m-netters have a thick skin. this allows them to roll with insults and see the humour in it. They also have better retorts and they are able to insult in a way that even the insulted find amusing. The m-net hardware and OS is more robust and powerful also. They also lack the whining pukes like cuss rage(aka "russ') and jakeoffman(jakluman). The sysops there stay of of people's business(mostly). janc gets his panties in a wad at the first hint of disagreement. and as for "other" that guy doesn't have a trace of any sense of humour...in fact he resembles a serial killer. If he smiled he would probally crack his face.mary and remmers need an IV infused dose of geritol. those buzzards think they are trolling professionals but they have yet to display any proof. Last but not least they have ME...the great sabre. The personage whose intelligence and wit astound even the most prudent grammer queens and spelling snobs. So all new comers..come to m-net. Forget this dungeon of liberal oppression. simply telent to host "m-net.arbornet.org' on port 23. WE ARE VASTLY SUPERIOR TO THESE WHINING LOTUS EATERS. LONG LIVE M-NET....DEATH TO grex.33 responses total.
This response has been erased.
This response has been erased.
"Let a hundred flowers bloom."
Is this what passes for trolling these days?
Polytarp is not prone to posting of much length.
"prudent grammer queens and spelling snobs"
<sigh> No one knows how to write a decent flame anymore. It's so sad. So very, very sad.
Times have changed; the good people have moved on. All that's left is wannabes with no concept of style.
I've been posting "telnet to m-net" messages for months.
This is hilarious... whining. I was having soo much fun. This makes it all the better. And he has no idea that... nope.
I am SO INSULTED. I wasn't even mentioned!!
This response has been erased.
This guy sounds like a cartoon super-villain, minus the super...
"You just don't get it, do you, Scohtt. You're not e-vil enough. You're eee-vil lite. You're the Diet Cooke of e-vil..."
Glad you like M-Net. We worked hard to make it cool. Insulting people cleverly isn't actually the alpha and omega of quality conversation. I guess you know that.
This response has been erased.
The insults are a reaction and not an action. My views do swing toward the right. That seems to attract insults from grex. Since I will not change your views..and you will not change mine I guess the comunication has turned into a japanese parliment meeting.
Actually, everyone's opinions are constantly changing, and are influenced by everything they experience. I alter your mind with every word I say, and you alter mine with every word you say. Not just a little bit in a corner either. Everything. No opinion you have is fixed for even a moment. No memory is not constantly changing. Each perception floods our minds, every connection warping in response, never to return to its previous state. That's what minds do. Living minds exist to process perceptions and come up with instant responses. They are dynamic and infinitely responsive. This is the core of intelligence. This is why computers fail to be intelligent. At any moment, only one bit of their memory can change, while everything else is unchanging. They make no errors, but their minds do not flow with what they perceive. Instead, they view the world through a pinhole, at best. They understand nothing because their minds encompass nothing. A cockroach is infinity more able to react effectively to the world. We humans have minds that are fundamentally changable and constantly changing. We can appear to stand still, but it is done by constantly changing in response to the changes around us. To say you can have no influence on others is an absurdity. Your control over the effects of your influence may not be very good, but you cannot help but have an influence.
janc; why'd you leave m-net? and why'd you take remmers with you?
I didn't leave M-Net. I just stopped going there so much.
You are of course correct..in a certain respect. Some values do not change...the corporate culture gurus call these values "core values". A core value of mine is a baby's right to life. In some rare cases perhaps abortion is an option..rape,incest or when the mother's life is at stake. I would support those exceptions even though my instins compel me to detest abortion. BUT..even in those rare cases I do not see a need for partial birth abortion. That is murder in it's worst form. The rare cases in which perhaps abortion would be an option could be performed in the first trimester. Do you honestly think it is right to pull a fully formed baby..that could live on it's own from it's mother's womb and kill it? Just because the it hasn't totally left the birth canel? I have some links to some photos of the procedure. I will not post them. They are sickening in every way. My point is this. Liberals seem willing to excuse the most horrible crimes if punishing them will hurt thier agenda.
