(06-24-2020 06:39 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-24-2020 05:26 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-24-2020 05:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  George Lincoln Rockwell was 1965-66, spring of 66 I think, because that was my freshman year and I was there for it. The chem lecture hall was full for his speech, and I don't think there was one person on his side.

You probably are right. I did not go to the one in the Chem Lecture Hall. The meeting I saw was, as I said, impromptu and in one of the college commons. I also saw nobody on his side.

IIRC, that would probably have been Baker or Will Rice, since I think one of them sponsored him. I know Wiess didn't, and I don't think it was Hanszen.

Did some googling to see if I could learn some more about this incident. Sounds like it was about a year before he was assassinated, and he may have visited Rice because one of his connections, William Lither Pierce, was a Rice alum.

(06-24-2020 10:43 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-24-2020 10:32 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 05:37 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  When I selected Rice, I did so because I wanted 1) an Ivy League quality of education, 2) with an emphasis on STEM, 3) with big time athletics, and 4) without the leftist/socialist/communist indoctrination echo chamber that the Ivies pretty much all included.

I think I got 1). I took myself out of 2) when I switched to the accounting/law track. Rice started taking itself out of 3) by 1970 and has continued to do so until the present. And with these latest developments, I think 4) is gone.

Because of 1) I was happy with my time at Rice. But because of what happened with 2), 3), and 4), I would go somewhere else today.

4) was long gone around the time of Jerry Berndt. Lefties had taken over the campus, albeit a tad quieter than they are now.

As to the last bolded, thank you for saying it out loud. I'd never recommend today's Rice to anyone I actually cared about, and that really, really stinks. Rice has so much potential, but has been destroying itself for so long, it almost invented the category. At least it's leading in one area.

We need a University President that actually cares about Rice instead of one who wishes to systematically destroy its reputation and standing to impress his Ivy-league buddies who have done the same, not to mention incapacitate almost any student who matriculates with far-left America-hating gobbeldygook.

It seems like your complaints about Rice would hold true for many similar universities. Do you have places that you recommend to friends?

I'll agree that many so-called "elite" universities have jumped the shark. I think today there are less reasons for people to waste their time and money in such manner. My recommendations are to match the individual student with an appropriate school even if not seen as "elite"-level as that will make for a better overall success ratio and not worry about supposed prestige as it matters less today than ever before. Some extremely talented students might pursue directly into the work world by forming a company if they have not done so already, which will give them education far beyond anything most "elite" schools could possibly provide. I am aware of a few young folks who have chosen this route and it seems increasingly the more reasonable approach in today's world. Mos of what you need today to be successful or even ultra-successful is no longer as proprietary as schools would have people believe. It does require self-starterism, butb that's an -ism I can get behind.

(06-24-2020 10:43 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-24-2020 10:32 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 05:37 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  When I selected Rice, I did so because I wanted 1) an Ivy League quality of education, 2) with an emphasis on STEM, 3) with big time athletics, and 4) without the leftist/socialist/communist indoctrination echo chamber that the Ivies pretty much all included.

I think I got 1). I took myself out of 2) when I switched to the accounting/law track. Rice started taking itself out of 3) by 1970 and has continued to do so until the present. And with these latest developments, I think 4) is gone.

Because of 1) I was happy with my time at Rice. But because of what happened with 2), 3), and 4), I would go somewhere else today.

4) was long gone around the time of Jerry Berndt. Lefties had taken over the campus, albeit a tad quieter than they are now.

As to the last bolded, thank you for saying it out loud. I'd never recommend today's Rice to anyone I actually cared about, and that really, really stinks. Rice has so much potential, but has been destroying itself for so long, it almost invented the category. At least it's leading in one area.

We need a University President that actually cares about Rice instead of one who wishes to systematically destroy its reputation and standing to impress his Ivy-league buddies who have done the same, not to mention incapacitate almost any student who matriculates with far-left America-hating gobbeldygook.

It seems like your complaints about Rice would hold true for many similar universities. Do you have places that you recommend to friends?

