Canadian Mac Forums at ehMac banner

21441 - 21460 of 21468 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,404 Posts
You as well.

it just would be so much better if the level of inflammatory windups were lower. Perhaps then an actual discussion could happen. But I suspect someone here (macfury) gets cranky if one tries to take a more factual non partisan position as that’s much harder to wind up.
You seem to be the only one getting wound up. Anyways no point in discussing it with you when you label myself a troll. I hope you put your intimate knowledge of peoples motives to good use.
 

·
peek-a-boo
Joined
·
16,511 Posts
see, now look at your reply, it's a two way street. Do you see how this goes? You probably think your posts weren't inflammatory, that you're being civil. "It's the other guy!" and on it goes, seemingly, without any agreement or resolution. I simply called out what was an obvious pile on of trolling on one member. But my opinion is, the tone has been set here a long time ago, and it just continues. Perhaps you're not even aware of how you, or I, or someone else here is trolling. But, its the way here. It's almost, expected now. No one here would ever survive a well moderated forum. The trolling would be dealt with right away. I can see why a certain someone really doesn't want a moderator here, or certainly someone in his corner at least. But the lack of moderation also allows someone to call out the trolling. A bit of a consequence I guess.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,404 Posts
see, now look at your reply, it's a two way street. Do you see how this goes? You probably think your posts weren't inflammatory, that you're being civil. "It's the other guy!" and on it goes, seemingly, without any agreement or resolution. I simply called out what was an obvious pile on of trolling on one member. But my opinion is, the tone has been set here a long time ago, and it just continues. Perhaps you're not even aware of how you, or I, or someone else here is trolling. But, its the way here. It's almost, expected now. No one here would ever survive a well moderated forum. The trolling would be dealt with right away. I can see why a certain someone really doesn't want a moderator here, or certainly someone in his corner at least. But the lack of moderation also allows someone to call out the trolling. A bit of a consequence I guess.
I have not called anyone names, called them dumb, ridiculous or trolls. I can accept people have a difference of opinion and view a situation differently. I do not always understand why but I can respect when you can talk with respect. Yes that does go both ways, I am discussing this with you now and you seem to spend more time explaining how and why you post the way you do.
Trolling by the urban dictionaries definition is "The art of deliberately, cleverly, and secretly pissing people off, usually via the internet". Very presumptuous to know why people are posting what they are. I would be very aware if I was deliberately, cleverly (if that was possible, and secretly trying to piss people off". That speaks of intent. Now maybe you define it differently, but I think it is safe to say that the definition I posted is probably the most widely accepted definition of this internet slang. Personally I see no need for moderators for a thread like this, we are adults and you are free and able to ignore someone so you never have to see their posts again. Personally I have no trouble reading things that do not agree with my view. I try to be open and to see from both sides. But I am a troll according to you and have dug my heels in because I have either misunderstood what you have said or you did not say it in a succinct way. It again appears to me that everyone who disagrees with you is either a troll or dumb according to you and if they cannot understand it they are not deserving of even a discussion. So what is the point of a discussion if it is just going to go down this road?
 

·
peek-a-boo
Joined
·
16,511 Posts
So is that your bar? You can say anything that would likely inflame or piss someone off, but as long as you stop just short of calling someone a nitwit, that's all civil discussion? Really?

My definition of civil discussion involves far more respect than simple name calling. I watched Freddie as he posted, and posted again to clarify, constantly being twisted and trolled. I dont have his patience perhaps. But even your definition of troll, covers about 90% of the posts I see here, and is likely the number one reason I, or most other past and present members refuse to bother coming in here.

Macfury doesn't want moderation here, because if someone was a really good moderator form another place ran it, he or many of the posts I see here wouldn't survive. Most other places Ive seen won't tolerate this crap. And for good reason. This threads ghost town existence, is proof. Its not the first time this threads failure to gain civil discussion has been blamed on me. As I said, I left for 7 years, and it only got worse and everyone left. When this sort of normalized trolling is continually allowed, it just kills forums. Ive watched it happen here, and a few other places. They just become ghost towns.

But, at least this place has a 'web address'!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,538 Posts
Knowing that George Floyd was having trouble breathing before the ground sequence, brings us back to asking; What role did fear of the response of the Burn Loot & Murder gang play in the verdict?

OTOH I was not really able to tell from that footage whether his knee was on the shoulder or the neck.
Seriously? Everyone else who watched the same video could tell. The jury sure could tell. They were 11-1 from the get-go for a finding of guilty.

