"Common Sense"

ToshiroOC · May 24, 2004, 07:34 AM

Do you believe "common sense" is a valid source to call in during a debate or an argument?

I tend to think not, since one man's "common sense" is another man's insanity. It might be "common sense" to one person that one should wipe with toilet paper, while someone in another country such as India would find that quite unsanitary, to use a non-political example. Please vote in the poll.

malkor · May 24, 2004, 07:47 AM

I tend to agree with you. Your example is interesting and does display why I do agree. The sense, or idea that it is sensible to wipe with TP, while it may be "common" to some or most, it is not common to all. You might also draw an analogy to ethics. One man's ethics or morals may be quite different from another man's. So, even ethics may not be "common".

However, reason followed by clear logic can and should be common and are the ONLY valid criteria when debating or arguing, or when attempting to show that your "sense" or "ethics" are correct.

~~bluelight~~ · May 24, 2004, 08:06 AM

It is reasonable to use it if you do noy limit the definition of common sense to your own.

Another thing is...there are certain things that are generally accepted as common sense , (accepted by an owerwhelming majority such as torture is a bad thing)....extremists this being poitically correct when they try the "the silent majority actually thinks like this trick, that way, they can invent what ever common sense they want without having any backing for it (like Limbaugh).....and they never..ever have.)

Bluelight

raid517 · May 25, 2004, 01:17 AM

Of course there is alway compromise, you could wipe with wet wipes - although to be honest I'm kind of loosing track about what this has to do with politics.

GJ

digerati · May 25, 2004, 01:26 AM

I think common sense can be used mostly. Because most of the time you're arguing with someone who is a bit like you in most concepts. Obviously when debating with someone like an arab who has kidnapped you and is about to behead you, there's really no tactic you can use to put you on the same ground.

bird chest · May 25, 2004, 03:32 AM

what is common sense? I think to say weather it is valid or not we need to outline it first. I think it is not because it all depends where you are from. Eskamos could point out seven kinds of snow as common sense and I could tell them what an airconditioner is (kidding but you guys see what my point is).

ToshiroOC · May 25, 2004, 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by raid517
Of course there is alway compromise, you could wipe with wet wipes - although to be honest I'm kind of loosing track about what this has to do with politics.

GJ

I'm just wondering, since some people have been mentioning "common sense" in their arguments, what people think of using "common sense" in debate as a whole. Not directly political.

raid517 · May 25, 2004, 11:33 AM

Well you won't ever get everyone to agree on a single perspective. My point was though that there is a possibility that there might be a 3rd way and that 3rd way is compromise.

This is why I don't agree with the way the current political system works in both our countries - whereby only the party with the most votes is allowed to form the government. What I would like to see is a much more representative system - kind of like a pie chart - where the number of seats awarded in government is based on the actual number of votes counted. For example if you won 20% of the vote, this would mean 4 seats in government - if you won 40% this would mean 8 seats, if you won 5% this would mean 1 seat and so on. At least this way you would always be fairly sure of having quite a broad sweep of opinion within the cabinet.

When one perspective is granted too much power this is always a bad thing - and can lead to many people feeling that they are isolated from their government - as well as leading some very skewed laws. (Read the Patriot act, the Defense of Marriage Act, locking people up without charge and so on).

You may never get people to agree on a common perspective - but what is often possible is to get people to agree on things that they believe to be in their own direct self interest. It may be a pessimistic perspective - but given the diversity of views that do exist in the world - compromise and co-operation are the only truly viable ways forward.

GJ

zerodamage · May 27, 2004, 03:03 AM

I am not going to get into a long conversation on why. You either have common sense or you do not. This is why using it in political debate doens't work.

kp59583 · May 27, 2004, 12:48 PM

Common sense is not spitting in the wind, putting a loaded gun to ones head and pulling the trigger, Putting your hand on a hot eye of a stove, putting a metal hanger in a electrical socket, licking a ice tray. Some of these things a number of you may have done when you were children and was programed in your brain that it can hurt you. Sometimes common sense has to be learned the hard way and sometimes people ignore there common sense. Common sense can be used with just about anything and can change with the times. Take for example sex. These days having unprotecting sex is like playing russian roulett it can kill you, where as before it wouldn't unless you got sypillis or hepititus and didn't get treated. It can also be used in the workplace. Common sense tells you not to tell your boss what you really think of him. Common sense can be used for politics. If a politician promised something that you new he couldn't deliver on then your common sense should kick in and say bull. A lot of People take what Politicians say at face value instead of actually thinking about what they say and using a little common sense.