Air force academy

(06-25-2020 07:18 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-24-2020 10:43 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-24-2020 10:32 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 05:37 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  When I selected Rice, I did so because I wanted 1) an Ivy League quality of education, 2) with an emphasis on STEM, 3) with big time athletics, and 4) without the leftist/socialist/communist indoctrination echo chamber that the Ivies pretty much all included.

I think I got 1). I took myself out of 2) when I switched to the accounting/law track. Rice started taking itself out of 3) by 1970 and has continued to do so until the present. And with these latest developments, I think 4) is gone.

Because of 1) I was happy with my time at Rice. But because of what happened with 2), 3), and 4), I would go somewhere else today.

4) was long gone around the time of Jerry Berndt. Lefties had taken over the campus, albeit a tad quieter than they are now.

As to the last bolded, thank you for saying it out loud. I'd never recommend today's Rice to anyone I actually cared about, and that really, really stinks. Rice has so much potential, but has been destroying itself for so long, it almost invented the category. At least it's leading in one area.

We need a University President that actually cares about Rice instead of one who wishes to systematically destroy its reputation and standing to impress his Ivy-league buddies who have done the same, not to mention incapacitate almost any student who matriculates with far-left America-hating gobbeldygook.

It seems like your complaints about Rice would hold true for many similar universities. Do you have places that you recommend to friends?

Air force academy

My AFA alumni cousin agrees, "as long as you don't have two X chromosomes"

(06-25-2020 07:18 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-24-2020 10:43 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-24-2020 10:32 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 05:37 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  When I selected Rice, I did so because I wanted 1) an Ivy League quality of education, 2) with an emphasis on STEM, 3) with big time athletics, and 4) without the leftist/socialist/communist indoctrination echo chamber that the Ivies pretty much all included.

I think I got 1). I took myself out of 2) when I switched to the accounting/law track. Rice started taking itself out of 3) by 1970 and has continued to do so until the present. And with these latest developments, I think 4) is gone.

Because of 1) I was happy with my time at Rice. But because of what happened with 2), 3), and 4), I would go somewhere else today.

4) was long gone around the time of Jerry Berndt. Lefties had taken over the campus, albeit a tad quieter than they are now.

As to the last bolded, thank you for saying it out loud. I'd never recommend today's Rice to anyone I actually cared about, and that really, really stinks. Rice has so much potential, but has been destroying itself for so long, it almost invented the category. At least it's leading in one area.

We need a University President that actually cares about Rice instead of one who wishes to systematically destroy its reputation and standing to impress his Ivy-league buddies who have done the same, not to mention incapacitate almost any student who matriculates with far-left America-hating gobbeldygook.

It seems like your complaints about Rice would hold true for many similar universities. Do you have places that you recommend to friends?

Air force academy

Curious. What makes you prefer AFA over the Naval Academy and West Point? Location?

(06-25-2020 11:57 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-25-2020 07:18 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-24-2020 10:43 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-24-2020 10:32 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 05:37 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  When I selected Rice, I did so because I wanted 1) an Ivy League quality of education, 2) with an emphasis on STEM, 3) with big time athletics, and 4) without the leftist/socialist/communist indoctrination echo chamber that the Ivies pretty much all included.

I think I got 1). I took myself out of 2) when I switched to the accounting/law track. Rice started taking itself out of 3) by 1970 and has continued to do so until the present. And with these latest developments, I think 4) is gone.

Because of 1) I was happy with my time at Rice. But because of what happened with 2), 3), and 4), I would go somewhere else today.

4) was long gone around the time of Jerry Berndt. Lefties had taken over the campus, albeit a tad quieter than they are now.

As to the last bolded, thank you for saying it out loud. I'd never recommend today's Rice to anyone I actually cared about, and that really, really stinks. Rice has so much potential, but has been destroying itself for so long, it almost invented the category. At least it's leading in one area.

We need a University President that actually cares about Rice instead of one who wishes to systematically destroy its reputation and standing to impress his Ivy-league buddies who have done the same, not to mention incapacitate almost any student who matriculates with far-left America-hating gobbeldygook.

It seems like your complaints about Rice would hold true for many similar universities. Do you have places that you recommend to friends?

