Saw this as a breaking news banner at NBC
https://twitter.com/USNavy/status/379584916549550080
Several people wounded, gunmen is armed with a rifle and on the loose.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09/16/20522196-gunman-opens-fire-at-navy-yard-in-washington-several-wounded-officials-say?lite
3 shots fired inside Naval Sea Systems Command HQ? Ass is probably involved.
Unusual.
Seems this is still going on.
So far, the score is: as many as 12 shot, 4 dead. DC Metro officer and a base officer wounded. Shooter is either down/wounded/cornered, depending on who's reporting.
At least we can all take comfort in the fact that the shooter's right to an assault rifle wasn't interfered with prior to the shooting.
I find it hard to believe that in a secured military base, located in a city with extensive firearm regulations, someone managed to secure a firearm illegally and then use it to illegally shoot other people. Clearly, the Washington Naval Yard needs more gun control.
Heard a report there could be three gunmen.
@Scipio, if Kleves is right the gun were obtained legally. :P
The solution is to ban privately-owned guns in the United States.
So I just opened up Facebook and the first "our thoughts and prayers are with the victims" post from a company I see was made by... Glock. :sleep:
Quote from: Caliga on September 16, 2013, 11:55:15 AM
So I just opened up Facebook and the first "our thoughts and prayers are with the victims" post from a company I see was made by... Glock. :sleep:
:lol:
Quote from: Scipio on September 16, 2013, 11:32:26 AM
I find it hard to believe that in a secured military base, located in a city with extensive firearm regulations, someone managed to secure a firearm illegally and then use it to illegally shoot other people. Clearly, the Washington Naval Yard needs more gun control.
That's what happens when you have lax laws elsewhere.
I kind of wonder if these other 'possible shooters' were workers in the building firing back at the shooter. :hmm:
They're saying several shooters so my first thoughts were a terrorist attack, especially given that it's at a prominent Naval Shipyard.
QuoteThe dead suspect in Monday's killings at the Washington Navy Yard has been identified as Aaron Alexis, a 34-year-old military contractor from Texas, the Washington FBI Field Office told CNN's Pamela Brown.
Just heard on NPR/BBC that there are two suspects, one white who is dressed in tan Navy style uniform with a beret, one black wearing olive military style uniform. Sounded like they are still at large.
Don't mess with Texas?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 16, 2013, 03:13:14 PM
Just heard on NPR/BBC that there are two suspects, one white who is dressed in tan Navy style uniform with a beret, one black wearing olive military style uniform. Sounded like they are still at large.
PC gone mad.
The solution is clear: ban naval shipyards.
Quote from: Scipio on September 16, 2013, 03:15:13 PM
The solution is clear: ban naval shipyards.
exactly. Without naval shipyards nobody would ever be able to kill another person with a gun.
The Washington Naval Yard isn't a shipyard. It used to be an ordnance station, but now is just offices and a cool museum. They moved NavSea there from Crystal City a few years back.
Quote from: grumbler on September 16, 2013, 03:34:51 PM
The Washington Naval Yard isn't a shipyard. It used to be an ordnance station, but now is just offices and a cool museum. They moved NavSea there from Crystal City a few years back.
And Scipio was so close to solving the problem of violent crime :cry:
Quote from: grumbler on September 16, 2013, 03:34:51 PM
The Washington Naval Yard isn't a shipyard. It used to be an ordnance station, but now is just offices and a cool museum. They moved NavSea there from Crystal City a few years back.
Then the solution is to just close all offices and cool museums?
We can get our work done in the lame museums.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on September 16, 2013, 03:13:46 PM
Don't mess with Texas?
Ole Miss and BYU didn't have any problems.
Apparently not a crazy white cracker.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.nbcdfw.com%2Fimages%2F654%2A368%2Faaron-alexis-inset-wm.jpg&hash=7b8af0b5f5c8622c518e47ab498e58a6881d74f1)
BAN BLACK PEOPLE :mad:
Quote from: Caliga on September 16, 2013, 03:49:11 PM
BAN BLACK PEOPLE :mad:
Tried and failed.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.bbcimg.co.uk%2Fmedia%2Fimages%2F53348000%2Fgif%2F_53348565_liberia.gif&hash=179da19e9160970633f9437e127c492a53716086)
Oh right, I forgot.
The news is just besides themselves as to how this guy got on and got the weapons on base. :rolleyes: Quite easy really. Security postures have degraded significantly in the last couple years.
Sequester and Continuing Resolution. Fucking Moron reporters. What do you think the Navy is cutting.
and now they got some hippy HRO cunt on Fox.
Quote from: 11B4V on September 16, 2013, 03:57:28 PM
and now they got some hippy HRO cunt on Fox.
You watch Fox for news? You get what you deserve. :P
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 16, 2013, 03:58:46 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on September 16, 2013, 03:57:28 PM
and now they got some hippy HRO cunt on Fox.
You watch Fox for news? You get what you deserve. :P
The comedy buddy. ;)
Quote from: 11B4V on September 16, 2013, 03:56:18 PM
The news is just besides themselves as to how this guy got on and got the weapons on base. :rolleyes: Quite easy really. Security postures have degraded significantly in the last couple years.
Sequester and Continuing Resolution. Fucking Moron reporters. What do you think the Navy is cutting.
The last time I went to Fort Jackson, it would have been preposterously easy to get weapons in. By "easy" I mean "I would put them in my trunk and after I drove through the checkpoint I would take them out."
Fortunately, I was too busy enjoying the lazy river at the base waterpark to take any kind of action against society.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 16, 2013, 04:00:15 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on September 16, 2013, 03:56:18 PM
The news is just besides themselves as to how this guy got on and got the weapons on base. :rolleyes: Quite easy really. Security postures have degraded significantly in the last couple years.
Sequester and Continuing Resolution. Fucking Moron reporters. What do you think the Navy is cutting.
The last time I went to Fort Jackson, it would have been preposterously easy to get weapons in. By "easy" I mean "I would put them in my trunk and after I drove through the checkpoint I would take them out."
Fortunately, I was too busy enjoying the lazy river at the base waterpark to take any kind of action against society.
Yip.
Crap, now it looks like we will have to ban Naval Reservists. :(
The Zoomies at Wright Patt will be put out now that they have to do more than glance and wave through people now.
Obama: "If I had a son, he'd look likeQuote from: 11B4V on September 16, 2013, 03:48:30 PM
Apparently not a crazy white cracker.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.nbcdfw.com%2Fimages%2F654%2A368%2Faaron-alexis-inset-wm.jpg&hash=7b8af0b5f5c8622c518e47ab498e58a6881d74f1)
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 16, 2013, 09:52:12 AM
So far, the score is: as many as 12 shot, 4 dead. DC Metro officer and a base officer wounded. Shooter is either down/wounded/cornered, depending on who's reporting.
The toll is up to 12 dead. :(
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09/16/20522196-at-least-12-killed-in-shooting-rampage-at-washington-navy-yard-chief-says?lite
The comments section turned quickly to ban all guns/kill all Muslims/don't ban all guns.
Twitter blows ass. Nobody should use it.
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 16, 2013, 04:50:33 PM
The Zoomies at Wright Patt will be put out now that they have to do more than glance and wave through people now.
