > > > > <http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/lists/people/comparing-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-truth-o-met/> > > I meant a link backing what you say, where they make a claim about which > politician is more honest than another. Which, of course, was obvious > with the context. LOL! What do you think the purpose of that page is if not comparing how honest HRC is to Trump? > >>>>> The ones I've seen are based on how Politifact rates the comments. > >>>> > >>>> Do you have examples. > >>> > >>> I don't even look at this kind of crap anymore. Anyone can claim that > >>> any outfit is this or that, what they can't do is conclusively prove it. > >> > >> OK, so you have no examples. > > > > Nor would I waste time trying to get some. I don't feel the need to try > > and disprove someone when they make the claim that this outfit is more > > *fill in the blank* than that one. > > OK, so you have no support. For you? Of course not. > > As I said, I already know neither can > > conclusively be proven. Elsewhere, you just equated policing with > > college and job related issues; > > I did no such thing. > > > were I to bother, you'd be the last person > > I'd tried to convince. > > Ah, you blame ME for your lack of support... what a surprise! LOL! Stop acting like you're a reasonable person, no one believes that. You just equated policing in high crime areas with job/college issues. Who does that? No reasonable person.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-05 13:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fl6jabFq4bpU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #450547 |
On 5/5/18 1:25 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Saturday, May 5, 2018 at 2:20:00 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >> On 5/5/18 1:15 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: >>> On Saturday, May 5, 2018 at 1:58:29 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >>>> On 5/5/18 12:03 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: >>>> ... >>>>>>> Sanders was actually ahead of Hillary in one of the 3rd party >>>>>>> analyzations I saw. >>>>>> >>>>>> If just one I would not take it to mean that much... >>>>> >>>>> Like I said, even *they* have done such ratings. I saw 1 between >>>>> HRC and Trump, some Truth-O-Meter bit comparing how honest >>>>> they are (you seem to believe they've never done it, they have). >>>> >>>> Would love to see it. Have a link? >>> >>> <http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/lists/people/comparing-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-truth-o-met/> >> >> I meant a link backing what you say, where they make a claim about which >> politician is more honest than another. Which, of course, was obvious >> with the context. > > LOL! What do you think the purpose of that page is if not comparing > how honest HRC is to Trump? Comparing the ratings of the comments they have looked at. Nowhere do they say it means one person is more or less honest than another. They rate 296 comments from Clinton. They rate 550 comments from Trump. Do you think that means Trump says has said almost double the number of things that Clinton has? >>>>>>> The ones I've seen are based on how Politifact rates the comments. >>>>>> >>>>>> Do you have examples. >>>>> >>>>> I don't even look at this kind of crap anymore. Anyone can claim that >>>>> any outfit is this or that, what they can't do is conclusively prove it. >>>> >>>> OK, so you have no examples. >>> >>> Nor would I waste time trying to get some. I don't feel the need to try >>> and disprove someone when they make the claim that this outfit is more >>> *fill in the blank* than that one. >> >> OK, so you have no support. > > For you? Of course not. Again: you blame me for your lack of support. In your world ALL things are about me, and all your failings are because of me. ... > Stop acting like you're a reasonable person, no one believes that. See: you just spew insults when you know you cannot back your claims... insults where you focus on me. > You just equated policing in high crime areas with job/college issues. I did no such thing. > Who does that? No reasonable person. The question is why did you make up such a story. But this is how things go with you... you start of at least trying to appear reasonable then you find you cannot and go into your victim mentality mode where you blame me for all your failings. If history shows us anything it is when I get to the point of deeming your nonsense not worth my time you will cry about not getting my attention, come up with some new question, and insist I am "running" to not keep playing your games. It is not like you are hard to predict. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-05 13:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fl6k35Fq8pmU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #450550 |
On 5/5/18 1:47 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > On 2018-05-05 20:42:50 +0000, Snit said: > >> On 5/5/18 1:25 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: >>> On Saturday, May 5, 2018 at 2:20:00 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >>>> On 5/5/18 1:15 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: >>>>> On Saturday, May 5, 2018 at 1:58:29 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >>>>>> On 5/5/18 12:03 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: >>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>> Sanders was actually ahead of Hillary in one of the 3rd party >>>>>>>>> analyzations I saw. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If just one I would not take it to mean that much... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Like I said, even *they* have done such ratings. I saw 1 between >>>>>>> HRC and Trump, some Truth-O-Meter bit comparing how honest >>>>>>> they are (you seem to believe they've never done it, they have). >>>>>> >>>>>> Would love to see it. Have a link? >>>>> >>>>> <http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/lists/people/comparing-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-truth-o-met/> >>>>> >>>> >>>> I meant a link backing what you say, where they make a claim about >>>> which >>>> politician is more honest than another. Which, of course, was obvious >>>> with the context. >>> >>> LOL! What do you think the purpose of that page is if not comparing >>> how honest HRC is to Trump? >> >> Comparing the ratings of the comments they have looked at. > > Which comments? The ones they have looked at, of course. If you click the relevant links on that page it will take you to them! >> Nowhere do they say it means one person is more or less honest than >> another. > > LOL! You're higher than a kite again, aren't you ;) Insults do not support your claim. >> They rate 296 comments from Clinton. >> They rate 550 comments from Trump. > > Why the disparity? Trump is president and is making more public statements. He also likely has more people asking about him. >> Do you think that means Trump says has said almost double the number >> of things that Clinton has? > > It may mean they're doing exactly what I metnioned. How do you figure? -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-05 15:40 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <pcl8cp$8du$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #450555 |
On 2018-05-05 20:56:05 +0000, Snit said: > On 5/5/18 1:47 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: >> On 2018-05-05 20:42:50 +0000, Snit said: >> >>> On 5/5/18 1:25 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: >>>> On Saturday, May 5, 2018 at 2:20:00 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >>>>> On 5/5/18 1:15 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: >>>>>> On Saturday, May 5, 2018 at 1:58:29 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >>>>>>> On 5/5/18 12:03 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: >>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>>> Sanders was actually ahead of Hillary in one of the 3rd party >>>>>>>>>> analyzations I saw. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If just one I would not take it to mean that much... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Like I said, even *they* have done such ratings. I saw 1 between >>>>>>>> HRC and Trump, some Truth-O-Meter bit comparing how honest >>>>>>>> they are (you seem to believe they've never done it, they have). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Would love to see it. Have a link? >>>>>> >>>>>> <http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/lists/people/comparing-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-truth-o-met/> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I meant a link backing what you say, where they make a claim about which >>>>> politician is more honest than another. Which, of course, was obvious >>>>> with the context. >>>> >>>> LOL! What do you think the purpose of that page is if not comparing >>>> how honest HRC is to Trump? >>> >>> Comparing the ratings of the comments they have looked at. >> >> Which comments? > > The ones they have looked at, of course. You see no problem with them putting up graphs like that when they aren't showing some sort of parity in the comments? > If you click the relevant links on that page it will take you to them! In order for this to have any kind of logical meaning they should detail a number of topics that both have commented on and use only those topics. Even then they can simply pick and choose but at least it wouldn't be as blatantly obvious (to people who can think, anyway) > >>> Nowhere do they say it means one person is more or less honest than another. >> >> LOL! You're higher than a kite again, aren't you ;) > > Insults do not support your claim. You, overlooking what is a clear message in the purpose of that page (comparing honesty) was the only insult here. I was giving you an out. > >>> They rate 296 comments from Clinton. >>> They rate 550 comments from Trump. >> >> Why the disparity? > > Trump is president and is making more public statements. He also likely > has more people asking about him. Wow... > >>> Do you think that means Trump says has said almost double the number of >>> things that Clinton has? >> >> It may mean they're doing exactly what I metnioned. > > How do you figure? At least I can "figure", your brain appears to have stepped off the planet ;)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-05 17:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fl70g0Fsq8sU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #450558 |
On 5/5/18 2:40 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: ... >>>>>>>>>>> Sanders was actually ahead of Hillary in one of the 3rd party >>>>>>>>>>> analyzations I saw. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> If just one I would not take it to mean that much... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Like I said, even *they* have done such ratings. I saw 1 between >>>>>>>>> HRC and Trump, some Truth-O-Meter bit comparing how honest >>>>>>>>> they are (you seem to believe they've never done it, they have). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Would love to see it. Have a link? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/lists/people/comparing-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-truth-o-met/> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I meant a link backing what you say, where they make a claim about >>>>>> which >>>>>> politician is more honest than another. Which, of course, was obvious >>>>>> with the context. >>>>> >>>>> LOL! What do you think the purpose of that page is if not comparing >>>>> how honest HRC is to Trump? >>>> >>>> Comparing the ratings of the comments they have looked at. >>> >>> Which comments? >> >> The ones they have looked at, of course. > > You see no problem with them putting up graphs like that when they > aren't showing some sort of parity in the comments? Given how I already posted a link to that page and noted my concerns with it your claim of my having "no problem" with it seems quite disingenuous! >> If you click the relevant links on that page it will take you to them! > > In order for this to have any kind of logical meaning they should detail > a number of topics that both have commented on and use only those > topics. In order for them to rate specific comments you want them to have to log EVERY comment made on EVERY topic. You MUST be kidding! It is like requiring me to speak of your every topic and lie in order to be able to note specific lies of yours. Nope. > Even then they can simply pick and choose but at least it > wouldn't be as blatantly obvious (to people who can think, anyway) > >> >>>> Nowhere do they say it means one person is more or less honest than >>>> another. >>> >>> LOL! You're higher than a kite again, aren't you ;) >> >> Insults do not support your claim. > > You, overlooking what is a clear message in the purpose of that page > (comparing honesty) was the only insult here. I was giving you an out. You are making an assumption about the page which is neither stated nor implied. NOWHERE do they rate the "level" of honesty of anyone, at least that I know of. >>>> They rate 296 comments from Clinton. >>>> They rate 550 comments from Trump. >>> >>> Why the disparity? >> >> Trump is president and is making more public statements. He also >> likely has more people asking about him. > > Wow... Is this really a surprise to you? >>>> Do you think that means Trump says has said almost double the number >>>> of things that Clinton has? >>> >>> It may mean they're doing exactly what I metnioned. >> >> How do you figure? > > At least I can "figure", your brain appears to have stepped off the > planet ;) Ah, no reasoning so you jump to your insults. Why not TRY to back your claim. Or admit it is just your feeling. Or admit to your error. Anything other than getting all insecure and lashing out with insults. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-07 14:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1467c4ed-a6f3-4d10-b87c-fbbe2b4cfd51@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #450565 |
On Saturday, May 5, 2018 at 6:27:47 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > On 5/5/18 2:40 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > ... > >>>>>>>>>>> Sanders was actually ahead of Hillary in one of the 3rd party > >>>>>>>>>>> analyzations I saw. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> If just one I would not take it to mean that much... > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Like I said, even *they* have done such ratings. I saw 1 between > >>>>>>>>> HRC and Trump, some Truth-O-Meter bit comparing how honest > >>>>>>>>> they are (you seem to believe they've never done it, they have). > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Would love to see it. Have a link? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> <http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/lists/people/comparing-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-truth-o-met/> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I meant a link backing what you say, where they make a claim about > >>>>>> which > >>>>>> politician is more honest than another. Which, of course, was obvious > >>>>>> with the context. > >>>>> > >>>>> LOL! What do you think the purpose of that page is if not comparing > >>>>> how honest HRC is to Trump? > >>>> > >>>> Comparing the ratings of the comments they have looked at. > >>> > >>> Which comments? > >> > >> The ones they have looked at, of course. > > > > You see no problem with them putting up graphs like that when they > > aren't showing some sort of parity in the comments? > > Given how I already posted a link to that page and noted my concerns > with it your claim of my having "no problem" with it seems quite > disingenuous! Snit... you can't read what is obvious, even when *you* write it ;) Why would you believe you're able to assess what is disingenuous, or not? > >> If you click the relevant links on that page it will take you to them! > > > > In order for this to have any kind of logical meaning they should detail > > a number of topics that both have commented on and use only those > > topics. > > In order for them to rate specific comments you want them to have to log > EVERY comment made on EVERY topic. You MUST be kidding! I'm curious, how many drugs must one ingest to get from what I wrote... "a number of topics that both have commented on" to your (ahem) 'assessment' of it... "EVERY comment made on EVERY topic" > It is like > requiring me to speak of your every topic and lie in order to be able to > note specific lies of yours. Nope. > > > Even then they can simply pick and choose but at least it > > wouldn't be as blatantly obvious (to people who can think, anyway) > > > >> > >>>> Nowhere do they say it means one person is more or less honest than > >>>> another. > >>> > >>> LOL! You're higher than a kite again, aren't you ;) > >> > >> Insults do not support your claim. > > > > You, overlooking what is a clear message in the purpose of that page > > (comparing honesty) was the only insult here. I was giving you an out. > > You are making an assumption about the page which is neither stated nor > implied. NOWHERE do they rate the "level" of honesty of anyone, at least > that I know of. How many drugs need to be mixed and ingested to have read... "Comparing Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump on the Truth-O-Meter" ... and come away with the idea that 'levels' of honesty were not being compared against "anyone" in a "Truth-O-Meter"? C'mon, how much did the taxpayer spend for that one? Maybe it's the ever 'compassionate' liberal-ness in you that has you overlooking reality... again: <https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/the-case-against-liberal-compassion/>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-07 14:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <flbupbF1js2U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #450767 |
