The guy's name, the photo, the backstory, his plan to run for Congress . . .
Just savor it.
"Man charged in Jan. 6 riot who 'chugged' wine in Capitol wants to run for Congress"
quote
Jason Riddle told NBC Boston that he's still working on the details of his campaign, but plans to run to represent New Hampshire's second district in 2022.
"Feel free" . . . I read that as "Why (the heck) don't you . . ."
It wasn't really part of the framework that you (2.5) set up there, of "About the narrative that the events of January 6 were part of an insurrection . . ." I thought of this as more comical than anything else. With the wine. And this guy who says he's going to compete for a U.S. House seat and will (soon?) figure out what ideas he wants to present with his candidacy.
But there's a deeper truth. I made it a New Topic because--whether it's a rational thought or not--I thought a New Topic might pull in a "customer" or two that would otherwise just scroll past the original "insurrection narrative" Topic that was already set up.
Threads about other threads? Starting new threads about already existing threads? That somewhat famous prohibition or "No No" from the Possting Guidelines?
I think there's something even worse than that. The forum flatlining. For the last few days before this one, it seemed like the only Politics on the forum was between "sourmash", "randye" and myself. And since one of that threesome almost entirely ignores another one of that threesome . . . well, it doesn't exactly shape up as "lively" discussion.
The idea of an Ignore function for the forum software has been discussed before, from time to time. Say--and this is just hypothetical--if I wanted to be able to select on forum member "randye" and have the forum automatically block any public messages or posts from that account from appearing on my video monitor. But who's to say that Cliff Pennock should do "this" or "that" to tamper any further with the forum software?
I have my small (very small) bag of hacks or "tricks" that I use to navigate and interact with the forum without seeing (for the most part) what I don't want to see.
Feel free to PM me if you want to have this "priceless" technical assistance.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 06-14-2021).]
"Feel free" . . . I read that as "Why (the heck) don't you . . ."
Threads about other threads? Starting new threads about already existing threads? That somewhat famous prohibition or "No No" from the Possting Guidelines?
I think there's something even worse than that. The forum flatlining.
For all of the hooting, complaining and outright bullshitting you do about "posting rules" you sure as hell don't bat an eye about violating them yourself.
In fact you even acknowledge that the rule exists and THEN you "rationalize" why you intentionally violate it while simultaneously flipping your middle finger at Cliff Pennock while you pretend that it's YOUR prerogative to decide what is "best for the forum".
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 06-14-2021).]
Feel free to put this stuff in THE thread that has existed about the Jan 6 riots since April, instead of starting new ones.
You seem to be hinting that you would prefer he post these things only in your thread. I personally have no problem with multiple threads regarding the same subject as long as each is usually a bit different. I
You seem to be hinting that you would prefer he post these things only in your thread.
I'm a bit surprised that somehow you believe that anyone on this forum "owns" a thread or that you would suggest it, even obliquely.
To that point, I don't recall 2.5 ever declaring any of the threads he starts as "his" and I certainly didn't take his suggestion in this thread as such.
The only one that really owns any thread on Pennock's Fiero Forum is the one man that has the sole power to close, move and delete them.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 06-15-2021).]
I'm a bit surprised that somehow you believe that anyone on this forum "owns" a thread or that you would suggest it, even obliquely.
To that point, I don't recall 2.5 ever declaring any of the threads he starts as "his" and I certainly didn't take his suggestion in this thread as such.
I've (for years) publicly stated on several occasions, that anytime I (or anyone else) clicks 'Submit Reply' that the thread belongs to the PFF community at-large (and Cliff Pennock) and each thread's path is free to go wherever it goes. No one owns a thread and no one (except Cliff Pennock) has the authority to say who may post where or when.
Originally posted by rinselberg: The idea of an Ignore function for the forum software has been discussed before, from time to time. Say--and this is just hypothetical--if I wanted to be able to select on forum member "randye" and have the forum automatically block any public messages or posts from that account from appearing on my video monitor. But who's to say that Cliff Pennock should do "this" or "that" to tamper any further with the forum software?
I have my small (very small) bag of hacks or "tricks" that I use to navigate and interact with the forum without seeing (for the most part) what I don't want to see.
Feel free to PM me if you want to have this "priceless" technical assistance.
I have that "priceless" ability already. I can "ignore' or "laugh" at anything.
