| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Stop Dissing Islam to get back at Yhabpo | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jul 14 2005, 09:11 PM (912 Views) | |
| Larry | Jul 16 2005, 09:50 AM Post #26 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
If people are upset with me it's because they have made the same flawed deductions you have made. You haven't been paying attention. Several of you haven't been paying attention. The first thing you get wrong is the order of things. And I believe this occurs because of a blindness that exists in your logic ("your" meaning all of those who arrived at the opinion you've stated, not you personally). You are of the opinion that AC started it with the "pothead" thread, and that Yahoo was simply responding in kind to that. You are quite mistaken. The first thread to hit our monitors was Yahoo's "bastard" thread. Quite opposite of what you recall, AC was the one responding, not Yahoo. Second, you assume that I wrote the threads and thread titles I did to get vengeance on Yahoo. You have missed the point entirely. My threads had absolutely nothing to do with Yahoo. My threads were aimed at the rest of you. I wanted to see how you would respond to them. Sadly, many of you responded exactly the way I figured you would. Many of you have not been paying attention. 1. Yahoo starts a thread that is offensive and disgusting to some people here, me being one of them. 2. Requests to have the offensive material removed so we wouldn't have to be insulted every time we opened this forum were made. 3. Requests were made to ban the person who wrote the offensive material were made. The response from the community: 1. He has a right to free speech. 2. Why would that be offensive to you anyway? 3. I am not offended by his thread title or posts. 4. Just ignore him. 5. He has a right to say what he wants to say. 6. I like reading his perspective on things. 7. We should want to know how "his side" thinks. 8. You people who are offended are just being thin skinned. 9. Who are you to dictate to him what he can write? 10. The things he writes don't bother me, in fact I find his points somewhat valid. AC then spoofs his thread, and many of you, instead of being able to keep track, immediately insert *AC's* thread ahead of Yahoo's, and the general view takes hold that Yahoo is innocent, AC started it, Yahoo was only reacting because AC hurt his feelings but he has apologized so let's all be nice to him, and Larry is being disgusting because he is posting offensive threads and thread titles just to hurt Yahoo's feelings - we should all be tolerant of his Islamic values and religion. You people just don't get it..... AC is correct - Yahoo is not a muslim. He's a troll. Now - I post my 3 or 4 threads that are offensive toward Islam. The response from the community: 1. You should be ashamed. 2. Please remove your posts 3. We're upset at you. 4. You are expected to live by a different standard. 5. You are hurting Yahoo's feelings. 6. You are maligning one of the world's largest religions. 7. Yes it's a double standard, but remove your offensive posts anyway. 8. I am offended by your thread titles and posts. 9. You don't have a right to speak about Yahoo or Islam that way. 10. You're just being mean, and you're disrupting the forum. Do you people not see how hypocrital you have been? My threads weren't aimed at Yahoo - I turned the mirror on *you*. So I offended one of the world's largest religions..... where were you when Yahoo was offending the *largest* religion - a religion that many here adhere to? I daresay there isn't a muslim in the house. Yet you aren't offended by attacks on Christianity, the religion many of those you call friends here follow. You can't imagine why any of the Christians here would be offended, but without a single muslim in the house, you are almost wetting your pants in disgust that someone would dare offend Islam. So you think Yahoo has a right to free speech that should be protected...... but you apparently think I don't have those same rights. I should be held to a "different standard" because I am a member with good intentions, in good standing, whatever you want to call it. Why? What about *my* right to free speech? Why do you feel you can justify your view that one person should not only be allowed to offend, but should actually be "understood", his feelings taken into account, credibility justified for both him and his vile posts, when one of your own is denied that same thing? Just ignore Yahoo, but get all worked up and write long lengthy posts focusing on why *I* am wrong. You justify the horrible things Yahoo writes, minimize them, but turn a magnifying glass on me. I'm being mean, but Yahoo is just reacting because his feelings were hurt. I could go on, but certainly by now you are getting the picture. Now - I am certain that those of you who find my threads offensive and who think that I'm being an asshole will sit there until you come up with yet another way to justify your opinions. But I say this as sincerely as I know how, with all the care and love I can find in me for you all, and without the slightest hint of malice or vengeance...... You are displaying the poorest judgment imaginable. This isn't a country, this isn't a testing ground for the Constitution, and it isn't a place or time for waxing eloquent about the fine points of freedoms and rights. It's a time for you to use your common sense. You weren't even able to see that my posts were aimed at you instead of Yahoo. You think he is a muslim. You think he's just misunderstood. He is *none* of those things. He has stated he is an athiest. He doesn't care about Islam any more than he cares about Christianity. He has stated that he is a nihilist. Do you even know what that means? Basically, by stating he is a nihilist, he has shown you exactly what his motives are - to disrupt, to divide, to start arguments, to hurt people, to offend, to do anything he can think of to cause trouble. Why do you tolerate that? If he had simply been banned the first time he showed up, none of this would be going on. None of it. It isn't a matter of "free speech". Free speech has limits. You can't cry fire in a crowded theater. You can't slander another person. And you can't walk into a room full of people and start shouting offensive things. IF you don't believe me, drop into a party somewhere, and jump up on a table and disrupt the party with offensive speech. See how quickly you land in a jail cell. If you are offended by my threads, I'm sorry. Not because I offended you - I wanted to. I wanted you to have to face your hypocricy. I'm sorry because you aren't able to understand it all, or apply a common sense answer to the problem. *I* am not your problem. Yahoo is. Yet you are busy nursing your upsets toward me all while making excuses for Yahoo. I truly hope some of you open your eyes. |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| Larry | Jul 16 2005, 10:01 AM Post #27 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