It's called, "Change in working conditions." :P
I can't be bothered to wade through the wall to wall live news coverage over here of this, so what's a exec.sum. of what happened, by whom, weapons involved etc?
Quote from: mongers on September 16, 2013, 05:18:32 PM
I can't be bothered to wade through the wall to wall live news coverage over here of this, so what's a exec.sum. of what happened, by whom, weapons involved etc?
Black guy shoots people.
I thought it was a black guy and a white guy.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 16, 2013, 05:25:13 PM
I thought it was a black guy and a white guy.
The creepy ass cracker was cleared. They are looking for another black guy.
Quote from: mongers on September 16, 2013, 05:18:32 PM
I can't be bothered to wade through the wall to wall live news coverage over here of this, so what's a exec.sum. of what happened, by whom, weapons involved etc?
No story line that can easily be summarized in a 10 second sound bite has yet emerged and so confusion reigns supreme.
Quote(Newser) – The FBI has identified the alleged shooter responsible for today's Washington Navy Yard shooting as Aaron Alexis, a 34-year-old from Fort Worth Texas, the Washington Post reports. At the same press conference, officials confirmed the death toll in the shooting has risen to 13—including Alexis. Alexis served four years in the Navy as a full-time reservist, and was discharged in 2011. Sources tell the AP that Alexis has a criminal record—CBS reports that he was arrested in 2010 for discharging a firearm in public—but nonetheless has a concealed carry permit in Texas. During the shooting, he was allegedly carrying a semiautomatic 9 mm pistol and an AR-15 assault rifle, reports NBC Washington.
Authorities are investigating whether Alexis was working as a defense contractor or a civilian employee of the Navy, and whether he was assigned to the navy yard, reports the Post, but authorities believe he got into the naval yard using someone else's ID card. CBS reports that the ID belonged to one Rollie Chance, who has been on administrative leave since October. Chance says he does not know Alexis. Meanwhile, police are still searching for a second possible suspect in the shooting, described as a black man between 40 and 50, wearing an olive drab and armed with a "long gun", reports NBC Washington.
Quote from: 11B4V on September 16, 2013, 05:27:45 PM
(Newser) – The FBI has identified the alleged shooter responsible for today's Washington Navy Yard shooting as Aaron Alexis, a 34-year-old from Fort Worth Texas, the Washington Post reports. At the same press conference, officials confirmed the death toll in the shooting has risen to 13—including Alexis. Alexis served four years in the Navy as a full-time reservist, and was discharged in 2011. Sources tell the AP that Alexis has a criminal record—CBS reports that he was arrested in 2010 for discharging a firearm in public—but nonetheless has a concealed carry permit in Texas. During the shooting, he was allegedly carrying a semiautomatic 9 mm pistol and an AR-15 assault rifle, reports NBC Washington.
Texas :rolleyes:
The DC chief of police is a white chick. By 250 pound dyke standards she looked pretty good.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 16, 2013, 05:29:50 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on September 16, 2013, 05:27:45 PM
(Newser) – The FBI has identified the alleged shooter responsible for today's Washington Navy Yard shooting as Aaron Alexis, a 34-year-old from Fort Worth Texas, the Washington Post reports. At the same press conference, officials confirmed the death toll in the shooting has risen to 13—including Alexis. Alexis served four years in the Navy as a full-time reservist, and was discharged in 2011. Sources tell the AP that Alexis has a criminal record—CBS reports that he was arrested in 2010 for discharging a firearm in public—but nonetheless has a concealed carry permit in Texas. During the shooting, he was allegedly carrying a semiautomatic 9 mm pistol and an AR-15 assault rifle, reports NBC Washington.
Texas :rolleyes:
According to the law, he held the CHL illegally then, assuming he was convicted of the public discharge. The article only says he as
arrested.
Quote from: 11B4V on September 16, 2013, 05:27:45 PM
Quote(Newser) – The FBI has identified the alleged shooter responsible for today's Washington Navy Yard shooting as Aaron Alexis, a 34-year-old from Fort Worth Texas, the Washington Post reports. At the same press conference, officials confirmed the death toll in the shooting has risen to 13—including Alexis. Alexis served four years in the Navy as a full-time reservist, and was discharged in 2011. Sources tell the AP that Alexis has a criminal record—CBS reports that he was arrested in 2010 for discharging a firearm in public—but nonetheless has a concealed carry permit in Texas. During the shooting, he was allegedly carrying a semiautomatic 9 mm pistol and an AR-15 assault rifle, reports NBC Washington.
Authorities are investigating whether Alexis was working as a defense contractor or a civilian employee of the Navy, and whether he was assigned to the navy yard, reports the Post, but authorities believe he got into the naval yard using someone else's ID card. CBS reports that the ID belonged to one Rollie Chance, who has been on administrative leave since October. Chance says he does not know Alexis. Meanwhile, police are still searching for a second possible suspect in the shooting, described as a black man between 40 and 50, wearing an olive drab and armed with a "long gun", reports NBC Washington.
Not convicted, thus, don't count.
Isn't is standard practice for Texans to discharge two guns into the air simultaneously at any and all occasions?
Quote from: DGuller on September 16, 2013, 05:50:57 PM
Isn't is standard practice for Texans to discharge two guns into the air simultaneously at any and all occasions?
While hopping.
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 16, 2013, 06:06:11 PM
Quote from: DGuller on September 16, 2013, 05:50:57 PM
Isn't is standard practice for Texans to discharge two guns into the air simultaneously at any and all occasions?
While hopping.
On their vaginas.
Reports of 'shots' heard near the White House.
edit:
BREAKING | Reuters news agency reports agents telling White House bystanders to go inside after reports of shots heard. More soon.
edit2:
BREAKING | White House locked down after man set off firecrackers, hours after gun massacre at a US naval base in Washington. More soon.
Quote from: mongers on September 16, 2013, 06:07:56 PM
Reports of 'shots' heard near the White House.
edit:
BREAKING | Reuters news agency reports agents telling White House bystanders to go inside after reports of shots heard. More soon.
edit2:
BREAKING | White House locked down after man set off firecrackers, hours after gun massacre at a US naval base in Washington. More soon.
'murica. Fuck yeah.
In addition to being a former Navy reservist, Secretary of Navy says shooter may have been a defense contractor working for the Navy in information technology.
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/16/live-updates-from-washington-navy-yard-shootings/#suspect-was-a-navy-contractor-navy-secretary-says
So not former cop who worked in information security? Good news.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 16, 2013, 06:33:15 PM
So not former cop who worked in information security? Good news.
:lol:
Quote from: Scipio on September 16, 2013, 05:43:21 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on September 16, 2013, 05:27:45 PM
Quote(Newser) – The FBI has identified the alleged shooter responsible for today's Washington Navy Yard shooting as Aaron Alexis, a 34-year-old from Fort Worth Texas, the Washington Post reports. At the same press conference, officials confirmed the death toll in the shooting has risen to 13—including Alexis. Alexis served four years in the Navy as a full-time reservist, and was discharged in 2011. Sources tell the AP that Alexis has a criminal record—CBS reports that he was arrested in 2010 for discharging a firearm in public—but nonetheless has a concealed carry permit in Texas. During the shooting, he was allegedly carrying a semiautomatic 9 mm pistol and an AR-15 assault rifle, reports NBC Washington.
Authorities are investigating whether Alexis was working as a defense contractor or a civilian employee of the Navy, and whether he was assigned to the navy yard, reports the Post, but authorities believe he got into the naval yard using someone else's ID card. CBS reports that the ID belonged to one Rollie Chance, who has been on administrative leave since October. Chance says he does not know Alexis. Meanwhile, police are still searching for a second possible suspect in the shooting, described as a black man between 40 and 50, wearing an olive drab and armed with a "long gun", reports NBC Washington.
Not convicted, thus, don't count.
From what I've read, he was never even charged with anything. He told the cops that his gun had accidentally discharged while he was cleaning it, and I guess there wasn't enough evidence to the contrary to pursue the matter any further.
9.5 quatloos says Rollie Chance is going down.
Depends on whether he reported the ID missing.
QuoteBy Monday afternoon, a portrait of Alexis had begun to emerge. He lived until recently in Fort Worth, where he was seen frequently at a Buddhist temple, meditating and helping out. He was pursuing a bachelor's of science degree in aeronautics as an online student at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University.
Methinks he didn't really get the message. :hmm:
Quote from: Caliga on September 16, 2013, 07:19:30 PM
QuoteBy Monday afternoon, a portrait of Alexis had begun to emerge. He lived until recently in Fort Worth, where he was seen frequently at a Buddhist temple, meditating and helping out. He was pursuing a bachelor's of science degree in aeronautics as an online student at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University.
Methinks he didn't really get the message. :hmm:
or a new militant arm of the Buddhists. :P
Quote from: Caliga on September 16, 2013, 07:19:30 PM
QuoteBy Monday afternoon, a portrait of Alexis had begun to emerge. He lived until recently in Fort Worth, where he was seen frequently at a Buddhist temple, meditating and helping out. He was pursuing a bachelor's of science degree in aeronautics as an online student at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University.
Methinks he didn't really get the message. :hmm:
You've not being following the recent news from Burma have you? :P
I don't care about anything Burma related unless they decide to bring Burma-Shave back. :sleep:
Quote from: Caliga on September 16, 2013, 07:19:30 PM
QuoteBy Monday afternoon, a portrait of Alexis had begun to emerge. He lived until recently in Fort Worth, where he was seen frequently at a Buddhist temple, meditating and helping out. He was pursuing a bachelor's of science degree in aeronautics as an online student at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University.
Methinks he didn't really get the message. :hmm:
Maybe the temple was run by Sri Lankans?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 16, 2013, 05:38:51 PM
The DC chief of police is a white chick. By 250 pound dyke standards she looked pretty good.
She's been around for years; my old boss used to work for her directly. Smarter than the average female bear.
I think her husband was a sergeant for the longest time. Anyway, she outranks the shit out of him.
Looks like this dude had serious anger management issues.
http://spdblotter.seattle.gov/2013/09/16/suspect-in-navy-yard-attack-previously-arrested-in-seattle-for-anger-fueled-shooting/
Quote
Suspect In Navy Yard Attack Previously Arrested In Seattle For "Anger-Fueled" Shooting
Written by Jonah Spangenthal-Lee on September 16, 2013
Aaron Alexis, the man identified by Washington D.C. police as a suspect in this morning's tragic attack on a US Navy Yard, was previously arrested by Seattle police in 2004 for shooting out the tires of another man's vehicle in what Alexis later described to detectives as an anger-fueled "blackout."
Because Seattle police have received numerous inquiries about the incident, we are posting the details, detective logs, and the original report for the May 6, 2004 case.
At about 8 am that morning, two construction workers had parked their 1986 Honda Accord in the driveway of their worksite, next to a home where Alexis was staying in the Beacon Hill neighborhood.
The victims reported seeing a man, later identified by police as Alexis, walk out of the home next to their worksite, pull a gun from his waistband and fire three shots into the two rear tires of their Honda before he walked slowly back to his home north of the construction site.
Officers responded to the scene but were unable to locate Alexis, and no one answered the door at his home.
When detectives interviewed workers and a manager at the construction site, they told police Alexis had "stared" at construction workers at the job site every day over the last month prior to the shooting. The owner of the construction business told police he believed Alexis was angry over the parking situation around the work site.
Detective notes from the incident indicate they made several attempts to contact Alexis by phone and at his work, but eventually found and arrested him outside of his home on June 3rd.
Police then obtained permission to search the home, found a gun and ammunition in Alexis' room, and booked him into the King County Jail for malicious mischief.
Following his arrest, Alexis told detectives he perceived he had been "mocked" by construction workers the morning of the incident and said they had "disrespected him." Alexis also claimed he had an anger-fueled "blackout," and could not remember firing his gun at the victims' vehicle until an hour after the incident.
Alexis also told police he was present during "the tragic events of September 11, 2001″ and described "how those events had disturbed him."
Detectives later spoke with Alexis' father, who lived in New York at the time, who told police Alexis had anger management problems associated with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, and that Alexis had been an active participant in rescue attempts on September 11th, 2001.
Detectives referred the case to the Seattle Municipal Court for charges.
The Seattle Police Department has no further comment on this 2004 incident. PDFs of the original department records can be downloaded here.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/aaron-alexis-34-is-dead-gunman-in-navy-yard-shooting-authorities-say/2013/09/16/dcf431ce-1f07-11e3-8459-657e0c72fec8_story_2.html
Quotepage 3...
Soon after, Srisan Somsak, a Thai immigrant in Fort Worth, met Alexis at the Wat Busayadhammavanaram Meditation Center, where Alexis had occasionally practiced meditation starting in the summer of 2010. Alexis said he needed a place to stay, and Somsak offered him a two-bedroom white bungalow a short walk away — if he promised not to smoke or drink. Alexis rented the place for $600 a month and never missed a payment, said Somsak, 57.
"He's a good boy," said Somsak, who spoke halting English. "Everybody would say, 'He's a good boy.' "
Alexis occasionally meditated at the temple and helped there when needed, said Somsak, who was impressed that his tenant studied the Thai language and visited Thailand.
On Monday, as word spread about the shootings, the temple filled with members eager to share recollections of Alexis. "They don't believe it that he could kill 12 people like that," Somsak said. "I think probably somebody tried to put him down. I don't know. Did somebody try to discriminate against him?"
Somsak asked Alexis only once why he had left his job at the naval base. It was a brief conversation.
"I asked him, 'Why you quit the job with the government?' " Somsak said. "He said, 'Somebody doesn't like me.' "
Somsak left it there, he said, because "I don't want to go too deep with him."
Alexis visited the center about twice a week and was known as a quiet, if tightly wound, participant, a temple staff member said.
"He would help people if they came in carrying heavy things," said J. Sirun, an assistant to the monks. "From the outside, he was a quiet person. But on the inside, I think he was very aggressive. He did not like to be close with anybody, like a soldier who has been at war."
Sirun said he avoided Alexis, who preferred to keep to himself. But Alexis was no loner; he had many Thai friends and spoke Thai "very well," Sirun said. "He understood about 75 percent of the language."
Customers saw him studying Thai at a table there during his off hours. Alexis stopped showing up at the Buddhist center early in 2011, he said. "I didn't think he could be this violent," he said. "I would not have been surprised to hear he had committed suicide. But I didn't think he could commit murder."
Obviously, we should ban people from studying the Thai language.
