More info on shooter who shot congresswoman, killed republican judge and 5 others

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 10, 2011 4:28 PM GMT
    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2011/01/jared-loughners-behavior-recor.html?hpid=topnews

    http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2011/01/jared_loughner_alleged_shooter.php

    Some scary stuff. This guy had what seems to be some shrine in his backyard with a skull.

    One classmate described him this way through emails:

    "From June 1, the first day of class:

    'One day down and nineteen to go. We do have one student in the class who was disruptive today, I'm not certain yet if he was on drugs (as one person surmised) or disturbed. He scares me a bit. The teacher tried to throw him out and he refused to go, so I talked to the teacher afterward. Hopefully he will be out of class very soon, and not come back with an automatic weapon.'

    From June 10:
    'As for me, Thursday means the end to week two of algebra class. It seems to be going by quickly, but then I do have three weeks to go so we'll see how I feel by then. Class isn't dull as we have a seriously disturbed student in the class, and they are trying to figure out how to get rid of him before he does something bad, but on the other hand, until he does something bad, you can't do anything about him. Needless to say, I sit by
    the door.'

    From June 14:
    'We have a mentally unstable person in the class that scares the living crap out of me. He is one of those whose picture you see on the news, after he has come into class with an automatic weapon. Everyone interviewed would say, Yeah, he was in my math class and he was really weird. I sit by the door with my purse handy. If you see it on the news one night, know that I got out fast...'"


    He was also described by another classmate as a "leftwing pothead" and "quite liberal" and a "political radical". He also seems to have made anti-government remarks. Neighbors said that it was well-known he was not mentally well.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 10, 2011 5:05 PM GMT
    As I pointed out to riddler, have you thought what people mean when they say "left wing pothead" and "liberal" when all they mean is that they are using those adjectives in a disapproving manner, implying nothing about politics? Heck, my parents do it all the time and yet they would never call me "liberal" since I don't do drugs.
    If anything, Loughner's politics are libertarian and anarchistic.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 10, 2011 5:08 PM GMT
    q1w2e3 saidAs I pointed out to riddler, have you thought what people mean when they say "left wing pothead" and "liberal" when all they mean is that they are using those adjectives in a disapproving manner, implying nothing about politics? Heck, my parents do it all the time and yet they would never call me "liberal" since I don't do drugs.
    If anything, Loughner's politics are libertarian and anarchistic.


    The evidence has indicated that he was mentally deranged, nothing more. There are no "politics" for his behavior except for his actions unless data can be provided that he acted on particular beliefs.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 10, 2011 6:58 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    q1w2e3 saidAs I pointed out to riddler, have you thought what people mean when they say "left wing pothead" and "liberal" when all they mean is that they are using those adjectives in a disapproving manner, implying nothing about politics? Heck, my parents do it all the time and yet they would never call me "liberal" since I don't do drugs.
    If anything, Loughner's politics are libertarian and anarchistic.


    The evidence has indicated that he was mentally deranged, nothing more. There are no "politics" for his behavior except for his actions unless data can be provided that he acted on particular beliefs.



    Then you must be DISGUSTED AND ANGRY that FOX is calling him a "left-winger".
    Flat-out, they are calling him a left-winger.
    Stating it as a fact.
    And throwing in the portrayal of him as a pot-smoking hippy just adds fuel (HATE) to the fire.
    You must strongly disapprove of the bitter partisan propagandizing of Fox and the way they're adding to the political divide in the aftermath of this tragedy.
    Right?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 10, 2011 7:06 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    q1w2e3 saidAs I pointed out to riddler, have you thought what people mean when they say "left wing pothead" and "liberal" when all they mean is that they are using those adjectives in a disapproving manner, implying nothing about politics? Heck, my parents do it all the time and yet they would never call me "liberal" since I don't do drugs.
    If anything, Loughner's politics are libertarian and anarchistic.


    The evidence has indicated that he was mentally deranged, nothing more. There are no "politics" for his behavior except for his actions unless data can be provided that he acted on particular beliefs.




    No, it's obvious that politics had a lot to do with his actions.
    But, it's become clear that his political views are a muddle of anti-right and anti-left views.
    Plus, he's crazy.

    And, I'm waiting for you to apologize to me for calling me crazy.
    That's an over the line personal attack.
    Just because you disagree with my views doesn't make it acceptable to stoop to a name calling personal attack.
    When have I ever done that to you?
    Never.

    You people on the right need to rein in your hate.
    It's one thing to post strong personal opinions as I do.
    It's quite different to post hate-filled personal attacks on people you diaagree with, the way you and socal and curious do.
    It creates a climate of hostility and incivility.
    I understand that you are listeneing to the hate-creating Fox channel all day, and it has an effect on you, but please try to dial back the personal hatred and animosity.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 10, 2011 7:23 PM GMT
    rickrick91 said
    mocktwinkie said
    q1w2e3 saidAs I pointed out to riddler, have you thought what people mean when they say "left wing pothead" and "liberal" when all they mean is that they are using those adjectives in a disapproving manner, implying nothing about politics? Heck, my parents do it all the time and yet they would never call me "liberal" since I don't do drugs.
    If anything, Loughner's politics are libertarian and anarchistic.


    The evidence has indicated that he was mentally deranged, nothing more. There are no "politics" for his behavior except for his actions unless data can be provided that he acted on particular beliefs.



    Then you must be DISGUSTED AND ANGRY that FOX is calling him a "left-winger".
    Flat-out, they are calling him a left-winger.
    Stating it as a fact.
    And throwing in the portrayal of him as a pot-smoking hippy just adds fuel (HATE) to the fire.
    You must strongly disapprove of the bitter partisan propagandizing of Fox and the way they're adding to the political divide in the aftermath of this tragedy.
    Right?


    His classmates called him a potsmoking leftwinger, not fox news.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 10, 2011 7:30 PM GMT
    rickrick91 said
    mocktwinkie said
    q1w2e3 saidAs I pointed out to riddler, have you thought what people mean when they say "left wing pothead" and "liberal" when all they mean is that they are using those adjectives in a disapproving manner, implying nothing about politics? Heck, my parents do it all the time and yet they would never call me "liberal" since I don't do drugs.
    If anything, Loughner's politics are libertarian and anarchistic.


