Yellowbastage

It's ironic how someone who is known here or a mod can:
1. Insinuate that youre totally ignorant.
Make statements that you don't know what you're talking about.

2.Make totally false assumptions about you of which he/she knows nothing.

3. Tell you to go somewhere else and that you don't belong.

4. Make false claims that what you say is totally irrelevant to a topic when anyone with common sense could see the relevancy.

It's both ironic butt mostly hypocritical when the mods here fuck up my account because I called this person an idiot for the way he treated me in such a derogatory condescending manner.

Now, what is the problem with these statements ?

shakran

You didn't learn your lesson the first time around?

:::OshnSoul:::

Some people just haven't taken the time and respect to notice the cool, clean effect of TFP.
And we keep it that way.
100% guaranteed......

shakran

is this a message board or a mouthwash?

filtherton

There is a distinct difference between implying that somebody doesn't know what they are talking about and calling them an idiot. Here's a hint: You probably could have said anything you wanted to to paint me as the moron that you think i am provided 1: it was relevant to the topic at hand and/or my position and 2: it was more substantial and arguable than simply calling me an idiot.

Also don't even pretend that you didn't make use of condescension either. How many 's did you use? I try to keep things civil, but i also try to match the tone of the person with which i am corresponding. If you can't take it, don't bring it to that level, or at least get some thicker skin.

The point is that the tfp, while quite able to handle the occasional heated discussion, is a place where normal name-calling just doesn't have any place.

Yellowbastage

Oh, I can take everything ignorant liberal blowhards can dish out.

Sometimes, I just like cutting to the chase........

Yellowbastage

Just so that you self professed intellectuals will know the difference.

Adding " Under GOD" to the original content of the authors work was not censorship.

Try asking your mother what the definition of censorship means.

filtherton

Such vitriol from someone who was just pewling about how they never got a fair shake. You apparently didn't learn your lesson either.

I'm not concerned with censorship here because this is an issue of constitutional compliance. You can try to paint it as censorship, but that doesn't make it about censorship.

I also find it curious that you're so anti-censorship considering that, while under one of your many psuedonyms, you called for the censorship of howard stern.

shakran

besides, the government removing the words that the governmetn added is not censorship either. I dunno where the hell the censorship idea came from, but it's very misguided.

The government altered the author's prose, the government should remove what it messed up. If you don't like what someone wrote, don't use it, and certainly don't change a few words to radically alter the meaning of the original writing.

fuzyfuzer

my friend and i came up with this how about we replace one nation under god with

one nation under canada and above mexico

simple, sutle and not far from the changed original

__________________
"The difference between commiment and involvment is like a ham and egg breakfast the chicken was involved but the pig was commited"

"Thrice happy is the nation that has a glorious history. Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat." Theodore Roosevelt