Having read the posts that I missed before posting, I would like to add the following: tcmod gets it. Thank you. Kenny, you don't get it. Rick Zimmer couldn't get it if his life depended on it. Quirt simply has an agenda. How many years have some of you known me? The very fact that there is even a debate about my posts is clear proof that some of you simply don't get it. |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| tcmod | Jul 16 2005, 10:14 AM Post #28 |
|
Senior Carp
|
Rick, first you say I am right, then you say I am wrong. Look...it is clear that for some, perhaps many, Larry can do no right and will take any opportunity to get a shot in. This was evident in the OCR and here as well. I really don't care. But you know as well as I, that some responses to his posts were not in defense of Muslims, but a thinly veiled attack on the poster. I don't know everyone's motivation. Apologise for that and for coming across as arrogant. I am still right though |
| Dead girls don't say no, but you still have to buy them flowers | |
![]() |
|
| AlbertaCrude | Jul 16 2005, 10:42 AM Post #29 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
Larry thanks all the same but I just assumed that that some people got the chronology of the Bastard/Pothead controversy wrong because they don't pay any attention to what they read. In any case, long ago I learned that my opinions and observations are of little or no consequence to the majority of posters in these fora. So let's let it slide. I pointed out the error, you substantiated it, so let's leave at that. 98% of the posters here have yet to figure why I've drawn a bead on yhabpo's ass. Hint: it's got sweet f..k all to do with religion or race. |
![]() |
|
| FrankM | Jul 16 2005, 11:56 AM Post #30 |
|
Senior Carp
|
AC wrote:
I’m mystified why you’d have that impression. I’d think -- or at least hope -- you’re wrong on that. For what it’s worth, there’s an all too small handful of people whose posts I find consistently of high quality. You’re definitely one of that handful. |
![]() |
|
| pianojerome | Jul 16 2005, 12:21 PM Post #31 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Yeah, I got the chronology mixed up. Sorry. I don't even read those kinds of threads - I don't read Yhabpo's articles, and I don't read Larry's articles about Islam. Yhabpo's apology thread made it seem as though he was retaliating against AC. --- Larry, I'm sure a lot more people were offended by Yhabpo's posts then you think. I don't even read them. I'm sure most people don't even read them, because they see the titles, and they just shake their heads. We're all offended by the titles and what we assume the articles will say (knowing Yhabpo and knowing the titles), but we don't waste our time saying so (though, for some reason, his threads still seem to get several pages on them every time... but they would get many, many, many more pages if everybody freely spoke their minds). I'm sure that many people here would love for Yhabpo's threads to be deleted. Many people here would love for his posts to be moderated. It's not that we all support Yhabpo's right to free speech, and it's not that we all want him to say whatever he wants. The problem is that we call for him to be moderated or banned, and then the question arises from the moderators, "What can we do? How about his freedom of speech?" Then we all get tongue-tied, because we don't want to say that he shouldn't have free speech, just because we don't like what he's saying. But deep inside, most of us don't think he should have free speech to post what he posts. We say he should, because we all like our own freedom of speech, and we don't want to deny ourselves that freedom. But most of us are offended by his articles. I apologize for misreading your motives, Larry. I guess I'm not the only one who did. But the fact is, even though we have the right to post whatever we want, there are consequences - good and bad - to everything we write. Everything we write here will be read by at least one person, and every person who reads what we right will react positively or negatively. With the freedom comes responsibility, and we should not post what we know others will take as malicious and hurtful. I didn't read any of your articles, but the titles are highly offensive, at least to me. I'm not Muslim, but I'm sure that if I were, I'd be outraged. I was just as offended by Yhapbo's remarks about Christianity (the titles, at least), and I'd be more so upset if I were Christian. |
| Sam | |
![]() |
|
| Larry | Jul 16 2005, 12:52 PM Post #32 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
And that is my point, PJ. There *are* consequences - yet many seem to be of the opinion that when Yahoo offends it is time to trot out the "freedom of speech" issue and defend him as well as minimize the harm he's doing, but when me or anyone else does it we meet the totally opposite response. It is *that* issue that I have been addressing. |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| M&M's | Jul 16 2005, 12:55 PM Post #33 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
Frankly, it doesn't matter if he is Muslim or not. The fact remains that I don't think the threads he posts is because he really wants to educate. He wants to insult. He could have posted the same material with a less offensive title and possibly wouldn't have been perceived as being malicious. But then again, we all are too sensitive and would have been offended anyway.
