The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community  

Go Back   The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community > Jibba Jabba > War, Religion and Politics Thread
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Chat Room Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-26-2013, 10:13 AM   #176
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk View Post
If you wish to try - again - to stalk someone, do a better job.

By the way, considering how much you choose to harass people online, I'd suggest refraining from posting your personal info everywhere.
Quoted.

Is that a threat?

Didn't think so.
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2013, 10:18 AM   #177
nyuk nyuk
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by W*GS View Post
Fed has completely schooled nyuk.

Congrats, sir.
Still waiting for you to answer 3 simple yes or no questions.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2013, 10:19 AM   #178
nyuk nyuk
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by houghtam View Post
Quoted.

Is that a threat?

Didn't think so.
No it's a bit of advice for someone with a very long track record of harassing people and being banned multiple times for doing so. That's a very dumb thing to do, and you never know the kind of people who can be online.

If I was one of them, suffice it to say I'd have carried out a threat already.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2013, 10:21 AM   #179
Requiem
~~~
 
Requiem's Avatar
 
~ ~ ~

Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Earth Division
Posts: 23,292

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Princes of Tara
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk View Post
If you wish to try - again - to stalk someone, do a better job.
It is your homepage profile on Broncomania. If it ain't your site, why post it there?

Quote:
By the way, considering how much you choose to harass people online, I'd suggest refraining from posting your personal info everywhere.
I'm sure my personal information is EVERYWHERE. After all, I have been on the internet since 1996. And funny thing is, if you weren't looking for it (or looking me up) -- you wouldn't know.

Do a better job.

Last edited by Requiem; 03-26-2013 at 10:29 AM..
Requiem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2013, 10:25 AM   #180
Requiem
~~~
 
Requiem's Avatar
 
~ ~ ~

Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Earth Division
Posts: 23,292

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Princes of Tara
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk View Post
No it's a bit of advice for someone with a very long track record of harassing people and being banned multiple times for doing so. That's a very dumb thing to do, and you never know the kind of people who can be online.

