Yes I am.
You can't assure me of anything. You're reckless, irresponsible and not to be trusted, remember?
That's nothing. I got three citations in one day from the Tennessee State Police.
"Another" Waste of Our Money!
- Thread starter Poorboy
- Start date
Then don't read them, Just that Simple! Utilize the Ignore system that E.O. has! [/QUOTE]
"Ignore" is an excellent tool - for those who choose to be ignorant.
And it's a fallback response for those who can't back up their statements, right up there with "I am done with you/this subject/EO!"
BTW: I thought LEOs are required to have [at least] a high school diploma, meaning they can use correct grammar, punctuation, and have a fair idea of the rules regarding capitalization - did you get 'grandfathered in', or what?
"Ignore" is an excellent tool - for those who choose to be ignorant.
And it's a fallback response for those who can't back up their statements, right up there with "I am done with you/this subject/EO!"
BTW: I thought LEOs are required to have [at least] a high school diploma, meaning they can use correct grammar, punctuation, and have a fair idea of the rules regarding capitalization - did you get 'grandfathered in', or what?
dieseldiva
Veteran Expediter
BTW: I thought LEOs are required to have [at least] a high school diploma, meaning they can use correct grammar, punctuation, and have a fair idea of the rules regarding capitalization - did you get 'grandfathered in', or what?
[/QUOTE]
Here we go again. Aren't you the same person that as a MODERATOR, badgered a member about her spelling and grammar and then when other members objected to your treatment of her, you couldn't take the heat that YOU BROUGHT ON YOURSELF and you quit moderating? I don't think we need to go down this road again where only the "nose in the air elite" are allowed to post here.
Poorboy is correct, if you absolutely cannot bring yourself to read his "below your level" posts then put him on your ignore list....just like some upstanding members here do you because of your pretty purple text.
BTW: I thought LEOs are required to have [at least] a high school diploma, meaning they can use correct grammar, punctuation, and have a fair idea of the rules regarding capitalization - did you get 'grandfathered in', or what?
Here we go again. Aren't you the same person that as a MODERATOR, badgered a member about her spelling and grammar and then when other members objected to your treatment of her, you couldn't take the heat that YOU BROUGHT ON YOURSELF and you quit moderating? I don't think we need to go down this road again where only the "nose in the air elite" are allowed to post here.
You're referring to the infamous Bambi, no? If pointing out that her frequent misspelling of 'Pilot' could be corrected by just looking out the window is considered 'badgering', then SOME folks are really looking for nits to pick. Considering her many garbled posts, I think I was pretty restrained, actually.
And it's a flat out lie that I quit moderating as a result of this or any other 'heat' - don't know where you heard it, but repeating it is totally irresponsible.
Most errors of spelling, grammar, punctuation, etc go unremarked, but just occasionally, someone provokes me beyond endurance by flouting all rules of netiquette - one of which is to make one's posts as legible as possible.
Another is the ill advised posting of 'gossip' and unsubstantiated allegations, which you have clearly violated. And you think you have the right to censure me?!
Poorboy is correct, if you absolutely cannot bring yourself to read his "below your level" posts then put him on your ignore list....just like some upstanding members here do you because of your pretty purple text.
[/QUOTE]
I repeat: ignore is a great tool, if you choose to be ignorant.
BTW: if Bambi [and Poorboy] are examples of what you call 'upstanding members', then I'm just fine with being ignored by them, and expect you will take your own advice & ignore me too.
chefdennis
Veteran Expediter
LOL, This is pretty darn entertaining!!
chefdennis
Veteran Expediter
Hmmmm...looks like more then a few of these have been violated even by those complaining that they have been violated....
THE CORE RULES OF NETIQUETTE
The Core Rules of Netiquette are excerpted from the book Netiquette by Virginia Shea.
The Core Rules of Netiquette -- Excerpted from Netiquette by Virginia Shea -- Albion.com
THE CORE RULES OF NETIQUETTE
The Core Rules of Netiquette are excerpted from the book Netiquette by Virginia Shea.
