Should this forum be Password Protected as it was in the Past?

[Keino]

Vote Here. The Poll is public, everyone will know how you voted.

[Fathead]

I honestly have no opinion. I'm for the free exchange of ideas and letting whoever into discussions. Passwording the forum makes that harder.


Of course, I'm also for keeping the riffraff out and relaxing the rules slightly.



I can see both sides, and I'll accept whatever the majority decides.

[BurgundyNGold]

I voted "no". The reason the forum was locked before was because of that doosh Kelly and her vendetta against Spence. And, in case folks don't remember, this forum was almost dead within a year of the password being applied.

I don't see any reason why everyone can't participate here AND we can relax the rules. All you have to do is warn folks that things can get heated in this forum and that it is intended for mature audiences, lol.

As an aside, do we really need two "Yes" options? What's wrong with "Yes", "No" and "I Like Cheese"?

[redskin_rich]

I voted no. I did like the rules being relaxed a bit but this forum was dying when the access was limited. There were only 3-5 people posting in here and it was predictable what each would say.

[Keino]

The 2 yes answers were obvious bias on the part of the poll creator.

[BurgundyNGold]

The 2 yes answers were obvious bias on the part of the poll creator.
:lol1:

Waaaa! I voted for Pat Buchanon!!!

[BurgundyNGold]

Just like a real election, it looks like this vote is going to come down to motivating the base.

Come on out you bible thumpers and tree huggers! Oh, and don't forget the get the dead and incarcerated vote, lol.

[AliBabba]

I voted yes because it was on the ballot twice

[Keino]

I voted yes because it was on the ballot twice

At least my plan worked on one person......

[BurgundyNGold]

At least my plan worked on one person......
Hey, Keino... Florida is calling for you. Oh, and Ohio is on line 2, lol.

[CNYSkinFan]

I voted "no". The reason the forum was locked before was because of that doosh Kelly and her vendetta against Spence. And, in case folks don't remember, this forum was almost dead within a year of the password being applied.

I don't see any reason why everyone can't participate here AND we can relax the rules. All you have to do is warn folks that things can get heated in this forum and that it is intended for mature audiences, lol.

As an aside, do we really need two "Yes" options? What's wrong with "Yes", "No" and "I Like Cheese"?
agreed

[swheeler]

I was a big fan of the password when it first came up, but it killed the forum. Can't go back.

[Keino]

BNG - I believe there was an issue raised in the election thread more suited to this thread....I am interested in your thoughts.

[BurgundyNGold]

BNG - I believe there was an issue raised in the election thread more suited to this thread....I am interested in your thoughts.
If I'm not mistaken, the former primary moderator of this forum was still active for quite a while after the password was instituted. And, honestly, I'm not sure what else could have been done at the time, considering the onslaught of she-whose-name-shall-not-be-spoken.

It seems to me that if a rising tide lifts all boats that intelligent discussion can make everyone more informed. Sure, you're going to get trolls, but how how often are they going to go to she-whose-name-shall-not-be-spoken's lengths to drive a member (who is no longer here) crazy?

[BurgundyNGold]

Screw you, Stouty! :D

[Keino]

If I'm not mistaken, the former primary moderator of this forum was still active for quite a while after the password was instituted. And, honestly, I'm not sure what else could have been done at the time, considering the onslaught of she-whose-name-shall-not-be-spoken.

It seems to me that if a rising tide lifts all boats that intelligent discussion can make everyone more informed. Sure, you're going to get trolls, but how how often are they going to go to she-whose-name-shall-not-be-spoken's lengths to drive a member (who is no longer here) crazy?

Only she/he/it is still here under another identity......

[Keino]

Screw you, Stouty! :D

LOL. Your side is still ahead in the polls. But my side just got a STRONG endorsement.....

[BurgundyNGold]

Only she/he/it is still here under another identity......
Yes, but not being nearly the doosh. Why? Who knows. I don't want to hit the hornet's nest, but the protagonist in the story is no longer here.

[PyroGenic]

I voted "no". The reason the forum was locked before was because of that doosh Kelly and her vendetta against Spence. And, in case folks don't remember, this forum was almost dead within a year of the password being applied.

I don't see any reason why everyone can't participate here AND we can relax the rules. All you have to do is warn folks that things can get heated in this forum and that it is intended for mature audiences, lol.

As an aside, do we really need two "Yes" options? What's wrong with "Yes", "No" and "I Like Cheese"?

I actually like this idea the most. This is a great place to get questions answered about politics, because at least in the circles I'm associated with, everybody seems to be ill-informed or down right ignorant about what's going on. Here, everything is usually backed up and misinformation is debunked and labeled so. Blocking this forum from others seems to be short-sighted, and all it'd really do is stymie the flow of conversation and promote misconceptions like when several people thought it was a "pay only" forum.

What I do miss are the relaxed rules, because the way it is now dissuades people from having a fluid discussion. Politics is one of the most heated topics a person can talk about, that's why it's almost always uncomfortable to discuss in a public atmosphere and is frowned upon at work. This forum, however, is a perfect place for that kind of discussion. Text has no volume, everybody has an equal voice so it's all on a level field, and what's good about this place is that as long as you back up your claims or show that you're willing to learn about what's happening, you'll be fine.

So I'm all for the relaxed rules, the password is optional to me. I think a warning about the atmosphere should do the trick.

[Keino]

Yes, but not being nearly the doosh. Why? Who knows. I don't want to hit the hornet's nest, but the protagonist in the story is no longer here.

Eh. Lets not call him the protagonist. Lets just refer to them as Foils......

[fent]

what did i miss that caused this to come up again?

[redskin_rich]

what did i miss that caused this to come up again?
Some newbies to this forum posting Fox news links, with no added commentary of their own.

[fent]

Some newbies to this forum posting Fox news links, with no added commentary of their own.

how's that any different than doucheuch? ;)

[fent]

if we're upset about someone who just wants to post crap and then not discuss coherently, make him look like and idiot like we did with former posters *cough cough CUTTER cough cough*. reinstating a password seems like the "easy way out" that causes people to be excluded from this discussion again. i mean, we have an idiot liberal who contributes nothing to any other portion of this site, yet he/she/it comes in and raises hell in here...there are idiots everywhere...banning them from participation does nothing to fix the problem, and in my opinion, the more you tell people they can't be involved here, the more likely they are to leave the site all together.

[Fathead]

how's that any different than doucheuch? ;)



L

O

L

[redskin_rich]

how's that any different than doucheuch? ;)
LMAO!
if we're upset about someone who just wants to post crap and then not discuss coherently, make him look like and idiot like we did with former posters *cough cough CUTTER cough cough*. reinstating a password seems like the "easy way out" that causes people to be excluded from this discussion again.
Actually, the person who did this did come in and argue his point, perhaps a bit offensively but it's not like that hasn't happened here, oh about a few times a week when this place is active. Heck, the former main admin of this forum could get pretty offensive but that is "how he rolled." lol

What brought on this poll was the complaint that the forum was being dumbed down, which I don't think is a fair assessment, especially with some of the stuff I see posted in the Cherokee on an almost daily basis.

[akhhorus]

if we're upset about someone who just wants to post crap and then not discuss coherently, make him look like and idiot like we did with former posters *cough cough CUTTER cough cough*. reinstating a password seems like the "easy way out" that causes people to be excluded from this discussion again. i mean, we have an idiot liberal who contributes nothing to any other portion of this site, yet he/she/it comes in and raises hell in here...there are idiots everywhere...banning them from participation does nothing to fix the problem, and in my opinion, the more you tell people they can't be involved here, the more likely they are to leave the site all together.

Agreed. If the point is to eliminate that user from yesterday, then the user you bring up should be eliminated also for the same reason. I say: "Let the idiots hang themselves with their own words."

[Keino]

Agreed. If the point is to eliminate that user from yesterday, then the user you bring up should be eliminated also for the same reason. I say: "Let the idiots hang themselves with their own words."

This response surprises me. At the time you were one of the most vocal opponents of the Opening up the forum to everyone.


As to the point of driving away Dooshes from the site completely, I really don't see that as bad for the site, frankly.

[akhhorus]

This response surprises me. At the time you were one of the most vocal opponents of the Opening up the forum to everyone.

I find the extremist idiots to be entertaining now. I won't after the election I'm sure lol.

[BurgundyNGold]

Eh. Lets not call him the protagonist. Lets just refer to them as Foils......
Well, he's certainly not the antagonist in the storyline with she-whose-name-shall-not-be-spoken, lol.

[BurgundyNGold]

I actually like this idea the most. This is a great place to get questions answered about politics, because at least in the circles I'm associated with, everybody seems to be ill-informed or down right ignorant about what's going on. Here, everything is usually backed up and misinformation is debunked and labeled so. Blocking this forum from others seems to be short-sighted, and all it'd really do is stymie the flow of conversation and promote misconceptions like when several people thought it was a "pay only" forum.

What I do miss are the relaxed rules, because the way it is now dissuades people from having a fluid discussion. Politics is one of the most heated topics a person can talk about, that's why it's almost always uncomfortable to discuss in a public atmosphere and is frowned upon at work. This forum, however, is a perfect place for that kind of discussion. Text has no volume, everybody has an equal voice so it's all on a level field, and what's good about this place is that as long as you back up your claims or show that you're willing to learn about what's happening, you'll be fine.

So I'm all for the relaxed rules, the password is optional to me. I think a warning about the atmosphere should do the trick.
So, does this mean we can count on you to change your vote? :D

[BurgundyNGold]

LMAO!

Actually, the person who did this did come in and argue his point, perhaps a bit offensively but it's not like that hasn't happened here, oh about a few times a week when this place is active. Heck, the former main admin of this forum could get pretty offensive but that is "how he rolled." lol

What brought on this poll was the complaint that the forum was being dumbed down, which I don't think is a fair assessment, especially with some of the stuff I see posted in the Cherokee on an almost daily basis.
Classic, lol.

[AliBabba]

Passwords? Dumbing Down? I have someone's opinion to share on that ...

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3181/2946670489_0ac59e5a0a_o.jpg

[PyroGenic]

So, does this mean we can count on you to change your vote? :D

I'm more for relaxing the rules than keeping it open. Had to compromise :D

I think I'm losing horribly, anyway lol

[fent]

Passwords? Dumbing Down? I have someone's opinion to share on that ...

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3181/2946670489_0ac59e5a0a_o.jpg

i don't know where this came from...but it is AWESOME!

[BurgundyNGold]

i don't know where this came from...but it is AWESOME!
Is that one of her rug rats?

[Keino]

Is that one of her rug rats?

Indeed it is.....

[BurgundyNGold]

Indeed it is.....
Well, I hope she's doing that to an Obama supporter, lol.

[akhhorus]

Is that one of her rug rats?

I think thats Dolphin or Willow or Friend's wedding or something.

[Taylor21TheUndertaker]

if we're upset about someone who just wants to post crap and then not discuss coherently, make him look like and idiot like we did with former posters *cough cough CUTTER cough cough*. reinstating a password seems like the "easy way out" that causes people to be excluded from this discussion again. i mean, we have an idiot liberal who contributes nothing to any other portion of this site, yet he/she/it comes in and raises hell in here...there are idiots everywhere...banning them from participation does nothing to fix the problem, and in my opinion, the more you tell people they can't be involved here, the more likely they are to leave the site all together.

Exactly. The elitist attitude on an internet forum is very comical, but seems to be the problem. Get a life ya know.

[redskin_rich]

Is that one of her rug rats?

Giving the finger and holding a target bag... If that ain't a future hockey/soccer mom, I don't know what is.

[BurgundyNGold]

Giving the finger and holding a target bag... If that ain't a future hockey/soccer mom, I don't know what is.
Q: Do you know what the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull is?

A: One you have to tie up and spank when it's been naughty and the other is a dog, lol.

[Keino]

Q: Do you know what the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull is?

A: One you have to tie up and spank when it's been naughty and the other is a dog, lol.

But which witch is which?

[AliBabba]

But which witch is which?
there-in lies the joke my friend, lol

or is it "my friends, my counterpart Senator Government would like you to think there is a joke here"

[dukeuch]

i don't know where this came from...but it is AWESOME!

Is this "somones" kid, or just a local imp up on the stage?

[dukeuch]

how's that any different than doucheuch? ;)

Ah, the right's last vetige; name calling. you should be proud, fart.

[akhhorus]

Ah, the right's last vetige; name calling. you should be proud, fart.

Anyways, he's right about your "contribution" to this site and forum.

[fent]

Ah, the right's last vetige; name calling. you should be proud, fart.

that's the nice one...if you show up on sunday we'll tell you what we refer to you as every year at the tail gate :D

[dukeuch]

Anyways, he's right about your "contribution" to this site and forum.

Opinions are like A-holes, everyone has or is one, huh AK?

[akhhorus]

Opinions are like A-holes, everyone has or is one, huh AK?

No, all you do is post liberal hackery. At least your fellow libs have more of a sense of reality and will "discuss" the issues, unlike you. Thats not an opinion.

[dukeuch]

No, all you do is post liberal hackery. At least your fellow libs have more of a sense of reality and will "discuss" the issues, unlike you. Thats not an opinion.

Prove it.

[akhhorus]

Prove it.

Look at your own posts. You rarely respond to counter points except with non-sequitors. At least Keino, CNY and IBB will stand up for themselves and their views.

And another point brought up in this thread was that you almost never post on football or anything other than your liberal causes. That is another fact.

[dukeuch]

Look at your own posts. You rarely respond to counter points except with non-sequitors. At least Keino, CNY and IBB will stand up for themselves and their views.

And another point brought up in this thread was that you almost never post on football or anything other than your liberal causes. That is another fact.

I respond ONLY with non-sequiters? Suuuuure. I admit I may at times as a form of sarcasm or jest. Cite a post where I responded only with a non-sequiter and let's take a look. Like I said before, prove it.

[akhhorus]

I respond ONLY with non-sequiters? Suuuuure. I admit I may at times as a form of sarcasm or jest. Cite a post where I responded only with a non-sequiter and let's take a look. Like I said before, prove it.

Recently(since I have no desire to go through a lot of your hackery):
You: "Yeah, and I just saw that tool Tucker Bounds get interviewed on CCN. He said that the report totally exonerated Palin, and then when asked about certain passages critical of Palin's behaviour, to the point of possible illegality or at least ethical lapses, he basically said this was a partisan smear job! With a straight face!"

Me:"You mean like when Charlie Rangel recently claimed that him failing to pay the proper taxes on his properties, neglecting to report them on his disclosure forms and using the house garage to hide a vintage car illegally(which he also didn't report) was part of some partisan smear job?"(which is related)

You: "If you say so, but what does that have to do with the bi-partisan (but mostly Republican) report on Palin, and Tucker Bound's propensity for hypocrisy?"(unrelated to my point about both sides)

Discuss(although I suspect you'll do exactly what I'm accusing you of).

[Fathead]

http://www.hailredskins.com/vbforum/search.php?searchid=455145

[fent]

http://www.hailredskins.com/vbforum/search.php?searchid=455145

is this an attempt to point out all of duke's posts? if it is, i'll point out that of his last 25 posts, 4 were outside the potomac and one of those was the always insightful "Wow!"

[Fathead]

Cite a post where I responded only with a non-sequiter and let's take a look. Like I said before, prove it.

is this an attempt to point out all of duke's posts? if it is, i'll point out that of his last 25 posts, 4 were outside the potomac and one of those was the always insightful "Wow!"



Its harder to find the posts where he doesn't do that, so I figured I'd post all of them.

[dukeuch]

Recently(since I have no desire to go through a lot of your hackery):
You: "Yeah, and I just saw that tool Tucker Bounds get interviewed on CCN. He said that the report totally exonerated Palin, and then when asked about certain passages critical of Palin's behaviour, to the point of possible illegality or at least ethical lapses, he basically said this was a partisan smear job! With a straight face!"

Me:"You mean like when Charlie Rangel recently claimed that him failing to pay the proper taxes on his properties, neglecting to report them on his disclosure forms and using the house garage to hide a vintage car illegally(which he also didn't report) was part of some partisan smear job?"(which is related)

You: "If you say so, but what does that have to do with the bi-partisan (but mostly Republican) report on Palin, and Tucker Bound's propensity for hypocrisy?"(unrelated to my point about both sides)

Discuss(although I suspect you'll do exactly what I'm accusing you of).

Dude: I didn't even question that what you said about Rangel is or is not true. I GAVE it to you, ACCEPTED that it was true, and then asked, what does that have to do with Bound's observation? You never answer my question regarding what Bounds said about the Palin report. I still don't know if you think what Bounds said was BS or had some merit.

You are foisting (hoisting?) yourself on your own petard: I made an observation about Bounds, and you did not comment on it at all except to say "oh yeah, what about Rangel"?

[akhhorus]

Dude: I didn't even question that what you said about Rangel is or is not true. I GAVE it to you, ACCEPTED that it was true, and then asked, what does that have to do with Bound's observation? You never answer my question regarding what Bounds said about the Palin report. I still don't know if you think what Bounds said was BS or had some merit.

You are foisting (hoisting?) yourself on your own petard: I made an observation about Bounds, and you did not comment on it at all except to say "oh yeah, what about Rangel"?

Jesus, you're clueless. My point(which I discussed later with CNY in that discussion) is about how you're acting like spin is some phenomenon that only republicans do. Its like you're Claude Rains shocked that gambling is going on. Like I've said: you're nothing but a hack. I'm sorry that Huffpo closed your account or something, but that doesn't mean you have to take out your frustrations here lol.

[redskinz#1fan]

I voted "yes"...I will explain.

I don't post in this forum all that much...I do go there quite a bit, but don't post that much, unless it's something very interesting to me. I voted yes though, from the standpoint that not many people can handle the realness in these forums. Hell most people can't handle the the regualr sports forum.

Of course this is just my opinion!

[dukeuch]

Jesus, you're clueless. My point(which I discussed later with CNY in that discussion) is about how you're acting like spin is some phenomenon that only republicans do. Its like you're Claude Rains shocked that gambling is going on. Like I've said: you're nothing but a hack. I'm sorry that Huffpo closed your account or something, but that doesn't mean you have to take out your frustrations here lol.

Christ, who is cluesless here: By accepting your assertion that Rangel did the same thing ("if you say so") I accepted that both sides spin. Why can't you undersatnd that? All I wanted was to hear what you, or anyone, thought of BOUND's spin, which you still have not done. Why can't you undersatnd this?

[akhhorus]

Christ, who is cluesless here: By accepting your assertion that Rangel did the same thing ("if you say so") I accepted that both sides spin. Why can't you undersatnd that? All I wanted was to hear what you, or anyone, thought of BOUND's spin, which you still have not done. Why can't you undersatnd this?

Because you didn't do that, you just brushed my comment aside and tried to re-state your initial issue.

[shally]

the rules of decorum as well as the access to this forum should be the same..

people should behave appropriately everywhere here..

on the other hand, failure to behave well here should result into dumping into Dr Evil's pit of fire...

[swheeler]

This thread has turned into "let's bash the people we don't like." Do we really need it?