Did 'ja know, ... the more contentious threads get the most traffic ? Even from members who don't post. Everyone watches a train wreck, we don't watch auto races to hope we don't see a crash.
It's a sendup of the idea of deploying exacting legal terminology to characterize the events of January 6.
And yet, in one fell swoop, it also advances the story of the ongoing effort by investigators and prosecutors to hold January 6 wrongdoers to account with facts-based reportage.
It's an effort to memorialize January 6 in much the same way that Apocalypse Now memorialized the American involvement in Vietnam.
"Number One lawyer for Number One clients"
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 06-15-2021).]
It's a sendup of the idea of deploying exacting legal terminology to characterize the events of January 6.
And yet, in one fell swoop, it also advances the story of the ongoing effort by investigators and prosecutors to hold January 6 wrongdoers to account with facts-based reportage.
It's an effort to memorialize January 6 in much the same way that Apocalypse Now memorialized the American involvement in Vietnam.
Posted with extra clarity for you sir, in response to your quoted post above: Why the heck don't you : refute the claims in the thread I referenced (below), instead of starting a new one full of empty leftist bologna cherry picked manufactured bytes and reinterpreted headlines (with no meat in them) that seem to be trying to justify what the details of the aforementioned thread (https://www.fiero.nl/forum/Forum6/HTML/126412.html) refute?
[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 06-15-2021).]
Originally posted by 2.5: Posted with extra clarity for you sir, in response to your quoted post above: Why the heck don't you : refute the claims in the thread I referenced (below), instead of starting a new one full of empty leftist bologna cherry picked manufactured bytes and reinterpreted headlines (with no meat in them) that seem to be trying to justify what the details of the aforementioned thread (https://www.fiero.nl/forum/Forum6/HTML/126412.html) refute?
Why don't you reserve some judgement about the events of January 6 until the various federal and state-level investigations of it are farther along?
Now maybe you are thinking "It's already been 5 months, going on 6 months, since January 6," but investigations of this size can run for an entire year or more before the last indictments are filed and the last courtroom trials are held.
I personally don't expect to see anyone indicted for Insurrection. That's a high bar to overcome, or a big ask (of a jury) for a prosecutor. The Conspiracy charges are certainly piling up--as evidenced by the various news reports that I have been putting on display here (across a few different threads.)
The reporters that I follow, both online and on MSNBC (TV) have referred to the events of January 6 with a veritable smorgasbord of descriptions: a conspiracy to overturn a presidential election; a riot; an assault or attack upon or an invasion of the Capitol Building. A siege, as in "They laid siege to the nation's capitol building."
These are not prosecutors, speaking in court case filings or courtroom trials, and it's not rational to subject their discourse to the exacting standards of the legal profession.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 06-16-2021).]
It's an effort to memorialize January 6 in much the same way that Apocalypse Now memorialized the American involvement in Vietnam.
Yeah
That's completely appropriate.....
.....because just like your LEFTIST"insurrection"FAIRY TALE, Apocalypse Now is also FICTION based on Joseph Conrad's 1899 novel "Heart of Darkness" and the fictional character "Colonel Kurtz" isn't an army colonel, he's a fictional ivory trader in the Congo and "Captain Willard" is actually Conrad's fictional character "Charles Marlow" who is retelling his fictional trip up the Congo River, NOT the Nung River in Cambodia.
It's no wonder you LEFTISTS have so much trouble with objective truth, history and reality.
Your profound ignorance of actual history is also why you likely found the idea that "Jan. 6 guy seeks House seat" such a big deal because you have no clue that actual Demorat insurrectionists served in Congress in both the House and Senate in post civil war years.
You keep right on "memorializing" and we'll keep on laughing at you.
By the way, neither you or your fellow LEFTIST chuckleheads that you watch on MSLSD know what the meaning of a "siege" is and your personal history of your "legal prognostications" is as notoriously WRONG as your miserable grasp of history.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 06-18-2021).]
Why don't you reserve some judgement about the events of January 6 until the various federal and state-level investigations of it are farther along?
I am reserving some, but not all. But I won't lie about it, or spread lies.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:
The reporters that I follow, both online and on MSNBC (TV) have referred to the events of January 6 with a veritable smorgasbord of descriptions: a conspiracy to overturn a presidential election; a riot; an assault or attack upon or an invasion of the Capitol Building. A siege, as in "They laid siege to the nation's capitol building."