~~bluelight~~ · May 27, 2004, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by zerodamage
I am not going to get into a long conversation on why. You either have common sense or you do not. This is why using it in political debate doens't work.

The problem arises when YOU define what common sense IS from YOUR values..

You see common sense when it comes to politics can not be defined as TRUTHS unless you have a mind like someone like Khomeiny or Bin Ladin.

Bluelight

zerodamage · May 27, 2004, 05:05 PM

You've made my point. You think everyone has their own version of common sense. That isn't the case. It is or isn't, as simple as that. Has nothing to do with anyone's values. It is like having street smarts. I know a few people who are geniuses when it comes to science and academics. When it comes to common sense, such as "Why Do I have roaches in my house.". I say: "You have an IQ of 200 and do not know why you have roaches. Look around, this place is disgusting. That old steak has been sitting on the counter for 2 weeks."

Common sense is just, that, common. Something you should know.

~~bluelight~~ · May 27, 2004, 05:12 PM

Well then wise man.. since you are applying the term on politics...

I understand you havent read one single word of philosophy,psychology,politics science or any other related topic.

But since you are so insistent i will ask you once again .....i......URGE you to point me to the universal definition of political common sense.

Bluelight

zerodamage · May 27, 2004, 05:26 PM

You are putting words in my mouth. I am not talking about politics right now. I am speaking on a general sense. Having common sense applies not only to every day life but also to politics and everything else. People who drive and do not have common sense are the worst drivers on the planet. I avoid on average of 5 accidents a week. It is common sense to not pass someone in a non passing zone while going around a 80 degree curve.

Billy Toaster · May 27, 2004, 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by zerodamage
You are putting words in my mouth.

someone needs to, you seem to have problems forming coherant or sensible commentary.

kemet64 · May 27, 2004, 08:06 PM

I do not think that common sense is a valid source. Common sense is different depending on where you are. It may be the same within your city, for example, however in other cultures, common sense is different. For example, here, it is "common sense" not to flip off someone with a gun. However, in other countries, they are different. For example, in arab countries, the "A-Ok" gesture is similar to our middle finger.

The idea of common sense is a generalization, an absolute. There are no absolutes. I would say that common sense, expecting the other person to "just know it" is not a legitimate arguement. As said earlier in this thread, what is common sense to one person, may not be common sense to the next.

--sam

zerodamage · May 27, 2004, 08:50 PM

Kemet. It is common sense to not flip off someone with a gun, no matter where you live. And just because something may not be common sense to someone doens't mean it isn't common sense. Like I said, not everyone has it. There are of course common sense things to different cultures.

kemet64 · May 27, 2004, 09:04 PM

It is widely known that flipping off somone is an obscene and sometimes dangerous gesture...and may be common sense in america, however it may not be to everyone.

If a person from another culture, where flipping off someone is not a obscene gesture, comes to america, he will not know that is a bad gesture, which means that it is not common sense to him.

Im just trying to say that common sense would not be valid because it is different for each person, it can vary too much in what that person defines it as.

~~bluelight~~ · May 27, 2004, 10:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by zerodamage
You are putting words in my mouth. I am not talking about politics right now. I am speaking on a general sense. Having common sense applies not only to every day life but also to politics and everything else. People who drive and do not have common sense are the worst drivers on the planet. I avoid on average of 5 accidents a week. It is common sense to not pass someone in a non passing zone while going around a 80 degree curve.

Well the origin of this topic is that you used the term common sense in a political discussion claiming that i lacked common sense being a leftist..you claimed that i could not be right since your arguments were based on common sense (followingly i lack common sense) so i want to se the universal deifition of common sense.

Bluelight

Billy Toaster · May 27, 2004, 10:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by zerodamage
I am not going to get into a long conversation on why. You either have common sense or you do not. This is why using it in political debate doens't work.

seriously enlighten me with your views on this - im interested to hear how NOT using common sense in political debate is correct.

zerodamage · May 27, 2004, 11:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by kemet64
It is widely known that flipping off somone is an obscene and sometimes dangerous gesture...and may be common sense in america, however it may not be to everyone.

You do not have to live in America for there to be common sense to NOT flip off someone with a gun.

Quote:

it may not be to everyone

Thank You. That means not everyone has common sense. When a political discussion, or even this one for that matter has a common sense element involved, then the discussion is pointless.

Here is some common sense in some of the political discussions here recently that people seem to not be able to grasp. Saddam had WMD. Saddam used WMD before. The U.N. knew this. Everyone knew this. None were found after 14 months of Bullshitting with the U.N. 14 months for Saddam to hide these WMD. All of a sudden, we can not find them. DUH. Why the hell do you think that is? Is proof needed of Saddam digging holes in the ground to burry them. Seriously, think about it.

zerodamage · May 27, 2004, 11:46 PM

BillyToaster. I appreciate you putting a quote of mine in your signature. I do however have an issue with it being used out of context. Please remove it from your signature unless you want to put it into context with the rest of what I said.

Mata · May 28, 2004, 12:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by zerodamage

Here is some common sense in some of the political discussions here recently that people seem to not be able to grasp. Saddam had WMD. Saddam used WMD before. The U.N. knew this. Everyone knew this. None were found after 14 months of Bullshitting with the U.N. 14 months for Saddam to hide these WMD. All of a sudden, we can not find them. DUH. Why the hell do you think that is? Is proof needed of Saddam digging holes in the ground to burry them. Seriously, think about it.

This is exactly why common sense is not a valid argument. Or rather that logical error is very common in conjunction with the use of the common sense argument.

So Saddam had WMD before? So he must have had it still? Clearly no. It is not logical to come to that conclusion. In fact most facts suggested that he had no WMD to talk about and certainly not the ability to use them effectively. The first gulf war and the subsequently daily bombings that followed the years after and UN inspections made sure of that.

Most of what was claimed about the WMD in Iraq came from Ahmad Chalabi who had every reason to want an invasion of Iraq and Saddam removed from power. That had been his struggle for many years. It is now know that most if not all of the information was false.

And you always seem to forget that when Saddam used WMD against Iran and the Kurds he was supported by the republican administration in the USA.

Even if your statement would be true which it is not it would be “common knowledge” not “common sense”.

kemet64 · May 28, 2004, 12:35 AM

Quote:

That means not everyone has common sense. When a political discussion, or even this one for that matter has a common sense element involved, then the discussion is pointless.

Yes, this is what I was trying to point out. I can guarantee that if you are in a debate, and your response is "well that is common sense" or you say that in the debate as your answer....that you will not win.

Same with a trial, using the idea of "common sense" would not fly...because as you said. People have it, dont have it, or have different definitions of it.

bird chest · May 28, 2004, 02:36 AM

Zero kemet64 was trying to say that not everyone in the world knows that the middle finger is F#*@ you. Bush for example went through some country giving peace signs. Real nice but in that country it was the equivilant of the middle finger.

~~bluelight~~ · May 28, 2004, 06:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mata
This is exactly why common sense is not a valid argument. Or rather that logical error is very common in conjunction with the use of the common sense argument.

So Saddam had WMD before? So he must have had it still? Clearly no. It is not logical to come to that conclusion. In fact most facts suggested that he had no WMD to talk about and certainly not the ability to use them effectively. The first gulf war and the subsequently daily bombings that followed the years after and UN inspections made sure of that.

Most of what was claimed about the WMD in Iraq came from Ahmad Chalabi who had every reason to want an invasion of Iraq and Saddam removed from power. That had been his struggle for many years. It is now know that most if not all of the information was false.

And you always seem to forget that when Saddam used WMD against Iran and the Kurds he was supported by the republican administration in the USA.

Even if your statement would be true which it is not it would be “common knowledge” not “common sense”.

Well...isnt it handy then that they can blame all of the Chalabi stuff on Iran?!! As they have done...

They have now declared that Iran fooled them to attack Iraq using Chalabi.

Isnt that fantastic?

These people always have reason even when you find them with their pants to their kness.

That is what makes common sense with them.

Hmmm...The US support with intelligence on Iranian troop movemments used by Saddam to fire nerevegas on Iranian troop (which was common knowledge all over the globe even then)..............................No they dont know anything about that.

Why? Because it is common sense not to know anything about it.