As for the trolling, yeah, it’s gotten pretty bad over the years, especially with FeXL, who has been thankfully laying low for most of the past year. I guess I’d just gotten used to it, and that’s not really a good thing. If we can all keep discussions civil, that would be nice. No, Macfury, it is not your right to wind people up. All of us have opinions and we’d all like to be heard without being mocked.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
17,759 Posts
Seriously? Everyone else who watched the same video could tell. The jury sure could tell. They were 11-1 from the get-go for a finding of guilty.
It's that from the get go part that has me concerned. If the verdict was based on the evidence presented that's one thing, if it was fear of retribution that's entirely something else.

Had I been on that jury and learned he was having breathing difficulty before he was put on the pavement, and that at autopsy the coroner could equally have ruled drug overdose, I would ignore the kneeling evidence entirely. Remember those two tidbits came not from Ben Shapiro, but from prosecution witnesses. I would be concentrating on whether Chauvin's actions delayed or prevented Floyd from getting proper treatment for a drug overdose, and whether those actions were a deliberate attempt to kill.
 

·
peek-a-boo
Joined
·
16,511 Posts
Well, I for one am glad the jury didn’t consider the ridiculous opinion piece by Ben Shapiro, and instead focused on the evidence presented.
 

·
peek-a-boo
Joined
·
16,511 Posts
Seriously? Everyone else who watched the same video could tell. The jury sure could tell. They were 11-1 from the get-go for a finding of guilty.

As for the trolling, yeah, it’s gotten pretty bad over the years, especially with FeXL, who has been thankfully laying low for most of the past year. I guess I’d just gotten used to it, and that’s not really a good thing. If we can all keep discussions civil, that would be nice. No, Macfury, it is not your right to wind people up. All of us have opinions and we’d all like to be heard without being mocked.
Well it’s fun to troll, isn’t it. Obviously the jury and everyone else can tell watching the video. But he’ll double down.

if there really is real evidence of any sort that’s credible enough to throw doubt on the conviction, his lawyers will be on that for an appeal pretty fast, so all the trolling on a forum and opinion pieces is worth… nothing.

as for macfury, everyone, well most who left knows the guy is a troll. Why else wouldn’t he want moderation? The pathetic attempts at trolling is just really tiring. He can turn that around at any time.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,538 Posts
Well it’s fun to troll, isn’t it. Obviously the jury and everyone else can tell watching the video. But he’ll double down.

if there really is real evidence of any sort that’s credible enough to throw doubt on the conviction, his lawyers will be on that for an appeal pretty fast, so all the trolling on a forum and opinion pieces is worth… nothing.

as for macfury, everyone, well most who left knows the guy is a troll. Why else wouldn’t he want moderation? The pathetic attempts at trolling is just really tiring. He can turn that around at any time.
It takes a lot to convict a cop of either manslaughter or murder. Chauvin was convicted of both. Makes one think that perhaps the evidence presented was, oh, I dunno...what’s the word.......incontrovertible.
 

·
peek-a-boo
Joined
·
16,511 Posts
It takes a lot to convict a cop of either manslaughter or murder. Chauvin was convicted of both. Makes one think that perhaps the evidence presented was, oh, I dunno...what’s the word.......incontrovertible.
Yeah but the expert witness testimonies weren’t media personalities like Ben Shapiro. That’s what gets people’s attention now it seems. People fall for that sort of cherry picked spin, to be fair on both sides of the arguments.

speaking of media personalities, did you see some of the latest gems out of Tucker Carlson?

I find it a sad day when media personalities are held up above real evidence and facts.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,538 Posts
Yeah but the expert witness testimonies weren’t media personalities like Ben Shapiro. That’s what gets people’s attention now it seems. People fall for that sort of cherry picked spin, to be fair on both sides of the arguments.

speaking of media personalities, did you see some of the latest gems out of Tucker Carlson?

I find it a sad day when media personalities are held up above real evidence and facts.
Ben who? Tucker who? LOL


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
peek-a-boo
Joined
·
16,511 Posts
I find it facinating how people are so taken by media personalities for facts. It’s such a chuckle having seen lawyers for types like Tucker Carlson, Alex Jones, Ezra Levant having to resort to using the defense that their clients are only entertainment personalities and people shouldn’t take them seriously.

but they do, and these personalities just rake in millions. They know exactly what people want to hear. It’s what they’re already thinking!

Trump was the master of all of them at it.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
42,471 Posts
That isn't so. Individual jurors can only vote up or down on guilt. They may individually discount some evidence and accept other evidence in reaching their decision.

It takes a lot to convict a cop of either manslaughter or murder. Chauvin was convicted of both. Makes one think that perhaps the evidence presented was, oh, I dunno...what’s the word.......incontrovertible.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,538 Posts
That isn't so. Individual jurors can only vote up or down on guilt. They may individually discount some evidence and accept other evidence in reaching their decision.
Why is this so hard for you to understand? One juror described the proceedings. 11 jurors had decided guilty based on the evidence presented. That was first ballot. The time was then spent convincing the 12th juror that Chauvin was guilty. This was a slam dunk. Why? Because of the evidence. And the most persuasive evidence was the video footage shot by the bystander as well as the police body cams. If there hadn’t been video footage I don’t think Chauvin would have been charged let alone convicted. Everyone could see it, even you. Groovetube is right; you just like to troll. Or play devil’s advocate. Call it what you will.
 