On 5/7/18 2:22 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: >>>> The ones they have looked at, of course. >>> You see no problem with them putting up graphs like that when they >>> aren't showing some sort of parity in the comments? >> Given how I already posted a link to that page and noted my concerns >> with it your claim of my having "no problem" with it seems quite >> disingenuous! > Snit... you can't read what is obvious, even when*you* write it ;) Why > would you believe you're able to assess what is disingenuous, or not? > You claimed I had no problem with it AFTER I noted my concerns. Then you work to turn things around and whine about how you think I cannot understand what I read. Seriously, you used to be better in your trolling than this. Your word play and context twisting was much more clever. Now you mostly just spew racist crap such as how: * You support the idea of cops being quicker to shoot blacks merely on the color of their skin and, * You think it is wrong to show a black man as an example of healthy masculinity. That and making up things and attributing them to me and just flat out lying. Your family is right... you ARE getting worse. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-07 14:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a7f81b5b-f918-4c51-8a6e-45a5e5219f4a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #450768 |
On Monday, May 7, 2018 at 3:29:19 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > On 5/7/18 2:22 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > >>>> The ones they have looked at, of course. > >>> You see no problem with them putting up graphs like that when they > >>> aren't showing some sort of parity in the comments? > >> Given how I already posted a link to that page and noted my concerns > >> with it your claim of my having "no problem" with it seems quite > >> disingenuous! > > Snit... you can't read what is obvious, even when*you* write it ;) Why > > would you believe you're able to assess what is disingenuous, or not? > > > > You claimed I had no problem with it AFTER I noted my concerns. So, to you, asking a question is making a 'claim' now? You're lost... > Then you work to turn things around and whine about how you think I > cannot understand what I read. LOL! You don't even need to click the link to realize what that page is about: <http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/lists/people/comparing-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-truth-o-met/> See the words "comparing", "clinton", "trump" and "truth-o-met(er)" in the URL? WTF do you think it's gonna be about, how to make salami in a windstorm? C'mon, Snit... sober up, I'm even embarrassed for you. > That and making up things and attributing them to me and just flat out > lying. Your family is right... you ARE getting worse. So that's what all this 'family' BS is about, you're pissed because I (rightfully) pointed out how you're worse. Well, you are worse... and this post is another example of it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-07 14:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <flbvieF1onoU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #450770 |
On 5/6/18 9:09 AM, Steve Carroll wrote:
> On Saturday, May 5, 2018 at 2:56:41 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote:
>> On 5/5/18 1:49 PM, Steve Carroll wrote:
>>> On 2018-05-05 20:46:59 +0000, Snit said:
>>>
>>>> On 5/5/18 1:42 PM, Steve Carroll wrote:
>>>>> On 2018-05-05 20:16:53 +0000, Snit said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/5/18 1:08 PM, Steve Carroll wrote:
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>> You are backing racial quotas of a sort...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm pointing out how they undoubtedly *must* be forced to look
>>>>>>>>> at things in a way that you and I will never have to if they
>>>>>>>>> want to live through the day.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> They no more have to judge people by the color of their skin
>>>>>>>> than colleges and employers have to with affirmative action.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No one has to do anything... but prudence suggests that it would
>>>>>>> be in their interest to do so if they want to live when policing
>>>>>>> in the high crime areas.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> One black person is not responsible for the actions of another.
>>>>>> You are trying to justify police shooting someone based on the
>>>>>> color of their skin.
>>>>>>
>>>>> LOL! Where do you believe I 'justified' that?
>>>>>
>>>> Sigh. OK, you are back to your game playing nonsense... you JUST
>>>> said how they have to target blacks differently
>>>>
>>> I used the wrod "target"?! Where?
>>>
>> My level of interest in your word games: zero.
>>
> The games were all yours, Mr. Pathological Liar.
You went back to your games where you demand I quote back to you what
you have said... and then denying you said it because I spoke of what I
disagree with in your views but did not use your exact words.
Even worse you do this AS you lie about what I have said, in this case
claiming I "equated policing in high crime areas with job/college
issues". You made that up in response to my noting I do not back
grouping people by color in either situation, which does not in any way
imply the two situations are equal.
But back to your support of judging people by the color of their skin,
and you being OK with this in situations where black people are shot!
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0141854
——
The results provide evidence of a significant bias in the killing of
unarmed black Americans relative to unarmed white Americans, in that the
probability of being {black, unarmed, and shot by police} is about 3.49
times the probability of being {white, unarmed, and shot by police} on
average. Furthermore, the results of multi-level modeling show that
there exists significant heterogeneity across counties in the extent of
racial bias in police shootings, with some counties showing relative
risk ratios of 20 to 1 or more. Finally, analysis of police shooting
data as a function of county-level predictors suggests that racial bias
in police shootings is most likely to emerge in police departments in
larger metropolitan counties with low median incomes and a sizable
portion of black residents, especially when there is high financial
inequality in that county. There is no relationship between county-level
racial bias in police shootings and crime rates (even race-specific
crime rates), meaning that the racial bias observed in police shootings
in this data set is not explainable as a response to local-level crime
rates.
——
Steve Carroll
-----
What does that last statement tell you? In such areas, given
that stats show a police officer is 18.9 times more likely
to be killed by a black male (who, at 6% commit 42% of
police officer deaths), you wouldn't think it prudent for
them to exhibit a "bias" if they want to come home from work
that night? It's a war zone, the things we'd all like to
believe should be done can't be done, there'd be no one left
alive to do them.
-----
I'm pointing out how they undoubtedly *must* be forced to
look at things in a way that you and I will never have to if
they want to live through the day.
-----
> They no more have to judge people by the color of
> their skin than colleges and employers have to
> with affirmative action.
No one has to do anything... but prudence suggests
that it would be in their interest to do so if they
want to live when policing in the high crime areas.
-----
> You are STILL backing judging people by the color
> of their skin
I'm just recognizing that police officers in these
high crime areas don't have the luxury not to.
-----
That is you, Carroll, noting your support for targeting people based on
the color of their skin in determining who to shoot. You can cry and
whine and lie when faced with your own words, as you did during your
tantrum over a black person being shown as an example of healthy
masculinity, but you still are responsible for your words.
You have always shown racist tendencies but you used to be better at
hiding them... you used to want to be the KKK member who never had his
hood lifted. Now, perhaps based on Trump's open bigotry and how he has
made it more acceptable in this nation to be a bigot, you have a harder
time keeping your hood on. Or maybe you just do not care to.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.
They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
<https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-07 14:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d2507e42-40b1-4ee3-8875-d9c0d91989da@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #450771 |
On Monday, May 7, 2018 at 3:42:41 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > On 5/6/18 9:09 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: > > On Saturday, May 5, 2018 at 2:56:41 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > >> On 5/5/18 1:49 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > >>> On 2018-05-05 20:46:59 +0000, Snit said: > >>> > >>>> On 5/5/18 1:42 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > >>>>> On 2018-05-05 20:16:53 +0000, Snit said: > >>>>> > >>>>>> On 5/5/18 1:08 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > >>>>>> ... > >>>>>>>>>> You are backing racial quotas of a sort... > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I'm pointing out how they undoubtedly *must* be forced to look > >>>>>>>>> at things in a way that you and I will never have to if they > >>>>>>>>> want to live through the day. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> They no more have to judge people by the color of their skin > >>>>>>>> than colleges and employers have to with affirmative action. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> No one has to do anything... but prudence suggests that it would > >>>>>>> be in their interest to do so if they want to live when policing > >>>>>>> in the high crime areas. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> One black person is not responsible for the actions of another. > >>>>>> You are trying to justify police shooting someone based on the > >>>>>> color of their skin. > >>>>>> > >>>>> LOL! Where do you believe I 'justified' that? > >>>>> > >>>> Sigh. OK, you are back to your game playing nonsense... you JUST > >>>> said how they have to target blacks differently > >>>> > >>> I used the wrod "target"?! Where? > >>> > >> My level of interest in your word games: zero. > >> > > The games were all yours, Mr. Pathological Liar. > > You You... seem to have gone into full 'Doof' mode with your auto-gurge <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlWrAZsndBw>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-08 04:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0902ae71-2e7e-4a00-8dc3-585bc508bc9f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #450772 |