The Core Rules of Netiquette -- Excerpted from Netiquette by Virginia Shea -- Albion.com
You think so? Try reading the original 'Bambi' stuff - THAT was entertaining!
chefdennis
Veteran Expediter
Well not being and "intellect"...i was able to read bambi's post with no problem....much like reading "IRT's" post also...and i even remember you encouraging his post.....
IRT, for all his mysterious posts, is at least a credible member - one who tries to be an asset to EO & drivers.
Bambi, on the other hand, was not so much. Her comments did nothing to make drivers [especially women] look like professionals, and much to make them look like ignorant, ill prepared, and opportunistic parasites.
I think that Poorboy's boasting made my question a fair one, and I stand behind every last word.
Bambi, on the other hand, was not so much. Her comments did nothing to make drivers [especially women] look like professionals, and much to make them look like ignorant, ill prepared, and opportunistic parasites.
I think that Poorboy's boasting made my question a fair one, and I stand behind every last word.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Now that's pretty funny ......
Consider the difference:
Two different people read a post which is clearly incomprehensible.
One person can't make heads or tails of it (and knows it)
The other party believes they know and understand what was being said ....
chefdennis
Veteran Expediter
RLENT wrote:
as i said...
as i said...
chefdennis
Veteran Expediter
Cheri wrote:
Ahhh so its all about image huh....
Ahhh so its all about image huh....
There's something about this thread that I, for one, find really bothersome. The fact that Poorboy wants to get rid of Obama because his administration (like previous ones) is "spending tax payers money on refurbishing mosques over seas" in NO WAY justifies a judgemental attack declaring him "reckless and irresponsible and not to be trusted". That's just a chicken-s*** cheap shot, totally without merit or justification. To make it worse, the sycophants come out of the woodwork and make a lame attempt to impugn his past career (about which they know nothing) to further malign his character and integrity. In my opinion, that type of smarmy, condescending name-calling accomplishes nothing except to expose the shallowness of the accusers.
Just some points to support my thoughts:
- The "Before it's News" website states clearly that they let "anyone write about most anything". They're not claiming to post the gospel.
- Look at the sentence: "...Spending Tax Payers Money on Refurbishing Mosques Over Seas". This does not imply that US taxpayer dollars are paying for the entire refurbishment of mosques. If the statement read "...TO refurbish mosques" the inference might be different.
- We might remind ourselves that the doctrine separating church and state keeps us from spending taxpayer money on religious buildings at home. According to US code, we're not supposed to be spending taxpayer dollars on religious projects abroad, either.
EDITORIAL: Tax dollars to build mosques - Washington Times
So even though Obama's administration isn't the only one guilty of misappropriation of taxpayer funds, the point of the post isn't entirely off target; hardly an example of recklessness, irresponsibility and untrustworthiness. After all, this administration was supposed to usher in a new era of transparency and integrity.
As an afterthought, all the good self-proclaimed Christians out there might keep in mind the message from the Good Book in Matthew 7.
Poorboy: PASS
dieseldiva
Veteran Expediter
I'm not trying to "censure" anyone here. You and your self-appointed academic elite buddies
are the ones that feel the need to pick apart other's spelling and grammar, just for the "sport" of it. The above paragraph shows your attitude toward some on this forum. No, I wasn't referring to those two members.
When someone comes on any forum and claims to have had a career that requires a high degree of intelligence and excellent communications skills, and then proceeds to routinely display an astounding lack of both, they're gonna get called on it.I'm not trying to "censure" anyone here. You and your self-appointed academic elite buddies
No, it's absolutely with merit. He's claiming a falsehood, since the Obama administration is not, in fact, spending taxpayer money on refurbishing mosques overseas. Previous administrations didn't do it, either. It was and in Congress that is doing it. The State Department is doing it, but under the direction of Congress. The fact that Pooboy wants to get rid of Obama is irrelevant. I want to get rid of him, too. But the simple fact is that he's purposely spreading lies and falsehoods for his own agenda. He posts things without checking the validity, which is both reckless and irresponsible. Because a number of his posts, including this one, have turned out to be lies and misinformation, his posts are not trustworthy.
