Violent crime up again in USA, more murders, robberies
 

Old news, no one give a shit. Buy a gun and learn to use it.

Welcome to neo-con America.

Also, those studies are incomplete.
The complete US studies, done by the Justice Department and FBI are 2 years behind.

UT why can't you ban trolls, even you think so!

Just ignore her. It isn't that hard.

J'ever see a cat play with its prey?

/just kidding
//sorta

If what she says is inaccurate, then facts in reply will expose that myth.

Or don't read what she posts.

Is she attacking individual posters - or stating a political belief? If it came to banning someone, TheMercenary is clearly a divisive problem. As others have noted, tone in The Cellar definitely changed when TheMercenary began posting with his personal attacks combined with a mocking political agenda.

I don't see Duck_Duck doing that. I see a 16 year old girl posting what she believes to be facts. Facts that are only reinforced when it results in replies of emotional outbursts rather than logic.

What she posts should be so easy to refute. Why so many posts; and none with logical replies?

Why no refutations: like the old saying goes,

"Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time, and annoys the pig."

What a load of crap.

it's the tw party line. something of a one trick pony. ok, maybe 2 tricks....he calls gWb a mental midget a lot too.

Let's look at what constitutes an abusive poster. The first line from each post in a 24 hour period: I collected these first sentences over a 24 hour period when similarities appeared between TheMercenary's posts and how an unapologetic abuser of women (I once knew) also talked.
As usual, TheMerceary has nothing to say other than insulting emotions. He posts insults when he cannot defend his opinions with facts.

Is this an attack on TheMercenary? Well it makes a point by posting facts - in this case examples of how TheMercenary posted in a 24 hour period. I did not call him a cunt face. He did that for himself. I just provided the examples of one who is so abusive.

I don't see Duck_Duck using profanity on a regular basis. I don't see her routinely insulting others. The example of that would be both words and attitude of TheMercenary.

Mercenary received repeated warnings and heeded them.

So who in this thread has posted more insulting comments - Duck_Duck or TheMercenary? If questions the standards which many of the first posters were using to judge.

Duck_Duck is a 16 year old girl posting political viewpoints as she perceives them. TheMercenary as an adult chooses to attack other posters with childish insults. Which one is more divisive?

At least Duck_Duck posts opinions based in sources. Where is “load of crap” proven by a citation?

Let’s see. TheMercenary knows another is a “load of crap”. Therefore that proves it to be true? I don’t see Duck_Duck posting any such insults.

Where did duck-duck post an opinion in this thread?

"What a load of crap" is clearly directed at your statement and not at you. The word "what" is a stand-in for the premise "[duck duck's] facts... are only reinforced when it results in replies of emotional outbursts rather than logic." Merc is indicating that he disagrees with that statement.

If his statement were directed at you, it would read something like: "tw is a load of crap when he says..."

However, tw, when you say "As usual, TheMercenary has nothing to say other than insulting emotions."

That is directed specifically at Merc, and not at his argument, which is that your argument "is a load of crap".

ad hominem count in thread:

duck_duck: 0
the mercenary: 0
undertoad: 1 (assumed: "duck_duck is seriously trolling")
tw: 1

As I stated, your assertion is a load of crap. Nothing supports such assertion. Regardless of what responses I have made in response to what another posts to me. You can't handle the truth.

Tw is right about one part, everyone here seems backs up their opinion with "I said so".

Ad Hominems are very high here too.

I'm out of order, YOU'RE out of order, THIS WHOLE DAMN THREAD IS OUT OF ORDER!

Oh, wait :::switches back to Linear Mode:::

:D
Good catch ;)

http://static.firedoglake.com/2006/0...fewgoodmen.jpg

God, I can smell his breath from that photo. ... Minty!

Yea, pretty intense scene. One crazy dude.

BTW, have you seen The Shooter yet?

Three-trick pony: he also dislikes top management of about any description. Seems he cut himself on some once when he was little.

