Cripes. No wonder we're in trouble . . . this guy is our city attorney.
Posted on 01/01/2003 10:25:03 AM PST by justlurking
I barely recognize him.
The examples that I remember most clearly were your refusals to answer things like how many innocent citizens it was okay to arrest and whether you believed that every person arrested in the raid was guilty. Maybe someone has finally pinned you to some straight answers on these questions, but I clearly remember that you dodged them repeatedly in the early debates on this issue. I'll take something from lower in your post to show an example.
WFTR: I will say to your face that no one here respects you because of your position
Houmatt: So in order to get your respect, I have to agree with you, and say none of the people who were arrested did anything wrong, only the police. Not only does that fly in the face of firmly established and undeniable facts, but you are telling me I should stop thinking for myself just so I can get your respect.
Again, you are trying to paint a picture where everyone arrested was guilty or everyone was innocent. This picture is completely false and obscures or ignores the problem with the situation. This picture also distorts what I have said numerous times on this issue. Finally, you cut a sentence that I had written in order to portray my position falsely.
Here is the sentence as I had written it: I will say to your face that no one here respects you because of your position and more importantly your tactics on the threads related to this event.
I never claimed that every person arrested was innocent. Some of the teenagers in that parking lot were probably being obnoxious and inconsiderate of others and possibly breaking some law. If they were just being rude, I have no problem with the police telling them to behave. If they were breaking some law, I have no problem with the police arresting them. However, others in the parking lot and in the Sonic restaurant were completely innocent.
The first thing that you would have to do to earn my respect would be to understand what I have clearly said on many occasions and not to distort it as you frequently have. The second thing would be for you to admit that the police arrested some innocent people that night. If they managed to arrest some who were guilty, the arrest of the guilty ones doesn't change the fact that they arrested the innnocent. The third step to earning my respect would be for you to admit that the police catching a few guilty people in the raid doesn't make the innocent people who were also caught also guilty.
WFTR: You make crude insults towards others but whine to the moderators when someone says something that you do not like.
Houmatt: Name one.
In a post the other day, you made a reference to someone being so full of fecal material that his eyes were brown. I don't remember whether you used the *&%*%$&% characters or a $hi* type text. However, in either case, it was crude. However, in another post, when someone made a similar comment about you, you had it removed by a moderator.
Another example comes from this very post. You responded My response to that comes in just two words, and the second word is you.
The post to which I responded is another example of your being hypersensitive and trying to squelch opposing voices. No one said anything horrible about you, but you screamed for the moderator and for Mr. Robinson.
The fourth thing that you must do to earn my respect is to admit that you have been crude and disrespectful of other Freepers but whine to the moderators when anyone responds to you in kind. Then you must change your ways and not dish out what you aren't man enough to take.
WFTR: For one Freeper to warn others that you are not worth our time is not an example of profanity, personal attack, racism, or violence that breaks the rules.
Houmatt: No, it is disrespectful to make those kind of comments in a public forum, not to mention a troll. Nothing more, nothing less.
From the beginning, you have attacked everyone on this board who disagreed with you and done your best to start flame wars on these threads. People are going to warn one another about you. You may see it as disrespectful, but it is a result of the complete lack of respect that we feel for someone who distorts our arguments and refuses to face the facts.
The challenge to make our comments "to your face" is just more posturing on your part because your arguments have no merit. We all know that you are going to try to distort the truth and derail any worthwhile discussion of this situation. You can keep on denying, but your denials sound more and more Clintonesque with every word that you type.
To summarize what I've written above, we don't respect you for two reasons. The first is that you are dishonest in the way you argue your position. The second is that you aren't big enough to take what you dish out.
In order for the arrests to be legal, you first have to justify them.
You are making it sound like Aguirre picked a large crowd at random and arrested everyone just for the hell of it.
That is absolutely false, and you know it.
I do not bother with questions designed to get a certain type of answer. They are completely disingenuous and have no basis in fact.
Again, you are trying to paint a picture where everyone arrested was guilty or everyone was innocent.
200+ people in a single place at 12:30 am? When the same thing is not happening across the street? Hello! McFly!
The first thing that you would have to do to earn my respect would be to understand what I have clearly said on many occasions and not to distort it as you frequently have.
