Posted on 10/03/2006 6:45:11 AM PDT by HastertFan
You are very amusing, I must admit, in your inability even to understand what it was that I said. But for the sake of "closure", I will say, OK you win, I am actually Al Franken. You were a genius to spot that. WOW!
Anyone can reply to any post, whether it was directed to them or not.
As a lowly n00b, not a Mod, and more importantly, not FR's owner, YOU have absolutely no right at all, to tell another person 1) to not reply to you 2) leave you alone 3) go away 3) get a job 5) get a life 6) "grow a perspective 7) the rest of the drivel you posted.
Here's a helpful hint.........read more, post less, and even more important, don't ever think that you're better than everyone else here.
Well, at least it was nice to see that you misread poor "Suzy Quzy" just as you misread me; the way I read it she was being humorous, ironic, in her obvious tongue-in-cheek calling for a resignation, echoing that bigger current story where Speaker Hastert is now the one on trial, with calls for resignation, needing to be defended for some reason, more so than Mark Foley. This story (the HR guy from Wash Times) hasn't gotten any attention compared to the other, which has been monopolizing the news for days.
But hell, maybe I am misreading her, and you, and everyone else, and even myself. All I know is, at this point I have a headache and need some sleep. But seriously, how and why and what would a "DU troll" have to say about issues like the one on this thread? What would he be trying to do or accomplish, and what would he mean if he used the same words I used, which I now have read twenty times and still see nothing wrong with---but then again I'm used to my own tone of voice, and others might not be. It just gets really tedious to think I have to explain every word.
And OF COURSE I know that anyone can respond to anyone on any thread--I do it all the time. I was responding to this guy's relentless bombardment with more and more misdirected misreading when he didn't catch my tone of voice or, yeah, I will say it again, the irony that I thought I was highlighting that the media was now having a field day with outing Republicans for the same kind of perversions that they usually give Dems a pass on. But man, to have to explain that should NOT be necessary!
There are very good reasons for the rules on FR and to not follow them, gets on in BIG trouble.
BTW, you are supposed to include the person you are talking about in the header. Simple courtesy goes a long way here.
I'm not only a Viking Kitty, but a charter member of RKBA. I know what a troll looks like. You haven't been here long enough to know diddley and I'm not going to explain any more "stuff" to you. Apparently you don't retain much anyway.
You were yelling at a WOMAN. If you would lurk and just read, after a while you do get to know who's who around here. But, she TOLD you that she is a woman and you are still calling her a "guy".
Actually, she wasn't even "yelling" at you, but it seems that you can't take a very normal FR back and forth. Well, you know what they say.....IF YOU CAN'T STAND THE HEAT, GET OUT OF THE KITCHEN! In other words.....grow a thicker skin or give up posting.
Yes, if you have to explain your posts, that DOES mean that you don't know what you're doing. And posting trollishly, WILL get you into bigger trouble than you've found on this thread.
A FReeper wrote earlier about this story:
****
There is another dimension (above) to this editorial to dump Hastert ---- and it has to do with the Times worried about their own image with regard to a recent in-house scandal (above) involving a sexual predator.
I have heard from reliable sources at the Times that management is in near panic mode over the in-house scandal and fears that this will be used against them, tainting their image as a "family values" paper. . .etc. They are in the extreme overreacting mode and are not thinking clearly.
****
I tend to give that a little credence.
This is my take, as well. This is part of a legal and PR strategy to position the paper as "walking the walk" on sexual improprieties.
By the way, have you noticed the old media referring to the Washington Times (after this putrid editorial against Hastert) as a main CONSERVATIVE newspaper.
When was the last time you heard them refer to the NYT or The Washington Post as a liberal newspaper?
I hate the old media because they still rule over the ignorant and disinterested voters.
****
The socialist/Marxist/liberal media is the most destructive, relentless, and ruthless enemy of this Republic.
****
Heck, haven't you noticed the old media now referring to the Washington Times at all? Before this, they pretended it did not exist. Now suddenly the media wants to give such serious coverage and mature consideration to the Times' viewpoint.
Herb Kohl keeps a low profile, and stays out of trouble....but at times like this one wonders if he gets mighty nervous.
And that's what this forum is about. I know you've only been here a short time, but assuming you are educable, perhaps you'll catch on eventually.
But with the way you whine and cry when confronted, I doubt you'll make it very long even if you aren't a leftist......
Sorry guys, I do thank you for your guidance. I love FR, and you both seem like nice people. It is easy to be misunderstood here, and anywhere else on the 'net, since one thing cold print does NOT provide is "tone of voice".
For that we need emoticons, etc. and notices like "sarcasm" as a way to alert people who may be reading us just what "tone of voice" we are using. I have never been able to use emoticons or the other. PLUS, I have NEVER known how to pull a quote from someone's post and put it at the top of my response so that they know exactly what I am responding to. Can I learn how to do that on something that was once posted on FR, called HTML BOOTCAMP?
Knowing how to do that would not only help me on FR but on the myriad other e mails I send out. thanks.
To post a quote it's helpful to, after you copy and paste the comment you want to respond to, put it in italics by using < followed by an 'i' followed by > (Putting a 'p' between those marks will give you a new paragraph).
Something very helpful is to put /sarc after you make a comment that you don't want to be taken seriously. It's especially good if you are brand new, and it will avoid many misunderstandings. A whole lot of folks are going to think you're a troll if you post things like you did here without the sarcasm tag.
I appreciate very much your apology. The problem in situations like this is that they tend to escalate and get blown way out of proportion........and I apologize for any part I played in letting that happen.
Let me know if you have any other questions, and in the meantime, I'll hunt down that FR tutorial.....
Oh............and you're right. We're both nice people, aren't we, nopardons? :)
Oh...........I forgot..........after the quote you want to put </i> to take the italics off before you post your response to it.
It's a Freeper Lexicon from the year 2000, and in post #2 you'll see a link to HTML Bootcamp.
Hope that helps!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.