And that's still the case. Tw's personality is in any case designed to attract personal attacks and mopery with intent to creep.

duck_duck: 0
the mercenary: 0
undertoad: 1 (assumed)
tw: 1
ug: 2

Bitches

UT- that is a complete piece of shit you just splayed from your mouth.

If that was my complete post, it did exactly what TheMercenary posted. Post was obviously intended only to insult you. Only the wording is different from "What a load of crap."

Major difference if TheMercenary had posted "What a load of crap because ...." (with "..." being a logical explanation). He did not do that explaining because his only point was insult. Meanwhile, don't forget the context here. It's Duck_Duck vs. TheMercenary - nothing more.

Did I say UT forgot to include the second sentence; therefore distorting the point - failed to notice a major difference. Preceding that paragraph were example after example of what TheMercenary did in a 24 hour period as he still does today. IOW opinion was backed by examples and facts. There was no insult because that post was clearly a statement of fact - with numerous examples.

Previous post contrasts and compares two posters: TheMercenary and Duck_Duck.

He did not post "What a load of crap because ..." . He posted the equivalent of "a complete piece of shit you just splayed from your mouth" by using different words. piercehawkeye45 defines it as: "I said so", but TheMercenary included words intended to insult.

The original point again. Who posted with intent to insult? Duck_Duck or TheMercenary?

Glatt asks, "Where did duck-duck post an opinion in this thread?" For stating an opinion, so many reactionary replies? Why? Only TheMercenary posted "What a load of crap." which is to insult. TheMercenary's post is acceptable but Duck_Duck's post is insulting?

Two posters are compared and contrasted. Duck_Duck or TheMercenary. Duck_Duck did not insult anyone. TheMercenary's post is clearly only for insult. TheMercenary’s post has no logical purpose but ‘words intended for insult’. If his intent was not to insult, then he would have posted "because" followed by ‘reasons why’. He did not. His intent was to post insult. Also posted is his history of posting insult. Who did Duck_Duck insult? No one.

That's not what you posted. Your history also demonstrates your intent. You did not post "What a load of crap because .... ". You posted only "What a load of crap" - the target of crap oviously being a poster. Obviously because that is your history as demonstrated by quotes.

Very first line from every post in a 24 hour period is your problem. Your begin with intent to attack the poster - not provide facts. You have changed recently in some posts. When you post "What a load of crap" and nothing more, then your intent is obviously to insult. Posted with the agenda of "Because I said so".

But again, this is a discussion that contrasts TheMercenary with Duck_Duck. Duck_Duck insulted who? No one.

Bla, bla, bla...

Incorrect. Believe what you want. I was responding to your statement, get over it, and stop reading so much into it.

Cherry picking... I could post a laundry list of insults you have dished out on here to many. You conviently left off all of the comments to me that warranted my response. Typical Double Standard style.

Incorrect. Believe what you want. I was responding to your statement, get over it, and stop reading so much into it.

Incorect again. This is not about me and Duck_Duck. This is about you...

Not quite, tw.

Even when the statement is rewritten, as you have done, "that is a complete piece of shit you just splayed from your mouth",... it still addresses the argument and not the poster.

Now, if one were to say "YOU are a complete piece of shit for saying that," that would address the poster, and not the argument.

That's not logical.

You are saying "Mercenaries' post was insulting. As proof, I have 25 other insults that he posted."

If I ask you for proof that the sun will come up tomorrow, you may be tempted to indicate that the sun has come up for millions of consecutive days. That's statement of fact - but not proof. The history of the sun has no bearing on what happens tomorrow morning.

A rewriting of Merc's original statement would be "I colorfully and vehemently disagree." It does not address the facts of the argument -- it doesn't refute it -- but it does address it in a way that gives the reader a tidbit of additional information.

Well then UT, that is a complete piece of shit your have just splayed all over the Cellar. Fuck the facts as posted. I colorfully and vehemently disagree with that crap posted with the rancid integrity of a twat. Mortifying is posting such material; for reaching into a cesspool of wanker logic with pissant credibility. The post is clearly based in scum rationalization that can only be achieved using fuck faced inchoherence. Reasoning so putrid as to question why anyone would want to post that masterbation. Conclusions so groudless as to drive even drive off the homeless.

