Well, I'm not going to do it, especially for something so obvious, simply because you decide to show up and challenge me on the point. How many times was I mocked for asking for citations? Yes, you're right. I don't know because I'm not going to cite that either. Odd (not really) that you didn't challenge my claim along with Antony's. Then, I would have taken the request somewhat more seriously and provided for you some of the results that came up when I googled the issue.

If you don't want me here, that's fine. I've been honest about the past with you, came clean about my little used alter-ego (Mr. Robot), and apologized. In the past three years, and not at all related to my desire to come back to this board, I've come to serious revelations and I am a much happier person. You've got my IP, you know my alter-ego, if you don't want me here, simply ban me again. I only came back because some seemed to want me to and I had a genuine desire to stay connected with the community. But I'm not going to grovel and do cheetah flips to gain the approval of anybody here. And I'm perfectly willing to self-ban as well. Should I feel overly abused by too many members, I will simply leave. It's really not a big issue to me anymore in any regard.

I didn't suggest that my beliefs are held by anyone but me. You're attempting to add credence to your statements by substantiating them to non-specified fictional experts. It's the equivalent of the famous "some people say" method of interjecting opinion into news reports.

EDIT: And no one is asking you to grovel or in any way kiss anyone's ass in order to get along here. It doesn't make any difference if you're attempting to generate conflict. You've generated conflict with me, and whether it was your desire to do so or not is irrelevant. If you'd like, I can simply start replying to you with a string of "I know you are but what am I" style rebuttals, and suggest that your entire opinion is bull****, then follow it up by saying "but I don't want to fight".

Except that I never actually challenged your beliefs. I acknowledge dismissing actually arguing them with you because I didn't feel there was any benefit to doing so. I wouldn't have any problem providing you with citations, since the conversation was ours, if you were interested.

I don't want you to rifle through google search results and give me some half baked citation from an echo chamber that suggests that letting your kids use electronics makes them some sort of insufferable little bastards.

I didn't attempt to generate conflict. I had no idea that it would be considered controversial for me to express an opinion about kid's faces being stuck in devices robbing their imagination. Neither is it so out of the mainstream that I can't find articles about experts opining on it. I provided an example of what I thought best met the criteria of what you posted was a problem. And then, unsurprisingly I guess, it just continued to degenerate to what this is. Whatever. Apparently only about three people have any dog in this thread now and beating a dead horse is fun and all but not really. Perhaps the rest of Massassi is eating popcorn and watching. More likely, they are involved in their real lives which is what I am doing because I really need to finish Chapter 26 - Detailed Diagnosis and Sensors tonight. Maybe this has provided some fodder for the few that enjoy this sort of thing. [string of rebuttals and I really don't want to fight]. Goodnight.

The only one who degenerated this was you. All you had to do was post a good source to backup your claim. One that should have been very easy for you to do since you claim it is so. Instead, you're hardcore invoking logical fallacies, like burden of proof and begging the question. Instead of doing that, you immediately dove into this pity party crap, refusing to handle the conversation like a normal person and playing the victim.

-________________________-

No. You're the one who is doing all of that. I don't want to argue. Everything you said is bull****.

so how about them star wars

I read that Denis Lawson turned down the opportunity to be Wedge. That`s kind of disappointing although I guess it would have ultimately been little more than a fanservice bit role.

Well, now we see how it plays out. With all undue respect, you can go **** yourself. I didn't come back to continue the same saga nor provide you all with the anticipated spectacle. But, it appears that I have given it to you. And now do whatever the hell you want with me and your special little place. I'll leave it for you to protect and nurture as you see fit and do so well.

Ok guys... you ALL need to tone it down... I have no clue what everyone is fighting about, and I won't bother my self to read it all. I stopped skimming through your posts when it turned into nothing but bashing each others ways of thinking. Simple fact, some people need to be presented beyond a shadow of a doubt that they're wrong to accept something, and because of how fervently they hold on to their beliefs, they ridicule anyone who disagrees. Life is full of people like this, and I'm surprised that you don't know how to cope with them, it's a very useful skill to have, that makes life easier.

