Welfare, the next sequel

[LDB]

I can't work. I'm too fat. Well guess what, lose weight. Or work anyway. Nah, much better to live off the dole forever and then expect more for luxuries and foolishness. She shouldn't despair too much though. We'll have some along in a bit defending the system and objecting to any sensible reforms.

http://www.youngcons.com/welfare-qu...the-tab-for-fairy-tale-wedding-and-honeymoon/

 

[Ragman]

I can't work. I'm too fat. Well guess what, lose weight. Or work anyway. Nah, much better to live off the dole forever and then expect more for luxuries and foolishness. She shouldn't despair too much though. We'll have some along in a bit defending the system and objecting to any sensible reforms.

http://www.youngcons.com/welfare-qu...the-tab-for-fairy-tale-wedding-and-honeymoon/

There is not a snowball in hells chance anybody could defend the story as written. Your comment otherwise is rude, insulting, and uncalled for.

 

[cheri1122]

It also is a story that has nothing to do with us, having taken place in England. Where they also have people who are clearly delusional, just like we do.
Agree with Rags, the endless sniping and namecalling aimed at liberals [based on nothing but clickbait outrage 'stories'] is insulting and uncalled for. And way past tiresome and immature. And sad and bitter, too.

 

[paullud]

Agree with Rags, the endless sniping and namecalling aimed at RELIGION [based on nothing but clickbait outrage 'stories'] is insulting and uncalled for. And way past tiresome and immature. And sad and bitter, too.

It's weird how that statement applies to you by substituting liberals. The pot is complaining about the kettle.

 

[cheri1122]

It's weird how that statement applies to you by substituting liberals. The pot is complaining about the kettle.

Off topic, and personally insulting as well, without justification or substantiation. As usual.
Stop it now - I have had enough of your personal attacks and baseless claims. You are way out of bounds and over the line.

 

[paullud]

Off topic, and personally insulting as well, without justification or substantiation. As usual.
Stop it now - I have had enough of your personal attacks and baseless claims. You are way out of bounds and over the line.

What? I used your statement and only changed one word. That means that your statement was off topic and personally insulting without justification.

 

[Turtle]

What? I used your statement and only changed one word. That means that your statement was off topic and personally insulting without justification.

Yes, you quoted someone and then changed the text to make it look like they said something they did not say. And you did it specifically to make your reply about the poster, not the post. In doing so you changed the topic. If you can't stay on topic by replying to what was said without making it about who said it, the next best alternative is to take it to a private message, or not replying at all.

 

[paullud]

Yes, you quoted someone and then changed the text to make it look like they said something they did not say. And you did it specifically to make your reply about the poster, not the post. In doing so you changed the topic. If you can't stay on topic by replying to what was said without making it about who said it, the next best alternative is to take it to a private message, or not replying at all.

The reply was on topic with what Cheri just directed at the poster and not the post. She brought the topic up so if you have a problem with what was said direct your response to her.

 

[Turtle]

No, it wasn't on topic. If you had been able to craft your response without using the word "you" and directing it solely at her, you'd have a case to make. It's important that people stick to the issues of what gets said rather than changing the topic to be about who said it, or the motivations as to why they said it.

 

[paullud]

No, it wasn't on topic. If you had been able to craft your response without using the word "you" and directing it solely at her, you'd have a case to make. It's important that people stick to the issues of what gets said rather than changing the topic to be about who said it, or the motivations as to why they said it.

Again, direct your response to Cheri.

 

[Turtle]

Fine. I'm directing my response to you because of your recent historical pattern of responding to Cheri directly, and changing the topic of discussion in the process, with thinly veiled insults that have not gone unnoticed, or unreported, by a not insignificant number of people. So, I'll ask one last time... Please keep your replies on topic and respectful. One way to do that is to reply to a post while pretending you don't know who posted it.

 

[paullud]

Fine. I'm directing my response to you because of your recent historical pattern of responding to Cheri directly, and changing the topic of discussion in the process, with thinly veiled insults that have not gone unnoticed, or unreported, by a not insignificant number of people. So, I'll ask one last time... Please keep your replies on topic and respectful. One way to do that is to reply to a post while pretending you don't know who posted it.

