Russ' Trial Set

[scrtr84]

Yeah right... Look, can you prove beyond a shadow of doubt that everyone talking about Russ' situation here, hates him? Does this mean that posters here who are neither fans nor foes, cannot post their unbiased views about Russ' legal issues?

Maybe you need to spend some time outside of your cubicle, to take a breather.

Interesting, yet you(and many others) assume anyone who questions the situation the other way is a fanboy?

It's funny that logic and reason only seem to be valid and applicable when its used for the "other side" of the argument, should someone try to apply it in a way that isn't directed at continuing the gossip, then its just rambling from a blind fanboy. Got it.

Gosh I was neither a fan nor foe of Russ. I'm still neither. My viewpoints are based on the "legal" issues Russ got himself into. Had that not happened, I'd not be talking about Russ at all. Why is this so hard to understand? :

 

[WheredidMergeGo]

Gosh I was neither a fan nor foe of Russ. I'm still neither. My viewpoints are based on the "legal" issues Russ got himself into. Had that not happened, I'd not be talking about Russ at all. Why is this so hard to understand? :

Wow - when you put it like that. It's much clearer.

Though with a cursory search of the boards and topic, re-reading a good amount of your posts on the topic and replies to people on the topic, certainly you could understand how people may have gotten confused on your "viewpoints", right?

 

[scrtr84]

Gosh I was neither a fan nor foe of Russ. I'm still neither. My viewpoints are based on the "legal" issues Russ got himself into. Had that not happened, I'd not be talking about Russ at all. Why is this so hard to understand? :

Wow - when you put it like that. It's much clearer.

Though with a cursory search of the boards and topic, re-reading a good amount of your posts on the topic and replies to people on the topic, certainly you could understand how people may have gotten confused on your "viewpoints", right?

Well speaking of posting history, once you start losing an argument, you retort to telling posters to reread their own posts. That's a habit for you, and is a weak attack.

 

[WheredidMergeGo]

Gosh I was neither a fan nor foe of Russ. I'm still neither. My viewpoints are based on the "legal" issues Russ got himself into. Had that not happened, I'd not be talking about Russ at all. Why is this so hard to understand? :

Wow - when you put it like that. It's much clearer.

Though with a cursory search of the boards and topic, re-reading a good amount of your posts on the topic and replies to people on the topic, certainly you could understand how people may have gotten confused on your "viewpoints", right?

Well speaking of posting history, once you start losing an argument, you retort to telling posters to reread their own posts. That's a habit for you, and is a weak attack.

1. I'm not losing an argument. It funny you assume that I am though. I guess it's easier than actually addressing any real points though eh?
2. Speaking of weak attacks, see #1.

It's not a habit so much as a suggestion. I can see why you would think its a habit as it seems to apply so often. But then again, I don't apply two different levels of standards depending on how much I like or dislike a topic. Meh, that's just me though.

Either way, we do not agree on this topic. We probably never will. I would think you can agree on that. Doesn't that more or less signal the end of this thread? It won't be, but it logically should be.

 

[board monkey]

Yeah right... Look, can you prove beyond a shadow of doubt that everyone talking about Russ' situation here, hates him? Does this mean that posters here who are neither fans nor foes, cannot post their unbiased views about Russ' legal issues?

Maybe you need to spend some time outside of your cubicle, to take a breather.

Interesting, yet you(and many others) assume anyone who questions the situation the other way is a fanboy?

It's funny that logic and reason only seem to be valid and applicable when its used for the "other side" of the argument, should someone try to apply it in a way that isn't directed at continuing the gossip, then its just rambling from a blind fanboy. Got it.

Gosh I was neither a fan nor foe of Russ. I'm still neither. My viewpoints are based on the "legal" issues Russ got himself into. Had that not happened, I'd not be talking about Russ at all. Why is this so hard to understand? :

scrtr84, I've read MOST of your posts and you definitely come across as a "hater" towards Russ and his situation. I actually started ignoring your posts because of the way you post when its a "Russ" thread. I already knew it was something negative towards the man.

 

[greencougar7]

Sheesh..oh the day of Russ being a non topic..what a wonderful dream..that will happen by summer.

Russ, I would like a medium size pizza with mushrooms, and canadian bacon.

 

[scrtr84]

scrtr84, I've read MOST of your posts and you definitely come across as a "hater" towards Russ and his situation. I actually started ignoring your posts because of the way you post when its a "Russ" thread. I already knew it was something negative towards the man.

Just goes to show that things are not always as they seem, eh?

Cheers

 

[scrtr84]

It's not a habit so much as a suggestion.

When you do it all the time, it's a habitual suggestion. But OK instead of "suggesting" posters go back and read their own posts, why not post excerpts supporting your claim instead? I could go back and read all my posts and understand them all, because I (surprise) wrote them. When you suggest posters go back and read their own posts, but don't supply excerpts, it's a waste of time.

 

[scrtr84]

Sheesh..oh the day of Russ being a non topic..what a wonderful dream..that will happen by summer.

Russ, I would like a medium size pizza with mushrooms, and canadian bacon.

No, no, no! The best toppings are extra cheese and pepperoni! ;D