Evil has many faces.The ugliest are those with God painted upon them.

Bluelight

Billy Toaster · May 28, 2004, 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by zerodamage
BillyToaster. I appreciate you putting a quote of mine in your signature. I do however have an issue with it being used out of context. Please remove it from your signature unless you want to put it into context with the rest of what I said.

Its a letter for letter quote and you typed it not me - your original post was ludicrious anyway so its hardly "out of context" - as I cant see any rational context for it in the first place. I could understand it if I was insulting someone but im not.... I dont see anything in the rules saying I have to remove a "quote". Hopefully it will make you think a little harder before posting in the future.

**dj_stick** · May 28, 2004, 12:39 PM

i don't think it is good to quote someone in a deliberate attempt to annoy/defame them - remember this isn't the flame warzone and if someone requests that you remove the defaming text, then you should

Billy Toaster · May 28, 2004, 02:24 PM

I shouldnt unless the site rules change and as far as im aware as much as you might perhaps like to do so you dont make the rules djstick. I am well aware this isnt the flame zone, I havent insulted ANYONE in here, and quite what this has to do with you, ive no idea. I am quoting a comment from zerodamage which he used in the political forum - which I find worth quoting. I have neither altered it, insulted him or belittled him outside the flame zone and I will neither do so. He typed the words not me and I wish to ensure these immortal words remain active forever. Obviously the fact he and you are making such a big deal of it just verifies the fact its utter nonsense. Its funny though

Dont see why I should have to remove any quotes from anyone unless those specific quotes are against site rules.

Now lets get this thread back on topic - this isnt offtopic.

zerodamage · May 28, 2004, 03:17 PM

He's one of many trolls here who can not debate in the arena of Ideas and instead wants to flame me by quotng me out of context. Anyone who's read the entire post I made knows that I am not for men marrying sheep. You wouldn't know that however by his signature where my text has been taken out of context.

This is my original post in its entirety.

Quote:

Let me try to explain quickly. Anyone has the right to marry. Any man can marry any woman given they both consent. Even a homosexual man can marry a woman if he wants. To twist these rights to support an abnormal activity such as a man marrying another man is where the line needs to be drawn. So to say that homosexuals do not have the same rights are not true. We can not let any abnormal behavior be supported by the constitution. If 100 men want to mary sheep, who is to say at that time it isn't right. It after all is violating their right to "marry". I am not against civil unions. I am against a potential pandora's box being opened.

View Poll Results: Do you believe "common sense" is a valid source in debate?
Yes, "common sense" is a valid source in debate.	9	47.37%
No, "common sense" is not a valid source in debate.	10	52.63%
Voters: 19. This poll is closed

May 24, 2004, 07:34 AM	#1
ToshiroOC Unbiased. Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 4,812 Rep Power: 0	"Common Sense" Do you believe "common sense" is a valid source to call in during a debate or an argument? I tend to think not, since one man's "common sense" is another man's insanity. It might be "common sense" to one person that one should wipe with toilet paper, while someone in another country such as India would find that quite unsanitary, to use a non-political example. Please vote in the poll. __________________ [img][/img] [color=White]Peace be with you, Joe.[/color] Driverheaven Staff Member (Supermoderator)

May 27, 2004, 12:48 PM	#10
kp59583 DriverHeaven Lover Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 121 Rep Power: 0	Common sense is not spitting in the wind, putting a loaded gun to ones head and pulling the trigger, Putting your hand on a hot eye of a stove, putting a metal hanger in a electrical socket, licking a ice tray. Some of these things a number of you may have done when you were children and was programed in your brain that it can hurt you. Sometimes common sense has to be learned the hard way and sometimes people ignore there common sense. Common sense can be used with just about anything and can change with the times. Take for example sex. These days having unprotecting sex is like playing russian roulett it can kill you, where as before it wouldn't unless you got sypillis or hepititus and didn't get treated. It can also be used in the workplace. Common sense tells you not to tell your boss what you really think of him. Common sense can be used for politics. If a politician promised something that you new he couldn't deliver on then your common sense should kick in and say bull. A lot of People take what Politicians say at face value instead of actually thinking about what they say and using a little common sense. __________________ ATHLON XP 2600+ K7N2G-LISR 512 SAMSUNG PC2700 ACER DVD DRIVE memorex DVD recorder WD 80GIG 7200 HARDDRIVE AUDIGY2 SOUND CARD 4 FANS, ANTEC 350W PWR SUPPLY ATI 9700 PRO

May 27, 2004, 05:12 PM	#13
~~bluelight~~ Banned Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 1,328 Rep Power: 0	Well then wise man.. since you are applying the term on politics... I understand you havent read one single word of philosophy,psychology,politics science or any other related topic. But since you are so insistent i will ask you once again .....i......URGE you to point me to the universal definition of political common sense. Bluelight Last edited by bluelight; May 27, 2004 at 05:22 PM.

May 27, 2004, 08:06 PM	#16
kemet64 DriverHeaven Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 457 Rep Power: 0	I do not think that common sense is a valid source. Common sense is different depending on where you are. It may be the same within your city, for example, however in other cultures, common sense is different. For example, here, it is "common sense" not to flip off someone with a gun. However, in other countries, they are different. For example, in arab countries, the "A-Ok" gesture is similar to our middle finger. The idea of common sense is a generalization, an absolute. There are no absolutes. I would say that common sense, expecting the other person to "just know it" is not a legitimate arguement. As said earlier in this thread, what is common sense to one person, may not be common sense to the next. --sam __________________ Inspiron XPS Intel 3.4 ghz 1gb Corsair XMS DDR PC3200 60gig 7200 HD 128mb Radeon Mobility 9700 Creative Soundblaster Audigy 2 NX Logitech z680 Speakers

May 24, 2004, 07:47 AM	#2
malkor DriverHeaven Lover Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 123 Rep Power: 0	I tend to agree with you. Your example is interesting and does display why I do agree. The sense, or idea that it is sensible to wipe with TP, while it may be "common" to some or most, it is not common to all. You might also draw an analogy to ethics. One man's ethics or morals may be quite different from another man's. So, even ethics may not be "common". However, reason followed by clear logic can and should be common and are the ONLY valid criteria when debating or arguing, or when attempting to show that your "sense" or "ethics" are correct.

May 24, 2004, 08:06 AM	#3
~~bluelight~~ Banned Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 1,328 Rep Power: 0	It is reasonable to use it if you do noy limit the definition of common sense to your own. Another thing is...there are certain things that are generally accepted as common sense , (accepted by an owerwhelming majority such as torture is a bad thing)....extremists this being poitically correct when they try the "the silent majority actually thinks like this trick, that way, they can invent what ever common sense they want without having any backing for it (like Limbaugh).....and they never..ever have.) Bluelight

May 25, 2004, 01:17 AM	#4
raid517 DriverHeaven Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 2,518 Rep Power: 0	Of course there is alway compromise, you could wipe with wet wipes - although to be honest I'm kind of loosing track about what this has to do with politics. GJ

May 25, 2004, 01:26 AM	#5
digerati Everyones life has worth Join Date: May 2003 Location: My Yellow Bug Posts: 3,779 Rep Power: 0	I think common sense can be used mostly. Because most of the time you're arguing with someone who is a bit like you in most concepts. Obviously when debating with someone like an arab who has kidnapped you and is about to behead you, there's really no tactic you can use to put you on the same ground.

May 25, 2004, 03:32 AM	#6
bird chest DriverHeaven Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 454 Rep Power: 0	what is common sense? I think to say weather it is valid or not we need to outline it first. I think it is not because it all depends where you are from. Eskamos could point out seven kinds of snow as common sense and I could tell them what an airconditioner is (kidding but you guys see what my point is).

May 25, 2004, 11:33 AM	#8
raid517 DriverHeaven Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 2,518 Rep Power: 0	Well you won't ever get everyone to agree on a single perspective. My point was though that there is a possibility that there might be a 3rd way and that 3rd way is compromise. This is why I don't agree with the way the current political system works in both our countries - whereby only the party with the most votes is allowed to form the government. What I would like to see is a much more representative system - kind of like a pie chart - where the number of seats awarded in government is based on the actual number of votes counted. For example if you won 20% of the vote, this would mean 4 seats in government - if you won 40% this would mean 8 seats, if you won 5% this would mean 1 seat and so on. At least this way you would always be fairly sure of having quite a broad sweep of opinion within the cabinet. When one perspective is granted too much power this is always a bad thing - and can lead to many people feeling that they are isolated from their government - as well as leading some very skewed laws. (Read the Patriot act, the Defense of Marriage Act, locking people up without charge and so on). You may never get people to agree on a common perspective - but what is often possible is to get people to agree on things that they believe to be in their own direct self interest. It may be a pessimistic perspective - but given the diversity of views that do exist in the world - compromise and co-operation are the only truly viable ways forward. GJ

May 27, 2004, 03:03 AM	#9
zerodamage HardwareHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: Virginia, USA Posts: 3,478 Rep Power: 0 System Specs	I am not going to get into a long conversation on why. You either have common sense or you do not. This is why using it in political debate doens't work.

