[Otal Nimrodi]

You can't put people on ignore and "let a post through from time to time." Either they're on ignore or not. Putting them on ignore means you can't see their posts, period. You'd have to go back and forth and change your settings from "ignore this user" to not "ignore this user" to see an ignored user's post, and then you'd be able to see ALL their posts, not just the one post you want to "let through." And you couldn't determine which posts were worthy of your not ignoring, considering you wouldn't be able to see them in the first place.

So, you're either making it up, or your definition of your "ignore list" is something completely different than what we all know it to be. I'm thinking you just skip reading some posts unless a few words in it jump out to you and you think you can stir up some more trollness argument by responding to it.

Actually, the chefelf.com Ignore list points out that a post has been made by the user, and asks if you wish to ignore them.

[Spoon Poetic]

Really? It never did that for me. Maybe it was broken?

Edit: I will test this later... Gee, wonder who I'm going to put on ignore to test it out?

This post has been edited by Spoon Poetic: 05 February 2008 - 02:03 PM

[Slade]

I've ignored myself in the past, just because...

If this weird ignoring is the case, it makes ignoring someone rather silly, and can make it look like people aren't actually being ignored.

This post has been edited by Slade: 05 February 2008 - 02:16 PM

[Snake Logan]

Chechnya was a seperate entity until its ruler asked the Czar for protection from the Ottomans sometime within, I think, the past 200 years. After that Russia slowly subsumed Chechen sovereignty. Once the take over was accomplished rebellions began immediately and continued incrementally. There have been at least 5 wars agaisnt Russian rule in Chechnya in the last century. I dont think that makes it look like much of a part of Russia.

If you are advocating to separate Chechnya from Russia then are you also advocating the separation of California, Nevada and New Mexico from America?

No, no it isnt. Hes the leader of a country with a lot of interest in Chechnyas oil wealth. He helped write that constitution. I think its easy to be biased.

Gorbachev and his party wrote the constitution he was quoting. Yeltsin and Gorbachev were in no way political partners.

Reminds me of a while ago in this topic when we were talking about the DEFUNCT concept of white man's burden.

You’re comparing the colonization of Africa by Europeans to a nation trying to keep one of its historic republics within its borders? You get an F for phailure.

I dont give a shit how much better off I'd be under Israeli rule. The minute an IDF tank comes into my town I'm strapping on some dynamite and stealing a gun and going to go see how much damage I can do.

Last time I checked, Palestinians were not allowed to travel to all parts of Israel but Chechnyans are allowed to travel to all parts of Russia. Same thing? No.

But hey, if you feel you'd be better off if another country took over Australia you had your chance in World War 2.

What? You mean Japan? Are you crazy?

Also, under Stalin nearly the entire ethnic Chechen population of Chechnya was deported, killed or put into gulags. At present Russian rule might offer stability, but I would never choose stability at the cost of national sovereignty.

What does the actions of a Georgian communist have to do with Russian sovereignty? Perhaps you forgot that those Chechnyans made their way back to Chechnya after Stalin died.

And since thousands of Chechens suspected of nationalist sentiment disappeared. And since all parties advocating autonomy were outlawed.

Citation needed.

[Spoon Poetic]

Ha! A cry for a citation used as a rebuttal when he rarely has sources for his own assertions...

[Snake Logan]

Ha! A cry for a citation used as a rebuttal when he rarely has sources for his own assertions...

Key word there is rarely. So I do provide citation. I am yet to see citations from anyone I have debated with.

[Spoon Poetic]

Yes, people often provide you with sources (<--note proper word; a "citation" is a quote). You just pass them off for various excuses.

[Snake Logan]

Example?

[Spoon Poetic]

It was way back before people stopped wasting their time adding in sources because you start arguing about something new every time someone brings up a point you can't contest. Just like I'm not going to bother taking the time to comb the forums looking for citations of sources that you discredited for whatever twisted reason like "communalism" or "homocest" or somesuch. It'd be a waste of time and effort because 1) you wouldn't care and 2) if I'm wrong and you would/do care, you can just look for them yourself.

This post has been edited by Spoon Poetic: 05 February 2008 - 11:04 PM

[J m HofMarN]

If you are advocating to separate Chechnya from Russia then are you also advocating the separation of California, Nevada and New Mexico from America?

I dont think those three states can just seperate from the continent of America, not without like digging some serious fucking trenches and then ignoring the tectonic plate they're on but maybe if they bribe some geologists and map makers...

But seriously, have those three states had a dozen or so rebellions against US rule? If not then the analogy falls flat.

Gorbachev and his party wrote the constitution he was quoting. Yeltsin and Gorbachev were in no way political partners.

