Maplewood Man Found Guilty Of Punching, Kicking Woman In Road-Rage Incident
basil said:
Robert_Casotto said:
any inkling on where this took place.
Don't worry, not on your side of the train tracks
stalker alert. creepy!
ml1 said:
Leaving aside whether any of us are experts on firearms I think we can say this particular incident may have been a lot worse if NJ was a state where it's easier to be licensed to carry a weapon.
Insofar as you'd like to keep the thread drift going, I'll play: which part of shall not be infringed is unclear?
TomR
Tom_R said:
ml1 said:
Leaving aside whether any of us are experts on firearms I think we can say this particular incident may have been a lot worse if NJ was a state where it's easier to be licensed to carry a weapon.
Insofar as you'd like to keep the thread drift going, I'll play: which part of shall not be infringed is unclear?
TomR
Mr. Ml1 was stating a fact, about current NJ law.
Mr. Tom_R was trying to start a discussion, and if he really wants to discuss the scope of the Second Amendment, there's an "Add a Discussion" button for that.
nohero said:
Mr. Ml1 was stating a fact, about current NJ law.
Mr. Tom_R was trying to start a discussion, and if he really wants to discuss the scope of the Second Amendment, there's an "Add a Discussion" button for that.
Exactly. NJ is among the strictest states regarding permits to carry firearms.
It's kind of amazing how some issues seem to cause people to lose their ability to understand a very simple sentence.
nohero said:
Tom_R said:
ml1 said:
Leaving aside whether any of us are experts on firearms I think we can say this particular incident may have been a lot worse if NJ was a state where it's easier to be licensed to carry a weapon.
Insofar as you'd like to keep the thread drift going, I'll play: which part of shall not be infringed is unclear?
TomR
Mr. Ml1 was stating a fact, about current NJ law.
Mr. Tom_R was trying to start a discussion, and if he really wants to discuss the scope of the Second Amendment, there's an "Add a Discussion" button for that.
I am the OP. I am NOT offended by TomR's posting (about "shall not be infringed"). Nor, am I offended by ml's posting ("this particular incident may have been a lot worse if NJ was a state where it's easier to be licensed to carry a weapon"). Both postings are thread-drift which is tangentially relevant to this posting.
What is most interesting is nohero's posting here. nohero has decided to "police" my thread. BUT only with respect to thread-drift with which he is hostile ( namely, TomR's posting - which most would classify as pro 2nd amendment). Respectfully, nohero please do NOT police this thread (instead provide your POV on "shall not be infringed" or "may have been a lot worse if NJ was a state where it's easier to be licensed to carry a weapon"). IMHO, the tangential discussions arising from this posting are natural and organic. Finally, I find the fact that nohero's bias against firearms causes nohero to treat various MOLers differently based on the content of their message to be sad.
proeasdf said:
I am the OP. I am NOT offended by TomR's posting (about "shall not be infringed"). Nor, am I offended by ml's posting ("this particular incident may have been a lot worse if NJ was a state where it's easier to be licensed to carry a weapon"). Both postings are thread-drift which is tangentially relevant to this posting.
What is most interesting is nohero's posting here. nohero has decided to "police" my thread. BUT only with respect to thread-drift with which he is hostile ( namely, TomR's posting - which most would classify as pro 2nd amendment). Respectfully, nohero please do NOT police this thread (instead provide your POV on "shall not be infringed" or "may have been a lot worse if NJ was a state where it's easier to be licensed to carry a weapon"). IMHO, the tangential discussions arising from this posting are natural and organic. Finally, I find the fact that nohero's bias against firearms causes nohero to treat various MOLers differently based on the content of their message to be sad.
proeasdf said:
I am the OP. I am NOT offended by TomR's posting (about "shall not be infringed"). Nor, am I offended by ml's posting ("this particular incident may have been a lot worse if NJ was a state where it's easier to be licensed to carry a weapon"). Both postings are thread-drift which is tangentially relevant to this posting.
What is most interesting is nohero's posting here. nohero has decided to "police" my thread. BUT only with respect to thread-drift with which he is hostile ( namely, TomR's posting - which most would classify as pro 2nd amendment). Respectfully, nohero please do NOT police this thread (instead provide your POV on "shall not be infringed" or "may have been a lot worse if NJ was a state where it's easier to be licensed to carry a weapon"). IMHO, the tangential discussions arising from this posting are natural and organic. Finally, I find the fact that nohero's bias against firearms causes nohero to treat various MOLers differently based on the content of their message to be sad.
to say it could have been worse if the guy had a gun isn't tangential. It's directly relevant to the event.
nohero said:
proeasdf said:
I am the OP. I am NOT offended by TomR's posting (about "shall not be infringed"). Nor, am I offended by ml's posting ("this particular incident may have been a lot worse if NJ was a state where it's easier to be licensed to carry a weapon"). Both postings are thread-drift which is tangentially relevant to this posting.
What is most interesting is nohero's posting here. nohero has decided to "police" my thread. BUT only with respect to thread-drift with which he is hostile ( namely, TomR's posting - which most would classify as pro 2nd amendment). Respectfully, nohero please do NOT police this thread (instead provide your POV on "shall not be infringed" or "may have been a lot worse if NJ was a state where it's easier to be licensed to carry a weapon"). IMHO, the tangential discussions arising from this posting are natural and organic. Finally, I find the fact that nohero's bias against firearms causes nohero to treat various MOLers differently based on the content of their message to be sad.
My posting was not an attempt to insult you. Instead, I pointed out that you apparently treat people differently (in this instance) based on the content of their message. Why do you think you have authority to police the threads of others (especially with a bias against those with POVs different than your own)?
Invitation to Dialogue: nohero please do NOT police this thread (instead provide your POV on "shall not be infringed" or "may have been a lot worse if NJ was a state where it's easier to be licensed to carry a weapon").
PS All of my comments in this thread regarding nohero fall into the category of constructive criticism.
PPS Even more interesting is how you are now attempting to DISTORT constructive criticism into an insult (sounds like more evidence of your differential treatment based on POV or message). Keep it up. You are doing a great job proving my point (you are not even-handed in your criticisms here on MOL - even of non-political issues such as tagential discussions).
Klinker said:
But the troll is hungry!
Hey kernel:
What do you call an individual who has no substantive contributions to this thread?
????????
PS This is my thread. Thereby making it impossible for me to be a troll to my own thread.
proeasdf said:
My posting was not an attempt to insult you. Instead, I pointed out that you apparently treat people differently (in this instance) based on the content of their message. Why do you think you have authority police the threads of others (especially with a bias against those with POVs different than your own)?
Invitation to Dialogue: nohero please do NOT police this thread (instead provide your POV on "shall not be infringed" or "may have been a lot worse if NJ was a state where it's easier to be licensed to carry a weapon").
PS All of my comments in this thread regarding nohero fall into the category of constructive criticism.
PPS Even more interesting is how you are now attempting to DISTORT constructive criticism into an insult (sounds like more evidence of your differential treatment based on POV or message). Keep it up. You are doing a great job proving my point (you are not even-handed in your criticisms here on MOL - even of non-political issues such as tagential discussions).
the two comments weren't equal. Mine was a direct comment on the event. TomR's comment was something else. Quite frankly, I'm still not sure what his point was/is, given that I didn't call for any crackdowns on gun owners.
proeasdf said:
PS This is my thread. Thereby making it impossible for me to be a troll to my own thread.
FWIW: It is very possible to create a threat for the purpose of trolling.
Also, these are all Jamie and Dave's threads. We just borrow them.
sprout said:
proeasdf said:
PS This is my thread. Thereby making it impossible for me to be a troll to my own thread.
FWIW: It is very possible to create a threat for the purpose of trolling.
Also, these are all Jamie and Dave's threads. We just borrow them.
Under your POV, I, as OP, am not allowed any input. Please confirm.
PS sprout, are you taking the POV that I created this posting for purposes of trolling?
ml1 said:
proeasdf said:
My posting was not an attempt to insult you. Instead, I pointed out that you apparently treat people differently (in this instance) based on the content of their message. Why do you think you have authority police the threads of others (especially with a bias against those with POVs different than your own)?
Invitation to Dialogue: nohero please do NOT police this thread (instead provide your POV on "shall not be infringed" or "may have been a lot worse if NJ was a state where it's easier to be licensed to carry a weapon").
PS All of my comments in this thread regarding nohero fall into the category of constructive criticism.
PPS Even more interesting is how you are now attempting to DISTORT constructive criticism into an insult (sounds like more evidence of your differential treatment based on POV or message). Keep it up. You are doing a great job proving my point (you are not even-handed in your criticisms here on MOL - even of non-political issues such as tagential discussions).
the two comments weren't equal. Mine was a direct comment on the event. TomR's comment was something else. Quite frankly, I'm still not sure what his point was/is, given that I didn't call for any crackdowns on gun owners.
The question is not whether the posts of you, ml1, and TomR were equal. Instead, both postings did not deal with the direct news story (quick sketch of story: woman in her 50s beaten by a local man for being too slow getting out of the car). Your posting (ml1) was regarding regarding a hypothetical (namely, what would have happened if NJ firearm licensing laws were lax). Whereas, TomR's posting is attempting to invoke the 2nd amendment (an actual component of the Constitution, rather than a hypothetical - albeit TomR did not flesh out his point).