Uhm, you came here saying you'd changed, sorry for assuming you weren't BSing?

Edit: I can't be the only one who's honestly astonished at how incredibly, insanely abrasive Wookie06 became after just asking for a citation, can I? I mean I could honestly understand it if I was purposefully antagonizing you but you seriously just outright blew up for no reason.

If they should bar wars
Please let these star wars
...
...
staaaaaayyyyyyy

[/paraphrase]

JUDAS

This is pretty much a textbook example of how conservatives are conditioned to act by Beck, O'Reilly, etc...

If you say anything that challenges what they've stated in any way, they will jump down your throat, and then tell you that they don't know why you started a fight.

Yeah, I was sad to hear that. Wedge was always a cool character in the movies, and although the EU has basically been pooped on, Wedge was an integral part of the story post ROTJ in a lot of the novels.

As a result of him feeling too above a Star Wars movie now, I hope they add in a line about how he fell asleep in the cockpit of his X-wing after having one too many blue milks and got swallowed up by one of those asteroid worms from ESB.

Surprising really, all he's done recently is some mediocre TV shows here in the UK. I'd have thought if nothing else doing star wars would be a fun break.

who says it's fun to work on Star Wars?

Says all fanboys everywhere who would give their left nut to be a coffee runner on set.

If you really cared about maturing and "being the bigger person" so to speak, you'd have tried to understand why everyone around here has such a short fuse when dealing with you. You've done nothing to address the harmful, bigoted behavior that got you banned in the first place. Instead all you've done is trot in with a tone and attitude suggesting you feel more mature and wise than everyone here, while talking down to anyone who challenges you about anything.

No, you're not the only one.



I gave Wookie the complete benefit of the doubt when reading his posts. Everything Wookie wrote after post 155 is astonishing. Wookie, why on earth did you react like this? Seriously. I think you should seriously ask yourself this question. I can almost guarantee you that everyone, bar none, has a more negative opinion of you because of the hole you dug yourself after that post. You seem to have a huge chip on your shoulder, as if you WANT to be victim or be banned again, as if this some how vindicates you. The whole time I read this sequence of posts, I kept thinking of Mel Gibson asking Kyle and Stan to torture him.

Also: you should NOT see it as a concession to post a citation to back up your claims. You're going to school, right? In academia, asking someone to cite his sources is NOT an affront. Please don't tell me you actually think this. And double please don't tell me you think this because you've been conditioned to react in this way by Fox News, et al.

Also, a general piece of advice: on the internet, it pays to have thick skin. I don't think I've ever seen a case where getting defensive EVER paid off. Actually, this is good advice for interactions outside the internet as well.

(Of course, it's also annoying if you ignore people's criticisms and keep posting stuff people don't like (c.f. Koobie), so don't do that either.)

Being defensive is fine when you're actually a marginalized person that has a good reason to be defensive. It's not a good idea to tell someone to "toughen up" instead of holding their aggressors accountable. However, Wookie06 is the victim in the same way that Christians store owners are "persecuted" when society demands they don't discriminate against gay customers.

If you're referring to the "wedding cake" incident, I'll have you know I was barely involved... all I did was give the customer a little shove out the door.

In all seriousness are you referring to the wedding cake incident? Or to some other incident that I may not be aware of? While I don't think you should reserve a customer on the basis that they are homosexual, I do think that if your religion prohibits you in participating in a gay wedding you shouldn't be forced to do so. The precedent of forcing people to do what they believe to be wrong can give way to a lot of unwanted situations. At the same time, the practice of shunning customers because of their orientation can also lead the way to unwanted situations. What is the middle ground? Do we force all Christian bakers to make wedding cakes for gay couples? Do we also force churches to provide them whatever services they usually provide at weddings? Or do we limit what a person is legally obliged to do to on a per case basis, such that a Christian is obligated to make any type of cake for a homosexual, so long as it isn't a wedding cake?

This is not nearly as much fun as those faux news debates of old. I am disappoint.