[guess88]

I don't comment much on this portion of the site, but I enjoy reading the quarrels. Certain people (like an underground taylor fan) can dumb it down a bit, but in all fairness, the rest of the forum is open to everyone, this should be as well. Dumb comments happen in real life political discussions... why not here as well? They usually seem to be taken care off appropriately anyway.

[BurgundyNGold]

This thread has turned into "let's bash the people we don't like." Do we really need it?
We should probably password lock this thread, lol.

[guess88]

Actually reading through this whole thread, I do have to back up Akh and some others about something. I too noticed that dukeuch seems to ONLY write in the political section of this forum... which is very odd to me. It's hailredskins.com, it's a sports site... who comes here for the sole purpose of spreading their political views and agenda? And dukeuch... either you're blind about how you come off on here, or you do it on purpose, but the nickname doucheuch really does fit. You need to settle down and get off your liberal slant. As an Obama supporter, even I cringe reading your stuff, thinking, "enough enough." It's people who get off on their political rocker like you that give parties a bad name.

[Ibleedburgundy]

You would think the level of discourse would improve as a result of restricting the forum to trusted members. Interestingly enough, the opposite occurred. Things got quite heated and personal at times between regulars, and there was no buffer between these spats. Noobs who come in here and get destroyed serve as that buffer IMO. There are not enough of them to make the forum cluttered, and it might even spark discussion at times. It also serves to give folks an appreciation for the level of debate that the regulars are capable of-something that shouldn't be taken for granted.

For those reasons, I am against the password. Sure you get the occasional boob, but the benefits outweigh the drawbacks.

[Keino]

You would think the level of discourse would improve as a result of restricting the forum to trusted members. Interestingly enough, the opposite occurred. Things got quite heated and personal at times between regulars, and there was no buffer between these spats. Noobs who come in here and get destroyed serve as that buffer IMO. There are not enough of them to make the forum cluttered, and it might even spark discussion at times. It also serves to give folks an appreciation for the level of debate that the regulars are capable of-something that shouldn't be taken for granted.

For those reasons, I am against the password. Sure you get the occasional boob, but the benefits outweigh the drawbacks.

See this is where I wholly disagree. While some of us got heated with each other and even took it to a personal level, outside of this forum we remained friends and even laughed privately about our disputes. There is a certain maturity that "trusted" members have in that they (we) are passionate about our views and our politics, but we are detached from them enough to not let them effect friendships or lose sight of what brings us to HR in the first place, which is the Redskins.

I think that has been ingrained into the culture of this particular sub-forum and my fear is that opening up the forum will change that culture and not for the better.

[fent]

See this is where I wholly disagree. While some of us got heated with each other and even took it to a personal level, outside of this forum we remained friends and even laughed privately about our disputes. There is a certain maturity that "trusted" members have in that they (we) are passionate about our views and our politics, but we are detached from them enough to not let them effect friendships or lose sight of what brings us to HR in the first place, which is the Redskins.

I think that has been ingrained into the culture of this particular sub-forum and my fear is that opening up the forum will change that culture and not for the better.

now if we could just get more people in DC (staff) to get to this point the world would be a better place.

[BurgundyNGold]

now if we could just get more people in DC (staff) to get to this point the world would be a better place.
Maybe they should all attend an Al Smith dinner every week? :)

[RedskinsDave]

See this is where I wholly disagree. While some of us got heated with each other and even took it to a personal level, outside of this forum we remained friends and even laughed privately about our disputes. There is a certain maturity that "trusted" members have in that they (we) are passionate about our views and our politics, but we are detached from them enough to not let them effect friendships or lose sight of what brings us to HR in the first place, which is the Redskins.

I think that has been ingrained into the culture of this particular sub-forum and my fear is that opening up the forum will change that culture and not for the better.

You're wrong. I hate your guts.

Seriously though, if what you wrote wasn't true then I probably would have punched IBB in the face instead of playing a fun round of golf.

[BurgundyNGold]

See this is where I wholly disagree. While some of us got heated with each other and even took it to a personal level, outside of this forum we remained friends and even laughed privately about our disputes. There is a certain maturity that "trusted" members have in that they (we) are passionate about our views and our politics, but we are detached from them enough to not let them effect friendships or lose sight of what brings us to HR in the first place, which is the Redskins.

I think that has been ingrained into the culture of this particular sub-forum and my fear is that opening up the forum will change that culture and not for the better.
Yeah, but the longer tenured members who frequent the Potomac were not always this way. We all had to learn the rules of civility in debate. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, I got a warning when I first got here (lo those many years ago) for being too aggressive in my tenor and tactics. In time, I learned the ways of the Force and I am no longer ruled by the dangerous aspects of the Dark Side, lol. It is the responsibility of the more tenured members to bring along the noobs.

My point is that, yes, the noobs don't know the rules and many of them will either not care to use this as a place for debate, education and a tool for developing civic knowledge. And, yes, managing trolls will be an ongoing issue. However, there will be several noobs who will join in and will conform to the rules, adding much needed voices to what is currently a rather small debate club. To me, this possibility has far more advantages -- not only for the forum but for the more tenured members who can pretty much tell you how the other tenured members are going to respond to a post before they do. We all stand to lose if we cannot expand the chorus of voices in debate.

BTW, I effing love that this password debate has effectively turned into an ideological metaphor for Jeffersonian and Hamiltonian idealisms, lol.

[BurgundyNGold]

You're wrong. I hate your guts.

Seriously though, if what you wrote wasn't true then I probably would have punched IBB in the face instead of playing a fun round of golf.
I'm pretty sure I would have Kerrigan-ed CNY by now, lol.

[akhhorus]

I'm pretty sure I would have Kerrigan-ed CNY by now, lol.

Now do y'all understand the motives behind the crack of doom?

[BurgundyNGold]

Now do y'all understand the motives behind the crack of doom?
There is never a rational reason to unleash the COD. Just like there's never a rational reason for releasing anthrax spores, lol.

[akhhorus]

There is never a rational reason to unleash the COD. Just like there's never a rational reason for releasing anthrax spores, lol.

Anthrax might have been healthier for the observers.

[BurgundyNGold]

Anthrax might have been healthier for the observers.
Oh, speaking of which, you'll be pleased to know that my lasik procedure went quite well. :D

[CNYSkinFan]

Keino's an elitist

Dave's a knuckle dragger

B&G is an anarchist

Akh is a southern cracker


besides that your all great guys

[Keino]

I will admit that I am somewhat of a Snob. I would rather think that it is because I have standards.

[BurgundyNGold]

I will admit that I am somewhat of a Snob. I would rather think that it is because I have standards.
Well, that would make sense as to why we do not agree on this issue. Clearly, I am a whore, lol.

[RedskinsDave]

Keino's an elitist

Dave's a knuckle dragger

B&G is an anarchist

Akh is a southern cracker


besides that your all great guys

Clearly, teachers unions are democrats..... :D

[Sweepea436]

I voted to keep them open - not because I've ever posted in here, or ever plan to (umm....besides this one)---- but i like reading opinions in here. Its the most civil eye-poking I've ever seen!

[Fathead]

Keino's an elitist

Dave's a knuckle dragger

B&G is an anarchist

Akh is a southern cracker


besides that your all great guys




I agree with the commie bastard's opinion here.



:D

[dukeuch]

Actually reading through this whole thread, I do have to back up Akh and some others about something. I too noticed that dukeuch seems to ONLY write in the political section of this forum... which is very odd to me. It's hailredskins.com, it's a sports site... who comes here for the sole purpose of spreading their political views and agenda? And dukeuch... either you're blind about how you come off on here, or you do it on purpose, but the nickname doucheuch really does fit. You need to settle down and get off your liberal slant. As an Obama supporter, even I cringe reading your stuff, thinking, "enough enough." It's people who get off on their political rocker like you that give parties a bad name.

You are quite right, Guess, I do tend to post mainly in the political forum. Twas not always thus. When I joined, there was no political forum. To be honest, while I am a lifelong and passionate 'Skins fan, I have to admit it is tough to get too excited about arguing who the second string left guard should be. 40 years ago, I would have been all to happy to do so. Now, it just does not matter to me all that much. I'll toss something in now and then, but not willing to stick around and argue about it much. The past decade has made me very jaded about the organization, and like a Cubs fan (sorry Chi-town, wait for next year, AGAIN) I've become numb.

But please, take a look at some of these threads, and let me know which posters tend to start calling people names when the discussion gets hot. Let me know if you find ONE example when I do it first.

Hey, I take the warnbing seriously. "heated discussions are common". I got no problem with that. I will vigorously defend my position, and will criticize with zeal those positions I think are wrong or unsuportable. The difference is I attack the POSITIONS, not the poster. No name calling (unless someone calls me one first, I guess I am weak that way) or cracks about the persons stupidity, lack of moral fiber, or truthfulness.

[hail2skins]

This site has had a political forum for awhile. When did you join? Don't answer that, I can find out on my own. You do realize that folks are pointing out how you only come here for politics when this is indeed a sports-related forum, specifically about the Redskins. That garbage about becoming numb over the years is BS considering this team has been in the playoffs several times since then.

You come off as a bandwagon fan. When things go right, you're in. When they don't, you aren't. Either you're with them or you're not. That crap about passionate fan doesn't work here because a passionate fan deals with the up's and down's.

[redskin_rich]

You are quite right, Guess, I do tend to post mainly in the political forum. Twas not always thus. When I joined, there was no political forum. To be honest, while I am a lifelong and passionate 'Skins fan, I have to admit it is tough to get too excited about arguing who the second string left guard should be. 40 years ago, I would have been all to happy to do so. Now, it just does not matter to me all that much. I'll toss something in now and then, but not willing to stick around and argue about it much. The past decade has made me very jaded about the organization, and like a Cubs fan (sorry Chi-town, wait for next year, AGAIN) I've become numb.

But please, take a look at some of these threads, and let me know which posters tend to start calling people names when the discussion gets hot. Let me know if you find ONE example when I do it first.

Hey, I take the warnbing seriously. "heated discussions are common". I got no problem with that. I will vigorously defend my position, and will criticize with zeal those positions I think are wrong or unsuportable. The difference is I attack the POSITIONS, not the poster. No name calling (unless someone calls me one first, I guess I am weak that way) or cracks about the persons stupidity, lack of moral fiber, or truthfulness.

Thats hilarious. You've become numb to Redskins football yet politics still tickle your interest? I thought the older you were, the wiser you were. You seem to be a contradiction to that. You are drifting away from the purity of sports, while getting more interested in talking about the putrid, contaminated cesspool that is politics. There is a reason this forum is called the Potomac, you know. Maybe it should be called the Anacostia, so you could smell it it as soon as you come close.

I do appreciate that you are finally explaining yourself, instead of the usual hit and run and other childish tactics you have employed but your long explanation still rings kind of empty. Try being honest for a change. You're an angry person, don't veil it. Just try to express it in a way that people won't find insulting. And stop playing the martyr, you have the warmth of a snake that has inexplicably found himself in the cargo hold of a jet at 50,000 feet.
Whether you realize it or not, you come off abrasive. Even when people are on your side of an argument, they are hesitant to support you.

[ihatedallas]

I don't post often in this forum, but I visit it often. I don't know near enough about politics to provide any valuable insight, but I respect the individuals who post here, and respect the balance in the debate - with both sides of the spectrum being represented. I voted yes because I feel that what I enjoy about this forum can be seen with a password setup...The consistent posters who provide valuable insight into the discussion of politics. I had a password in the old setup, even though I didn't post often.

I understand why it would be beneficial to have the forums open, allowing more opinions to be represented. I just think what I get out of the forum can be achieved with a password setup, that's why I voted yes.

[dukeuch]

This site has had a political forum for awhile. When did you join? Don't answer that, I can find out on my own. You do realize that folks are pointing out how you only come here for politics when this is indeed a sports-related forum, specifically about the Redskins. That garbage about becoming numb over the years is BS considering this team has been in the playoffs several times since then.

You come off as a bandwagon fan. When things go right, you're in. When they don't, you aren't. Either you're with them or you're not. That crap about passionate fan doesn't work here because a passionate deals with the up's and down's.

Well, I watch every game I can (being in upstate NY, I used to see just about every game in a bar. Now I have a two year old). Sorry if you think I am a bandwagon fan. My friends, who are almost all NY fans, know otherwise, and over the past couple of decades have profited mightily from my DC football/Baltimore baseball bias.

And as for being in only when the team is up, I've also been accused of only posting when the team loses. So which is it?

[dukeuch]

Thats hilarious. You've become numb to Redskins football yet politics still tickle your interest? I thought the older you were, the wiser you were. You seem to be a contradiction to that. You are drifting away from the purity of sports, while getting more interested in talking about the putrid, contaminated cesspool that is politics. There is a reason this forum is called the Potomac, you know. Maybe it should be called the Anacostia, so you could smell it it as soon as you come close.

I do appreciate that you are finally explaining yourself, instead of the usual hit and run and other childish tactics you have employed but your long explanation still rings kind of empty. Try being honest for a change. You're an angry person, don't veil it. Just try to express it in a way that people won't find insulting. And stop playing the martyr, you have the warmth of a snake that has inexplicably found himself in the cargo hold of a jet at 50,000 feet.
Whether you realize it or not, you come off abrasive. Even when people are on your side of an argument, they are hesitant to support you.

Perhaps I have not made myself clear; in my old age (I'm 50) I've come to believe that the political sphere has a far greater impact on my life than sports. No matter how well the Redskins do, and how pysched I would be when they put it all together again, my life will be more affected by the President and Congress. And man, the current administration, and the compliant Congress, are really screwing me over now, so I am very angry. Palin is a target of my contempt because the shallowness of that choice by McCain is astounding to me. You might disagree, but to me it is absolutely deplorable. When a campaign comes right out and says, to reporters and columnists, we need to focus on other issues besides the economy, so we will call into question our opponent's character, I get pissed. When McCain says, "weel, if Obama had agreed to a series of town hall meetings, I would not have put out negative ads", I get pissed. I am not an angry person, but I am very angry at what has been wrought on us for the past 8 years. I did not support Nixon, Reagan, or Bush I, but I never thought any of them had such contempt for democracy, truth, and tue American values as Bush II (well, Nixon came close, but evetnaull he was punished, wasn't he?).

And hit an run tactics ARE designed to incite or make a point sarcastically. Lot's of folks here use healthy doese of sarcasm, so I do to, and I like to mix things up in a political debate, don't you? Like Carlin, I enjoy chaos. It certainly helps engender debate. I like it when the Cowboys are good, because face it, the rivalry is better when both teams are good.

And finally, I am always honest in this forum (and in life), so I take umbrage with the "try to be honest" passage. I have been accused numorous times of lying, and for the life of me I can't figure out why anyone would think I would lie here. For what purpose? So I get very pissed off when someone says I am lying.

[akhhorus]

Well, I watch every game I can (being in upstate NY, I used to see just about every game in a bar. Now I have a two year old). Sorry if you think I am a bandwagon fan. My friends, who are almost all NY fans, know otherwise, and over the past couple of decades have profited mightily from my DC football/Baltimore baseball bias.

And as for being in only when the team is up, I've also been accused of only posting when the team loses. So which is it?

Perhaps I have not made myself clear; in my old age (I'm 50) I've come to believe that the political sphere has a far greater impact on my life than sports. No matter how well the Redskins do, and how pysched I would be when they put it all together again, my life will be more affected by the President and Congress. And man, the current administration, and the compliant Congress, are really screwing me over now, so I am very angry. Palin is a target of my contempt because the shallowness of that choice by McCain is astounding to me. You might disagree, but to me it is absolutely deplorable. When a campaign comes right out and says, to reporters and columnists, we need to focus on other issues besides the economy, so we will call into question our opponent's character, I get pissed. When McCain says, "weel, if Obama had agreed to a series of town hall meetings, I would not have put out negative ads", I get pissed. I am not an angry person, but I am very angry at what has been wrought on us for the past 8 years. I did not support Nixon, Reagan, or Bush I, but I never thought any of them had such contempt for democracy, truth, and tue American values as Bush II (well, Nixon came close, but evetnaull he was punished, wasn't he?).

And hit an run tactics ARE designed to incite or make a point sarcastically. Lot's of folks here use healthy doese of sarcasm, so I do to, and I like to mix things up in a political debate, don't you? Like Carlin, I enjoy chaos. It certainly helps engender debate. I like it when the Cowboys are good, because face it, the rivalry is better when both teams are good.

And finally, I am always honest in this forum (and in life), so I take umbrage with the "try to be honest" passage. I have been accused numorous times of lying, and for the life of me I can't figure out why anyone would think I would lie here. For what purpose? So I get very pissed off when someone says I am lying.


Nothing you say here is relevant to what either poster said to you.

[BurgundyNGold]

Perhaps I have not made myself clear; in my old age (I'm 50) I've come to believe that the political sphere has a far greater impact on my life than sports. No matter how well the Redskins do, and how pysched I would be when they put it all together again, my life will be more affected by the President and Congress. And man, the current administration, and the compliant Congress, are really screwing me over now, so I am very angry. Palin is a target of my contempt because the shallowness of that choice by McCain is astounding to me. You might disagree, but to me it is absolutely deplorable. When a campaign comes right out and says, to reporters and columnists, we need to focus on other issues besides the economy, so we will call into question our opponent's character, I get pissed. When McCain says, "weel, if Obama had agreed to a series of town hall meetings, I would not have put out negative ads", I get pissed. I am not an angry person, but I am very angry at what has been wrought on us for the past 8 years. I did not support Nixon, Reagan, or Bush I, but I never thought any of them had such contempt for democracy, truth, and tue American values as Bush II (well, Nixon came close, but evetnaull he was punished, wasn't he?).

And hit an run tactics ARE designed to incite or make a point sarcastically. Lot's of folks here use healthy doese of sarcasm, so I do to, and I like to mix things up in a political debate, don't you? Like Carlin, I enjoy chaos. It certainly helps engender debate. I like it when the Cowboys are good, because face it, the rivalry is better when both teams are good.

And finally, I am always honest in this forum (and in life), so I take umbrage with the "try to be honest" passage. I have been accused numorous times of lying, and for the life of me I can't figure out why anyone would think I would lie here. For what purpose? So I get very pissed off when someone says I am lying.
I think you might be the evil, bizarro shally, lol.

[redskin_rich]

Perhaps I have not made myself clear; in my old age (I'm 50) I've come to believe that the political sphere has a far greater impact on my life than sports. No matter how well the Redskins do, and how pysched I would be when they put it all together again, my life will be more affected by the President and Congress. And man, the current administration, and the compliant Congress, are really screwing me over now, so I am very angry. Palin is a target of my contempt because the shallowness of that choice by McCain is astounding to me. You might disagree, but to me it is absolutely deplorable. When a campaign comes right out and says, to reporters and columnists, we need to focus on other issues besides the economy, so we will call into question our opponent's character, I get pissed. When McCain says, "weel, if Obama had agreed to a series of town hall meetings, I would not have put out negative ads", I get pissed. I am not an angry person, but I am very angry at what has been wrought on us for the past 8 years. I did not support Nixon, Reagan, or Bush I, but I never thought any of them had such contempt for democracy, truth, and tue American values as Bush II (well, Nixon came close, but evetnaull he was punished, wasn't he?).

