EJSG19 wrote:Who's the one that thinks a person should have to wait to defend themselves until somebody has set a foot inside their house?
plblark wrote:I think he renounced that position when he realized people could use it against him just because he was making a good point ...
plblark wrote:I think he renounced that position when he realized people could use it against him just because he was making a good point ...
VikesFan1 wrote:What was the original arguement?
hammAR wrote:VikesFan1 wrote:What was the original arguement?
No argument, it was in Tejas, end of discussion and "what-ifs"....................
time to move on, nothing to see from here, unless you can see Tejas from the Gopher.......
user842 wrote:I see what you did there, Blark.
EJSG19 wrote:Haven't been VOR for months. Last I heard Pat Cannon was the top nominee..
EJSG19 wrote:plblark wrote:I think he renounced that position when he realized people could use it against him just because he was making a good point ...
Plus being VOR was no fun when you do make a good point, pretty much soundly whip the opposing side, and then they are still too stuborn to realize it and proceed to continue with their incorrect position.
Haven't been VOR for months. Last I heard Pat Cannon was the top nominee.
This is the internet. I can't take it as serious as a person should, while putting up with that kind of crap. More power to my successor.
VikesFan1 wrote:plblark wrote:I think he renounced that position when he realized people could use it against him just because he was making a good point ...
Ok, there's clearly a misunderstanding here. My position is this: I think know that shooting someone through your effin kitchen window is more likely to win you a trip to a courtroom than any good samaritan awards. Why? (This is where the discussion part comes in.)
EDIT: I thought you were saying that I renounced my position on something... After re-reading it now I see what you were saying.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests