I don't know how many of you have followed this story, probably not many since few American media outlets are covering it, but there is a lawsuit duly filed in United States Federal Court, by Phillip J. Berg, which challenges the right of Senator Obama to legitimately run for President of the United States, based on Senator Obama's not being a natural born United States citizen.
Mr. Berg is a lifelong Democrat (yes, Democrat) who is the former deputy Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, former chair of the Montgomery, Pennsylvania Democratic Party, former candidate for both the United States Senate and the Governorship of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
As the judge in this case is set to rule on the matter no later than October 15, 2008, I thought some of you might be interested in getting a jump on the breaking story by seeing this video of Mr. Berg making his case for why he believes Senator Obama is disallowed from the Presidency.
It is about a ten-minute video, and it begins after about the first minute and a half of lead-in from the video's producers.
I'm not necessarily claiming to be convinced by Mr. Berg's arguments but in the interests of being well-informed I do find them interesting, and others may as well. Before posting acerbic dismissals of this subject, how about you watch the video thru to its conclusion?
The link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyspCRmJv7w
Yes I know this story, I find it interesting that Obama will not release his medical record aside from a 1 page letter from a Dr. stating he is OK .... what's in those records? Nothing? Drug treatment? HIV? What? If it's clean, then release them.
I'd think and I'm not a Obamabot that the FBI or CIA would have gotten this information beforehand, but you never know and again if it's legit then release the information.
... and while he is at it he can release all his school records too, which he seems to want to keep under wraps.
Much about him is still a unknown quantity and that is troubling.
No media outlets are covering the story because it is retarded. His birth certificate has been released since June: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/06/obama-birth.html
Only the craziest of crazies are still going with this story.
Quote from: That One Tars Tarkas on October 13, 2008, 10:28:23 AM
No media outlets are covering the story because it is retarded. His birth certificate has been released since June: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/06/obama-birth.html
Only the craziest of crazies are still going with this story.
And of course it's not an issue that Cindy McCain never released her tax records, despite the fact that no spouse of a presidential candidate has refused to do so in the past.
IOLIYAR
Tarkas, I can tell you didn't do me the courtesy of actually watching the "retarded" video I posted before you presumed to comment on it, or you'd know why the lawsuit was filed even after the release of the supposed birth certificate. Surely you aren't afraid you might have your opinion changed? And thanks for the comment on my sanity. Most people have to know me a little longer before they start thinking I'm crazy. :-)
schmendrik, Senator Obama is not releasing medical records, educational records, or a valid birth certificate. As I've said before, I've never voted for a Republican and come from a long line of Democrats. But it bothers the heck out of me that this man who has been nominated by the party I've supported all my life is running this furtive campaign.
I'm not following this case, but I wanted to stop by and say that the "natural-born Citizen" requirement of Art. II, Sec. 1 may be the most outdated concept in the Constitution. The sole reason for its inclusion seems to be the fear of British loyalists returning control of the newly independent colonies to the Empire. Today, there's no reason a naturalized citizen should be prevented from becoming President.
The clause will never be amended, however, because the only time anyone thinks about a Constitutional amendment is when they have a particular Presidential candidate in mind (e.g. Schwarzenegger). Obviously the opposing party would mobilize to block the amendment.
Ironically, John McCain was born outside US soil, in the Panama Canal Zone, but he is considered "natural-born" under Federal law. There was even a legal challenge to McCain's eligibility, Hollander v. McCain, which ruled the plaintiff did not have standing to challenge McCain's eligibility. (I would think the Obama case would have to be decided the same way).
Quote from: ER on October 13, 2008, 10:57:33 AM
Tarkas, I can tell you didn't do me the courtesy of actually watching the "retarded" video I posted before you presumed to comment on it, or you'd know why the lawsuit was filed even after the release of the supposed birth certificate. Surely you aren't afraid you might have your opinion changed? And thanks for the comment on my sanity. Most people have to know me a little longer before they start thinking I'm crazy. :-)
There is a video called "Loose Change" that I don't have to watch either to know it is full of crap. I'd rather watch videos of Turkish guys dressed as Batman beating up guys.
I try to get my information outside of agenda-driven video form. Even Radically partisan Hot Air acknowledges that Obama is US born: http://hotair.com/archives/2008/10/12/obama-is-an-american-no-really/comment-page-3/
It also points out that Berg is a 9-11 conspirator, something I saw there after I wrote that Loose Change was crap just above.
Again, Tarkas, I don't think you have the right to be commenting on a specific video when you admit you've never seen it.