And hit an run tactics ARE designed to incite or make a point sarcastically. Lot's of folks here use healthy doese of sarcasm, so I do to, and I like to mix things up in a political debate, don't you? Like Carlin, I enjoy chaos. It certainly helps engender debate. I like it when the Cowboys are good, because face it, the rivalry is better when both teams are good.

And finally, I am always honest in this forum (and in life), so I take umbrage with the "try to be honest" passage. I have been accused numorous times of lying, and for the life of me I can't figure out why anyone would think I would lie here. For what purpose? So I get very pissed off when someone says I am lying.
I never called you a liar and there is a big difference between not being honest and outright lying. Not being honest is hiding your intentions, lying is making false statements, knowingly.

I don't disagree with your politics or reasoning. I don't care for your tactics.

You twist everything, then create an argument that is irrelevant. Its a tactic to use on idiots but the strawman won't work here.

Sorry that you are so angry and care more about politics than sports. At your age, as well as mine, the POTUS really has little affect on our daily lives. Your local representatives have a bigger impact.

When and if Obama wins this election, will we see a different, happier Dukeuch?

[dukeuch]

I never called you a liar and there is a big difference between not being honest and outright lying. Not being honest is hiding your intentions, lying is making false statements, knowingly.

I don't disagree with your politics or reasoning. I don't care for your tactics.

You twist everything, then create an argument that is irrelevant. Its a tactic to use on idiots but the strawman won't work here.

Sorry that you are so angry and care more about politics than sports. At your age, as well as mine, the POTUS really has little affect on our daily lives. Your local representatives have a bigger impact.

When and if Obama wins this election, will we see a different, happier Dukeuch?

My local representative has nothing to do with the US spending, what, 2 billion/week in Iraq, nor anything to do with the need for an $850 billion bailout, nor anything to do with the US being unable to capture Osama bin-Laden, nor anything to do with renditions and state sponsored torture (which in my opinion has caused a substantial decrease in the US' standing worldwide), nor anything to do with the doubling of the national debt, nor anything to do with a lack of a coherent energy policy designed to lessen our dependence on oil, foriegn or otherwise.

I appreciate the importance of local representation, but whether or not we build a new police station in my town (which I think we should) has less impact on my and my kids lives and future than any of the above.

[dukeuch]

I never called you a liar and there is a big difference between not being honest and outright lying. Not being honest is hiding your intentions, lying is making false statements, knowingly.

I don't disagree with your politics or reasoning. I don't care for your tactics.

You twist everything, then create an argument that is irrelevant. Its a tactic to use on idiots but the strawman won't work here.

Sorry that you are so angry and care more about politics than sports. At your age, as well as mine, the POTUS really has little affect on our daily lives. Your local representatives have a bigger impact.

When and if Obama wins this election, will we see a different, happier Dukeuch?

And I appreciate you not calling me a liar;, many here have. So far as hiding my intentions, I have never tried to do so. I am a liberal and support liberal policies. I have never attempted to "fool" anyone with misleading statistics or false information. I like to incite discussion, and point out the weakness in others arguments or where they have mistated facts. I will not let go of a mistatement of facts. My style is sarcastic, and I attempt to be glib, which I think is preferable to name calling, which some seem to prefer.

[SkinsKY]

I haven't voted yet, but I'll probably vote no (this is your chance to send Acorn with money or cigarettes to get my 72 votes). The biggest reason: I only use the "new posts" button when I come to the page. So when the cookie for the Potomac expires, the posts stop showing up. Then I have to go through tremendous difficulty in going back to the forum and re-enter the password. Do you guys really want to cause me that much trouble?

[BurgundyNGold]

My local representative has nothing to do with the US spending, what, 2 billion/week in Iraq, nor anything to do with the need for an $850 billion bailout, nor anything to do with the US being unable to capture Osama bin-Laden, nor anything to do with renditions and state sponsored torture (which in my opinion has caused a substantial decrease in the US' standing worldwide), nor anything to do with the doubling of the national debt, nor anything to do with a lack of a coherent energy policy designed to lessen our dependence on oil, foriegn or otherwise.

I appreciate the importance of local representation, but whether or not we build a new police station in my town (which I think we should) has less impact on my and my kids lives and future than any of the above.
Until you get assaulted or stabbed or worse walking through town. I doubt how much we're spending in Iraq or how many polar bears don't have a home will stop arterial bleeding.

[BurgundyNGold]

And I appreciate you not calling me a liar;, many here have. So far as hiding my intentions, I have never tried to do so. I am a liberal and support liberal policies. I have never attempted to "fool" anyone with misleading statistics or false information. I like to incite discussion, and point out the weakness in others arguments or where they have mistated facts. I will not let go of a mistatement of facts. My style is sarcastic, and I attempt to be glib, which I think is preferable to name calling, which some seem to prefer.
Well, I, for one know you to be a liar, but that's not why I don't respect you as a poster. I don't respect you as a poster because you prize being a jerk above seemingly all else. You'll be back on my ignore list before too long, I'm sure.

And as for not offering any facts of your own but never missing the opportunity to assault other poster's facts, well, I can see why people might get the impression that you are ignorant and combative.

[skinguy]

i feel strongly both ways . . i mean , ALL ways :)
so ; i just didn't vote.

p.s. sure is " different " around here now that spence is gone :rolleyes:

[guess88]

I think you might be the evil, bizarro shally, lol.

Or possibly just a younger version. Shally helped invent the wheel, spark fire, and invented the omelet remember...

[dukeuch]

Well, I, for one know you to be a liar, but that's not why I don't respect you as a poster. I don't respect you as a poster because you prize being a jerk above seemingly all else. You'll be back on my ignore list before too long, I'm sure.

And as for not offering any facts of your own but never missing the opportunity to assault other poster's facts, well, I can see why people might get the impression that you are ignorant and combative.

Please, PLEASE point out where I have lied as opposed to made a mistake.

[dukeuch]

Well, I, for one know you to be a liar, but that's not why I don't respect you as a poster. I don't respect you as a poster because you prize being a jerk above seemingly all else. You'll be back on my ignore list before too long, I'm sure.

And as for not offering any facts of your own but never missing the opportunity to assault other poster's facts, well, I can see why people might get the impression that you are ignorant and combative.

Wow, you interpret my statement that I don't offer misleading stats or information to support my postiion as an admission that I don't offer facts of my own? Read it again, Tucker B.

Seriously, you work for McCain, right?

[akhhorus]

Wow, you interpret my statement that I don't offer misleading stats or information to support my postiion as an admission that I don't offer facts of my own? Read it again, Tucker B.

Seriously, you work for McCain, right?

Of all the ridiculous things you've posted here at HR, this has to be the most ridiculous. So, since someone doesn't like you, they have to work for your political opposition(nevermind the fact that BnG is an indy and doesn't support your political opposition). Why do you still post here again?

[BurgundyNGold]

Please, PLEASE point out where I have lied as opposed to made a mistake.
The very fact that you are here to post anything proves that you're a liar, since you were supposedly at ground zero on 9-11.

Wow, you interpret my statement that I don't offer misleading stats or information to support my postiion as an admission that I don't offer facts of my own? Read it again, Tucker B.

Seriously, you work for McCain, right?
You don't offer any stats or information to support your arguments. Instead, you prefer to argue nonsequiturs, name call, and dismiss or ignore the arguments that other people make. Why, in this very post you've found a way to ignore my reponse to you and to call me 2 names.

Of all the ridiculous things you've posted here at HR, this has to be the most ridiculous. So, since someone doesn't like you, they have to work for your political opposition(nevermind the fact that BnG is an indy and doesn't support your political opposition). Why do you still post here again?
He is only here to push his agenda and fight with people. He offers nothing to any discussion here. In fact, he is the perfect example why protecting this forum with a password is worthless if the trolls have the password.

[akhhorus]

The very fact that you are here to post anything proves that you're a liar, since you were supposedly at ground zero on 9-11.

:lol1: I forgot about that one. He never did respond to all of us calling him out over it, right?

[Keino]

The very fact that you are here to post anything proves that you're a liar, since you were supposedly at ground zero on 9-11.

I know that privately you have mentioned this to me in the past, and I don't remember when he ever wrote that (Not that I don't believe you). That said, not everyone who was at Ground Zero died that day. You may recall images of hordes of people running as the buildings collapsed and dust and debris spread for what seemed like all of mid-town Manhattan.

My point is that the fact that he is alive right now is not proof that he is a liar on that issue.

[akhhorus]

I know that privately you have mentioned this to me in the past, and I don't remember when he ever wrote that (Not that I don't believe you). That said, not everyone who was at Ground Zero died that day. You may recall images of hordes of people running as the buildings collapsed and dust and debris spread for what seemed like all of mid-town Manhattan.

My point is that the fact that he is alive right now is not proof that he is a liar on that issue.

Yeah, but his track record doesn't engender trust to be honest. If memory serves, he used that card not as a statement of fact/circumstance, but to debate a political point, and refused to give any more details of where he worked and such(why he was there).

[BurgundyNGold]

I know that privately you have mentioned this to me in the past, and I don't remember when he ever wrote that (Not that I don't believe you). That said, not everyone who was at Ground Zero died that day. You may recall images of hordes of people running as the buildings collapsed and dust and debris spread for what seemed like all of mid-town Manhattan.

My point is that the fact that he is alive right now is not proof that he is a liar on that issue.
No, but callously making the assertion and then not backing it up does. Add in the fact that one likely has better odds of getting killed by a donkey in a miniskirt than being at ground zero on 9-11 and surviving and I'm going to have to go with him being a liar.

[Keino]

So I did google image search for a Donkey in a Mini-skirt, because I thought that would be a hilarious image but all I could find was a donkey that had apparently been hit by a Cooper Mini. Which was pretty humorous to me and my sick sense of humor, but would not have had the same effect.....

[BurgundyNGold]

So I did google image search for a Donkey in a Mini-skirt, because I thought that would be a hilarious image but all I could find was a donkey that had apparently been hit by a Cooper Mini. Which was pretty humorous to me and my sick sense of humor, but would not have had the same effect.....
:lol1:

I think I've seen that pic, lol.

[dukeuch]

:lol1: I forgot about that one. He never did respond to all of us calling him out over it, right?

Oh Christ, not this again.

I never responded to you "calling me on this" huh? I guess we never went back and forth on this for days (if not weeks), huh? If anyone can find that (closed) thread, we will see who is lying that I "never respnded".

For anyone who was not around then, these guys jumped all over me when I made a very off-hand remark that I was in the North Tower when it got hit. You would have thought I was saying I was the second coming of Jesus on my way to have lunch with Elvis' ghost on the moon. Their proof that I was lying, as I recall, came down to two points:

1) I had been posting for some time, (probably about two years at the time) and had never brought it up before. "If you had been there you would have said so before." The thread topic was something about terrorism, or the war in iraq, or homeland security, something like that. I responded that my being at the WTC on 9/11 gave me no insight or special knowledge that would lend any credence my viewpoints on any issue/thread I had participated in, so there was never any reason to bring it up. Except in this particular case, in reponse to a post I made, someone replied that "If you had been there, you would not feel that way". So for the first time, my being there WAS germane, and I reponded, in a sentence, maybe two, that I WAS there, and I didn't feel that way, the the poster was wrong in that regard. That was it. I think I even made the point that it had nothing to do with the subject of the thread, but it did have something to do with the very specific assertion of "Had I been there..."

2) Their final argument was that (paraphraising, here, they produced actual numbers) there were only X thousand people at Ground Zero, and there are 350 million people in the United States, so there was only a very, very, very small percentage chance that I could have been one of them, so therefore I was not there. Honest, that was one of the arguments that "proved" me to be a liar! The poster didn't have the the insight to follow such an argument through to it's conclusion that if you applied that logic to every person who was there, every single one of them would have ahd a very small percentage shnce of being there, and therefore couldn't have couldn't have been there, therefore nobody was there; including those who were killed.

But AK, I'm a liar, and you are not. Well, you are a mod, correct? Go ahead and open up the closed thread where all of this happened and let everyone see to what degree I never responded, and let's let everyone decide for themselves who is lying.

Coincidentally, I'm about to take off for Annapolis in a few minutes. On Saturday night, I will be at a place called The Whiskey. I would not expect anyone to stop out there specifically for the purpose of meeting me to discuss this, but if anyone is up that way, and out and about anyway, I hear there are going to be three pretty good bands playing. If nothing else, you could enjoy the bands, have the pleasure of calling me a moron to my face, and have a few beers. Now, I don't think you, AK, would be swayed that I'm telling the truth by anything short of a picture of me descending the stairwells with firefighters going up ("that could be a picture from an earlier fire drill") or me standing in front of the burning towers, ("you could have run down there after the fact to get the picture so that you could claim you were there in a chat room three years later"). I don't have any such pictures. But I'll try to quickly dig up a couple of things that might convince a rational person.

Anyone intereseted in discussing this, or more importantly just having some beers and having a good time; ask for the owner, Mike, who will be able to direct you to "Yogi". Or else you can probaly find us yourself by looking for the oldest guys in the joint, one of whom (the owner) looks like Mark Messier.

[dukeuch]

Yeah, but his track record doesn't engender trust to be honest. If memory serves, he used that card not as a statement of fact/circumstance, but to debate a political point, and refused to give any more details of where he worked and such(why he was there).

See my post in response. I made mention of my being there ONLY in response to someone saying "If you had been there you would not feel that way." It was not a card "to play" to support a political position, and i made that quite clear in my explantion of why, to your utter disbelief, I would never have brought the matter up previously.

like I said, open up that ridiculous thread, and lets' take a look, and it will be obivous who is lying here.

[akhhorus]

Oh Christ, not this again.

I never responded to you "calling me on this" huh? I guess we never went back and forth on this for days (if not weeks), huh? If anyone can find that (closed) thread, we will see who is lying that I "never respnded".

For anyone who was not around then, these guys jumped all over me when I made a very off-hand remark that I was in the North Tower when it got hit. You would have thought I was saying I was the second coming of Jesus on my way to have lunch with Elvis' ghost on the moon. Their proof that I was lying, as I recall, came down to two points:

1) I had been posting for some time, (probably about two years at the time) and had never brought it up before. "If you had been there you would have said so before." The thread topic was something about terrorism, or the war in iraq, or homeland security, something like that. I responded that my being at the WTC on 9/11 gave me no insight or special knowledge that would lend any credence my viewpoints on any issue/thread I had participated in, so there was never any reason to bring it up. Except in this particular case, in reponse to a post I made, someone replied that "If you had been there, you would not feel that way". So for the first time, my being there WAS germane, and I reponded, in a sentence, maybe two, that I WAS there, and I didn't feel that way, the the poster was wrong in that regard. That was it. I think I even made the point that it had nothing to do with the subject of the thread, but it did have something to do with the very specific assertion of "Had I been there..."

Christ, you're long winded. It served no purpose to bring it up except as hyperbole. If you truly were at Ground Zero, you wouldn't bring it up as a card to play on a forum.

2) Their final argument was that (paraphraising, here, they produced actual numbers) there were only X thousand people at Ground Zero, and there are 350 million people in the United States, so there was only a very, very, very small percentage chance that I could have been one of them, so therefore I was not there. Honest, that was one of the arguments that "proved" me to be a liar! The poster didn't have the the insight to follow such an argument through to it's conclusion that if you applied that logic to every person who was there, every single one of them would have ahd a very small percentage shnce of being there, and therefore couldn't have couldn't have been there, therefore nobody was there; including those who were killed.

Since you were making an assertion, its on you to prove it. Not on us to disprove it.

But AK, I'm a liar, and you are not. Well, you are a mod, correct?

No, I'm not a mod. And you're a liar who's just here to blather on instead of actual discussion.

Go ahead and open up the closed thread where all of this happened and let everyone see to what degree I never responded, and let's let everyone decide for themselves who is lying.

Coincidentally, I'm about to take off for Annapolis in a few minutes. On Saturday night, I will be at a place called The Whiskey. I would not expect anyone to stop out there specifically for the purpose of meeting me to discuss this, but if anyone is up that way, and out and about anyway, I hear there are going to be three pretty good bands playing. If nothing else, you could enjoy the bands, have the pleasure of calling me a moron to my face, and have a few beers. Now, I don't think you, AK, would be swayed that I'm telling the truth by anything short of a picture of me descending the stairwells with firefighters going up ("that could be a picture from an earlier fire drill") or me standing in front of the burning towers, ("you could have run down there after the fact to get the picture so that you could claim you were there in a chat room three years later"). I don't have any such pictures. But I'll try to quickly dig up a couple of things that might convince a rational person.

No offense, but I have no desire to spend any time with you, even if you were going to be at the bar a block from my house, much less be 50 miles from where I live.

Anyone intereseted in discussing this, or more importantly just having some beers and having a good time; ask for the owner, Mike, who will be able to direct you to "Yogi". Or else you can probaly find us yourself by looking for the oldest guys in the joint, one of whom (the owner) looks like Mark Messier.

See above.

And for the record: I don't believe you were at Ground Zero on 9-11. And I wouldn't believe a picture of you there(mostly because I don't know what you look like and photoshop tools are fairly easy to use, and to answer your next point: I do believe you're shallow and vapid enough to photoshop a picture of yourself there.)

[akhhorus]

See my post in response. I made mention of my being there ONLY in response to someone saying "If you had been there you would not feel that way." It was not a card "to play" to support a political position, and i made that quite clear in my explantion of why, to your utter disbelief, I would never have brought the matter up previously.

like I said, open up that ridiculous thread, and lets' take a look, and it will be obivous who is lying here.

You are lying here:
http://hailredskins.com/vbforum/showthread.php?t=32225

You brought up this story that you were in one of the WTC buildings as a "topper" to try and justify your opinions to BnG about what US policy against terrorism should be. So, you were playing a card(a lie on your part).

In fact, bng called you out for this in that thread:

I only bring up my experiences when they are relevant. I assure you, however, if I had been in the WTC as the attack was underway every single member of this forum would know it because of all of the discussions that I have had on that topic. Introducing that fact would've been a normal course of discussion at some point pretty early on.

And called you out for never mentioning it before.

[Keino]

Can I ask you guys something, seriously?

I just re-read that thread from 2004 up to the point where BNG raises the BS flag (which was a funny post BTW). On my screen through Page 3 of a 4 page thread.

What exactly could Dukeuch have produced to back up his claim?



I have not brought up my where abouts on that day because in general, unlike you, I do not feel that simply by being there I have any greater insight in the geo-political causes, effects, injustices, criminality, etc. of the barbaric act of terrorism than anybody else. I have had hundreds of conversations regarding terrorism, 9/11, and our lame-ass administration's response without bringing it up for the same reason. I had some asshole tell me in a bar two days after the event that "the Jews did it and Bush knows" without telling him I was there, because my being there has nothing to do with the facts, nor my opinion. I am not sure why I brought it up here, I guess I felt that I was sort of being told that I was being "soft" on terrorism because I believe that non-US innocent collateral damage should be weighed as heavily as US collateral damage.