Air force academy

Curious. What makes you prefer AFA over the Naval Academy and West Point? Location?

At the time was covered in dust, stone remnants, and cement. Really didnt want to type out all four of the service academies, five if you count the merchant marine. Thought the one of the five would make the point.

(06-26-2020 07:37 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-25-2020 11:57 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-25-2020 07:18 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-24-2020 10:43 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-24-2020 10:32 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  4) was long gone around the time of Jerry Berndt. Lefties had taken over the campus, albeit a tad quieter than they are now.

As to the last bolded, thank you for saying it out loud. I'd never recommend today's Rice to anyone I actually cared about, and that really, really stinks. Rice has so much potential, but has been destroying itself for so long, it almost invented the category. At least it's leading in one area.

We need a University President that actually cares about Rice instead of one who wishes to systematically destroy its reputation and standing to impress his Ivy-league buddies who have done the same, not to mention incapacitate almost any student who matriculates with far-left America-hating gobbeldygook.

It seems like your complaints about Rice would hold true for many similar universities. Do you have places that you recommend to friends?

Air force academy

Curious. What makes you prefer AFA over the Naval Academy and West Point? Location?

At the time was covered in dust, stone remnants, and cement. Really didnt want to type out all four of the service academies, five if you count the merchant marine. Thought the one of the five would make the point.

(06-26-2020 08:45 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-26-2020 07:37 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-25-2020 11:57 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-25-2020 07:18 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-24-2020 10:43 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  It seems like your complaints about Rice would hold true for many similar universities. Do you have places that you recommend to friends?

Air force academy

Curious. What makes you prefer AFA over the Naval Academy and West Point? Location?

At the time was covered in dust, stone remnants, and cement. Really didnt want to type out all four of the service academies, five if you count the merchant marine. Thought the one of the five would make the point.

Got it. I was just curious if you thought one of the big three stood out over the other two.

A relative who sells real estate tells me that they are being cautioned not to refer to certain rooms as the "master bedroom" or "the master bath".

I guess master is on the way to becoming the M-word.

(06-26-2020 08:46 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-26-2020 08:45 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-26-2020 07:37 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-25-2020 11:57 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-25-2020 07:18 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Air force academy

Curious. What makes you prefer AFA over the Naval Academy and West Point? Location?

At the time was covered in dust, stone remnants, and cement. Really didnt want to type out all four of the service academies, five if you count the merchant marine. Thought the one of the five would make the point.

Got it. I was just curious if you thought one of the big three stood out over the other two.

I guess you dont think much of the merchant marine or the coast guard.

(06-28-2020 07:38 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-26-2020 08:46 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-26-2020 08:45 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-26-2020 07:37 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-25-2020 11:57 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Curious. What makes you prefer AFA over the Naval Academy and West Point? Location?

At the time was covered in dust, stone remnants, and cement. Really didnt want to type out all four of the service academies, five if you count the merchant marine. Thought the one of the five would make the point.

Got it. I was just curious if you thought one of the big three stood out over the other two.

I guess you dont think much of the merchant marine or the coast guard.

Come on. Why do you want to constantly fight? It's pretty clear that West Point, AFA and Naval Academy are on a different level than the Merchant Marine Academy and the Coast Guard Academy when it comes to admission standards/reputation. It doesn't mean that I don't have respect for those branches.

*edited to add* For the record, if my early teenage son ended up attending the Coast Guard Academy I would be beyond thrilled.

(06-28-2020 09:01 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-28-2020 07:38 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-26-2020 08:46 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-26-2020 08:45 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-26-2020 07:37 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  At the time was covered in dust, stone remnants, and cement. Really didnt want to type out all four of the service academies, five if you count the merchant marine. Thought the one of the five would make the point.

Got it. I was just curious if you thought one of the big three stood out over the other two.

I guess you dont think much of the merchant marine or the coast guard.

Come on. Why do you want to constantly fight? It's pretty clear that West Point, AFA and Naval Academy are on a different level than the Merchant Marine Academy and the Coast Guard Academy when it comes to admission standards/reputation. It doesn't mean that I don't have respect for those branches.

