George Floyd trial,could you make a case for the defendant not being guilty of the charges?

[parmalee]

parmalee:

I see you've crawled out of the woodwork again to battle alongside Tiassa. You realise my post was effectively addressed to him and not to you, right? I already know where you stand on these matters.

Paranoid much? Do you actually believe that people are conspiring together against you?

First, this is a public forum and I can respond to whatever I wish to respond to. Next, you were, nevertheless, talking about me at one point, so I opted to address it. Simple as that.

You're saying I annoy you, so you're out to antagonise me. I worked that out already. Moving on.

???

Stop making everything about you. You'll recall that the post in question was addressed to Vociferous--he's the guy who annoys the hell out of me. Of course, I've already told you this. Several times, in fact.

I understand that you've been mentally scarred by some bad experiences with bad cops.

Physically scarred, actually. The second beating-by-cop worsened an already refractory seizure disorder.

Also, please note that I'm smart enough to deduce things about you and your opinions, based on what you write and how you write it. I don't need things set out in large letters to be able to put pieces together and draw obvious, logical conclusions.

I know you are. That, in part, is the problem. To me it sometimes reads as though you are intentionally mischaracterizing something that someone says.

Given your incivility, I must comment that I'm surprised that you expected a detailed response from me to your rant. You ought to consider yourself lucky I've decided to show you so much more courtesy that you've shown me.

Lucky me?

I'm not cool with it. So we disagree. Are we clear?

I'm hardly suggesting that it (killing) is optimal, but there are times when it is the only course of action.

It's part of the police job description to protect life, especially innocent life.

Yes, it is.

Vigilantism is only definable with reference to a legal perspective.

And yet, interpretations of the law differ immensely--even amongst professionals in the field.


Edit: I didn't address the parts about preposterous assumptions and suchlike because I have done so before, and the way you are responding right now kinda reminds me of the way in which Jan responds to certain things, i.e., accusations of misogyny in that other thread. IOW it seems pointless.

 

[Seattle]

When you are having an argument about the prudence in killing a cop you should probably just quit digging that hole.

 

[billvon]

Stop making everything about you.

Just FYI, when you post "I shall address you a though I am speaking to an idiot" "you've got an awfully bad habit of . . .being dishonest" that is YOU making everything about him. Seems somewhat foolish to ask him to stop what you're doing.

 

[parmalee]

Just FYI, when you post "I shall address you a though I am speaking to an idiot" "you've got an awfully bad habit of . . .being dishonest" that is YOU making everything about him. Seems somewhat foolish to ask him to stop what you're doing.

Yet I've also made it clear that I know damn well that James is not, by any means, an idiot. And the thing is, I seldom have problems of this nature IRL and online, here or elsewhere. If there's a misunderstanding, it's typically cleared up in seconds. Sometimes genuine miscommunication happens; other times, it certainly seems that one party is intentionally choosing to misread something.

To clarify, and reiterate, briefly: I post something inflammatory. James rightly calls me out on it. I've already clarified my intent, but obviously I could have gone about it in a different manner. I knew that when I posted it, so I suppose James was doubly right to call me on it. What can I say? When Mike Brady dropped that heavy book on the floor of the courtroom to reveal that the plaintiff was feigning his neck injury, it had a deep and lasting impact on me. (Surely you recall that episode of The Brady Bunch? If not, nevermind--not important.) I favor unorthodox techniques and/or I sometimes like to fuck with people--especially people who annoy me (Vociferous, in this instance.) You decide.

What I am objecting to occurs subsequent that--namely, James' occasional habit of condescending to posters and (what appears to me to be) willfully misconstruing what a poster says. I've witnessed this on a number of occasions over the past ten or so years. Notice above how he seems to interpret "I'm cool with it." Does he really believe that I am overjoyed that a (presumably) unstable woman is shot and killed? Obviously, another outcome would have been preferable, and yet, the act did save another woman's life. Here "I'm cool with it" is a simple acknowledgement that sometimes causing harm to another, or even killing another, is sometimes necessary. To deny that is utterly ridiculous.