Who are you arguing with? I'm OK with late abortions only if the life of the mother is otherwise at grave risk. I don't give a dang what procedure is used. All are equally grisely, and none could be as bad as denying treatment to a dying woman because we want to preserve the life of her unborn baby. I think that's a pretty normal position held by liberals. Please remind me where the horrible crime is that I'm excusing? Some conservatives want to force women who have been raped to carry the children to term, or want to deny lifesaving medical care to women whose pregnancies have gone wrong in ways that endanger their life. Are you sure it's only liberals who seem willing to excuse horrible crimes if punishing them would hurt their agenda? Note that I say "some conservatives". A great many conservatives approve of neither of these things. Some conservatives don't even want to ban abortion. But hey, if we admitted that we'd have to actually start arguing with each other instead of tilting at imaginary monsters of our own creation. And worse, we'd have to think up our own opinions instead of borrowing them from folks like Rush.
However, I don't particular want to talk about abortion. I'd much rather talk about "thick skins". I'm far from convinced that feigned or real insensitivity to the actions and opinions of others is an unmitigated virtue. Some people have it, and some don't, and I really don't know which to feel sorry for. I guess my personal ideal for myself is to have a thin skin, that heals quickly. But what's the deal with all these people who are constantly complaining that not everyone around them has a "thick skin"? Sure, thick-skinned people are easier to be around, because you don't have to spend any time thinking about how they will react to what you do and say. But really, what's so great about that? I thought all you Republican types were supposed to be prepared to take responsibility for your own words and actions. But no, here you are complaining that people actually listen and respond to you, that they take your words and actions seriously. And then a few sentances later you are complaining that nobody listens to anyone else and nobody's opinions can be changed. Lots of points for consistancy there. And if you're such a hero of thickness, why all the dodges? You don't give us your real name, you tell us nothing about your real life, your picture is not on the Grexer Gallery. I've been out in plain site on the net for twenty years. If I'm so weak and fragile and easily hurt why am I still here? If you're so strong and tough why are you hiding? Why is it that everytime someone challenges you, you come back with "I was only joking." Isn't that the biggest dodge of all? Pretending that everything you say is just a joke so that it can be instantly retracted if anyone challenges you? Well, newsflash, the dodge doesn't work. We know your name. We know who you are. Your name is Sabre. You are exactly the person you act like. Very likely you have other names you use in other contexts, and hopefully you have other personality aspects that you use there too. So what? Everyone has lots of names and faces. I'm not the same person to my kids that I am to Grex either. In each aspect of your life, you are the person you act like. If you act brave, then you are brave, just so long as you keep the act up. If you act the fool then you are the fool, so long as you keep the act up. The puppet is the puppeteer.
This response has been erased.
This response has been erased.
re#24 Talk about "projection". 24 is a perfect example. cross has a repressed desire to prance around dressed in a brownie uniform..EGADS. re#23 janc you have to be gay. Only a gay man wears his feelings on his sleeve like that. Oh by the way I am mostly joking..except when it comes to killing little babies. I will have to admit however that if it came down to my wife or my unborn child...I would choose my wife. But that whole line of reasoning is deflection. Or perhaps"dodge" is a better term. What % of abortions are due to rape or incest? What % are due to endangerment of the mother's life? .001% .01%...probally less. This agruement is used all the time. I am supposed to support every slut that spreads her legs in an abortion because of that minute %? Bah....I say make a law that forbids abortion except in cases of rape,incest or life endangerment of the mother. I also heard the lame ass excuse"well the anti-abortionists will never win because it will just be done illegally. What a dumbass....exactly..it will be done illegally and be made the CRIME it truly is. I could make the same justfication for legalising drug use"well if it's illegal they will still take drugs" Yes...and it will be a crime.
Of course Jan's gay (not that there's anything wrong with it). He has a girl's name -- and he wears glasses so he must be a sissy. Come to think of it, gay sluts don't have abortions. You should be happy! (Not that I'm insinuating that Jan's a slut, too.)
