ransomnote: After your abusive posts to me (here and here), I don't want you to ping me.
For example, in today's instance, you can post my content re Guiliani and Sidney Powell and contradict it without pinging me.
In the General/Chat forum, on a thread titled Q ~ Trust Trump's Plan ~ 03/16/2024 Vol.489, Q Day 2331, stylin19a wrote:
There ya go again, picking and choosing what phrases words to respond to. Gaslighting again.ransomnote: I don't know what you are referring to but I should think peeps would be grateful I did not reply to every line as my posts are lengthy enough when I just focus on key points.I'm puzzled why you would take that tactic when your earllier post today implied there was so much you could dispprove ("where to start?") and then you chose a second tier consideration. You conceded that the chronology matched the sequence of couples (the most critical point) and then pounced on the leftside/rightside issue as if it were the linchpin to our discussion.
You don't follow my doom posts ? But you don't admit when you do follow me and ignore me calling you out when you do follow it ? and instead decide to call out my phrasing ? Nice try.ransomnote: I usually ignore most of your posts (I don't read them) because you seem to focus on undermine posters and their constructive theorizing. I sometimes read them, I rarely respond. You're not worth time and effort.
What did you research and where is it ? From where? I understand tradition. (Sitting Presidents generally do not attend first lady funerals - mostly because of security disruptions.)
Where is this tradition honored? And what is the "protocol" about why they sit where they sit ? Maybe we are discussing apples and oranges.
What exactly is the "position of honor" for first ladies at a first lady funeral ? right or left
Generally, regardless of whose funeral they are usually seated in the order in which they are president - current to farthest...except when they aren't.In researching this post I've seen you throw question after question like I'm supposed to invest in you when your posts don't merit it.It's up to the administration to decide whether to honor certain traditions, or not. Obviously the Trump administration honors the tradition of seating in order in which they were President, and elects the style of leftside/rightside seating in use.
Barbara Bush Funeral - April 2018 - Presidents to The Right?
ransomnote: No, Presidents to the left. President Trump did not attend Barbara Bush's funeral, but honorary space for him was reserved to the left of Melania in the photo.From overhead photos, that's the only row with a gap like that on the aisle.By the way...here is the Federal Register. It contains all the E.O.s back to FDR. Been here a good while.
https://www.federalregister.gov/presidential-documents
You are welcome.ransomnote: The fact that the Federal Register remains is irrelevant to our discussion. I was noticing an odd, time consuming, needless change in WhiteHouse.gov's website regarding Biden's EO's.
I had been using Whitehouse.gov for EO's and EO text because I preferred its formatting when I transferred content to FR and using it put me close to other Whitehouse.gov content of interest. When someone 'removed' all prior EO's from Biden's WHitehouse.gov website, I started using federalregister.gov.
I don't actually believe the content of the original Whitehouse.gov was moved; I believe the webpage designs were updated to ARCHIVE titles and imagery. They would save so much time and effort if they just redirected the Whitehouse.gov domain to search a different IP Address, or used some other means of modifying the directories, modifying the appearance of the original, and creating a new webpage for Brandon. That would make sense to me as I don't believe the Biden crew has passwords for key infrastructure.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ransomnote: In post 748 , you 'back door responded' to my post without pinging me. I appreciated that because I've asked you at least twice not to ping me because you tend toward pointless inciviity and abusive confrontation. Here's the address line in your post 748:
Apparently you didn't like my post 767 because in your next post you responded to me directly, and angrily accused me of being gutless for not pinging you, even though you previously asked me not to do so.
Here's your post 809.
In that post you said you don't recall asking me not to ping you. If you really did not recall my 'No Pings' request then that means, according to your own standards, you are gutless for back door responding (not pinging me) in your post 748, and that, "You used to be better than that."
I don't believe you would have carefully specified WHY you were responding to me (809). "I will now respond to you because of it," unless you recalled my no-ping request. FReeQs respond to each others' rebuttals without telling anyone WHY they are responding, unless there's a previous 'no-ping' request in play. You back door posted in 748 and then justified violating my no ping request by falsely accusing me of back door posting, which is gutless of you by my standards.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you're just an innocent, but otherwise gutless guy, with fallen standards and a bad memory who can't remember that I already asked you 2 - 3 times not to ping me, I am here to help.
STOP PINGING ME. That's my third NO PING request to you. WRITE THIS DOWN SOMEWHERE SAFE.
Asking you to limit your pings to thread business only didn't work because you replied to my request with content-free insults. Here's an example of one of my prior requests (beneath the double lines) that you stop posting to me because you employ abusive verbiage.
I've previously asked you not to ping me because you are abusive (excerpt below). I'll add this link because it exposes you employing troll tactics to disrupt the thread and then lying about it when I pointed it out. There's also cheap shot type insults which you offer before you resume trying to blend in like a normal FReeQ.
Q ~ Trust Trump's Plan ~ 07/26/2023 Vol.467, Q Day 2089