On Monday, May 7, 2018 at 2:54:16 PM UTC-7, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Monday, May 7, 2018 at 3:42:41 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > > On 5/6/18 9:09 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: > > > On Saturday, May 5, 2018 at 2:56:41 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > > >> On 5/5/18 1:49 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > > >>> On 2018-05-05 20:46:59 +0000, Snit said: > > >>> > > >>>> On 5/5/18 1:42 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > > >>>>> On 2018-05-05 20:16:53 +0000, Snit said: > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> On 5/5/18 1:08 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > > >>>>>> ... > > >>>>>>>>>> You are backing racial quotas of a sort... > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> I'm pointing out how they undoubtedly *must* be forced to look > > >>>>>>>>> at things in a way that you and I will never have to if they > > >>>>>>>>> want to live through the day. > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> They no more have to judge people by the color of their skin > > >>>>>>>> than colleges and employers have to with affirmative action. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> No one has to do anything... but prudence suggests that it would > > >>>>>>> be in their interest to do so if they want to live when policing > > >>>>>>> in the high crime areas. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> One black person is not responsible for the actions of another. > > >>>>>> You are trying to justify police shooting someone based on the > > >>>>>> color of their skin. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> LOL! Where do you believe I 'justified' that? > > >>>>> > > >>>> Sigh. OK, you are back to your game playing nonsense... you JUST > > >>>> said how they have to target blacks differently > > >>>> > > >>> I used the wrod "target"?! Where? > > >>> > > >> My level of interest in your word games: zero. > > >> > > > The games were all yours, Mr. Pathological Liar. > > > > You > > You... seem to have gone into full 'Doof' mode with your auto-gurge > > <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlWrAZsndBw> Many advocates keep responding to Allie 'Super Troll' Higley. In truth I can not blame Snit (a real advocate) for having his dander up but I don't conceive why he comes here after all this nonsense. Snit (a real advocate) is focused on discussions as seen in a serious forum and unmoderated groups will never work for him. Lots of morons are now talking about the Linux "GUI" as if it truly would be a good thing. LXQt is clearly my second favorite DE and the only one I advocate to Windows morons. Primary interface is Pantheon, though. A great search feature is all you want after dealing with Wayland. The full sham is chock-full of ridiculous holes and counts heavily on Allie 'Super Troll' Higley's 'many certificates' nonsense. -- E-commerce Simplified http://tinyurl.com/proof-about-ebot Jonas Eklundh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-08 02:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a613025b-e18b-4527-a7ee-b0f41cd35205@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #450771 |
On Monday, May 7, 2018 at 2:42:41 PM UTC-7, Snit wrote:
> On 5/6/18 9:09 AM, Steve Carroll wrote:
> > On Saturday, May 5, 2018 at 2:56:41 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote:
> >> On 5/5/18 1:49 PM, Steve Carroll wrote:
> >>> On 2018-05-05 20:46:59 +0000, Snit said:
> >>>
> >>>> On 5/5/18 1:42 PM, Steve Carroll wrote:
> >>>>> On 2018-05-05 20:16:53 +0000, Snit said:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 5/5/18 1:08 PM, Steve Carroll wrote:
> >>>>>> ...
> >>>>>>>>>> You are backing racial quotas of a sort...
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I'm pointing out how they undoubtedly *must* be forced to look
> >>>>>>>>> at things in a way that you and I will never have to if they
> >>>>>>>>> want to live through the day.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> They no more have to judge people by the color of their skin
> >>>>>>>> than colleges and employers have to with affirmative action.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> No one has to do anything... but prudence suggests that it would
> >>>>>>> be in their interest to do so if they want to live when policing
> >>>>>>> in the high crime areas.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> One black person is not responsible for the actions of another.
> >>>>>> You are trying to justify police shooting someone based on the
> >>>>>> color of their skin.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> LOL! Where do you believe I 'justified' that?
> >>>>>
> >>>> Sigh. OK, you are back to your game playing nonsense... you JUST
> >>>> said how they have to target blacks differently
> >>>>
> >>> I used the wrod "target"?! Where?
> >>>
> >> My level of interest in your word games: zero.
> >>
> > The games were all yours, Mr. Pathological Liar.
>
> You went back to your games where you demand I quote back to you what
> you have said... and then denying you said it because I spoke of what I
> disagree with in your views but did not use your exact words.
>
> Even worse you do this AS you lie about what I have said, in this case
> claiming I "equated policing in high crime areas with job/college
> issues". You made that up in response to my noting I do not back
> grouping people by color in either situation, which does not in any way
> imply the two situations are equal.
>
> But back to your support of judging people by the color of their skin,
> and you being OK with this in situations where black people are shot!
>
> http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0141854
> ——
> The results provide evidence of a significant bias in the killing of
> unarmed black Americans relative to unarmed white Americans, in that the
> probability of being {black, unarmed, and shot by police} is about 3.49
> times the probability of being {white, unarmed, and shot by police} on
> average. Furthermore, the results of multi-level modeling show that
> there exists significant heterogeneity across counties in the extent of
> racial bias in police shootings, with some counties showing relative
> risk ratios of 20 to 1 or more. Finally, analysis of police shooting
> data as a function of county-level predictors suggests that racial bias
> in police shootings is most likely to emerge in police departments in
> larger metropolitan counties with low median incomes and a sizable
> portion of black residents, especially when there is high financial
> inequality in that county. There is no relationship between county-level
> racial bias in police shootings and crime rates (even race-specific
> crime rates), meaning that the racial bias observed in police shootings
> in this data set is not explainable as a response to local-level crime
> rates.