    The evidence has indicated that he was mentally deranged, nothing more. There are no "politics" for his behavior except for his actions unless data can be provided that he acted on particular beliefs.




    No, it's obvious that politics had a lot to do with his actions.
    But, it's become clear that his political views are a muddle of anti-right and anti-left views.
    Plus, he's crazy.

    And, I'm waiting for you to apologize to me for calling me crazy.
    That's an over the line personal attack.
    Just because you disagree with my views doesn't make it acceptable to stoop to a name calling personal attack.
    When have I ever done that to you?
    Never.

    You people on the right need to rein in your hate.
    It's one thing to post strong personal opinions as I do.
    It's quite different to post hate-filled personal attacks on people you diaagree with, the way you and socal and curious do.
    It creates a climate of hostility and incivility.
    I understand that you are listeneing to the hate-creating Fox channel all day, and it has an effect on you, but please try to dial back the personal hatred and animosity.


    My challenge of your mental state is an accumulation of actions and reactions on this board that do not follow or make any sense given what was done or said previously by another member. To give you a small example, when the original topic was made about the tragedy I made comments feeling genuinely bad about what happened and urging members to not politicize the situation, and you reply with:

    ""still"?
    We know you want this story to fade away quickly, mock.
    But - NOPE.
    Ain't gonna happen."--rickrick


    This forum is riddled with completely non sequitur responses like this, by yourself. Why would I want the story to fade away quickly? It doesn't even make sense -- only to you, perhaps.

    So if you want my apology you're going to have to start acting differently and looking logical. If what I'm noticing is just an angry person who likes to do the closest thing to yelling while corresponding in text then it's still pretty sad, because you're probably not absorbing what the other person is saying as much as enthusiastically wanting to get your "point" across, no matter how incongruous it appears.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 10, 2011 7:42 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    rickrick91 said
    mocktwinkie said
    q1w2e3 saidAs I pointed out to riddler, have you thought what people mean when they say "left wing pothead" and "liberal" when all they mean is that they are using those adjectives in a disapproving manner, implying nothing about politics? Heck, my parents do it all the time and yet they would never call me "liberal" since I don't do drugs.
    If anything, Loughner's politics are libertarian and anarchistic.


    The evidence has indicated that he was mentally deranged, nothing more. There are no "politics" for his behavior except for his actions unless data can be provided that he acted on particular beliefs.




    No, it's obvious that politics had a lot to do with his actions.
    But, it's become clear that his political views are a muddle of anti-right and anti-left views.
    Plus, he's crazy.

    And, I'm waiting for you to apologize to me for calling me crazy.
    That's an over the line personal attack.
    Just because you disagree with my views doesn't make it acceptable to stoop to a name calling personal attack.
    When have I ever done that to you?
    Never.

    You people on the right need to rein in your hate.
    It's one thing to post strong personal opinions as I do.
    It's quite different to post hate-filled personal attacks on people you diaagree with, the way you and socal and curious do.
    It creates a climate of hostility and incivility.
    I understand that you are listeneing to the hate-creating Fox channel all day, and it has an effect on you, but please try to dial back the personal hatred and animosity.


    My challenge of your mental state is an accumulation of actions and reactions on this board that do not follow or make any sense given what was done or said previously by another member. To give you a small example, when the original topic was made about the tragedy I made comments feeling genuinely bad about what happened and urging members to not politicize the situation, and you reply with:

    ""still"?
    We know you want this story to fade away quickly, mock.
    But - NOPE.
    Ain't gonna happen."--rickrick


    This forum is riddled with completely non sequitur responses like this, by yourself. Why would I want the story to fade away quickly? It doesn't even make sense -- only to you, perhaps.

    So if you want my apology you're going to have to start acting differently and looking logical. If what I'm noticing is just an angry person who likes to do the closest thing to yelling while corresponding in text then it's still pretty sad, because you're probably not absorbing what the other person is saying as much as enthusiastically wanting to get your "point" across, no matter how incongruous it appears.




    BS.
    I posted that comment accusing you of wanting the thread to die in response NOT to a post you made expressing sorrow at the tragedy.
    I posted that comment in reponse to a post you made whining and complaining about the fact that people were still posting comments on the thread.
    Your post expressed disgust that RJ members were still posting comments and expressing their opinions on that thread.
    That is the TRUTH, and if you're unaware of that refresh your memory by rereading the thread.
    If you are aware of it, you're a deliberate liar.
    Whichever is the case, that comment I made is in NO WAY a personal and dehumanizing attack of the sort that you have launched at me.

    And I'm not surprised that you don't have the decency to apologize for you incivil and ugly personal attacks.
    I'm disappointed in you, but not surprised

    It'a also very telling that although you claim that these threads are "riddled" with unprovoked personal attacks by me, you have FAILED to come up with any instances of me doing that.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 10, 2011 8:21 PM GMT
    rickrick91 said
    mocktwinkie said
    rickrick91 said
    mocktwinkie said
    q1w2e3 saidAs I pointed out to riddler, have you thought what people mean when they say "left wing pothead" and "liberal" when all they mean is that they are using those adjectives in a disapproving manner, implying nothing about politics? Heck, my parents do it all the time and yet they would never call me "liberal" since I don't do drugs.
    If anything, Loughner's politics are libertarian and anarchistic.


    The evidence has indicated that he was mentally deranged, nothing more. There are no "politics" for his behavior except for his actions unless data can be provided that he acted on particular beliefs.




    No, it's obvious that politics had a lot to do with his actions.
    But, it's become clear that his political views are a muddle of anti-right and anti-left views.
    Plus, he's crazy.

    And, I'm waiting for you to apologize to me for calling me crazy.
    That's an over the line personal attack.
    Just because you disagree with my views doesn't make it acceptable to stoop to a name calling personal attack.
    When have I ever done that to you?
    Never.

