craichead

What, exactly, are your experiences with a butt plug, dear Robyn? Hmmmm? _Pm __ "Scared of love, love and aeroplanes...falling out, I said takes no brains." -- Andy Partridge (XTC)

But...you give me kisses all the time! And that's all I'll ever demand of you on any "mensiversary." Anniversaries are a whole different ball game, though. _Pm __ "Scared of love, love and aeroplanes...falling out, I said takes no brains." -- Andy Partridge (XTC)

Yah...there are traditional gifts for YEARLY anniversaries. That's what anniversary means. Every YEAR. If you're celebrating months, maybe it would be called a mensiversary. However, since there is no such thing, you don't have to get her anything. And this coming from a chick. Personally, I think celebrating relationships month to month is silly. To each their own, I guess! _Pm __ "Scared of love, love and aeroplanes...falling out, I said takes no brains." -- Andy Partridge (XTC)

Bwahahahaha! You gals crack me up!!! Does Tanja know you're posting about her farts on DZ.com??? _Pm __ "Scared of love, love and aeroplanes...falling out, I said takes no brains." -- Andy Partridge (XTC)

Happy Birthday, my Hubby!!! Have a ! I Love You! _Pm __ "Scared of love, love and aeroplanes...falling out, I said takes no brains." -- Andy Partridge (XTC)

He's running a tandem factory in association with SkyRide about 50 miles outside of Chicago in Sturtevant, Wisconsin. Skydive Midwest _Pm __ "Scared of love, love and aeroplanes...falling out, I said takes no brains." -- Andy Partridge (XTC)

Agreed! ANY smear campaign about skydiving is not good for the community as a whole. I don't go to SDC too often, but I'm glad to see them getting great PR (for all of us!). _Pm __ "Scared of love, love and aeroplanes...falling out, I said takes no brains." -- Andy Partridge (XTC)

I chose "Other." The Canadians will appreciate this... Tim Hortons!!! _Pm

Anybody else catch this at the back of the paper?

Where exactly does someone flat out call PJ a liar? Hmm? I see no evidence of that. _Pm __ "Scared of love, love and aeroplanes...falling out, I said takes no brains." -- Andy Partridge (XTC)

Thought this looked kinda funny. It happened right after I replied to weegegirl's "New Post..." thread. The orange indicator for the unread replies is in front instead of in back. _Pm __ "Scared of love, love and aeroplanes...falling out, I said takes no brains." -- Andy Partridge (XTC)

Same thing happened to me last night in Speaker's Corner. The most recent date/time in the "Post time" column didn't update. _Pm __ "Scared of love, love and aeroplanes...falling out, I said takes no brains." -- Andy Partridge (XTC)

Pay closer attention. The bank is in Michigan. Michigan does not have a waiting period. NRA-ILA Web Site, Michigan State Gun Laws _Pm __ "Scared of love, love and aeroplanes...falling out, I said takes no brains." -- Andy Partridge (XTC)

Okay, all I did was correct your false assumption--did you think I was singling it out to start another debate? Why did you feel it was necessary to say "You don't post like a 'she'"? You've chosen not to respond to a lot of specific points in my posts (and that's fine with me). However, your "100% VAGUE" response can imply any number of things. It may be vague, but it certainly isn't neutral. Especially when you say it in Speaker's Corner and when it's coming from a politically super-charged person such as yourself. So I'm curious (I'm sure many others are, too)--what does a "she" post like? _Pm __ "Scared of love, love and aeroplanes...falling out, I said takes no brains." -- Andy Partridge (XTC)

Now now, Andy...calm down. Do I have to get on your case now about being unnecessarily belligerent? _Pm __ "Scared of love, love and aeroplanes...falling out, I said takes no brains." -- Andy Partridge (XTC)

I just find this kind of funny and wonder why you chose to mention it. Not meant to incite anything.

Finally, arguments and points that are presented in a clear, concise, non-belligerent and reasonable manner. I can finally understand what you're saying, and I'll agree to disagree with you. If you look back at my first post in that Columbine thread, the very first thing I said was "You're right, nothing was clear in Bowling for Columbine." I admitted that right off the bat; perhaps you chose to ignore it. Oh right, you did. Even after AndyMan admitted that he was mistaken as to what "documentary" he was referring to, nearly 30 posts later, you felt the need to go on a rant that turned into a missionistic rampage to prove everything that Michael Moore says is a lie. Within your ranting and raving, you really didn't have any more credibility than Michael Moore. Why should I, or anyone else for that matter, believe that you have more credibility than Michael Moore? Especially when 1) you're practically foaming at the mouth arguing this and 2) you're not presenting any type of evidence to support your claims? We should believe you merely because you're paraphrasing and parroting what you read on other people's web sites? If you look back at the rest of my posts that happen to refer to you, they were to show 1) a missed point by someone else and 2) how poor your arguments were (How many times have I said that?). You're not very credible or clear in many of your posts. If you're going to convince your audience, you have to be...well, more convincing. As far as this is concerned: "A repost for craichead of part of my original post, since he seems tohave forgotten that I made a request of him for information:"--you never answered my (hypothetical) question. If you trace it back to the original argument, I asked you "Why does it matter to you so much that he uses film to tell his stories, and spins those stories radically to the left?" And you said this: So I asked: See how the dialogue progresses? Obviously I know that misinformation is misinformation. I'd lke to know how angry you would be if misinformation came from a successful, popular, right-wing filmmaker. However, all you want to do is try to shove down my throat that all anti-gunners lie. You're throwing in a completely different argument or "request," thereby avoiding answering my questions. And if you really want to know (as if it really makes any difference), I have no firm opinion about gun legislation. If you have/want a gun and are legal to have it, you should be allowed to have it. I just hope that your anger never gets the best of you if/when you happen to have a loaded gun in your hands. And lastly...I'm a she. _Pm Edited to say: I know missionistic isn't a real word, but I didn't want to say "missionary," since somebody might go off about sex or religion. __ "Scared of love, love and aeroplanes...falling out, I said takes no brains." -- Andy Partridge (XTC)

