napacat posted:

Not really...just by the politically correct crowd and the crowd that has to label everyone.  And then there are people like you...who just like to pounce on when they think they see easy prey and really have nothing to add.  

I don't think I have ever read any post of interest you wrote or contributed to.  Really a bunch of drivel.  But carry on...

You certainly have me figured out. I’ve never posted a tasting note, organized or attended an offline, mentioned wines purchased or consumed, shared info about deep discounts, sales or coupons, offered travel advice, invited fellow forumites into my home...

Congratulations, super sleuth. (Weren’t detective called Dicks at one time? Seems appropriate here.) If you ever read one of the wine-related threads you’d realize how embarrassingly asinine you are. Assuming you could set aside your pathological myopia. As for being “easy prey”, that’s on you for being unable to back up your comments with facts. 

While this may have little to no impact, I'll toss this out for consideration.  Given that we have 1st amendment protections for freedom of speech (within certain limits), Napa is free to say (type) what he has been.  Those of us who disagree with these posts have a couple of choices as I see it (I'm disregarding reasoned discussion as another poster has suggested that would be ineffective and the evidence strongly suggests this to be the case).

Shout him down, and in so doing amplify his message.

Ignore him and leave his views in the margin (this is a wine board and I don't think there is any great danger in lending credence to his views by not responding to them).  I would suggest that this course of (in)action would eventually eliminate his views from this forum as he becomes bored.

Of cours

billhike posted:
napacat posted:

Not really...just by the politically correct crowd and the crowd that has to label everyone.  And then there are people like you...who just like to pounce on when they think they see easy prey and really have nothing to add.  

I don't think I have ever read any post of interest you wrote or contributed to.  Really a bunch of drivel.  But carry on...

You certainly have me figured out. I’ve never posted a tasting note, organized or attended an offline, mentioned wines purchased or consumed, shared info about deep discounts, sales or coupons, offered travel advice, invited fellow forumites into my home...

Congratulations, super sleuth. (Weren’t detective called Dicks at one time? Seems appropriate here.) If you ever read one of the wine-related threads you’d realize how embarrassingly asinine you are. Assuming you could set aside your pathological myopia. As for being “easy prey”, that’s on you for being unable to back up your comments with facts. 

Exactly, none of the Chicago crew or anyone who has ever been to a CDP has ever met billhike and shared a bottle or ten.

 

sd-wineaux posted:

While this may have little to no impact, I'll toss this out for consideration.  Given that we have 1st amendment protections for freedom of speech (within certain limits), Napa is free to say (type) what he has been.  Those of us who disagree with these posts have a couple of choices as I see it (I'm disregarding reasoned discussion as another poster has suggested that would be ineffective and the evidence strongly suggests this to be the case).

Shout him down, and in so doing amplify his message.

Ignore him and leave his views in the margin (this is a wine board and I don't think there is any great danger in lending credence to his views by not responding to them).  I would suggest that this course of (in)action would eventually eliminate his views from this forum as he becomes bored.

"Shout him down, and in so doing amplify his message."

Two things wrong with this. First, for the most part, we don't "shout him down." We have laid out a pretty clear case on why this is the most racist, bigoted, sexist, know-nothing, who has ever been U.S president. In addition to these and other loathsome traits (born without a heart) he is a demagogue who plays on the ignorance of a certain resentful sector of our society. Among other things this has led to a documented increase in hate crimes. In response we have gotten obfuscation, deflection, whereaboutism (but, but, Hillary), strawman arguments and non sequiturs.

So, two, when he tries to shovel this shit he naturally gets called out on it. Eventually his muddled thinking, poor writing skills,and repeated nonsense makes it just natural to then "shout him down." However I don't see how this amplifies his message.

bman posted:
jcocktosten posted:

 

Exactly, none of the Chicago crew or anyone who has ever been to a CDP has ever met billhike and shared a bottle or ten.

 

I've met Bill?  Possibly more than once?!!

Once that I recall, 2011. A brief introduction in the backyard of Otis. My first CDP and only second time with a mass group from here. You were easy for me to remember - your ample, distinguished  hair combined with how well you “ married up”.

billhike posted:
bman posted:
jcocktosten posted:

 

Exactly, none of the Chicago crew or anyone who has ever been to a CDP has ever met billhike and shared a bottle or ten.

 

I've met Bill?  Possibly more than once?!!

Once that I recall, 2011. A brief introduction in the backyard of Otis. My first CDP and only second time with a mass group from here. You were easy for me to remember - your ample, distinguished  hair combined with how well you “ married up”.

I was thinking you had mistaken me for someone else until your last 5 words above, something I hear a lot! 

billhike posted:
napacat posted:

Not really...just by the politically correct crowd and the crowd that has to label everyone.  And then there are people like you...who just like to pounce on when they think they see easy prey and really have nothing to add.  

I don't think I have ever read any post of interest you wrote or contributed to.  Really a bunch of drivel.  But carry on...

You certainly have me figured out. I’ve never posted a tasting note, organized or attended an offline, mentioned wines purchased or consumed, shared info about deep discounts, sales or coupons, offered travel advice, invited fellow forumites into my home...

Congratulations, super sleuth. (Weren’t detective called Dicks at one time? Seems appropriate here.) If you ever read one of the wine-related threads you’d realize how embarrassingly asinine you are. Assuming you could set aside your pathological myopia. As for being “easy prey”, that’s on you for being unable to back up your comments with facts. 

Rather than reply the way you did to my question about the Canadian broadcaster, you could have not said anything or posted a classy response as RobS did.  But you do not appear to have any class at all.

And you most certainly have posted...etc, I stated they are just not of any interest to me.  

You folks here wonder where people go. You are a small group of like minded boors that  like to pounce on people who are not in 100% agreement with you.  Just like the liberals of the day.  A very select few think they own this board and must police it and regulate who can and say what. 

You drive people away that may want to post more interesting things. Instead you're left with "What did you have for lunch" "what are you wearing"...nonsense. 

 You're a mostly unwelcoming group.  Love the days when DRAB used to post.  As I'm sure some of you did as well...but thank the few pompous A-Holes for driving interesting people away.

Napacat. KSC02 and I had a discussion recently and we are not sure about something. Did the 3 of us get together for dinner one evening in the Flint (MI) area? It probably would have been about 10 years ago and although your current profile says you joined in 2014, your DRAB comment suggests you were around long before that. Was that you?

steve8 posted:

Napacat. KSC02 and I had a discussion recently and we are not sure about something. Did the 3 of us get together for dinner one evening in the Flint (MI) area? It probably would have been about 10 years ago and although your current profile says you joined in 2014, your DRAB comment suggests you were around long before that. Was that you?

Steve, I hope you and J are doing well.

Napa, what was your WSForum name prior to creating this handle? 😂

napacat posted:

You folks here wonder where people go. You are a small group of like minded boors that  like to pounce on people who are not in 100% agreement with you.  Just like the liberals of the day.  A very select few think they own this board and must police it and regulate who can and say what. 

 

Who has regulated and stopped you from saying anything? No one. No "select few" have censored, or prevented, you from writing any ignorant thought that comes into your head. The majority of people do not support the racist, bigot, sexist know-nothing-in-chief--you do. We have given you the facts and you've responded with transparent deflections, untruths and spin. So as I see it you have a few choices:

  1. Stop coming to this thread. I, myself, never even read it until about a year ago.
  2. Stop posting your defense of the racist, bigot, sexist know-nothing-in chief. (This would be your choice no one will "police" you.)
  3. Keep posting your defense of the racist, bigot, sexist know-nothing-in chief and take your well-deserved lumps.
steve8 posted:

Napacat. KSC02 and I had a discussion recently and we are not sure about something. Did the 3 of us get together for dinner one evening in the Flint (MI) area? It probably would have been about 10 years ago and although your current profile says you joined in 2014, your DRAB comment suggests you were around long before that. Was that you?

Steve8...no not me.   I have been around here for quite a while...would gather 04 or so.

robsutherland posted:

 

I agree that everyone should wear a poppy leading up to this day. The thing is that everyone watching that rant by Cherry understood that what he was saying was in effect "those foreign, brown people streaming into our country are not like us, don't care about us, will never be like us and shouldn't be here."

If the majority of Canadian's feel that way about him, imagine how we feel about Trump.

Don't know that I agree there was a racial component to it.  Historically, he's been more opposed to Europeans (Uke-A-Rainians in particular) and the French than anyone else.  I think he's generally opposed to anyone that doesn't have an anglophone name, regardless of race.  

Regardless, I think Rogers saw this as a convenient excuse to get rid of him.  His contract wasn't going to be renewed and frankly he's said worse things, including things much more explicit and offside vis a vis immigrants in the past and he's stuck around.  The reality is the game has passed him by and he hasn't been relevant or even entertaining for 15 years or so.  He's long past his best before date so Rogers put him out to pasture.  And good riddance. 

I do find it interesting though that Cherry's comments caused him to be fired (deservedly), but our prime minister has dressed up in black or brownface on at least three separate occasions, and wasn't able to say those were the only three, and still was re-elected.  If Don still moved the needle like he used to, I suspect the outcome would have been different. 

csm posted:
robsutherland posted:

 

I agree that everyone should wear a poppy leading up to this day. The thing is that everyone watching that rant by Cherry understood that what he was saying was in effect "those foreign, brown people streaming into our country are not like us, don't care about us, will never be like us and shouldn't be here."