I can also do what it appears to me that James is doing by interpreting his "I'm not (cool with it)" above as meaning that he is not ok with doing what is necessary to save another's life. What?! But I'm not going to, because I know what he means; moreover, it would do absolutely nothing to further a discussion.

 

[Seattle]

Generally being a hothead and being annoyed with everyone also does nothing to further a discussion and that's usually your approach so it's odd to see you complain about anyone else's approach when yours is so flawed.

 

[parmalee]

Generally being a hothead and being annoyed with everyone also does nothing to further a discussion and that's usually your approach so it's odd to see you complain about anyone else's approach when yours is so flawed.

Says the guy who routinely says he sees no evidence of, say, systemic racism, only to be presented an abundance of evidence, by multiple posters, only to return a week later with the same dismissals.

 

[parmalee]

Generally being a hothead and being annoyed with everyone also does nothing to further a discussion and that's usually your approach so it's odd to see you complain about anyone else's approach when yours is so flawed.

Or are you saying that we ought to respond in a kindly and genial manner when you state that black people shouldn't be surprised when they don't get in to college when they have a "funny" name?

 

[Seattle]

Or are you saying that we ought to respond in a kindly and genial manner when you state that black people shouldn't be surprised when they don't get in to college when they have a "funny" name?

You just finished lecturing Billvon about not taking your comments so literally when you feel that he really understands what you mean.

I didn't say that black people shouldn't get into college when they are named Lavell or Tyrone but that if a parent wants to eliminate some of that bias on the part of future employers maybe it would be a good idea not to name your daughter Shatifa or something like that.

It shouldn't be necessary but it's still something that middle class blacks do take into account and lower class blacks don't but probably should. It is what it is.

So, yes, no need to be a hothead and jump to conclusions if you want to further the discussion (as you say).

And yes, obviously there is "some" systemic racism as it's not a perfect world but there is little and there are bigger real problems to address. The average black person has more important things to deal with than systemic racism. Just because someone has a different point of view doesn't mean that my point of view has to change.

I don't see a lot of change in you or in your approach. You don't strike me, from your posts, as the voice of reason. You are either name calling or talking about your seizures.

 

[parmalee]

I don't see a lot of change in you or in your approach. You don't strike me, from your posts, as the voice of reason. You are either name calling or talking about your seizures.

Do you see yourself as a "voice of reason?" A significant percentage of your posts involve you complaining about one or another poster or moderator, and painting anyone who challenges your contentions as some brand of "angry." In fact, you've also depicted Billvon in such a manner on more than a single occasion. Likewise, "name calling" is one of your more frequent complaints, yet you seldom provide evidence of such.

Also, imagine that--in a thread about police brutality (among other things) I allude to something exacerbated by police brutality..

 

[Seattle]

Do you see yourself as a "voice of reason?" A significant percentage of your posts involve you complaining about one or another poster or moderator, and painting anyone who challenges your contentions as some brand of "angry." In fact, you've also depicted Billvon in such a manner on more than a single occasion. Likewise, "name calling" is one of your more frequent complaints, yet you seldom provide evidence of such.

Also, imagine that--in a thread about police brutality (among other things) I allude to something exacerbated by police brutality..

Yes, I'm the voice of reason. Surely you've picked up on that by now.

 

[parmalee]

Yes, I'm the voice of reason. Surely you've picked up on that by now.

Yeah, sure. Honestly, it just sounds like you're just really bored now or something--or maybe I'm projecting.

Seriously though--it's the internet. How on earth can you tell whether a person is "angry" or "annoyed?" If anything, I'm mostly "annoyed" by the fact that there are six really brown bananas on the table (I hate wasting food--but they're usable in cooking, I guess) and that the weather has been total crap for a week. I suppose some people get like all-caps "angry" when conversing with strangers, but that's always seemed odd to me.

Tangentially, and totally off-topic (actual boredom, which is rare), are you at all familiar with an effects pedal by the name Crowther Audio Prunes & Custard? Of the distortion variety, but unique, and it also behaves somewhat like an envelope follower, albeit for very different reasons. The original design, as is, is sort of a one-trick-pony, but it can easily be rendered much more versatile and useful.

