ok, I will keep this in mind when reading your posts and judge them accordingly.

However, in most circles, assertions that are based on nothing more than imagination, hypothesizing and emotion have no credibility. They are less valuable than those that are based on fact, reason, and evidence. As they should be.

Nice try, Mel. You should keep it in mind reading my posts! If you find any. Similarly, I do most certainly keep it in mind when I read yours!


Right. Since Mike's thread is now gone, I suppose the assertion was based on imagination, then.[/quote]


I'm a scientist. I base everything I do on fact, reason, and evidence. As I should.

-ol' 2long

But he didn't need to blow anyones anonymity. He could have easily done it by pulling up specific cases on the board without violating anyones anonynimity. He didn't need an actual name to substantiate his assertion. But he couldn't come up with any. Because he has none.

He tried to use Mike as his evidence, but that didn't work because Mike was specifically told to NOT engage the OM.

So, it was ludicrous to make the assertion that confronting could lead to "violence" in the absence of any evidence. Rather, the evidence indicates just the opposite.

Yes you should but I'm not seeing any evidence of that.

Again, Mel, I heard through his typed words that 6YL believes confrontations CAN, MAY, MIGHT, COULD, CHANCE OF, however I can spell it out to be understood here... I beliveve that 6YL stated that he believes violence becomes POSSIBLE when a confrontation takes place.

I do not recall reading on any of the threads that 6yl said confrontation DOES lead to violence. He did not state that one unequivically leads to the other. If I'm wrong, I apologize. I don't want to peruse the posts to prove a point here. I followed the discussion on the various threads where it was taking place as it went along. I do recall specifically on Mike's thread where 6YL typed the word "a" and when someone quoted 6YL back in quotes (not directly copied from 6YL's post itself) the word "a" was changed to "the" as in the only way. 6YL was directly misquoted and that one word misquote made a big difference. I stayed out of it because the conversation was all over the place and I was exhausted by it all.

Among the millions of factors that may also be involved as to whether or not a BS chooses to confront the OP is if the A is still happening or if it's over. I don't know if it matters, just throwing that out there.

Anyway, I'll step out now. Just wanted to say that I interpretted what 6YL was saying differently from what others read. I hope y'all have a nice evening.

Of COURSE it CAN lead to violence. DUH.

Holy cow...

Don't ever confront anyone about anything I guess.

ok, so this is another example of an assertion that can't be substantiated?

I believe you sort of contradicted yourself earlier in this thread when you said that unsupported assertions were just as valueble to you as supported assertions. That is sure not a sign of someone who claims to "base everything I do on fact, reason, and evidence."

I think I am starting to understand why you agree with 6years. The facts contradict your stance.

Yes. I saw his written word. And I responded that such an opinion is not very credible based on past experience. We CAN, MAY, MIGHT, COULD, CHANCE OF, hop like a bunny to the Easter Egg Parade, it doesn't mean we are likely to do so. An assertion based on nothing more than a hypothetical is no substitute for evidence and reason and logic.

Rather, we are more likely to inflict a huge blow on the affair by confronting the OP, as the past has indicated. And I am very unlikely to hop like a bunny.

con-front / [kuhn-fruhnt]

–verb (used with object)

1. to face in hostility or defiance; oppose: The feuding factions confronted one another.

2. to present for acknowledgment, contradiction, etc.; set face to face: They confronted him with evidence of his crime.

3. to stand or come in front of; stand or meet facing: The two long-separated brothers confronted each other speechlessly.

4. to be in one's way: the numerous obstacles that still confronted him.

5. to bring together for examination or comparison.

It was made to sound like MB posters advocated a BS going to punch out the OP. No one has ever said such a thing. Many have said they understood WANTING to and the anger and rage the BS may feeling during the rollercoaster ride, but 6yl was saying much more than that. Talk about a stretch.

We agree! And it can also lead to justice. It can go both ways. Imagine that!

NOW I'm done. (I think... )

Peace out, everyone.

BINGO!

I'm truly worried about your CPU, Mel. Time for an upgrade.

-ol' 2long

*Sparky grabs bag of popcorn and pulls chair closer to monitor for better view*

And this is what folks need to keep in mind. It is more likely to lead to JUSTICE based on past experience.

Even so, if it is suggested that a BS confront a OP and he is too violent to do so, IT IS UP TO HIM TO NOT GO. Or to bring a friend. The only one who has the power to make the choice to be violent is that individual. The board does not have the POWER to make anyone be violent or not be violent. Just as it did not have the power to STOP MIKE from visiting the OM.

People are not mindless sheeples. They are responsible for their choices. PERIOD.

Me Too!!

You mean to tell me that I deserved the ticket I got for talking on the cell phone while driving?!

Those facists gave you a ticket for cell phone talking?? You shoulda told em you got the idea from a forum on the internet.

I believe EVERYTHING I read on the Internet.