It's funny to see you suggest that a lack of fortitude is the reason that OV (or anyone, for that matter) is no longer here. Or to suggest that someone who is still here is "tough," insinuating those who aren't here anymore are not "tough." Is the rest of your post some sort of "I'm the guy who handles the IT stuff necessary to keep the 8th online" flex? I don't give a shit if you are here or not. I don't really like going back and forth with you, and you annoy the shit out of me 75% of the time we interact, but it doesn't make me wish you weren't here. I don't think there's anything anyone on here could do to make me care if they are here or not. I probably do wish from time to time that you'd just shut the [uck fay] up or go on an internet-less vacation every once in a while. Anyone who leaves the site because they don't like you (or another person/group of people), or don't want to interact with you (or another person/group of people) doesn't lack toughness or fortitude. They just decided they'd rather spend their time doing something other than interacting with someone the don't like or don't want to interact with. And I think that what zehr was getting at - that if as friendly of a guy as OV doesn't want to interact with someone, it says more about that person than it does about OV. But I don't have any idea why OV left or, if anyone "ran him off," who that was.
I don't give a shit if you are here or not. I don't really like going back and forth with you, and you annoy the shit out of me 75% of the time we interact, but it doesn't make me wish you weren't here. I don't think there's anything anyone on here could do to make me care if they are here or not. I probably do wish from time to time that you'd just shut the [uck fay] up or go on an internet-less vacation every once in a while.
Nobody handles IT stuff here, it's pretty automated. And what does have to be done, at this point, can be done by others. There is no flex, it's about ownership. It entirely says something about the person that leaves. What this place was was not a secret to anyone of the early users. If they were here for years, and then it finally became too much, yea, Indy, that's fortitude. 100%. And entirely on them, and nothing to do with anyone else. Nothing has changed here, other than the membership. That's the point, and the only thing funny is how often you miss simple things. The main people who started this site set it up like this, and then ran away when it turned on them. And it is even more telling if you knew that more than a few were arrogant or delusional enough to believe that they were so important to Vols Internet, that their leaving Volsnation was going to cause Volnation to shut down. If it friendly guy like OV doesn't want to be here, after being here for years, as a Super Moderator, it says something only about OV.
Who said anything about change? This is an entire discussion on whether what was says was true or false. True or false, this bill now lists 5pm as closing time, when previously, a specific time was not set. Even if it was taken to be 5pm, it was not coded (made law) as 5pm.
You were quoted before you said that. You had to be quoted in order to say that. If you had led with that, you wouldn't have been quoted. But you didn't lead with that. But we got it out of you anyway. So don't bemoan it, the process worked. What you then missed was that the point being made, by me, is that there are plenty of things I do know, and still seek out other knowledge, because I doubt I know best--even the things I believe I know well.
Nobody runs anybody off, or drives them away. They leave of their own free will. If they lack the fortitude to find whomever they have disagreed with, and have a conversation, that's on them. If someone doesn't like someone else, and doesn't reach out and first try to figure out a way to live in harmony, that's on them. If they just leave, that's on them. If they make a ranting post and leave, that's on them. They made their choice.
Need proof. You've never been wrong here and argue about everything, so not sure I believe you do differently on a regular basis.
You're yet again taking your "experience" (personal bias) and once again drawing an unnecessary conclusion. This has nothing to do with being "wrong" or being "right." So, the "You've never been wrong here" part is an unnecessary conclusion. I do not argue about everything, but I do argue about lots of things. So you've got that one "ok," but that statement before this one was a clarification. Which I also often do. We can now argue about whether I argue about everything, or not if you want. I don't do it differently on a regular basis, and this is why: argument is my best method of decision making. Because it allows me to consider multiple variables that I wouldn't possess without the argument. So yes, I regularly argue, about lots of different things, believing that knowledge is a continual process, not a "one and done" type thing. I don't know how I can prove that to you, other than the statement above... or a logical attempt? I can give examples, but that's not proof. Help me out, what do you need from me, to help me get you to believe that argument is decision making, and that I want lots of different views, even if I ultimately reject lots of different views?
100% depends if one argues and pays attention to the other side, or argues with a closed mind and refuses to acknowledge the other side of the argument. I'm not going to pretend the former is in play very often with float. He argues to argue, and won't budge off his stance, so there is little chance he learns or is willing to learn from his arguments here where his mind is already made up or pride prevents him from acknowledging, which is near 100% of the time.
That is incorrect. There is no pride, in play here. As I've said, I'm willing to leave at any point that someone asks me to. Do you think that's pride? To be willing to just accept that everyone thinks you are wrong, and go away? I don't argue to argue. You're just often not persuasive, because you say things like "or pride prevents him from acknowledging," which is demonstratively wrong, and yet, it is unlikely you'll ever back off that statement.
What is your proposal on how it should be done, if you are saying this mockingly, and not informatively?
https://news.yahoo.com/amphtml/blm-official-calls-investigation-founder-114017918.html Remind me what you always say about BLM, Float? It’s not an organization... is that it?
It is not a national organization, he said. It is a movement. It is not centralized. That's why this is "of Greater New York." Did you see that part? It's the first words of the article right after Black Lives Matter. The article's first sentence: "Black Lives Matter of Greater New York chair Hawk Newsome questions how much Black Lives Matter co-founder Patrisse Cullors has contributed to charity."