If I was one of them, suffice it to say I'd have carried out a threat already.
LooooooooooooooooL.
Requiem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2013, 10:29 AM   #181
nyuk nyuk
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Requiem View Post
It is your homepage profile on Broncomania. If it ain't your site, why post it there?
What it means is that you're yet again googling around trying to fish for personal info to use as a weapon, even if your efforts are half-assed.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2013, 10:36 AM   #182
Requiem
~~~
 
Requiem's Avatar
 
~ ~ ~

Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Earth Division
Posts: 23,292

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Princes of Tara
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk View Post
What it means is that you're yet again googling around trying to fish for personal info to use as a weapon, even if your efforts are half-assed.
I'm just pointing out how retarded you are. Indentifies as ex-leftist? Check. Almost verbatim posts same arguments? Check.

Why put it there if it isn't your homepage? Why say it is when it isn't? It's quite easy to see (if it is not) where you get your sick and twisted thoughts.

Good grief. Time for you to put the tail between the legs and head home. You were obliterated in this thread.

Like I said, why you continue to post on a forum where you are consistently trumped and not liked is beyond me, but undoubtedly you have a lot of free time to waste if you are strolling by yourself going to movies and snapping cell phone pics to argue with people online.

Man, I might debate draft prospects with the boys. . . but what you are doing is next level sadness.

Last edited by Requiem; 03-26-2013 at 10:39 AM..
Requiem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2013, 10:37 AM   #183
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

Here's a question for you, Dramanyuk.

When you left that theater after the movie, did you complain how difficult it was to see getting out of the auditorium?

Because since that sconce light is clearly not dimmed, the next cue (the one that is placed at the beginning of the credits) would have told the sconce light to dim during the credits, making it nearly impossible to see. No way you could not have noticed it.

Yeah, didn't think so.

Screenvision ad.
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2013, 10:49 AM   #184
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,930

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Wish my lazy, leeching liberal ass had the spare time to go play junior detective at the theatre several times a week.

Guess I'm just not very proficient at leeching off society.
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2013, 10:52 AM   #185
nyuk nyuk
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

I'm on vacation this week, Fed. I have over 300 hours of paid leave to use and I'm using 36 of it this week. How about yourself?
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2013, 10:53 AM   #186
TonyR
Franchise Poster
 
TonyR's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Mid-Atlantic
Posts: 18,735
Default

Just curious what the "solution" is that nyuk and meck are suggesting. What is it you want, exactly? More lenient conceal & carry laws? Is that it? You think this will lead to more people carrying, and thus more safety? You think the people who would carry into a situation like what happened in that Aurora theater are the types of peopld you'd actually want to be armed, rather than just the opposite? Spell it out for us. What are you suggesting?
TonyR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2013, 10:56 AM   #187
nyuk nyuk
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by houghtam View Post
Here's a question for you, Dramanyuk.

When you left that theater after the movie, did you complain how difficult it was to see getting out of the auditorium?

Because since that sconce light is clearly not dimmed, the next cue (the one that is placed at the beginning of the credits) would have told the sconce light to dim during the credits, making it nearly impossible to see. No way you could not have noticed it.

Yeah, didn't think so.

Screenvision ad.
I've never had problems getting in or out of any of the theaters in that building, lighting or not.

By my recollection, the movie was playing. Was I lying or otherwise trying to launch a hoax for the reason of positing that someone with a concealed weapon that night could have saved lives? Please.

Do you know how retarded this sounds?

Since I'm not the sconce master, I couldn't tell you if there was an error or not or what the usual MO is for them.

This is very basic - witnesses in those seats saw where he was and what he was wearing and described him to the cops. Doesn't that alone say enough?

Oy vey.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2013, 10:59 AM   #188
nyuk nyuk
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyR View Post
Just curious what the "solution" is that nyuk and meck are suggesting. What is it you want, exactly? More lenient conceal & carry laws? Is that it? You think this will lead to more people carrying, and thus more safety? You think the people who would carry into a situation like what happened in that Aurora theater are the types of peopld you'd actually want to be armed, rather than just the opposite? Spell it out for us. What are you suggesting?
More young folks need to carry. The problem is that too few carry and it's mostly older people. Younger ones are more likely to be victims of violent crime.

If people are going to poo themselves over an extremely rare instance such as Aurora, then they need to do their part and take a role in defending themselves and ensuring their own safety, instead of acting like overgrown children and running to government to pass irrelevant and stupid laws for the sole purpose of restoring their sense of security.

If I was in that theater and being shot at, I'd have wished that I or someone else in there could have had if but one weapon to give us all a chance. Why I'm attacked for that here is beyond me.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2013, 11:07 AM   #189
TonyR
Franchise Poster
 
TonyR's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Mid-Atlantic
Posts: 18,735
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk View Post
More young folks need to carry. The problem is that too few carry and it's mostly older people. Younger ones are more likely to be victims of violent crime.

If people are going to poo themselves over an extremely rare instance such as Aurora, then they need to do their part and take a role in defending themselves and ensuring their own safety, instead of acting like overgrown children and running to government to pass irrelevant and stupid laws for the sole purpose of restoring their sense of security.