While it's great you feel able to speak in generalities about politics and the existence of other videos, logically you aren't in a position to make judgments on something you've never seen. Right?
I'd say you are basing your position not on evidence---which you won't take ten minutes and listen to---but on faith, making you (gasp!) a faith-based voter! It's kind of like when those infamous Cardinals wouldn't turn to look through Galileo's telescope. Instead of letting others tell you what is or isn't wouldn't you much rather make up your own mind, based on the presentation of fact? Where is the harm, if you're already certain you're right? Surely you aren't so busy you don't have ten little minutes? Wouldn't you like to make up your own mind? And if your mind is closed, as I'm sure it is, then why not keep up with current affairs, since this lawsuit is already news and is currently in Federal courts, being heard.
Watch the video, THEN rebut it. Take up for your candidate that way instead of name calling and impolite language.
Rev. Powell, when asked, Senator McCain provided ALL documentation as to the place of his birth, his medical and military service records, his tax information, and his education records. After he did this, the controversy concerning his past dried up. If Senator Obama would release ANY of those it might go a long way toward quieting the rumors flying around him and his candidacy. You might ask yourself why Senator Obama isn't providing this information. A man who wants to be leader of the free world should not hide anything about his past or his present. Can anyone candidly say Senator Obama is not?
And I 100% agree with you about the anachronism that is the "natural born citizen" statute. In a nation of immigrants, we don't need that discrimination.
Personally, I think that if there was much to it, it would have come out sooner, but I'm willing to let the courts make that determination.
The challenge to McCain is kinda ridiculous; his parents were both U.S. citizens and he was born in an area that was, at that time, under the U.S. flag.
I support the "born citizen" requirement for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the possibility of a well-trained sleeper being thoroughly indoctrinated, then sent over here with the assignment to rise as high as possible in the ranks of our government . . . may seem unlikely, but we have a lot of enemies out there.
Quote from: ER on October 13, 2008, 01:31:01 PM
I'd say you are basing your position not on evidence---which you won't take ten minutes and listen to---but on faith, making you (gasp!) a faith-based voter!
So let's see here. I support Obama and the 99.999999999999999% consensus that this is such a load of bull it isn't worth the the ten minutes the video is, thus I worship Obama? You are so going to have a bad election day.
Quote from: indianasmith on October 13, 2008, 05:42:16 PM
I support the "born citizen" requirement for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the possibility of a well-trained sleeper being thoroughly indoctrinated, then sent over here with the assignment to rise as high as possible in the ranks of our government . . . may seem unlikely, but we have a lot of enemies out there.
Yes, some secret agency with that kind of power would never think to ship the mother over to the US for a few weeks so she can squirt out the dangerous sleeper agent baby. Also, we should prevent anyone who was in a prison camp from every becoming president, because we all saw the Manchurian Candidate and that was totally 100% true.
Oh, Tarkas, you are so going to have a bad next four years. As a certain Austrian house painter once quipped, "It is fortunate for leaders that few men think for themselves."
I still don't know why you're so afraid of this little video, but do you also review movies without watching them?
I watched it, and quite honestly, it sounds like a load of crap. This idiot thinks people should believe that Obama is lying, because his SISTER doesn't know what hospital he was born in? I don't know what hospital MY sister was born in, does that make ME a liar? Could the guy try and be more vague in regards to what his grandmother supposedly said? My grandma thought I was her NEPHEW before she died, WTF is that supposed to mean? That guy spouted a bunch of crap about Obama going to school in Indonesia. . WTF does that matter? Because his parents took him to a foreign country, that's supposed to mean something? I especially like it how the guy in the beginning says something about how "He's not into conspiracies", , but what was the name of his firm? Illuminati Pictures.
Anytime you hear someone say "I'm not one for conspiracy theories", , It's safe money that they are.
Anytime you hear someone say "I've never voted anything but X" and then go on to rail someone belonging to X, it's safe money they've been X's opponent all along. Someone got this straight from the sherdog forums, where that is the main weapon of the simpletons over there.
As far a releasing his medical records to the public, I hope he doesn't, That's not something people should have to do, and I hope he stands up for that.
Quotewhat's in those records? Nothing? Drug treatment? HIV? What? If it's clean, then release them.
That's a stupid argument, it's a right to privacy. Hey, send me pictures of your wife and mom naked. If they have nothing to hide, then they should release them. No? I guess they have something to hide. .
