Wirehead Studios

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/03/28/0...0.5qwylcsk.html (http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/03/28/060328144530.5qwylcsk.html)

Really... please.  Just shoot me right now.  Put me out of my misery.  I can't bear to read statements like these. :thud:

Mere words simply cannot convey how pathetic that is.

Seriuously, though, what are they gonna do? What the hell do they expect to do with whomever of the 11.5 million people they actually manage to catch? Bang them up? Give me a break, this is effectively saying that it's illegal to be foreign.

This stinks. Bad.

o.O  I would say that is a bit extreme too.

Besides, how would our legal system handle something like this?  Where would we house these "criminals?"  It seems somewhat foolish to house and feed an illegal immigrant in jail/prison when you want them out of your country so damn bad that you want to try them as a criminal.

I'm not sure what bothers me more, the original quote or the fact that 2 of 2 replies missed the point.  The point was regarding the language "criminal offense to be in the country illegally."  I even bolded it.

Recursive - def:  See recursive.  Let's see how you do with round 2.  :shifty:

I saw it... but I didn't reply because I was unsure which meaning you meant. The one offered by the other two.. or the one about 'criminal' and 'illegal'.

I love word games, puns, and oxymorons... so I kinda of pick up on odd things like that... but no one else does, so I try to pick and choose.

But yes.. it's like saying an attempted suicide is punishable by death........ which I think I read somewhere.

Well natural selection is little more than a moot point anymore, it was only a matter of time before that started messing with inteligence...

I don't believe in natural selection.  I cite humanity as obvious proof of its invalidity.  :)~

damn pho... why don't you just rip us to shreds and get it over with

 That is most likely the dumbest argument ive heard on the immigration debate thus far. This would not make it illegal to be foreign your simply assuming everyone who immigrated to this country did so illegally which is not the case. The United States has more legal immigration on a yearly basis than every other country in the world combined ( according to an article i read awhile back in USA today ). You simply cannot have people coming and going without documentation with complete disregard for the law. Forget the terrorism issue the fact that the republic of Mexico refuses to extradite people who murder our citizens and flee to Mexico should be enough justification to close our borders. Lets not forget the Mexican army is in cahoots with drug dealers smuggling people across our borders. Many hard working immigrants became good American citizens because they obeyed the law and went through the proper channels when they came to this country legitimizing those who snuck under the fence would be spitting in their face.  And for the record anyone who entered and worked in this country illegally ( using public services without paying taxes, driving without insurance receiving medical care without paying ) is already breaking the law.

Sorry jess, I couldn't resist a dig on Darwinism there. ^_^

The reason I posted this is the debate should be a non-issue.  If you disect the word "illegal immigrant" the first word is illegal. (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=illegal&db=*)  I find it ironic what they use for an example.  My point is that they are debating the passing of laws that would, in effect, criminalize what's already against the law in the first place.  Spawn was exactly right with his punishment analogy.  I'm not ranting on the problem of illegal immigration here, I've done that elsewhere.  My point was to draw focus to the elected leadership of this country and their blatant incompetence.  Stupidity is rampant within the halls of congress, right along with insanity, and nobody seems to be able to do anything about it.  Where are the statesmen?  Where are the Jeffersons, and Hamiltons, and Washingtons, and Franklins?  Their legacy has been reduced to the using of their likenesses as a commodity.  Where are the people of character, thought, and wisdom in this age?  It's like I'm standing here watching Nero string his harp all over again.

Let's say person P is walking around with (too much) drugs in his suitcase, but that P is unaware of this. The law tells us it is illegal to possess that amount of drugs.*

(* this happening in imaginary country C, or any country of your choice, as long as this will not devolve into a debate about specific laws and details)

I would not resist to P being called to be doing something illegal. It's right there in the law and he is currently the actor.

However, I would resist to P being called a criminal. The word, as I've stated before, has connotations (at least for the common audience - including a jury) that indicate that P is both aware of, and willfully doing, something illegal. He may be called ignorant or even stupid, but 'criminally stupid' or 'criminally ignorant' are not tautologies (although I agree that they should be, in some cases ;)).

To solve this twist, a few things could be done. The definition of legality could be adapted to the common notion, or alternatively, likewise for the definition of criminality. Or, a mass acknowledgement of the purely technical meaning of 'crime' and 'criminal' could be enforced and made exclusive. Since the latter is unlikely to happen, a fourth option may be useful: the use of words that lack the connotation of 'criminality', but have all the meaning of 'illegality'. We have such a words, for instance: 'illegal'. Why not use them, instead?

I stick to my (twice previously stated) opinion that it is silly to try and stick to purely technical meanings of words, since that's simply not what human beings do (and, I venture to boldy guess, nor do rational creatures that think themselves not to be human beings).

We have the same problem, but the government only admits to about 500,000. I think they intend to sort out the problem by giving all the illigals citizenship. Really.

so you think you've got problems?

And we've got the north sea around us to help keep us clear. some people have been thrown out of the UK 3 times, but keep coming back - drug dealers, pimps etc.

Tab what the hell are you talking about? We aren't talking about legal technicality's here were talking about very real very practical concerns. An Illegal immigrant is still causing a problem weather or not they know what they are doing is illegal ( and they do don't kid yourself ). Its not possible to avoid classifying them as criminals because thats what they are there isn't any way around it. Now thats not to say they are hardened violent thugs and i believe most people don't see them that way anyway but we cant pretend there isn't a problem. I can sympathize with these people most of them just come here for work to support their family but they need to obey our laws. The fact that they are breaking the immigration laws is only one concern. I get the feeling a lot of people are under the impression that we only want the border laws enforced because we are without pity and don't like impoverished brown people. Well  thats simply not the case.

Yes there is, and no they aren't (not indiscriminately I mean, and other than in a technical sense).

There is a way around it, which was the point of my post.

My problem is that that is exactly what is part of the connotations of the wording.

Which is why we shouldn't use the aforementioned wording.

Ofcourse! There is a problem, and it won't go away by naming it differently. Don't make it look as though I said that; I didn't. Refraining from calling them what they are not - what they are not in a very important sense - will help in dealing with it properly. I'm not saying that it's a sufficient condition to do so, just that it may be a necessary one.

----

P.S. It's a little bit similar to calling coffee a drug in an important state-meeting (which it officially, technically is), then making it part of your famed (some would say overblown) War on Drugs™.

Tab, I think we've established that you don't like the word criminal when it comes to minor infractions.  In a court of law, however, legal definitions are very strict and precise.  Someone who jaywalks is as much a criminal by definition as someone who guns down a schoolhouse in the sense that they are both violating a law.  The jaywalker however is not a felon, nor guilty of anything more than a minor misdemeanor (in the US anyway).  They broke the law, that is undisputable.  Was it a serious offence?  Not for the jaywalker.  Now I understand what you dislike is the stigma associated with the word criminal, but stigmas are assigned by society, not the dictionary.  I am not part of society, and I despise unwriten social rules.  However, I will take a moment to do an aside here.

Let's throw religion into the picture because it usually ends up in the discussion anyway (but this time it's actually on topic!)  Let's replace the word "criminal" with "sinner".  Now, look at the ten commandments.  Here they are (catholicism has them in a slightly different order):

1) I am the Lord thy God and thou shalt not have other gods besides me.
2) Thou shalt not make for thyself any graven image.
3) Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.
4) Remember the Lord's Day to keep it holy.
5) Honor thy Father and Mother.
6) Thou shalt not kill.
7) Thou shalt not commit adultery.
8) Thou shalt not steal.
9) Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
10) Thou shalt not covet.

Now, let's say someone breaks a commandment.  That makes them a sinner, right?  You'd certainly say someone who murders or commits adultery is a sinner.  What about someone who says a little fib about the old lady next door?  What about the guy who is a little jealous because the guy up the street has a nicer lawn?  Surely that's not so bad.  But, according to the bible, Romans 3:23 says "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God."  This means severity is irrelevent as to what  defines a sinner - everyone is a sinner, no matter how major or minor their sin.  But let's say we define sinners only by those who don't break any of the ten commandments.  Let's leave out the minor infractions.  Well, that changes the whole focus of Christianity.  You no longer have to depend on Christ's sacrifice on the cross for redemption, now you just keep the 10 commandments and you get to heaven by your own account.  It's also carte blanche to go out and do whatever isn't serious.  The question to the believer, however, would be what God thinks of all this...  After all, it is God who gave the laws, and therefore God who defines what is and is not a sin.  Thinking that it's not a sin to do something minor does not absolve someone of guilt in God's eyes.

It's no different in the courtroom.  You see, it doesn't matter what a person thinks about a law, what matters is what those in authority will do if someone violates it.  This is where people fall into the trap of self-delusion.  "It's just a little pot" is something police officers and judges hear over and over in the US, where it is illegal to possess any amount.  Those who think it's not a crime get booked the same as those who know it is.  Whether we're talking about religious laws, or civil laws, those who have authority are the ones who set the rules.  Let's take your "imaginary country" for example, which is not so imaginary as all that.  I know you're allowed to possess a certain amount of pot in the Netherlands but only a certain amount.  I also know that in most countries ignorance of the law is not an excuse for breaking it.  Like they say, "tell it to the judge".  That's how the law works here, it may be different there, I do not know.  Now if you get mad at me for saying this just remember that I didn't write the law, nor is it my goal to approve or disapprove of any country's laws in this thread.  I'm merely presenting how those who enforce it tend to behave toward those who break it, whatever their feelings might be.

The greater question in regards to illegally entering the United States is one of selective enforcement, or rather, selective lack of enforcement.  Now this is a discussion about linguistic concerns so your rant about stigmatizing with words actually spins back into the equation in a rather interesting way.  The entire gripe I had from the beginning with this whole situation is that it is already illegal to enter the country improperly.  What they are discussing is making illegal something that's already illegal in the first place.  If it's already against the law, why does it need to be made against the law again?  Now to further illustrate my point of how absurd this all is becoming, take a look the quote from this article:

http://reuters.myway.com/article/20060329/...O-FENCE-DC.html (http://reuters.myway.com/article/20060329/2006-03-29T130724Z_01_N28275045_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-USA-MEXICO-FENCE-DC.html)

Catch the term "undocumented migrant" in this hypothetical scenario (as reported by Reuters).  Undocumented migrant?  What is an undocumented migrant, exactly?  Is that a goose that didn't get a leg band on its trip back to Canada?  This is the first time I've heard this little term.  It sure sounds a lot less harsh than "illegal immigrant" or "illegal alien", which was the term before alien was changed to immigrant.  To be honest, I'm not sure when that happened either.  I seem to remember George Carlin having a rant about toilet paper being renamed to bathroom tissue without him being informed.  Doesn't anyone get it besides me?  In changing the language, in "softening" everything, the words lose their meaning!  The entire purpose of changing language is to affect how people think.  The whole purpose for changing how you think is to make you more receptive to events and circumstances you otherwise would not be.  If it sounds softer you might miss the point or won't raise objection as easily, which means those changing the language get their way.

It is a sick little mind control game, and I hope to hell people wake up to it.  The legacy of "political correctness" is thought control.  If I offend a few people in raising alarm over it, so be it.  Tab, you get upset when someone calls an illegal immigrant a criminal.  What happens when they start calling murderers "unadjusted individuals" or some other meaningless "Newspeak" term?  Think it's not coming?  They aready call rapists "sex offenders" here for God's sake!  Will anyone stop this madness?[/color]

I'm not advocating for calling illegal immigrants what they're not - that is precisely what I am advocating against. My position, however, is that calling illegal immigrants "criminals" is the same kind of mistake (or foul trick, if you will) as calling them "undocumented immigrants". In both cases the terms are technically 100% correct, but are used as tools to apply, or take away, the right amount of 'connotative force' from what is really meant. What really is meant is:"illegal immigrant" - which is exactly the term I think should be consistently (and if possible, exclusively) used, when this issue is discussed.
If the 'social machine' ends up distorting that term, by other means than media-machination, so be it.

I'm not at this time willing to touch the 'sinner'-debate, that is a laden term for me, especially when we're comparing two kinds of laws in this sense. I acknowledge and understand your position, though.

Actually, my hands are raised. In my first post I was kind of under the impression that this was some sort of intuitive test, a double-bluff if you like, so I played the race card to see what the craic was ;) I thought that the idea that the US government was incompetent was a given anyway. This just affirms that concept. :P

It's true that PC-ness is the biggest threat to freedom of opinion since McCarthyism. I find that all of these watered-down terms only serve to patronise rather than placate.

