Social ***mozilla Firefox ceo forced to resign for personal views****

[IDL]

Glennrod, before you continue, please know that the dude thinks that both the Democrats and Republicans are controlled by a shadow government connected to the Illuminati, the Scrolls of the Elder Zion are real, and the world banks are actually an evil entity tied directly to the Vatican.

Now, as you were.

That's somewhat accurate, except the Jury is out on the protocols. It's prophetic without a doubt but not necessarily at face value and I don't know who wrote the material.
The Vatican connection is fuzzy but plausible.
The Illuminati is just name really. Somewhat of a distraction.

Carry on.

 

[glennrod]

You ever notice the utter bitterness that reaks of of these guys posts? This is their game on this topic, especially Dochtor and Logical. They basically mine a thread looking for someone to say they don't support gay marriage and then they start in with the "bigot" stuff. Very amateur stuff...practically see through.

I haven't got a bad word to say about logical, but I did always get the impression that dochter "needs a winning side to be on", if you get my drift. I don't buy that whole "acceptance and equality" deal because they tend to only display it on one side of the argument, I have met many people that I strongly disagree with, but can still respect their opinions, (much like me vs you on the old Anderson vs fedor debates), it just seems that respect for an opponents position is non existent, its about smearing people through perceived intellect, its about one-upmanship. because this is a public message board, there is a lot of posturing going on. in a perfect world, we could have this whole debate run 100 pages and not have the word "bigot" come up once, but oh well....

 

[Social Distance Warrior]

Didn't you post a study about how a man thinks more X and a woman thinks more Y than completely took it out of context and equated it to gay marriage and how a child isn't going to get enough X or Y?

Or was that someone else?

Because I am pretty sure that was you.

Yes he did...

Essentially, because men and women think differently, gay couples shouldn't be allowed to adopt children.

 

[Social Distance Warrior]

I haven't got a bad word to say about logical, but I did always get the impression that dochter "needs a winning side to be on", if you get my drift. I don't buy that whole "acceptance and equality" deal because they tend to only display it on one side of the argument, I have met many people that I strongly disagree with, but can still respect their opinions, (much like me vs you on the old Anderson vs fedor debates), it just seems that respect for an opponents position is non existent, its about smearing people through perceived intellect, its about one-upmanship. because this is a public message board, there is a lot of posturing going on. in a perfect world, we could have this whole debate run 100 pages and not have the word "bigot" come up once, but oh well....

Watch out...he's going to send you a PM and tell you how terrible I am.

Glenn, you and I "respectfully" disagree on this issue...but at least you're honest about it.

I cant say the same for TCK.

 

[TheComebackKid]

I haven't got a bad word to say about logical

Pay closer attention to his posts is all I can say. But I'm not going to try and turn other posters against each other simply because I have a problem with one. So if he's honest and thoughtful when conversing with you then I'm not going to try and smear him.

but I did always get the impression that dochter "needs a winning side to be on", if you get my drift. I don't buy that whole "acceptance and equality" deal because they tend to only display it on one side of the argument, I have met many people that I strongly disagree with, but can still respect their opinions, (much like me vs you on the old Anderson vs fedor debates), it just seems that respect for an opponents position is non existent, its about smearing people through perceived intellect, its about one-upmanship. because this is a public message board, there is a lot of posturing going on. in a perfect world, we could have this whole debate run 100 pages and not have the word "bigot" come up once, but oh well....

Spot on

 

[TheComebackKid]

Watch out...he's going to send you a PM and tell you how terrible I am.

Glenn, you and I "respectfully" disagree on this issue...but at least you're honest about it.

I cant say the same for TCK.

Glenn, this is what I'm talking about(no need to respond, not trying to put you in the middle of our beef just pointing this out).

I've never sent people pm's smearing him or anyone else. He is a blatant liar and this is my beef with him. He tells flat out lies...not just spins...not just mischaracterizations...but flat out lies.

But again, if he is reserving this behavior for me then thats cool. I hope you two can continue to get along. But so you know I'm not crazy...this is what I'm talking about. He's also pretty stalkerish...obsessed even.

 

[glennrod]

Watch out...he's going to send you a PM and tell you how terrible I am.

Glenn, you and I "respectfully" disagree on this issue...but at least you're honest about it.

I cant say the same for TCK.

To his credit, he never has done that. I understand you guys have your issues and I had even (foolishly) tried to get you guys to fix it. I still hold up hope that you guys will one day get it fixed, but as an angry fucker myself, I understand the occasional need to vent. this beef is getting kinda stale now though..but I wont get involved

 

[TheComebackKid]

Didn't you post a study about how a man thinks more X and a woman thinks more Y than completely took it out of context and equated it to gay marriage and how a child isn't going to get enough X or Y?

Or was that someone else?

Because I am pretty sure that was you.

Sure but thats 100% different than saying society will be worse off if we legalize gay marriage. But yes, I think having a mother and a father...at least on paper...is the best environment in which to bring out the best in a child. Oooh...so controversial.

 

[Jukai]

I haven't got a bad word to say about logical, but I did always get the impression that dochter "needs a winning side to be on", if you get my drift. I don't buy that whole "acceptance and equality" deal because they tend to only display it on one side of the argument, I have met many people that I strongly disagree with, but can still respect their opinions, (much like me vs you on the old Anderson vs fedor debates), it just seems that respect for an opponents position is non existent, its about smearing people through perceived intellect, its about one-upmanship. because this is a public message board, there is a lot of posturing going on. in a perfect world, we could have this whole debate run 100 pages and not have the word "bigot" come up once, but oh well....

This is one of those times you need to sit down and THINK about what you are saying before you write it. You just said Dochter needs to be on the winning side--- and he picked the side against you.

:icon_neut

Sure but thats 100% different than saying society will be worse off if we legalize gay marriage. But yes, I think having a mother and a father...at least on paper...is the best environment in which to bring out the best in a child. Oooh...so controversial.

Ohhh, so wait, you are for gay marriage but against gay adoptions?

That's still wrong, but at least it makes your posts make a little more sense.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Glenn, this is what I'm talking about(no need to respond, not trying to put you in the middle of our beef just pointing this out).

I've never sent people pm's smearing him or anyone else. He is a blatant liar and this is my beef with him. He tells flat out lies...not just spins...not just mischaracterizations...but flat out lies.

But again, if he is reserving this behavior for me then thats cool. I hope you two can continue to get along. But so you know I'm not crazy...this is what I'm talking about. He's also pretty stalkerish...obsessed even.

Dude, get over yourself. It's a discussion board, you guys discuss stuff. He thinks your dishonest. It's not like he's tracking you down in real life or doing anything at all other than disagree with you and criticize your dishonesty when you post stuff. The closest thing we've ever seen to stalking since I've been in the WR is that dude (whoever it is) that contacted HN's friends. If you're so sensitive to criticism, maybe find another hobby.

 

[Jukai]

Dude, get over yourself. It's a discussion board, you guys discuss stuff. He thinks your dishonest. It's not like he's tracking you down in real life or doing anything at all other than disagree with you and criticize your dishonesty when you post stuff. The closest thing we've ever seen to stalking since I've been in the WR is that dude (whoever it is) that contacted HN's friends.

I thought there was a story about someone in the WR who wrote books, and someone contacted his publisher and got him in trouble or something... was before my time. That story seemed pretty crazy. I've been a little bit less forthcoming with my background since then.

 

[TheComebackKid]

Ohhh, so wait, you are for gay marriage but against gay adoptions?

That's still wrong, but at least it makes your posts make a little more sense.

I'm not even against gay adoption. I think if all things are equal then we should put kids in a home with a mother and a father but I'm not against putting a kid in a home with a gay couple if the alternative is a fucked up traditional home or no home at all.

 

[TheComebackKid]

I thought there was a story about someone in the WR who wrote books, and someone contacted his publisher and got him in trouble or something... was before my time. That story seemed pretty crazy. I've been a little bit less forthcoming with my background since then.

You might be talking about the dude with the Charlie Sheen AV iirc. It was pretty creepy but it did expose him as a fraud.

 

[glennrod]

This is one of those times you need to sit down and THINK about what you are saying before you write it. You just said Dochter needs to be on the winning side--- and he picked the side against you.

:icon_neut

let me tell you something, I want you to understand me without feeling the need to insult me. I think that a greater understanding of the person or people that you are talking to helps to make things clearer, but anyway.....here goes

Im not saying that my side is the right one, Im not one of those assholes that thinks that "my side" of the argument is the only way..believe it or not I have learned a lot from opposing view points, especially on here.