If the majority of Canadian's feel that way about him, imagine how we feel about Trump.

Don't know that I agree there was a racial component to it.  Historically, he's been more opposed to Europeans (Uke-A-Rainians in particular) and the French than anyone else.  I think he's generally opposed to anyone that doesn't have an anglophone name, regardless of race.  

Regardless, I think Rogers saw this as a convenient excuse to get rid of him.  His contract wasn't going to be renewed and frankly he's said worse things, including things much more explicit and offside vis a vis immigrants in the past and he's stuck around.  The reality is the game has passed him by and he hasn't been relevant or even entertaining for 15 years or so.  He's long past his best before date so Rogers put him out to pasture.  And good riddance. 

I do find it interesting though that Cherry's comments caused him to be fired (deservedly), but our prime minister has dressed up in black or brownface on at least three separate occasions, and wasn't able to say those were the only three, and still was re-elected.  If Don still moved the needle like he used to, I suspect the outcome would have been different. 

CSM, just a guess here...but I would think that Cherry is right leaning and Trudeau is a liberal.  That's the difference right there.  The GOV of VA also withstood wearing blackface (also a liberal).  The media will pick and chose who they will try and destroy.

napacat posted:
csm posted:
robsutherland posted:

 

I agree that everyone should wear a poppy leading up to this day. The thing is that everyone watching that rant by Cherry understood that what he was saying was in effect "those foreign, brown people streaming into our country are not like us, don't care about us, will never be like us and shouldn't be here."

If the majority of Canadian's feel that way about him, imagine how we feel about Trump.

Don't know that I agree there was a racial component to it.  Historically, he's been more opposed to Europeans (Uke-A-Rainians in particular) and the French than anyone else.  I think he's generally opposed to anyone that doesn't have an anglophone name, regardless of race.  

Regardless, I think Rogers saw this as a convenient excuse to get rid of him.  His contract wasn't going to be renewed and frankly he's said worse things, including things much more explicit and offside vis a vis immigrants in the past and he's stuck around.  The reality is the game has passed him by and he hasn't been relevant or even entertaining for 15 years or so.  He's long past his best before date so Rogers put him out to pasture.  And good riddance. 

I do find it interesting though that Cherry's comments caused him to be fired (deservedly), but our prime minister has dressed up in black or brownface on at least three separate occasions, and wasn't able to say those were the only three, and still was re-elected.  If Don still moved the needle like he used to, I suspect the outcome would have been different. 

CSM, just a guess here...but I would think that Cherry is right leaning and Trudeau is a liberal.  That's the difference right there.  The GOV of VA also withstood wearing blackface (also a liberal).  The media will pick and chose who they will try and destroy.

Oh, that evil media. You sure are smart. 

The Old Man posted:
napacat posted:
csm posted:
robsutherland posted:

 

I agree that everyone should wear a poppy leading up to this day. The thing is that everyone watching that rant by Cherry understood that what he was saying was in effect "those foreign, brown people streaming into our country are not like us, don't care about us, will never be like us and shouldn't be here."

If the majority of Canadian's feel that way about him, imagine how we feel about Trump.

Don't know that I agree there was a racial component to it.  Historically, he's been more opposed to Europeans (Uke-A-Rainians in particular) and the French than anyone else.  I think he's generally opposed to anyone that doesn't have an anglophone name, regardless of race.  

Regardless, I think Rogers saw this as a convenient excuse to get rid of him.  His contract wasn't going to be renewed and frankly he's said worse things, including things much more explicit and offside vis a vis immigrants in the past and he's stuck around.  The reality is the game has passed him by and he hasn't been relevant or even entertaining for 15 years or so.  He's long past his best before date so Rogers put him out to pasture.  And good riddance. 

I do find it interesting though that Cherry's comments caused him to be fired (deservedly), but our prime minister has dressed up in black or brownface on at least three separate occasions, and wasn't able to say those were the only three, and still was re-elected.  If Don still moved the needle like he used to, I suspect the outcome would have been different. 

CSM, just a guess here...but I would think that Cherry is right leaning and Trudeau is a liberal.  That's the difference right there.  The GOV of VA also withstood wearing blackface (also a liberal).  The media will pick and chose who they will try and destroy.

Oh, that evil media. You sure are smart. 

Provide a more logical and valid reason.  

napacat posted:
The Old Man posted:
napacat posted:
csm posted:
robsutherland posted:

 

I agree that everyone should wear a poppy leading up to this day. The thing is that everyone watching that rant by Cherry understood that what he was saying was in effect "those foreign, brown people streaming into our country are not like us, don't care about us, will never be like us and shouldn't be here."

If the majority of Canadian's feel that way about him, imagine how we feel about Trump.