Quote from: ghouck on October 13, 2008, 10:33:19 PM
Quotewhat's in those records? Nothing? Drug treatment? HIV? What? If it's clean, then release them.
That's a stupid argument, it's a right to privacy. Hey, send me pictures of your wife and mom naked. If they have nothing to hide, then they should release them. No? I guess they have something to hide. .
No it's not a stupid argument, can't say the same for your reply. What's his health, what's his medical history he's running for president. McCain released his because the public has a right to know. I believe every president has released their records and not just a single page note.
Now, I think it wise to leave wives and mothers OUT of the conversation seeing how neither my wife nor mother is running for a political office and if they were I fail to see why nude photos of them are required. :lookingup:
And you still managed to miss the point. "McCain released his because the public has a right to know."? No, the public doesn't, what part of that don't you understand? "McCain released HIS, , so OBAMA should. . ". Honestly, what 4th-grade schoolyard did you pick that up from? Seriously, that sounds like something a child would say, sounds like my niece and nephew arguing. You believe? How about something a little firmer that 'I believe', and even if they did, which You've shown no evidence of, does that really automatically make that a requirement? If you think he's been in drug treatment, then dig it up, like you know good and well someone else already would have. FFS look at all the talk that was about W smoking pot and doing coke before he was elected, do you really think he could hide drug treatment. HIV? I'm not sure how to address that, considering that is EXACTLY the sort of thing right-to-privacy laws are meant to protect people from having to disclose. The reason is so idiots don't try and extrapolate a bunch of nonsense from one's medical history.
One cue though, you dismissed what I said about the naked pictures, still missing the point. Your argument of "If its clean, then release them" is no more valid than mine, presidential candidate or not.
If you want, I can list a quick fistful of things that could be on his medical records that would be reason for not wanting them to be released, have nothing to do with his qualifications, yet would be held against him or even used against him by some.
Quote from: ER on October 13, 2008, 10:57:33 AM
Tarkas, I can tell you didn't do me the courtesy of actually watching the "retarded" video I posted before you presumed to comment on it, or you'd know why the lawsuit was filed even after the release of the supposed birth certificate. Surely you aren't afraid you might have your opinion changed? And thanks for the comment on my sanity. Most people have to know me a little longer before they start thinking I'm crazy. :-)
schmendrik, Senator Obama is not releasing medical records, educational records, or a valid birth certificate. As I've said before, I've never voted for a Republican and come from a long line of Democrats. But it bothers the heck out of me that this man who has been nominated by the party I've supported all my life is running this furtive campaign.
Quote from: ER on October 13, 2008, 01:31:01 PM
Again, Tarkas, I don't think you have the right to be commenting on a specific video when you admit you've never seen it.
While it's great you feel able to speak in generalities about politics and the existence of other videos, logically you aren't in a position to make judgments on something you've never seen. Right?
I'd say you are basing your position not on evidence---which you won't take ten minutes and listen to---but on faith, making you (gasp!) a faith-based voter! It's kind of like when those infamous Cardinals wouldn't turn to look through Galileo's telescope. Instead of letting others tell you what is or isn't wouldn't you much rather make up your own mind, based on the presentation of fact? Where is the harm, if you're already certain you're right? Surely you aren't so busy you don't have ten little minutes? Wouldn't you like to make up your own mind? And if your mind is closed, as I'm sure it is, then why not keep up with current affairs, since this lawsuit is already news and is currently in Federal courts, being heard.
Watch the video, THEN rebut it. Take up for your candidate that way instead of name calling and impolite language.
Quote from: ER on October 13, 2008, 06:34:07 PM
Oh, Tarkas, you are so going to have a bad next four years. As a certain Austrian house painter once quipped, "It is fortunate for leaders that few men think for themselves."
I still don't know why you're so afraid of this little video, but do you also review movies without watching them?
Good grief; that's one load of s**t I just quoted.
You frankly come off like a schill, shoving s**t down someone's mouth untill you get what you want (hey, I ought to know :tongueout:).
Because someone who has a review site has an opinion contrary to yours, you take a dig at them by suggesting that they don't watch the movies they review?
That tactic certainly lacks any character.
Taking cheapshots at people on this forum is not going to win you many friends; for someone as new as you are, that's not good.
Just lay off the Martian; he didn't do a damn thing to you to deserve a cheapshot like that.
Quote from: ghouck on October 13, 2008, 11:11:46 PM
...what 4th-grade schoolyard did you pick that up from?