|
| My child shows GOOD CHARACTERIZATION in an ongoing game of D&D | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Jul 16 2005, 01:34 PM Post #34 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
Thanks for telling me what my motivation is, Larry. If you want to know my agenda, here it is. I don't like yhabpo's title, so I didn't open his thread and I don't read it. But I think that he should have a right to say it, and to be ignored. I don't like your titles, so I haven't opened your threads and I don't read them. But I think that you should have the right to say it, and to be ignored. I haven't called on yhabpo to change the title to his thread. I haven't called on you to change the title to your threads. As far as I am concerned, the only difference, and it is an important difference, between the two of you is that you think you are part of the mainstream and call some of the people here friends, and yhabpo does not. Other than that, I'm willing to believe that you are exactly like yhabpo. And I don't believe either of you should be banned or censored. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Jul 16 2005, 01:35 PM Post #35 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
Oh, and Larry, you have an agenda too, and it's a much more vicious one. You've been agitating, since the OCR, to get yhabpo banned. My agenda is far more libertarian than yours. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| Klotz | Jul 16 2005, 01:37 PM Post #36 |
|
Middle Aged Carp
|
...which is O.K. and accepted by most of the moderators of the forums. You see... this is not a "personal attack" ..so "blacks act like idiots" is O.K. too... no name was named. Larry... 1.I'm with you 2."They" won't get it ... but your blood pressure will increase.... 3. Amanda does not deserve the "full of shit" line. Get some rest, old injun ...
|
| |
![]() |
|
| pianojerome | Jul 16 2005, 02:18 PM Post #37 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
You're right. The material doesn't have to be offensive, nor does the language that is used to present the material. Did anyone find my questions about Christianity and the ensuing discussions offensive? I think I worded my questions and my responses pretty well, and others did also. Yhapbo could criticize the U.S. and Americans, Israel and Israelis, Christianity and Christians, and all other Westerners for that matter, and not come across as malicious or offensive. If he had tact, he could instigate some very enlightening discussions. Or maybe he does have tact - his goal all this time is simply to offend, so I guess he is doing a good job of it. Larry's trying to imitate Yhapbo, just to see if we'll react the same way. Well, in terms of being offended, we are offended in just the same way. But if Larry were really serious about his Islam threads - or if Yhabpo were really serious about his Christianity threads - and he were not just posting them offensively to see if we'd react the same way we reacted to Yhapbo's threads, then he could at least change the title to something like, "Question for Muslims" or simply, "Islamic violence", or something along those lines. I'd bet such a thread would not be offensive at all. |
| Sam | |
![]() |
|
| phykell | Jul 16 2005, 03:05 PM Post #38 |
|
Senior Carp
|
Hasib Hussain, one of the alleged London bombers, was described as a "tearaway" during his early teens before turning very religious about two years ago. He had been on the Hajj, grew a beard and began to wear robes but only last year he was arrested and cautioned, for shoplifting (yes, after turning "very religious"). Some devout Muslim he is! Good job our law isn't Sharia as he may well have been sentenced to amputation. So not only was this guy a bad Muslim but as a fundamentalist, if that's what he was, he was a hypocritical one. Actually, perhaps it's a shame he wasn't subjected to amputation. That way he wouldn't have had the hand(s) necessary to carry out the bombing. My point is that you have made a huge generalisation. Muslims are arguably no more serious about their religion than anyone else is. Perhaps there's some metrics you could supply, I don't know, but I do know there's plenty of Muslims who drink alcohol, curse, swear, murder and all the other things many of the rest of us do... |
|
The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way it's animals are treated. - Ghandhi Evil cannot be conquered in the world. It can only be resisted within oneself. Remember, bones heal and chicks dig scars | |
![]() |
|
| AlbertaCrude | Jul 16 2005, 03:33 PM Post #39 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
What apology thread? Regardless, of what he said you believed him. ROFLMAO |
![]() |
|
| AlbertaCrude | Jul 16 2005, 03:37 PM Post #40 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
|
![]() |
|
| Jolly | Jul 18 2005, 07:10 AM Post #41 |
![]()
Geaux Tigers!
|
As with so many of Amanda's well intentioned verbages, this one shoots off into the land of unintended consequences. AC has been proven right. |
| The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros | |
![]() |
|
![]() Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today. Learn More · Sign-up Now |
|
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2









8:56 AM Jul 13