    You people on the right need to rein in your hate.
    It's one thing to post strong personal opinions as I do.
    It's quite different to post hate-filled personal attacks on people you diaagree with, the way you and socal and curious do.
    It creates a climate of hostility and incivility.
    I understand that you are listeneing to the hate-creating Fox channel all day, and it has an effect on you, but please try to dial back the personal hatred and animosity.


    My challenge of your mental state is an accumulation of actions and reactions on this board that do not follow or make any sense given what was done or said previously by another member. To give you a small example, when the original topic was made about the tragedy I made comments feeling genuinely bad about what happened and urging members to not politicize the situation, and you reply with:

    ""still"?
    We know you want this story to fade away quickly, mock.
    But - NOPE.
    Ain't gonna happen."--rickrick


    This forum is riddled with completely non sequitur responses like this, by yourself. Why would I want the story to fade away quickly? It doesn't even make sense -- only to you, perhaps.

    So if you want my apology you're going to have to start acting differently and looking logical. If what I'm noticing is just an angry person who likes to do the closest thing to yelling while corresponding in text then it's still pretty sad, because you're probably not absorbing what the other person is saying as much as enthusiastically wanting to get your "point" across, no matter how incongruous it appears.




    BS.
    I posted that comment accusing you of wanting the thread to die in response NOT to a post you made expressing sorrow at the tragedy.
    I posted that comment in reponse to a post you made whining and complaining about the fact that people were still posting comments on the thread.
    Your post expressed disgust that RJ members were still posting comments and expressing their opinions on that thread.
    That is the TRUTH, and if you're unaware of that refresh your memory by rereading the thread.
    If you are aware of it, you're a deliberate liar.
    Whichever is the case, that comment I made is in NO WAY a personal and dehumanizing attack of the sort that you have launched at me.

    And I'm not surprised that you don't have the decency to apologize for you incivil and ugly personal attacks.
    I'm disappointed in you, but not surprised

    It'a also very telling that although you claim that these threads are "riddled" with unprovoked personal attacks by me, you have FAILED to come up with any instances of me doing that.


    #1. I never made a comment about wanting the thread to die, I was wondering why people were still politicizing the event rather than focusing on the tragedy of the event. Your response was completely out of place and only sensible to you.

    #2. I never used the word personal attacks - you're back to making unsupported assumptions. I'm referring to a pattern of you lashing out with a response when it doesn't really fit the situation or really follow what just occurred .

    #3. If you want to be perceived as opinionated and staunch in what you believe, that is fine, but you aren't going to convince others that you have full cognitive stability by profusely using caps lock and responding in a manner that doesn't really fit logically.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 10, 2011 8:34 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    rickrick91 said
    mocktwinkie said
    rickrick91 said
    mocktwinkie said
    q1w2e3 saidAs I pointed out to riddler, have you thought what people mean when they say "left wing pothead" and "liberal" when all they mean is that they are using those adjectives in a disapproving manner, implying nothing about politics? Heck, my parents do it all the time and yet they would never call me "liberal" since I don't do drugs.
    If anything, Loughner's politics are libertarian and anarchistic.


    The evidence has indicated that he was mentally deranged, nothing more. There are no "politics" for his behavior except for his actions unless data can be provided that he acted on particular beliefs.




    No, it's obvious that politics had a lot to do with his actions.
    But, it's become clear that his political views are a muddle of anti-right and anti-left views.
    Plus, he's crazy.

    And, I'm waiting for you to apologize to me for calling me crazy.
    That's an over the line personal attack.
    Just because you disagree with my views doesn't make it acceptable to stoop to a name calling personal attack.
    When have I ever done that to you?
    Never.

    You people on the right need to rein in your hate.
    It's one thing to post strong personal opinions as I do.
    It's quite different to post hate-filled personal attacks on people you diaagree with, the way you and socal and curious do.
    It creates a climate of hostility and incivility.
    I understand that you are listeneing to the hate-creating Fox channel all day, and it has an effect on you, but please try to dial back the personal hatred and animosity.


    My challenge of your mental state is an accumulation of actions and reactions on this board that do not follow or make any sense given what was done or said previously by another member. To give you a small example, when the original topic was made about the tragedy I made comments feeling genuinely bad about what happened and urging members to not politicize the situation, and you reply with:

    ""still"?
    We know you want this story to fade away quickly, mock.
    But - NOPE.
    Ain't gonna happen."--rickrick


    This forum is riddled with completely non sequitur responses like this, by yourself. Why would I want the story to fade away quickly? It doesn't even make sense -- only to you, perhaps.

    So if you want my apology you're going to have to start acting differently and looking logical. If what I'm noticing is just an angry person who likes to do the closest thing to yelling while corresponding in text then it's still pretty sad, because you're probably not absorbing what the other person is saying as much as enthusiastically wanting to get your "point" across, no matter how incongruous it appears.




    BS.
    I posted that comment accusing you of wanting the thread to die in response NOT to a post you made expressing sorrow at the tragedy.
    I posted that comment in reponse to a post you made whining and complaining about the fact that people were still posting comments on the thread.
    Your post expressed disgust that RJ members were still posting comments and expressing their opinions on that thread.
    That is the TRUTH, and if you're unaware of that refresh your memory by rereading the thread.
    If you are aware of it, you're a deliberate liar.
    Whichever is the case, that comment I made is in NO WAY a personal and dehumanizing attack of the sort that you have launched at me.

    And I'm not surprised that you don't have the decency to apologize for you incivil and ugly personal attacks.
    I'm disappointed in you, but not surprised

    It'a also very telling that although you claim that these threads are "riddled" with unprovoked personal attacks by me, you have FAILED to come up with any instances of me doing that.


    #1. I never made a comment about wanting the thread to die. Your response was completely out of place and only sensible to you.

    #2. I never used the word personal attacks - you're back to making unsupported assumptions. I'm referring to a pattern of you lashing out with a response when it doesn't really fit the situation or really follow what just occurred .

    #3. If you want to be perceived as opinionated and staunch in what you believe, that is fine, but you aren't going to convince others that you have full cognitive stability by profusely using caps lock and responding in a manner that doesn't really fit logically.