I might argue the toss with you and dochter but there is no "right and wrong" with absolute certainty in some of these discussions, its opinion, this is why I have a beef with atheists who act like asswipes when it comes to faith (oh! theres no god, really, well thanks for that, I guess I will just let go of the hope that I will see my loved ones again)

There is no right or wrong in this particular argument, I don't think so highly of myself that I think that anyone who disagrees with me is unintelligent, or bigoted or any of that, I trade barbs with barbs, and that's fine with me, that's how it was designed to be, I love the discourse

Rather than just sit there bothering my girlfriend with my opinions on shit she could never even comprehend, let alone participate, I now get to inflict them all upon you, and no matter what side of the argument you are on in this particular topic, I don't have it in me to build any real resentment towards you or anyone who opposes me

So, the only thing I need to "sit down and think about before It before writing it" is, am I too drunk and stoned to post?, and the answer is no. good game, and cheers!

 

[glennrod]

I'm not even against gay adoption. I think if all things are equal then we should put kids in a home with a mother and a father but I'm not against putting a kid in a home with a gay couple if the alternative is a fucked up traditional home or no home at all.

with you all the way on that one

 

[ultramanhyata]

I would say that the greatest example of hypocrisy and "convenient logic" (in terms of defining what "marriage" means) is actually being demonstrated by the proponents of same-sex.

Here's why:

On the one hand they reject, outright, the assertion that marriage either has been, traditionally, or in any way must be defined as a union involving members of the opposite sex, ie., a man and a woman.

On the other, when challenged on grounds that redefining marriage to include same-sex couples can/should immediately open the door to recognition of polygamous marriage, they counter that marriage must be defined as an institution involving no more than two people.

So, basically, the traditional marriage side is saying that marriage must be defined as existing between only two people - one male and one female. And the gay wedding'ers are replying, "Fully agree on the first point - but fuck you on the second, bigot."

And, ironically, from a historical, traditional/cultural standpoint it is only the second, opposite-sex assertion that even begins to have any leg to stand on.

Would enjoy hearing the strong gay marriage proponents in this thread try to reconcile this act of intellectual bed-shitting.

 

[Madmick]

If we open the door to this, then anyone who give private individual money in support of a gun control law may be hounded for the same reason; anyone who votes to restrict drugs; anyone who votes to "deny the right" of another citizen for any reason.

Furthermore, if one argues this isn't unethical on the grounds that his campaign contribution constitutes free speech as an individual, then I don't see how one can argue for campaign finance reform. Speech is consummately protected. If that is perfectly analogous to speech, then the Kock brothers should be able to buy elections above ground...no need of Super PACs or fancy accounting.

Yet again, this is unethical and it destabilizes the system.

 

[Kevin Rudd]

I thought there was a story about someone in the WR who wrote books, and someone contacted his publisher and got him in trouble or something... was before my time. That story seemed pretty crazy. I've been a little bit less forthcoming with my background since then.

There is an even better story than that. Think about someone putting too much info on the boards and then getting a phone call Scream style "do you like scary movies".

It happened.

 

[TheComebackKid]

I would say that the greatest example of hypocrisy and "convenient logic" (in terms of defining what "marriage" means) is actually being demonstrated by the proponents of same-sex.

Here's why:

On the one hand they reject, outright, the assertion that marriage either has been, traditionally, or in any way must be defined as a union involving members of the opposite sex, ie., a man and a woman.

On the other, when challenged on grounds that redefining marriage to include same-sex couples can/should immediately open the door to recognition of polygamous marriage, they counter that marriage must be defined as an institution involving no more than two people.

So, basically, the traditional marriage side is saying that marriage must be defined as existing between only two people - one male and one female. And the gay wedding'ers are replying, "Fully agree on the first point - but fuck you on the second, bigot."

And, ironically, from a historical, traditional/cultural standpoint it is only the second, opposite-sex assertion that even begins to have any leg to stand on.

Would enjoy hearing the strong gay marriage proponents in this thread try to reconcile this act of intellectual bed-shitting.

There is no reconciliation possible. The best argument you can put forth is that the tax filing wouldn't work if you have more than two people. But philosophically, there is no reconciliation between being pro-gay marriage and anti-polygamy.

 

[IDL]

Uh... his position is that the illuminati wants you to accept gay marriage. This is necessarily the case because everything is orchestrated from the "top down" and at the top aren't politicians or even corporate magnates but some behind the scenes group over them all.

Illuminati is a distraction and a funny sounding name.

Not everything is orchestrated.

None of the other stuff will make sense out of context. Jukai knows this I'm assuming that's why he brought it up in order to try to discredit my other benign comment.