Damnation to any post that would pontificate excrement only found in swine pens. A decent person could never accept such reasoning even if using a asshole for sexual gratification.

Of course none of this reflects in any way on the character of UT - obviously. It simply addresses the merits of his post.

Well now you have both statements that address me and statements that address my argument.

Perhaps we go over what you wrote, you'll start to have an inkling of comprehension. Each statement, in turn, either
A) addresses my argument,
B) addresses me,
C) addresses both me and my argument, or
D) addresses neither me, nor my argument.

Ready?

Well then UT, that is a complete piece of shit your have just splayed all over the Cellar.
A) addresses my argument

Fuck the facts as posted.
D) addresses neither me nor my argument

I colorfully and vehemently disagree with that crap posted with the rancid integrity of a twat.
C) addresses both me and my argument

Mortifying is posting such material; for reaching into a cesspool of wanker logic with pissant credibility.
B) addresses me

The post is clearly based in scum rationalization that can only be achieved using fuck faced inchoherence.
A) addresses my argument

Reasoning so putrid as to question why anyone would want to post that masterbation.
B) addresses me

Conclusions so groudless as to drive even drive off the homeless.
A) addresses my argument

Damnation to any post that would pontificate excrement only found in swine pens.
D) addresses neither me, nor my argument

A decent person could never accept such reasoning even if using a asshole for sexual gratification.
B) addresses me

Now that you have some practice, let's go over the original:

What a load of crap.

A) addresses the argument.

Do you see how this works? If not, post another set, and we'll go over it again.

i loooove this line!

UT - nothing addresses you. Everything only addresses you posts - as you have defined it. In every example, if you find it address you, then "What a load of crap" are clearly intended as addressing the poster - not the post. Even using an objective reference to person is an intentional insult of the person. "What" is the replaceement for "you are" - another part of the insult.

If you find anything I posted that address you, then you are reading into it what is not posted. After all, "What a load of crap" insults no one - because the poster proclaimed he was not insulting. At no time in that post do I address any person. You have only jumped to interpretation based upon your own bias. According to your standards, those posts must be taken as intended - not as perceived. "What a load of crap" is not an acceptable way to respond to anyone's post - according to your reasoning.

Meanwhile, I don't see anything posted by Duck_Duck that even comes close to being as insulting as "What a load of crap". “What a load of crap because …", although containing insulting and unnecessary profanity, once was considered differently. Reasoning behind that conclusion (after the word 'because') expressed logically would not be so insulting. That is my original standard for civility - before you changed the rules to endorse open use of profanity at any time.

Yes I am questioning what is acceptable civil posting because in my book, use of profanity without specific fundamental reasoning behind it is insulting to everyone in the Cellar past and present - including Duck_Duck and Onyxcougar. The way I saw it, this open use of intentionally hurtful profanity is the reason why so many left the Cellar. It had nothing to do with 16 year old posters such as Duck_Duck.

"What a load of shit" was only posted to insult.

Appreciate how deep I had to dig for that one. I don't even have acquaintances who use such language - and that includes working construction.

?

yes, that was the source of the charm, tom.

New standards. A foreigner cannot post criticism of America from a 16 year old's perspective. But criticisms of posts chock full of profanity is acceptable as long as it does not directly insult the poster – only insults his posts. All posters are now encouraged to start their posts with "What a load of shit" since it only insults the other poster's post and clearly does not insult any person. What a load of shit" is the acceptable way of saying "I simply don't agree".

A standard now exercised in another discussion never once insults anyone:
Sorry About Our President.Com

What a load of shit... that argument is.:D

This is America. We've got so many waiting to get in, we don't have to kill the same one twice.

And who is it that seems to believe splayed is a spelling variant of sprayed?

Tw's oft-demonstrated inability to copyedit does nothing for his arguments -- and this is but fact.