    I never said you made a comment about wanting the thread to die.
    I said you made a comment about wanting everyone to SHUT UP and stop posting on that thread.
    Which is the TRUTH.
    YOU did make that comment.
    The exact words were something like "you guys are still posting on this thread?"
    And my response to your comment was that you were hoping that the thread would die.
    OF COURSE.
    If everyone had done what you told them to do, and had shut up and stopped posting comments - the thread would have died.
    So, when I posted that you wanted the thread would die.
    I was ENTIRELY CORRECT.
    And it "fit the situation" perfectly and appropriately.

    And you are not going to convince anyone that you're a decent and honorable human being when you post lies about people and launch personal attacks at people who have different beliefs than you do.

    And it's disgraceful that you haven't apologized or even admitted that you were WRONG when you posted in your earlier comment that I had accused you of wanting the thread to die in reponse to some sympathetic comment you had posted about the tragedy.
    That was FALSE, as you well know, and it's shameful that you won't even admit that you were wrong and what you posted was FALSE.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 10, 2011 8:38 PM GMT
    rickrick91 said
    mocktwinkie said
    rickrick91 said
    mocktwinkie said
    rickrick91 said
    mocktwinkie said
    q1w2e3 saidAs I pointed out to riddler, have you thought what people mean when they say "left wing pothead" and "liberal" when all they mean is that they are using those adjectives in a disapproving manner, implying nothing about politics? Heck, my parents do it all the time and yet they would never call me "liberal" since I don't do drugs.
    If anything, Loughner's politics are libertarian and anarchistic.


    The evidence has indicated that he was mentally deranged, nothing more. There are no "politics" for his behavior except for his actions unless data can be provided that he acted on particular beliefs.




    No, it's obvious that politics had a lot to do with his actions.
    But, it's become clear that his political views are a muddle of anti-right and anti-left views.
    Plus, he's crazy.

    And, I'm waiting for you to apologize to me for calling me crazy.
    That's an over the line personal attack.
    Just because you disagree with my views doesn't make it acceptable to stoop to a name calling personal attack.
    When have I ever done that to you?
    Never.

    You people on the right need to rein in your hate.
    It's one thing to post strong personal opinions as I do.
    It's quite different to post hate-filled personal attacks on people you diaagree with, the way you and socal and curious do.
    It creates a climate of hostility and incivility.
    I understand that you are listeneing to the hate-creating Fox channel all day, and it has an effect on you, but please try to dial back the personal hatred and animosity.


    My challenge of your mental state is an accumulation of actions and reactions on this board that do not follow or make any sense given what was done or said previously by another member. To give you a small example, when the original topic was made about the tragedy I made comments feeling genuinely bad about what happened and urging members to not politicize the situation, and you reply with:

    ""still"?
    We know you want this story to fade away quickly, mock.
    But - NOPE.
    Ain't gonna happen."--rickrick


    This forum is riddled with completely non sequitur responses like this, by yourself. Why would I want the story to fade away quickly? It doesn't even make sense -- only to you, perhaps.

    So if you want my apology you're going to have to start acting differently and looking logical. If what I'm noticing is just an angry person who likes to do the closest thing to yelling while corresponding in text then it's still pretty sad, because you're probably not absorbing what the other person is saying as much as enthusiastically wanting to get your "point" across, no matter how incongruous it appears.




    BS.
    I posted that comment accusing you of wanting the thread to die in response NOT to a post you made expressing sorrow at the tragedy.
    I posted that comment in reponse to a post you made whining and complaining about the fact that people were still posting comments on the thread.
    Your post expressed disgust that RJ members were still posting comments and expressing their opinions on that thread.
    That is the TRUTH, and if you're unaware of that refresh your memory by rereading the thread.
    If you are aware of it, you're a deliberate liar.
    Whichever is the case, that comment I made is in NO WAY a personal and dehumanizing attack of the sort that you have launched at me.

    And I'm not surprised that you don't have the decency to apologize for you incivil and ugly personal attacks.
    I'm disappointed in you, but not surprised

    It'a also very telling that although you claim that these threads are "riddled" with unprovoked personal attacks by me, you have FAILED to come up with any instances of me doing that.


    #1. I never made a comment about wanting the thread to die. Your response was completely out of place and only sensible to you.

    #2. I never used the word personal attacks - you're back to making unsupported assumptions. I'm referring to a pattern of you lashing out with a response when it doesn't really fit the situation or really follow what just occurred .

    #3. If you want to be perceived as opinionated and staunch in what you believe, that is fine, but you aren't going to convince others that you have full cognitive stability by profusely using caps lock and responding in a manner that doesn't really fit logically.




    I never said you made a comment about wanting the thread to die.
    I said you made a comment about wanting everyone to SHUT UP and stop posting on that thread.
    Which is the TRUTH.
    YOU did make that comment.
    And my response to your comment was that you were hoping that the thread would die.
    OF COURSE.
    If everyone had done what you told them to do, and had shut up and stopped posting comments - the thread would have died.
    So, when I posted that you wanted the thread would die.
    I was ENTIRELY CORRECT.

    And you are not going to convince anyone that you're a decent and honorable human being when you post lies about people and launch personal attacks at people who have different beliefs than you do.

    And it's disgraceful that you haven't apologized or even admitted that you were WRONG when you posted in your earlier comment that I had accused you of wanting the thread to die in reponse to some sympathetic comment you had posted about the tragedy.
    That was FALSE, as you well know, and it's shameful that you won't even admit that you were wrong and what you posted was FALSE.


    No I did not. You're making it up. I wanted people to be respectful to the tragedy by discontinuing their politicization of it. I never said once that I wanted the thread to die despite your insistence to the contrary. Furthermore, you decided to insert some ludicrous idea that although I "wanted" the thread to die that it wasn't going to, as though that even makes sense or as though there were some logical justification for your conclusion that I wanted the thread to die.

    The last part of your rant there is a clear example of the logically convoluted ideas and remarks that have more than me questioning your mental condition.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19119

    Jan 10, 2011 8:42 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    The last part of your rant there is a clear example of the logically convoluted ideas and remarks that have more than me questioning your mental state.