I could swear that constitution was written and approved during Yeltsin's seizure of emergency powers.

You’re comparing the colonization of Africa by Europeans to a nation trying to keep one of its historic republics within its borders? You get an F for phailure.

You're comparing people trying to take over and maintain control of Africa to people trying to take over and maintain control of a part of asia? Lunacy!

Last time I checked, Palestinians were not allowed to travel to all parts of Israel but Chechnyans are allowed to travel to all parts of Russia. Same thing? No.

So because Chechens are allowed to travel within their occupyer, they should just kneel down and take it?

But hey, if you feel you'd be better off if another country took over Australia you had your chance in World War 2.

What? You mean Japan? Are you crazy?

I mean do you consider it decent to bow down to invasion and occupation just because you might be "better off"?

What does the actions of a Georgian communist have to do with Russian sovereignty?

I dunno maybe because Stalin was RULING FUGGING RUSSIA AT THE TIME? When a nation commits mass genocide against a state that state has the right and the obligation to secede.

Perhaps you forgot that those Chechnyans made their way back to Chechnya after Stalin died.

Thats your justification? Its ok they were deported and interned because they managed to trek back to their native land after however many years?

Citation needed.

If you'd bothered to read the rest of the Wikipedia article you yourself cited, rather than just taking from it some shit Yeltsin said that fit your argument, you wouldnt need a source. I am not going to bend over backwards to make up for your selective reading.

[Snake Logan]

It was way back before people stopped wasting their time adding in sources because you start arguing about something new every time someone brings up a point you can't contest. Just like I'm not going to bother taking the time to comb the forums looking for citations of sources that you discredited for whatever twisted reason like "communalism" or "homocest" or somesuch. It'd be a waste of time and effort because 1) you wouldn't care and 2) if I'm wrong and you would/do care, you can just look for them yourself.

Obviously you have no idea what example means.

But seriously, have those three states had a dozen or so rebellions against US rule? If not then the analogy falls flat.

Fine. Do you believe the Serbs in Bosnia or the Armenians in Azerbaijan should be allowed to succeed?

I could swear that constitution was written and approved during Yeltsin's seizure of emergency powers.

Emergency powers were introduced in 1993. He made that statement in 1991.

You're comparing people trying to take over and maintain control of Africa to people trying to take over and maintain control of a part of asia? Lunacy!

Russia is trying to maintain control of fucking Russia. Not an sovereign nation… one of its provinces.

So because Chechens are allowed to travel within their occupyer, they should just kneel down and take it?

They are also allowed to get jobs and buy property.

I mean do you consider it decent to bow down to invasion and occupation just because you might be "better off"?

Depends. If my fellow countrymen and I are better off then yes.

I dunno maybe because Stalin was RULING FUGGING RUSSIA AT THE TIME? When a nation commits mass genocide against a state that state has the right and the obligation to secede.

Thats your justification? Its ok they were deported and interned because they managed to trek back to their native land after however many years?

The actions of Stalin don’t represent Russia at all. He was the leader of the USSR. His successor reversed almost everything he done.

If you'd bothered to read the rest of the Wikipedia article you yourself cited, rather than just taking from it some shit Yeltsin said that fit your argument, you wouldnt need a source. I am not going to bend over backwards to make up for your selective reading.

So you are not going to give me your sources?

[Spoon Poetic]

I don't know what example means? I just fekking told you I'm not going to give you any fekking examples. Waste of my time. Look for your own damned examples of cited sources people have given you. Just because I don't want to give you the examples myself doesn't fucking mean I don't know what the word means. If you're going to insult someone, at least try to do it well, jesus.

It seems to me that you are the one somewhat lacking a grasp of the English language. What with homocest, communalism, calling a source a citation, all your incredible fallacious arguments, etc. Invest in a dictionary.

Your egomania is thinly veiled. The theory has been put forth that you are just trying to make trouble with your posts, enjoying riling people up (many would call this "trolling"). I for one think that you really do think that you and your arguments are vastly superior in some way, and therefore when you present a bad argument full of holes and fallacies, you automatically give it the win just because it is from you. Either way, though - is it any surprise that I don't want to waste my time trying to prove something to you?

This post has been edited by Spoon Poetic: 06 February 2008 - 12:40 AM

[Slade]

I'd like to get one thing straight here: JM coined "homocest."

[Spoon Poetic]

Wrong. http://www.chefelf.c...h...st&p=180381
Jm just fixed the spelling. Snake made it up, I guess he thought it was clever.

[Simperin' Fool]

"Homocest"? I could swear I've heard that before...