Snipers shoot 12 cops, kill 5, at Black Lives Matter Protest

[pErvinalia]

Seth was a cop, allegedly. I reckon it's more likely he was a theme park security guard...

Annnnd there's yet another direct personal attack calling me a liar.

Hey Mods, are you gonna do anything about it?

He didn't call you a liar.

And so no we won't...

Sure he did.

I don't know why I'm bothering, because you have a different understanding of words to the rest of us, but I suggested you were lying, not a liar. You very well know the difference, so I'm not sure what you are up to here. Trolling perhaps?

which combined with his other statement accuses me of lying,

Oh, wait, you do understand the meanings of words. So maybe you really are just trolling?

[cronus]

Nothing wrong with lying if it will save lives or something. And since nothing can be really known whose to say what is what anyway?

[Seth]

Do you understand the meaning of "more likely"?

Indeed I do, and it doesn't ameliorate the intended insult one bit. Do you understand that?

And in any case, alleging that you were possibly not a police officer is a long way from alleging you are a "goat-fucking child molester"

And yet he gets to tell lies and impugn my character and honesty in a classic ad hominem personal attack having nothing to do with the OP and you do nothing, as usual.

Do you understand what "personal attack" means? I'm beginning to doubt it.

[Seth]

Seth was a cop, allegedly. I reckon it's more likely he was a theme park security guard...

Or a prison guard. I really cannot see a person who describes himself as having been crassly overweight and severely myopic for most of his life as having had a 20 year long career as a beat cop in any police department.

And yet another personal attack piling-on from the cheap seats calling me a liar and impugning my character.

Mods? Mods? Bueller? Anyone?

Seth, you clearly have no idea of the rules.

I have a excellent understanding of the rules. The problem is not the rules, it's the decision making of those charged with enforcing the rules.

That (and the fact that you can't help attacking everyone and their dog) is why you will continue to get suspended over and over again here. And virtually no one but the clinically retarded will miss your presence here.

Pot, kettle, black, sauce, goose, gander.

[Seth]

I don't know why I'm bothering, because you have a different understanding of words to the rest of us, but I suggested you were lying, not a liar. You very well know the difference, so I'm not sure what you are up to here. Trolling perhaps?

A distinction without a difference when your statement is a personal insult. If I say the sky is green and you say "that is a lie" that is an argument to the claim (and pertinent to the debate of the color of the sky) and not a personal attack.

But when you made the statement out of the blue, "Seth was a cop, allegedly. I reckon it's more likely he was a theme park security guard," which is both untrue and has absolutely no connection or pertinence to the OP and is clearly nothing more or less than a smear tactic impugning both my honesty and my character, it most certainly IS a personal attack in every sense of the word. It's classic "ad hominem" or "argument to the person" and nothing more. You had no other intent than to smear and insult me in making the statement and that intent is obvious and manifest in your statement and the fact that you failed utterly to connect it in any way to the ongoing debate. It was a personal insult and you know it. This is reinforced by your bitching and whining about me personally attacking you when I connect your arguments with Marxism, even if I don't call you a Marxist.

And therefore your statement is both a personal attack and a violation of the "play nice" rule because you were being deliberately, intentionally and personally insulting with the obvious intent of goading me into violating the FUA so you could call for my suspension under false pretenses, which is exactly what you did and admitted doing.

Everybody knows this but as usual nobody will do what the FUA calls for because, well... I'd say why but that WOULD get me suspended.

And you "bother" because you realize that you stuck one foot in your mouth and then trod on your dick with the other one and you're desperate to convince the mods not to accept my analysis.

[pErvinalia]

I don't know why I'm bothering, because you have a different understanding of words to the rest of us, but I suggested you were lying, not a liar. You very well know the difference, so I'm not sure what you are up to here. Trolling perhaps?

A distinction without a difference when your statement is a personal insult. If I say the sky is green and you say "that is a lie" that is an argument to the claim (and pertinent to the debate of the color of the sky) and not a personal attack.

But when you made the statement out of the blue, "Seth was a cop, allegedly. I reckon it's more likely he was a theme park security guard," which is both untrue and has absolutely no connection or pertinence to the OP and is clearly nothing more or less than a smear tactic impugning both my honesty and my character, it most certainly IS a personal attack in every sense of the word. It's classic "ad hominem" or "argument to the person" and nothing more.

You are right it was an ad hominem and nothing more. Ad hominems AREN'T against the rules.

You had no other intent than to smear and insult me in making the statement and that intent is obvious and manifest in your statement and the fact that you failed utterly to connect it in any way to the ongoing debate. It was a personal insult and you know it. This is reinforced by your bitching and whining about me personally attacking you when I connect your arguments with Marxism, even if I don't call you a Marxist.

