On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 11:03:58 AM UTC-4, Harold McKinney wrote:
On 7/29/2015 7:34 AM, Grokman Grokman wrote:
And if anyone should be """outraged""" by 5 1-handed pullups, it should be Moi, since I'm in the fukn bidniss. If it rolls off my back, why should it stick in YOUR craw the way it does?
And so what about a 264 mph motorcycle? If all these tales bother you so much, just make sure you don't lend Gummer any money, and just STFU.
No, but the dickless LoserKidding has to chronicle all this, on a regular basis. What a fukn wad. Pity his fuknWife and kids.
Children! Children! I go out for one night, and look at what you've
done to the house! g
PV, I don't know if you missed the origins of all of these conflicts,
or if you just decided to ignore them. It isn't because Gunner tells
"tall tales." It's because he's insulted, slandered, tried to
humiliate, and threatened every one of them -- myself included. A few
people (myself included) just got fed up with his vile and dishonest
style of argument, and his whole approach to sharp disagreements is
now the subject. As an inveterate bull****ter, Gunner takes the heat
for it. Like Jonny Bonkers, he's just reaping what he's sown.
It really starts with attitudes towards civility. You either have it
by age 10, or you don't. It's hard to see it now -- it's degenerated
so much that the entire battle is kind of dirty -- but there's no
doubt how it started and where it came from. He's never let up: anyone
he disagrees with is a "libtard," a "Marxist," "gay," or worse.
He lacks the ability to disagree in a civil way and, as a result, he
argues like white trash. His threats to have people killed actually
are criminal. Probably because of the company he keeps, or the
environment he's in, he's deluded himself that he's managed to skirt
the law with his many threats, which are hardly veiled. He's wrong. It
isn't "banter" when you get specific about weapons to be used and
people on a "list" to be killed. If someone really got upset about it,
it wouldn't be hard to have Gunner investigated for terroristic
So recognize where the divide is. People who are basically civil can
sometimes get really heated and insulting. White trash tell you you're
on a "list" of people his "friends" are going to shoot and kill.
And you have to admit, Whoyakidding's Cliffs Notes have a genuine
literary quality. d8-)
Ed, YOU are not publishing the Gummer Chronicles, are you? Would you ever?
Kidding/Oblivious do this not because of any inherent urge for justice, but simply bec they are malicious bullies. Plain and simple.
Plainly and simply, you're just wrong about this. gummer is the bully.
gummer has made threats that he clumsily tries to make vague - because
he's a pussy and doesn't have the guts to stand behind his threats - but
which nonetheless are intended to produce anxiety in his victims. It's
the intent that matters - it's the intent that means gummer is the
bully. gummer threatened me similarly not long ago. He said he
contacted "friends" in my area:
Just so you know...Ive called a few old friends up in your area and
they will be coming around to see about your orange tree..just to
make sure its sturdy enough to hold a mans weight.
If you hear motorcycles in the middle of the night...dont sweat
it..its just them.
I did in fact, really...actually..made a couple phone call this
morning. From one of the few payphones in my area. And the phone was
wiped down afterwards.
You made it to the List long ago..and its about time to answer for it..
yawn Just the usual gummer empty woofing shrug - I didn't, in fact,
"sweat" it. But gummer intended to create anxiety, and that intent
makes him at least a bully, and quite possibly a criminal. The law in
California, where gummer lives, is clear that electronic communications
(including Usenet posts) that are intended to cause fear of violence are
a felony crime. Whether the victim actually feels fear is irrelevant -
what matters is if a reasonable person would look at the communications
and conclude that they were intended to cause fear.
Captain Obvious is taking the bully down, quite humorously and quite
well. He writes wittily and cleverly. In a contest between you and him
over the propriety of his actions, he wins the battle for public
opinion, hands down.
I can see how people can be ****ed at Gummer, he irked me years ago with some silliness. And I agree that some of Gummer's tacks lack wisdom, proper socialization. lol
But Dickless (kidding, Oblivious) has been doing this cliff note bull**** for AT LEAST 5 years. And exactly WHAT has it accomplished? Do you feel safer?
Don't be fooled by clever, witty, that most often is a disguise for fraud, incompetence. Kidding's sole motivation is WIN, and he will employ any tactic to do so, mostly 8th grade level ridicule, and not just with Gummer, but with anything. He is skilled at twisting history in a debate, at distorting the debate itself. He'll latch on to ANTHING he thinks will descredit you.
If you found Don Rickles funny, then yeah, you'll proly find Kidding/oblivious clever, witty. But with little depth, his tactics are just party tricks.
And you'll see: Kidding/Oblivious despise me, and they have ample opportunity to skewer me, with the fat burning theorem on rec.running. You think they will try?
We'll see, we'll see what tactics he employs now, with black and white meth.. Oops, math. Given his incompetence and preference for hand-waving, I expect he'll go for the plagiarizing angle. We'll see how that flies.
But I think he realizes that it's best he steers clear of anything concrete, to stick to his oratorical handwaving, so he can't be pinned down.
ED has depth, kidding is just a clever bitch. Sort of like a really pretty girl who never learned how to wash properly. What do you do with something like that? Well, just keep it at a distance.
As far as public opinion goes, are you sure about that? I've noticed that keyboard cowards like Kidding somehow manage to intimidate others, who aren't quite up to clever bitchy repartee. Gummer is a far easier mark, if you will.
Have you actually polled people on this? I think if you did, it would easily end in a tie, and maybe even more people would find kidding fundamentally distasteful.
Sorta like music: Is the music bad bec it's played too loud or badly (Gummer), or is the music bad because, well, it's just really ****ty music (Kidding)? Play really ****ty music in Lincoln Center, and you might not get a true consensus. It's still ****ty music. Kidding is still a fraud.
Gummer is a nut. Kidding/Oblivious is a vindictive cowardly bitch. If I had to choose one to be stuck on an island with, I'd pick Gummer hands down.