I didn't know Cheezy got that far in school. (http://5g8.net/smileys/snicker.gif) (http://5g8.net)
BTW, Cheezy...
(http://5g8.net/smileys/tongue-047.gif) (http://5g8.net)
(I know you never tire of that)
Quote from: ghouck on October 13, 2008, 11:11:46 PM
And you still managed to miss the point. "McCain released his because the public has a right to know."? No, the public doesn't, what part of that don't you understand? "McCain released HIS, , so OBAMA should. . ". Honestly, what 4th-grade schoolyard did you pick that up from? Seriously, that sounds like something a child would say, sounds like my niece and nephew arguing. You believe? How about something a little firmer that 'I believe', and even if they did, which You've shown no evidence of, does that really automatically make that a requirement? If you think he's been in drug treatment, then dig it up, like you know good and well someone else already would have. FFS look at all the talk that was about W smoking pot and doing coke before he was elected, do you really think he could hide drug treatment. HIV? I'm not sure how to address that, considering that is EXACTLY the sort of thing right-to-privacy laws are meant to protect people from having to disclose. The reason is so idiots don't try and extrapolate a bunch of nonsense from one's medical history.
One cue though, you dismissed what I said about the naked pictures, still missing the point. Your argument of "If its clean, then release them" is no more valid than mine, presidential candidate or not.
If you want, I can list a quick fistful of things that could be on his medical records that would be reason for not wanting them to be released, have nothing to do with his qualifications, yet would be held against him or even used against him by some.
I'll make this simple for you. When you apply for a job you have to take a physical and with that physical is a copy of your medical records, he is a applying for a job and the employer is the American people ... he needs to pony up is records, his school records and any other damn records we as the perspective employer wants to see.
And I'll make it even SIMPLER, and venture to say you'll still manage to miss it: THERE ARE LAWS PROTECTING PEOPLE'S PRIVACY FROM EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE TRYING TO DO. Get over it already. Since I work for the state, does that mean 'I' have to turn over 'my' medical and school records to anyone in my state that wants them? Didn't think so.
Let's keep this thread civil.
Menard, I wouldn't say that in my responses to posts aimed at me I made a cheap shot at anyone. I also don't think it's unreasonable to criticize someone for commenting on a video when this person by his own admission hasn't watched it.
As for "laying off" someone, I actually didn't call names, use bad language, or speak disrespectfully beyond my criticism of what the individual had already said. If I made strong comments, it's because I think they were deserved under the circumstances. Tarkas didn't watch the video and yes, I think that's the basic requirement for the right to profess an opinion on something. It brought to mind the fair question, if commenting on an unseen video here is an example of this person's behavior, then does he also review unseen movies? Just a logical progression there, and not an accusation, a question.
As for my being new, I've been here for almost a year.
Finally, regarding your remark about making friends, well, I don't want enemies, but if informing others about a little-known lawsuit against a man seeking the highest office in the land makes them, maybe these weren't the sort of friends I'd want in the first place.
It sure is a shame when political discussion makes people un-civil.
So I guess I should start multiple threads with one Youtube video showing conservatives being dumb as some sort of counter, now? Because that is just childish.
And this thread is exhibit Z on why I post on this forum no longer. It's too bad really. Good bye.
Quote from: the clockworkcanary on October 14, 2008, 12:08:38 PM
And this thread is exhibit Z on why I post on this forum no longer. It's too bad really. Good bye.
That's a shame. Why not just limit your participation to non-political threads?
Andrew, maybe it is time to create a separate political subforum so people can ignore these threads more easily, but people who like to argue can still participate in them. I'm not generally in favor of segmenting the board further, but clockworkcanary isn't the first one to raise this complaint.
Quote from: ER on October 14, 2008, 09:07:48 AM
Menard, I wouldn't say that in my responses to posts aimed at me I made a cheap shot at anyone. I also don't think it's unreasonable to criticize someone for commenting on a video when this person by his own admission hasn't watched it.
As for "laying off" someone, I actually didn't call names, use bad language, or speak disrespectfully beyond my criticism of what the individual had already said. If I made strong comments, it's because I think they were deserved under the circumstances. Tarkas didn't watch the video and yes, I think that's the basic requirement for the right to profess an opinion on something. It brought to mind the fair question, if commenting on an unseen video here is an example of this person's behavior, then does he also review unseen movies? Just a logical progression there, and not an accusation, a question.
As for my being new, I've been here for almost a year.