And therefore your statement is both a personal attack and a violation of the "play nice" rule because you were being deliberately, intentionally and personally insulting with the obvious intent of goading me into violating the FUA so you could call for my suspension under false pretenses, which is exactly what you did and admitted doing.

Everybody knows this but as usual nobody will do what the FUA calls for because, well... I'd say why but that WOULD get me suspended.

[Seth]

You are right it was an ad hominem and nothing more. Ad hominems AREN'T against the rules.

Actually, they are. From the FUA:

No personal attacks. If you don't agree with someone, debate their argument, behaviour or beliefs, do not attack their person. Attacks may be direct ("You are a cunt.") or indirect ("Somebody with that view is stupid."). Personal attacks will not be tolerated. The initial penalty for a first personal attack will usually be a reminder or warning - however the choice of penalty will depend on the severity of the attack and will be decided upon via staff discussion. Attacks made in jest (with the understanding of both/all parties - tacit or otherwise) are allowed. In the first instance, staff will attempt to ascertain if an attack was in jest. Staff will discuss the attack with both parties where possible and then decide what action to take.

"Ad hominem" means, literaly, "to the person," which means that your comments were directed at my person and not at my "argument, behaviour or beliefs." It wasn't even an indirect personal attack, it was a very direct personal attack on my honesty and character.

Because you admitted you intentionally posted a personal attack, you must be suspended, given how many times you've been warned not to do so in the past.

[pErvinalia]

You are right it was an ad hominem and nothing more. Ad hominems AREN'T against the rules.

Actually, they are. From the FUA:

No personal attacks. If you don't agree with someone, debate their argument, behaviour or beliefs, do not attack their person. Attacks may be direct ("You are a cunt.") or indirect ("Somebody with that view is stupid."). Personal attacks will not be tolerated. The initial penalty for a first personal attack will usually be a reminder or warning - however the choice of penalty will depend on the severity of the attack and will be decided upon via staff discussion. Attacks made in jest (with the understanding of both/all parties - tacit or otherwise) are allowed. In the first instance, staff will attempt to ascertain if an attack was in jest. Staff will discuss the attack with both parties where possible and then decide what action to take.

"Ad hominem" means, literaly, "to the person," which means that your comments were directed at my person and not at my "argument, behaviour or beliefs." It wasn't even an indirect personal attack, it was a very direct personal attack on my honesty and character.

Because you admitted you intentionally posted a personal attack, you must be suspended, given how many times you've been warned not to do so in the past.

Ad hominem is an argument that focuses on the person, not their argument. A personal attack is necessarily ad hominem, but an ad hom isn't necessarily a personal attack. It is only a personal attack if there is an ATTACK attached to it.

[pErvinalia]

And again, this is why you keep getting suspended and banned all over the internet. You simply don't understand the rules.

[Seth]

You are right it was an ad hominem and nothing more. Ad hominems AREN'T against the rules.

Actually, they are. From the FUA:

No personal attacks. If you don't agree with someone, debate their argument, behaviour or beliefs, do not attack their person. Attacks may be direct ("You are a cunt.") or indirect ("Somebody with that view is stupid."). Personal attacks will not be tolerated. The initial penalty for a first personal attack will usually be a reminder or warning - however the choice of penalty will depend on the severity of the attack and will be decided upon via staff discussion. Attacks made in jest (with the understanding of both/all parties - tacit or otherwise) are allowed. In the first instance, staff will attempt to ascertain if an attack was in jest. Staff will discuss the attack with both parties where possible and then decide what action to take.

"Ad hominem" means, literaly, "to the person," which means that your comments were directed at my person and not at my "argument, behaviour or beliefs." It wasn't even an indirect personal attack, it was a very direct personal attack on my honesty and character.

Because you admitted you intentionally posted a personal attack, you must be suspended, given how many times you've been warned not to do so in the past.

Ad hominem is an argument that focuses on the person, not their argument. A personal attack is necessarily ad hominem, but an ad hom isn't necessarily a personal attack. It is only a personal attack if there is an ATTACK attached to it.

Indeed, and I have described in detail why you both intended to and factually did personally attack me by impugning my honesty and my reputation, for which you should be suspended. If you had said "Seth is a wonderful person of sterling character and honesty" that would be an "ad hominem" argument, but it wouldn't be an ad hominem attack.

What you posted was both an ad hominem comment AND a personal attack, thus "ad hominem attack."

You can't weasel your way out of your misdemeanor through pettifogging semantics. You know perfectly well what you did and why you did it, and so does everyone else. It's just that you can get away with it because the rules are not enforced fairly or evenhandedly.