 

[billvon]

To clarify, and reiterate, briefly: (reasonable explanation removed for brevity)

No worries; most of us have exaggerated to make a point on occasion. I would suggest that if you used that sort of explanation more often, rather than the ad hominems referenced above, these threads would get a little less heated.

 

[billvon]

You are either name calling or talking about your seizures.

?? That's not pertinent to the topic at hand?

If someone was sexually assaulted, and there was a thread about rape, that person might talk about their experiences with sexual assault, and how that changed their opinion on it. That might, in fact, make their opinion a little more informed, and would generally be a welcome addition to a thread (as opposed to the all too common "well I saw this video on Youtube and now I think XXX about sexual assault.")

 

[parmalee]

No worries; most of us have exaggerated to make a point on occasion. I would suggest that if you used that sort of explanation more often, rather than the ad hominems referenced above, these threads would get a little less heated.

These matters are exacerbated by the difficulties surrounding conveyance of tone, inflection and suchlike on the interwebs. Notice I say "seems to me" several times above--that's honestly how James (sometimes) reads to me, but its entirely possible that I am misreading his tone wholly. I honestly don't know.

I know a lot of people opt to write in a manner that is wholly unambiguous, somewhat dry, etc.--at least, when conversing with total strangers on the internet. I've always favored the other end of the spectrum, knowing I'll likely be misread by some (or sometimes by all?), but not mostly. I recall ages ago watching an episode of The Simpsons with a bunch of foreigners in a hostel somewhere. Most knew English--quite well, actually--but they all somehow totally missed all the jokes which involved some word-play--and it was hardly like the most high-falutin' of wordplay, but it was sufficient to throw a bunch of people of reasonable intelligence who were more than adequately conversant in English. Either that, or it just wasn't very funny--but as I recall, it kinda was.

 

[Seattle]

Yeah, sure. Honestly, it just sounds like you're just really bored now or something--or maybe I'm projecting.

Seriously though--it's the internet. How on earth can you tell whether a person is "angry" or "annoyed?" If anything, I'm mostly "annoyed" by the fact that there are six really brown bananas on the table (I hate wasting food--but they're usable in cooking, I guess) and that the weather has been total crap for a week. I suppose some people get like all-caps "angry" when conversing with strangers, but that's always seemed odd to me.

Tangentially, and totally off-topic (actual boredom, which is rare), are you at all familiar with an effects pedal by the name Crowther Audio Prunes & Custard? Of the distortion variety, but unique, and it also behaves somewhat like an envelope follower, albeit for very different reasons. The original design, as is, is sort of a one-trick-pony, but it can easily be rendered much more versatile and useful.

I hadn't heard of that pedal but I just checked it out on YouTube. It sounds interesting. I like effects but I sold all of my pedals as I just play at home and like just plugging in straight. However I do have a Katana amp and have access to most effects (although they are usually more full featured in an actual pedal) The Katana software does let you adjust many more perimeters however.

The weather is nice and sunny here today We have to enjoy it as we can (Seattle).

 

[James R]

parmalee:

Paranoid much? Do you actually believe that people are conspiring together against you?

No, and no. I did not mention a conspiracy, notice.

First, this is a public forum and I can respond to whatever I wish to respond to.

Yes yes yada yada yada.

Physically scarred, actually. The second beating-by-cop worsened an already refractory seizure disorder.

I am sorry this happen to you. Really, I am.

I'm hardly suggesting that it (killing) is optimal, but there are times when it is the only course of action.
....
Edit: I didn't address the parts about preposterous assumptions and suchlike because I have done so before, and the way you are responding right now kinda reminds me of the way in which Jan responds to certain things, i.e., accusations of misogyny in that other thread. IOW it seems pointless.

The most important part of my post was this part, in case you missed it:

Meanwhile, you seem to saying that you would happily kill somebody (i.e. a cop killing somebody else) as long as you thought that you could do that without incurring harm yourself. You would, presumably, justify your killing on the grounds that you were protecting somebody else from unlawful behaviour. In such circumstances, you would be enacting vigilante justice. But you're cool with that. I understand.
​

Since you did not think that was worthy of a response, I conclude that this is, indeed, congruent with your view on this matter. There's really nothing else you and I need to discuss on this topic, since we both know where we stand.

 

[parmalee]

The most important part of my post was this part, in case you missed it:

Meanwhile, you seem to saying that you would happily kill somebody (i.e. a cop killing somebody else) as long as you thought that you could do that without incurring harm yourself. You would, presumably, justify your killing on the grounds that you were protecting somebody else from unlawful behaviour. In such circumstances, you would be enacting vigilante justice. But you're cool with that. I understand.
​

Since you did not think that was worthy of a response, I conclude that this is, indeed, congruent with your view on this matter. There's really nothing else you and I need to discuss on this topic, since we both know where we stand.

Actually, I did address this in the edit:

Edit: I didn't address the parts about preposterous assumptions and suchlike because I have done so before, and the way you are responding right now kinda reminds me of the way in which Jan responds to certain things, i.e., accusations of misogyny in that other thread. IOW it seems pointless.

(Emphasis for clarity.)

If you would review the thread, you would note that I did not say that I "would happily kill somebody (i.e. a cop killing somebody else) as long as (I) thought that (I) could do that without incurring harm (myself)," or anything of the sort. You seem to be insistent that the original post in question is somehow exemplary of my m.o., despite the fact that I have already clarified my intention in making said post.

And since you have now convinced me that you have no intention whatsoever of being honest, I'll give you but one example of the "preposterous assumptions" to which allude, as any more would seem to be a waste of my time. In response to my query, "what would you do?," you wrote this:

I do not assume that all cops are murderous thugs, or that they would all condone murder by one of their own...

despite the fact that I neither said nor implied anything of the sort. Or are you going to pretend that that was specifically in reference to precisely nothing--it just came out of nowhere, I guess--and that you weren't making any assumptions at all?

 

[James R]

If you would review the thread, you would note that I did not say that I "would happily kill somebody (i.e. a cop killing somebody else) as long as (I) thought that (I) could do that without incurring harm (myself)," or anything of the sort.

Not anything of the sort, eh?

Clearly, I have misunderstood your position completely, then.

Please state your position on killing murderous cops clearly. One or two sentences should be sufficient to clear up any confusion.

Thanks.

 

[Vociferous]

In another thread I posted to a little earlier today, you were insisting that I must have much more free time than you do, because I chose to respond to somebody else whom you consider unworthy of your exalted attention. You decided that I must be wasting my time because I chose to spend some of my time in a way that you would not choose to spend some of yours. Which is all fine, of course, except that you felt the need to lecture me on my poor time management - probably to prove that your careful curation of the posts you respond to is oh-so-much wiser than my willy-nilly wasteful and pointless approach to what I choose to respond to. In other words, you're waving your penis again, trying to big note yourself and your magnificent judgement about who is and who isn't worthy of your precious attentions - and trying to do it at my expense, because your putting me down makes you feel better about yourself, for some reason.

And then here, I find you also attempting to lecture Bells as to how and when she should respond to posts.

Seriously, nobody cares, Vociferous. Why, then, are you so concerned about how often, and to whom, and in what form, Bells and I post? Do you think that, just possibly, Bells and I also post when we want to, according to our own motivations, taking into account our other obligations? If you post because you're bored, then good for you. That doesn't mean that everybody else has to be like you. You do you, okay? Stop trying to lecture everybody else on why your life choices are superior to theirs.

Nice try to turn it around like that. I'm expecting you to cry "projection" again shortly.

I'm not the one here who is lecturing on people on how and when and to whom to respond. That's my point. Get it?

I was simply commenting on your neediness to Bells, who is having a similar experience with you to the one I'm having.

You told me, straight up, that I must have nothing important to do. I'm a smart guy. I see exactly where you're coming from with that nonsense.

Most people learn basic manners as they grow up. I don't know where your upbringing failed you.

Oh the irony.

 

[James R]

Oh the irony.

?