    Wow, you're just NOW questioning his mental state? icon_eek.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 10, 2011 8:46 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    mocktwinkie said
    The last part of your rant there is a clear example of the logically convoluted ideas and remarks that have more than me questioning your mental state.



    Wow, you're just NOW questioning his mental state? icon_eek.gif


    I'm trying to be as respectful as I can. It's something I think many of us have noticed for a while but I was hoping, just hoping that there could be some sort of epiphany on the other end. Never stop hopin'!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 10, 2011 8:55 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    CuriousJockAZ said
    mocktwinkie said
    The last part of your rant there is a clear example of the logically convoluted ideas and remarks that have more than me questioning your mental state.



    Wow, you're just NOW questioning his mental state? icon_eek.gif


    I'm trying to be as respectful as I can. It's something I think many of us have noticed for a while but I was hoping, just hoping that there could be some sort of epiphany on the other end. Never stop hopin'!



    You have yet to apologize for any of your personal attacks or for lying when you said that my comment about you wanting the thread to die was a response to you expressing sympathy for Rep. Giffords.
    And you of course haven't been able to post a single instance of me launching an unprovoked personal attack.
    You've made it very clear that your attacks against me are partisan and political in motivation and a desperate attampt to try to discount my posts.
    I take that as a compliment.

    But, I've given up hope that you and your right-wingers will have an "epiphany" and abandon your PARTY FIRST mentality, and call out Fox for it's blatant attempt to policiticize this tragedy.
    You obviously are only offended by partisan politicization when it comes from the left.
    Even though the worst most extreme and personal attacks come from the right.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 10, 2011 9:05 PM GMT
    rickrick91 said
    mocktwinkie said
    CuriousJockAZ said
    mocktwinkie said
    The last part of your rant there is a clear example of the logically convoluted ideas and remarks that have more than me questioning your mental state.



    Wow, you're just NOW questioning his mental state? icon_eek.gif


    I'm trying to be as respectful as I can. It's something I think many of us have noticed for a while but I was hoping, just hoping that there could be some sort of epiphany on the other end. Never stop hopin'!



    You have yet to apologize for any of your personal attacks or for lying when you said that my comment about you wanting the thread to die was a response to you expressing sympathy for Rep. Giffords.
    And you of course haven't been able to post a single instance of me launching an unprovoked personal attack.
    You've made it very clear that your attacks against me are partisan and political in motivation and a desperate attampt to try to discount my posts.
    I take that as a compliment.

    But, I've given up hope that you and your right-wingers will have an "epiphany" and abandon your PARTY FIRST mentality, and call out Fox for it's blatant attempt to policiticize this tragedy.


    You mean personal attacks like this?

    Me (in response to christian): "She's probably brain dead though. What a sick sick person for doing this"

    Rickrick: "Yes, for twinkie to be hoping that Rep, Giffords is brain dead is pretty damn low class.
    PARTY FIRST yet again."

    When it's obvious that I'm saying it in a positive way, your garbled-up mind decides to interpret it as something you want it to be despite the glaring "what a sick sick person for doing this". Maybe if you had bothered to actually read what I was saying throughout the thread you wouldn't have ended up looking like such a fool.


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 10, 2011 9:15 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    rickrick91 said
    mocktwinkie said
    CuriousJockAZ said
    mocktwinkie said
    The last part of your rant there is a clear example of the logically convoluted ideas and remarks that have more than me questioning your mental state.



    Wow, you're just NOW questioning his mental state? icon_eek.gif


    I'm trying to be as respectful as I can. It's something I think many of us have noticed for a while but I was hoping, just hoping that there could be some sort of epiphany on the other end. Never stop hopin'!



    You have yet to apologize for any of your personal attacks or for lying when you said that my comment about you wanting the thread to die was a response to you expressing sympathy for Rep. Giffords.
    And you of course haven't been able to post a single instance of me launching an unprovoked personal attack.
    You've made it very clear that your attacks against me are partisan and political in motivation and a desperate attampt to try to discount my posts.
    I take that as a compliment.

    But, I've given up hope that you and your right-wingers will have an "epiphany" and abandon your PARTY FIRST mentality, and call out Fox for it's blatant attempt to policiticize this tragedy.


    You mean personal attacks like this?

    Me (in response to christian): "She's probably brain dead though. What a sick sick person for doing this"

    Rickrick: "Yes, for twinkie to be hoping that Rep, Giffords is brain dead is pretty damn low class.
    PARTY FIRST yet again."

    When it's obvious that I'm saying it in a positive way, your garbled-up mind decides to interpret it as something you want it to be despite the glaring "what a sick sick person for doing this". Maybe if you had bothered to actually read what I was saying throughout the thread you wouldn't have ended up looking like such a fool.





    I think that talking about how Giffords would likely be "brain-dead" - THE DAY SHE HAD BEEN SHOT - was at best, offensive low-class and in bad taste.
    At worst - it was downright cruel.
    It offended me, and it still does.
    But, I do think the part of my comment about you "hoping" that she was brain-dead was unfair and think I backed off of that in later comments.
    If I didn't I do now.

    And this doesn't equate to some of the far worse personal and DIRECT attacks that you've launched at me.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19119

    Jan 10, 2011 9:18 PM GMT
    rickrick91 said
    It offended me, and it still does.


    For someone so offensive, you sure are easily offended icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 10, 2011 9:22 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    rickrick91 said
    It offended me, and it still does.


    For someone so offensive, you sure are easily offended icon_rolleyes.gif



    Now, I'm "offensive"?
    Do you ever post anything other than ugly dehumanizing attacks against people you disagree with?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 10, 2011 9:29 PM GMT
    rickrick91 said
    mocktwinkie said
    rickrick91 said
    mocktwinkie said
    CuriousJockAZ said
    mocktwinkie said
    The last part of your rant there is a clear example of the logically convoluted ideas and remarks that have more than me questioning your mental state.



    Wow, you're just NOW questioning his mental state? icon_eek.gif


    I'm trying to be as respectful as I can. It's something I think many of us have noticed for a while but I was hoping, just hoping that there could be some sort of epiphany on the other end. Never stop hopin'!



