Why has john been banned?

[Havakasha]

John who says he never gets involved in an argument until he is damn sure he is going to win is the same guy who said "unemployment was about 6% when Bush left office and has almost doubled since then". it was 7.6 on Jan 1 and 8.!% on Feb 1. Bush left office on Jan. 20.

Since he was so far off and absolutely wrong on the facts one wonders why he didnt follow his own rules before posting such nonsense.

And being so wrong and lying about what other people have ACTUALLY said from time to time gives him the right to call everyone names?

Funny stuff from the master of juvenile insults.

[Havakasha]

Oh and did i mention that John is the guy who claims that hybrids, hybrid plug ins and electric cars wont be economically and technically feasible for 20 years.
Damn sure he is going to win this argument? Laughable.

Or how about this one. He argues the President is most responsibility for the stock market. You think he will be praising Obama about now? Again laughable.

Why doesnt he take on Lindsey Graham on climate change and the heads of Dupont and Caterpillar about the uniqueness of the present recession.

And on and on and on goes the "man" of juvenile insults

[john]

Charles said: It is not about deviating from something you think you are good at, it is about argueing something other then the actual point of the argument. Which is what you continue to do. For example, you say things like "you never said I could post as much as I want"... well no kidding... why would I? It goes without saying.



Hey dumb ass, read this again:

"I dont have to it is a weak arguement it has something to do with deviating an arguement, something you think you are good at but are not. You should look up what brick solid means."

There I added a comma between the words "arguement, something". Once again most would have read that and understood I was saying it is a tactic YOU think YOU are good at, Dhaaaaaa. For someone that says he is so intelligent you are not.




Charles said: "No I did not, I said you couldn't start a million threads in an attempt to hijack the website. In context of all else that was said, it seemed clear to me that this meant that you could not create a bunch of personal attack threads at Havashka. It told him the same thing... he seems to get it."


So lets put this back into context I did not say that you did not merge three other threads but you also did delete at least 2 of mine. I know this because I went back through the new thread and the ones that followed directly to look for the links I had used to start those threads but they were totally wiped from the board. Next you said, "He (lloyd) seems to have got it", did you see the time frames from the time he posted his last thread after your merger, to the next time he posted a thread??????? yea dumbass it was almost a month, after posting every day he went almost a month. Yea what he got from that was the samething I got, which was dont post so many threads. Then he switched his name soon after so you tell me what the hell does that look like. If you cant I will, it looks like he got from that just what I got from it. So once again in the context of all that was said ONLY you Charles were the ONE that got what you were saying when you said, "No I did not, I said you couldn't start a million threads in an attempt to hijack the website", and that that meant yea now go ahead and post a bunch of threads again. Is it any wonder your the only one that got what that meant.






Charles said: "Again, if I was not clear. I have since said it a dozen times... you should feel free to start as many on topic threads as you like."



That was not what the arguement was about. It was made clear early on that what you said is not what you wanted to say. The arguement is about the fact that what you said then and what you think that meant should have been clear in the first place. The problem is the PM speaks for it self. It clearly says dont post a bunch of threads. Now ether you changed you mind or you are the worst when it comes to explainning yourself and what you write.





Charles said: "Who is everyone? How else can I explain what the issue was and what would be done to rectify it? Again, that is not a threat but, I have already explained that so, here we are back to the circular conversation."



Charles this has become a "circular conversation" because your a twit that cant get simple common sense and logic. You still dont get the fact that you lost 90 to 95 percent of you active board members because of the idea of what this arguement really says about you. You cant even admit that ether you cant communicate very well using words (not that I am one to talk) OR you changed your mind about putting up so many threads. Just so it is clear I am talking about 90 to 95% of your active board members that took the first chance they had to go anywhere else. I have talked to alot of them Charles and they dont really blame Tyler, they blame YOU Charles. The thing is even after that 90 to 95% that left you still had 25 to 35% of the remaining 5 to 10% that still could not stand you Charles but said, frick him, I'll stay here until something better then what we have comes along or he kicks me off. If you dont believe me just look at what has happen to your forum since the main exodus, have you not noticed that even more of your main posters have left.




Charles said: "Because I am a big boy and they have better things to do with their time. If this whole back and forth was not related directly to me... I wouldnt be involved in it either. In the end, as we have seemingly accomplished nothing, it was a total waste of time."


Well if that is true then why were you not a big enough boy when Tyler and Newman came to your defence in other arguements with others. That is the problem Charles, you still dont get it, so it is why this is a "circular conversation", and why it has been a waste of time, except for people who are laughing at you and are saying, "why doesn't he get that what his PM said, I mean it clearly says, DONT post a bunch of new threads. Why doen't he get why 90 to 95% of the main posters left and went to Brandons site, I mean come on." By the way I have some information for you, Newman did get involved because he thought you were wrong in those arguements and thought it looked bad for the site because you where the one running the site. Thats why he came in at times and said cant we all just get along. The thing is thats all he would do because he was not also going to get dragged into an arguement where he knew you were wrong and was not also going to look like a twit. Now I cant be sure about Tyler but something tells me he felt the same way.





Charles said: "I think there is a big difference but the fact that you admit there is a difference is enough for me. You guys now know the rules, no one was banned, and we can all move along happily which was my goal from minute one."


Charles, let me make this clear there was very little difference in the threads you combined to what we are doing now. In at least two threads that I know of that were deleted, there was NO difference to what we are doing now which was putting up new threads with links to answer others threads that were up. Now did you just delete them because they had no sentence attached to go along with the link, I dont know. I do know I was just made aware of that fact just a few days ago.

[john]

I have always posted as many threads as i have wanted. I have always known i could. I only have so much time in the day to post so i post what i think is most important for the day. Obviously its counterproductive to post endless threads but i didnt need Charles to tell me that. I have never had a problem understanding Charles directions. When i violate them i know i will have a time out. i know that i shouldn't put someones name in the thread heading. I know i shouldn't engage in personal attacks. I know i shouldn't write many new posts under my own thread. I hope i got that all about right? Now back to the political thread for the important issues and discussions of the day.

Yet another lie, then what happen for a month after, LLOYD lets remember (I know it is hard for you) but that was who you used to post under. Haaaaa yes you did not post for a month after posting almost everyday after that merger into one thread. So what happen if you understood what Charles said, dumbass, Once again make sure the facts support what you say and you wont have me calling you a dumbass.

[john]

John who says he never gets involved in an argument until he is damn sure he is going to win is the same guy who said "unemployment was about 6% when Bush left office and has almost doubled since then". it was 7.6 on Jan 1 and 8.!% on Feb 1. Bush left office on Jan. 20.

Since he was so far off and absolutely wrong on the facts one wonders why he didnt follow his own rules before posting such nonsense.

And being so wrong and lying about what other people have ACTUALLY said from time to time gives him the right to call everyone names?

Funny stuff from the master of juvenile insults.

As said and it is actually proof that I dont, it is the only thing you have been able to post on this issue and the proof is that it is done so little by me, that you have to keep bringing it up because you got nothing else.

You also forget about the fact that as soon as I saw I made an error, I acknowledged it and apologized for it several times very soon after (within minutes) as it just so happens.


It also just so happens as I proved already that Havakasha was also way off on this and as of yet not once has he apologized for such an error. Thats OK though because that just tells everyone here exactly what your about and why I call you names.


So it is clear because Havakasha is a dumbass (because this is the 10th time I explained this to him). The difference between him (and anyone else that does what he does) and what I did, is I very clearly apologized and corrected the mistake very soon after (within minutes) of making it. I also explained I went from memory and said the time I was talking about and I should not have done that. He on the other hand has also been proven to have made the very same mistake on the very same subject (but to the higher number) and as of yet NOT apologized for it, WHAT 3 DAYS LATTER. That is the difference between he and I and that is why he gets called every name in the book.

[john]

Oh and did i mention that John is the guy who claims that hybrids, hybrid plug ins and electric cars wont be economically and technically feasible for 20 years.
Damn sure he is going to win this argument? Laughable.

Or how about this one. He argues the President is most responsibility for the stock market. You think he will be praising Obama about now? Again laughable.

Why doesnt he take on Lindsey Graham on climate change and the heads of Dupont and Caterpillar about the uniqueness of the present recession.

And on and on and on goes the "man" of juvenile insults

That is correct they wont the car companies have also said that, and the reason they gave when they all fought the government about the MPG standards. They are the very same ones that said the tech to make cars and trucks go that many miles on a gallon of gas and still make them AFFORDABLE will not be there for 20 years.