In light of the fact that neither ml1 or TomR's posting deal with the victim, or the perpetrator, it seems to me that both comments are tangential.
nohero said:
Tom_R said:
ml1 said:
Leaving aside whether any of us are experts on firearms I think we can say this particular incident may have been a lot worse if NJ was a state where it's easier to be licensed to carry a weapon.
Insofar as you'd like to keep the thread drift going, I'll play: which part of shall not be infringed is unclear?
TomR
Mr. Ml1 was stating a fact, about current NJ law.
Mr. Tom_R was trying to start a discussion, and if he really wants to discuss the scope of the Second Amendment, there's an "Add a Discussion" button for that.
nohero, after further review, it appears that you, at a minimum, condescended to TomR with your "Add a Discussion" comment. I am fairly certain that TomR is aware that "Add a Discussion" button exists (as TomR appears to have created more than 20 threads on his own). As far as I know the only way to start a new thread is by clicking the "Add a Discussion" button. Thus, TomR has repeatedly used this button to create these prior threads.
Therefore, it appears that nohero was attempting to disparage TomR as unintelligent. Arguably, nohero insulted TomR with such disparagement. Just my two cents ("$0.02").
proeasdf said:
sprout said:
proeasdf said:
PS This is my thread. Thereby making it impossible for me to be a troll to my own thread.
FWIW: It is very possible to create a threat for the purpose of trolling.
Also, these are all Jamie and Dave's threads. We just borrow them.
Under your POV, I, as OP, am not allowed any input. Please confirm.
PS sprout, are you taking the POV that I created this posting for purposes of trolling?
1. You can provide input as much as you wish until the point at which the powers-that-be might ban you. This is an open discussion board. A primary rule is no personal attacks. However, there are no rules related to controlling the thread if one is the OP.
P.S. Yes. It seems like you prefer to try to dominate the debate, as a troll might, and make it all about you, as a troll might, rather than just letting the thread run its course on the topic, and discuss related (or unrelated) tangential topics.
That said, you don't really seem to like the format of an open discussion board as you keep trying to force changes that are unlikely to occur. If you want to control the discussion, perhaps there are better venues.
Can we get back to the original topic of someone escalating a simple situation into a more contentious one?
nohero said:
Can we get back to the original topic of someone escalating a simple situation into a more contentious one?
Can we get an apology from you for insulting/condescending to TomR?
proeasdf said:
Can we get an apology from you for insulting/condescending to TomR?
why? I didn't ask TomR for an apology for his strangely condescending reply to my comment.
This is a message board. Sometimes people post dumb replies to comments.
Tom_R said:
Insofar as you'd like to keep the thread drift going, I'll play: which part of shall not be infringed is unclear?
TomR
Easy. Define "infringe".
First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech ..."
Which part of "no law" or "abridging" is so unclear that a person van be prosecuted for "hate speech" or "yelling fire in a crowded theater"?
sprout said:
1. A primary rule is no personal attacks. However, there are no rules related to controlling the thread if one is the OP.
That's not a primary rule, it's just about the only rule. And yet a poster who replied to my post by telling me to "go f*** myself" was given only a brief suspension.
proeasdf said:
PS sprout, are you taking the POV that I created this posting for purposes of trolling?
Judging by your avatar, your whole account was created for the purpose of trolling. Heck, your whole life may be fore the purpose of trolling for all we know.
STANV said:
sprout said:
1. A primary rule is no personal attacks. However, there are no rules related to controlling the thread if one is the OP.
That's not a primary rule, it's just about the only rule. And yet a poster who replied to my post by telling me to "go f*** myself" was given only a brief suspension.
Sorry to hear that happened to you.
basil said:
proeasdf said:
PS sprout, are you taking the POV that I created this posting for purposes of trolling?
Judging by your avatar, your whole account was created for the purpose of trolling. Heck, your whole life may be fore the purpose of trolling for all we know.
Confirmation bias is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that affirms one's prior beliefs or hypotheses.[1] It is a type of cognitive bias and a systematic error of inductive reasoning. People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for desired outcomes, emotionally charged issues, and for deeply entrenched-beliefs.
proeasdf said:
Can we get an apology from you for insulting/condescending to TomR?
Come on man, posts like this are really childish. Post what you want, others do the same.
You wouldn’t happen to be the President, would you?
For Sale
Garage Sales
-
HUGE Rummage sale to benefit the Bloomfield High School Robotics Team Sale Date: Apr 27, 2024
More info
Featured Events
-
Stephen Whitty Presents - Hometown Movie Stars: The Celebrated Actors Of CHS
May 6, 2024 at 7:00pm
-
'Beethoven's Wrong Note: A Steampunk Opera'
May 12, 2024 at 2:00pm
Advertisement
Leaving aside whether any of us are experts on firearms I think we can say this particular incident may have been a lot worse if NJ was a state where it's easier to be licensed to carry a weapon.