> ——
>
> Steve Carroll
> -----
> What does that last statement tell you? In such areas, given
> that stats show a police officer is 18.9 times more likely
> to be killed by a black male (who, at 6% commit 42% of
> police officer deaths), you wouldn't think it prudent for
> them to exhibit a "bias" if they want to come home from work
> that night? It's a war zone, the things we'd all like to
> believe should be done can't be done, there'd be no one left
> alive to do them.
> -----
> I'm pointing out how they undoubtedly *must* be forced to
> look at things in a way that you and I will never have to if
> they want to live through the day.
> -----
> > They no more have to judge people by the color of
> > their skin than colleges and employers have to
> > with affirmative action.
> No one has to do anything... but prudence suggests
> that it would be in their interest to do so if they
> want to live when policing in the high crime areas.
> -----
> > You are STILL backing judging people by the color
> > of their skin
> I'm just recognizing that police officers in these
> high crime areas don't have the luxury not to.
> -----
>
> That is you, Carroll, noting your support for targeting people based on
> the color of their skin in determining who to shoot. You can cry and
> whine and lie when faced with your own words, as you did during your
> tantrum over a black person being shown as an example of healthy
> masculinity, but you still are responsible for your words.
>
> You have always shown racist tendencies but you used to be better at
> hiding them... you used to want to be the KKK member who never had his
> hood lifted. Now, perhaps based on Trump's open bigotry and how he has
> made it more acceptable in this nation to be a bigot, you have a harder
> time keeping your hood on. Or maybe you just do not care to.
>
> --
> Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
> cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
> somehow superior by attacking the messenger.
>
> They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
>
> <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
It was MuahMan who got busted using lots of nyms time and time again, and these are 'people' who come basically out of the blue directly into threads where he was being ripped apart... continuously for years.
So he changed his story to responding to any sock of his. Time to blame anything but Linux!
Just look at MuahMan's programs and look at nospam's, there is nothing for us to learn from a small time player like MuahMan. But whatever, let him keep making a cretin of himself. It is not like anyone believes him.
Proof MuahMan accuses everyone of being Snit http://sandman.net/files/snit_circus.png. Everyone is MuahMan -- the oldest gag in the book.
I have known infants who argue better than MuahMan does.
--
Top Ten Ways MuahMan Trolls!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhOfBmWwCVY
http://www.5z8.info/horse-slaughter_w8c4en_launchexe
Jonas Eklundh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-07 14:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <flbuqpF1js2U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #450767 |
On 5/7/18 2:22 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > I'm curious, how many drugs must one ingest Clearly you do too much... and it is ruining your brain. Even worse is when you insist others are at fault. Take responsibility for your own life. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-07 15:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <112b0c66-dc29-4a02-b1cc-9e2b6248743f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #450769 |
On Monday, May 7, 2018 at 2:30:05 PM UTC-7, Snit wrote: > On 5/7/18 2:22 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > > I'm curious, how many drugs must one ingest > > Clearly you do too much... and it is ruining your brain. > > Even worse is when you insist others are at fault. Take responsibility > for your own life. > > -- > Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They > cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel > somehow superior by attacking the messenger. > > They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. > > <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308> I thought showing someone some kindness might help the situation. It did not. Until Davoud offers up his 'first-rate' open source tool for testing, there is no challenge, just boisterous assertions. But Davoud feels the need to attack the herd. Davoud can only speculate from the viewpoint of a sociopath. By the way, spending effort getting informed isn't wasted time. Declaring you know all and attempting to convince DFS that it's true, as Davoud tries to do? That is a waste ;) -- Best CMS Solution of 2017 https://youtu.be/5OfWsoPAg7o http://www.5z8.info/hack-outlook_c6c9in_michaelangelo-virus https://youtu.be/0ZNxaaKD7-c Jonas Eklundh Communication
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-04 16:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <27fca494-17ea-42be-ae62-489a97a1d9f4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #450439 |
On Friday, May 4, 2018 at 1:08:40 PM UTC-7, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Friday, May 4, 2018 at 1:36:15 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > > On 5/4/18 10:05 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: > > > On 2018-05-04 17:01:55 +0000, Snit said: > > > > > >> On 5/4/18 9:41 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: > > >>> On 2018-05-04 16:40:57 +0000, owl said: > > >>> > > >>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > > >>>>> On 5/4/18 9:18 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: > > >>>>>>>> Do you believe you'd like it more or less if the majority of the > > >>>>>>>> population were Muslim? And why do you believe it > > >>>>>>>> (whatever your answer is)? > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Depends on the people involved. With the poll I showed it appears > > >>>>>>> that, currently, Christians are pushing more (in higher percentages) > > >>>>>>> than are Muslims. BUT that is breaking down Christians by group and > > >>>>>>> NOT Muslims. If you look at many of their Christian groups they are > > >>>>>>> also fairly open to equal rights (in this area). > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Overall, worldwide, I believe Muslims tend to be more conservative > > >>>>>>> (pushing against equal rights and for their own special > > >>>>>>> entitlements). > > >>>>>>> I would not want to see that growing in the US... from ANY group. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> We're not going to get a choice there, Muslims birth rates will > > >>>>>> decide > > >>>>>> the issue. By the time the percentage becomes large enough for it to > > >>>>>> become any kind of major problem you'll probably be dead anyway. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> What makes you think it will be any bigger of a problem than the > > >>>>> one we > > >>>>> already have with Christians? > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> OMG. > > >>> > > >>> He's overflowing with propganda ;) > > >>> > > >>> > > >> I am overflowing with equal rights. > > > > > > If there's one thing Muslim countries are known for, even the ones that > > > are doing relatively well, it's equal rights ;) > > > > > > > > Which Muslim countries? It is not as cut and dried as many think > > As not as peachy as liberal propaganda would have one think: > > <https://telegraphtravel.carto.com/viz/08983a43-b45c-4a28-b4a2-680b7441eea0/public_map> > > To explain that blue in SA: > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_South_Africa> Well... like I said, I know the flooder is Allie Higley, who is a self professed bash scripter but I don't know if it could be used to automate this. If Allie Higley calls being busted using socks like an idiot every single day by Donny Karcie 'trolling', then fine... he is a magnificent troll. I can't accept that view, I use another term. I call Allie Higley a total mouth-breather. Allie Higley showed himself to be a liar by having the pretense to not speak to Donny Karcie through vehemently proclaiming PLONK and then assailing him again through piggybacking. And in response you have nothing but an attempt to start more flooding. This is merely a hobby of Allie Higley's. I've worked for the PC design field for almost 25 years. I have done business with multibillion OEMs working with the automotive industry and the finance sector. Never, with even a hint, were we instructed not to install any OS we wanted. We sold Linux, Mac, Symbian, and so forth in addition to MS OSs. -- I Left My Husband & Daughter At Home And THIS happened! http://www.5z8.info/myspace-of-sex_q7q7zl_instant-purchase http://www.5z8.info/trojan_p4g1zy_how-to-skin-a-gerbil https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/6sfhq6/what_desktop_tasks_does_linux_handle_better_than/ Jonas Eklundh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-04 10:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fl3i7tF5fdfU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #450426 |
On 5/4/18 9:40 AM, owl wrote: > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> On 5/4/18 9:18 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: >>>>> Do you believe you'd like it more or less if the majority of the >>>>> population were Muslim? And why do you believe it >>>>> (whatever your answer is)? >>>>> >>>> Depends on the people involved. With the poll I showed it appears >>>> that, currently, Christians are pushing more (in higher percentages) >>>> than are Muslims. BUT that is breaking down Christians by group and >>>> NOT Muslims. If you look at many of their Christian groups they are >>>> also fairly open to equal rights (in this area). >>>> >>>> Overall, worldwide, I believe Muslims tend to be more conservative >>>> (pushing against equal rights and for their own special entitlements). >>>> I would not want to see that growing in the US... from ANY group. >>> >>> We're not going to get a choice there, Muslims birth rates will decide >>> the issue. By the time the percentage becomes large enough for it to >>> become any kind of major problem you'll probably be dead anyway. >> >> What makes you think it will be any bigger of a problem than the one we >> already have with Christians? > > OMG. You have no answer. Not surprising at all. As I have noted, across the world Muslims do tend to be more conservative and that is a problem -- but I also outlined policies we can have to thwart conservative harm. In short: reduce redistribution of money the very rich, have strong safety net programs, invest in the future of the country. Do this and we have a better tie between hard work / productivity and financial reward, we have less crime, we have improved equal rights, we have less bigotry, etc. There are a LOT of devils in the details of how we accomplish such things, even ideally, but the basic ideas are simple. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy
csiph-web