Who is distorting anything? I am sticking by the facts. I am not the one who said, I will say to your face that no one here respects you because of your position. You cannot even keep my comments within context.
To wit: So in order to get your respect, I have to agree with you, and say none of the people who were arrested did anything wrong, only the police. Not only does that fly in the face of firmly established and undeniable facts, but you are telling me I should stop thinking for myself just so I can get your respect.
My response to that comes in just two words, and the second word is you.
Finally, you cut a sentence that I had written in order to portray my position falsely.
I focused on the only relevant part of the sentence. I stand by my response, and if you think that is a flame, you live in a fantasy world.
The second thing would be for you to admit that the police arrested some innocent people that night.
Prove it. Show to me incontrovertible proof they arrested innocent people, without referring to those who ran to Sonic to evade arrest, or the jackass who filed that ridiculous $100 million lawsuit.
The fourth thing that you must do to earn my respect is to admit that you have been crude and disrespectful of other Freepers but whine to the moderators when anyone responds to you in kind.
I asked you to name one. You failed to give a specific example; only referred to something that may or may not have happened, and one taken completely out of context and was not even a flame! As I have said before, respect is a two-way street. In order to get it, you have to give it.
From the beginning, you have attacked everyone on this board who disagreed with you and done your best to start flame wars on these threads.
I think you need to read the entire thread before you make comments like that.
People are going to warn one another about you. You may see it as disrespectful, but it is a result of the complete lack of respect that we feel for someone who distorts our arguments and refuses to face the facts.
You mean like these?
In order for most arrests (without a warrant) to be legal, the offender must have committed the offense for which they are charged within the arresting officer's view. There are offenses for which this is not required, but criminal trespassing is not one of them.
You are making it sound like Aguirre picked a large crowd at random and arrested everyone just for the hell of it.
That is absolutely false, and you know it.
That's a rather interesting interpretation of what I wrote. Please explain how you derived it.
WFTR gave you a specific example from your previous response to him in this very thread. You conveniently deleted it:
My response to that comes in just two words, and the second word is you..
A few weeks ago, you had so many profane comments removed by the moderator that the thread was finally deleted altogether.
You're dismissed.
My response to that comes in just two words, and the second word is you.
Yep. That is what I said. Now let's put it in the proper context:
WFTR said the only way he would respect me is if I agreed with him, regardless of the facts. (As indicated by the statement, I will say to your face that no one here respects you because of your position.)
We all know what I meant by my response. If there is any part of that you do not understand, please let me know. And, furthermore, if you think that is a flame, then you've got a problem.
A few weeks ago, you had so many profane comments removed by the moderator that the thread was finally deleted altogether.
Now, justlurking, you are a baldfaced liar.
What happened is a thread had turned into a three-man flame war, instigated by you and your complete and utter disrespect for myself and my privacy by publicly posting private mails I had sent to you. It had gotten to the point that Jim Robinson himself had to step in and delete the thread.
For those of you playing at home, his reason for deleting it was summed up in a single word: Enough!
I have tried to be civil, which was hard, considering Dog Gone and his derogatory comments about me in an open forum. When I asked him to refrain from speaking to and about me, he refused, subsequently referring to me as a two-year old in this very thread.
Now, if you want to play with fire and try to piss off Jim once again, be my guest. But bear in mind, the next time he may be deleting more than just a thread.
And you have the gall to challenge my integrity?
People who live in glass houses should not be throwing stones.
I doubt there is anyone that doesn't know what you meant. But, anyone that doesn't think that kind of admonition isn't a "flame" really has a problem.
What happened is a thread had turned into a three-man flame war, instigated by you and your complete and utter disrespect for myself and my privacy by publicly posting private mails I had sent to you. It had gotten to the point that Jim Robinson himself had to step in and delete the thread.
Yes, I posted those private messages, because they were excellent examples of your profane language and abusive behavior that you knew wouldn't be tolerated in public. Jim doesn't believe that's an appropriate response and while I don't agree with him, it's his sandbox.
Jim finally deleted the thread because you did not heed his admonition to "knock it off". Your last posting to the thread was the final straw. I know this, because I was engaged in a series of private messages with him about the issue at that very moment.