*edited to add* For the record, if my early teenage son ended up attending the Coast Guard Academy I would be beyond thrilled.

I would actually be happier if you would bother to answer the questions posed about 'questionable', or does the act of 'this publication says it does, and I really dont give a fk about anything besides what the publication says' do it for you?

(06-28-2020 10:10 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-28-2020 09:01 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-28-2020 07:38 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-26-2020 08:46 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-26-2020 08:45 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

Got it. I was just curious if you thought one of the big three stood out over the other two.

I guess you dont think much of the merchant marine or the coast guard.

Come on. Why do you want to constantly fight? It's pretty clear that West Point, AFA and Naval Academy are on a different level than the Merchant Marine Academy and the Coast Guard Academy when it comes to admission standards/reputation. It doesn't mean that I don't have respect for those branches.

*edited to add* For the record, if my early teenage son ended up attending the Coast Guard Academy I would be beyond thrilled.

I would actually be happier if you would bother to answer the questions posed about 'questionable', or does the act of 'this publication says it does, and I really dont give a fk about anything besides what the publication says' do it for you?

I see you're feeling persnickety.

You asked me about "questionable" and I gave you a response. Sorry you weren't satisfied with it but, in general, you're not going to get a much back-and-forth with me on weekends when I am busy with my family.

You then went back to reply to my question which was based on curiosity as to how you viewed our service academies (I was interested based on my being from a military family) and you turned it into me not respecting the Merchant Marines and the Coast Guard.

Maybe one of the other lefties will want to do this with you on weekends. I'm not very interested.

(06-28-2020 10:37 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  I'm not very interested.

Seems to be common on the left.

(06-28-2020 10:37 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-28-2020 10:10 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-28-2020 09:01 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-28-2020 07:38 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-26-2020 08:46 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Got it. I was just curious if you thought one of the big three stood out over the other two.

I guess you dont think much of the merchant marine or the coast guard.

Come on. Why do you want to constantly fight? It's pretty clear that West Point, AFA and Naval Academy are on a different level than the Merchant Marine Academy and the Coast Guard Academy when it comes to admission standards/reputation. It doesn't mean that I don't have respect for those branches.

*edited to add* For the record, if my early teenage son ended up attending the Coast Guard Academy I would be beyond thrilled.

I would actually be happier if you would bother to answer the questions posed about 'questionable', or does the act of 'this publication says it does, and I really dont give a fk about anything besides what the publication says' do it for you?

You asked me about "questionable" and I gave you a response. Sorry you weren't satisfied with it but, in general, you're not going to get a much back-and-forth with me on weekends when I am busy with my family.

You made the grandiose statement that, and I paraphrase '[the shooting] was questionable (I can assume we all agree)'.

I mentioned some very cogent and particular points.

Then you say (paraphrase) 'well I just simply repeat what I read, here is what I have read'.

That change from the first response (that how dare anyone not deem the shooting 'questionable') to the 'well I simply regurgitate what I read, without either thinking about it, nor really bothering to assess with any particularity anything that might run contrary' seems a pretty massive leap.

Perhaps you should have just led off with the latter, and saved all of us some time.

But you have done that before, havent you? That is led off with grandiose conclusory statements, and when pressed, simply abandon them with amazing alacrity and refuse to even acknowledge any issue that a contrary position might have with what you proffer, followed by a rapid abandonment of the conversation en toto.

Glad to note your are "not very interested". First, it seems a fairly wide contradistinction from your first statement you gleefully made about the issue being steadfastly 'questionable', closer to retreat on 'here is stuff I read, but I wont even bother to note what is in it, I am simply regurgitating'. And quite the way to finish that progression with the same velocity and direction.

Seems to be quite your tactic when actually pressed on specific points in your stance(s).

(06-29-2020 08:10 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-28-2020 10:37 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-28-2020 10:10 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-28-2020 09:01 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-28-2020 07:38 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I guess you dont think much of the merchant marine or the coast guard.