Finally, regarding your remark about making friends, well, I don't want enemies, but if informing others about a little-known lawsuit against a man seeking the highest office in the land makes them, maybe these weren't the sort of friends I'd want in the first place.
It sure is a shame when political discussion makes people un-civil.
I would call it a cheapshot because that's exactly what it was.
If you want to start something then blame others for the way they respond to your cheapshots...well, there is certainly a lack of consideration for anybody other than yourself.
All you tried to do was bait Tars.
You tried even worse with ulthar in bringing up a previous discussion in an unrelated thread, then riding him about it. So; you all had a difference of opinion. That does not justify harassing him with it to get what you want.
What? You're not the only one on this board who baits? Of course not, many of us do it; but we don't twist it into someone repeatedly just for our own entertainment value. We don't take cheapshots at someone regarding something important to them to get a response; that's just simply digging and baiting, and you did it to Tars and ulthar.
Hey, I'm speaking in generalities. I'm certain you can go digging through this board and find all kinds of examples of where one of us said this, and one of said that, and where I've been into it with at least half the members of this board.
We all banter, cut-up, insult each other, even occasionally fight (shut up every one of you :tongueout:), but there's a difference between that and taking a jab at someone on a personal level.
If you consider someone else asking you to lay off of your personal jabs at someone as 'un-civil', that's your problem. A request was made and you did nothing but make excuses for yourself.
I think you are right about the people on this board not being the kind of friends you want. After all, it's not just text on a computer screen, but real people behind that. You should probably look elsewhere for the type of friends you want.
Quote from: Rev. Powell on October 14, 2008, 05:19:17 PM
Quote from: the clockworkcanary on October 14, 2008, 12:08:38 PM
And this thread is exhibit Z on why I post on this forum no longer. It's too bad really. Good bye.
That's a shame. Why not just limit your participation to non-political threads?
Andrew, maybe it is time to create a separate political subforum so people can ignore these threads more easily, but people who like to argue can still participate in them. I'm not generally in favor of segmenting the board further, but clockworkcanary isn't the first one to raise this complaint.
I agree.
Years ago I would've been one of the first people to jump into the fray.
But I grew up. I matured and realized that
political threads cause real damage to our little society here on the Badmovies.org forum.
How many good people have we lost to threads like this? Clockworkcanary. Nathan Shumate. I could name several others but I don't need to. We've all seen the carnage that can come from insults and general s**t flinging.
If you create a political subforum, call it "The Mudpit" because that's what you'll get if you jump into it. Mud in your eye and a bad taste in your mouth.
Menard, dude, are you being totally serious? Cheap shots and rudeness were out there all right but from me? It wasn't my intention to be that way and after re-reading here I don't think I was.
I started off jokingly calling my post a "PSA" and in it mentioning a news-worthy lawsuit aimed at disqualifying a Presidential candidate, provided a link to a video about it, and the thread went haywire fast. Tarkas whom you're defending opened up off the bat by rudely saying the story I'd taken a minute to write about was "retarded" (name calling....) then went on to twist my words, changing my "few media outlets" into "no media outlets" (lying) and then closed by implying that I am among "the craziest of the crazies" (more name calling) for daring to mention that someone is suing a candidate in Federal Court. (Sort of shooting the messenger.) Then Tarkas made a snide remark and posted a link from June 2008 that clearly showed he hadn't seen the video or he'd have known why the information in that link was being challenged in the Federal lawsuit and had no bearing whatsoever. (Dishonesty.)
I replied with a joke about my sanity and indicated that he obviously hadn't seen the video, and Tarkas then replied with an admission that he hadn't seen the "piece of crap" video (more rudeness) and when I pointed out that it is just not right to comment on something he hadn't even seen, Tarkas fired a broadside back at me again and remarked snidely on the kind of election day I was going to have (again making out that I'm this huge Republican backer, when I keep telling him I'm not) and then he wised off in the same post to someone else with a cheap shot paraphrasing of the other person's comment that bore no resemblance to what the person had even said. (Rudeness and a cheap shot for sure.)
I don't know, maybe I'm missing something, and I don't like the fact I know I am coming off in here as a far more confrontational sort of person than I have a reputation for being in life, but I still think it's only fair to say Tarkas or anyone has to see a video before judging it or pretending to know something about it to the point of correcting others and calling them inflammatory names. I also just can't for the life of me see why you say, Menard, I'm taking cheap shots when I haven't called Tarkas' posts "retarded" or said he's among "the craziest of the crazies" or called a link he set up a "piece of crap" and for the life of me I don't think I've really been reciprocally impolite to him at all.