He's the one who first used his career to establish character and integrity, and continues to do so. Yet his career and his postings here are irreconcilable, which goes directly to character and integrity. One who has integrity in one facet of their lives will have the same integrity in all facets of their life, and if one does not, then they have neither integrity or high character.
Excellent spin, but wrong. When someone purports to be of high integrity and character, yet their postings time after time belie that claim, to call them on it is hardly shallow. It's an honest observation.
Irrelevant. What some other site does is irrelevant to what happens here. Nonetheless, "news" by definition is a report of a recent event, intelligence, information, i.e., something known, and by implication known to be true, rather than something fabricated or intentionally misleading. "Before it's News" misrepresents itself.
That's incorrect. The use of "on" versus "to" has nothing to do with the implication of the degree (partial or entire) of the taxpayer's money that is being spent. The difference between "on refurbishing" and "to refurbish" is purely a semantical one, as both are prepositional phrases that mean precisely the same thing.
Prepositional phrases can be removed from a sentence and the sentence will still retail its primary meaning. For example:
"Obumma and His Administration are Spending Tax Payers Money on Refurbishing Mosques Over Seas."
"Obumma and His Administration are Spending Tax Payers Money."
Both are complete sentences (albeit both with appalling grammar). The first sentence has a qualifier that further explains the subject, to tell us how that money is being spent. The manner in which the qualifier is phrased is irrelevant, since it goes directly to the noun phrase and the verb phrase.
"Obumma and His Administration" is the noun, and "Tax Payers Money" is the noun compliment, with "Tax Payers" being the adjective to the "Money" noun. And "are Spending" being the verb phrase.
The "on Refurbishing Mosques Over Seas" is purely a prepositional phrase that can be completely removed from the sentence, and is a qualifier preposition phrase that links to the subject of the sentence to give it a clear (or clearer) context and meaning.
"Obumma and His Administration are Spending Tax Payers Money" is a standalone sentence, and any prepositional phrase that one might add will be the context of the subject. Whether that prepositional phrase is "to refurbish" or "on refurbishing" is literally semantical, as both phrases refer to the subject of who is spending who's money, and in no way refers to the degree of the tax payer's money that is being spent.
The Ambassadors Fund doesn't spend taxpayer dollars on religious projects, but rather on cultural projects.
Got that one from a conservative wb site, I'll bet. You might want to read the actual law, rather than rely on someone's biased interpretation and pure opinion (It is impossible to separate religion from a mosque; any such projects will necessarily support Islam.) on the matter.
If it is impossible to separate religion from a mosque, then it is also impossible to separate religion from a Catholic church or a Buddhist temple. It's not just mosques that are being refurbished using US taxpayer dollars. Over the years there have been quite a few more catholic churches than mosques to receive refurbishment aid, actually.
Why aren't these same conservatives all up in arms over this?
Personally, I think it's a very blurry line getting crossed when a building that is currently and actively being used primarily for religious purposes is being refurbished using US taxpayer dollars, regardless of the type of religion. The refurbishments and restorations aren't being done specifically to promote religious activities, but are done specifically for the cultural and historical significance. The vast majority of projects that the Ambassadors Fund supports are not religious in nature at all. Still, I think that for active religious buildings, it should be up to people who worship there, or the governments in those locations, to foot the entire bill for restorations and refurbishments.
This whole thing, the Ambassadors Fund, is purely political to help foster goodwill and foreign policy objectives. It's not all that unlike your local congressman or senator who tries to bring projects home. These US Ambassadors to foreign countries submit candidate project for aid to the State Department, which in turn puts the Ambassador, and thus the State Department and the US as a whole, in a more favorable light with the people in those countries.
So if you want to complain about some of the aid going to help refurbish a mosque, you have to complain just as loudly for some of the aid going to any and all other religious buildings. Otherwise, you're just hypocritical.