Come on. Why do you want to constantly fight? It's pretty clear that West Point, AFA and Naval Academy are on a different level than the Merchant Marine Academy and the Coast Guard Academy when it comes to admission standards/reputation. It doesn't mean that I don't have respect for those branches.

*edited to add* For the record, if my early teenage son ended up attending the Coast Guard Academy I would be beyond thrilled.

I would actually be happier if you would bother to answer the questions posed about 'questionable', or does the act of 'this publication says it does, and I really dont give a fk about anything besides what the publication says' do it for you?

You asked me about "questionable" and I gave you a response. Sorry you weren't satisfied with it but, in general, you're not going to get a much back-and-forth with me on weekends when I am busy with my family.

You made the grandiose statement that, and I paraphrase '[the shooting] was questionable (I can assume we all agree)'.

I mentioned some very cogent and particular points.

Then you say (paraphrase) 'well I just simply repeat what I read, here is what I have read'.

What I read and heard from police officers made it seem reasonable to call it a questionable shooting. Probably most times a cop shoots somebody in the back as they are running it is worth questioning. My tone on the matter should have reflected just how not-outraged I was over this particular shooting. You seem to want to turn this into a fight.

None of your numbered points that you made do I disagree with.

Quote:That change from the first response (that how dare anyone not deem the shooting 'questionable') to the 'well I simply regurgitate what I read, without either thinking about it, nor really bothering to assess with any particularity anything that might run contrary' seems a pretty massive leap.

Perhaps you should have just led off with the latter, and saved all of us some time.

But you have done that before, havent you? That is led off with grandiose conclusory statements, and when pressed, simply abandon them with amazing alacrity and refuse to even acknowledge any issue that a contrary position might have with what you proffer, followed by a rapid abandonment of the conversation en toto.

Glad to note your are "not very interested". First, it seems a fairly wide contradistinction from your first statement you gleefully made about the issue being steadfastly 'questionable', closer to retreat on 'here is stuff I read, but I wont even bother to note what is in it, I am simply regurgitating'. And quite the way to finish that progression with the same velocity and direction.

Seems to be quite your tactic when actually pressed on specific points in your stance(s).

You must have a camera inside my house, Tanq. You are right... I was completely gleeful when I made that statement. Making that statement was the highlight of my week and I derived innumberable joy from that moment.

You and OO are correct... I should be more engaging with you. That service academy thing was super fun for me. More of that, please.

(06-29-2020 08:25 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-29-2020 08:10 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-28-2020 10:37 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-28-2020 10:10 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-28-2020 09:01 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Come on. Why do you want to constantly fight? It's pretty clear that West Point, AFA and Naval Academy are on a different level than the Merchant Marine Academy and the Coast Guard Academy when it comes to admission standards/reputation. It doesn't mean that I don't have respect for those branches.

*edited to add* For the record, if my early teenage son ended up attending the Coast Guard Academy I would be beyond thrilled.

I would actually be happier if you would bother to answer the questions posed about 'questionable', or does the act of 'this publication says it does, and I really dont give a fk about anything besides what the publication says' do it for you?

You asked me about "questionable" and I gave you a response. Sorry you weren't satisfied with it but, in general, you're not going to get a much back-and-forth with me on weekends when I am busy with my family.

You made the grandiose statement that, and I paraphrase '[the shooting] was questionable (I can assume we all agree)'.

I mentioned some very cogent and particular points.

Then you say (paraphrase) 'well I just simply repeat what I read, here is what I have read'.

What I read and heard from police officers made it seem reasonable to call it a questionable shooting. Probably most times a cop shoots somebody in the back as they are running it is worth questioning. My tone on the matter should have reflected just how not-outraged I was over this particular shooting. You seem to want to turn this into a fight.

None of your numbered points that you made do I disagree with.

Quote:That change from the first response (that how dare anyone not deem the shooting 'questionable') to the 'well I simply regurgitate what I read, without either thinking about it, nor really bothering to assess with any particularity anything that might run contrary' seems a pretty massive leap.

Perhaps you should have just led off with the latter, and saved all of us some time.