And it looks as though this shows the hypocrisy of the conservative. _Pm __ "Scared of love, love and aeroplanes...falling out, I said takes no brains." -- Andy Partridge (XTC)

How is asking you a question putting words in your mouth? You seem to be enjoying avoiding answering those questions. Let me ask again: If some successful, popular, right-wing filmmaker (blowhard) convinces me through misinformation and misrepresentation of facts/statistics/whatever information to vote for pro-gun legislation, would you be just as angry? It's called a hypothetical question to present a point. But it looks like you missed it, yet again. So why didn't you say that clearly in the first place? "Voting and otherwise" doesn't really clarify anything, does it? Again, another poorly made argument. You were criticizing your coworkers for merely saying that it was a good movie. And let me ask again, do you really think that they're the definitive source on what can be called a documentary? Oh, I see. Everyone, even if they have their own brain to think with, is supposed to rely on some consortium of entertainment moguls to tell them what they can trust as a so-called documentary. Are you implying that all those people who have seen the movie aren't able to think for themselves? That they're not able to see that it is only classified as a documentary, and that doesn't necessarily mean that it's totally factual? Do you think that every person who has seen one of his films believed every single word? Yup, when you needlessly call missiles crap, Titan rockets stupid, suits motherfucking, and try to make an argument that is totally unrelated to the point that my posts were trying to make...you look like a fool, an angry young man, and a toddler throwing a tantrum. Does peacefuljeffrey need a pacifier? Okay, you can call me whatever you want. You can call MM whatever you want, too. Nope, I'm not going to call him a liar because I have no room to. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. I don't believe everything he says, but I'm not going to call him a liar unless I know for absolutely sure all the truth about everything. Do you know the absolute truth about everything? Nothing is ever proven. There is surely evidence to support any argument, but there is no proof of anything. Yup, I think that was valid point saying that Moore's editing was misleading. However, he still used the exact words that Heston said. What's different about that and quoting bits and pieces of supporting text in an academic paper? You don't have to cite everything. Just a few quotes would do. Even a link (which you finally included) is fine. Let me ask you again...if you were in a debate, would you make your opponent go Google for the facts that support your stance? I'm sure that would go over really well in a presidential debate. Or, say you're writing an academic paper--do you tell your professor that you're not going to cite any supporting evidence because it's all already out there? I can just imagine it: "Go search for it, Prof! No? Oh, you can't fail me for your laziness, Prof." Um, you must have missed my post here yet again. Oh look, I've linked to web sites that offer both sides of the argument! I've even acknowledged that the anti-Moore web site has some valid points. Who's the one who doesn't want the facts? _Pm __ "Scared of love, love and aeroplanes...falling out, I said takes no brains." -- Andy Partridge (XTC)

You really think people vote in America? Bwahahahaha! Just kidding (or did that piss you off, too?). Sooo...if some successful, popular, right-wing filmmaker (blowhard) convinces me through misinformation and misrepresentation of facts/statistics/whatever information to vote for pro-gun legislation, would you be just as angry? Or do you really think that all right-wing blowhards tell the absolute truth, too? You think people having the right to their own opinions is a bad thing? You say that you're giving them the benefit of the doubt that they can tell the difference between a so-called documentary and an editorial piece, yet you're assuming that they're "swallowing untruths whole" when they're merely commenting about how they think it's a good movie. Do you need another clue-in? That's called an opinion! I think Bowling for Columbine is a good movie. It's highly entertaining. I laughed...a lot. Maybe you're missing a sense of humour, and satire, and sarcasm. Perhaps that's the problem. Do I believe everything that Michael Moore says? No. Does he make his point and present his political agenda in an entertaining, amusing and satirical fashion? Yes. Just because I don't believe everything he says in the movie, do I have to call it a bad movie? No. Can you call it a bad movie? Sure ya can! It's one of your rights when living in America. Although, I'm still not sure if you've even seen the movie, since you seem to avoid that question whenever it's presented. By the way, the people who tend to like Michael Moore's movies, for whatever reasons, tend to be left of center. It's not like his film is going to instantly convert right to left. It might convince people sitting on the fence to go one way or the other, but are you going to find all those fence-sitters and try to woo them your way? Again with the angry replies. Sheesh. Get a grip--you sound like a toddler in a tantrum. My "Titan rocket" posts weren't even meant to debunk your claims. They were to show how poor your arguments were (are). Your claims and arguments as you presented them were debunked. Your credibility and veracity in that thread are about as good as Michael Moore's. Had you made this post and this post from the very beginning instead of just paraphrasing and parroting what you read on other web sites, maybe you wouldn't look so much the fool and angry young man. If you were in a debate, would you make your opponent go Google for the facts that support your argument? _Pm __ "Scared of love, love and aeroplanes...falling out, I said takes no brains." -- Andy Partridge (XTC)