That said, I'll defend myself against your "if you didn't beat your wife, as I think you did, I'll apologize, you scumbag" accusation. Let's make it worth my time; a years salary. I'll have Spence serve as judge of the proof I bring, you name any other HR Moderator you want, have them name a third so there are no ties, and I'll make my case. If the price is too high, make it a month's salary. I have plenty of friends in the DC area so I can easily arrange to meet you there and take them all out on my winnings. I would not make such a big deal about this except that I have a little experience on your end of the skepticism, with a certain JSARNO who one day during a thread about affirmative action suddenly claimed to be half-black. The guy made it clear he couldn't add tow plus tow nad then wanted us to believe that. I don't want my assertion here to be in anyway questioned like I did him (her?) then. The difference there was that there was lots of reason to doubt him, and I don't see much that you should doubt me about. have I ever made any claims that appear even a little outrageous about myself?

This was his initial response to that allegation that he was lying. I think it is a pretty reasoned response and frankly, I remember the Jsarno example he brings up, because I remember specifically calling BS on it and he(Duke) responding in kind.

Frankly, I thought the "al-qaeda" aplogism line was a tad on the extreme side when in fact he was merely questioning whether we as Americans place less value on foreign lives which are "Collateral damage" as opposed to American lives. Sure the question was loaded, but al-qaeda aplogism?


And not to re-open my end of the discussion, but was there collateral damage in Waco? I don't recall that people who had nothing to do with that losing their homes to a firebomb.....

[akhhorus]

Can I ask you guys something, seriously?

I just re-read that thread from 2004 up to the point where BNG raises the BS flag (which was a funny post BTW). On my screen through Page 3 of a 4 page thread.

What exactly could Dukeuch have produced to back up his claim?

If he had brought it up whenever 9-11 or terrorism had come up, I'd be more want to believe him. But to bring it up as a topper in a forum debate makes me question his credibility(along with zero other details). I know people who were there(who made it or not), and they can tell you every single detail about that day, and none them bring it up when discussing terrorism(at least I've never heard them do it, nor have I heard from other saying that they did).

[Keino]

Thing is, up to that point and in all instances thereafter, he never made some sort of fantastical claim (ala Jim Reaper, Jsarno et.al.)and he has always, as far as I can remember, claimed to have been in NYC (See Rudy J. discussions). On the one hand, sure, I see what you are saying, but I also see the context with which he brought it up. If someone accused me of being an Al-qaeda lover (apologist) just because I don't like seeing collateral damage in the form of innocent civilians and I was in the the Towers that day, I think I too would be inclined to point that out as a knee-jerk reaction.

I am not sure what he can say on a message board to support that claim especially when faced with "No matter what you produce I won't believe it". Kind of hard to argue with that. What is it you want from him to prove it? A Diary styled summary of the events?

I only personally know one person who was there, and he wasn't really there. He worked in the Building across the street and got to work late, after the first tower had been hit. He was sent home and did not stick around, but he doesn't even talk about the day at all (But to be fair, we have much better things to discuss, like family etc.). I had family at the Pentagon, but they were unaffected.

Based on his responses and his history, both priorto and after this thread, I am inclined to believe he was there.

[akhhorus]

Thing is, up to that point and in all instances thereafter, he never made some sort of fantastical claim (ala Jim Reaper, Jsarno et.al.)and he has always, as far as I can remember, claimed to have been in NYC (See Rudy J. discussions). On the one hand, sure, I see what you are saying, but I also see the context with which he brought it up. If someone accused me of being an Al-qaeda lover (apologist) just because I don't like seeing collateral damage in the form of innocent civilians and I was in the the Towers that day, I think I too would be inclined to point that out as a knee-jerk reaction.

If I was at the towers, I would have brought it up long before someone questioned my views on US terrorism policy.

I am not sure what he can say on a message board to support that claim especially when faced with "No matter what you produce I won't believe it". Kind of hard to argue with that. What is it you want from him to prove it? A Diary styled summary of the events?

Thats fair, but I would go back to the empty record of him claiming that previously. I count literally a dozen threads on 9-11 previous that one in a quick search of the political forum, some of which he posted in, without any mention of his experience.

I only personally know one person who was there, and he wasn't really there. He worked in the Building across the street and got to work late, after the first tower had been hit. He was sent home and did not stick around, but he doesn't even talk about the day at all (But to be fair, we have much better things to discuss, like family etc.). I had family at the Pentagon, but they were unaffected.

Based on his responses and his history, both priorto and after this thread, I am inclined to believe he was there.

His history of posting here means he needs to bring proof in order for me to believe him.

[RedskinsDave]

Didn't Duke say something about having credentials from the building for that day?

[BurgundyNGold]

Thing is, up to that point and in all instances thereafter, he never made some sort of fantastical claim (ala Jim Reaper, Jsarno et.al.)and he has always, as far as I can remember, claimed to have been in NYC (See Rudy J. discussions). On the one hand, sure, I see what you are saying, but I also see the context with which he brought it up. If someone accused me of being an Al-qaeda lover (apologist) just because I don't like seeing collateral damage in the form of innocent civilians and I was in the the Towers that day, I think I too would be inclined to point that out as a knee-jerk reaction.

I am not sure what he can say on a message board to support that claim especially when faced with "No matter what you produce I won't believe it". Kind of hard to argue with that. What is it you want from him to prove it? A Diary styled summary of the events?

I only personally know one person who was there, and he wasn't really there. He worked in the Building across the street and got to work late, after the first tower had been hit. He was sent home and did not stick around, but he doesn't even talk about the day at all (But to be fair, we have much better things to discuss, like family etc.). I had family at the Pentagon, but they were unaffected.

Based on his responses and his history, both priorto and after this thread, I am inclined to believe he was there.
The burden is not on me or anyone else in this forum to back up the outlandish (if not astronomical) claims of another. Those fall to the person making the claims. If you want to believe that this clown is one of the 10,000 or so people who were in the WTC complex at the time of the 9-11 attacks without any proof, that's up to you. He's had over 2 years to back up his claims and he hasn't.

While you're at it, you should also believe that shally is also a leprechaun. There is just as much evidence to support that claim as the there is to believe dukeuch about his, lol.

[BurgundyNGold]

If I was at the towers, I would have brought it up long before someone questioned my views on US terrorism policy.
And one would think that the horror of the occasion for anyone actually present at Ground Zero wouldn't lead to such a disdain for trying to go after the AQ planners of the 9-11 attacks, whether they be in Pakistan or anywhere else they might have been in January, 2006.

His history of posting here means he needs to bring proof in order for me to believe him.
Since he doesn't bring anything else to this forum, he could start with that. If he cannot, I don't know that he should be welcome here anymore than Jim was -- perhaps less because Jim's lies never disrespected the victims of a terrorist attack to make himself seem more important in a message board post.

[Keino]

I am not sure what he can say on a message board to support that claim especially when faced with "No matter what you produce I won't believe it". Kind of hard to argue with that. What is it you want from him to prove it? A Diary styled summary of the events?

I only personally know one person who was there, and he wasn't really there. He worked in the Building across the street and got to work late, after the first tower had been hit. He was sent home and did not stick around, but he doesn't even talk about the day at all (But to be fair, we have much better things to discuss, like family etc.). I had family at the Pentagon, but they were unaffected.

Based on his responses and his history, both priorto and after this thread, I am inclined to believe he was there.

The burden is not on me or anyone else in this forum to back up the outlandish (if not astronomical) claims of another. Those fall to the person making the claims. If you want to believe that this clown is one of the 10,000 or so people who were in the WTC complex at the time of the 9-11 attacks without any proof, that's up to you. He's had over 2 years to back up his claims and he hasn't.

While you're at it, you should also believe that shally is also a leprechaun. There is just as much evidence to support that claim as the there is to believe dukeuch about his, lol.

Again, I ask, because you seem intent on ignoring this: What possible way can he back this claim up in a way that is satisfactory on a Message Board? I am not asking you to disprove his assertion, only what could he possible provide in this particular arena that would prove it to your satisfaction?

Usually when people make a claim, I take it at face value unless they have some history of telling fish tales like the aforementioned Reaper and Sarno. I've not had that experience with Duke....at all.

If Shally claimed to be a leprauchaun (which is a mythical creature and not remotely possible BTW, while on the other hand there were in fact people who survived ground zero) I likely would believe him, because he has never shown himself to be dishonest before.

I cannot speak to why he would not have mentioned it before, but that fact in and of itself doesn't make the claim less true. maybe it's something he doesn't like to talk about. Any of you have any family that served in 'Nam? How willing are they to talk about it in great detail?

[Keino]

And one would think that the horror of the occasion for anyone actually present at Ground Zero wouldn't lead to such a disdain for trying to go after the AQ planners of the 9-11 attacks, whether they be in Pakistan or anywhere else they might have been in January, 2006.

The disdain, as I read it, was for Collateral damage in the form of innocent civilian deaths. January 2004. In fact it is the claim (according to him) that he has disdain for going after the AP planners that led him to say "Why would I have disdain for that, I was there?"

Look you and Akh are some of the most logical catz I know, but it is clear to me that the reason you won't or can't believe him has nothing to do with evidence and everything to do with dislike.

There is no evidence he can provide to prove he was there. Even credentials wouldn't prove it.

[akhhorus]

The disdain, as I read it, was for Collateral damage in the form of innocent civilian deaths. January 2004. In fact it is the claim (according to him) that he has disdain for going after the AP planners that led him to say "Why would I have disdain for that, I was there?"

Look you and Akh are some of the most logical catz I know, but it is clear to me that the reason you won't or can't believe him has nothing to do with evidence and everything to do with dislike.

There is no evidence he can provide to prove he was there. Even credentials wouldn't prove it.

Like I've said: he's commented in many other threads on 9-11 previous to that one, and there's been many other threads on 9-11 before that thread: yet he didn't feel the need or want to mention that he was at one of the biggest events in this country's history until he's questioned on his views on US terrorism policy. Thats very suspicious.

[BurgundyNGold]

Again, I ask, because you seem intent on ignoring this: What possible way can he back this claim up in a way that is satisfactory on a Message Board? I am not asking you to disprove his assertion, only what could he possible provide in this particular arena that would prove it to your satisfaction?
He can start by backing it up in any way that he sees fit. However, the more extraordinary the claim, the higher burden of proof. Just saying that he was among the 0.00016% of Americans who were in the WTC when the planes hit ain't enough.

Usually when people make a claim, I take it at face value unless they have some history of telling fish tales like the aforementioned Reaper and Sarno. I've not had that experience with Duke....at all.
He has attended no events, rarely posts about the Redskins on a Redskins message board, rarely backs up any of his posted claims in general and seemingly only serves to post in an effort to aggitate and argue. For the vast majority of us up here, this guy has no character capital at all on this board.

If Shally claimed to be a leprauchaun (which is a mythical creature and not remotely possible BTW, while on the other hand there were in fact people who survived ground zero) I likely would believe him, because he has never shown himself to be dishonest before.
My hyperbole was meant to prove a point. Just because someone says that something preposterous doesn't mean that we take it at face value.

I cannot speak to why he would not have mentioned it before, but that fact in and of itself doesn't make the claim less true. maybe it's something he doesn't like to talk about. Any of you have any family that served in 'Nam? How willing are they to talk about it in great detail?
If I had been in Vietnam and I opened the door to the discussion, then I would be subject to discussing it by virtue of the fact the I introduced the line of questioning. Also, given the fact that more than 2.6M Americans served in Vietnam, saying someone was there is far more plausible than what the poster is trying to represent.

Rather than provide any proof to back up his rather fantastic claims, he kept trying to change the subject and to tap dance around by calling me names such as Dick Cheney, Newt Gingirch, Lee Atwater, "ignoramus" and just plain "dick"... twice among other things. In this thread alone, he's already likened me to 2 other people in an unflattering manner.

He's had his chance to back up his claims and for more than 2 years he hasn't. The result of which is that several people on this board, myself included, consider him a liar no different from JimReaper.

[BurgundyNGold]

The disdain, as I read it, was for Collateral damage in the form of innocent civilian deaths. January 2004. In fact it is the claim (according to him) that he has disdain for going after the AP planners that led him to say "Why would I have disdain for that, I was there?"
Yet he had no such disdain for the innocent civilians killed by Clinton's missile strikes on Bosnia? That's my point; he was merely trying to use the Pakistan drone attacks as a platform for taking another partisan swipe at the current Administration. When called on that, he injected that he was actually *in* the WTC when it was attacked to try and provide some credibility to what he was saying.

Do you honestly find it plausible that in all of the 9-11 discussions that we had prior to that thread that he would only serve to pull out that card only when getting called for being a hypocrite for accepting Clinton's collateral damage as somehow more moral than taking out an AQ leader holed up in the home of AQ sympathizers?

Look you and Akh are some of the most logical catz I know, but it is clear to me that the reason you won't or can't believe him has nothing to do with evidence and everything to do with dislike.
He made the claim, now he needs to back it up. It he cannot, he is a liar -- plain and simple. The burden of proof is not on any of us, it's on him.

There is no evidence he can provide to prove he was there. Even credentials wouldn't prove it.
Why not? That's a good place to start. If he had a visitor badge, it would have a date on it. As I recall, my vistor badge from my visit to the WTC in August of that year had a date on it. It also had my name, company and my photo. I might even still have it around somewhere.

[Keino]

He can start by backing it up in any way that he sees fit. However, the more extraordinary the claim, the higher burden of proof. Just saying that he was among the 0.00016% of Americans who were in the WTC when the planes hit ain't enough.

The percentage of Americans is not helping your argument. He lives in NYC. The chances of him being there are exponentially higher than say, Sara Palin who was in Alaska at the time.

Please tell me one thing he can provide as evidence that makes the claim more credible?


He has attended no events, rarely posts about the Redskins on a Redskins message board, rarely backs up any of his posted claims in general and seemingly only serves to post in an effort to aggitate and argue. For the vast majority of us up here, this guy has no character capital at all on this board.

So one's honesty about being on the scene at arguably the most tragic event in our lives is linked to how they participate in other areas of the HR message board. Ok. Even if his purpose is to agitate and argue, all you've done is explain why you don't like the guy.


My hyperbole was meant to prove a point. Just because someone says that something preposterous doesn't mean that we take it at face value.

I understood that, but the analogy was bad. One event is possible, however unlikely, while the other is impossible.


If I had been in Vietnam and I opened the door to the discussion, then I would be subject to discussing it by virtue of the fact the I introduced the line of questioning. Also, given the fact that more than 2.6M Americans served in Vietnam, saying someone was there is far more plausible than what the poster is trying to represent.


You seem determined to ignore what I am saying. The number of people who served in Vietnam is not remotely the issue here. My point in bringing that up is that everyone I know who served are loath to talk about it. I think there is a reason for that, and I think it has everything to do with the tragedy of the events they witnessed. I imagine that 9/11 is probably like that, especially if one lost friends and co-workers to it.




Rather than provide any proof to back up his rather fantastic claims, he kept trying to change the subject and to tap dance around by calling me names such as Dick Cheney, Newt Gingirch, Lee Atwater, "ignoramus" and just plain "dick"... twice among other things. In this thread alone, he's already likened me to 2 other people in an unflattering manner.



BNG, I agree with that, but lets not act like he was unprovoked. You took him asking in a very straightforward manner IMO, whether you value Foriegn innocent deaths the same as American and your response was to essentially call him a terrorist apologist.

He's had his chance to back up his claims and for more than 2 years he hasn't. The result of which is that several people on this board, myself included, consider him a liar no different from JimReaper.


How? What can he say to back these claims up? He argued the point, gave his rationale for never bringing it up before and continued to argue his side of the discussion until an Admin who shall go nameless shut down the thread due the pissing match nature of the thread.

[Keino]

Yet he had no such disdain for the innocent civilians killed by Clinton's missile strikes on Bosnia? That's my point; he was merely trying to use the Pakistan drone attacks as a platform for taking another partisan swipe at the current Administration. When called on that, he injected that he was actually *in* the WTC when it was attacked to try and provide some credibility to what he was saying.

And that was a fair counter-point.....I have no problems with his injection given that he was essentially accused of being a Terrorist apologist.


Do you honestly find it plausible that in all of the 9-11 discussions that we had prior to that thread that he would only serve to pull out that card only when getting called for being a hypocrite for accepting Clinton's collateral damage as somehow more moral than taking out an AQ leader holed up in the home of AQ sympathizers?

I am not sure I understand the question. I find it plausible he was there and I find it plausible that he didn't want to discuss it priorto being accused of being a AQ Aplogist (which was par for the course at the time for anyone who dared question the Administration's tactics).


He made the claim, now he needs to back it up. It he cannot, he is a liar -- plain and simple. The burden of proof is not on any of us, it's on him.


Why not? That's a good place to start. If he had a visitor badge, it would have a date on it. As I recall, my vistor badge from my visit to the WTC in August of that year had a date on it. It also had my name, company and my photo. I might even still have it around somewhere.

So showing his work ID badge would make you retract the comment, is that what you are saying? Again, I am not asking anyone to disprove the claim, only tell us what would be satisfactory evidence. (And he's had 4 years to back up the claim).

This isn't really my battle. I don't really care if he was or wasn't but I do think 2 people I have tons of respect for aren't necessarily being reasonable and are being influenced by their own disdain.

[csquared]

Something that is true is........... I just saved a bunch of money on my car insurance by switching to Geico.....

[BurgundyNGold]

And that was a fair counter-point.....I have no problems with his injection given that he was essentially accused of being a Terrorist apologist.
He offered that he was in the building before I characterized his argument as AQ apologism.

To me, equating the lives of Pakistanis (who have since shown to be largely Taliban and AQ sympathizers) who host terrorists in their house with the lives of everyday Americans is akin to AQ apologism. He's trying to soften the image of terrorists and the terrorist experience by equating them to those of average Americans. Futhermore, this position makes it that much less likely that he is telling the truth about being in the WTC on 9-11 because I doubt there are a whole lot of WTC survivors spouting off this kind of nonsense about hunting down AQ.

I am not sure I understand the question. I find it plausible he was there and I find it plausible that he didn't want to discuss it priorto being accused of being a AQ Aplogist (which was par for the course at the time for anyone who dared question the Administration's tactics).
In 2006? I don't think so; 2004 maybe. And I characterized his argument as "ludicrous AQ apologism", which it was.

So showing his work ID badge would make you retract the comment, is that what you are saying? Again, I am not asking anyone to disprove the claim, only tell us what would be satisfactory evidence. (And he's had 4 years to back up the claim).
Like I said several times in that thread, showing us the WTC badge would be a great place to start. In and of itself, it might be enough. If he has 'shopped it (and I can tell) it likely won't hold water.

This isn't really my battle. I don't really care if he was or wasn't but I do think 2 people I have tons of respect for aren't necessarily being reasonable and are being influenced by their own disdain.
If you are actually putting me on the same level of respect with that other poster, then I am truly insulted and a little bit pissed.

[BurgundyNGold]

The percentage of Americans is not helping your argument. He lives in NYC. The chances of him being there are exponentially higher than say, Sara Palin who was in Alaska at the time.
So, I should run my statistics against the population of NY? OK, assuming he actually lived in NYC at the time, then he is but 0.1% of New York City residents who were in the WTC at the time the planes hit and managed to make it out alive. That's still damned near a statistical impossibility and I am *well* within the confines of logic to call BS.

Please tell me one thing he can provide as evidence that makes the claim more credible?
I already did 2 years ago and again in this thread. He offered to provide evidence -- provided that I pay for him to come down to the tailgate roundtrip. That's beyond folly.

He can start by offering ANY qualitative proof that he was there.

So one's honesty about being on the scene at arguably the most tragic event in our lives is linked to how they participate in other areas of the HR message board. Ok. Even if his purpose is to agitate and argue, all you've done is explain why you don't like the guy.
No, but unlike you, I do not think that board longevity equates to credibility. Since he doesn't show up to any functions I cannot gain any additional insight into what I would otherwise consider to be a worthless poster. Furthermore, since he rarely ventures into the other, more relevant areas of this board for debate, I can surmise that he really only comes here to aggitate other people and prostylize without regard with the exchange of ideas.

The poster rarely supports his arguments and when challenged, changes the subject. When pressed, he calls names and tries to argue other, nonsequitur points. When asked to substantiate a rather fantastic claim he followed this formula to the letter. It was never resolved because he went running to Spence who closed the thread, which allowed him to go on with his tactics without having to support his claims.

To me, that kind of poster has earned no respect. Failure to substantiate his claims in the face of being called a liar further illustrates the malignancies of his character.

I understood that, but the analogy was bad. One event is possible, however unlikely, while the other is impossible.
And neither are supported by fact.

You seem determined to ignore what I am saying. The number of people who served in Vietnam is not remotely the issue here. My point in bringing that up is that everyone I know who served are loath to talk about it. I think there is a reason for that, and I think it has everything to do with the tragedy of the events they witnessed. I imagine that 9/11 is probably like that, especially if one lost friends and co-workers to it.
There are plenty of people who do not wish to talk about their prolonged combat experiences. However, most vets that I have talked to have no problem not only admitting and discussing their deployments in general, they also tend to display it proudly, as they should.

I'm not asking the poster to go into gory detail about what he would have us believe be his experience. I'm just asking him to prove that he was there. Otherwise, it'd be no different than some guy who sat at home with a deferment trying to tell me about his time in Da Nang.

BNG, I agree with that, but lets not act like he was unprovoked. You took him asking in a very straightforward manner IMO, whether you value Foriegn innocent deaths the same as American and your response was to essentially call him a terrorist apologist.
Personally, I think the guy hates America, and not as a cliche. I think that he would rather see American fail and in turmoil if it is being led by his political opponent. I believe that he has shown time and time again shaudenfruede and glee when things go bad for America with Bush at the helm. I also think that he has a certain sympathy for AQ, as he believes US policies caused 9-11. That's my opinion.

How? What can he say to back these claims up? He argued the point, gave his rationale for never bringing it up before and continued to argue his side of the discussion until an Admin who shall go nameless shut down the thread due the pissing match nature of the thread.
It wasn't a pissing match. He was asked to back up what he said. I believe he said he has a visitor badge. I know if I had one from that day, there is no way in hell I'd throw it away. He could scan it and post a link to it. In fact, he could have done that 2 years ago.

Otherwise, once again, it's up to *him* to tell us how he intends to prove it. We're not talking about proving the impossible. If he can indeed prove it, as I said in the other thread, I will apologize to him personally for impuning his character. If he cannot or will not even *make an effort* to prove what he's saying, then he should consider accepting the fact that many of us will know that he is a liar.

[BurgundyNGold]

Something that is true is........... I just saved a bunch of money on my car insurance by switching to Geico.....
I hope you'll be posting proof. ;)

[csquared]

I hope you'll be posting proof. ;)

LMAO!

[Keino]

He offered that he was in the building before I characterized his argument as AQ apologism.

To me, equating the lives of Pakistanis (who have since shown to be largely Taliban and AQ sympathizers) who host terrorists in their house with the lives of everyday Americans is akin to AQ apologism. He's trying to soften the image of terrorists and the terrorist experience by equating them to those of average Americans. Futhermore, this position makes it that much less likely that he is telling the truth about being in the WTC on 9-11 because I doubt there are a whole lot of WTC survivors spouting off this kind of nonsense about hunting down AQ.

I think he was equating innocent lives with innocent lives.


In 2006? I don't think so; 2004 maybe. And I characterized his argument as "ludicrous AQ apologism", which it was.

The thread was 2004, unless I mis-read something.


Like I said several times in that thread, showing us the WTC badge would be a great place to start. In and of itself, it might be enough. If he has 'shopped it (and I can tell) it likely won't hold water.

OK.


If you are actually putting me on the same level of respect with that other poster, then I am truly insulted and a little bit pissed.

The two posters in question I was speaking of were you and Akh. So, if you are pissed I put you on the same level is Akh, I apologize, but on the other hand, take it up with him.

[Keino]

So, I should run my statistics against the population of NY? OK, assuming he actually lived in NYC at the time, then he is but 0.1% of New York City residents who were in the WTC at the time the planes hit and managed to make it out alive. That's still damned near a statistical impossibility and I am *well* within the confines of logic to call BS.

Yes you are, but I think the logic is a bit faulty if the basis of your conclusion is merely statistical probability. It is statistically more likely to get struck by lighting than it is to be involved in a plane crash. Neither events are an impossibility.


I already did 2 years ago and again in this thread. He offered to provide evidence -- provided that I pay for him to come down to the tailgate roundtrip. That's beyond folly.

I agree that is ridiculous. Why he wouldn't just come to the tailgate is beyond me. It's not like any of us are nearly the jerks in person that we are on the board. However, for someone to offer a bet of a year's salary tells me they are either one helluva poker player or they are pretty confident in what they are saying.

He can start by offering ANY qualitative proof that he was there.

This has been addressed I think. Beyond the badge, I don't see what possible proof could be provided.


No, but unlike you, I do not think that board longevity equates to credibility. Since he doesn't show up to any functions I cannot gain any additional insight into what I would otherwise consider to be a worthless poster. Furthermore, since he rarely ventures into the other, more relevant areas of this board for debate, I can surmise that he really only comes here to aggitate other people and prostylize without regard with the exchange of ideas.

I am not sure where I opined that Longevity = Credibility. Longevity provides a longer history of behavior from which to judge and while I rarely agree with him on Skins topics, he does post on them...much less now than he used to.




The poster rarely supports his arguments and when challenged, changes the subject. When pressed, he calls names and tries to argue other, nonsequitur points. When asked to substantiate a rather fantastic claim he followed this formula to the letter. It was never resolved because he went running to Spence who closed the thread, which allowed him to go on with his tactics without having to support his claims.

I don't think he went running to Spence at all. I think Spence was tired of pissing match and shut it down. This was when I respected Spence, so I am assuming that his motivations were honest. I think the first sentence above is valid, and I am not trying to make any of you like the guy.

To me, that kind of poster has earned no respect. Failure to substantiate his claims in the face of being called a liar further illustrates the malignancies of his character.



And neither are supported by fact.
But one could never be, thats why the analogy was bad.


There are plenty of people who do not wish to talk about their prolonged combat experiences. However, most vets that I have talked to have no problem not only admitting and discussing their deployments in general, they also tend to display it proudly, as they should.

I'm not asking the poster to go into gory detail about what he would have us believe be his experience. I'm just asking him to prove that he was there. Otherwise, it'd be no different than some guy who sat at home with a deferment trying to tell me about his time in Da Nang.

Well my uncle won't talk about anything. Nothing. The only thing he will say is that during night firefights it was impossible to tell enemy from friend so he shot at anything that wasn't Black and that he will not eat any sort of asian stir fry food. He also spent most of the 70's in and out the VA psyche ward getting his head straight....But if you don't believe what he says, I am unsure how he can offer any proof outside of the aforementioned ID badge dated that day.



Personally, I think the guy hates America, and not as a cliche. I think that he would rather see American fail and in turmoil if it is being led by his political opponent. I believe that he has shown time and time again shaudenfruede and glee when things go bad for America with Bush at the helm. I also think that he has a certain sympathy for AQ, as he believes US policies caused 9-11. That's my opinion.

I think that is an awfully strong charge that I would b hesitant to make, but you are entitled to your opinion.


It wasn't a pissing match. He was asked to back up what he said. I believe he said he has a visitor badge. I know if I had one from that day, there is no way in hell I'd throw it away. He could scan it and post a link to it. In fact, he could have done that 2 years ago.

Otherwise, once again, it's up to *him* to tell us how he intends to prove it. We're not talking about proving the impossible. If he can indeed prove it, as I said in the other thread, I will apologize to him personally for impuning his character. If he cannot or will not even *make an effort* to prove what he's saying, then he should consider accepting the fact that many of us will know that he is a liar.

Yea, I really don't see why scanning and posting a link to the badge is such a big deal. If that is all the proof that you need, and people kept calling me a liar, I would likely post said proof and then verbally bomb on everyone who doubted me.

[Keino]

I see that the thread was from 06, not 04. My bad. I was looking at join dates and not the thread date.

[BurgundyNGold]

I think he was equating innocent lives with innocent lives.
Innocent lives do not harbor terrorists. Want to protect your family and avoid getting killed in collateral damage from a predator drone? Easy... don't have them over for dinner. That's not the same as the indescriminate collateral damage that occurred on 9-11 or an AQ suicide bomber attack in Baqubah or Karachi. Unlike the innocents affected by these terrorist attacks, the people who provide safe harbor for AQ of the Taliban in Pakistan are making a conscious choice to provide aid and comfort with known terrorists, making them complicit.

The thread was 2004, unless I mis-read something.
I read your post below.

The two posters in question I was speaking of were you and Akh. So, if you are pissed I put you on the same level is Akh, I apologize, but on the other hand, take it up with him.
LMAO! Sorry, lol. I thought you meant the liar. I'm glad we got that cleared up.

Seriously, though. You don't think I'm more awesome than Akh? ;)

[BurgundyNGold]

Yes you are, but I think the logic is a bit faulty if the basis of your conclusion is merely statistical probability. It is statistically more likely to get struck by lighting than it is to be involved in a plane crash. Neither events are an impossibility.
I don't think it's an impossibility. It's not an inpossibility that the Earth will get struck my a comet or anteroid in my lifetime. However, the odds of of that happening or dukeuch having been in the WTC on 9-11 as the planes crashed are both statistically remote.

I agree that is ridiculous. Why he wouldn't just come to the tailgate is beyond me. It's not like any of us are nearly the jerks in person that we are on the board. However, for someone to offer a bet of a year's salary tells me they are either one helluva poker player or they are pretty confident in what they are saying.
Or, pretty confident that they can a) frame the debate to be one where we would have to disprove his statement (which is completely backwards) or that he could back channel Spence (which happened) and the argument could be shut down with a warning going out to all parties involved.

Maybe he is a poker player. The bluff has been called. Turn 'em over, son.

This has been addressed I think. Beyond the badge, I don't see what possible proof could be provided.
Well, as I understand it, NIST conducted interviews with hundreds if not thousands of survivors. I believe that all survivors and anyone in the WTC complex were also asked to come in and to give testimony to the local authorities. Given that Doyle Brunson was supposedly in the WTC when the planes hit, I'm guessing that his statement would be of particular interest to the local authorities and those reports should be publicly accessible.

I have more ideas, but let's see what Doyle has to say. The badge outght to be the easiest thing but, at this point, I'll settle for *anything* aside from more tap dancing.

I don't think he went running to Spence at all. I think Spence was tired of pissing match and shut it down. This was when I respected Spence, so I am assuming that his motivations were honest. I think the first sentence above is valid, and I am not trying to make any of you like the guy.
Spence used to like to protect this guy. I have no idea why and many of us noticed it. Maybe it's a lib thing, which I don't uinderstand because he makes libs look emotional, underinformed and combative for the sake of argument.

The poster was in a corner and Spence suddenly shut down the thread before he could be caught in a Stacy Keibler.

But one could never be, thats why the analogy was bad.
OK, bad example. Next time I'll try to give a more relevant analogy. Suffice it to say that what he says happened is statistically improbable, however not impossible for him to prove that it happened.

Well my uncle won't talk about anything. Nothing. The only thing he will say is that during night firefights it was impossible to tell enemy from friend so he shot at anything that wasn't Black and that he will not eat any sort of asian stir fry food. He also spent most of the 70's in and out the VA psyche ward getting his head straight....But if you don't believe what he says, I am unsure how he can offer any proof outside of the aforementioned ID badge dated that day.
I'm not sure how this correlates. There were millions of American men who fought in Vietnam and but perhaps only 10,000 people who were in the WTC complex that made it out. I am more inclined to believe one of several million men with a documented military past that they fought in Vietnam than I am to believe one of a handful of people that they were in the WTC when the plane hit without any proof or prior mention and who introduced the fact as a "topper" to his arguments in a political forum on a Redskins message board.

I think that is an awfully strong charge that I would b hesitant to make, but you are entitled to your opinion.
It is a strong charge. But, unless he can prove he is telling the truth, I have to contend with the odiferous likelihood that this poster is using the gravatas of these horrific events to further his arguments on a message board, which is repugnant to me.

Yea, I really don't see why scanning and posting a link to the badge is such a big deal. If that is all the proof that you need, and people kept calling me a liar, I would likely post said proof and then verbally bomb on everyone who doubted me.
And, if he had done that 2 years ago, I would have apologized and we would have moved past this. But he elected to duck out of the closed thread and never resolve the issue.

My offer still stands:

If he can produce proof that he was actually in the WTC on 9-11 as the plane hit, I will apologize publicly to him for sleighting his character; I am sure others will, as well.

However, if he cannot produce or will not even attempt to offer proof that he was actually in the WTC on 9-11 as the plane hit, he should leave the board or be banned for his insult to the posters on this board and to the memory of the people who actually had to live through that tragedy -- let alone those who died.

[redskin_rich]

The percentage of Americans is not helping your argument. He lives in NYC.
Actually, it appears that he is not very close to NYC, unless you consider within the state close. It appears he was even farther away in '06, FWIW.

[swheeler]

I agree with Keino in this argument. I could write up a long post, but so far he hasn't said a single thing I disagree with.

BNG, I lost a lot of respect for you with the "Pakistani lives aren't worth anything because some of them have harbored terrorists" crap. If you're a goat herder in the mountains and some dude shows up asking for food and shelter, you don't know he's a terrorist. To you, he's just someone who needs food an shelter. Then in turns out there are people who come looking for him, looking to do him harm. Who are you supposed to believe? The Americans, because they're American and it's the best country on Earth and a shining beacon of freedom? You don't know anything about any of that. You're a goat herder in the mountains in Pakistan. That shouldn't make your life worthless. Much less the lives of your neighbors, who never even met any of these people.

Also, other than the fact that he disagrees with your politics, I've never seen anything to suggest that dukeuch "hates America." You really said that. I honestly am amazed to see an educated, intelligent, and informed person use that attack. Way to go.

[Taylor21TheUndertaker]

The poster was in a corner and Spence suddenly shut down the thread before he could be caught in a Stacy Keibler.

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y139/bigkmart/01mmmm.jpg






Bummer.

[swheeler]

Bummer.

Search for the old JimReaper threads and you'll understand that reference. Not what you think it is.

[Taylor21TheUndertaker]

Search for the old JimReaper threads and you'll understand that reference. Not what you think it is.

I assumed that.

[RedskinsDave]

Listen, I don't like Duke and I think that is well documented. I won't call him a liar but I will say that the totality of events add up to him looking like one. He never mentions the WTC prior to an argument years later. It's not Vietnam. It would have likely been mentioned sooner the same way I mentioned I had an appointment later that day in the Pentagon. Then when someone called b.s. he mentioned the badge. That's the part I remember. He never posted the badge. He never offered up anything as proof. I know if someone calls me a liar, I shove my evidence in their face to prove them wrong. There's nothing to suggest Duke is above that.

If it is true, prove it. It's pretty simple really. Otherwise, go fishing with JimReaper and leave the honest people alone.

[akhhorus]

I agree with Keino in this argument. I could write up a long post, but so far he hasn't said a single thing I disagree with.

BNG, I lost a lot of respect for you with the "Pakistani lives aren't worth anything because some of them have harbored terrorists" crap. If you're a goat herder in the mountains and some dude shows up asking for food and shelter, you don't know he's a terrorist. To you, he's just someone who needs food an shelter. Then in turns out there are people who come looking for him, looking to do him harm. Who are you supposed to believe? The Americans, because they're American and it's the best country on Earth and a shining beacon of freedom? You don't know anything about any of that. You're a goat herder in the mountains in Pakistan. That shouldn't make your life worthless. Much less the lives of your neighbors, who never even met any of these people.

I believe BnG was referring to Duck's criticism of our missile strike in Pakistan around the time of that thread in an attempt to kill Zarquawi(who was planning to attend a banquet in this small town, but backed out at the last second). We didn't know that and hit it anyways, killing some Al Queda members and some villagers. And the point that they weren't innocent since they were harboring terrorists was about the deaths of the villagers that were hosting Al Queda.

[BurgundyNGold]

BNG, I lost a lot of respect for you with the "Pakistani lives aren't worth anything because some of them have harbored terrorists" crap. If you're a goat herder in the mountains and some dude shows up asking for food and shelter, you don't know he's a terrorist. To you, he's just someone who needs food an shelter. Then in turns out there are people who come looking for him, looking to do him harm. Who are you supposed to believe? The Americans, because they're American and it's the best country on Earth and a shining beacon of freedom? You don't know anything about any of that. You're a goat herder in the mountains in Pakistan. That shouldn't make your life worthless. Much less the lives of your neighbors, who never even met any of these people.
Given that you mischaracterized my argument and then attributed a quote to me that I never said, I tend to believe that not only did you not read my posts before you responded but that this faux respect that you claim to have lost is little more than just that.

Also, other than the fact that he disagrees with your politics, I've never seen anything to suggest that dukeuch "hates America." You really said that. I honestly am amazed to see an educated, intelligent, and informed person use that attack. Way to go.
My opinion of the poster (and that's what it is) is not rooted in some ludicrous neocon ideology. Rather, I have formed that opinion based on the obvious delight he takes in American failures while Reps are in charge. I don't see how you can love your country and revel in its failures at the same time. To me, this is sickening. Almost as sickening as cheapening the traumatic experiences of actual 9-11 victims, survivors and their families by trying to say that you are one of those people to garner favor or sympathy in a message board debate.

If you want to talk about Pakistan and collateral damage, we can start a thread on that and discuss it there. Otherwise, let's try to avoid obscuring the fact that there is an open challenge in this thread for a poster to stop tap dancing and to back up his claims to have been in the WTC on 9-11 when the planes hit.

