Opinion of jmfcst

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Part of the fixtures and fittings of this place. Of course were he a new poster, we'd call him a borderline troll and that's that. He's recent started moving towards problem-poster status, which is a little strange after eight (or is it nine?) years here.

Well, I don’t like the fact something as subjective as “trolling” can be grounds for banning.  Sometimes, trolling can be an effective method to stir debate, like a teacher throwing out a controversial subject for the class to chew on.  Also, many of my cryptic threads, which ended up being accurate predictions, would have been considered “trolling” by many mods under the current rules.  And my threads featuring music videos to express a point or feeling would also violate the current rules.

To me, Leip as taken an effort to make the site family friendly and turned it into a system that doesn’t allow artistic forms of debate – the  mods are determining what can and cannot be discussed and what form the argument must take.  Posters should be given a chance to allow a statement or idea to “hang in the air” and then to expound upon it in their follow up statements.  As it is now, in order not to be considered a troll, one must spell out everything up front – mods are not allowing single statements to be used as a foundation for discussion .  The rules should allow someone to broadly sketch an idea on canvas and then to flesh out the picture as others join in the discussion.

Posting has become too ritualize, as if we have to fill out a standardized form in order to post. 

In other words – “Where’s my motivation?!”

(Of course, there are ways around the “trolling” infractions, but doing so actually makes trolling more interruptive.  Example – instead of a single trollish statement, a whole paragraph has to be written in order to show “thoughtful intent” to avoid an infraction.   My “Texas as a country” thread is a typical case – instead of me being able to yank someone’s chain by making a single “arrogant Texan" comment, I had to act as if I actually cared by making an entire thread on the subject, which only served to waste my time as well as the time of others. But, I digress.)

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

My “Texas as a country” thread is a typical case – instead of me being able to yank someone’s chain by making a single “arrogant Texan" comment, I had to act as if I actually cared by making an entire thread on the subject, which only served to waste my time as well as the time of others. But, I digress.)

Why would you feel the need to post an "arrogant Texan" comment just to "yank somebody's chain"?  Can you see how that would be considered trollspam no matter how much effort you put into writing it?

chain-yanking shouldn't be infractionable - it's simply psychological warefare:  All warfare is based on deception.  If your enemy is superior, evade him.  If angry, irritate him.  If equally matched, fight.  And if not, split.  Re-evaluate.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

chain-yanking shouldn't be infractionable - it's simply psychological warefare:  All warfare is based on deception.  If your enemy is superior, evade him.  If angry, irritate him.  If equally matched, fight.  And if not, split.  Re-evaluate.

Dis is syrs businness, pple.

actually, chain-yanking occurs in every facet of life, even in a pick-up game of basketball.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

chain-yanking shouldn't be infractionable - it's simply psychological warefare:  All warfare is based on deception.  If your enemy is superior, evade him.  If angry, irritate him.  If equally matched, fight.  And if not, split.  Re-evaluate.

Dis is syrs businness, pple.

actually, chain-yanking occurs in every facet of life, even in a pick-up game of basketball.

The Bible said so.

are you attempting to say the bible is against chain-yanking?  you have a problem with what the bible clearly says, yet now you're attempting to invent your own rules:

Mat 23:24 "You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel."

(for some odd reason, once again I am referring to a camel in discussion with you.)

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

chain-yanking shouldn't be infractionable - it's simply psychological warefare:  All warfare is based on deception.  If your enemy is superior, evade him.  If angry, irritate him.  If equally matched, fight.  And if not, split.  Re-evaluate.

Dis is syrs businness, pple.

actually, chain-yanking occurs in every facet of life, even in a pick-up game of basketball.

The Bible said so.

are you attempting to say the bible is against chain-yanking?  you have a problem with what the bible clearly says, yet now you're attempting to invent your own rules:

Mat 23:24 "You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel."

(for some odd reason, once again I am referring to a camel in discussion with you.)

What is bible saying about basketball?

it says, "Take Kalwejt to the hoop, for he lacks a point, both in debating and in playing basketball."

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

chain-yanking shouldn't be infractionable - it's simply psychological warefare:  All warfare is based on deception.  If your enemy is superior, evade him.  If angry, irritate him.  If equally matched, fight.  And if not, split.  Re-evaluate.

Dis is syrs businness, pple.

actually, chain-yanking occurs in every facet of life, even in a pick-up game of basketball.

The Bible said so.

are you attempting to say the bible is against chain-yanking?  you have a problem with what the bible clearly says, yet now you're attempting to invent your own rules:

Mat 23:24 "You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel."

(for some odd reason, once again I am referring to a camel in discussion with you.)

What is bible saying about basketball?

it says, "Take Kalwejt to the hoop, for he lacks a point, both in debating and in playing basketball."

Cite?

it may be between Genesis 1 and Rev 22.  Read it and get back to me.  In the meantime, did you hear the one about the Pollock and the camel:

There was a Pollock on vacation in Syria riding through the desert on a camel. He had been travelling so long that he felt the need to have sex. Obviously there were no women in the desert so the man turned to his camel.
He tried to position himself to have sex with his camel but the camel ran away. The man ran to catch up to the camel and got back on and started to ride again. Soon he was feeling the urge to have sex again so once again he turned to his camel. The camel refused by running away. So he caught up to it again and got on it again.
Finally after riding the camel through the whole desert the man came to a road. There was a broken down car with three big-chested beautiful women sitting in it.
He went up to them and asked the women if they needed any help.
The hottest girl said ,"If you fix our car we will do anything you want."
The man luckily knew a thing or two about cars and fixed it in a flash.
When he finished one of the three girls asked, "How could we ever repay you Mr."
After thinking for a short while the Pollock replied, "Could you hold my camel?"

