Just curious as I went to reply, and couldn't, yet I can reply to other threads.
Normally there is a message at the end to say that it's been locked and would we all go away and kindly talk about something else, except I don't see anything like that...
As political as the discussion was, I'm somewhat surprised it took as long as it did to get locked.
I can't reply on that thread either, so it's not just you.
It seems to have been oddly locked. Normally, when I've seen a thread get locked, the reply arrow and the 'Reply to topic' entries go away (or at least that's what I remember).
That hasn't happened, but replies are definitely blocked.
Ahhh, thank you both. I thought there might be an issue on my end. Laz must have been busy when he locked it, as he normally says he is locking it and then locks it. Also, I thought there was a little symbol of a padlock or something? Or am I just getting confused with other forums...
I believe it was locked because one poster was really getting into name calling that went overboard.
If you're referring to me, then you're mistaken. I called Gray Wolf 'leftist', if that's name calling, then you guys are becoming too thin skinned and extra censorious.
Lajeez informed me that he received several abuse reports about my replies. So I guess leftists felt that they're losing the argument and resorted to underhanded actions.
I'm fairly certain you called him a groomer over being a leftist.
You want to keep their children so that you can groom them into leftism, wouldn't you?
I'm fairly certain you called him a groomer over being a leftist.
I didn't use the word 'groomer'.
OK, I'll bite, what word should I use to mean grooming, because that's what schools do, without using the word 'groom'?
See what the left does? They basically make the use of a correct word inacceptable because it became too on the nose for them and it embarrassed them.
So, what word can I use to describe what they're doing?
And think about it: If somebody is doing something bad, and you say that they're doing this something bad, and that somebody pretends to be offended when you're stating the truth, should we abide by their wishes to not point out that they're doing something bad?
Now talking about you, Sarkasmus, directly. If you are a leftist, then this is expected from you. You're enforcing the left's ban on the word groomer/grooming by calling my use of the word 'name calling'. If you're not a leftist, then they successfully controlled your speech and your thought process by convincing you that the use of the word 'grooming' is meant as an insult instead of a statement of fact.
To repeat a non-political comment:
Grooming (n)
3. the action of attempting to form a relationship with a child or young person, with the intention of sexually assaulting them or inducing them to commit an illegal act such as selling drugs or joining a terrorist organization.
Note that this is the closest definition to yours, and yet entirely excludes yours. It cannot be the correct word, because very, very few people are 'grooming' anyone (according to the real definition of the word), and those that are actually 'grooming' children are detested by everyone (both 'rightists', 'leftists', and 'centrists') who wish actual 'groomers' to be in arrested, tried, convicted, and punished. Actual 'grooming' isn't 'political.' Everyone hates it.
To borrow a quote: You keep saying 'grooming'. I do not believe this word means what you think it means.
So, what word can I use to describe what they're doing?
Use some other word. Some word that doesn't already have a meaning which isn't the one you want.
Call it 'pizzlefrotzing'. There! I gave you a word. It's an absurd word for an absurd charge.
Lajeez informed me that he received several abuse reports about my replies. So I guess leftists felt that they're losing the argument and resorted to underhanded actions.
For the record, I did not (and never have, in my entire time on SoL) file an abuse report.
It is impossible to 'lose' an argument where one is the only one arguing, and the other person is saying 'sorry, didn't read your post!' Saying that is an automatic 'loss'.
I thought it got locked because it went "political", which I also thought was a no-no on the forum.
I "thought" a lot lol...
I thought it got locked because it went "political", which I also thought was a no-no on the forum.
It was entirely political from the OP. I'm surprised it took as long as it did for that thread to get locked.
This thread is coming close to being locked.
Please put it out of its misery. The OP's question has been answered.
AJ
This thread is coming close to being locked.
I guess the last post in a locked thread should be yours notifying everyone the thread is locked. You don't even have to give a reason (that's the advantage of being God or a mommy as in "Because I said so!"). The last post could simply be "LOCKED".
I guess the last post in a locked thread should be yours notifying everyone the thread is locked.
I approve of that suggestion.
AJ
You'll can blame me for it being political because I replied to what I thought was a honest question with a honest answer and then have others prove me right even if they didn't know they were.
I replied to what I thought was a honest question with a honest answer
Your "honest answer" was so skewed that people felt they had to correct you.
I note that you never replied to any of the posts providing links proving you wrong.
Like John Demille's post linking to video of a pride parade participants chanting 'We're coming for your children'...
If it was a small group of 'extemists', I doubt that several states' legislators would feel the need to pass laws prohibiting certain behaviors if those behaviors weren't becoming too widespread that they felt the need to curb them.
Like John Demille's post linking to video of a pride parade participants chanting 'We're coming for your children'...
Yes, because Pride parade participants are required to sign an oath to never respond with mocking humor to the absolutely absurd charges leveled against them.
Yes, that was sarcasm. Of course, they don't sign such a oath. Of course, one should expect mockery when one makes absurd charges.
If it was a small group of 'extemists', I doubt that several states' legislators would feel the need to pass laws prohibiting certain behaviors if those behaviors weren't becoming too widespread that they felt the need to curb them.
Yes, because legislators have never, ever passed laws which block someone from doing something no one is doing just to claim to be 'doing something' about a 'terrible problem'.
That was sarcasm, too, if you hadn't guessed. Legislators do that all the time. This is an absolutely prime example of it.
I note that you never replied to any of the posts providing links proving you wrong.
Says the person whose response to posts proving him wrong was 'Sorry, not going to read your post!'