If I was in that theater and being shot at, I'd have wished that I or someone else in there could have had if but one weapon to give us all a chance. Why I'm attacked for that here is beyond me.
What's striking is how lacking in common sense your position is. You actually think that "more young folks" carrying would make things safer. Reality, logic, common sense, and a little critical thinking suggests the opposite. Instead of having trained people saving the day in that Aurora theater situation you most likely would have had a bunch of inexperienced idiots. That's just not a solution. That's lunacy. You need to think on your position here.

Meck, do you have the same silly position? You've been such a tough guy in this thread, I hope you don't shy away from explaining what it is you really believe.
TonyR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2013, 11:09 AM   #190
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk View Post
I've never had problems getting in or out of any of the theaters in that building, lighting or not.

By my recollection, the movie was playing. Was I lying or otherwise trying to launch a hoax for the reason of positing that someone with a concealed weapon that night could have saved lives? Please.

Do you know how retarded this sounds?

Since I'm not the sconce master, I couldn't tell you if there was an error or not or what the usual MO is for them.

This is very basic - witnesses in those seats saw where he was and what he was wearing and described him to the cops. Doesn't that alone say enough?

Oy vey.
And I would bet if you read the actual statements you would get about 75 different accounts of what they thought he wore.

That still does not address the issue at hand, which is the effect of low lighting, washout effect, panicking people, smoke and/or tear gas, confusion, the possibility of not even being able to assess the threat before it's too late, and, you know, the other 7500 pages of circumstances which tipped the scales in favor of the guy with a tactical uniform and semi-automatic weapons with large capacity magazines, not the 300 or so screaming people trapped inside the sold out midnight showing theater in such close proximity so as to make people complain about how little room movie theaters always have and how cramped they are, but all the sudden when they all hide or run or jump over seats or whatever they do when people start firing bullets at them, they can take out the guy with no additional loss of life?



Bull. ****ing. ****.
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2013, 11:11 AM   #191
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 20,825
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Requiem View Post
Nyuk nyuk on the Aurora incident: --link removed by moderator-- Read her awesome thoughts.
I like one of the other articles there, by "William S. Lind". It starts:

Quote:
Sometime during the last half-century, someone stole our culture. Just 50 years ago, in the 1950s, America was a great place. It was safe. It was decent. Children got good educations in the public schools. Even blue-collar fathers brought home middle-class incomes, so moms could stay home with the kids. Television shows reflected sound, traditional values.

Where did it all go? How did that America become the sleazy, decadent place we live in today so different that those who grew up prior to the '60s feel like it's a foreign country? Did it just "happen"?
Just another 3rd-rate white guy bemoaning the fact that they aren't running things any more and those uppity n-words, women, gays, and so on, aren't slaves and underlings any more.

Wadda ****ing idiot.
W*GS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2013, 11:18 AM   #192
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,930

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by houghtam View Post
And I would bet if you read the actual statements you would get about 75 different accounts of what they thought he wore.

That still does not address the issue at hand, which is the effect of low lighting, washout effect, panicking people, smoke and/or tear gas, confusion, the possibility of not even being able to assess the threat before it's too late, and, you know, the other 7500 pages of circumstances which tipped the scales in favor of the guy with a tactical uniform and semi-automatic weapons with large capacity magazines, not the 300 or so screaming people trapped inside the sold out midnight showing theater in such close proximity so as to make people complain about how little room movie theaters always have and how cramped they are, but all the sudden when they all hide or run or jump over seats or whatever they do when people start firing bullets at them, they can take out the guy with no additional loss of life?



Bull. ****ing. ****.

Nah man. Don't you get it? A picture from a camera set for high light sensitivity, digitally lightened further (so much so that the picture in no way represents human vision), in an empty theater in lighting conditions not representative of the actual lighting conditions during the attack, with no tear gas and no smoke is perfectly indicative of the situation!

It's so simple, anyone with a revolver and a couple hours at the range and way to much hubris coulda totally prevented anyone from dying.
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2013, 11:23 AM   #193
nyuk nyuk
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyR View Post
What's striking is how lacking in common sense your position is. You actually think that "more young folks" carrying would make things safer. Reality, logic, common sense, and a little critical thinking suggests the opposite. Instead of having trained people saving the day in that Aurora theater situation you most likely would have had a bunch of inexperienced idiots. That's just not a solution. That's lunacy. You need to think on your position here.

Meck, do you have the same silly position? You've been such a tough guy in this thread, I hope you don't shy away from explaining what it is you really believe.
This is the bottom line here: If you were in those seats that night, would you be going on and on about percentages and chances this or that, or would you have wished someone was there with a defensive weapon? I think we know the answer.

You're saying it's better to just let people like Holmes blow them away without resistance. That is lunacy.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2013, 11:24 AM   #194
nyuk nyuk
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by W*GS View Post
I like one of the other articles there, by "William S. Lind". It starts:



Just another 3rd-rate white guy bemoaning the fact that they aren't running things any more and those uppity n-words, women, gays, and so on, aren't slaves and underlings any more.

Wadda ****ing idiot.
If you want to whine about a link someone posted somewhere, at least post an appropriate thread instead of hiking down your Depends at an inappropriate locale.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2013, 11:25 AM   #195
nyuk nyuk
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
Nah man. Don't you get it? A picture from a camera set for high light sensitivity, digitally lightened further (so much so that the picture in no way represents human vision), in an empty theater in lighting conditions not representative of the actual lighting conditions during the attack, with no tear gas and no smoke is perfectly indicative of the situation!

It's so simple, anyone with a revolver and a couple hours at the range and way to much hubris coulda totally prevented anyone from dying.
There was no "smoke," and it took several minutes for the tear gas to fill the place, since it has a 40 foot ceiling.

Just go there, PLEASE?
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2013, 11:28 AM   #196
nyuk nyuk
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by houghtam View Post
And I would bet if you read the actual statements you would get about 75 different accounts of what they thought he wore.

That still does not address the issue at hand, which is the effect of low lighting, washout effect, panicking people, smoke and/or tear gas, confusion, the possibility of not even being able to assess the threat before it's too late, and, you know, the other 7500 pages of circumstances which tipped the scales in favor of the guy with a tactical uniform and semi-automatic weapons with large capacity magazines, not the 300 or so screaming people trapped inside the sold out midnight showing theater in such close proximity so as to make people complain about how little room movie theaters always have and how cramped they are, but all the sudden when they all hide or run or jump over seats or whatever they do when people start firing bullets at them, they can take out the guy with no additional loss of life?



Bull. ****ing. ****.
Accounts I've seen of where they actually saw the guy are quite consistent: black clothing, gas mask. They weren't "trapped inside," they were running away from him either via the upper emergency exit or hopping over the stair wall on the opposite side. Aside from that, it seems that if a person is faced with imminent guaranteed death from a guy like Holmes approaching with intent to kill everyone in that room OR a resisting shooter who MAY accidentally injure or kill someone but who in the process stops Holmes from killing far more people... Is there even an argument which is the better trade-off?

Why are we even discussing this crap?!

Last edited by nyuk nyuk; 03-26-2013 at 11:30 AM..
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2013, 11:35 AM   #197
TonyR
Franchise Poster
 
TonyR's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Mid-Atlantic
Posts: 18,735
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk View Post
This is the bottom line here: If you were in those seats that night, would you be going on and on about percentages and chances this or that, or would you have wished someone was there with a defensive weapon? I think we know the answer.

You're saying it's better to just let people like Holmes blow them away without resistance. That is lunacy.
Once again you're not using any common sense.

Events like the Aurora theater shooting are rare. Putting guns in the hands of a bunch of "young folks" is guaranteed to increase gun violence exponentially. Instead of staredowns, and words being exchanged, and occasional fist fights, you'd have guns being drawn. Would cooler heads prevail? Maybe. Sometimes. But when the testosterone is pumping and hotheads have guns, you've appreciably ramped up the possibility of serious violence. And I'm not sure this is even debatable.
TonyR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2013, 11:39 AM   #198
nyuk nyuk
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyR View Post
Once again you're not using any common sense.

Events like the Aurora theater shooting are rare. Putting guns in the hands of a bunch of "young folks" is guaranteed to increase gun violence exponentially. Instead of staredowns, and words being exchanged, and occasional fist fights, you'd have guns being drawn. Would cooler heads prevail? Maybe. Sometimes. But when the testosterone is pumping and hotheads have guns, you've appreciably ramped up the possibility of serious violence. And I'm not sure this is even debatable.
Yes, Aurora is very rare.

Young people already have guns, who want to have guns. I'd love to see any evidence you can state that those who pass a background check to get a permit and take the required NRA class would be a public safety threat. You're making it up, whole cloth.

There are already some young folks with guns, carrying legally concealed on Colorado campuses. Where are shootouts?
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2013, 11:44 AM   #199
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,930

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk View Post
I'd love to see any evidence you can state that those who pass a background check to get a permit and take the required NRA class would be a public safety threat.
What does carrying and storing a hunting rifle, field dressing game, identifying legal game to shoot, basic wildness survival, shooting a BB gun @ 25yards, etc. training do to prepare someone for urban combat situations involving multiple armed individuals (only some being hostile), non-optimal conditions ( tear gas, low light, etc.), innocent bystanders, etc.

?
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2013, 11:47 AM   #200
nyuk nyuk
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
What does carrying and storing a hunting rifle, field dressing game, identifying legal game to shoot, basic wildness survival, shooting a BB gun @ 25yards, etc. training do to prepare someone for urban combat situations involving multiple armed individuals (only some being hostile), non-optimal conditions ( tear gas, low light, etc.), innocent bystanders, etc.

?
Here's the problem.

Life has its curveballs, and you and yours are saying that unless there is a 100% money-back guarantee that an errant bullet may not hit someone, then all bets are off, nobody is allowed a defensive weapon, so let's all lay down and let Holmes pump as many bullets into our bodies as he wants.

That makes no sense whatsoever.

Cops and the military aren't even held to this standard.
  Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:26 AM.


Denver Broncos