But you have done that before, havent you? That is led off with grandiose conclusory statements, and when pressed, simply abandon them with amazing alacrity and refuse to even acknowledge any issue that a contrary position might have with what you proffer, followed by a rapid abandonment of the conversation en toto.

Glad to note your are "not very interested". First, it seems a fairly wide contradistinction from your first statement you gleefully made about the issue being steadfastly 'questionable', closer to retreat on 'here is stuff I read, but I wont even bother to note what is in it, I am simply regurgitating'. And quite the way to finish that progression with the same velocity and direction.

Seems to be quite your tactic when actually pressed on specific points in your stance(s).

You must have a camera inside my house, Tanq. You are right... I was completely gleeful when I made that statement. Making that statement was the highlight of my week and I derived innumberable joy from that moment.

You and OO are correct... I should be more engaging with you. That service academy thing was super fun for me. More of that, please.

Fine -- scratch the word 'gleefully'. Then perhaps address the content. Or just use the gleeful to try a 'lets redirect this away from my absolute inability and refusal to address the issue at hand.' Par for the course, though. Good grief.

Edited to add: to be blunt, you have never been 'engaging' about any of the SJW issues that you throw up on the screen as all encompassing 'truisms'. When counters are presented, you just run away. Just noting that this falls in that ongoing and unblemished pattern as well.

(06-29-2020 08:34 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-29-2020 08:25 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-29-2020 08:10 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-28-2020 10:37 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-28-2020 10:10 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I would actually be happier if you would bother to answer the questions posed about 'questionable', or does the act of 'this publication says it does, and I really dont give a fk about anything besides what the publication says' do it for you?

You asked me about "questionable" and I gave you a response. Sorry you weren't satisfied with it but, in general, you're not going to get a much back-and-forth with me on weekends when I am busy with my family.

You made the grandiose statement that, and I paraphrase '[the shooting] was questionable (I can assume we all agree)'.

I mentioned some very cogent and particular points.

Then you say (paraphrase) 'well I just simply repeat what I read, here is what I have read'.

What I read and heard from police officers made it seem reasonable to call it a questionable shooting. Probably most times a cop shoots somebody in the back as they are running it is worth questioning. My tone on the matter should have reflected just how not-outraged I was over this particular shooting. You seem to want to turn this into a fight.

None of your numbered points that you made do I disagree with.

Quote:That change from the first response (that how dare anyone not deem the shooting 'questionable') to the 'well I simply regurgitate what I read, without either thinking about it, nor really bothering to assess with any particularity anything that might run contrary' seems a pretty massive leap.

Perhaps you should have just led off with the latter, and saved all of us some time.

But you have done that before, havent you? That is led off with grandiose conclusory statements, and when pressed, simply abandon them with amazing alacrity and refuse to even acknowledge any issue that a contrary position might have with what you proffer, followed by a rapid abandonment of the conversation en toto.

Glad to note your are "not very interested". First, it seems a fairly wide contradistinction from your first statement you gleefully made about the issue being steadfastly 'questionable', closer to retreat on 'here is stuff I read, but I wont even bother to note what is in it, I am simply regurgitating'. And quite the way to finish that progression with the same velocity and direction.

Seems to be quite your tactic when actually pressed on specific points in your stance(s).

You must have a camera inside my house, Tanq. You are right... I was completely gleeful when I made that statement. Making that statement was the highlight of my week and I derived innumberable joy from that moment.

You and OO are correct... I should be more engaging with you. That service academy thing was super fun for me. More of that, please.

Fine -- scratch the word 'gleefully'. Then perhaps address the content. Or just use the gleeful to try a 'lets redirect this away from my absolute inability and refusal to address the issue at hand.' Par for the course, though. Good grief.

Did you read this?

(06-29-2020 08:35 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-29-2020 08:34 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-29-2020 08:25 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-29-2020 08:10 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-28-2020 10:37 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  You asked me about "questionable" and I gave you a response. Sorry you weren't satisfied with it but, in general, you're not going to get a much back-and-forth with me on weekends when I am busy with my family.

You made the grandiose statement that, and I paraphrase '[the shooting] was questionable (I can assume we all agree)'.