What the **** religion prohibits you from "taking part" in same sex marriages? No one is forcing them to "take part" in anything. If you bake a goddamn wedding cake it doesn't suddenly make you a part of the wedding party. You don't even have to attend the friggin wedding. The suggestion that people are somehow persecuted when society says they cannot persecute others is hilariously backward. Your suggestion of forcing all Christian bakers to make cakes for gay couples is dubious at best. No one is suggesting we track down all of the bakers who are opposed to gay marriage and make them bake cakes for people they hate. That's absurd and you ****ing know it.

Suggesting the same about churches is equally absurd, because marriage doesn't have to be a religious ceremony. I'm sure that if a couple finds it incredibly important to have their marriage in a church then they are likely already accepted members of that congregation and shouldn't have too much trouble making it happen.

Using your religion as a platform to promote your hate isn't constitutionally protected. ****ing deal with it.

EDIT: For clarification I am absolutely defending a court decision prohibiting a bakery from discriminating against paying customers. I am calling into question the hilarious idea that we will somehow force each and every christian baker in America to make the gayest cakes ever.

Ah yes, Galatians 7:1.

Thus wrote Paul, "p.s. don't sell pastries to gay people, god really hates that. tia."

In all seriousness, I absolutely agree with you, SF_GoldG_01. If a person has a religious or other personal reason to deny products and services to people on the basis of their race, gender, age, or sexual orientation, they shouldn't be compelled to provide that service. They should be free to choose to have their business licenses permanently revoked and to no longer have to provide services to anybody.

I doubt there would be many takers. Despite the fire and brimstone talk there aren't many "Christians" who wouldn't sell their soul for a dollar, but even a few of you people starving to death on the street, alone and unloved in no small part because you come from an insane sect that worships hate as the greatest of any virtue, would be a good start making up for the incalculable harm you've already inflicted upon society and those around you.

Fear leads to anger
Anger leads to hate
Hate leads to suffering

No Jon, it's not hate that's the greatest virtue, it's suffering. It brings you closer to Christ.

Sorry, don't know how to play this video :(
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Phkw79CyMB4

Luckily for you, religious institutions and businesses fall under different legal standards. There are no laws prohibiting religious buildings from discriminating about who can or can't be served there. The difference being that gay folk generally assume any church is not a safe place unless it has the secret rainbow watermark on the front sign and merrily leave them to stew in their own bile, whereas simply walking down the street into some random bakery shouldn't be a roll of the dice about whether or not we'll be refused service.

You guys are safe to continue to be bigots within the safety of your own churches. The flip side is that if you happen to be a church employee, you aren't guaranteed the same protections as if you work at a non-tax-exempt corporation.
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/justices-religious-church-workers-can%E2%80%99t-sue-for-discrimination

Though the Catholic church bizarrely enough does advise compassion and respect (but that doesn't make it a legal precedent of course):
http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/should-there-be-laws-protecting-homosexuals-from-discrimination-in-the-workplace

The unban action is not altogether dissatisfying though.

In other news...

Sorry, don't know how to play this video :(
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfNiC9iKM0Q

Woo, non-CGI space creatures!

Yep! Also really digging the set so far. Everything is looking very authentic and reminiscent of EP IV.

if you say so, Orange Juice

Please no more Tatooine. I hope that's not Tatooine.

I think it's fairly obvious that it's Tatooine. But just because there's some scenes on the planet doesn't mean the whole film will take place there.

I actually like the idea of there being continuity between all of the films. Luke would have a reason for returning to Tatooine as it's his home planet and was his father's home planet, etc. He could be going back simply to show his kids where he grew up, or whatever. Might make for a nice way to transition into the new trilogy.

However, I do agree that I don't want them constantly throwing old familiar places back in our face just for the nostalgia of it. "HEY, LET'S FIND AN EXCUSE TO GO REVISIT THE EWOK VILLAGE!"

But this isn't George Lucas, so I highly doubt we'll be seeing any CGI Ewoks representing the Forest Moon of Endor on the new republic galactic senate.