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Brainwashed by religion. I'm not voting either way because we don't know what his real views are.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Brainwashed by religion. I'm not voting either way because we don't know what his real views are.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATueZADngJM&#t=0m16s

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

He'll always be an Atlas legend for breaking the news on Sarah Palin being McCain's running mate hours before the MSM reported it.

well, I didn’t myself discover the flight logs filed for her secret flights, rather I was just passing on information from someone else.  I simply was tuned into a blog on the palinforvp site (run by Adam Brickley) where an insider (probably Drew Zahn from WorldNetDaily) was giving us info.  Drew told us how the whole night would unfold and everything happened exactly as it said it would.  The Palin campaign was simply providing leaks to the palinforvp blog as payback for its support of her.  Both Sarah and Todd personally sent Adam Brinkley a big thank you for raising awareness of her.  

But, I do take credit for my prediction of her selection a week prior to the event.   Of course, if she wins the 2012 GOP nomination, I will regret her political existence.

Though, it was cool how I not only predicted her selection, but also found a blog with a reliable source and also provided the first news link (from cnbc) to the forum confirming her selection.  I basically had a royal flush that week...I also found a reliable source for leaks on the RedState blog during the Alito selection, I believed the poster was a true leak because a few weeks earlier he insisted 72 hours before Miers was announced that he was in the know and that she had been selected because the other women in the running had reasons (skeletons in their closets?) why they didn't pass the vetting process, which I immediately discounted thinking no way Bush would chose Miers.  But when Miers was selected, I started trusting in that blogger who would then relay the info that Alito was the new choice.

…just goes to show that real news can be gleaned from the internet well before the MSM has a clue.  Also, just goes to show how much leaking is going on, and it is probably tolerated because it is very hard to tell who knows what they're talking about and who is just guessing.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Brainwashed by religion. I'm not voting either way because we don't know what his real views are.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATueZADngJM&#t=0m16s

Winston Disraeli, you need to elaborate on your comment:  A) are you saying I am brainwashed and therefore even I myself don't know what my real views are, or B) are you saying I am hiding my real views from the forum?  

because B makes no sense at all considering the level of detail I have revealed over the last 8 years on the forum

and A is like Twilight Zone type of weirdness, not to mention it doesn't even fit my history since I basically acquired 95% of my beliefs within the first 5 months of becoming a Christian, and during those 5 months I was a rogue Christian with no church and only a bible.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

during those 5 months I was a rouge Christian with no church and only a bible.

Rouge Christian?  Perhaps you meant rogue Christian?  I'm thinking that there's a huge difference. 

well, I was a bit pale at the time

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I suppose I have editing rights over my own life story:

Glad you cleaned it up.  I love that line.  Sounds like the intro to a western movie.

Open with a pair of dusty boots walkiing slowly through in the desert.  Slowly pan up the body of a weather-worn maverick, who steps on a scorpion.  Cue guitar solo--or better yet, theme from "Fistful of Dollars."  Raspy, cigarette-enhanced baritone voice starts talking..

"I'd killed more men than I can remember.  Been upstairs with every whore in the territory.  Drank about a gallon of whiskey before breakfast every day of my miserable life.  My face was posted on the walls of every two-bit tavern west of the Pecos.  

I didn't give a damn about anybody or any laws.  Till one day when I found Jesus, that is.  I found him at the bottom of a well, where I'd been pitched and left for dead after my gang found my map and stole my gold.  Damn near suffocated down there, till a Mexican priest named Arturo Fernandez.  But in that well I found a bible some woman gave me, and when I opened that bible, Jesus stepped out of it and into my life. Christ saved me.  He brought me up out of that well, lifting me up to the heavens in front of the whole universe, consumed my flesh with fire and nurtured me back to gave me a new life, setting his mark upon me as like I was his own child.  Taught me to love and to forgive.  But I wasn't into that political a legalistic version of Jesus.  I wasn't into Jesus Christ, Inc.  Rather Jesus was now living inside of me, I wanted to find my own and God commissioned me to go tell others about unclutered faith in his truth.  

During those first five months, I was a rogue Christian with no church and only a bible."

Cut to bloodstained bible.  Pan out to show lone maverick standing in deserted mining town.  Sound brass fanfare in A-sustained-2 with the title "The Rogue Christian" in Times font fading in quickly.

Voiceover:  "The Rogue Christian is brought to you by State Farm Insurance, and by Phillip Morris and company the Power of the Word of God."  

Cut to commercial.

Now, since I am a business man, my normal cut is 75%.  But I’ll leave all the profits to you.  Go in peace, just spread the word.  Some will accept my testimony, others won’t.  As it is written:

2Cor 2: 15 “For we are to God the aroma of Christ among those who are being saved and those who are perishing. 16To the one we are the smell of death; to the other, the fragrance of life. And who is equal to such a task? 17Unlike so many, we do not peddle the word of God for profit. On the contrary, in Christ we speak before God with sincerity, like men sent from God.”

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Excellent!  Though I prefer a Father Guido type, but it might be hard to paint him into a western.

and, yeah, 2Cor 2:17 is a major topic of discussion in my pastor's sermons, he shudders at the vast majority of Christian TV.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

But don't turn down Father Arturo's help when he shows up here one day as a poster.  Other than opebo, he'll be the only Democrat you haven't completely alienated.  

you're sending a Dem to save me?  that's just wrong! 

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

bumping this to compare with recent poll