random? - Page 6

tanman1990 · #**151** (**permalink**) 09-25-2009, 12:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bahr

I diddent make my point the way I wanted to. I was pointing just a little bit towards you and ol' fingers. Chill. Shetlans been around for a while. And he's most likely not leaving for a while. It'll never end.

Doesn't mean we have to just take his little comments supporting Random in a thread meant to vent about Random's downfalls. I mean if worse comes to worse I'll make a thread where the topic is just to downtalk Random, so that Shetlan wont butt in because that would be off-topic.

shetlan · #**152** (**permalink**) 09-25-2009, 01:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanman1990

Doesn't mean we have to just take his little comments supporting Random in a thread meant to vent about Random's downfalls.

Actually, you do.
This is an open forum, meaning I can say anything I like whether you like it or not - so long as it's on topic, which it is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanman1990

I mean if worse comes to worse I'll make a thread where the topic is just to downtalk Random, so that Shetlan wont butt in because that would be off-topic.

As I explained before - such a thread would still allow argument and debate under the forum's rules. Trying to qualify posts by saying "Only post if you agree with me" doesn't change that.

headcase · #**153** (**permalink**) 09-25-2009, 01:02 PM

Shetlan's right, and there's no spin you can put on it to make it any different.

tanman1990 · #**154** (**permalink**) 09-26-2009, 02:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by headcase

Shetlan's right, and there's no spin you can put on it to make it any different.

Just because hes right doesn't mean he's not a douche.

Bahr · #**155** (**permalink**) 09-26-2009, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanman1990

Just because hes right doesn't mean he's not a douche.

Means you are.

Voodoo5 · #**156** (**permalink**) 10-12-2009, 07:43 AM

I thought this thread was about bashing Random, not a bunch of pissed-off people ruffling up each others feathers to stroke their egos.

Yeah, I've had a good telling off from shet before, but know that I'm not so fucked up now I really get his arguments. what's right is NEVER popular, and shetlan's usually right about most things. Now I'm not here to kiss his ass, he's almost always shooting people down, and making sure they stay there (me too man)-but he's got reason, and Random has THE BIGGEST target on his forehead right now.

So come on, kick and scream about your infractions and put-downs. It's an open forum, and you'll get your chance to (perhaps rightfully) put somebody in their place if you have a keen eye and patience. Revenge is sweet, but sit down and wait your damn turn.

ninefingers · #**157** (**permalink**) 10-18-2009, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Voodoo5

what's right is NEVER popular, and shetlan's usually right about most things. Now I'm not here to kiss his ass, he's almost always shooting people down, and making sure they stay there (me too man)-but he's got reason, and Random has THE BIGGEST target on his forehead right now.

I got to admit Shetlan was; technically; right for once....maybe there should be another thread; anti-Random only.

Dan Shetlan is only as "right" as you can be with Wikipedia---he shares very little firsthand experience like the rest of us, which I value better. Except for some Army stories that I still don't believe.

Don't want to get too far off the beam and boddah Da Man: I haven't heard from Random in a while....is he in rehab or something?

shetlan · #**158** (**permalink**) 10-18-2009, 11:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ninefingers

I got to admit Shetlan was; technically; right for once....maybe there should be another thread; anti-Random only.

So the entire last page of the thread flew right over your head.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ninefingers

Dan Shetlan is only as "right" as you can be with Wikipedia---he shares very little firsthand experience like the rest of us, which I value better. Except for some Army stories that I still don't believe.

Really?
For a guy who's "first hand experience" is debunked on a regular basis, you're one to talk.

ninefingers · #**159** (**permalink**) 10-20-2009, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shetlan

So the entire last page of the thread flew right over your head.

No, that was wrong--if you only read it--a thread saying "anti-Random" would not allow an argument For, as stated. You can read; prove it to us.

Quote:

Really?
For a guy who's "first hand experience" is debunked on a regular basis, you're one to talk.

Ever bother calling Chas. Heller? I met with him. Or, anything else? Name only One FHEx I had that was "debunked". ( I did admit being in error a couple times when my source was wrong or I saw new evidence--but these were about events over 150 years ago.) Not my FHEx--and I am not "regularly" debunked-- Unless you mean chugging Ex-Lax is "regular" to you. Give me the proof I and others asked of you , just like that Mac-10 controversy--try it, then post. Whadda you know of Mac-10's, Ingrams, and whatever, anyway?--you can't own one. (Personally, I think UZI's jam a lot--if Cobrays, etc, are similar, I wouldn't trust my life to one.) You didn't see one in the "Army" (again no proof) unless you were Special Op's or something a recent vet told me. I can go to the gun store in 15 minutes and buy one. In 6 weeks, after the paperwork clears, I take home a machine gun...

Has, again, anyone heard from R, lately? All I hear from is H/C. I guess I need to see what forum's he supposed to be moderating.

And, Random, and Steve_TPF; in case I didn't make this clear: We don't need to be reminded of the grievance procedure. The fact that it doesn't work or seems ignored is why we are here. Random: Why don't you get back to flamers using four-letter words against you? Why did you choose to address my simple post?

shetlan · #**160** (**permalink**) 10-20-2009, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ninefingers

No, that was wrong--if you only read it--a thread saying "anti-Random" would not allow an argument For, as stated. You can read; prove it to us.

My god, even you can't be that stupid.
No, scratch that - ONLY YOU could read a set of posts, where the conclusion was reached that there is no way to produce an anti-random thread without allowance for rebuttle (which was confirmed by headcase), and come out with the exact opposite conclusion.

Headcase, please tell me we can get rid of him now. For god sakes, he doesn't even read the thread before he starts babbling! He doesn't even read the page he's posting on! Hell, if he read it and posted that anyway - that's worse!

Bahr · #**161** (**permalink**) 10-22-2009, 02:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ninefingers

Dan Shetlan is only as "right" as you can be with Wikipedia---he shares very little firsthand experience like the rest of us, which I value better. Except for some Army stories that I still don't believe.

Just wanted to say this. Over the internet, first hand experiance dosent mean much. Unless you have a way of backing it up. Id rather get info from a reliable site than have someone tell me "yeah that will work, Ive done it before".

Paranoid Ecstasy · #**162** (**permalink**) 10-22-2009, 04:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanman1990

Doesn't mean we have to just take his little comments supporting Random in a thread meant to vent about Random's downfalls. I mean if worse comes to worse I'll make a thread where the topic is just to downtalk Random, so that Shetlan wont butt in because that would be off-topic.

This site highly encourages intelligent debate.

ninefingers · #**163** (**permalink**) 11-09-2009, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bahr

Just wanted to say this. Over the internet, first hand experiance dosent mean much. Unless you have a way of backing it up. Id rather get info from a reliable site than have someone tell me "yeah that will work, Ive done it before".

No.

I like FHE better. Of course; you have to believe the poster.

Stuff just jerked off the Internet, like anyone could, can be wrong or misinterpreted by the poster. Especially like some that never posted proof of some things or whose links won't work (yes, S. and others have invalid links sometimes, unbelievably

), or who quote dusty old books that don't exist, or cut down others proof, or accept their friend's proof when it is the same over yours..

An eye witness is rarely wrong.

I am beginning to like Random over H/C. At least he hasn't bothered me for a while.

ninefingers · #**164** (**permalink**) 11-09-2009, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paranoid Ecstasy

This site highly encourages intelligent debate.

Yes, Intelligent--just an automatic gainsay, like S.; isn't a valid argument.

I vote for starting an anti-Admin thread. Any Admin can be criticized; and a statement in the topic or first post would not allow defending , especially if not backed up, as it would be off topic.

headcase · #**165** (**permalink**) 11-09-2009, 02:46 PM

Anyone else see a double post? Or am I losing my mind?

Edit; and the edit button is working?

Edit2; yes, I believe it is.

Edit3; infracted.

shetlan · #**166** (**permalink**) 11-09-2009, 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by headcase

Anyone else see a double post? Or am I losing my mind?

Edit; and the edit button is working?

Edit2; yes, I believe it is.

Edit3; infracted.

Not just a double post, he still doesn't get it!

ninefingers · #**167** (**permalink**) 11-10-2009, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shetlan

Not just a double post, he still doesn't get it!

Bull shit, both of you. No "double post"; two different ones. Again, your server has a problem. Links don't always work on this forum, either--they work fine on the others I am on. And HeadCase, wasn't the system Down a few days ago? Doesn't that give you food for thought there might be a problem?

How could there have been a "d/p" when I intermediately check and it isn't There?

Random, if you are out there; please read my complaints about this guy. At least you are a different set of eyes.

And, H/C and S; aren't you both now off topic? Why don't you both get an infraction?

H/C: giving infractions is not to be on the thread. It is through P/M's; or, haven't you heard?

headcase · #**168** (**permalink**) 11-10-2009, 02:17 PM

Shit, didn't know it was you who made the rules. I guess I violated the 1st amendment too. Well, I'll keep posting till the Feds get here.

That said, you clearly don't understant what "double post" means. I've explained it as clearly as I could in the PM I sent you. Maybe the fact that you have 8 infractions and hence should have had 8 examples of what constitutes a double post, including the glaringly obvious one above that I pointed out to you but you still didn't get, means that you'll follow now.

shetlan · #**169** (**permalink**) 11-10-2009, 08:42 PM

For god sakes headcase, can't we just get rid of the idiot!
All he does is stink up the forum with gibberish.

Edit:
Fingers, I don't know why you keep sending me e-mails. As I've said several times already: Your previous e-mails (as well as your posts) suggest that you are either a complete idiot or severely mentally handicapped. Either way, I see no point in reading your gibberish; hence, all e-mails are deleted unread.