I mentioned some very cogent and particular points.

Then you say (paraphrase) 'well I just simply repeat what I read, here is what I have read'.

What I read and heard from police officers made it seem reasonable to call it a questionable shooting. Probably most times a cop shoots somebody in the back as they are running it is worth questioning. My tone on the matter should have reflected just how not-outraged I was over this particular shooting. You seem to want to turn this into a fight.

None of your numbered points that you made do I disagree with.

Quote:That change from the first response (that how dare anyone not deem the shooting 'questionable') to the 'well I simply regurgitate what I read, without either thinking about it, nor really bothering to assess with any particularity anything that might run contrary' seems a pretty massive leap.

Perhaps you should have just led off with the latter, and saved all of us some time.

But you have done that before, havent you? That is led off with grandiose conclusory statements, and when pressed, simply abandon them with amazing alacrity and refuse to even acknowledge any issue that a contrary position might have with what you proffer, followed by a rapid abandonment of the conversation en toto.

Glad to note your are "not very interested". First, it seems a fairly wide contradistinction from your first statement you gleefully made about the issue being steadfastly 'questionable', closer to retreat on 'here is stuff I read, but I wont even bother to note what is in it, I am simply regurgitating'. And quite the way to finish that progression with the same velocity and direction.

Seems to be quite your tactic when actually pressed on specific points in your stance(s).

You must have a camera inside my house, Tanq. You are right... I was completely gleeful when I made that statement. Making that statement was the highlight of my week and I derived innumberable joy from that moment.

You and OO are correct... I should be more engaging with you. That service academy thing was super fun for me. More of that, please.

Fine -- scratch the word 'gleefully'. Then perhaps address the content. Or just use the gleeful to try a 'lets redirect this away from my absolute inability and refusal to address the issue at hand.' Par for the course, though. Good grief.

Did you read this?

Yep. I guess you find that dispositive. Good for you. Thank you for that prime example of regurgitation.

Edited to add: to be blunt, you have never been 'engaging' about any of the SJW issues that you throw up on the screen as all encompassing 'truisms'. When counters are presented, you just run away. Just noting that this falls in that ongoing and unblemished pattern as well.

Now tell me, if I noted that 'well I spoke to a number of prosecutors who say this wasnt a bad shoot in the slightest', please do tell how much you would take that to the bank, 93? I will tell you, all that 'proof' level would do would earn a sarcastic as hell statement from you about 'all the prosecutors you know.' But, I dont need to tell you that, do I?

So in counter, all the cops I talked to here said the shooting appears clean. Bummer. How about those bones?

And actually, now you state the issue of 'questionable' as reasonable. That is still a huge fallback from your original statement, that no one should even consider it *not* unquestionable. (i.e. you couching that position as a truism). Amazing that.

(06-29-2020 08:25 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  You and OO are correct... I should be more engaging with you. That service academy thing was super fun for me. More of that, please.

Now I will do my best Big impression:

You misunderstand me. How can you? I am always so clear in my own mind.

I just said (speaking more plainly now) that there is a tendency of the leftists on this board to go away when they do not like the way the discussion is going. Multiple cases. Big, you, FBO, and even to a certain extent, Lad. It is just an observation.

Interesting that both you and Big bring up fun(joy). I don't think I get a lot of fun or joy out of this either. But I care about what is happening in the world and country, And I care about how those happenings will affect me and my family, and I need somebody who is pushing for what i consider negative changes to explain to me "why?".

Why are you people pushing for capital gains tax increases, for example. Why a wealth tax? Why do you think that is a good thing to do for the country? And if you believe those are wrong, why are you planning to vote for that platform?

Best I can tell, as I have said many times, my priorities are tax/fiscal policy and foreign policy. I think the goals of most leftists/democrats are rooted in social policy, with finance completely ignored. They ignore fiscal policy except where it impinges on social policy. There seems to be this idea that that the Democrats are the anti-racists and the Republicans the pro-racists(!), and so any cost is OK in the battle against racism. Much like knights going forth to battle for the Holy Land in the Crusades, little thought is given to anything else or long term results.