QuoteGray said those killed by the shooter ranged in age from 46-73 years old. He said the families of seven of the victims had been notified.
Those victims were identified as:
Michael Arnold, 59;
Sylvia Frasier, 53;
Kathy Gaarde, 62;
John Roger Johnson, 73;
Frank Kohler, 50;
Bernard Proctor, 46;
and Vishnu Pandit, 61.
That's one way to eliminate civilian pensions.
QuoteThe FBI was still interviewing every person leaving the base out of concern that a second suspect may still be at large, French said. And SWAT teams are still finding people hiding in places on the base, where some had remained hunkered down since the initial attack early Monday morning. One city officials said that shortly before 7 p.m., officers found an employee hiding in a locker, where the employee had been for nearly 11 hours.
Talk about shelter-in-place. Damn.
QuoteAdm. Jonathan W. Greenert, the chief of Naval Operations, was evacuated from his residence at the Navy Yard complex shortly after the first report of shots fired, Navy officials said.
Greenert, a four-star admiral and member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was safely evacuated to the Pentagon along with his wife, Darleen, said Cmdr. Ryan Perry, a Navy spokesman.
And to think, Admiral Wu, the CinC for the PLAN, was just in his office last week during in US tour of naval facilities. Now that would've made for interesting press.
Why are events like the naval depot shooting getting wall to wall coverage and outpourings of public grief for the victims ?
I thought the gun debate had been won with the pro side winning, a significant majority of Americans now consistently supporting little or no change to gun rights.
Why not just accept these events are a natural consequence of having so readily available weapons. And it doesn't appear anyone or any organisation can change that.
So why not just report these events as the 2nd or 3rd news item, give it a couple of minutes and get on reporting and considering the 'real' important news ?
That's unless there isn't some weird grief/breaking news pornography going on, where people actually gain some emotional exercise/workout from reacting to these by now fairly common events ?
Has British media stopped reporting on Syria?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 17, 2013, 06:35:44 PM
Has British media stopped reporting on Syria?
A fair bit down certainly, haven't seen enough US coverage to see how they compare.
Quote from: mongers on September 17, 2013, 06:23:47 PM
That's unless there isn't some weird grief/breaking news pornography going on, where people actually gain some emotional exercise/workout from reacting to these by now fairly common events ?
This.
Quote from: citizen k on September 17, 2013, 06:52:10 PM
Quote from: mongers on September 17, 2013, 06:23:47 PM
That's unless there isn't some weird grief/breaking news pornography going on, where people actually gain some emotional exercise/workout from reacting to these by now fairly common events ?
This.
Yeah, which is why I myself has stopped watching these type of events, the 'temptation' is there to indulge so to speak.
Quote from: citizen k on September 17, 2013, 06:52:10 PM
Quote from: mongers on September 17, 2013, 06:23:47 PM
That's unless there isn't some weird grief/breaking news pornography going on, where people actually gain some emotional exercise/workout from reacting to these by now fairly common events ?
This.
Yep. That's always been true, and probably always will be. I don't get the weird darts porn I saw in Britain when I lived there, nor the weird "One Man and His Dog" porn, but there you are.
Quote from: grumbler on September 17, 2013, 07:02:54 PM
nor the weird "One Man and His Dog" porn, but there you are.
The Brain can educate you.
Ruff
I have no idea what "Dart porn" is. The Man/dog thing seems self explanatory.
Quote from: grumbler on September 17, 2013, 07:02:54 PM
Quote from: citizen k on September 17, 2013, 06:52:10 PM
Quote from: mongers on September 17, 2013, 06:23:47 PM
That's unless there isn't some weird grief/breaking news pornography going on, where people actually gain some emotional exercise/workout from reacting to these by now fairly common events ?
This.
Yep. That's always been true, and probably always will be. I don't get the weird darts porn I saw in Britain when I lived there, nor the weird "One Man and His Dog" porn, but there you are.
You regard gun outrages as a form of light entertainment, that figures.
Quote from: mongers on September 17, 2013, 06:23:47 PM
Why are events like the naval depot shooting getting wall to wall coverage and outpourings of public grief for the victims ?
It really isn't getting at much wall-to-wall coverage here. At least, not compared to Sandy Hook. It's just another mass shooting.
QuoteI thought the gun debate had been won with the pro side winning, a significant majority of Americans now consistently supporting little or no change to gun rights.
Why not just accept these events are a natural consequence of having so readily available weapons. And it doesn't appear anyone or any organisation can change that.
Shootings, and mass shootings in particular, have pretty much become the equivalent of motor vehicle accidents: somebody is going to die driving to work work tomorrow; you just hope it's not you or anybody you know, and if there's a mass shooting, you just hope you're not around when whoever it it is finally pops.
It's just an integral part of living in America.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 17, 2013, 07:21:59 PM
Quote from: mongers on September 17, 2013, 06:23:47 PM
Why are events like the naval depot shooting getting wall to wall coverage and outpourings of public grief for the victims ?
It really isn't getting at much wall-to-wall coverage here. At least, not compared to Sandy Hook. It's just another mass shooting.
QuoteI thought the gun debate had been won with the pro side winning, a significant majority of Americans now consistently supporting little or no change to gun rights.
Why not just accept these events are a natural consequence of having so readily available weapons. And it doesn't appear anyone or any organisation can change that.
Shootings, and mass shootings in particular, have pretty much become the equivalent of motor vehicle accidents: somebody is going to die driving to work work tomorrow; you just hope it's not you or anybody you know, and if there's a mass shooting, you just hope you're not around when whoever it it is finally pops.
It's just an integral part of living in America.
So the coverage I see over here, is in large part a reflection of our media's bias/obsession with happenings in America ?
Quote from: mongers on September 17, 2013, 07:25:51 PM
So the coverage I see over here, is in large part a reflection of our media's bias/obsession with happenings in America ?
Let's not forget the main domestic news is the Lib Dem conference :lol:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 17, 2013, 07:21:59 PM
work work
Sort of like rape rape?
I take exception to monger's implicit argument that the only thing that renders a shooting story newsworthy is if it leads to stricter gun controls.
Quote from: mongers on September 17, 2013, 07:25:51 PM
So the coverage I see over here, is in large part a reflection of our media's bias/obsession with happenings in America ?
More like bias/obsession of how utterly common and fucked up mass shootings in the US may seem to you, :bowler: but it's just another fading topic on the news cycle issue here.
The easiest place to kill people is in a military base.
Nobody is allowed to carry weapons inside.
Criminals and terrorists, who of course don't obey the law, just need to place their weapons under the seats or in the trunk.
Then they can shoot as many people as they want, without fear of one of their victims shooting back.
And by the way, the only thing you need for a pass to get on post, is a valid driver license. That's it.
Quote from: Siege on September 17, 2013, 09:28:20 PM
And by the way, the only thing you need for a pass to get on post, is a valid driver license. That's it.
And the shooter was a defense contractor with a secret clearance doing IT work. Government really needs to stop handing those out like candy. :mad:
Quote from: Siege on September 17, 2013, 09:26:03 PM
The easiest place to kill people is in a military base.
Nobody is allowed to carry weapons inside.
Criminals and terrorists, who of course don't obey the law, just need to place their weapons under the seats or in the trunk.