It's Congress that created this Fund, not an administration, and certainly not Obama's administration.
"So even though Obama's administration isn't the only one guilty of misappropriation of taxpayer funds," I like how you just slipped that in there as if it was true, and then used it to base your conclusion. Excellent. Nicely done.
The fact is, the story from "Before it's News" is misleading and untrue in substance, even on a superficial scale, and a blatant lie to incite the anger of others on a substantial scale. Poorboy read it and believed it, and without checking any of the facts, whole remaining entirely ignorant of the "why" of the funding, he blindly and recklessly propagated the misinformation, which is in and of itself an irresponsible act. And since he has a history of disseminating information that is later found to be untrue, that makes him untrustworthy. So when you say that his post here is "hardly an example of recklessness, irresponsibility and untrustworthiness," it is actually a conclusive and definitive example of it.
Ironic isn't it that that is the one message that good self-proclaimed Christians are the least likely to practice?
If he passed, it's only because we're playing musical chairs with the same number of chairs as people.
Last edited:
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Oh, I'll bet ......
Absolutely correct (but it wasn't Obama's administration that actually was the one that decided to spend the money - it was Congress)
Well ..... it would be ..... if that were the reason that someone said he was "reckless and irresponsible and not to be trusted"
But as Turtle clearly points out, that ain't it ....
Dude,
You really wanna talk about the kind of integrity and character it takes to mindlessly post inaccurate crapola from the internet without bothering to make the slightest effort to see if it even passes the smell test ?
Really ?
Well Sport, I much rather be guilty of some vigorous debate and little name-calling .... than say ..... oh, I dunno .... advocating genocide against a people on the basis of their religion (...... or any other thing)
Of course, everybody has their own tastes .... some of them pretty sick .... others, not quite so much ....
Heheheh ...... and you figure that makes points in Poorboy's favor .... how, exactly ?
.... one can only wonder what kind of "gospel" it would be if they did .......
It's been my experience that usually the ones who are overly fond of, and obsessed with, the self-proclaiming thing aren't the "good ones" ....
("The Lord chooses the good ones .... and the bad ones use the Lord ...." - Let's Get The Show On The Road, Michael Stanley)
Usually the "good ones" are so busy actually living it, that they don't have much time available to spend flapping their gums and crowing about it.
I think it's part of that "You-shall-know-them-by-their-fruits" thang .....
Last edited:
"Ignore" is an excellent tool - for those who choose to be ignorant.
And it's a fallback response for those who can't back up their statements, right up there with "I am done with you/this subject/EO!"
BTW: I thought LEOs are required to have [at least] a high school diploma, meaning they can use correct grammar, punctuation, and have a fair idea of the rules regarding capitalization - did you get 'grandfathered in', or what?
[/QUOTE]
I was Wondering when You were Going to jump in here! I did Back up my Statements,Or did you Choose to Overlook that?
Ignore:That's why I Informed the Chosen Few of that Option If they don't like what I Post then Feel Free to use it. Suggesting the Ignore isn't Ignorant at all
My Education Level is a Bachelors Degree in Law Enforcement and Yours?
As Far as Grammar: I wasn't aware that you were the Grammar Police, Thought that was OVMs Job
But Just like My Threads I Choose to do and use the Grammar exactly how I Want to..If I Don't use the Correct Punctuation or anything else then That's my Decision----Right?
I was Wondering when You were Going to jump in here! I did Back up my Statements,Or did you Choose to Overlook that?
Ignore:That's why I Informed the Chosen Few of that Option If they don't like what I Post then Feel Free to use it. Suggesting the Ignore isn't Ignorant at all
My Education Level is a Bachelors Degree in Law Enforcement and Yours?
As Far as Grammar: I wasn't aware that you were the Grammar Police, Thought that was OVMs Job
But Just like My Threads I Choose to do and use the Grammar exactly how I Want to..If I Don't use the Correct Punctuation or anything else then That's my Decision----Right?[/QUOTE]*LOL* you gettin me confused with JuJu on grammar....
so who is going to get in the last word?