·
peek-a-boo
Joined
·
16,511 Posts
People are so hungry for 'the truth that no one wants you to hear'. There are vast media empires built on pushing just nonsense. Look for the outfits that have lawyers that scream 'we're an entertainment company not to be taken seriously so you can't sue us' defence. People have somehow forgotten what journalistic integrity is. To be fair, so have a few major news networks at times. CNN is not a favourite by any means (because people's knee jerk reactions will go there after my next line...) but Fox News has been just incredible with their lies and conspiracy theories, especially the last few years. So much so, that I guess they have billions in lawsuits coming. Wonder if they'll use the 'we're merely entertainment" defence... People think they're smart enough to discern, but honestly, it's like watching lemmings go off a cliff. These media types all know and have well sharpened their skills over the years in how to shape opinion to be facts, blurring the lines so now, even if you point it out, people just shut down. And they use these 'opinion facts' to fit the sort of thinking in people's heads having used research firms. Or what they want to think more specifically. Gone is the idea that facts matter. How many times has that been said in the last few years? Just post a link to said media personality without any commentary of your own. If asked, never provide anything of substance to show any validity to the claims. Dig in, call people snowflakes, or whatever such crap, and you pretty much have 90% of all political interactions on social media. Social media companies, namely facebook, carefully defines you and allows companies to research using your data all collected and categorized for their clients, and these 'companies' can serve you memes, and ads that are targeted to outrage you. It doesn't matter if its true, quite often it's either completely wrong, or barely half the story. But you get outraged, share the meme, probably many on your timeline will share your views, and well off goes the lie.

Its one of the reasons I have tried to stop sharing memes as much as possible. And if I provide a link, it's just for reference, because I think if you're going to do that, at least have enough respect for the other people by talking about the topic in your own words and be prepared to back it up. If you can't, just say so. Pretending with dr google is tiresome. I get annoyed with the constant assertions just spouted that often just ridiculous unsubstantiated nonsense, all for the outrage possibilities even if one doesn't intend it, likely seeded from one of these outrage machines. If people really want truth, try stripping away all this stupidity. No, you can't just make ridiculous statements without being challenged on it. If that's abrasive, well I have to wonder what exactly macfury meant when he whined that people who only hang at the Shang was 'weak kneed' or whatever similar descriptive he used.

So yeah. Im frustrated with how people discuss politics.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
42,471 Posts
It's not hard to understand--it just isn't true. The preponderance of evidence may be persuasive even when the individual elements of evidence are not incontrovertible. This is an important legal principle.

Yes, I believe the video evidence necessitated a trial. It is not incontrovertible.

You seem to have some insight into the minds of the jurors and how they made their individual decisions that is not available to others. All we know is that most of them decided quickly.

Why is this so hard for you to understand? One juror described the proceedings. 11 jurors had decided guilty based on the evidence presented. That was first ballot. The time was then spent convincing the 12th juror that Chauvin was guilty. This was a slam dunk. Why? Because of the evidence. And the most persuasive evidence was the video footage shot by the bystander as well as the police body cams. If there hadn’t been video footage I don’t think Chauvin would have been charged let alone convicted. Everyone could see it, even you. Groovetube is right; you just like to troll. Or play devil’s advocate. Call it what you will.
 

·
peek-a-boo
Joined
·
16,511 Posts
Why is this so hard for you to understand? One juror described the proceedings. 11 jurors had decided guilty based on the evidence presented. That was first ballot. The time was then spent convincing the 12th juror that Chauvin was guilty. This was a slam dunk. Why? Because of the evidence. And the most persuasive evidence was the video footage shot by the bystander as well as the police body cams. If there hadn’t been video footage I don’t think Chauvin would have been charged let alone convicted. Everyone could see it, even you. Groovetube is right; you just like to troll. Or play devil’s advocate. Call it what you will.
That’s thing about the way this discussion, if you can call it that, is going. See you made the cardinal error of possibly referring to one strong piece of evidence as ‘incontrovertible’.
So rather than maybe talking about other more interesting aspects of this trial, what it may mean for future ones etc., there’s a fixation on this very point, and it’s rather like when a crocodile grabs hold of something, won’t let go, and then goes into the windup I mean death roll. ;)

death roll for any chance of any discussion that is.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
42,471 Posts
21441 - 21460 of 21468 Posts
Top