Then they can shoot as many people as they want, without fear of one of their victims shooting back.
Siege, stop. Whatever you are planning, don't do it.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 17, 2013, 07:21:59 PM
It really isn't getting at much wall-to-wall coverage here. At least, not compared to Sandy Hook. It's just another mass shooting.
It's not getting as much because no children were shot this time. :contract:
Quote from: mongers on September 17, 2013, 07:12:11 PM
You regard gun outrages as a form of light entertainment, that figures.
I do? I never knew (or even suspected) that. Thanks for telling me what I think.
Quote from: grumbler on September 18, 2013, 06:29:03 AM
Quote from: mongers on September 17, 2013, 07:12:11 PM
You regard gun outrages as a form of light entertainment, that figures.
I do? I never knew (or even suspected) that. Thanks for telling me what I think.
It's what you often do on the forum, 'rephrasing' other's posts. So glad I could be of service. :cool:
Quote from: Caliga on September 18, 2013, 04:52:50 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 17, 2013, 07:21:59 PM
It really isn't getting at much wall-to-wall coverage here. At least, not compared to Sandy Hook. It's just another mass shooting.
It's not getting as much because no children were shot this time. :contract:
Or, you could repeat what i wrote if you like.
Thanks, don't mind if I do.
I see your Sunoco Rise N' Shine egg and cheese breakfast biscuit has got you going this morning.
LOL, the "new normal"? I was 13 when that fool in California walked into the McDonald's with an Uzi. Mass shootings have been the "new normal" for decades.
If anything, discussing gun control has been the exception; lucky for us, we're back to normal.
QuoteAfter Navy Yard shooting, RIP for gun control
By Dana Milbank, Published: September 17
Why can't conservatives just take the win on gun rights?
On Monday morning, President Obama didn't even try to use the massacre at the Washington Navy Yard to revive the gun- control debate. He praised the "patriots" who were targeted by the gunman, offered the requisite thoughts and prayers, and, without any overt call for gun restrictions, moved on to Syria, the economic recovery and his budget fight with Republicans.
Rather than accept this surrender on gun control, Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus accused Obama of a "bizarre response" to the shootings, and House Speaker John Boehner complained the president didn't "rise above partisanship."
"President Obama delivered only brief condolences for the victims of the shooting at the Navy Yard in Washington, D.C., Monday morning, before quickly pivoting to a scheduled attack on Republicans," protested the conservative Daily Caller.
Of course, conservatives would have been even more indignant had Obama used the occasion to talk about gun control, as he did after the Newtown, Conn., massacre. His response was really a tacit acknowledgment that there is no hope of reviving even the modest gun measure that failed in the Senate in April. If 20 slain first-graders didn't move Congress, the killing of a dozen adults — a depressingly ordinary event in this violence-numb nation — wasn't about to change the equation.
Obama continues to favor gun control, which he reiterated Tuesday when asked by Telemundo in an interview. But the issue, for the foreseeable future, is settled: Gun control is dead.
Days earlier in Colorado, voters tossed out two state senators because they had supported laws requiring background checks for gun transfers and limiting the capacity of ammunition clips. That dashed hopes that gun-control advances could be made in the states if not in Washington.
Some of Congress's most fervent gun-control advocates, Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), made their ritual pleas for legislation, but they were going through the motions. "God forbid we go on with business as usual and not understand what happened yesterday," Durbin said on the Senate floor. He then proceeded with business as usual, looking up at the public gallery and debating Republicans on Obamacare.
Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) didn't even go through the motions. He said at a Politico breakfast Tuesday that the recall vote in Colorado "does not bode well for asking people to vote for legislation similar to that which went down in the Senate just a few months ago."
In the Senate, Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) put out word that he had no intention of reviving the legislation he wrote with Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) to keep guns away from the mentally unstable and the violent. When it failed in April, Manchin vowed to reintroduce it.
Instead, lawmakers resumed their usual speeches and squabbles over issues big and small: health care, the debt ceiling, energy, abortion, food stamps, the judiciary, Benghazi, Libya, school vouchers, Native American gambling and education in the Northern Mariana Islands.
The shootings earned, at best, a respectful pause. Treasury Secretary Jack Lew, reading from a script at a breakfast Tuesday, offered "thoughts and prayers" as well as "deep condolences" — and then gave a speech on economic conditions.
Doug Elmendorf, director of the Congressional Budget Office, didn't even mention the shootings at a news conference releasing his latest projections. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid opened the chamber by requesting a moment of silence for the Navy Yard victims but within five minutes was talking about the "hypocritical and mean-spirited" GOP strategy on health care. "It's time for Republicans," he said, "to grow up."
John Thune (R-S.D.) had it about right when he said on the Senate floor: "The business of the country goes on, the business of the Senate goes on, but for the families of the victims of that tragedy yesterday, things stand still. And it's important for all of us, I think, to take a moment and to mourn with them."
Nineteen seconds later, Thune resumed his condemnation of Obama's economic record.
At the White House on Tuesday, the Associated Press's Julie Pace noted Obama's subdued response to the shooting and asked if "maybe there's some sort of numbness among the public since these shootings have happened so frequently." Another questioner asked if there's "an exhaustion and an acceptance that this is the new normal."
Press secretary Jay Carney said the president "doesn't accept that it's the new normal."
Maybe not. But the loss of hope for gun control is becoming a durable abnormal.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 18, 2013, 06:53:09 AM
I see your Sunoco Rise N' Shine egg and cheese breakfast biscuit has got you going this morning.
:sleep:
I actually had tostadas and cafe con leche for breakfast today. Cuba libre!
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/09/18/the-lies-that-bind-us-the-mainstream-media-and-gaming/
QuoteIn the wake of the terrible shootings in Washington on Monday, today's Mirror front page looks like this. Call Of Duty blamed. And the paper is certainly not alone. Meanwhile, a couple of weeks ago we were hearing how gaming improves multitasking skills, keeping our "brains younger". Except last week we were told that multitasking is bad for us, and "computers weaken our brain". However it's approached, the mainstream media really doesn't seem to know what to do with gaming.
Of course, the representation of gaming as a social phenomenon usually stays in a darker place. Yesterday and today the press was filled with frighteningly ill-informed and scaremongering pieces about how the tragic shooting at the US naval base was caused by videogames. Never mind that the same man also allegedly believed he was receiving messages sent to him via a microwave, and heard voices speaking to him through walls and ceilings – it wasn't the severe mental illness, it was the videogames. The newspapers say so.
While occasionally peculiarly heralded as changing us into superhumans, games are simultaneously reported as being responsible for the worst acts of humans, dangerous to us all. It's a mess. So here's a sort of guide to dealing with gaming stories in the mainstream media:
1) Why is there a story at all?
Videogames are still, despite their ubiquity, treated as a novelty. This anachronistic approach to something that most people are engaging with on some level appears increasingly bemusing, but it's very much a part of the Old Guard that still runs newspapers. Newspaper editors are not young. Even the Grauniad's Alan Rusbridger is a year off 60. The Times is currently headed by temporary insert John Witherow who's 53. The Daily Mail's foul-mouthed Paul Dacre is 64 going on 90. And while the Telegraph's editor of the last four years, Tony Gallagher, is a year off 50, its average reader is around 194. (It's notable that the one paper that mostly avoids this nonsense (but not entirely) is the Independent, now edited by tiny baby Amol Rajan, born in 1983.) And of course NewsCorp that owns the Times, the Sun, and Fox News is under the dictatorship of a man aged 82. Of course age does not discriminate someone from playing games, and indeed the first generation of gaming enthusiasts are now in their 60s and 70s. But all too often it means that those controlling the media output grew up without games being part of their lives, and indeed a significant part of wider society.