[Seth]

And again, this is why you keep getting suspended and banned all over the internet. You simply don't understand the rules.

I understand them perfectly. I also understand the nature of moderation in this and other leftist forums. That doesn't mean you didn't violate the FUA, because you did and you know it.

[Seth]

It's all in the tactics...

Texas Waffle House Customer Shoots Robber Armed with AK-47

by Bob Price

13 Jul 2016

A man armed with an AK-47 is alleged to have entered a Waffle House in DeSoto, Texas, in the early morning hours last Thursday. The robbery suspect was not counting on the presence of a Texan with a Handgun License to Carry.

The alleged robber, described as a black man in his mid-twenties, entered the DeSoto Waffle House at about 2:30 a.m. on July 7, while armed with an AK-47 rifle, information obtained by Breitbart Texas from the DeSoto Police Department revealed. After robbing several of the customers, the man walked out of the diner. One of the customers followed the man out of the restaurant and attempted to stop him.

The customer knew that his wife was on her way to the Waffle House and feared she might be in danger in the parking lot. He was afraid the armed man might harm her or others in the parking lot, officials said.

After following the man out of the Waffle House, the customer called out to the robber who turned and pointed the rifle at him.

The customer fired several shots from his handgun and stopped the robber.

Police officers arrived on the scene a short time later and found the man lying in the parking lot. He was transported to a local hospital where he remains in critical condition. Originally, the suspect had not yet been identified and police were asking for the public’s assistance in figuring out who the man is. Overnight, the police learned the man is 26-year-old Antoine Devon Cooper of Dallas, Sergeant Nic Bristow told Breitbart Texas Thursday morning.

Cooper is covered in tattoos as can be seen in the photos above that were released by police.

He is reported to be in critical condition and on life support.

The customer was carrying a concealed handgun and was in possession of a Texas Handgun License to Carry. The license allows a qualified holder to carry a handgun concealed or openly under a wide range of conditions and locations. No charges have been filed against the customer. Texas law allows a person to use deadly force when they believe their life, or the lives of others are in danger of death or serious bodily injury.

Bob Price serves as associate editor and senior political news contributor for Breitbart Texas. He is a founding member of the Breitbart Texas team. Follow him on Twitter @BobPriceBBTX.

[pErvinalia]

You are right it was an ad hominem and nothing more. Ad hominems AREN'T against the rules.

Actually, they are. From the FUA:

No personal attacks. If you don't agree with someone, debate their argument, behaviour or beliefs, do not attack their person. Attacks may be direct ("You are a cunt.") or indirect ("Somebody with that view is stupid."). Personal attacks will not be tolerated. The initial penalty for a first personal attack will usually be a reminder or warning - however the choice of penalty will depend on the severity of the attack and will be decided upon via staff discussion. Attacks made in jest (with the understanding of both/all parties - tacit or otherwise) are allowed. In the first instance, staff will attempt to ascertain if an attack was in jest. Staff will discuss the attack with both parties where possible and then decide what action to take.

"Ad hominem" means, literaly, "to the person," which means that your comments were directed at my person and not at my "argument, behaviour or beliefs." It wasn't even an indirect personal attack, it was a very direct personal attack on my honesty and character.

Because you admitted you intentionally posted a personal attack, you must be suspended, given how many times you've been warned not to do so in the past.

Ad hominem is an argument that focuses on the person, not their argument. A personal attack is necessarily ad hominem, but an ad hom isn't necessarily a personal attack. It is only a personal attack if there is an ATTACK attached to it.

Indeed, and I have described in detail why you both intended to and factually did personally attack me by impugning my honesty and my reputation, for which you should be suspended.

Suggesting you are lying is not a personal attack. Sorry, chief, you know this well. Do keep trying, though.

If you had said "Seth is a wonderful person of sterling character and honesty" that would be an "ad hominem" argument, but it wouldn't be an ad hominem attack.

It definitely is an attack as no self respecting righty would allow himself to be called a "wonderful" person. What are ya, a poofter or sumthing?!

You can't weasel your way out of your misdemeanor through pettifogging semantics. You know perfectly well what you did and why you did it, and so does everyone else. It's just that you can get away with it because the rules are not enforced fairly or evenhandedly.

Indeed. Us feminist marxists need to stick together..

[pErvinalia]

And again, this is why you keep getting suspended and banned all over the internet. You simply don't understand the rules.

I understand them perfectly. I also understand the nature of moderation in this and other leftist forums.

So why isn't Tyrannical or Collector repeatedly suspended like you?

That doesn't mean you didn't violate the FUA, because you did and you know it.

Stop lying.

[Seth]

Suggesting you are lying is not a personal attack.

Of course it is.