[Keino]

Given that you mischaracterized my argument and then attributed a quote to me that I never said, I tend to believe that not only did you not read my posts before you responded but that this faux respect that you claim to have lost is little more than just that.


My opinion of the poster (and that's what it is) is not rooted in some ludicrous neocon ideology. Rather, I have formed that opinion based on the obvious delight he takes in American failures while Reps are in charge. I don't see how you can love your country and revel in its failures at the same time. To me, this is sickening. Almost as sickening as cheapening the traumatic experiences of actual 9-11 victims, survivors and their families by trying to say that you are one of those people to garner favor or sympathy in a message board debate.

If you want to talk about Pakistan and collateral damage, we can start a thread on that and discuss it there. Otherwise, let's try to avoid obscuring the fact that there is an open challenge in this thread for a poster to stop tap dancing and to back up his claims to have been in the WTC on 9-11 when the planes hit.

I liked the other response better. You mention me in a flattering light.....

[BurgundyNGold]

I liked the other response better. You mention me in a flattering light.....
I felt this response would lead to less bickering about side issues, lol.

[redskin_rich]

I agree with Keino in this argument. I could write up a long post, but so far he hasn't said a single thing I disagree with.

BNG, I lost a lot of respect for you with the "Pakistani lives aren't worth anything because some of them have harbored terrorists" crap. If you're a goat herder in the mountains and some dude shows up asking for food and shelter, you don't know he's a terrorist. To you, he's just someone who needs food an shelter. Then in turns out there are people who come looking for him, looking to do him harm. Who are you supposed to believe? The Americans, because they're American and it's the best country on Earth and a shining beacon of freedom? You don't know anything about any of that. You're a goat herder in the mountains in Pakistan. That shouldn't make your life worthless. Much less the lives of your neighbors, who never even met any of these people.

Also, other than the fact that he disagrees with your politics, I've never seen anything to suggest that dukeuch "hates America." You really said that. I honestly am amazed to see an educated, intelligent, and informed person use that attack. Way to go.

Nice going yourself. Talk about a kick in the nuts and run. BNG shouldn't even acknowledge this and you should save it for a relevant time.

[Keino]

I felt this response would lead to less bickering about side issues, lol.

I don't care about any of that. Today is Friday. Keino is about Self Promotion (in addition to referring to himself in the 3rd person) on Fridays.

[BurgundyNGold]

I don't care about any of that. Today is Friday. Keino is about Self Promotion (in addition to referring to himself in the 3rd person) on Fridays.
:lol1:

Might I suggest that you also add in "The" to your title for maximum effect. So, for example, you might say that The Keino has no time for this today, lol.

[SkinsKY]

:lol1:

Might I suggest that you also add in "The" to your title for maximum effect. So, for example, you might say that The Keino has no time for this today, lol.

That lines up a little too closely with 'Don't Mess with the Zohan' or 'the' Ohio State University. It's generally good to keep both distant.

[BurgundyNGold]

That lines up a little too closely with 'Don't Mess with the Zohan' or 'the' Ohio State University. It's generally good to keep both distant.
Yeah, you're probably right, lol.

[swheeler]

Given that you mischaracterized my argument and then attributed a quote to me that I never said, I tend to believe that not only did you not read my posts before you responded but that this faux respect that you claim to have lost is little more than just that.
I meant that as a paraphrase. Sorry if you or anyone else didn't read it that way. I read your posts in this thread very carefully. I haven't read your posts in the original thread, sorry, but that wasn't what I was responding to. And you're right, I exaggerated your position, and I apologize for that too.

I'll leave the civilians harboring terrorists argument for another time, but if someone wants to start a thread on it I'll be happy to defend my views.


My opinion of the poster (and that's what it is) is not rooted in some ludicrous neocon ideology. Rather, I have formed that opinion based on the obvious delight he takes in American failures while Reps are in charge. I don't see how you can love your country and revel in its failures at the same time. To me, this is sickening. Almost as sickening as cheapening the traumatic experiences of actual 9-11 victims, survivors and their families by trying to say that you are one of those people to garner favor or sympathy in a message board debate.

Even if dukeuch is a lying troll, I still don't think this charge is fair. My first post wasn't phrased very well, but this upsets me more than the Pakistani issue. Say what you want, but it seems to me that your reasoning is pretty much the same as what the neocons use. I'm not saying you are a neocon or generally hold neocon beliefs, but whenever anyone accuses someone else of "hating America," the explanation is usually that they want to see the country fail for the sake of getting a partisan "called it" moment.

I don't think that applies to dukeuch. Virtually no one is petty enough to want to see people die, or lose their homes or jobs, or anything like that in order to support that argument on a message board, or vindicate their personal politics. Could dukeuch take pleasure in making a good argument, even if some of the support for his argument comes from events that have not gone so great for this country? Sure. But that doesn't mean he wanted those events to happen.

My guess is you're thinking that because he never comes on here and "revels" in American successes, he must not be happy about them. Seems more likely that someone can be privately happy about positive things, but feel the need to publicly vent about the negatives. I know that applies to me sometimes, and judging by the general tone of this forum I think it applies to all of us. If you want to argue that dukeuch takes it to an extreme, and therefore is a bad member of this community, that would be one thing. To try to interpret from it that he hates America is going way too far.

If you want to talk about Pakistan and collateral damage, we can start a thread on that and discuss it there. Otherwise, let's try to avoid obscuring the fact that there is an open challenge in this thread for a poster to stop tap dancing and to back up his claims to have been in the WTC on 9-11 when the planes hit.

I agree, as mentioned before, the collateral damage argument should either be dropped or get it's own thread. I'm fine either way. I wasn't the first person to bring it up, but I'm sorry for taking the Official Bash Dukeuch Thread off topic. Oh wait, for some reason it's showing up as the "Should this forum be Password Protected as it was in the Past?" thread. Must be something wrong with my forum settings.

But seriously, my original post could have been phrased better and, if I had the chance to do it again, should have been a lot more diplomatic. I really do respect your opinions, even though we've disagreed in the past, but some of the things you said made me angry and that reflected in my post. I apologize for the tone, but not the content.

Also, the fact that duke hasn't been back to respond to these charges has shaken some of my faith in his claims. It's also possible that some of the relentless personal attacks pissed him off and he decided he had better things to do than spend more time here. We may never know. Either way, I don't think there's grounds for saying he hates America.

[swheeler]

Nice going yourself. Talk about a kick in the nuts and run. BNG shouldn't even acknowledge this and you should save it for a relevant time.

Umm, on what basis would you say I was running? Sorry if my timing was bad, but it's not like I posted that and never came back.



And regarding the direction this thread seems to be taking now, I think I'm a fan of "The Keino". Has a nice ring to it.

[redskin_rich]

Umm, on what basis would you say I was running? Sorry if my timing was bad, but it's not like I posted that and never came back.


Taking a shot at somebody on an old topic that he obviously is not going to discuss in this thread.

[Keino]

Taking a shot at somebody on an old topic that he obviously is not going to discuss in this thread.

He said his points were limited to addressing responses and posts that occurred on this thread. He says he never viewed the previous thread.

Frankly, I thought his post above was one of the more eloquent and well written posts on the thread, whether you buy what he is saying or not.

[redskin_rich]

He said his points were limited to addressing responses and posts that occurred on this thread. He says he never viewed the previous thread.

Frankly, I thought his post above was one of the more eloquent and well written posts on the thread, whether you buy what he is saying or not.

This:
BNG, I lost a lot of respect for you with the "Pakistani lives aren't worth anything because some of them have harbored terrorists" crap. If you're a goat herder in the mountains and some dude shows up asking for food and shelter, you don't know he's a terrorist. To you, he's just someone who needs food an shelter. Then in turns out there are people who come looking for him, looking to do him harm. Who are you supposed to believe? The Americans, because they're American and it's the best country on Earth and a shining beacon of freedom? You don't know anything about any of that. You're a goat herder in the mountains in Pakistan. That shouldn't make your life worthless. Much less the lives of your neighbors, who never even met any of these people.?

[swheeler]

Running off to a job interview (yes, I'm actually running now) but I'll post later.

[Keino]

This:
?

Did you read his subsequent post?

[BurgundyNGold]

He said his points were limited to addressing responses and posts that occurred on this thread. He says he never viewed the previous thread.

Frankly, I thought his post above was one of the more eloquent and well written posts on the thread, whether you buy what he is saying or not.
I'll start a thread on the Pakistan collateral damage thing so we can discuss it over there.

As for my opinion that dukeuch hates, or at least dislikes, America, I think I've effectively illustrated my reasons for believing he feels that way. Similarly, there are Redskin fans who seeingly only post on this board after a loss or if they have something to rail about. I don't consider those people to be real Redskin fans either. It's just unfortunate that there is an unassociated, mindless neocon stigma attached to my choice of words, but that doesn't change my opinion.

[Keino]

I likely won't participate much in that Collateral damage thread. I just think the way he clarified his original comments was nicely stated and I think he properly apologized for making his paraphrase seem like an attributable quote.

[redskin_rich]

Did you read his subsequent post?
I hadn't got to that yet but now I see he apologized. So I guess he was wrong, no?

[BurgundyNGold]

Did you read his subsequent post?
I did and it was a much better post. I wouldhave replied but I think I have said everything that I wish to say about my perspectives on dukeuch and I have given ample rationale as to why I feel that way. As for the Pakistan goat herder debate, we can take that up elsewhere.

For now, I'm just waiting for dukeuch to reply to the concerns that seemingly several posters up here have about the legitimacy of his claims that he was in the WTC on 9-11 when the planes hit.

[Keino]

We obviously are missing each other's posts Rich. Yes, his apology was most appropriate and a big part of the reason I thought the post was well-written.

[redskin_rich]

Alright then, misunderstandings on all sides.... The muddy waters of the Potomac.

Wade on...

[fent]

Also, the fact that duke hasn't been back to respond to these charges has shaken some of my faith in his claims. It's also possible that some of the relentless personal attacks pissed him off and he decided he had better things to do than spend more time here. We may never know.

it's his MO...get called on something and disappear, let the storm die down and then come back and hope everyone ignores it.

[dukeuch]

it's his MO...get called on something and disappear, let the storm die down and then come back and hope everyone ignores it.

Don't kid yourself. I try to avoid my computer while on vacation, and since being back have been pretty busy. I was in the general vicinity of anyone who cared enough to talk to me about my outrageous claims, told you where I'd be and when, nobody showed. Not that I expected anyone to.

[Fathead]

I was in the general vicinity of anyone who cared enough to talk to me about my outrageous claims, told you where I'd be and when, nobody showed. Not that I expected anyone to.



The term "general vicinity" is pretty vague and relative. Also its up to you to prove your claims, not everyone else.

[dukeuch]

Christ, you're long winded. It served no purpose to bring it up except as hyperbole. If you truly were at Ground Zero, you wouldn't bring it up as a card to play on a forum.

Well, I'm either long winded in defending myself, or admitting I'm lying if I don't respond. I get it.


Since you were making an assertion, its on you to prove it. Not on us to disprove it.

Tell me how to prove it. Oh, right, there is no way. You will not believe anything I write here, or anything I show anyone or tell anyone in person. I'll photo shop evidence.



No, I'm not a mod. And you're a liar who's just here to blather on instead of actual discussion.




No offense, but I have no desire to spend any time with you, even if you were going to be at the bar a block from my house, much less be 50 miles from where I live.

I'm not surprised, but I don't believe you live 50 miles from The Whiskey. Prove it.
Y


See above.

And for the record: I don't believe you were at Ground Zero on 9-11. And I wouldn't believe a picture of you there(mostly because I don't know what you look like and photoshop tools are fairly easy to use, and to answer your next point: I do believe you're shallow and vapid enough to photoshop a picture of yourself there.)[/QUOTE]

This is the most deperately pathetic accusation I've ever seen here.

[dukeuch]

You are lying here:
http://hailredskins.com/vbforum/showthread.php?t=32225

You brought up this story that you were in one of the WTC buildings as a "topper" to try and justify your opinions to BnG about what US policy against terrorism should be. So, you were playing a card(a lie on your part).

In fact, bng called you out for this in that thread:


And called you out for never mentioning it before.

Now I remember. In that thread I was tryong to make the point that while the US was willing to accept the deaths of innnocent Pakistanis in our attempts to take out Al Q leaders, I didn't think we would do the same if it were innocent Americans being killed in that same attempt. The accustaion was made that I would have no problem with the inncoent deaths if I were at the WTC, and I said, you are wrong.

I was called an Al Q apologist, soft on terrorism, etc. Funny, noboby ever answered my hypothetical question of "WOuld we take out Bin Laden with an attack if we KNEW there would be innocent American deaths collaterally.

At any rate, I still say that my claim had very little to do with the main point of my arguemnt, and it only became a main part of the thread when I had to defend my honesty.

[BurgundyNGold]

Now I remember. In that thread I was tryong to make the point that while the US was willing to accept the deaths of innnocent Pakistanis in our attempts to take out Al Q leaders, I didn't think we would do the same if it were innocent Americans being killed in that same attempt. The accustaion was made that I would have no problem with the inncoent deaths if I were at the WTC, and I said, you are wrong.
Not only do you remember incorrectly but apparently you cannot read the posts in the thread to catch up on things. Nothing of the sort was proposed.

I was called an Al Q apologist, soft on terrorism, etc.
Your argument was characterized as AQ apologism. Which it was and, apparently, still is. To which, you responded with a flurry of name calling that you should have been banned for.

Funny, noboby ever answered my hypothetical question of "WOuld we take out Bin Laden with an attack if we KNEW there would be innocent American deaths collaterally.
I answered the question in multiple ways, as I recall. You didn't like the hypothetical uses of the word "if" in my reponse to your hypothetical question. So you should hypothetically go jump off of a cliff.

At any rate, I still say that my claim had very little to do with the main point of my arguemnt, and it only became a main part of the thread when I had to defend my honesty.
Stop tap dancing and back up your claims.

[akhhorus]

Well, I'm either long winded in defending myself, or admitting I'm lying if I don't respond. I get it.

Those concepts aren't mutually exclusive.

Tell me how to prove it. Oh, right, there is no way. You will not believe anything I write here, or anything I show anyone or tell anyone in person. I'll photo shop evidence.

The proof would have been you bringing it up previous to trying to trump someone in an internet forum.

I'm not surprised, but I don't believe you live 50 miles from The Whiskey. Prove it.
Y


Its actually 34 miles, my bad.

This is the most deperately pathetic accusation I've ever seen here.

Calling someone who is shallow and vapid as a poster shallow and vapid isn't desperate nor pathetic.

Now I remember. In that thread I was tryong to make the point that while the US was willing to accept the deaths of innnocent Pakistanis in our attempts to take out Al Q leaders, I didn't think we would do the same if it were innocent Americans being killed in that same attempt. The accustaion was made that I would have no problem with the inncoent deaths if I were at the WTC, and I said, you are wrong.

I was called an Al Q apologist, soft on terrorism, etc. Funny, noboby ever answered my hypothetical question of "WOuld we take out Bin Laden with an attack if we KNEW there would be innocent American deaths collaterally.

At any rate, I still say that my claim had very little to do with the main point of my arguemnt, and it only became a main part of the thread when I had to defend my honesty.

None of what you say here is on point with the points we've made about your claims. SOP for you.

[akhhorus]

Don't kid yourself. I try to avoid my computer while on vacation, and since being back have been pretty busy. I was in the general vicinity of anyone who cared enough to talk to me about my outrageous claims, told you where I'd be and when, nobody showed. Not that I expected anyone to.

Its amazing that your vacations seem to coincide with when call you out for your nonsense.

And yet again: its up to you to prove your claims.

[RedskinsDave]

Don't kid yourself. I try to avoid my computer while on vacation, and since being back have been pretty busy. I was in the general vicinity of anyone who cared enough to talk to me about my outrageous claims, told you where I'd be and when, nobody showed. Not that I expected anyone to.

Priceless considering pretty much everyone else who posts on this part of the board has met each other. I was in Philly over the weekend. Why weren't you there?

[dukeuch]

The term "general vicinity" is pretty vague and relative. Also its up to you to prove your claims, not everyone else.

Well, I gave you the town, night, name of the bar, and owner of the bar's name so he could direct onyone itnerested to me. Was that not enough?

Fat, even picture evidence would not be enough for AK, as he thinks it could be photo-shopped. What could I provide you, over the internet, that may allow you to beleive what I say in this regard?

[dukeuch]

Priceless considering pretty much everyone else who posts on this part of the board has met each other. I was in Philly over the weekend. Why weren't you there?

Um, because I was in Annapolis, like I said I'd be?

[akhhorus]

Well, I gave you the town, night, name of the bar, and owner of the bar's name so he could direct onyone itnerested to me. Was that not enough?

Fat, even picture evidence would not be enough for AK, as he thinks it could be photo-shopped. What could I provide you, over the internet, that may allow you to beleive what I say in this regard?

I(and BnG) have stated what you should have done in the past.

Um, because I was in Annapolis, like I said I'd be?

You're obviously too dense to get his humor.

[BurgundyNGold]

Well, I gave you the town, night, name of the bar, and owner of the bar's name so he could direct onyone itnerested to me. Was that not enough?

Fat, even picture evidence would not be enough for AK, as he thinks it could be photo-shopped. What could I provide you, over the internet, that may allow you to beleive what I say in this regard?
Any evidence is better than no evidence and tap dancing.

[dukeuch]

Its amazing that your vacations seem to coincide with when call you out for your nonsense.

And yet again: its up to you to prove your claims.

AK, last Thursday I posted that I would be in Annapolis through the weekend. How do you figure that was a ploy to avoid explaning myself? I told you and everyone here when, where and how. If I could do it over the internet, please, let me know how and I'll do my best.

I doubt I can prove anything to you as you have mentioned in various places that I can produce my photo ID for the WTC and my place of employment, paystubs showing that I worked for my employer before and after 9/11 (before 9/11 at the WTC, and begining about a week after in Albany), letters from my employer relating to 9/11, letters and emails I still get from the NYC Health Department because I participate in their 9/11 health study, documentation from NYS that I qualified for extended unemployment insurance because my former place of employment was in the WTC (I was laid off about a month later), and some vaiorus other stuff. At one time I had an answering machine with messages left by friends (yes, I do have many) on that day, but I don't think I have that any more. These things and a verbal account are all I have, and none will convince you.

So maybe it could have been done in person with some of this stuff (some of it I would have to rummage around for). Nobody showed. That's ok with me. But don't then chastise me for not giving anyone the opportunity.

[Keino]

Fat, even picture evidence would not be enough for AK, as he thinks it could be photo-shopped. What could I provide you, over the internet, that may allow you to beleive what I say in this regard?


I don't know how much of the thread you've read, but I have defended you pretty hard on the point. BNG specifically said that he would accept a scanned copy of your credentials from that day. That to me seems to settle the matter (Since you offered to bring the Credentials in person at the time). There are numerous ways to post it or email it. PM me if you want me to email it to me for me to post for you.

At this point you should just post or otherwise provide what you have or come clean and admit you weren't there. I'd like to close this thread and have only left it open to give you the chance to provide this evidence.

[akhhorus]

AK, last Thursday I posted that I would be in Annapolis through the weekend. How do you figure that was a ploy to avoid explaning myself? I told you and everyone here when, where and how. If I could do it over the internet, please, let me know how and I'll do my best.

I didn't say it was a ploy. And why do you think I would want to spend 1 second with you in a bar?

I doubt I can prove anything to you as you have mentioned in various places that I can produce my photo ID for the WTC and my place of employment, paystubs showing that I worked for my employer before and after 9/11 (before 9/11 at the WTC, and begining about a week after in Albany), letters from my employer relating to 9/11, letters and emails I still get from the NYC Health Department because I participate in their 9/11 health study, documentation from NYS that I qualified for extended unemployment insurance because my former place of employment was in the WTC (I was laid off about a month later), and some vaiorus other stuff. At one time I had an answering machine with messages left by friends (yes, I do have many) on that day, but I don't think I have that any more. These things and a verbal account are all I have, and none will convince you.

Then answer a simple question: why did you only mention that you were in the WTC on 9-11 as a topper in an argument? Why didn't you mention it in any of the many 9-11 threads previous to that? I'm sorry, but you have no credibility. And btw, I fully expect you to go on another mysterious vacation soon and hope we forget about it.

So maybe it could have been done in person with some of this stuff (some of it I would have to rummage around for). Nobody showed. That's ok with me. But don't then chastise me for not giving anyone the opportunity.

You're pathetic. Since we didn't show up to socialize with you, we can't call you out for your shit? Umm...no. And you didn't offer to produce any physical evidence, just a chance to "discuss it" with you. I hate to break it to you, but from what I know about you from your persona on the board, I have no desire to have a drink with you, especially 34 miles from my house.

[dukeuch]

I(and BnG) have stated what you should have done in the past.

Yeah, that I should have mentioned it a couple of years earlier. To late now, though.


You're obviously too dense to get his humor.

Ah, a non-sequiter insult. Once again, simply pathetic.

[akhhorus]

Yeah, that I should have mentioned it a couple of years earlier. To late now, though.

The question is why didn't you. Especially considering it was seared into the souls of the people who were actually there.

Ah, a non-sequiter insult. Once again, simply pathetic.

Not a non-sequiter and not pathetic. You clearly don't have any sense of humor and didn't understand Dave's quip.

[dukeuch]

I don't know how much of the thread you've read, but I have defended you pretty hard on the point. BNG specifically said that he would accept a scanned copy of your credentials from that day. That to me seems to settle the matter (Since you offered to bring the Credentials in person at the time). There are numerous ways to post it or email it. PM me if you want me to email it to me for me to post for you.

At this point you should just post or otherwise provide what you have or come clean and admit you weren't there. I'd like to close this thread and have only left it open to give you the chance to provide this evidence.

Well, see; if I scanned my credentials, there are two problems:

1) As a general rule, I don't think it is a good idea to post picture ID's, even if they have expired.

2) How can you know that the ID I scan and send is mine? If I show it to you in person, then you would know.

[csquared]

Well damn. Had i known he would have been at The Whiskey i would have went for you guys. Its only about 5 minutes from my house.

[Fathead]

Well, I gave you the town, night, name of the bar, and owner of the bar's name so he could direct onyone itnerested to me. Was that not enough?

Fat, even picture evidence would not be enough for AK, as he thinks it could be photo-shopped. What could I provide you, over the internet, that may allow you to beleive what I say in this regard?

And that location is in my general vicinity, as compared to africa. That doesn't make it close.



Providing a shred of evidence would be a start, regardless of what standards akh is going to hold you to. Right now, your claim has as much credibility as me claiming to be Lindsay Lohan.

[Keino]

Well, see; if I scanned my credentials, there are two problems:

1) As a general rule, I don't think it is a good idea to post picture ID's, even if they have expired.

2) How can you know that the ID I scan and send is mine? If I show it to you in person, then you would know.

If it came from you, I would trust that it's yours. As I've said, I've defended you the whole time in this thread and I have believed your claim from day 1. I have believed it because you have not given me a reason in here to think you are liar.

If you aren't comfy people knowing your real name, then put a piece of Electrical tape on it before you scan it. I doubt that anyone can just find WTC Credentials.

Edit: I can understand not wanting to post on the mssg board. How about email or PM to Myself (as neutral 3rd party) and Akh and BNG as those who doubt you. BNG is a man of his word and I have no doubts that if you provide legit evidence, he will be the first to apologize. (Not implying Akh isn't also a man of his word, but BNG specifically made the offer).

[dukeuch]

Yet he had no such disdain for the innocent civilians killed by Clinton's missile strikes on Bosnia? That's my point; he was merely trying to use the Pakistan drone attacks as a platform for taking another partisan swipe at the current Administration.


Why not? That's a good place to start. If he had a visitor badge, it would have a date on it. As I recall, my vistor badge from my visit to the WTC in August of that year had a date on it. It also had my name, company and my photo. I might even still have it around somewhere.

First, and as I have stated repeatedly, the ONLY time I brought it up was the one time when the mere fact that I was there had any bearing on what was being said. I cannot fathom how anyone would think that by being there, a person would magially become more knowledgable about terrorism, world politics, etc. However, when someone who was not there, claims to know how someone who was there would feel, and that I could not possibly feel a certain way if I had been there, than I will call them out. Which I did. Far form being a "topper", it was a brief remark in the middle of a post that was mostly about a different point.

Second; I never claimed to have a vsistor badge. I worked there every day. Why in the world would I have a visitor badge? Have you ever worked anywhere full time where your pass was date/time stamped? Either you or AK once said that even if I could produce my pass, how could I prove that I still worked there, was there that day, etc.

[akhhorus]

First, and as I have stated repeatedly, the ONLY time I brought it up was the one time when the mere fact that I was there had any bearing on what was being said. I cannot fathom how anyone would think that by being there, a person would magially become more knowledgable about terrorism, world politics, etc. However, when someone who was not there, claims to know how someone who was there would feel, and that I could not possibly feel a certain way if I had been there, than I will call them out. Which I did. Far form being a "topper", it was a brief remark in the middle of a post that was mostly about a different point.

You commented in other threads about 9-11 and terrorism before then and didn't mention that you experienced the horrors first hand. You only brought it up as a topper. So, you either:
1-have no soul and only want to use the experience to try and shake off a debate point.
2-weren't there.

Take your pick.

Second; I never claimed to have a vsistor badge. I worked there every day. Why in the world would I have a visitor badge? Have you ever worked anywhere full time where your pass was date/time stamped? Either you or AK once said that even if I could produce my pass, how could I prove that I still worked there, was there that day, etc.

He didn't say you would have one genius. He said he had a dated vistor badge when he visited it and was using it as a example of how you could have physical proof(since if you worked there, you would have a dated badge since even a vistor had one).

[dukeuch]

I didn't say it was a ploy. And why do you think I would want to spend 1 second with you in a bar?



Then answer a simple question: why did you only mention that you were in the WTC on 9-11 as a topper in an argument? Why didn't you mention it in any of the many 9-11 threads previous to that? I'm sorry, but you have no credibility. And btw, I fully expect you to go on another mysterious vacation soon and hope we forget about it.



You're pathetic. Since we didn't show up to socialize with you, we can't call you out for your shit? Umm...no. And you didn't offer to produce any physical evidence, just a chance to "discuss it" with you. I hate to break it to you, but from what I know about you from your persona on the board, I have no desire to have a drink with you, especially 34 miles from my house.

Honestly, I know you are not stupid, so you must just be trying to mislead. Copying the exact words that preceded any mention of "discuss it", is the following (please, go back and look to make sure I am not lying):

"But I'll try to quickly dig up a couple of things that might convince a rational person.

Anyone intereseted in discussing this"

What did you think I meant by a couple of things? You bend over backwards to try to mesrepresent to support your argument.

[akhhorus]

Honestly, I know you are not stupid, so you must just be trying to mislead. Copying the exact words that preceded any mention of "discuss it", is the following (please, go back and look to make sure I am not lying):

"But I'll try to quickly dig up a couple of things that might convince a rational person.

Anyone intereseted in discussing this"

What did you think I meant by a couple of things? You bend over backwards to try to mesrepresent to support your argument.

I'm sorry, I didn't see that. But that doesn't change what you're avoiding from my post(your usual MO-you're only responding to 1 sentence from that post of mine) and your delusion that anyone would want to meet you at a bar a significant distance from their house for any reason whatsoever.

[dukeuch]

You commented in other threads about 9-11 and terrorism before then and didn't mention that you experienced the horrors first hand. You only brought it up as a topper. So, you either:
1-have no soul and only want to use the experience to try and shake off a debate point.
2-weren't there.

Take your pick.



He didn't say you would have one genius. He said he had a dated vistor badge when he visited it and was using it as a example of how you could have physical proof(since if you worked there, you would have a dated badge since even a vistor had one).

Again, the horrors that were there have absolutely nothing to do with my views on terrorism (surprise, I've always been "against") or the way we wage our war against terrorism. Contrary to your repeated assertion that I am somehow soft on Al Q, you could not be more wrong. I am livid that we sent 140,000 troops to Iraq instead of Afghanistan, and I said so at the time. I understand that their may be collateral damage in getting Bib Laden, I just don't accept as much as some (you apparently) would, and I was positing a theory that the US is much more willing to sacrifice innocent foreigner lives than Americans, which I think is wrong.

And "genius", that he said he had a dated visitors badge, and therefore "if you worked there you would have a dated badge since even a visitor had one" shows how ignorant you are in thie regard. How much clearer can I make it: "THE FULL TIME EMPLOYEE PASS DOES NOT HAVE A DATE ON IT. THE VISITOR PASS HAS A DATE, OTHERWISE THE VISITOR COULD USE IT ON DATES THAT THEY ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE THERE. I HAVE MY FULL TIME PASS. IT DOES NOT HAVE A DATE ON IT.

[dukeuch]

I'm sorry, I didn't see that. But that doesn't change what you're avoiding from my post(your usual MO-you're only responding to 1 sentence from that post of mine) and your delusion that anyone would want to meet you at a bar a significant distance from their house for any reason whatsoever.

AK, believe me, I have no doubt that I would not enjoy your company either. You repeatedly ask me to "prove it" and I tried as best I could. You didn't take me up on it. Fine, but don't then castigate me for your not taking me up on my offer, which I think any rational person would agree woud be the ONLY possible way I could have convinced you, face to face, with the goods and any required explanation.

[akhhorus]

Again, the horrors that were there have absolutely nothing to do with my views on terrorism (surprise, I've always been "against") or the way we wage our war against terrorism. Contrary to your repeated assertion that I am somehow soft on Al Q, you could not be more wrong. I am livid that we sent 140,000 troops to Iraq instead of Afghanistan, and I said so at the time. I understand that their may be collateral damage in getting Bib Laden, I just don't accept as much as some (you apparently) would, and I was positing a theory that the US is much more willing to sacrifice innocent foreigner lives than Americans, which I think is wrong.

And yet: You brought it up in response to a discussion about US policy against terrorism. So, obviously those horrors did matter to your views on terrorism(whether you were there or not), or you were bringing it up for no apparent reason. And I never said you're soft against AQ, Captain Defensive.

And "genius", that he said he had a dated visitors badge, and therefore "if you worked there you would have a dated badge since even a visitor had one" shows how ignorant you are in thie regard. How much clearer can I make it: "THE FULL TIME EMPLOYEE PASS DOES NOT HAVE A DATE ON IT. THE VISITOR PASS HAS A DATE, OTHERWISE THE VISITOR COULD USE IT ON DATES THAT THEY ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE THERE. I HAVE MY FULL TIME PASS. IT DOES NOT HAVE A DATE ON IT.

The full time employee pass should have dates on it, at the very least a start/expiration date. Especially after the 1993 bombing when terrorists infiltrated the building.

[akhhorus]

AK, believe me, I have no doubt that I would not enjoy your company either. You repeatedly ask me to "prove it" and I tried as best I could. You didn't take me up on it. Fine, but don't then castigate me for your not taking me up on my offer, which I think any rational person would agree woud be the ONLY possible way I could have convinced you, face to face, with the goods and any required explanation.

You can do that without demanding meeting someone in a bar, and trying to use the fact that no one showed up as reason to shake off people questioning you.

[Keino]

Again, the horrors that were there have absolutely nothing to do with my views on terrorism (surprise, I've always been "against") or the way we wage our war against terrorism. Contrary to your repeated assertion that I am somehow soft on Al Q, you could not be more wrong. I am livid that we sent 140,000 troops to Iraq instead of Afghanistan, and I said so at the time. I understand that their may be collateral damage in getting Bib Laden, I just don't accept as much as some (you apparently) would, and I was positing a theory that the US is much more willing to sacrifice innocent foreigner lives than Americans, which I think is wrong.

And "genius", that he said he had a dated visitors badge, and therefore "if you worked there you would have a dated badge since even a visitor had one" shows how ignorant you are in thie regard. How much clearer can I make it: "THE FULL TIME EMPLOYEE PASS DOES NOT HAVE A DATE ON IT. THE VISITOR PASS HAS A DATE, OTHERWISE THE VISITOR COULD USE IT ON DATES THAT THEY ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE THERE. I HAVE MY FULL TIME PASS. IT DOES NOT HAVE A DATE ON IT.


Providing a copy of the Employee pass would, in my mind, support what you are saying. Date issue notwithstanding.

[BurgundyNGold]

First, and as I have stated repeatedly, the ONLY time I brought it up was the one time when the mere fact that I was there had any bearing on what was being said. I cannot fathom how anyone would think that by being there, a person would magially become more knowledgable about terrorism, world politics, etc. However, when someone who was not there, claims to know how someone who was there would feel, and that I could not possibly feel a certain way if I had been there, than I will call them out. Which I did. Far form being a "topper", it was a brief remark in the middle of a post that was mostly about a different point.
I think that a person who was in the WTC when the planes hit, got out in the nick time but by the luck of juxtaposition and grace of God, witnessed the horrible tragedy of people jumping to their deaths and then had to experience the surreal, sheer impoissibilitiy of the towers coming down with waves of dust and debris sweeping into the streets of Manhattan would have a life altering experience that would transcend any of their previous, "blame America first" politics when it came to AQ, the Taliban or any other terrorist group. I would not expect that person to continute to assault War on Terror policies in a hair splitting fashion, defending the heretofore undetermined "innocence" of those giving aid an shelter to the monsters than made that day come to pass.

I know people who have gone through far less traumatic events that have had it transform their lives 180 degrees. If I knew nothing else about you, the mere trauma of the event coupled with human nature makes your story impossible to believe.

Second; I never claimed to have a vsistor badge. I worked there every day. Why in the world would I have a visitor badge? Have you ever worked anywhere full time where your pass was date/time stamped? Either you or AK once said that even if I could produce my pass, how could I prove that I still worked there, was there that day, etc.
We'll cross that bridge when we come to it. As I said before, any proof is better than no proof and continued tap dancing. Let's start by taking a half step to the wall by showing that you had credentials to be in the building or that you have been interviewed as a post 9-11 victim by NIST or local law enforcement.

[BurgundyNGold]

Providing a copy of the Employee pass would, in my mind, support what you are saying. Date issue notwithstanding.
It would be a start, if nothing else. I think he'd need to produce some sort of timeline evidence or other such evidence to make his position plausible.

EDIT: The WTC access badge would have an expiration date on it, as well.

[RedskinsDave]

I think that a person who was in the WTC when the planes hit, got out in the nick time but by the luck of juxtaposition and grace of God, witnessed the horrible tragedy of people jumping to their deaths and then had to experience the surreal, sheer impoissibilitiy of the towers coming down with waves of dust and debris sweeping into the streets of Manhattan would have a life altering experience that would transcend any of their previous, "blame America first" politics when it came to AQ, the Taliban or any other terrorist group. I would not expect that person to continute to assault War on Terror policies in a hair splitting fashion, defending the heretofore undetermined "innocence" of those giving aid an shelter to the monsters than made that day come to pass.


You underestimate the disease that is liberalism. It is soooo cool to piss on your own country all the time, at least while the other party is in charge.

[BurgundyNGold]

You underestimate the disease that is liberalism. It is soooo cool to piss on your own country all the time, at least while the other party is in charge.
Stockholm Syndrome?

[RedskinsDave]

Stockholm Syndrome?

Yer dum. You don't even no what that is!!!1!!1!

[Keino]

You underestimate the disease that is liberalism. It is soooo cool to piss on your own country all the time, at least while the other party is in charge.

Is that really fair. Isn't that the equivalent of question someones patriotism (something you said you don't do) because they dare question the ethics and morality of what the country is doing at the time?

As a person who is liberal, I get tired of people questioning my love for country because I don't love what my country is doing in say, Iraq for example. It is because I love my country that I voice objection and I recognize that my country not only gives me the right to object, but the founders demanded it.

[BurgundyNGold]

Yer dum. You don't even no what that is!!!1!!1!
:lol1:

Phag.

[BurgundyNGold]

Is that really fair. Isn't that the equivalent of question someones patriotism (something you said you don't do) because they dare question the ethics and morality of what the country is doing at the time?

As a person who is liberal, I get tired of people questioning my love for country because I don't love what my country is doing in say, Iraq for example. It is because I love my country that I voice objection and I recognize that my country not only gives me the right to object, but the founders demanded it.
I don't think that liberals or conservatives innately love or hate their country more than the other. In fact, there is likely nothing more American than voicing one's objections to actions of government when you believe them to be illogical or immoral. That said, when such decrying of America becomes the vast majority of what someone says over a prolonged period of time or if it manifests itself into blame America first rehetoric on nearly every topic, it has transitioned into something that is more based on love of self and ego than love of country and civic duty. These days, there just so happens to be more of those people on the left than on the right. Personally, I believe that dukeuch is one of those people.

[Keino]

I don't think that liberals or conservatives innately love or hate their country more than the other. In fact, there is likely nothing more American than voicing one's objections to actions of government when you believe them to be illogical or immoral. That said, when such decrying of America becomes the vast majority of what someone says over a prolonged period of time or if it manifests itself into blame America first rehetoric on nearly every topic, it has transitioned into something that is more based on love of self and ego than love of country and civic duty. These days, there just so happens to be more of those people on the left than on the right. Personally, I believe that dukeuch is one of those people.

That may be, but that is not an issue of liberalism. That is egoism.

I don't believe liberals love the country more or less than conservatives, we just disagree on what is the best course of action for the health of the country. I believe this sums up the vast majority of people on both sides of the political spectrum.

[RedskinsDave]

Is that really fair. Isn't that the equivalent of question someones patriotism (something you said you don't do) because they dare question the ethics and morality of what the country is doing at the time?

It may be borderline questioning someone's patriotism if you want to be picky. But I honestly believe people, like Dukeuch, question America first and are much quicker to dump on America and things we do versus defending it. There are quite a few people like that.