From this perspective, videogames remain this peculiarity, like a strange floating orb that's descended from space, to be treated with fear and suspicion. Might this orb at any moment suddenly open up and release a gas that wipes out all of humanity?! We must remain ever vigilant, and report every possibly associated reaction.
The result of this becomes something akin to a woo therapy, where placebo is accepted as efficacy, and correlation is reported as causation. When tragedies occur, mainsteam media outlets are quick to look for the gaming history of the culprit, and of course when most young men are playing games, find one. They don't look for a history of eating fast food, or ten pin bowling, or going for wees, but instead for the VIOLENT VIDEO GAMES and then retrospectively apply their diagnosis.
So these stories seem to primarily exist because of an artificially assumed novelty, an out-of-touch belief that these games are a new invasion on a previously untarnished society, and thus the cause of all ills.
2) Who is this story for?
It's not us.
Let's imagine a different circumstance. There's been a new scientific breakthrough in nanobiology. Scientists have discovered a newer, more efficient way to guide particular proteins using implanted magnetic beads. Within this niche of scientific research, the recently published paper on this finding is of huge interest, opening up many possibilities for further research. It's speculated that this could lead to significant improvements in immunoprecipitation. And a PR for the research group has sent out press releases to the media, in the hope of getting a story out there, thus attention for the group and better chances of further funding. So what's the story we read? Well, you can bet it isn't going to include the word "immunoprecipitation", and is going to include the words "curing cancer". The story published would be one of unidentified great speculation, reporting the potential uses of this development as if they are direct results, and likely saying something about Alzheimer's near the end. And then one paper might deliberately misinterpret the entire thing and report, "TINY MAGNETS TO TAKE CONTROL OF OUR ORGANS!" or similar, and cause a worldwide panic about the process and hold back progress by a decade or so.
If you're not someone who works in science, you're going to read that story and not sit there fuming at your monitor. In fact, you might even be interested. You might be concerned about these dastardly magnets, and check your sun lotion ingredients because the story you read confused it with silver nanoparticals. It doesn't make you stupid, and it doesn't make you evil. It just means you've been poorly informed by a newspaper or website that's interested in being read. The story wasn't written for the scientific community, and it wasn't interested in winning the favour of them. These are precisely the circumstances of mainstream gaming stories – they're written for a "lay" audience who isn't interested in playing videogames, nor interested in their being accurately reported.
3) Does it matter?
Yes. It does. (It matters for the misrepresentation of science stories too, of course – the horrendous holding back of progress following the idiocy over GM still haunts scientists, and revolutionised how they communicate with the press and public.) Because the misrepresentation of the truth has serious consequences.
It's very easy to get up in arms when we see a story of a horrible tragedy getting twisted as an ignorant attack on videogames, and the people who play them. The approach is generally so stupid that it's hard to know how to argue with – claims that someone might have been turned into a mass murderer because of a game that somehow didn't affect the other ten million players are so illogical and irrational that beating your head on your desk feels more effective than trying to tackle it. And yes, it's certainly frustrating that they're spreading fear to the uninformed based on lies or nonsense – trying to scare parents into believing that their little one playing Rayman or Sonic is going to make them kill their classmates before giving them heart disease is spiteful and stupid, and should certainly be condemned.
But the reason it really matters is because the lies obfuscate vital truths. When we blame videogames for terrible atrocities, or for harmful behaviour, we prevent the genuine causes of these tragedies from being exposed. When it's claimed that teenagers who commit a serious crime do so because of the games they play, we entirely fail to recognise the abusive homes in which they grew up. When an FPS is identified as the motivating factor for a wave of shootings, the violence and cruelty in that killer's background is left unreported, and the cultures that turn blind eyes to this keep them turned. When depression and mental illness is reported as caused by excessive gaming, rather than excessive gaming being a response to depression and mental illness, we dismiss the reality of what leads to such conditions, and stunt our understanding and empathy. It excuses us, our families, our own cultures, and blames a nebulous and irrelevant activity. It allows abusive and dangerous environments to go ignored, and prevents us from asking serious and difficult questions about what really leads to such situations.
And it works both ways. When gaming is misattributed as the cause of improvements to a person, benefits exaggerated or invented, we again steer people away from activities that will genuinely benefit them. Not telling the truth stinks because it's a crappy thing to do. But the consequences of having the truth hidden are always far more serious.
Alongside this, there's also the rather significant issue that were gaming to genuinely have a negative effect on players, this would be hard to hear amongst the wailed bullshit. The megaphoned crying wolf of the mainstream press can only serve to ensure a genuine concern would not be taken seriously. As such, the dominant mendacious reporting could be genuinely dangerous for gamers.
So yes, it matters very much.
4) How do we respond to it?
The most important thing, as with all speculative or dubious stories, is to be better informed. When reading an article informing us that cucumbers cause Parkinson's, actually go look up the paper on which the story is based, and inevitably discover that it said nothing of the sort. And do the same for gaming stories. When you see these claims being made, educate yourself about the truth. It's worth it, not just for your own knowledge, but for the spreading of the truth to others.
The other day I was being told by some people how James Bulger had died because of videogames, and I was able to (calmly) respond explaining about the devastatingly horrendous homes in which the two children were being raised, and the complex reality of the awful situation. (Ignoring that that particular monstrously sad case was actually blamed on "video nasties" at the time, as videogames hadn't quite stepped in to replace them as the press's go-to evil.) Just being informed about the stories being misrepresented makes you an advocate for the truth.
Although it's vitally important that this doesn't become blind defense of videogames. While it's more common for the correlation-becomes-causation stories to be negative, occasionally the same lack of rigour is applied to positive stories too. Because as RPS has said so very many times, if games are having a negative effect on us, we want to know and report that more than anyone else. It's always about the truth, whatever that may be.
It's also worthwhile developing a sort of instinct for parsing both news reports and scientific papers when it comes to matters of gaming. An instinct for asking important questions, or turning assumptions around to check they don't quickly fall apart. Take, for instance, this recent piece from the Independent which reports a study in which it's argued that depression in children is caused by an "overload of screen time", whether television or gaming. Flip it, and see whether you end up with a more likely scenario. Because would it make more sense to ask the question: Does depression cause children to spend more time in front of a screen? It might be either way around, but the fact that the latter question is ignored by the study and the reporting of the study seems pretty significant. What are the other circumstances of a young person who spends more than four hours a day in front of a screen? What commonality can be found among them? What are the circumstances in a home that allows a child to spend so much time in front of a screen unregulated? Are these factors that might lead to depression or anxiety? In fact, might it be that homes in which children are provided with activities and alternatives that preclude their being able to spend over four hours a day in front of a screen are more likely to prevent depression and anxiety, simply through more active engagement with their families, more active interest from their parents, and the greater societal skills that will be encouraged? These are all pretty simple questions to ask, in the face of what increasingly appears to be a poorly thought through initial proposition. Here it's implied – if not stated – that the screen itself is responsible for the depression. Rather than the lack of everything else that so much screen time implies.