BTW Pho, the technical term where I'm from is "bog-roll" ^_^

 :offtopic: As for Natural Selection vs Intelligent Design, anyone got any BETTER explanantions? ;)

well i guess i started the off topic natural sel. vs.int. design thing so i'll try to end it...

natual selection: strong, smart and otherwise better creatures live and pass on their genes I don't think its all encompassing as there are some lucky beings
proof of validity: handicapped beings will have a harder time survivng in a non-civilized place, weak and dumb beings will die easier

Intelligent design: humans were created to be better than everything else, they have some "divine right" to do with the world as they please.
proof of validity: no other creatures are like humans

am i saying one is better than the other? i'm not trying to... merely stating what i see... i am not saying one is right and the other isn't, just that they both have some convincing portions. nor am i saying i have the answer to such a question... but you can admit both are not mutually exclusive, as i stated them

now back to biching about illeagals i say kick their asses out put up some big assed walls and execute repeat offenders... man i'm being blunt and probably offesive... but you wanna live in the US get your DAMN CITIZENSHIP!

oh and before i'm done and since no one else has *me shoots at pho*

I disagree with the "divine right" to "do with as they please" part.  I believe it to be more of a stewardship, where man should be a caretaker that is responsible for preserving and protecting this world, not pillaging and plundering it.  Man does not own the earth.

Unfortunately those who are best suited to govern are never those who are given the governerships, so the cycle of bad leadership continues.

:offtopic:
ID-theory is halfway between fatalistic acceptance of mystery and theorizing. Nobody can say it's either in correspondence with reality or not, which is its 'strength'.
Natural selection is part of a theory that a true proponent does not care about being in correspondence with reality or not: it is pragmatically justified, it works. As soon as it stops working, or needs to be adjusted - that's what happens.
There are dogmatic NS'ists who think otherwise, but most of them hardly know the subject-matter (or elegance and power) of what they say to be a proponent of. Me, I think any theory that does not on the outset assume defeat has its uses. It doesn't work for you? Find a theory that tells us more, not less.
There's many more reasons why this little rant makes sense and about the differences between science, pseudo-science - scientists and 'scientist'-dogmatists (the latter being annoyingly present on either side of every science-related debate), but I guess I've gone and overtyped this 'aside' already.
:offtopic:

:offtopic: True science challenges itself to be disproven. NS is a scientific theory and like all others it invites others to question it. ID on the other hand, as Tab said, is based on theology and therefore doesn't. So far nobody to my knowledge has come up with a better explanation of how we got here so I'm sticking with NS for the time being. :thumb:  :offtopic:

Now for a slightly more on-topic humourous interlude, a quote from a spoof ad from GTA-SA lobbying to just let people stay in the country illegally (???):

[q]"... Illegal aliens play a major role in our way of life. If we gave them a green card, soon they would be just like us: fat, lazy and too stupid to do menial tasks ..."[/q]

Mind you, I didn't say it was based on theology, because it isn't necessarily so. It does provide an asylum ignorantiam.

Yes, true science does.  What I take issue with is when those who promote a theory treat it as fact and refuse to allow alternative ideas to be discussed.  Evolution, along with the Big Bang theory, are taught as the defacto explanations of where life and the universe began.  It's taught to young children as the only explanation, and those who teach it refuse to allow other ideas to be brought up - or are told by their administrators they better not talk about anything different.  If you question it or promote another idea.. well, let's just say that thinking has no place in modern schools.  At least religion is more honest in the fact that it does not hide the fact that it wants to indoctrinate people to think a certain way. -_-

Another problem with the debate between intelligent design and evolution is that the perception of what the intelligent design theory actually is versus what it's portrayed as.  In fact, has anyone here even read the theory?  Does anyone know what it actually says, or are we all just going by what the media says?  I haven't read it myself.  I hear a lot about it, about how some people want it to be taught, and some people don't.

I'll have to hunt it down and read the theory some time, but here's my little pet theory about this whole debate.  I think the people who promote evolution to the point of excluding intelligent design or any other alternative to evolution can't stand the thought of an anyone thinking differently within scientific circles.  Those people are afraid of dissenting thought when it comes to their own worldview, they're afraid of different ideas.  After all, a theory like intelligent design might lead someone to a different conclusion, and if it leads them to believe that maybe some kind of deity is behind life and the universe that's strictly verboten by a scientific establishment that is based on secularist atheism.  I treat this kind of "science" as just another religion because it acts with all the worst traits of one.  It evangelizes and spreads its "gospel" by excluding all other thought, and it persecutes its heretics with a zeal matched only by those who led the Inquisition.  A pure science would not dismiss any possibility, including the possibility of life having some kind of designer, even if it considers such possibilities unlikely.  It certainly would not seek to silence alternative lines of thought.  It would seek to explore, and discover, and to understand.