Don't know that I agree there was a racial component to it.  Historically, he's been more opposed to Europeans (Uke-A-Rainians in particular) and the French than anyone else.  I think he's generally opposed to anyone that doesn't have an anglophone name, regardless of race.  

Regardless, I think Rogers saw this as a convenient excuse to get rid of him.  His contract wasn't going to be renewed and frankly he's said worse things, including things much more explicit and offside vis a vis immigrants in the past and he's stuck around.  The reality is the game has passed him by and he hasn't been relevant or even entertaining for 15 years or so.  He's long past his best before date so Rogers put him out to pasture.  And good riddance. 

I do find it interesting though that Cherry's comments caused him to be fired (deservedly), but our prime minister has dressed up in black or brownface on at least three separate occasions, and wasn't able to say those were the only three, and still was re-elected.  If Don still moved the needle like he used to, I suspect the outcome would have been different. 

CSM, just a guess here...but I would think that Cherry is right leaning and Trudeau is a liberal.  That's the difference right there.  The GOV of VA also withstood wearing blackface (also a liberal).  The media will pick and chose who they will try and destroy.

Oh, that evil media. You sure are smart. 

Provide a more logical and valid reason.  

As I've said all you'll do in response is engage in logical fallacies, non sequiturs, falsehoods, deflections, and spin. It is a joke for you to ask for logic.

Please delete excess dialogue in responding to a long thread, ladies and gents..  It makes for a much more "readable" page on what is already a difficult platform.  If you don't know what I'm talking about, ask one of your kids.  Or a grandchild.      

PH

napacat posted:
  The media will pick and chose who they will try and destroy...

The most "successful" cable news outlet in the country just happens to be Fox News.  If the media were all that good at destroying people, why would your president be facing only the third public impeachment inquiry in our history?  Certainly they could have prevented this, no?  You know, done some destroying and stuff?

PH

purplehaze posted:

Please delete excess dialogue in responding to a long thread, ladies and gents..  It makes for a much more "readable" page on what is already a difficult platform.  If you don't know what I'm talking about, ask one of your kids.  Or a grandchild.      

PH

I knew I should have. 

purplehaze posted:
napacat posted:
  The media will pick and chose who they will try and destroy...

The most "successful" cable news outlet in the country just happens to be Fox News.  If the media were all that good at destroying people, why would your president be facing only the third public impeachment inquiry in our history?  Certainly they could have prevented this, no?  You know, done some destroying and stuff?

PH

There's so many answers to his inane question, why bother? He'll just give you some unrelated nonsense back. Then he'll vomit out some more bulllshit that I guess among his friends is considered wide and deep. Let that sink in. Somewhere there are some people who think this guy is smart. Trumpers of a feather...

Back to the most important topic right now in the United States:

Would it be a surprise that just the first five minutes of Devin Nunes' opening statement was a jumble of hyperbolic lies and obfuscation?

As a side note, I'm sick of members of the Trumpublican Party and Fox State News calling the Democratic Party the "Democrat Party." There is no such thing.

The Old Man posted:

Back to the most important topic right now in the United States:

Would it be a surprise that just the first five minutes of Devin Nunes' opening statement was a jumble of hyperbolic lies and obfuscation?

As a side note, I'm sick of members of the Trumpublican Party and Fox State News calling the Democratic Party the "Democrat Party." There is no such thing.

Seconded re: “Democrat Party”. 

Nunes is an obvious fool. 

Well, I can't imagine two more credible witnesses than those two guys.  Great job by the staff attorney summarizing and identifying, and stressing key aspects of this shit show.  Really good job by all concerned.  Can't wait to see what garbage the repubs will bring out.  Should be interesting.

PH

winetarelli posted:
Seconded re: “Democrat Party”. 

Nunes is an obvious fool. 

They do this as a slur, plain and simple.  I actually called thistlintom out on this terminology some months back here on the boards.  If I recall, tom indicated that he was unaware of the use of this term as being perceived as derogatory.  

PH

purplehaze posted:

Well, I can't imagine two more credible witnesses than those two guys.

Bill Taylor credible? He's a "deep state" actor who spent 50 years of service to this country and was just waiting for a demagogue like Trump to become president so he could undermine, and lie, and him.

The GOP has already telegraphed that it will settle on: “Trump tried to extort Ukraine but (1) You can’t blame him, he has no idea what he is doing, (2) he failed so ‘no harm, no foul’, and (3) every President does it.”  While Trump is an obvious incompetent gord, it is not an excuse. The other two are so preposterous, I hope truth can get through to some people. But these excuses are so damaging to public trust and understanding of law.  

And the “rule of law” party reveals itself — it was never about that for most of them.  It was for a few, but they’ve all jumped ship. For the remainers, they just wanted to imprison poor and Black people who broke the law. 

Add Reply

Likes (0)
×
×
×
×