You were talking how the evil liberals support late term abortions. Turns out the liberal (me) and the conservative (you) actually have the same opinion on that - it's OK to save the life of the mother. OK. Then you accuse me of deflection, raising the subject of rare cases instead of focusing on the usual situation. Actually, it was you who raised the subject of partial birth abortions and late term abortions, which it turns out you don't even oppose. I mentioned rape, but not as an argument for or against abortion, only as a demonstration that there are people on both sides who are willing to support seriously nasty stuff if it is consistant with their opinion. I wasn't raising it to deflect the discussion from the core issues of abortion, because I wasn't talking about abortion at all. I was discussing the bad habit of arguing with your favorite liberal/conservative stereotypes instead of arguing with the actual people in the room with you. I was not putting rape forward as an argument for the liberal side. If I was, I wouldn't have pointed out that many conservatives approve of abortions in such circumstances. You also accuse me of deflection by raising the subject of incest. I didn't mention incest. Yes, I know "rape and incest" is the stock phrase, but I didn't say it. Most incest is rape. I don't actually understand why people think the rare cases of non-rape "incest" should be a special case. Certainly such children have a higher risk of birth defects, but so do lots of other categories of children (children of older mothers, children of mothers who smoke or take drugs, etc, etc). The whole question of aborting children with birth defects or genetic disorders is it's own big topic. On the whole, your responses to my postings would be much more interesting if there were any indication that you actually read my posting instead of noticing "liberal said 'rape' and 'abortion' in same sentence" and popping out a stock response to what you think all liberals believe. But, hey, I can handle it. I've spent enough time with Alzheimers patients and the severely senile to have learned to sustain a conversation with people whose responses don't actually connect very well with what you just said. Let's review - I am not actually arguing my opinion on abortion in this item. That's not what I think this item is about. In fact, I haven't even stated my opinion on abortion, beyond indicating that I think it is OK in the cases of rape and danger to the mother's life. Lots of people way right of Arnold Schwartzenegger believe that. What I'm arguing about here is getting real. Becoming a real person engaging in real interactions with other real people. You starting this item arguing the superiority of a mode of conferencing where nothing matters. Other people's opinions can't be changed, so there is no point in talking about anything real. Instead, everyone just competes to see who can throw the cleverest insult at someone else, and everyone agrees to ignore the actual insults, proving that they are tough as well as clever. It's basically like a multiplayer Quake game - entertaining, but extremely limited as human interactions go. There is plenty of that both on M-Net and Grex, but thankfully both systems have a lot more going for them. There actually are people saying real things to each other. But you aren't one of them. You seem to have nothing real to say about anything. When challenged to be real, you pop up with the abortion topic, the one subject you claim not to be joking about. But you can't even do that right. Instead of reading the things people say, trying to understand what that person is talking about, and trying to address it, you just try to match them up to some imaginary category in your head and argue with your own imaginary category. OK, I admit to a degree that is all anyone does. When I talk to you, I'm really talking to some guess I've made about who you are. However, I'm willing to modify my guess in response to your postings, which I actually read. More than once even.
Oh yeah, to address some of the other peripheral issues in your smoke screen.... Big of you to choose your wife over your unborn child, but why should it be your choice? Maybe your wife would be willing to risk her life to bring a baby to term, and maybe she wouldn't. In either case, I don't think your opinion has much to do with it. If your wife is unconscious, and has not previously established her opinion, then I think the doctor's duty is to save the mother, with little or no consultation with the father. I think almost all women have had sex at times when they didn't want to have babies, including most married women. Do you believe that almost all women are sluts? The fact that banning abortions will not stop abortions is not an argument against banning abortion. It is an argument that those seeking to reduce the number of unborn babies getting killed maybe ought to be looking at other approachs to achieve that goal. Improving birth control, getting women better access to it, and better education about it, would probably do more to reduce the baby death toll. The fact that many advocates of banning abortion violently oppose these things tends to suggest that those people aren't really that interested in reducing the number of babies killed. It makes us wonder what their real motives are. I think you make way too much of all this gay/straight stuff. Unless you are contemplating getting involved in their sex lives, a person's sexual orientation is hardly more important than their hair color. My hair is brown, threaded with gray.
Mmmm, Quake. :)
janc's a liberal?
quite so, quite so.
whore.
You have several choices: