AdamBomb
Joined: 05 Mar 2004
Posts: 3136
Location: Louisiana |
|
 |
|
C.R.A.Z.Y wrote:
there's a chris brown thread on here. why don't you go read what we all wrote in it when we made it? just because i'm not going to answer your question doesn't mean it's " a dodge " it's just L.A.Z.I.ness. we have already talked about chris brown on this forum. heads up. we have this thing called Google.
ha ha it's funny, i ask you what a few people on this forum are probably thinking and then in return you ask me what i think abut chris brown and when i don't answer like you want, it's " a dodge "
i'm not in the tea party i just said it already. i'm pretty sure i know why you want to hear my opinion on chris brown. anyways, if you want to hear what i think about chris brown you're just going to have to come over here and blow me.
fair enough?
Am I allowed to go to sleep first? At this point I don't care what you think about anything. I answered your question. I'm not in the Mel fan club and I have no creepy similarities to their situation. Wish there was more juice for you. Sorry... |
Thu Jul 15, 2010 2:00 pm |
|
|
C.R.A.Z.Y
Joined: 18 Feb 2008
Posts: 2710
Location: Vote for me and i'll vote for you. |
|
|
|
AdamBomb wrote:
C.R.A.Z.Y wrote:
there's a chris brown thread on here. why don't you go read what we all wrote in it when we made it? just because i'm not going to answer your question doesn't mean it's " a dodge " it's just L.A.Z.I.ness. we have already talked about chris brown on this forum. heads up. we have this thing called Google.
ha ha it's funny, i ask you what a few people on this forum are probably thinking and then in return you ask me what i think abut chris brown and when i don't answer like you want, it's " a dodge "
i'm not in the tea party i just said it already. i'm pretty sure i know why you want to hear my opinion on chris brown. anyways, if you want to hear what i think about chris brown you're just going to have to come over here and blow me.
fair enough?
Am I allowed to go to sleep first? At this point I don't care what you think about anything. I answered your question. I'm not in the Mel fan club and I have no creepy similarities to their situation. Wish there was more juice for you. Sorry...
hmm. are you allowed to go to sleep first adam?
it's good to know you don't care about what i think.
i'm afraid your taking me completely out of context.
you wish there were some more juice for me?
is that supposed to sound cool or something?
it doesn't.
like that kid icarus just said = mad suspect.
when other people say they feel like mel's shittbaggery is something we all could be capable of on different levels, that it is human nature, and no one is perfect, i get. your sort of defensive interests, i don't get. making excuses, for why he could be justified. i don't get either. |
|
Thu Jul 15, 2010 2:03 pm |
|
|
crash
Joined: 07 Aug 2003
Posts: 5441
Location: the chocolate city with a marshmallow center and a graham cracker crust of corruption |
i read those last couple of pages pretty fast, but i think what adam was getting at is that the wife might be a piece of shit. of course, this does not preclude mel from being a piece of shit or in any way excuse his actions.
but adam, you have to realize, if you start talking about her pushing buttons and being a gold digger people will assume you're defending his actions. i'll give you the benefit of the doubt but it's not a good look. |
|
Thu Jul 15, 2010 2:50 pm |
|
|
AdamBomb
Joined: 05 Mar 2004
Posts: 3136
Location: Louisiana |
|
|
|
crash wrote:
i read those last couple of pages pretty fast, but i think what adam was getting at is that the wife might be a piece of shit. of course, this does not preclude mel from being a piece of shit or in any way excuse his actions.
but adam, you have to realize, if you start talking about her pushing buttons and being a gold digger people will assume you're defending his actions. i'll give you the benefit of the doubt but it's not a good look.
Thanks for that. I will clarify. There is NO excuse for ever striking a woman. Period. And anyone who does deserves punishment.
My suggestion was that she prompted him to yell and rant so that she could record it. And that is where it ends. It seemed as if she was leading him to admit that he hit her, but I wasn't sure that he clearly admitted that. And I was just questioning her motivation for recording the call. Was it for safety or for monetary gain?
In the context of pushing buttons, I was strictly meaning to get him upset to yell for the recorded phone call, only. Now I can see why people are taking me wrong. |
|
Thu Jul 15, 2010 3:05 pm |
|
|
C.R.A.Z.Y
Joined: 18 Feb 2008
Posts: 2710
Location: Vote for me and i'll vote for you. |
the only defense for ever striking ANYONE is self defense. |
|
Thu Jul 15, 2010 3:15 pm |
|
|
the mean
Certified O.G.
Joined: 31 Jul 2003
Posts: 6486
Location: philly/sacto/kauai/ohio |
C.R.A.Z.Y wrote:
the only defense for ever striking ANYONE is self defense.
Not sure I agree with this, but I think you've been pretty on point in this thread. |
|
Thu Jul 15, 2010 3:16 pm |
|
|
MYOWNCLICHE
Joined: 25 Jan 2004
Posts: 3882
Location: In side YOUR head |
C.R.A.Z.Y wrote:
well i'd love for you to have fun with conspiracies, but whenever people come hard on " the illuminati " and start referring to " them " and " they " i remember there are more interesting theories about stranger conspiracies and even more covert secrets about actual visible threats out there to unravel...
omg You are one of THEM aren't you!!!! |
|
Thu Jul 15, 2010 4:49 pm |
|
|
Laura kHill
Joined: 20 Dec 2007
Posts: 70
Location: kHillville |
AdamBomb wrote:
My suggestion was that she prompted him to yell and rant so that she could record it. And that is where it ends. It seemed as if she was leading him to admit that he hit her, but I wasn't sure that he clearly admitted that. And I was just questioning her motivation for recording the call. Was it for safety or for monetary gain?
People are questioning her WITH the recordings, so can you imagine the bashing she would get without them? That's the "motive" for recording. I keep reading people's comments also questioning why she wasn't crying, more upset, or arguing back like a "normal" person instead of calmly reacting like a machine. Maybe because she knew that if she showed the slightest bit of emotion in her voice then that would have been used as some sort of proof that she was "baiting" him. |
|
Fri Jul 16, 2010 7:38 am |
|
|
Z-0
Joined: 28 Sep 2004
Posts: 700
Location: Sydney |
i feel like I'm reading an episode of the view. |
|
Fri Jul 16, 2010 8:57 am |
|
|
icarus502
kung-pwn master
Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 11276
Location: ann arbor |
Z-0 wrote:
i feel like I'm reading an episode of the view.
That would make you Elizabeth Hasselbeck. |
|
Fri Jul 16, 2010 8:58 am |
|
|
Z-0
Joined: 28 Sep 2004
Posts: 700
Location: Sydney |
icarus502 wrote:
Z-0 wrote:
i feel like I'm reading an episode of the view.
That would make you Elizabeth Hasselbeck.
wouldn't she be the first to burn mel alive? i dont want that. |
|
Fri Jul 16, 2010 9:01 am |
|
|
icarus502
kung-pwn master
Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 11276
Location: ann arbor |
Z-0 wrote:
icarus502 wrote:
Z-0 wrote:
i feel like I'm reading an episode of the view.
That would make you Elizabeth Hasselbeck.
wouldn't she be the first to burn mel alive? i dont want that.
I dunno. I just know she's the stupid one. |
|
Fri Jul 16, 2010 9:02 am |
|
|
Z-0
Joined: 28 Sep 2004
Posts: 700
Location: Sydney |
icarus502 wrote:
Z-0 wrote:
icarus502 wrote:
Z-0 wrote:
i feel like I'm reading an episode of the view.
That would make you Elizabeth Hasselbeck.
wouldn't she be the first to burn mel alive? i dont want that.
I dunno. I just know she's the stupid one.
oh zing...? |
|
Fri Jul 16, 2010 9:03 am |
|
|
C.R.A.Z.Y
Joined: 18 Feb 2008
Posts: 2710
Location: Vote for me and i'll vote for you. |
the mean wrote:
C.R.A.Z.Y wrote:
the only defense for ever striking ANYONE is self defense.
Not sure I agree with this, but I think you've been pretty on point in this thread.
so you are against a person defending yourself, or you think it's ok to just go around striking people? your in depth explanation left me wanting. |
|
Fri Jul 16, 2010 9:06 am |
|
|
Z-0
Joined: 28 Sep 2004
Posts: 700
Location: Sydney |
C.R.A.Z.Y wrote:
the mean wrote:
C.R.A.Z.Y wrote:
the only defense for ever striking ANYONE is self defense.
Not sure I agree with this, but I think you've been pretty on point in this thread.
so you are against a person defending yourself, or you think it's ok to just go around striking people? your in depth explanation left me wanting.
chomksy gave a speech a few years ago regarding violence and the use of it. his stance was that the responsibility of justification laid with the party that enacted violence at the individual level, cutting through the idea that reactionary violence, or defensive violence, is tolerated as an accepted normality. so even in self defense that violence must have its own validation that is seperate from the oppressing violence that may have prompted it. |
|
Fri Jul 16, 2010 9:15 am |
|
|
 
|
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... , 13, 14, 15 Next
All times are GMT - 6 Hours. The time now is Tue May 21, 2013 3:54 am
|
|
|
|
| |