Good for you that you strive for peace, and you can still do so while entering and participating in a heated debate. However, I don't think calling people lying scumbags and fat sacks of shit (whether they're a non-DZ.commer or not) is the way to promote peace in yourself or others. Nor is the excessive use of the words "motherfucking" and "fucking" very conducive to presenting your arguments in a convincing, educated manner. As Gawain said, don't sweat it--that seems to be your biggest obstacle, especially in regards to Michael Moore. Why does it matter to you so much that he uses film to tell his stories, and spins those stories radically to the left? It's obvious he has a political agenda that clearly doesn't gel with your political agenda. I'm sure there are right-wing filmmakers and storytellers out there who spin facts/statistics/whatever information to support their arguments, too. If you want to argue the "documentary" point again, why don't you give most people the benefit of the doubt that they can tell the difference between a so-called documentary and an editorial piece? They don't need critics and film festivals to tell them what is classified as a documentary. Nor do they have to listen to art critics telling them that a crucifix in urine is art. Oh wait...but maybe most people are like you, and they believe whatever somebody tells them as long as it agrees with their political agendas. So why get so angry? Is it because some of us have pretty much debunked most of your claims (well, at least the claims you read on some other guy's web site and seem to believe and have adopted blindly) in the Columbine thread? Got your feelings hurt? Or maybe something worse--your pride? _Pm __ "Scared of love, love and aeroplanes...falling out, I said takes no brains." -- Andy Partridge (XTC)

Yes, you should stop waiting. Did you even READ my post here? http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1085775#1085775 I said that the Moore-debunking site(s) you were looking at had some valid points. Have you read the page on Moore's web site where he replies to those debunking claims made on the anti-Moore web sites (which you have merely parroted)? I'm still wondering if you've even seen the film. No, I guess you didn't really read that post, or Moore's reply, or haven't seen his movie because you seem to be listening to no one but yourself and whatever those anti-Moore web sites tell you. As far as your poorly executed defenses are concerned, I think they still are--perhaps you should try clicking that link that says "In reply to" so that you can see the thread of posts that led to my "Fact 1 - Fact 2" post. "Logic, it's not just for Vulcans anymore!" -AndyMan _Pm Edited to clarify where Moore's reply to "wackoattackos" appears (his own web site). __ "Scared of love, love and aeroplanes...falling out, I said takes no brains." -- Andy Partridge (XTC)

No, he did not say that the Titan wasn't built there (nor did he say that Titans weren't used as WMD--other people clarified that very well), but he certainly implied it with this, as I said, poorly executed exchange of arguments: billvon: peacefuljeffrey: billvon: ***You mean you think they built an identical missile somewhere else and trucked it in? It was a display model showing what they make there. "That particular missile," if you follow the argument, refers to the Titan on display outside of the plant. Jeffrey is obviously trying to argue that that very missile (sic) on display outside of the plant, was not produced at the Littleton facility, and anything like that rocket on display was not being made there. When billvon made his argument that Titans (no type specified) were used as ICBMs, Jeffrey (knowing that ICBMs can be WMD), gives a weak response that translates to, "Oh yeah? Well, how do you know that that missile was made/was being made at Littleton?" Then of course Bill's facetious "identical missile being trucked in" comment. Reductio ad absurdum. If you're going to defend yourself, do it without making yourself look absolutely ridiculous--maybe give some thought into what you write, and write it clearly (you being that general "you all" thing). Ever heard of a rhetorical question? _Pm Edited for punctuation and clarity. __ "Scared of love, love and aeroplanes...falling out, I said takes no brains." -- Andy Partridge (XTC)

Relative Workshop offers a BOC pouch made of a combination of the two (spandex and cordura) called "Spandura." Here's one of Bill Booth's post about it: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=837595#837595 _Pm __ "Scared of love, love and aeroplanes...falling out, I said takes no brains." -- Andy Partridge (XTC)

Let's look at the original text you quoted from Bill's post, shall we? peacefuljeffrey, in his rather poorly executed defense, is implying that the Titan missile on display outside of the Littleton plant was not produced there, nor do they produce anything of the kind. Fact 1: Titan IV rockets are used to launch satellites. Fact 2: Titan IV rockets are produced at the Littleton Lockheed plant. Show me how Fact 1 negates Fact 2. Would you now like to argue semantics because I (and Jeffrey, and Bill, and you) called it a missile, which implies that it is a weapon? _Pm __ "Scared of love, love and aeroplanes...falling out, I said takes no brains." -- Andy Partridge (XTC)