Look, have whatever opinion you want of me or of the video I originally posted and started off this monstrosity that's taken up too much of all of our time. I wanted to make people aware of the lawsuit, and I did. No hard feelings toward anybody on my part. Let's let this old horse die, huh?
Peace.
Quote from: ER on October 14, 2008, 10:00:09 PM
Menard, dude, are you being totally serious? Cheap shots and rudeness were out there all right but from me? It wasn't my intention to be that way and after re-reading here I don't think I was.
I started off jokingly calling my post a "PSA" and in it mentioning a news-worthy lawsuit aimed at disqualifying a Presidential candidate, provided a link to a video about it, and the thread went haywire fast. Tarkas whom you're defending opened up off the bat by rudely saying the story I'd taken a minute to write about was "retarded" (name calling....) then went on to twist my words, changing my "few media outlets" into "no media outlets" (lying) and then closed by implying that I am among "the craziest of the crazies" (more name calling) for daring to mention that someone is suing a candidate in Federal Court. (Sort of shooting the messenger.) Then Tarkas made a snide remark and posted a link from June 2008 that clearly showed he hadn't seen the video or he'd have known why the information in that link was being challenged in the Federal lawsuit and had no bearing whatsoever. (Dishonesty.)
I replied with a joke about my sanity and indicated that he obviously hadn't seen the video, and Tarkas then replied with an admission that he hadn't seen the "piece of crap" video (more rudeness) and when I pointed out that it is just not right to comment on something he hadn't even seen, Tarkas fired a broadside back at me again and remarked snidely on the kind of election day I was going to have (again making out that I'm this huge Republican backer, when I keep telling him I'm not) and then he wised off in the same post to someone else with a cheap shot paraphrasing of the other person's comment that bore no resemblance to what the person had even said. (Rudeness and a cheap shot for sure.)
I don't know, maybe I'm missing something, and I don't like the fact I know I am coming off in here as a far more confrontational sort of person than I have a reputation for being in life, but I still think it's only fair to say Tarkas or anyone has to see a video before judging it or pretending to know something about it to the point of correcting others and calling them inflammatory names. I also just can't for the life of me see why you say, Menard, I'm taking cheap shots when I haven't called Tarkas' posts "retarded" or said he's among "the craziest of the crazies" or called a link he set up a "piece of crap" and for the life of me I don't think I've really been reciprocally impolite to him at all.
Look, have whatever opinion you want of me or of the video I originally posted and started off this monstrosity that's taken up too much of all of our time. I wanted to make people aware of the lawsuit, and I did. No hard feelings toward anybody on my part. Let's let this old horse die, huh?
Peace.
All you did was come up with another glut of excuses blaming everybody else while you have done nothing.
All you have proven is that you simply don't give a damn about anything other than entertaining yourself.
Too bad, as you can obviously carry on an intelligent conversation and have made interesting posts before; the problem is your intent and lack of candor.
Peace? We're not having a battle. I just requested that you lay off of someone with the cheapshots, and you see no need.
This is an open forum and opinions are free. If you see the need to take cheapshots and make excuses for yourself, well, that's what you'll do. Just keep in mind that some of us don't appreciate bulls**t and will take you to task on it.
Hey, Menard, I'm growing some winter roses. Mind if I print out your last post and fertilize them with it? They seem to have responded well enough to Tarkas'.
Well, I'm off to review Cool Hand Luke, City Lights, The Searchers and other movies I've never seen!
(For the record, hon, that's what a cheap shot looks like. Notice the difference?)
Sayonara.
ER, I think Menard summed it up pretty well. You put forth a story that only a very small percentage of the people are giving any credence to, and then get offended over TT saying "Only the craziest of crazies are still going with this story". That's what happens when you take a position that by many is considered so far out there. Your implication that YOUR link is the only place to get info on the story is ridicules, and that's what you've leveled against TT. You're getting offended over TT saying the story is retarded, and mis-representing what he said as name-calling. C'mon, How can you do that then draw up complaints about TT's HONESTY? You were goading Ulthar in another thread and insulting HIM, which you seem to have forgotten, so I'm not so sure I buy all your being offended. Your tongue is as sharp as anyone else's around here, so I wouldn't expect everyone to tread so lightly around you.
BTW, if you could, would you give Menard negative karma for standing up for TT? You did me for standing up for Ulthar and condemning YOUR insults. Would you be leaving him negative karma and telling HIM "Best to stay out of other people's fights."?