Forum Rule Change: Matt, MODs

General Chat
BubbleGumTiger
SEOPS Hippo
Posts: 104408
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2004 6:47 am

Re: Forum Rule Change: Matt, MODs

Post by BubbleGumTiger »

Eagle82 wrote:
BTW, what ever happened to Fido and Boonedawg?
Both of them fellas are still around........


BubbleGumTiger
SEOPS Hippo
Posts: 104408
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2004 6:47 am

Re: Forum Rule Change: Matt, MODs

Post by BubbleGumTiger »

F-4 Phantom wrote:Having spent decades in the military, I've learned one needs to be specific when articulating/implenting direction. It is in the grey areas where most manipulate rules/regulations and standard operating procedures.
They taught that at the NCO Academy at Maxwell AFB when I was a student in AIC..........a lesson well learned :!: :!:


F-4 Phantom
Varsity
Posts: 604
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 4:39 pm

Re: Forum Rule Change: Matt, MODs

Post by F-4 Phantom »

Kentucky Trojan wrote:
F-4 Phantom wrote:Having spent decades in the military, I've learned one needs to be specific when articulating/implenting direction. It is in the grey areas where most manipulate rules/regulations and standard operating procedures. :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: Through vast training, I've mastered the process!! :12224





Inferring someone is stupid or lacks intelligence because we don't agree with their opinion in the course of debate.
I have shown some examples that you can state that somebody makes a stupid comment; however, there is no inference that you are calling this individual stupid.

There is no Forrest Gump clause whereby, "Stupid is as stupid does."

There must be a direct personal attack on another poster.
I'll have to look these over and the context in which they were given.


F-4 Phantom
Varsity
Posts: 604
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 4:39 pm

Re: Forum Rule Change: Matt, MODs

Post by F-4 Phantom »

I'm going to follow guidance as written. However, Pandora's box remains cracked and leaves open subjective policing. IMO

You are ignorant--forbidden

That's an ignorant comment, point of view, etc..--acceptable

Seems both will lead to further digression. But, I'm a simple man living in a complex electronic communication world. It has gotten me into trouble in the past and history has a way of repeating! :mrgreen:


F-4 Phantom
Varsity
Posts: 604
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 4:39 pm

Re: Forum Rule Change: Matt, MODs

Post by F-4 Phantom »

TigerTownTurkey wrote:
F-4 Phantom wrote:Having spent decades in the military, I've learned one needs to be specific when articulating/implementing direction. It is in the grey areas where most manipulate rules/regulations and standard operating procedures.
They taught that at the NCO Academy at Maxwell AFB when I was a student in AIC..........a lesson well learned :!: :!:

I've spent a lot of time at the Gunter Annex. :12224


User avatar
mustang_lvr
SEOPS Hippo
Posts: 45784
Joined: Sun Nov 06, 2005 10:45 pm

Re: Forum Rule Change: Matt, MODs

Post by mustang_lvr »

F-4 Phantom wrote:I'm going to follow guidance as written. However, Pandora's box remains cracked and leaves open subjective policing. IMO

You are ignorant--forbidden

That's an ignorant comment, point of view, etc..--acceptable

Seems both will lead to further digression. But, I'm a simple man living in a complex electronic communication world. It has gotten me into trouble in the past and history has a way of repeating! :mrgreen:

when it comes to a lawyer they will tell you always use think when calling someone a name

you are dumb is a no no, you can be taken to court to prove your statement if a third party is involved

i think you are dumb will keep you out of court if the third party can say for sure you said think

if either is in some form of reading, no third party needs to be involved. just need to prove the person put it in the form of reading.


This i know because i took a person to court over over a statement and they could not prove it it also helps if family members are good Columbus layers [cost] lol


Kentucky Trojan
SE
Posts: 2183
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2010 4:52 pm

Re: Forum Rule Change: Matt, MODs

Post by Kentucky Trojan »

mustang_lvr wrote:when it comes to a lawyer they will tell you always use think when calling someone a name

you are dumb is a no no, you can be taken to court to prove your statement if a third party is involved

i think you are dumb will keep you out of court if the third party can say for sure you said think

if either is in some form of reading, no third party needs to be involved. just need to prove the person put it in the form of reading.


This i know because i took a person to court over over a statement and they could not prove it it also helps if family members are good Columbus layers [cost] lol
Me thinks I had better place the word "think" in everything that I write to mustang_lvr...

:lol:

Taking people to court over slander/libel is also a drain on our society....oh, I forgot...I think...

:lol: :lol: :lol:


F-4 Phantom
Varsity
Posts: 604
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 4:39 pm

Re: Forum Rule Change: Matt, MODs

Post by F-4 Phantom »

mustang_lvr wrote:
F-4 Phantom wrote:I'm going to follow guidance as written. However, Pandora's box remains cracked and leaves open subjective policing. IMO

You are ignorant--forbidden

That's an ignorant comment, point of view, etc..--acceptable

Seems both will lead to further digression. But, I'm a simple man living in a complex electronic communication world. It has gotten me into trouble in the past and history has a way of repeating! :mrgreen:

when it comes to a lawyer they will tell you always use think when calling someone a name

you are dumb is a no no, you can be taken to court to prove your statement if a third party is involved

i think you are dumb will keep you out of court if the third party can say for sure you said think

if either is in some form of reading, no third party needs to be involved. just need to prove the person put it in the form of reading.


This i know because i took a person to court over over a statement and they could not prove it it also helps if family members are good Columbus layers [cost] lol
I'm a simple man. Lawyers, too complex, fast talkers and notorious for twisting the facts: I think! :12224 :mrgreen:


User avatar
mustang_lvr
SEOPS Hippo
Posts: 45784
Joined: Sun Nov 06, 2005 10:45 pm

Re: Forum Rule Change: Matt, MODs

Post by mustang_lvr »

mine are the best


User avatar
The Oaf
SEO
Posts: 2501
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 9:05 am
Location: Up in da boof

Re: Forum Rule Change: Matt, MODs

Post by The Oaf »

"Methinks it is like a weasel"


Kentucky Trojan
SE
Posts: 2183
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2010 4:52 pm

Re: Forum Rule Change: Matt, MODs

Post by Kentucky Trojan »

The Oaf wrote:"Methinks it is like a weasel"
Methinks it is just a website...

:roll:


KVDW
SE
Posts: 2249
Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2010 9:48 am

Re: Forum Rule Change: Matt, MODs

Post by KVDW »

mustang_lvr wrote:

when it comes to a lawyer they will tell you always use think when calling someone a name

This i know because i took a person to court over over a statement and they could not prove it it also helps if family members are good Columbus layers [cost] lol
i'm planning on being in columbus a couple of days next week and i was just wondering if you might possibly be able to provide the names and addresses of a couple of those family members that are good columbus layers.
i'm hoping that by your inserting the word [cost] in there that they are cheap.... well, actually i know they are cheap but i mean cheap as in inexpensive.


Kentucky Trojan
SE
Posts: 2183
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2010 4:52 pm

Re: Forum Rule Change: Matt, MODs

Post by Kentucky Trojan »

...I believe that they were cheap for her....but, not for others.....they are good after all...


Orange and Brown
SEOPS Mr. Ohio
Posts: 20590
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:49 am
Location: Next to a lake somewhere
Contact:

Re: Forum Rule Change: Matt, MODs

Post by Orange and Brown »

bump


Post Reply

Return to “The Off season”