Before anyone offers retort, bear in mind that I am not attacking the theory of evolution itself here, only the behavior of its more vocal proponents.  I think there is a problem in assuming that scientists and teachers of scientific theory belong on a pedastal, and that they have no agendas.  Everyone has an agenda.  It's just that some are more honest about it than others.

Tab:  I would offer that the only true asylum ignorantiam is arrogance and pride.

I know a fair deal about it. Most of the material that is said to belong to ID-theory is no more than a collection of attacks on (neo-)darwinism. The latter, I would sooner consider a part of darwinistic science itself, since it is either non-constructive or a tool for adapting and evolving (;)) the theory (that includes dealing with attacks of those who simply don't comprehend their target, along with arguments on mathematical grounds or involving physics). The former, I at least know enough about to fight the popular idea that it is 'theology' or 'ufo-fanatic'-material. For those looking to read some works from an ID proponent, you might want to give Behe a try.



As with politics, often the most vocal proponents - as well as opponents - seem to know the least. Their arguments are arguments of passion, fear or, as you say, arrogance. Those can all go on the bollocks-pile, as far as I'm concerned.
Like I said, I'm interested in any theory that works, and I believe no interference or normative actions are required to 'set science right'.
Bad theories have a tendency to be kept alive by fervent promoting, but they don't last forever. I don't know how everyone thinks about Popper's falsificationism, Kuhn's theory of scientific revolutions, or Lakatos' ideas of degenerative and progressive science, but I feel there's at least some truth in all them: not just anything can stay around for long at the frontlines.
Good science, whether dogmatic or not, delivers results. It provides a steady base for development of theory and it delivers a results (glow-in-the-dark corn and mices with ears on their backs aren't exactly the kind of things the average reader considers 'results', but they 'prove' a theory 'works', nonetheless).
ID comes up with a more pragmatic scientific system, in spite of its current status? Fine with me, bring on the new theories and results! If it stands half a fighting chance, it will grow. If not, it will probably become a cult item for small groups. There's even people around who believe in a flat earth, so if that ever turns out to be true 'again', we've got some folks ready to rumble.
I therefore do not share the fear of ID that some darwinists express. Nor do I share the fear of dogmatism in darwinistic science. Nor even what is taught in schools. Eventually people will look back  and chuckle about the silly ideas and endaevours of predecessors, no matter what they were, regardless of the fact that it got them 'there' eventually.

I stick to my stance on the 'escape to ignorance'. Anything that is dogmatically called a mystery or 'a thing we cannot ever hope to find out', is being banned from our quest for knowledge. Whether it is arrogance, fear or pride that causes people to try is not important to me. If one believes man is not meant to know certain things then one simply believes that the asylum is good - as it well might. I don't think it is, but each to his own. ;]

No real arguments from me there.  However, I'm concerned that so long as institutions that are responsible for indoctrinating and training young minds (let's be honest about what schools do here) work to restrict thought and limit what is available to be presented as fact or truth they're forcing people into the asylum without them even knowing there's something wrong.  I'm reminded of 1984, where Winston goes around with an ulcer on the side of his leg through the whole story.  Never is treated, nor is there any thought about treatment.  It's just accepted that it's there.  That, more than anything else, got my attention because it shows the results of the restriction of thought and idea - it was never questioned.  If you feed someone shit and keep them in the dark from the time they are born, will they know there's such a thing as light, or what they're being fed?  Or will they just accept it because they've known no different?  After thinking that way for so long, you think they'll welcome new ideas with open arms, or reject it at the end of a gun?

In Nazi Germany, people were told all sorts of things, things that were harmful to the world, and to themselves.  Yet, they believed it.  Why?  Germans are not stupid people, they have some of the best technical minds on the earth.  It wasn't lack of intellect.  It was because nobody was allowed to say anything different.  Nobody was allowed to think any different.  Those who did were quickly silenced.  We see this sort of mind control in every dangerous regime in the world.  Religions get blamed for it constantly by those who dislike religion, but the truth is any institution can bring about this kind of control so long as people don't question it.  It certainly doesn't need a theology at the helm.  You say you're not worried about what they teach in schools?  You should be.  I for one would prefer that the people who look back and chuckle not be the machine men whose only honor is to obey.