Again, in this case, what happens is something that may be irrelevant gets blamed, and things that could affect genuine change in a child's upbringing go ignored. If the study were to look at whether children who are provided with more activities and a broader range of interests show fewer signs of depression and anxiety, it might usefully offer helpful information for parents, and suggest positive action. Instead it blindly blames something with which it makes no sensible attempt to demonstrate a causative link, and in doing so, fails to recognise that perhaps gaming might be a positive part of a varied range of activities. Or may not. We don't know, because the right questions aren't being asked. We need to respond by asking the right questions.
So, then
It will get better. Not least because something else will eventually come along that will be responsible for all that's wrong in the world, and we'll see ignorant fearmongers like Fox News's John Brandon unironically writing pieces defending gaming in light of this new evil.
But soon a generation of journalists will appear who grew up surrounded by and playing games, and they'll be writing for an audience who grew up surrounded by and playing games. Their current ubiquity rather quickly defies most claims of their destroying the minds of their players, what with that vast majority of undestroyed minds, and soon that will be rather more difficult to deny.
In the meantime, the sensible thing to do is to equip ourselves with facts. To ask questions, and to have answers.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rockpapershotgun.com%2Fimages%2F13%2Fsep%2Fmirror.jpg&hash=4436412a0e769a649b8e57307b2d3584e75ac3e6)
Torygraph: Aaron Alexis: Washington navy yard gunman 'obsessed with violent video games' (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10314585/Aaron-Alexis-Washington-navy-yard-gunman-obsessed-with-violent-video-games.html)
Daily Wail: Washington shooter was a 'cold blooded killer' who tried to recreate the bloody slaughter he enjoyed in video games during massacre, says ex-gaming buddy (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2424223/Washington-shooter-cold-blooded-killer-tried-recreate-bloody-slaughter-enjoyed-video-games-massacre-says-ex-gaming-buddy.html)
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 18, 2013, 06:53:09 AM
I see your Sunoco Rise N' Shine egg and cheese breakfast biscuit has got you going this morning.
:lol: MAH REHEATED BREAKFAST SAMMICH
Quote from: mongers on September 18, 2013, 06:42:41 AM
It's what you often do on the forum, 'rephrasing' other's posts.
Care to provide an example? I maintain that I quote others, and don't tell them what they think or why they think it. Prove me wrong.
God. I can't imagine what this poor woman is going through. :(
QuoteNEW YORK — The mother of the man who police say fatally shot 12 people at the Washington Navy Yard expressed sorrow Wednesday for what her son had done, adding that her "heart is broken."
Cathleen Alexis released a statement that was read to a CNN reporter who spoke with her briefly in her Brooklyn apartment. A pastor, Bishop Gerald Seabrooks, later read the statement to media gathered outside the home.
"Our son Aaron Alexis has murdered 12 people and wounded several others," Cathleen Alexis says in the statement. "His actions have had a profound and everlasting effect on the families of the victims. I don't know why he did what what he did, and I'll never be able to ask him, why. Aaron is now in a place where he can no longer do harm to anyone, and for that I am glad. To the families of the victims, I am so, so very sorry that this has happened. My heart is broken."
Well I hope nobody is blaming her. Her son appears to have been severely mentally ill... not sure how that would be her fault. :hmm:
Quote from: Caliga on September 18, 2013, 03:53:25 PM
Well I hope nobody is blaming her. Her son appears to have been severely mentally ill... not sure how that would be her fault. :hmm:
She may be blaming herself.
Quote from: grumbler on September 18, 2013, 03:12:06 PM
Quote from: mongers on September 18, 2013, 06:42:41 AM
It's what you often do on the forum, 'rephrasing' other's posts.
Care to provide an example? I maintain that I quote others, and don't tell them what they think or why they think it. Prove me wrong.
I look at it this way, the more I engage you in debate, the less time you have to follow around or pick on some of our younger or more vulnerable posters. I regard this as a community service for the forum.
It always bring a smile to my face when I sign in to Languish and look at the threads I've posted in, to find a grumbler post taking a pop at me, all the better if it included a straight out ad hominem. :cool:
I think many here are aware of your various semantic nickpicks, mischaractisations of another member's posts and other tactics employed in your attempts to declare yourself the 'winner'.
How much re-phrasing plays in your 'game', I can't be arsed to find out, because I don't respect you and indeed find you one of the most contemptible posters I've ever encountered on the internet.
Which I find rather sad, as I think you'd probably turn out to be a top-bloke in real life if we ever met, no doubt you've got a wealth of life experience that many posters would be proud to have and I among them would probably enjoy greatly hearing about them.
I won't presume to offer you any advice, as how you wish to come over is your choice. If you're happy with the way you appear on the internet, then do carry on, though I do think there are other, better alternatives to the role you play on this forum.
Best wishes Mongers.
Quote from: grumbler on September 18, 2013, 03:12:06 PM
Quote from: mongers on September 18, 2013, 06:42:41 AM
It's what you often do on the forum, 'rephrasing' other's posts.
Care to provide an example? I maintain that I quote others, and don't tell them what they think or why they think it. Prove me wrong.
So you admit it.
;)
Quote from: mongers on September 18, 2013, 05:18:18 PM
Quote from: grumbler on September 18, 2013, 03:12:06 PM
Quote from: mongers on September 18, 2013, 06:42:41 AM
It's what you often do on the forum, 'rephrasing' other's posts.
Care to provide an example? I maintain that I quote others, and don't tell them what they think or why they think it. Prove me wrong.
I look at it this way, the more I engage you in debate, the less time you have to follow around or pick on some of our younger or more vulnerable posters. I regard this as a community service for the forum.
It always bring a smile to my face when I sign in to Languish and look at the threads I've posted in, to find a grumbler post taking a pop at me, all the better if it included a straight out ad hominem. :cool:
I think many here are aware of your various semantic nickpicks, mischaractisations of another member's posts and other tactics employed in your attempts to declare yourself the 'winner'.
How much re-phrasing plays in your 'game', I can't be arsed to find out, because I don't respect you and indeed find you one of the most contemptible posters I've ever encountered on the internet.
Which I find rather sad, as I think you'd probably turn out to be a top-bloke in real life if we ever met, no doubt you've got a wealth of life experience that many posters would be proud to have and I among them would probably enjoy greatly hearing about them.
I won't presume to offer you any advice, as how you wish to come over is your choice. If you're happy with the way you appear on the internet, then do carry on, though I do think there are other, better alternatives to the role you play on this forum.
Best wishes Mongers.
I didn't think you could back your accusations with examples. Thanks for proving my point.
As a weasel, this goes down as tl;dr
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 18, 2013, 05:30:19 PM
Quote from: grumbler on September 18, 2013, 03:12:06 PM
Quote from: mongers on September 18, 2013, 06:42:41 AM
It's what you often do on the forum, 'rephrasing' other's posts.
Care to provide an example? I maintain that I quote others, and don't tell them what they think or why they think it. Prove me wrong.
So you admit it.