    You have yet to apologize for any of your personal attacks or for lying when you said that my comment about you wanting the thread to die was a response to you expressing sympathy for Rep. Giffords.
    And you of course haven't been able to post a single instance of me launching an unprovoked personal attack.
    You've made it very clear that your attacks against me are partisan and political in motivation and a desperate attampt to try to discount my posts.
    I take that as a compliment.

    But, I've given up hope that you and your right-wingers will have an "epiphany" and abandon your PARTY FIRST mentality, and call out Fox for it's blatant attempt to policiticize this tragedy.


    You mean personal attacks like this?

    Me (in response to christian): "She's probably brain dead though. What a sick sick person for doing this"

    Rickrick: "Yes, for twinkie to be hoping that Rep, Giffords is brain dead is pretty damn low class.
    PARTY FIRST yet again."

    When it's obvious that I'm saying it in a positive way, your garbled-up mind decides to interpret it as something you want it to be despite the glaring "what a sick sick person for doing this". Maybe if you had bothered to actually read what I was saying throughout the thread you wouldn't have ended up looking like such a fool.





    I think that talking about how Giffords would likely be "brain-dead" - THE DAY SHE HAD BEEN SHOT - was at best, offensive low-class and in bad taste.
    At worst - it was downright cruel.
    It offended me, and it still does.
    But, I do think the part of my comment about you "hoping" that she was brain-dead was unfair and think I backed off of that in later comments.
    If I didn't I do now.

    And this doesn't equate to some of the far worse personal and DIRECT attacks that you've launched at me.


    She was shot in the head. Wouldn't you assume that someone who is shot in the head would be brain dead? It had nothing to do with wishing or wanting her to be brain dead.

    *sigh*

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 10, 2011 9:33 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    rickrick91 said
    mocktwinkie said
    rickrick91 said
    mocktwinkie said
    CuriousJockAZ said
    mocktwinkie said
    The last part of your rant there is a clear example of the logically convoluted ideas and remarks that have more than me questioning your mental state.



    Wow, you're just NOW questioning his mental state? icon_eek.gif


    I'm trying to be as respectful as I can. It's something I think many of us have noticed for a while but I was hoping, just hoping that there could be some sort of epiphany on the other end. Never stop hopin'!



    You have yet to apologize for any of your personal attacks or for lying when you said that my comment about you wanting the thread to die was a response to you expressing sympathy for Rep. Giffords.
    And you of course haven't been able to post a single instance of me launching an unprovoked personal attack.
    You've made it very clear that your attacks against me are partisan and political in motivation and a desperate attampt to try to discount my posts.
    I take that as a compliment.

    But, I've given up hope that you and your right-wingers will have an "epiphany" and abandon your PARTY FIRST mentality, and call out Fox for it's blatant attempt to policiticize this tragedy.


    You mean personal attacks like this?

    Me (in response to christian): "She's probably brain dead though. What a sick sick person for doing this"

    Rickrick: "Yes, for twinkie to be hoping that Rep, Giffords is brain dead is pretty damn low class.
    PARTY FIRST yet again."

    When it's obvious that I'm saying it in a positive way, your garbled-up mind decides to interpret it as something you want it to be despite the glaring "what a sick sick person for doing this". Maybe if you had bothered to actually read what I was saying throughout the thread you wouldn't have ended up looking like such a fool.





    I think that talking about how Giffords would likely be "brain-dead" - THE DAY SHE HAD BEEN SHOT - was at best, offensive low-class and in bad taste.
    At worst - it was downright cruel.
    It offended me, and it still does.
    But, I do think the part of my comment about you "hoping" that she was brain-dead was unfair and think I backed off of that in later comments.
    If I didn't I do now.

    And this doesn't equate to some of the far worse personal and DIRECT attacks that you've launched at me.


    She was shot in the head. Wouldn't you assume that someone who is shot in the head would be brain dead? It had nothing to do with wishing or wanting her to be brain dead.

    *sigh*




    To those people who CARE about Rep. Giffords - that comment is offensive.
    Are you so heartless that you can't understand that?

    "sigh"
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 10, 2011 9:36 PM GMT
    rickrick91 said
    mocktwinkie said
    rickrick91 said
    mocktwinkie said
    rickrick91 said
    mocktwinkie said
    CuriousJockAZ said
    mocktwinkie said
    The last part of your rant there is a clear example of the logically convoluted ideas and remarks that have more than me questioning your mental state.



    Wow, you're just NOW questioning his mental state? icon_eek.gif


    I'm trying to be as respectful as I can. It's something I think many of us have noticed for a while but I was hoping, just hoping that there could be some sort of epiphany on the other end. Never stop hopin'!



    You have yet to apologize for any of your personal attacks or for lying when you said that my comment about you wanting the thread to die was a response to you expressing sympathy for Rep. Giffords.
    And you of course haven't been able to post a single instance of me launching an unprovoked personal attack.
    You've made it very clear that your attacks against me are partisan and political in motivation and a desperate attampt to try to discount my posts.
    I take that as a compliment.

    But, I've given up hope that you and your right-wingers will have an "epiphany" and abandon your PARTY FIRST mentality, and call out Fox for it's blatant attempt to policiticize this tragedy.


    You mean personal attacks like this?

    Me (in response to christian): "She's probably brain dead though. What a sick sick person for doing this"

    Rickrick: "Yes, for twinkie to be hoping that Rep, Giffords is brain dead is pretty damn low class.
    PARTY FIRST yet again."

    When it's obvious that I'm saying it in a positive way, your garbled-up mind decides to interpret it as something you want it to be despite the glaring "what a sick sick person for doing this". Maybe if you had bothered to actually read what I was saying throughout the thread you wouldn't have ended up looking like such a fool.





    I think that talking about how Giffords would likely be "brain-dead" - THE DAY SHE HAD BEEN SHOT - was at best, offensive low-class and in bad taste.
    At worst - it was downright cruel.
    It offended me, and it still does.
    But, I do think the part of my comment about you "hoping" that she was brain-dead was unfair and think I backed off of that in later comments.
    If I didn't I do now.

    And this doesn't equate to some of the far worse personal and DIRECT attacks that you've launched at me.