May 27, 2004, 05:05 PM	#12
zerodamage HardwareHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: Virginia, USA Posts: 3,478 Rep Power: 0 System Specs	You've made my point. You think everyone has their own version of common sense. That isn't the case. It is or isn't, as simple as that. Has nothing to do with anyone's values. It is like having street smarts. I know a few people who are geniuses when it comes to science and academics. When it comes to common sense, such as "Why Do I have roaches in my house.". I say: "You have an IQ of 200 and do not know why you have roaches. Look around, this place is disgusting. That old steak has been sitting on the counter for 2 weeks." Common sense is just, that, common. Something you should know.

May 27, 2004, 05:26 PM	#14
zerodamage HardwareHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: Virginia, USA Posts: 3,478 Rep Power: 0 System Specs	You are putting words in my mouth. I am not talking about politics right now. I am speaking on a general sense. Having common sense applies not only to every day life but also to politics and everything else. People who drive and do not have common sense are the worst drivers on the planet. I avoid on average of 5 accidents a week. It is common sense to not pass someone in a non passing zone while going around a 80 degree curve.

May 27, 2004, 08:50 PM	#17
zerodamage HardwareHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: Virginia, USA Posts: 3,478 Rep Power: 0 System Specs	Kemet. It is common sense to not flip off someone with a gun, no matter where you live. And just because something may not be common sense to someone doens't mean it isn't common sense. Like I said, not everyone has it. There are of course common sense things to different cultures.

May 27, 2004, 09:04 PM	#18
kemet64 DriverHeaven Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 457 Rep Power: 0	It is widely known that flipping off somone is an obscene and sometimes dangerous gesture...and may be common sense in america, however it may not be to everyone. If a person from another culture, where flipping off someone is not a obscene gesture, comes to america, he will not know that is a bad gesture, which means that it is not common sense to him. Im just trying to say that common sense would not be valid because it is different for each person, it can vary too much in what that person defines it as. __________________ Inspiron XPS Intel 3.4 ghz 1gb Corsair XMS DDR PC3200 60gig 7200 HD 128mb Radeon Mobility 9700 Creative Soundblaster Audigy 2 NX Logitech z680 Speakers

May 27, 2004, 11:46 PM	#22
zerodamage HardwareHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: Virginia, USA Posts: 3,478 Rep Power: 0 System Specs	BillyToaster. I appreciate you putting a quote of mine in your signature. I do however have an issue with it being used out of context. Please remove it from your signature unless you want to put it into context with the rest of what I said.

May 28, 2004, 02:36 AM	#25
bird chest DriverHeaven Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 454 Rep Power: 0	Zero kemet64 was trying to say that not everyone in the world knows that the middle finger is F#*@ you. Bush for example went through some country giving peace signs. Real nice but in that country it was the equivilant of the middle finger.

May 28, 2004, 02:24 PM	#29
Billy Toaster f(*k you Join Date: May 2004 Location: hell Posts: 293 Rep Power: 0	defaming? I shouldnt unless the site rules change and as far as im aware as much as you might perhaps like to do so you dont make the rules djstick. I am well aware this isnt the flame zone, I havent insulted ANYONE in here, and quite what this has to do with you, ive no idea. I am quoting a comment from zerodamage which he used in the political forum - which I find worth quoting. I have neither altered it, insulted him or belittled him outside the flame zone and I will neither do so. He typed the words not me and I wish to ensure these immortal words remain active forever. Obviously the fact he and you are making such a big deal of it just verifies the fact its utter nonsense. Its funny though Dont see why I should have to remove any quotes from anyone unless those specific quotes are against site rules. Now lets get this thread back on topic - this isnt offtopic.