As a person who is liberal, I get tired of people questioning my love for country because I don't love what my country is doing in say, Iraq for example. It is because I love my country that I voice objection and I recognize that my country not only gives me the right to object, but the founders demanded it.

If it stopped at questioning the war in Iraq it wouldn't be an issue. The problem stems from that being a legitimate dissent and then it turns into not just questioning what the U.S. does but assuming what is does it wrong and the other side it right, always. I'm not saying the U.S. is perfect and should not be questioned. I am saying that there is a group of liberals who only question the U.S. and are never happy with anything we do, especially when there's a GOP President.

[BurgundyNGold]

That may be, but that is not an issue of liberalism. That is egoism.

I don't believe liberals love the country more or less than conservatives, we just disagree on what is the best course of action for the health of the country. I believe this sums up the vast majority of people on both sides of the political spectrum.
I don't think you're getting the distinction that I'm trying to make between healthy dissent regarding a political issue and contrarian politics, rooted merely in the delusion of intellectual superiority. The latter goes beyond ideology in the guise of ideology.

As you said, this is not unique to liberalism. Timothy McVeigh fit this description, and he was a conservative. I'm just saying that, probably due to who is currently holding the reigns of political power, you see more of this on the liberal side than on the conservative side right now. I suspect that's apt to change here soon.

[dukeuch]

You can do that without demanding meeting someone in a bar, and trying to use the fact that no one showed up as reason to shake off people questioning you.

(Imagine Ronald Reagan's voice here): There you go again!

I demanded nothing. I just put out that I would be somewhere relatively close (as compared to my home of Saratoga Springs, NY) to where most of the posters here live, and if anyone cared, I'd have some back up. That's an invite, not a demand. Please don't go McCain on me and misrerpresent my words/actions.

Now that it's back to the internet, where many here feel it is impossible for me to prove anything, don't chastise me for "avoiding".

[BurgundyNGold]

(Imagine Ronald Reagan's voice here): There you go again!

I demanded nothing. I just put out that I would be somewhere relatively close (as compared to my home of Saratoga Springs, NY) to where most of the posters here live, and if anyone cared, I'd have some back up. That's an invite, not a demand. Please don't go McCain on me and misrerpresent my words/actions.

Now that it's back to the internet, where many here feel it is impossible for me to prove anything, don't chastise me for "avoiding".
You're the only one who thinks that so stop using it as an excuse.

Stop tap dancing and produce some evidence that you were in the WTC as the planes hit on 9-11.

[akhhorus]

(Imagine Ronald Reagan's voice here): There you go again!

I demanded nothing. I just put out that I would be somewhere relatively close (as compared to my home of Saratoga Springs, NY) to where most of the posters here live, and if anyone cared, I'd have some back up. That's an invite, not a demand. Please don't go McCain on me and misrerpresent my words/actions.

And you have tried to use this fact that we didn't come and hang out with you as a dodge to avoid the issue.

Now that it's back to the internet, where many here feel it is impossible for me to prove anything, don't chastise me for "avoiding".

You do nothing but try and avoid on this board. Whenever your crap is pointed out as false or misleading, you try to change the subject, avoid any discussion of those points or go on a mysteriously timed vacation.

[dukeuch]

I think that a person who was in the WTC when the planes hit, got out in the nick time but by the luck of juxtaposition and grace of God, witnessed the horrible tragedy of people jumping to their deaths and then had to experience the surreal, sheer impoissibilitiy of the towers coming down with waves of dust and debris sweeping into the streets of Manhattan would have a life altering experience that would transcend any of their previous, "blame America first" politics when it came to AQ, the Taliban or any other terrorist group. I would not expect that person to continute to assault War on Terror policies in a hair splitting fashion, defending the heretofore undetermined "innocence" of those giving aid an shelter to the monsters than made that day come to pass.

Well, speaking to someone who was NOT there so I am not sure how you could formulate an opinion to project on someone else, let's say that everyone is different. You sort of sound like that turd O'Reilly, who basically shouted down a guy who's father died in the WTC that he was wrong, that his father "would have felt that way" regarding whatever lame point O'Reilly was trying to make. You see, O'Reilly, because of his own biases and pre-conceived notions, knew better than the son how the father would have felt, right?

You know, I worked on the 20th floor of the North Tower. We did not even know the seriousness of what was going on until we got outside. I had zero problems getting outside of the building, and did not worry about my own safety because whatever had happened was a long way above me and I "knew" nothing would prevent me from getting out. I exited the towers from the South Tower (on the Liberty Street side, the side the second plane went in so not much stuff came dwon above us), literally the instant it was struck. I had time to cros the street and crouch under an elevated walkway before the debris reached the ground. I got out a long time before the towers came down, and so did a lot of people. Contrary to what you might deduce from whatever you read or saw, it was not like everyone was running away for their lives, at least until the South Tower came down. I was one of THOUSANDS, if not tens of thousands, watching what was going on, "knowing" that the towers would not fall because (if you lived in NYC you would have heard it many times) the towers could withstand a hit from a "commercial jet liner". We saw the proof of that right in front of our eyes, at least for a while. Nobody, NOBODY there thought that the fire would cause the entire buildings to collapse. Besides those who ran away from the scene right away, nobody ran away until the South Tower went down. Speaking for myslef, I would imagine we were probably not much more horrified than people who watched on TV. TV probably gave a much closer look at the most horrifying images, people jumping, than we got with the naked eye from a few blocks away. Further, all I ever saw was what could be seen from the spot I was standing at any particular time. I could not see what I am sure were many different places, angles, close ups, etc, that you could on television. I was only a few blocks away when the South Tower went down, but happened to be in a position where my view of the closer North Tower completely obscurred the South Tower. We didn't even know the tower went down even though we were pretty close. We heard a big noise, saw the dust (it went down avenues parellel to where we were standing, but nowhere near us, perhaps blocked by the North Tower pretty much right in fornt of us, I don't know). It was not until I moved some and the dust settled that I could see that the South Tower was not there any more.

I know people who have gone through far less traumatic events that have had it transform their lives 180 degrees. If I knew nothing else about you, the mere trauma of the event coupled with human nature makes your story impossible to believe.

Sorry that you cannot imagine anyone would feel differently about something than you do, no matter how strongly you feel it. But for the sake of argument, let's focus on the point I was trying to make in that old thread: that the US is more accepting of collateral damage if it involves innocent foriegners than innocent Americans. Why would it be impossible for you to believe that a person who thinks innocent is innocent, regardless of nationalty, would continue to believe so after innocent Americans have been killed? Does that fact somehow make the foriegners less innocent? The joke of that old thread was that I never got an answer from anyone to my question of: Are innocent foriegners lives worth less than innocent Americans when going after terrorists (which it seemed to me was the Administration's view in this case)? The closest answer I got was "they are not innocent".


We'll cross that bridge when we come to it. As I said before, any proof is better than no proof and continued tap dancing. Let's start by taking a half step to the wall by showing that you had credentials to be in the building or that you have been interviewed as a post 9-11 victim by NIST or local law enforcement.

Ok, I have no idea how to download an image of my ID's and post them here. I have a digital camera, so maybe I can figure it out. That said, I will insist that I be allowed to block out my last name, and would still prefer that my picture not be viewed, so how about I send it to a moderator who PROMISES not to make it otherwise public?

Interviewed by local law enforcement? Dude, you have NO idea what was going on there on 9/11, or afterwards. Who is NIST?

[akhhorus]

Ok, I have no idea how to download an image of my ID's and post them here. I have a digital camera, so maybe I can figure it out. That said, I will insist that I be allowed to block out my last name, and would still prefer that my picture not be viewed, so how about I send it to a moderator who PROMISES not to make it otherwise public?

Interviewed by local law enforcement? Dude, you have NO idea what was going on there on 9/11, or afterwards. Who is NIST?

The fact that try to keep equating any criticism or questioning of you with your political enemies shows how small and pathetic a person you are.

[Keino]

I think those are reasonable conditions. Before you snap the photo, cover your last name and picture with Electrical Tape. You can email me the image at keino83@hotmail.com

[BurgundyNGold]

I think those are reasonable conditions. Before you snap the photo, cover your last name and picture with Electrical Tape. You can email me the image at
Not a good idea to post your email here. It will get botted. Just PM it to him.

[Keino]

I ain't worried about it. It already gets botted like crazy. I have another one for more important matters. Plus my email is public on my HR profile I think.....

[BurgundyNGold]

Well, speaking to someone who was NOT there so I am not sure how you could formulate an opinion to project on someone else, let's say that everyone is different. You sort of sound like that turd O'Reilly, who basically shouted down a guy who's father died in the WTC that he was wrong, that his father "would have felt that way" regarding whatever lame point O'Reilly was trying to make. You see, O'Reilly, because of his own biases and pre-conceived notions, knew better than the son how the father would have felt, right?
Again with the name calling. Dude, your name calling schtick is old and I don't know why it's tolerated. You should have been banned long ago.

Sorry that you cannot imagine anyone would feel differently about something than you do, no matter how strongly you feel it. But for the sake of argument, let's focus on the point I was trying to make in that old thread: that the US is more accepting of collateral damage if it involves innocent foriegners than innocent Americans. Why would it be impossible for you to believe that a person who thinks innocent is innocent, regardless of nationalty, would continue to believe so after innocent Americans have been killed? Does that fact somehow make the foriegners less innocent? The joke of that old thread was that I never got an answer from anyone to my question of: Are innocent foriegners lives worth less than innocent Americans when going after terrorists (which it seemed to me was the Administration's view in this case)? The closest answer I got was "they are not innocent".
The joke of the other thread is that you were answered several times and still do no know it or prefer to represent that you were not answered. And I don't personally believe that anyone who witnessed the horror of 9-11 -- let alone someone who purportedly did so first hand -- would be so quick to assume that people who invite know terrorists and international fugitives into their houses are "innocent". Your argument reeks of counterfactuals and fraud.

Interviewed by local law enforcement? Dude, you have NO idea what was going on there on 9/11, or afterwards. Who is NIST?
Um, actually, I do have an idea. It was all caught on tape and the after events are well documented, including the fact that federal and local law enforcement were taking statements from witnesses for months afterward, much of which is available in the public domain. Oh, and as a person who was there, you would have gotten several requests from the NIST over several months and years to participate in surveys and studies about the final moments inside of the building and the evacuation of the WTC.

It's the little things in your argument (like not knowing who the NIST is and what they did in the aftermath with the victims) that is going to make you have to produce more than a badge.

[BurgundyNGold]

The fact that try to keep equating any criticism or questioning of you with your political enemies shows how small and pathetic a person you are.
He called me O'Reilly and you McCain. Not to mention the plethora of names that he has called both of us over the years.

Hey, moderators? How long do we have to stand by and take this? I, for one, am sick of it.

We adhere to the rules yet, despite years of warnings, dukeuch continues to flout them in favor of calling his fellow posters names. We *do* actually have rules of civility here, do we not? Given that he contributes nothing but derision, how many more warnings does he need? Why does he keep getting a pass?

He should have been gone long ago and should be gone now.

[Keino]

I had to google NIST. National Institute of Standards and Technology.

I had never heard of them until I read the post above. I also don't claim to have been on Ground Zero.

[akhhorus]

I had to google NIST. National Institute of Standards and Technology.

I had never heard of them until I read the post above. I also don't claim to have been on Ground Zero.

Dukeuch also didn't mention the EPA. They interviewed everyone who survived because of potential long term effects on breathing.

[BurgundyNGold]

I had to google NIST. National Institute of Standards and Technology.

I had never heard of them until I read the post above. I also don't claim to have been on Ground Zero.
This was not a secret and should have been common knowledge among WTC survivors. I knew about it years ago and I wasn't even contacted by NIST.

http://wtc.nist.gov/media/publicsafety.htm

[swheeler]

BNG, I don't think he was calling you O'Reilly. O'Reilly was the subject of the sentence.

You see, O'Reilly, because of his own biases and pre-conceived notions, knew better than the son how the father would have felt, right?

Take the phrase surrounded by commas out and you get: "You see, O'Reilly knew better than the son how the father would have felt, right?" That's what he was going for there. Yes, he was comparing you to Bill O'Reilly, but not calling you his name.

On a different matter, I'm not really sure what a WTC badge without a photo or name proves. I can understand not wanting to post it in public, but it seems to me that the version which goes to Keino should be uncensored if it's going to have any value. Then again, does anyone know Duke's name or what he looks like? Because if not, then even the name and photo don't prove anything.

[BurgundyNGold]

BNG, I don't think he was calling you O'Reilly. O'Reilly was the subject of the sentence.

Take the phrase surrounded by commas out and you get: "You see, O'Reilly knew better than the son how the father would have felt, right?" That's what he was going for there. Yes, he was comparing you to Bill O'Reilly, but not calling you his name.
Unfortunately, with his history of calling people names (many of which much more vulgur and offensive than O'Reilly) he doesn't get the benefit of the doubt. Especially when a post or two away he likens another poster to McCain. I'm sick of his antics and have just about had it with this forum because of him.

On a different matter, I'm not really sure what a WTC badge without a photo or name proves. I can understand not wanting to post it in public, but it seems to me that the version which goes to Keino should be uncensored if it's going to have any value. Then again, does anyone know Duke's name or what he looks like? Because if not, then even the name and photo don't prove anything.
All the tap dancing from him is getting tiring. At this point, we'd settle for a pez dispenser that he said he found in SoHo if it got the ball rolling. He has to make a case that he was in the WTC when the plane hit on 9-11. The badge, at least, shows that someone (perhaps him) had access to the WTC . That's a start.

[Keino]

Wheeler it proves very little. However, it would prove that he worked at WTC which is a big part of his story. Also, I think it would be difficult to just come by an ID allowing entry into a place that is no longer there.

Like I said it wouldn't prove much but it would show that he is at the very least telling the truth about his place of employment.

[BurgundyNGold]

Wheeler it proves very little. However, it would prove that he worked at WTC which is a big part of his story. Also, I think it would be difficult to just come by an ID allowing entry into a place that is no longer there.

Like I said it wouldn't prove much but it would show that he is at the very least telling the truth about his place of employment.
If he has a digital camera, he should probably take a picture of himself holding the badge, as well, such that we would make out him and the badge at the same time. That would at least show that the same person in the picture is the same person on the badge. It would also be infinitely more difficult to Google up a badge and try to pass the guy off on the badge as you.

[Keino]

If he has a digital camera, he should probably take a picture of himself holding the badge, as well, such that we would make out him and the badge at the same time. That would at least show that the same person in the picture is the same person on the badge. It would also be infinitely more difficult to Google up a badge and try to pass the guy off on the badge as you.

Lets see if he takes me up on my offer.

[Fathead]

Wait, he's trying to claim this and at the same time say he's never heard of NIST?



holy lol. That's like claiming to be an olympian and having to ask what the IOC is.

[RedskinsDave]

I was in Hawaii on 9/11/2001. Here's my proof:

http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/mclovin.jpg

[swheeler]

The signature on that id has the "g" even though the name doesn't. Clearly it's a fake. ;)

[BurgundyNGold]

The signature on that id has the "g" even though the name doesn't. Clearly it's a fake. ;)
Ha! I hadn't noticed that.

[Keino]

So Duke, are you going to take me up on my offer?

I have to say right now that your silence on the topic is pretty deafening and frankly, I feel a little more than foolish for having defended you so hard.

I am not sure what more I can do. I have offered to keep your personal identity 100% confidential.

[BurgundyNGold]

So Duke, are you going to take me up on my offer?

I have to say right now that your silence on the topic is pretty deafening and frankly, I feel a little more than foolish for having defended you so hard.

I am not sure what more I can do. I have offered to keep your personal identity 100% confidential.

http://www.nyworms.com/images/groupcrickets.jpg

[BurgundyNGold]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/44/Sync-crickets.jpg/622px-Sync-crickets.jpg

[Fathead]

He hasn't posted since Halloween.

[Keino]

On 11/18 he sent me a PM saying that he wanted to send me the credentials on the condition that I safeguard his image and identity, and of course I agreed, as that was my offer on the thread. I haven't heard anything since.....

[BurgundyNGold]

On 11/18 he sent me a PM saying that he wanted to send me the credentials on the condition that I safeguard his image and identity, and of course I agreed, as that was my offer on the thread. I haven't heard anything since.....
I'm not sure what good that will do. Images of badges are readily available on the Internet.

http://jaskim.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/wtc_sm.jpg

At this point, I have no doubt he's full of it. Even if he came back (and I hope he doesn't), I don't see why anyone would think that he wasn't using the last 6 weeks to find someone to doctor an image for him.

He had his chance. I hope his filth never darkens this forum again.

[RedskinsDave]

This is cool. We can get rid of liars by just calling them out. Maybe he's off on an island with Reaper.

[dj_stouty]

This is cool. We can get rid of liars by just calling them out. Maybe he's off on an island with Reaper.

If he is...at least he gets to look at the long legs of Stacy Keibler!

[BurgundyNGold]

If he is...at least he gets to look at the long legs of Stacy Keibler!
It depends how long Reaper has been on the island. The pages might be stuck together.

[CNYSkinFan]

I gotta tell you I thought this whole prove duke was not at ground zero thing stupid...but the longer he stays silent the more I doubt his story (I just didn't care enough to doubt it before).

[skinguy]

Vote Here. The Poll is public, everyone will know how you voted.
as long as spence is given the password ; cool ~ ~

:)

[RedskinsDave]

We'll give him the password after you post nude pics. Deal?

[PyroGenic]

That's some top notch negotiation there :)

[skinguy]

We'll give him the password after you post nude pics. Deal?
RedskinsDave, hi :sun:
are you sure that you want me to post the nude pics that i have of YOU ? ? ?
well, if you say so . . .



p.s. hey RedskinsDave, would you rather i just post THAT video that i have with you & well . . . , uggh . . , you know . . :readme:

[RedskinsDave]

You mean the one where you're lying on the bed going crazy while I sit in the corner reading excerpts from Neal Boortz? That may be too hot for this site.

[skinguy]

You mean the one where you're lying on the bed going crazy while I sit in the corner reading excerpts from Neal Boortz? That may be too hot for this site.
RedskinsDave , hi !
YOU can read ? ? ?
since when ? ?

CONGRATS ! ! ! :sun:


cheers, kelly ~ ~


p.s. i always knew that YOU were a " closet " boortz fan ;)

[BurgundyNGold]

RedskinsDave , hi !
YOU can read ? ? ?
since when ? ?

CONGRATS ! ! ! :sun:


cheers, kelly ~ ~


p.s. i always knew that YOU were a " closet " boortz fan ;)
You know, Spence isn't here anymore. He started another website. I think they have a message board if you'd like to give him a little love.

[RedskinsDave]

You know, Spence isn't here anymore. He started another website. I think they have a message board if you'd like to give him a little love.

They need the traffic too.

[akhhorus]

You know, Spence isn't here anymore. He started another website. I think they have a message board if you'd like to give him a little love.

past tense.

[BurgundyNGold]

past tense.
It can't hurt for skinguy to stop by anyway. I'm just saying. :)