    She was shot in the head. Wouldn't you assume that someone who is shot in the head would be brain dead? It had nothing to do with wishing or wanting her to be brain dead.

    *sigh*




    To those people who CARE about Rep. Giffords - that comment is offensive.
    Are you so heartless that you can't understand that?


    "sigh"


    Rick, nobody found it offensive but you. Even Christian had to correct you for coming to the ludicrous and logic-defying conclusion that I was saying something negative about her. I felt absolutely horrible when I heard the news.

    Gawd. Are you like this in real life?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 10, 2011 9:44 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    rickrick91 said
    mocktwinkie said
    rickrick91 said
    mocktwinkie said
    rickrick91 said
    mocktwinkie said
    CuriousJockAZ said
    mocktwinkie said
    The last part of your rant there is a clear example of the logically convoluted ideas and remarks that have more than me questioning your mental state.



    Wow, you're just NOW questioning his mental state? icon_eek.gif


    I'm trying to be as respectful as I can. It's something I think many of us have noticed for a while but I was hoping, just hoping that there could be some sort of epiphany on the other end. Never stop hopin'!



    You have yet to apologize for any of your personal attacks or for lying when you said that my comment about you wanting the thread to die was a response to you expressing sympathy for Rep. Giffords.
    And you of course haven't been able to post a single instance of me launching an unprovoked personal attack.
    You've made it very clear that your attacks against me are partisan and political in motivation and a desperate attampt to try to discount my posts.
    I take that as a compliment.

    But, I've given up hope that you and your right-wingers will have an "epiphany" and abandon your PARTY FIRST mentality, and call out Fox for it's blatant attempt to policiticize this tragedy.


    You mean personal attacks like this?

    Me (in response to christian): "She's probably brain dead though. What a sick sick person for doing this"

    Rickrick: "Yes, for twinkie to be hoping that Rep, Giffords is brain dead is pretty damn low class.
    PARTY FIRST yet again."

    When it's obvious that I'm saying it in a positive way, your garbled-up mind decides to interpret it as something you want it to be despite the glaring "what a sick sick person for doing this". Maybe if you had bothered to actually read what I was saying throughout the thread you wouldn't have ended up looking like such a fool.





    I think that talking about how Giffords would likely be "brain-dead" - THE DAY SHE HAD BEEN SHOT - was at best, offensive low-class and in bad taste.
    At worst - it was downright cruel.
    It offended me, and it still does.
    But, I do think the part of my comment about you "hoping" that she was brain-dead was unfair and think I backed off of that in later comments.
    If I didn't I do now.

    And this doesn't equate to some of the far worse personal and DIRECT attacks that you've launched at me.


    She was shot in the head. Wouldn't you assume that someone who is shot in the head would be brain dead? It had nothing to do with wishing or wanting her to be brain dead.

    *sigh*




    To those people who CARE about Rep. Giffords - that comment is offensive.
    Are you so heartless that you can't understand that?


    "sigh"


    Rick, nobody found it offensive but you. Even Christian had to correct you for coming to the ludicrous and logic-defying conclusion that I was saying something negative about her. I felt absolutely horrible when I heard the news.

    Gawd. Are you like this in real life?



    I met Rep. Giffords last year at a campaign event.
    We had a 5 minute conversation and one of the first things I asked her about was her vote on health care reform and the death threats she'd recieved trying to intimidate her into voting against it, and if she had been scared about voting "yes".
    She was charming and gracious and very brave and not at all partisan.

    That's part of why this is so personal to me.
    And perhaps is why my response was different from the reponse others had to your needlessly and painfully talking about how she was going to be "brain dead".

    Are you really such a heartless and cold blooded person that you can't understand that what you said would be offensive?
    If someone you cared about had been shot and someone said to you that your loved one would probably be brain dead - I'd expect that you would be hurt and offended by that.
    I guarantee you that anyone with actual human emotions would be.
    When something like that has JUST happened, you don't say something so insensitive and cold as that.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 10, 2011 9:46 PM GMT
    rickrick91 said
    mocktwinkie said
    rickrick91 said
    mocktwinkie said
    rickrick91 said
    mocktwinkie said
    rickrick91 said
    mocktwinkie said
    CuriousJockAZ said
    mocktwinkie said
    The last part of your rant there is a clear example of the logically convoluted ideas and remarks that have more than me questioning your mental state.



    Wow, you're just NOW questioning his mental state? icon_eek.gif


    I'm trying to be as respectful as I can. It's something I think many of us have noticed for a while but I was hoping, just hoping that there could be some sort of epiphany on the other end. Never stop hopin'!



    You have yet to apologize for any of your personal attacks or for lying when you said that my comment about you wanting the thread to die was a response to you expressing sympathy for Rep. Giffords.
    And you of course haven't been able to post a single instance of me launching an unprovoked personal attack.
    You've made it very clear that your attacks against me are partisan and political in motivation and a desperate attampt to try to discount my posts.
    I take that as a compliment.

    But, I've given up hope that you and your right-wingers will have an "epiphany" and abandon your PARTY FIRST mentality, and call out Fox for it's blatant attempt to policiticize this tragedy.


    You mean personal attacks like this?

    Me (in response to christian): "She's probably brain dead though. What a sick sick person for doing this"

    Rickrick: "Yes, for twinkie to be hoping that Rep, Giffords is brain dead is pretty damn low class.
    PARTY FIRST yet again."

    When it's obvious that I'm saying it in a positive way, your garbled-up mind decides to interpret it as something you want it to be despite the glaring "what a sick sick person for doing this". Maybe if you had bothered to actually read what I was saying throughout the thread you wouldn't have ended up looking like such a fool.





    I think that talking about how Giffords would likely be "brain-dead" - THE DAY SHE HAD BEEN SHOT - was at best, offensive low-class and in bad taste.
    At worst - it was downright cruel.
    It offended me, and it still does.
    But, I do think the part of my comment about you "hoping" that she was brain-dead was unfair and think I backed off of that in later comments.
    If I didn't I do now.

    And this doesn't equate to some of the far worse personal and DIRECT attacks that you've launched at me.