:thumb: <--- Doesn't Doom wear a brown glove? :o

*looks at the flaming wreckage that the derailed topic has become and rubs hands*

yes, good good muhahahaha  :evil:

The topic is not so derailed as you think.  We're discussing incompetence in leadership, and the dangers of such.  The original context was recursiveness in legislation, but that's a subgroup of leadership concerns.  Oh, and Spawn:  

:rules:  :offtopic:

I will pop in from nowhere in particular to throw in my quasi-off-topic thoughts on what I skimmed in approximately 2 minutes and 18 seconds...  :)~

• We shouldn't worry about making illegal immigration illegal, we should worry about enforcing the illegality.  *sighs*
  
• Criminal (n): One that has committed or been legally convicted of a crime.
  Crime (n): An act committed [...] in violation of a law forbidding [...] it
  Forbid (tr. v): To prohibit
  Illegal (adj): Prohibited by law
  Thus, an illegal immigrant is a criminal.  "Less" of a criminal than a murderer certainly, but a criminal nonetheless, by the letter of the law and the... diction... of the dictionary.  Any "greater" or "lesser" connotation is purely cultural/societal, and beyond the scope of this argument.  In summary, I agree and disagree with you, Tab ;)
  
• ID vs NS: Personally I believe in a "guided" version of most scientific evolutionary theories - sure there was a big bang, sure we evolved from apes.  But can you not take a metaphorical interpretation of Genesis and see parallels between Creationism and Darwinism?  TBH, I think both should be taught in school, and presented as belief (in the case of ID) and theory (in the case of NS) - with a clear emphasis that neither is documented indisputable fact.  But frankly, I think our society is too damn stupid and narrow-minded to be able to accomodate that.
  

*vanishes back into the shadows*  :ninja:

:slippy_thumb:

Well, that's where we disagree then, I guess.

Only until we assimilate you into the collective, Tab.  Resistance is futile!  :ninja:

Interesting you would say that.

Not particularly, pho has said much the same for years. He simply takes issue with people attacking his beliefs.

I fail to see what attacking any belief has to do with
Now, this slippy doesn't look too happy..  :offtopic:

McDeth, if you're going down the road I think you are, let me clarify something for you.  I will allow people to discuss different religious thoughts on this board, the same as different scientific theories.  What I will not permit is somebody misrepresenting or slandering someone's beliefs.  As a Christian, if someone attacks my beliefs they are attacking me personally.  I cannot and will not separate the two.  You can disagree with what I believe, and even discuss why, but I draw the line when someone starts trying to dictate to me what my beliefs are or behaving disrespectfully toward them.  I will not permit people to launch vicious personal attacks because someone hates someone's religion.  Period.

Second, If someone wants to discuss Budhism or Hinduism, Taoism, or what have you then I have nothing against that - provided it is done in a factual manner and with respect for those who follow such beliefs.  If you are sitting there thinking I'm some kind of a bloody hypocrite I can give you one prime example of what I'm talking about.  Tabun is agnostic and certainly thinks differently than I do with respect to religion and philosophy.  We still get along and can hold civil discussions.  I respect that he thinks what he thinks, and he respects that I think what I think . We may even consider each other ignorant or misguided.  The difference is that we treat each other with respect.  Does Tab's agnosticism alter my faith?  No.  Does my speaking of my faith with conviction alter Tab's thoughts?  I doubt it.  I don't attack him for his agnosticism, and he does not attack me for my faith in God.

So if we can coexist on these forums, with our thoughts so disparate, and even work together as team members, there's no excuse for the behavior of certain individuals who don't seem to know the meaning of the word respect.  Such individuals are trolls, and will not be welcome on these boards.

Oh. Then I apoligize.

Pho just put his metaphorical foot down...

McDeth just got bird slapped

 :D

Say hello to your sister for me.

No, I was just clarifying a point.  McDeth doesn't like the fact that I permanently banned dev/null.  I was explaining my reasoning and why it is not flawed nor hypocritical.

I've been curious as well. I only know enough to recognize the name 'dev/null'... about as much as I know about some of the other names that have come and gone. His aweful deed must have happened during my occasional offtime from Gen and the forums.

Dev/null's crime was being a habitual shit stirrer and all around dotche bag. He took off because pho wouldnt let him preach his hate whitey/jesus/capitalism rhetoric without interference.

dev/null initially got banned because he kept breaking forum rules and kept treating everyone like dirt that he didn't like.  It's one thing to hold a strong opinion, it's another to viciously attack forum members.  The first time around Con banned him because he launched into some big temper-tantrum and called someone a bunch of names I think.  I forget the exact reason.  Anyway, this ban was to last a month.  He comes back under a different name after a long while, calling himself Lord Malchia.  He plays it cool for a bit, but the same sort of undercurrents exist in his posts and then we figure it out that it's dev/null.  After pointing out that we know who he is, he claims his old account was never reallowed to post which is why he used a different name.  I told him he should have informed one of the admins and we'd have corrected it if that were the case.

The problem behavior continues, under this new name.  He continues making more inflamatory posts and launching into personal attacks, derailing topics, and turning just about every thread into a flamewar against, as Woodsman said, Christianity/whitey/capitalism, etc, but mostly Christianity.  Ok, you don't like Christianity, say so and get it done with but that wasn't enough.  He constantly made it personal, usually with me because I'm not going to back down when it comes to defending my faith, nor when it comes to keeping things in order here.  I did everything I could to bring his attention back to how he was acting, show him why it wasn't acceptible, and correct his distorted view of what I believe.  I'm also a hell of a lot more lenient toward people attacking me than I am toward someone attacking other forum members, which is why this ended up dragging on for so long.

Well,  see this thread (http://forums.wireheadstudios.org/index.php?act=ST&f=5&t=2359) for the culimination of what happened.  I finally got him to express his true feelings, which basically amounted to "I'm better than everyone else, I'm too good for all of you, I'm just toying with you and this is all a game to me."  Ok, you're a troll.  Goodbye, we don't need you here.  Woodsman is incorrect in that he didn't "take off" at this point.  He kept logging in with several bogus accounts and sending me PM's - rather unapoligetic onces at that.  Ban avoidance is unacceptible, so he got his whole network locked out and the accounts deleted.

Of course, for doing this I'm sure that makes me the intolerant racist dictatorial ignorant religious zealot that he accuses me of being, which of course justifies his thinking process and gives him continued excuse to believe everyone's out to get him, that all Christians are fascists, etc.  That makes him the "winner" in his mind.  That's also where he got it wrong, I never cared about "winning" his little arguments.  I know someone like that is never going to change their mind because he's never, ever going to look in the mirror.   It was his actions - not his beliefs - that got him in trouble, but he refused to understand this.  All I wanted was the problem behavior to stop.  When it was clear it only continue indefinitely, I did the only thing I could.

The reason Deth wasn't happy about it is dev/null aka Malchia was a friend of his.  That's why I offered the clarification for him in the previous post.

Edit:  In re-reading the thread I linked to, it was actually Dr. Jones that banned Malchia, not me.  I only banned the duplicate accounts when he tried to avoid the ban.  I had forgotten about that.  :smirk:

:offtopic:

That's the runner up best typo of this week :]
(for those wondering, the next best goes to Kruzader in his sex-oriented topic in rants and randomness. :] )
:offtopic:

Wow... that's some intense stuff there. And I was worried about causing trouble and looking like a big ass... I feel good now.

...And Kruzader's typo was awesome because of the topic it was in. :)

Um... I don't care about that. He was trying to get booted. The fact that he was going out of his way to provoke you was even annoying me.

Ahh, well in that case I'll not trouble any more over it.

Oops. :p

I would have caught it had you bolded just the words  "illegal immigrant" and "criminal offense" instead.  I will also have to side with Tabun on this one, but you make a good argument too Pho.

Oh that's easy.  See, thousands of years ago a very large and very powerful extraterrestrial being known as Lavos crashed into the Earth.  Some curious apes came into contact with this being and began to unnaturally evolve and thus fall out of harmony with nature.  The Earth is pretty much screwed, but the human race as a whole will eventually be saved by two guys, one with spiky red hair and later by another who likes to wear a bandana.

Either that or you could go with Scientology. ;)

As I haven't read cited article, I won't comment much.

However...

It seems to me that all the jackasses picketing wherever and SLOWING DOWN MY DAMN COMMUTE (8 hour demonstration in down-town grand rapids with a loose line ten miles or so long of [excuse if you're of the latino nationality] spics blocking up traffic to bitch about their rights as ILLEGAL IIIIIIILLLLLLLLLEEEEEEEEEGGGGGGGAAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLLLLL sporking immigrants) should get the flying spork out of the country for bitching about their "rights" from sneaking into our country in the first place. You want to be in this country? Fine, they have rules for that.

The whole thing pisses me off to no end, and almost makes me want to kill somebody. Particularly those who demand rights, who have no sporking right to demand rights in the first place. You want to demand rights? Do in in the country you fled from! Get a shitload of people together and do it! You can't? LIES! It took me 30 sporking minutes to get through down-town because you assholes GOT TOGETHER! Shitheads...

For some reason, I wasn't missing Xypher much in this discussion. Odd, considering the fact that he took the time to read the arcticle, make sensible, well argued points, formulated in a way to indicate he made it past his teens..

Xypher has every right to vent his frustration over this situation since it is affecting him directly.  You might try walking in his shoes before criticizing him for feeling a very basic emotion.  -_-

I have just as much right venting my frustration over people venting their frustration in a certain manner. You might try walking in my shoes.. etc.
Besides, I didn't say he shouldn't, just that I disagree with both content and format. Besides besides, I've got my own shoes to walk in, and those shoes take me knee-deep through plenty of shit. :]

Are you suggesting that everyone should behave only the way you want them to, and only speak the way you would like them to?

I don't see where you're getting that idea from at all. I'm suggesting that I appreciate discussions that feature a certain kind of maturity. I have good reasons for that, other than merely 'personal preference', which I can explain to and discuss with you if you like. I'm suggesting that I like nuance and balanced opinion in discussions about controversial matters.
What I'm very much not suggesting is that my suggestions should be indicative of the norm. I don't know where you're getting the idea that I'm trying to dictate anything. In light of that, there is no conflict to be found in the fact that I won't always sit back and shut up when I disagree with the shape a discussion (or a post in it) takes. The only place I will ever respond in this kind of fashion is within CC boundaries and to people (1) who have known me long enough to realize there's no intended personal attack and (2) who I consider to be quite capable of biting back.

I honestly can appreciate your desire to defend and protect, but I think the father-figure role is slightly out of place in this case. Xypher has a beef with me over my post? Although that was certainly not the purpose of my message, there's no reason we could not resolve that between the two of us.

I think that was over-reacting. He is just commenting Xypher's post, not making him change the post so that it will follow his critics.

I never made any accusations.  All I did was ask a question.  I find them to be very useful when clarity is desired, and certainly more desirable than making an assumption and firing off a condescending retort from a flawed premise.  There's no need to second guess my motives.  I do my best to make them plain.  You could have just said "no" and I would have been content.

It looks very much like a rethorical question to me - The question seems to be about my motives, and I'm sure you already knew the answer. Hence the long reply.

If I were to ask someone "Do you support KKK-activity?" they're bound to be offended. Especially if the question is asked in the middle of a disagreement. Add to that the way such a question (w/c)ould sound, like in: "Are you suggesting I'm not behaving well mannered?" (in a Butler Jeeves type voice).
But then, I forget you're not human. Humans are generally unable to ask questions just for the purpose of getting answers.

The answer is: no.

So, seeing my bad, instead of second guessing, I'll ask: What were your motives for asking me that question? If none other than for the info: Why did you want to know it, and why didn't or couldn't you extrapolate the answer from earlier discussions?

Simply to find out what you were thinking at that moment, and by saying "no" you negate anything that might be implied by the question.  I don't see what the fuss is about, unless you were assuming that I was intent on sparring with you, which is not my intent.  Now as to why I asked the question, which is what your current question toward me is, I refer back to your reply here:
One could easily read this statement as looking down your nose at someone with a sense of superiority.  I wanted to understand your thinking better so as to rule that out.  You sometimes make jests that I don't get on the first try, so I wanted to be clear on your intent so as to not misread you, hence why I asked a question as opposed to making an accusation.  In my case, yes, I only wanted a simple answer.  Nothing more was intended.[/color]

:offtopic:
I think it was... "Bare with me". In a topic about a sex-addicted society. ^_^
:offtopic:

A marvellous typo that was. Wonderful. :]

Understood.

No sense of superiority involved. Although I must admit being more impressed by people being able to make their points without sporkedisporkspork and the like. But that's just my personal preference, not something I care to 'snob' about.

Also understood, but sometimes you just need to maul something, you know?