okr said:
Sqrl said:
okr said:
Sqrl said:
You'll notice I did bold that part. The distinction doesn't change the inflamatory nature of the post. I'll also point out that the post violates forum rule 4-2. If you have something to add please do, but explain your position instead of just cheerleading.
|
1) I was what?? "Cheerleading"? Only because I agreed with stof?? And my answer was inflammatory but yours were not? Wow...
2) And, by the way, I already contributed to this thread that I think the "news" posted at the beginning are completely redundant and were only aimed to start yet another controversial political discussion.
|
1) Your first sentence in the post only served to declare that several posters were wrong and you failed to back it up, this is a violation of the forum rules. Period. The end.
2) I realize you are proud of this, but this violate rules 4-4.
"No posts specifically to to say that a poster or the thread sucks, either with words or pictures."
Now, I haven't even given you a warning yet but if you'd like to continue we can change that. All I asked you to do was support your position with an argument or don't post. You can agree with (and disagree with) whoever you like so long as you actually support it.
|
So I should have contributed more to this thread and back up my position but the thread starter doesn't have to? Okay, thank you, understood. I knew why I stayed out of the threads created by this guy since I once made the mistake to post in one of his numerous Obama threads until today and I will stay out of his threads again from now on.
|
The OP posted an article not his opinion, but yes he should leave comments as well (as required by the forum rules), and he normally does. Not always in the OP but he usually comments in subsequent posts. If you catch him doing this then report it. With that said his not commenting does not mean you get to violate forum rules yourself.
The bottom line is that this side discussion is over and we are moving on.
