@Incognigo Montoya:
Thanks for the response. I want to address your points a bit later. It seems you are willing to discuss rationally, but I am at work at the moment.
i was howling watching cedars latest video of tm111 buying a dozen bottles of scotch ((maccallans scotch).
you can't write this stuff.
right, i'm now off to buy a bottle of maccallans đ..
@Incognigo Montoya:
Thanks for the response. I want to address your points a bit later. It seems you are willing to discuss rationally, but I am at work at the moment.
i was howling watching cedars latest video of tm111 buying a dozen bottles of scotch ((maccallans scotch).
you can't write this stuff.
right, i'm now off to buy a bottle of maccallans đ..
@lastmanstanding:
Mean mustard The first word says it all. Mean.
Ummm... A few pages ago you said I was using the arguments of Nazis.
i was howling watching cedars latest video of tm111 buying a dozen bottles of scotch ((maccallans scotch).
you can't write this stuff.
right, i'm now off to buy a bottle of maccallans đ..
@Ralphusthegreat:
Riiiggghht... Youâve posted a total of three times.
i was howling watching cedars latest video of tm111 buying a dozen bottles of scotch ((maccallans scotch).
you can't write this stuff.
right, i'm now off to buy a bottle of maccallans đ..
The similarities are glaring. But I think you have been away too long to see that, Your view is somewhat myopic.
This is not an argument. I can say the same about your views.
Tony has bashed everything and everyone. He may not have bashed his purchase specifically, but he has bashed it in kind.
What do you mean by that specifically? If you mean tight pants, no I donât buy it as applicable to this. Unless, of course, the principle is that just as he bashed silly things, so can we.
Do you understand what is meant by the term âspirit of the lawâ?
Yeah. But if you want to claim that sort of thing, you have to make a case with real criteria. If I ask why he violated the spirit of the law and you say, that it clearly implies drunkenness, then fine. But if I provide counter points that reveal itâs a hasty conclusion and then the reason shifts to the cost, itâs a bad sign. If it shifts again, itâs even worse.
So, you say Tony didnât bash 12 bottles, so his 12 is ok. But he bashed 13...
12, 8, 13, 50... Iâve been asking from the beginning if he condemned purchasing alcohol in a similar context. If he bought 50 bottles, it wouldnât change the principle.
I stick to my view that you are trolling.
And I stick to my view you are masterbating.
Are you being compensated by the click?
Yeah, actually. AM himself promised me some of that smooth scotch while we try on uber tight 80s band spandex.
i was howling watching cedars latest video of tm111 buying a dozen bottles of scotch ((maccallans scotch).
you can't write this stuff.
right, i'm now off to buy a bottle of maccallans đ..
@lastmanstanding.
Just one massive glaring difference. The organization had taken a certain position regarding the UN that made its association hypocritical. On the other hand, their position regarding alcohol does not make Tonyâs actions hypocritical.
Unless, of course, the organizationâs position has changed since I was active, or perhaps AM has personally condemned buying more than, say, three bottles of liquor at a time?
i was howling watching cedars latest video of tm111 buying a dozen bottles of scotch ((maccallans scotch).
you can't write this stuff.
right, i'm now off to buy a bottle of maccallans đ..
@BourneIdentity:
Alrighty. Mixing Family Fued and Jesus. Pure gold.
Your entire argument is that since Tony argued some truely untenable positions in the past, letâs adopt one too, and give him a taste of his own medicine. Alright, but that falls flat with me. Itâs just an emotional response to seeing him buy alcohol. The religion was/is very restrictive, and it hurts people. And you want to lash back at it. Itâs much better to shake your head at the crazy tight pants talk than it is to argue he did soo much worse. Actually, you said it was 1000 times as worse as your first two examples. You are right. The first two examples were Tonyâs idiocy, not serious at all. 1000 times that is also a big nothing burger.
And, look, thatâs fine. I didnât say AM wasnât an asshole. He looks a lot like the guy that ran TreadStone. But just realize, your gripe against him is emotional, not objective.
As Iâve said, I know witness and non-witness families that have more than $1000 of alcohol in their house. If you are assuming buying 12 bottles of scotch at one time necessarily implies it will be consumed quickly as a drunkard, this is called âprojectionâ.
i was howling watching cedars latest video of tm111 buying a dozen bottles of scotch ((maccallans scotch).
you can't write this stuff.
right, i'm now off to buy a bottle of maccallans đ..
Tony defenders, whether they be sincere or trolls, are using the same argument that the Nazis tried to use.
This doesnât help your position at all. Godwinâs Law. You just lost.
The Nazis on trial tried in vain to use the argument that they were just âregular guysâ...
I didnât make that argument.
i was howling watching cedars latest video of tm111 buying a dozen bottles of scotch ((maccallans scotch).
you can't write this stuff.
right, i'm now off to buy a bottle of maccallans đ..
@lastmanstanding:
Feel free to get to your emotional circle-jerk.
i was howling watching cedars latest video of tm111 buying a dozen bottles of scotch ((maccallans scotch).
you can't write this stuff.
right, i'm now off to buy a bottle of maccallans đ..
@flipper:
That is an interesting question. Is that the real basis for the outrage here: that you picture AMIII coming down hard on you if you were the one buying and he was the one observing?
... even though there is no personal (AM has not come out against this personally) and organization position on this?
i was howling watching cedars latest video of tm111 buying a dozen bottles of scotch ((maccallans scotch).
you can't write this stuff.
right, i'm now off to buy a bottle of maccallans đ..
@lastmanstanding:
Mustard, you are trolling me thinks.
Years back, we had a guy like that, stuck up for the bOrg no matter what.
I am sure that was an xJW just winding people up
and I think you are just winding people up too.
Your position has become quite nonsensical.
Are you trolling?
Look, I have no dog in this fight, so-to-speak. If he was being hypocritical, then he was being hypocritical. Why you think I am âgoing to batâ for the organization is confusing. I am talking about AMIII buying a bunch of expensive scotch.
Why is it a scandal? For a while it was because he bought alcohol, then it turned into expensive alcohol, then just spending a lot of money, then the quantity of alcohol (so many bottles). Or perhaps it is because just being a GB member, someone might get the wrong idea... the arguments are all over the place.
Look, if AMIII had been caught wearing spandex, then you would have something. Why? Because he is famous for telling people not to wear tight pants, and women that wear spandex are horrible women, right? So if he were caught in spandex, clear cut case of hypocrisy. But what about alcohol? The only standard I have seen is drunkenness. Not buying alcohol, not consuming expensive alcohol, or what amount you spend. Itâs actually being drunk. If you had caught AM drunk, then yeah, big time issue.
I am not being nonsensical. Rather, just insisting on a rational position.