Guest Speed Racer Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 Some might call this douchebaggery at it's finest. Really? Someone should have to clean up the mess they made? Activists who come out in the name of the common good who leave a HUGE mess in their wake - now that could be considered douchebaggery. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Speed Racer Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 And I didn't even bring up the hypocrisy of championing the underdog working class of teachers while basically shitting on the cleaning staff who'd have to make the Capitol useable again. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Moss Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 Wow, who knew Laminated Nap was a toady for the man! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Doug C Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 I mean calling them "protestors", is douchebaggery. "Jules" may believe that they are something in addition to being protestors but they are protestors. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
caliber66 Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 And I didn't even bring up the hypocrisy of championing the underdog working class of teachers while basically shitting on the cleaning staff who'd have to make the Capitol useable again.Dude, I bet the cleaning staff was in on it. Overtime, baby! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Speed Racer Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 Many of them were uppity students. They might have had an opinion about the situation, but I'll bet if they'd have had to drive more than four hours to get there they wouldn't have. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Doug C Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 Many of them were uppity students. They might have had an opinion about the situation, but I'll bet if they'd have had to drive more than four hours to get there they wouldn't have.So what? They were all protestors. Calling them "protestors" does not flatter someone's debate skills or intelligence. That's a Fox News-type response. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Speed Racer Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 If he doesn't think their intentions were true then he doesn't - there's no dishonesty there. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
moxiebean Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 And I didn't even bring up the hypocrisy of championing the underdog working class of teachers while basically shitting on the cleaning staff who'd have to make the Capitol useable again.Get a hose, a bucket of soapy water, and a sponge and I bet the cleaning staff will shine right up. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Doug C Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 If he doesn't think their intentions were true then he doesn't - there's no dishonesty there.He believes that all of the, hell, most, hell, a good chunk of the protestors actually are in favor of Walker's bill? Well, okay then. I am wrong. Also, does "Jules" have you on retainer or is your work pro bono? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Speed Racer Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 You complain about the underhanded nature of Jules' or my discussion tactics but routinely assign me to a profession I'm not even in? Ever classy, you. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Doug C Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 You complain about the underhanded nature of Jules' or my discussion tactics but routinely assign me to a profession I'm not even in? Ever classy, you.You are confusing me with other Via Chicagoans. This is understandable as others have accused you of being a lawyer, I never have. Please feel fre to check old posts. I also did not say that you were a lawyer today. I was making what is commonly called a 'joke'. What I meant, and that I have to explain it is disheartening, was that you defend "Jules" so seemingly often, that it is as though you are his lawyer. Not that you are literally his lawyer or a lawyer. What about the actual discussion? They are either protesting Walker's bill or they are in favor of Walker's bill. As I said earlier, "Jules" may believe that they are something in addition to protestors but they are certainly protestors. To refer to them as "protestors" is silly and doesn't flatter "Jules". Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jff Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 You complain about the underhanded nature of Jules' or my discussion tactics but routinely assign me to a profession I'm not even in? Yet. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Speed Racer Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 Are you aspiring to be a tool, Jeff? We could also just talk to people like, you know, like we were people. To boil someone down to one trait - say, if you attributed all my posts to being a woman, or if I attributed all your posts to being a Southerner - is annoying as shit. Better still would be if I attributed all of your posts to something you might be oh, you know, five years from now. What I meant, and that I have to explain it is disheartening, was that you defend "Jules" so seemingly often, that it is as though you are his lawyer. Not that you are literally his lawyer or a lawyer. I'm not defending Jules, I'm defending the point he's making. I disagree with him like it's free, but here I agree with him. What about the actual discussion? They are either protesting Walker's bill or they are in favor of Walker's bill. As I said earlier, "Jules" may believe that they are something in addition to protestors but they are certainly protestors. To refer to them as "protestors" is silly and doesn't flatter "Jules". So you do things with only one intention? You never have dual intent? Plently of people sitting on their duffs at home opposed the bill - these people opposed the bill and wanted to protest. Certainly there were people there who disliked the bill more than others, and even still who just like to come out for a good protest. I knew plently of kids in college who made a stink about anything that stood still long enough to become a cause; while they certainly believed in their causes, I think they believed in the act of protest much more. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Doug C Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 So you do things with only one intention? You never have dual intent? Plently of people sitting on their duffs at home opposed the bill - these people opposed the bill and wanted to protest. Certainly there were people there who disliked the bill more than others, and even still who just like to come out for a good protest. I knew plently of kids in college who made a stink about anything that stood still long enough to become a cause; while they certainly believed in their causes, I think they believed in the act of protest much more.It is good to see that we agree but strange that you say we don't. "Dual motives", "disliked more than others", " believed in the act of protest more". Again, they may have plenty of motives but protesting the bill is one of them. Therefore, they are protestors, not "protestors". At the risk of sounding churlish, making the same clear point repeatedly is becoming tiresome. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Jules Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 He believes that all of the, hell, most, hell, a good chunk of the protestors actually are in favor of Walker's bill? Well, okay then. I am wrong. Also, does "Jules" have you on retainer or is your work pro bono?pro boner actually. Also, remove the quotes from my original post. I was just trying to say maybe "the people who were living there for 2 weeks and making the mess" should clean it up. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
gogo Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 Certainly there were people there who disliked the bill more than others, and even still who just like to come out for a good protest. I knew plently of kids in college who made a stink about anything that stood still long enough to become a cause; while they certainly believed in their causes, I think they believed in the act of protest much more.But that still doesn't downgrade their status to anything less than protestor, does it? The use of "protestor" seems to imply that these folks were somehow not legitimately protesting the bill, but were in fact something else entirely. Hired thugs? Outside agitators? I don't know what exactly Jules meant by it, but it rubbed me the wrong way, too. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Jules Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 "SSSSSOOOOOORRRRYYYYY!!!!!"""""" Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Speed Racer Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 I don't know, it just made me think of all those hippy-dippy classmates who, hell or highwater, were always holding a petition about something in their hands. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
gogo Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 Also, remove the quotes from my original post. I was just trying to say maybe "the people who were living there for 2 weeks and making the mess" should clean it up.OK, then. But, damn you for posting at the same time as me! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jff Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 Are you aspiring to be a tool, Jeff? We could also just talk to people like, you know, like we were people. To boil someone down to one trait - say, if you attributed all my posts to being a woman, or if I attributed all your posts to being a Southerner - is annoying as shit. Better still would be if I attributed all of your posts to something you might be oh, you know, five years from now. It was a joke. Your posting style tends to be lawyer-ish at times. It's not a personal attack, and if people were put off by it they wouldn't repsond to you. As for the bold portion, that would be hilarious, and may be worthy of a thread of its own. Based on the way you post, you're going to be a _________ in five years. That could be comedy gold. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
gogo Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 "SSSSSOOOOOORRRRYYYYY!!!!!"""""" Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Speed Racer Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 It was a joke. Your posting style tends to be lawyer-ish at times. It's not a personal attack, and if people were put off by it they wouldn't repsond to you. I don't feel attacked, I feel annoyed as shit (I believe that was the term I used?). Just notifying you. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
caliber66 Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 I don't know, it just made me think of all those hippy-dippy classmates who, hell or highwater, were always holding a petition about something in their hands. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bleedorange Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 It's good to see that VC can generate 2-3 pages of discussion around the use of quotation marks. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.