The president set polocies for taxes that directly effects their bottom lines, if they have to pay more in taxes then their bottom lines go down and so does their stock. There was a direct corallation between when Obama went ahaed in the polls to when McCain did the market went up when McCain did and went down when Obama did I dont have do remind anyone that for the first time the market went down INSTEAD OF UP (like it usually does) after a election of a new president. As for where it is at now that is not what concerns me, it is what it is at for most of the presidency and at the end of compared to where it was in the beginning (just before the new elections in Nov.) of his presidency. I mean really Bush had the market upto 14,000 did it stay there for long, no, so do I give Bush credit for 14,000, no the average and were it ended compared to where it started (for both terms seperately). Then there is a reallity of things that happen that are out of his control (Sep. 11th for instance)





Why would I believe anyone that has been so off in the past on that very same subject. You want me to talk about Caterpillar well lets just see what they said before about Obama and his stimulas package and what they were going to do after and then what they actually did. Goto links.


http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/po...se_uncert.html



http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/oba...laid_off_work/



Well well doesn't that just say it all. Havakasha do you ever research what you put up. Hummm didn't they say they were going to hire a bunch of people after the stimulas was past, didn't they actually lay off people. I know what they told Obama and what the reallity was are two different things now aren't they. Hummm it looks like it was all just smoke and mirrors doesn't it.

[SiriusBuzz]

Hey dumb ass, read this again:

"I dont have to it is a weak arguement it has something to do with deviating an arguement, something you think you are good at but are not. You should look up what brick solid means."

There I added a comma between the words "arguement, something". Once again most would have read that and understood I was saying it is a tactic YOU think YOU are good at, Dhaaaaaa. For someone that says he is so intelligent you are not.

LOL, so I wasn't clear on reading what you wrote which is typically riddled with both spelling and grammatical errors and I am an idiot...right, I get it now. Based on that, I still don't think you understand the basis behind a straw man argument. I don't think I am good at deviating from an argument as you have stated above, I have done my very best to answer each and every one of your concerns (most more then once).

Clearly we both have problems comprehending each other so, rather then reengaging in this circular argument I will state what I have stated before.

1. I never said you could not post as many on topic (and non personal attack) threads as you like.
2. You and everyone else can post as many new on topic threads as you like. There has never been a limit here nor any other forum I have ever seen on the internet.

Regardless of what you may have thought, that should clear everything up. If you continue to go on and on and on about this, I will continue to post the answers above which seem to be the root of this issue, as this has become a total waste of my time. If your problem is not what exactly you can and can't do and rather your problem is with me personally, I would suggest that you have two options in this world... either get over it, or move on... I dont know what else to tell you.

[Havakasha]

He is pissing in the wind after a bender and getting all wet. I cant you hear you John.

[Havakasha]

John spent so much time researching his winning argument on climate change and global warming that he thought aerosols were airsoils. i have been hearing about aerosols since i was a teenager. How about any of you? Got to know more about what you are referring to if you want to convince people you know what you are talking about.

[john]

LOL, so I wasn't clear on reading what you wrote which is typically riddled with both spelling and grammatical errors and I am an idiot...right, I get it now. Based on that, I still don't think you understand the basis behind a straw man argument. I don't think I am good at deviating from an argument as you have stated above, I have done my very best to answer each and every one of your concerns (most more then once).

Clearly we both have problems comprehending each other so, rather then reengaging in this circular argument I will state what I have stated before.

1. I never said you could not post as many on topic (and non personal attack) threads as you like.
2. You and everyone else can post as many new on topic threads as you like. There has never been a limit here nor any other forum I have ever seen on the internet.

Regardless of what you may have thought, that should clear everything up. If you continue to go on and on and on about this, I will continue to post the answers above which seem to be the root of this issue, as this has become a total waste of my time. If your problem is not what exactly you can and can't do and rather your problem is with me personally, I would suggest that you have two options in this world... either get over it, or move on... I dont know what else to tell you.

And everytime you post number 1, I will repost this PM you sent me (which clearly states, do NOT post as many threads as you want):

"You guys want to go at it in a thread all day, that is fine with me. But you are not going to start a million threads and hijack the website."


That is amble evidence that you lied. You LIED out right and then tried to cover it up. The fact is anyone else except Havakasha and a few others would have just admitted they fricked up and apologized for it. So it is perfectly clear to you Charles, YOU CANT READ THAT ANY OTHER WAY THEN: I DONT WANT YOU TO POST A BUNCH OF THREADS, JUST LIKE WE WERE DOING THEN AND NOW.


As for 2, I had already said I know you now have CHANGED your mind on that and made it clear that at least for now we can post as many new threads as we want. How long that will hold is anyones guess. The reason I say that is the prior PM.