;)
Yes... I admit it... I...I...
quote others on the internet! :weep:
Quote from: grumbler on September 18, 2013, 06:28:47 PM
Quote from: mongers on September 18, 2013, 05:18:18 PM
Quote from: grumbler on September 18, 2013, 03:12:06 PM
Quote from: mongers on September 18, 2013, 06:42:41 AM
It's what you often do on the forum, 'rephrasing' other's posts.
Care to provide an example? I maintain that I quote others, and don't tell them what they think or why they think it. Prove me wrong.
I look at it this way, the more I engage you in debate, the less time you have to follow around or pick on some of our younger or more vulnerable posters. I regard this as a community service for the forum.
It always bring a smile to my face when I sign in to Languish and look at the threads I've posted in, to find a grumbler post taking a pop at me, all the better if it included a straight out ad hominem. :cool:
I think many here are aware of your various semantic nickpicks, mischaractisations of another member's posts and other tactics employed in your attempts to declare yourself the 'winner'.
How much re-phrasing plays in your 'game', I can't be arsed to find out, because I don't respect you and indeed find you one of the most contemptible posters I've ever encountered on the internet.
Which I find rather sad, as I think you'd probably turn out to be a top-bloke in real life if we ever met, no doubt you've got a wealth of life experience that many posters would be proud to have and I among them would probably enjoy greatly hearing about them.
I won't presume to offer you any advice, as how you wish to come over is your choice. If you're happy with the way you appear on the internet, then do carry on, though I do think there are other, better alternatives to the role you play on this forum.
Best wishes Mongers.
I didn't think you could back your accusations with examples. Thanks for proving my point.
As a weasel, this goes down as tl;dr
Goodnight, I'm glad I've helped you to feel 'better' about yourself.
I would like to say that Grumbler is deliberately dishonest when arguing and frequently fabricates other people's positions. If I am wrong in this, let him speak up, if I am correct let him be silent.
"Violence-numb nation" from Money's article. Good fucking grief. The lack of historical perspective is amazing; you'd think we were being bombed into oblivion or something.
I like Mongers.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 18, 2013, 06:36:46 PM
I would like to say that Grumbler is deliberately dishonest when arguing and frequently fabricates other people's positions. If I am wrong in this, let him speak up, if I am correct let him be silent.
I saw what you did there
Quote from: Siege on September 18, 2013, 07:05:56 PM
I like Mongers.
Good grief, Seigy thanks for that.
You know you're actually much 'loved' here. :cheers:
The only downside to your comment is, yet again, it's not from a women. :P
Quote from: mongers on September 18, 2013, 06:36:34 PM
Goodnight, I'm glad I've helped you to feel 'better' about yourself.
The passive-aggressive is strong in you today. :lol:
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 18, 2013, 07:08:24 PM
I saw what you did there
Yeah, that wasn't at all obvious, was it? :lol:
Quote from: Razgovory on September 18, 2013, 06:36:46 PM
If I am wrong in this, let him speak up, if I am correct let him be silent.
:lol:
Well done
Quote from: grumbler on September 18, 2013, 06:28:47 PM
Quote from: mongers on September 18, 2013, 05:18:18 PM
Quote from: grumbler on September 18, 2013, 03:12:06 PM
Quote from: mongers on September 18, 2013, 06:42:41 AM
It's what you often do on the forum, 'rephrasing' other's posts.
Care to provide an example? I maintain that I quote others, and don't tell them what they think or why they think it. Prove me wrong.
I look at it this way, the more I engage you in debate, the less time you have to follow around or pick on some of our younger or more vulnerable posters. I regard this as a community service for the forum.
It always bring a smile to my face when I sign in to Languish and look at the threads I've posted in, to find a grumbler post taking a pop at me, all the better if it included a straight out ad hominem. :cool:
I think many here are aware of your various semantic nickpicks, mischaractisations of another member's posts and other tactics employed in your attempts to declare yourself the 'winner'.
How much re-phrasing plays in your 'game', I can't be arsed to find out, because I don't respect you and indeed find you one of the most contemptible posters I've ever encountered on the internet.
Which I find rather sad, as I think you'd probably turn out to be a top-bloke in real life if we ever met, no doubt you've got a wealth of life experience that many posters would be proud to have and I among them would probably enjoy greatly hearing about them.
I won't presume to offer you any advice, as how you wish to come over is your choice. If you're happy with the way you appear on the internet, then do carry on, though I do think there are other, better alternatives to the role you play on this forum.
Best wishes Mongers.
I didn't think you could back your accusations with examples. Thanks for proving my point.
As a weasel, this goes down as tl;dr
Isn't it unreasonable to expect him to go through your posts? Besides, there's years of dickery that's locked in the old forum archives, and is thus inaccessable.
Your first point is true, but it's also unreasonable to judge grumbler by posts from six years ago if his recent posts aren't in the same vein.
Quote from: Neil on September 19, 2013, 07:14:14 PM
Isn't it unreasonable to expect him to go through your posts?
It is unreasonable to expect him to find evidence for his accusations? I don't think so. If he didn't have anything in mind when he accused me of re-writing people's posts, then he shouldn't say it. If he did, then he doesn't need to go through anything; he just needs to provide the example he had in mind. Of course, I think we all know that his accusation was just a reflexive lie made when he was caught red-handed doing what he then accused me of - the old playground "well, you do it too!"
I don't think it is unreasonable to ask people to support their assertions of fact with evidence. Others ask that here all the time.
Quote from: grumbler on September 20, 2013, 06:21:55 AM
Quote from: Neil on September 19, 2013, 07:14:14 PM
Isn't it unreasonable to expect him to go through your posts?
It is unreasonable to expect him to find evidence for his accusations? I don't think so. If he didn't have anything in mind when he accused me of re-writing people's posts, then he shouldn't say it. If he did, then he doesn't need to go through anything; he just needs to provide the example he had in mind. Of course, I think we all know that his accusation was just a reflexive lie made when he was caught red-handed doing what he then accused me of - the old playground "well, you do it too!"
I don't think it is unreasonable to ask people to support their assertions of fact with evidence. Others ask that here all the time.
I don't think it's necessary in all cases. This isn't a court of law after all. He made an assertion that fits with the idea that some people have of you. That's all that is required. You can't defend yourself from that sort of thing.
Quote from: mongers on September 18, 2013, 07:14:57 PM
Quote from: Siege on September 18, 2013, 07:05:56 PM
I like Mongers.
Good grief, Seigy thanks for that.
You know you're actually much 'loved' here. :cheers:
The only downside to your comment is, yet again, it's not from a women. :P
:mad:
I said that I liked you. :contract:
Lots of women want to be friends with me. :)
Quote from: The Brain on September 20, 2013, 02:50:07 PM
Lots of women want to be friends with me. :)
Who's picture are you using on facebook?
Quote from: merithyn on September 20, 2013, 02:37:57 PM
Quote from: mongers on September 18, 2013, 07:14:57 PM
Quote from: Siege on September 18, 2013, 07:05:56 PM
I like Mongers.
Good grief, Seigy thanks for that.
You know you're actually much 'loved' here. :cheers:
The only downside to your comment is, yet again, it's not from a women. :P
:mad:
I said that I liked you. :contract:
You don't count.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fm.wsj.net%2Fvideo%2F20130925%2F092513fbi%2F092513fbi_512x288.jpg&hash=77bf1e585876565e172a624159e877f9dd65e29d)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304526204579097391644873308.html