For Seaoat and Miss Z man

2seaoat wrote:Please give me any forum member in the last five years who used the forum to spam.   At the PNJ about 10 years ago there was a democrat spammer called Pensacola.  He admitted he was a paid spammer, and mike eventually banned him.   There has been Nobody doing that except those two, but I am open to you to show me somebody else......I am all ears.

PkrBum wrote:You really should give up the pretence of fair play... you're fooling no one.

RealLindaL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:You really should give up the pretence of fair play... you're fooling no one.

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me who appointed you God to sit in judgment of everyone you chastise on this forum as to their fairness and even-handedness, or rather their failure to adhere to your holy definition of it.  

PkrBum wrote:It was your and the other's judgement that created the issue. As in... there was no issue until it was created. Why y'all think yourselves morally or ethically entitled to silence another is beyond me. It's a  shortsighted and dangerous group think... it'll spread and certainly be used against us all.

PkrBum wrote:This isn't about me. Trying to shift the point or assigning bs to me is simply your coping mechanism.

RealLindaL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:This isn't about me. Trying to shift the point or assigning bs to me is simply your coping mechanism.

Ludicrous statement.

Look, you said, "It's a shortsighted and dangerous group think... it'll spread and certainly be used against us all."  Don't you include yourself in the "us all" that this supposed group-think will be used against?  

And trying to compare FT with Markle is a fool's game.  There IS no comparison.  She, unlike Markle, is willing to engage in actual discourse.  She acts like a real human being, willing to discuss and reason, NOT like a robot spouting spam in response to virtually every single conversation/comment.

That said, I'll confess I don't often read her non-mainstream-sourced articles beyond maybe a sentence or two (sorry, FT) -- but she isn't persistently "in your face" NEARLY to the extent that Markle was.  Get real.

2seaoat wrote:If flatex were banned by a Republican administrator for "mind-numbing, persistently lying spam from highly questionable sources" you would be screaming bloody murder.

No, if Flatex was a spammer, I would not scream and would rejoice cleaning up a mess.  You are not understanding a very simple concept.  The person that posts spam about tennis shoes or frying pans on a forum is not here to discuss or interact with the people who are members of the forum......they are here to sell something.   It is not the content of what they are selling, but the constant ads they post not for interaction, but for the purpose to sell their spam.   Flatex is here to discuss politics, but more importantly other non political issues.   She constantly posts threads which have nothing to do with politics.  Mr. Markle went almost eight years without posting non political threads because he was spamming not discussing.  After, I think I correctly pointed this out, he started about six threads on the general discussion.  Yes, when Flatex talks about President Bush she uses highly political slanted sites.  When Z talked about banking he used highly slanted sites.  When I talk about the Bulls, I approach it from a highly slanted mind set.  Mr. Markle did not.  He simply was selling spam which had an agenda, yes......one which you apparently agree, but the content was secondary to the fact he was selling spam here.  No other forum member did the same thing.   NOBODY.

PkrBum wrote:The politics section is flooded with every dnc leftist talkingpoint that comes down the pike... including flatex propaganda and one entire thread that's little more than one poster pasting up youtube after youtube of inane leftist drivel. You really should give up the pretence of fair play... you're fooling no one.

https://pensacoladiscussion.forumotion.com/t26730-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah

PkrBum wrote:

RealLindaL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:This isn't about me. Trying to shift the point or assigning bs to me is simply your coping mechanism.

Ludicrous statement.

Look, you said, "It's a shortsighted and dangerous group think... it'll spread and certainly be used against us all."  Don't you include yourself in the "us all" that this supposed group-think will be used against?  

And trying to compare FT with Markle is a fool's game.  There IS no comparison.  She, unlike Markle, is willing to engage in actual discourse.  She acts like a real human being, willing to discuss and reason, NOT like a robot spouting spam in response to virtually every single conversation/comment.

That said, I'll confess I don't often read her non-mainstream-sourced articles beyond maybe a sentence or two (sorry, FT) -- but she isn't persistently "in your face" NEARLY to the extent that Markle was.  Get real.

The result of your group think will affect us all... just as the safe places on college campuses will. That doesn't mean I support it... doofus. It means that I and innocent others will suffer the consequences.

Why I had to explain that to you is beyond me. You have to know it... but ignore it for political purposes.

Joanimaroni wrote:Hopefully the libs can contain their nasty attituded.

Spoke with Markle......he said....

"I sent several messages to Boards, if he's still around, asking him to extend my sympathy and prayers to 2seaoat for his difficulties and especially the family of Z for their loss."  Sadly, no response.