But, that was only after a series of complaints about your abusive behavior. I lost count of the number of your comments that were removed and even you admitted that it was due to your own profanity.
Now, if you want to play with fire and try to piss off Jim once again, be my guest. But bear in mind, the next time he may be deleting more than just a thread.
I don't think there's any question that someone is risking banishment. But, to see that person, you should look in a mirror.
The problem is most people in government (whether city, state, or federal) see our money as "their" money. Remember all of the money being wasted by the Pentagon several years back? Did Congress take the wasted money out of the pockets of those who wasted it? No. Everytime Congress wastes money on some foolish study or project that comes to nothing, does it come out of their pockets? No. That attitude travels down to the city level, where your local city government can waste your money and not be punished for it.
And you really believe he was just talking to you? You really think he was only referring to me when he said that? Don't flatter yourself. You are not nearly as innocent as you think you are.
But, that was only after a series of complaints about your abusive behavior. I lost count of the number of your comments that were removed and even you admitted that it was due to your own profanity.
Nope. Those comments were removed by the moderator on their own volition, because I was repeatedly dropping the f-bomb even though I was not actually spelling the word out.
You may have also noticed every time you posted the content of the mails I sent you (which was extremely disrespectful, once again, and an invasion of my privacy), those posts were also deleted. It was because I pointed out to the moderator you were posting them without my permission.
Look, I am getting tired of this. I am getting tired of you trying to instigate a flame war that will only result in all of us getting banned. If you wish to make a comment about the topic at hand, great. If not, it would be appreciated if you did not address me or make comments about me in an open forum (especially ones of a derogatory nature). I would much rather be talking about this with other people, anyway, instead of wasting time and bandwidth on childish scrawlings.
Actually, the discussion was about exactly that. I was clarifying with Jim exactly what I was doing wrong. He explained that he considered posting abusive private to be improper. I respectfully disagreed with him about the principle, but agreed to abide by his policy.
I also asked about how to address abuse of the private messaging system. In the midst of that discussion, he found that you had continued to post personal attacks despite his warning to drop it. He deleted the thread, I thanked him for his time and we went our separate ways.
Nope. Those comments were removed by the moderator on their own volition, because I was repeatedly dropping the f-bomb even though I was not actually spelling the word out.
I see. So, not actually spelling out the word makes its usage acceptable. Obviously, someone thought otherwise and reported your abuse, and the moderator(s) agreed. Yet, you continue to use it and wonder why people complain.
You may have also noticed every time you posted the content of the mails I sent you (which was extremely disrespectful, once again, and an invasion of my privacy), those posts were also deleted. It was because I pointed out to the moderator you were posting them without my permission.
I don't consider hateful, abusive, and profane messages to be confidential. It was clear to me that you sent them privately only because you knew you couldn't get away with posting them publicly. But, until then no one had told me of the policy. Since I left your profanity and abuse intact, I presumed that was the reason the postings were removed. As I noted above, Jim clarified the reason for me.
Look, I am getting tired of this. I am getting tired of you trying to instigate a flame war that will only result in all of us getting banned.
Houmatt, the only flame war here is of your own making. You are having the same problem with everyone. That should be a hint of where the problem lies.
If you wish to make a comment about the topic at hand, great. If not, it would be appreciated if you did not address me or make comments about me in an open forum (especially ones of a derogatory nature).
I am only one of several that are taking the time to correct your mistaken assertions so that readers lurking in the background get the entire story. So, as long as you continue to post things that need correction or clarification, you can expect me and/or someone to follow up and set the record straight.
If you respond with personal attacks, you can expect some in return -- especially from those that you have attacked in the past. Per Jim's request, I'll do my best to ignore yours, but I can't speak for anyone else.
But, I've already made the mistake and I'm not going to try to duck responsibility and further annoy the moderators.
It was a duplicate, anyway. I had done a search and couldn't find the original. But, I don't really think it added anything to the topic at hand. Any of the original participants can easily find it if they want, and it's still here for reference. That's preferable to it being deleted altogether.
EBUCK, I'm CC:'ing you on this to ask a favor: would you ping me if you post anything further about the K-mart fiasco? That way, I won't miss anything interesting and I'll be sure to avoid duplicating your efforts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.