Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Religion

Goblinmonger

(22,340 posts)

34. As I said above

Reply to Kaleva (Reply #33)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 01:06 AM

Jun 2012

my comment to rug was about his actions as a user of the Internet and were distinct from anything that admin may or may not do to laconicsax.

They both did a dumb thing. They have both admitted as such.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

36 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Supreme Court rules sensibly on Mt. Soledad cross [View all] DavidDvorkin Jun 2012 OP

Excellent news! At least on non-political issues COLGATE4 Jun 2012 #1

Good for them. cbayer Jun 2012 #2

Actually, they declined to rule. rug Jun 2012 #3

That is correct. I saw that also while looking further into this. cbayer Jun 2012 #4

I wonder if they knew that meant the lower court would stand? Goblinmonger Jun 2012 #5

Ah, but don't you see? Since they declined to hear the appeal... laconicsax Jun 2012 #6

Accurately describing Supreme Court actions is not nitpicking. rug Jun 2012 #8

Interesting that you saw yourself in that description. laconicsax Jun 2012 #9

Interesting you espouse clairvoyance. rug Jun 2012 #10

When you see lots and lots of posts written by a person 2ndAmForComputers Jun 2012 #12

Then you should be able to speak more clearly, shouldn't you? rug Jun 2012 #17

Were you not describing your actions as a corrective to #6? laconicsax Jun 2012 #14

So, this time I'll have company descending into the Rabbit Hole of Passive Aggressive Obfuscation? 2ndAmForComputers Jun 2012 #15

As a matter of fact, no. rug Jun 2012 #18

Any particular reason why you're shilling for Romney now? laconicsax Jun 2012 #21

Post removed Post removed Jun 2012 #22

Ah, so you're shilling for Romney because of me. laconicsax Jun 2012 #23

Lol, now you've stepped in it. rug Jun 2012 #24

I didn't post a Romney photo. laconicsax Jun 2012 #25

That'a a flatout lie. Anybody can rightclick on the photo and read the url under Properties. rug Jun 2012 #26

That link is to a screenshot of you posting pro-Romney stuff laconicsax Jun 2012 #27

Fortunately you posted a screenshot of #18 before you moved the photobucket link. rug Jun 2012 #28

I assert the right to organize my photobucket account as I see fit. laconicsax Jun 2012 #29

You posted a link from someone else's photobucket Goblinmonger Jun 2012 #30

There's a large thread in Meta about this. Kaleva Jun 2012 #31

Read it. What happens if I comment further? Goblinmonger Jun 2012 #32

I would say that what rug did was minor compared to what was done to him. Kaleva Jun 2012 #33

As I said above Goblinmonger Jun 2012 #34

Shades of Bill Cosby!!! aka-chmeee Jun 2012 #36

Of course. Just as they knew the Ninth Circuit decision allowed further litigation. rug Jun 2012 #7

Hope springs eternal. 2ndAmForComputers Jun 2012 #11

I can't wait till Christmas and see what's on the docket. rug Jun 2012 #20

Of course they knew that. Jim Lane Jun 2012 #16

So apart from nitpicking the exact terminology the OP used, trotsky Jun 2012 #13

No, that's about it. You got anything more from the FFR press release? rug Jun 2012 #19

Uh, yeah, the actual news item. trotsky Jun 2012 #35