OK. So call people stupid, immature, obtuse and a variety of other names but just don't use the word "you" and it's fine. I can then also play the victim and report the post even though I just finished insulting someone when someone points out a hypocrisy.

 

[Turtle]

OK. So call people stupid, immature, obtuse and a variety of other names but just don't use the word "you" and it's fine.

No, please keep your replies on topic and respectful and it's fine. You're a smart guy, I'm sure you'll figure it out.

 

[paullud]

No, please keep your replies on topic and respectful and it's fine. You're a smart guy, I'm sure you'll figure it out.

Look at when those "thinly veiled insults" are made by me and you will see that they are in response to direct insults. Look at the times direct personal insults were made in a post and then you will see my thinly veiled insults show up. Outside of that you really don't ever see it happen so again, address the problem.

 

[Turtle]

Look, man, you're developing the perception of you following Cheri around and insulting her. Keep defending that position and it won't end well. If you have a problem with something Cheri posts, either take it up with her in a private conversation or report it.

Bottom line is, respond to the post and not the poster and you'll be fine. Respond in some other manner, not so fine. It's up to you.

 

[paullud]

Look, man, you're developing the perception of you following Cheri around and insulting her. Keep defending that position and it won't end well. If you have a problem with something Cheri posts, either take it up with her in a private conversation or report it.

Bottom line is, respond to the post and not the poster and you'll be fine. Respond in some other manner, not so fine. It's up to you.

I point out things that are said that are wrong. I did the exact same thing with the post LDB had about the water collection story yet there was no crying. The difference is if someone wants to double down on stupid then there is more conversation that takes place. Why not simply tell the person that keeps insulting others to stop? It's really that simple.

 

[Turtle]

No Paul, you don't. Leo started a thread that's borderline trolling, Ragman took exception to it, and so did Cheri, and did so without the sole purpose being too insult Leo. You jumped on that opportunity to attack Cheri. I've tried to let you know as civil as possible that you need to stay on topic and quit attacking Cheri, to respond to the post instead of the poster, but you're not having any of it. You'd rather tell me how to do my job. If you really want to see me do my job in a more official and less casual manner, keep it up.

 

[paullud]

No Paul, you don't. Leo started a thread that's borderline trolling, Ragman took exception to it, and so did Cheri, and did so without the sole purpose being too insult Leo. You jumped on that opportunity to attack Cheri.

I used the opportunity to point out the hypocrisy which addressed the post, not just as a personal attack. Ragman took exception by stating his opinion without attacking the poster but the other post clearly was an attack. You have no problem with the personal attacks on Leo then for what reason? Do we just say I disagree with the story and then go off on a tangent with personal attacks and it's fine? On one hand you seem to be saying be respectful but then when there is a member that is constantly disrespectful and goes off with personal attacks you never say a word. Now when someone gets sick of it and treats that member with the same level of courtesy shown to others you decide to go after that member.

I've tried to let you know as civil as possible that you need to stay on topic and quit attacking Cheri, to respond to the post instead of the poster, but you're not having any of it. You'd rather tell me how to do my job. If you really want to see me do my job in a more official and less casual manner, keep it up.

I am simply saying that if you are saying that to me that it needs to be very clearly stated to the member that constantly starts the attacks on others. Why are you directing things at me? The attacks have been going on by this other member for awhile unchallenged by you. Why is that?

 

[LDB]

And through it all we have a world full of people who believe they should live off the work of others and should be given more and more, far beyond basic subsistence. Along with that, we have a world of people that find any call for reform and restrictions to be cruel or hateful or discriminatory or some permutation thereof.

 

[paullud]

And through it all we have a world full of people who believe they should live off the work of others and should be given more and more, far beyond basic subsistence. Along with that, we have a world of people that find any call for reform and restrictions to be cruel or hateful or discriminatory or some permutation thereof.

I took that to be the meaning of your original post. I don't believe that you think anyone here would support that particular person's demands but that people don't want to reform the system at all to weed people like that out because it might stop someone else from getting help that really needs it.