    She was shot in the head. Wouldn't you assume that someone who is shot in the head would be brain dead? It had nothing to do with wishing or wanting her to be brain dead.

    *sigh*




    To those people who CARE about Rep. Giffords - that comment is offensive.
    Are you so heartless that you can't understand that?


    "sigh"


    Rick, nobody found it offensive but you. Even Christian had to correct you for coming to the ludicrous and logic-defying conclusion that I was saying something negative about her. I felt absolutely horrible when I heard the news.

    Gawd. Are you like this in real life?



    I met Rep. Giffords last year at a campaign event.
    We had a 5 minute conversation and one of the first things I asked her about was her vote on health care reform and the death threats she'd recieved trying to intimidate her into voting against it, and if she had been scared about voting "yes".
    She was charming and gracious and very brave and not at all partisan.

    That's part of why this is so personal to me.
    And perhaps is why my response was different from the reponse others had to your needlessly and painfully talking about how she was going to be "brain dead".

    Are you really such a heartless and cold blooded person that you can't understand that what you said would be offensive?
    If someone you cared about had been shot and someone said to you that your loved one would probably be brain dead - I'd expect that you would be hurt and offended by that.
    I guarantee you that anyone with actual human emotions would be.


    But you see, I don't have blood running through my veins. I'm just a heartless, cruel, evil, vicious, pernicious, horrid, wicked person.

    And in proving this, you will notice all of the cruel and heartless and absolutely ghastly things I said about Giffords in the original thread talking about the tragic incident.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 10, 2011 9:58 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    rickrick91 said
    mocktwinkie said
    rickrick91 said
    mocktwinkie said
    rickrick91 said
    mocktwinkie said
    rickrick91 said
    mocktwinkie said
    CuriousJockAZ said
    mocktwinkie said
    The last part of your rant there is a clear example of the logically convoluted ideas and remarks that have more than me questioning your mental state.



    Wow, you're just NOW questioning his mental state? icon_eek.gif


    I'm trying to be as respectful as I can. It's something I think many of us have noticed for a while but I was hoping, just hoping that there could be some sort of epiphany on the other end. Never stop hopin'!



    You have yet to apologize for any of your personal attacks or for lying when you said that my comment about you wanting the thread to die was a response to you expressing sympathy for Rep. Giffords.
    And you of course haven't been able to post a single instance of me launching an unprovoked personal attack.
    You've made it very clear that your attacks against me are partisan and political in motivation and a desperate attampt to try to discount my posts.
    I take that as a compliment.

    But, I've given up hope that you and your right-wingers will have an "epiphany" and abandon your PARTY FIRST mentality, and call out Fox for it's blatant attempt to policiticize this tragedy.


    You mean personal attacks like this?

    Me (in response to christian): "She's probably brain dead though. What a sick sick person for doing this"

    Rickrick: "Yes, for twinkie to be hoping that Rep, Giffords is brain dead is pretty damn low class.
    PARTY FIRST yet again."

    When it's obvious that I'm saying it in a positive way, your garbled-up mind decides to interpret it as something you want it to be despite the glaring "what a sick sick person for doing this". Maybe if you had bothered to actually read what I was saying throughout the thread you wouldn't have ended up looking like such a fool.





    I think that talking about how Giffords would likely be "brain-dead" - THE DAY SHE HAD BEEN SHOT - was at best, offensive low-class and in bad taste.
    At worst - it was downright cruel.
    It offended me, and it still does.
    But, I do think the part of my comment about you "hoping" that she was brain-dead was unfair and think I backed off of that in later comments.
    If I didn't I do now.

    And this doesn't equate to some of the far worse personal and DIRECT attacks that you've launched at me.


    She was shot in the head. Wouldn't you assume that someone who is shot in the head would be brain dead? It had nothing to do with wishing or wanting her to be brain dead.

    *sigh*




    To those people who CARE about Rep. Giffords - that comment is offensive.
    Are you so heartless that you can't understand that?


    "sigh"


    Rick, nobody found it offensive but you. Even Christian had to correct you for coming to the ludicrous and logic-defying conclusion that I was saying something negative about her. I felt absolutely horrible when I heard the news.

    Gawd. Are you like this in real life?



    I met Rep. Giffords last year at a campaign event.
    We had a 5 minute conversation and one of the first things I asked her about was her vote on health care reform and the death threats she'd recieved trying to intimidate her into voting against it, and if she had been scared about voting "yes".
    She was charming and gracious and very brave and not at all partisan.

    That's part of why this is so personal to me.
    And perhaps is why my response was different from the reponse others had to your needlessly and painfully talking about how she was going to be "brain dead".

    Are you really such a heartless and cold blooded person that you can't understand that what you said would be offensive?
    If someone you cared about had been shot and someone said to you that your loved one would probably be brain dead - I'd expect that you would be hurt and offended by that.
    I guarantee you that anyone with actual human emotions would be.


    But you see, I don't have blood running through my veins. I'm just a heartless, cruel, evil, vicious, pernicious, horrid, wicked person.

    And in proving this, you will notice all of the cruel and heartless and absolutely ghastly things I said about Giffords in the original thread talking about the tragic incident.




    Just because you've said something nice in one comment doesn't excuse saying something offensive in another thread.
    Obviously.

    And a caustic and sarcastic response is not going to be very effective at making you look less cold blooded.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 10, 2011 10:45 PM GMT
    I think I'll weigh in here. I will not call RickRick (RR) any names or apply any adjectives that might indicate my assessment of him, but I will just point out a specific - if I need to dig up the thread I'm sure I could find it.

    There was discussion of military service. RR was in the thread along with several others including myself. I made a remark about people who embellish their service record. I was not referring to RR at all and did not suggest or imply as such. RR assumed I was speaking of him and launched the most derogatory, nasty, epithet-laden venom I have seen on RJ. I responded saying, whoa, RR. I never meant to suggest that was the case with you. I wasn't even thinking about you. Sorry that you interpreted it that way, but it never my intent. RR never had the wherewithal to apologize, though he continued participating in the thread and definitely saw my response.

    That helped form an impression.