OT - WAC ND at Puyallup today

[gogodawgs]

Interesting, I see some changed the position reading through the thread. I missed the vote part for some reason my mistake. If it was only a small amount against it why didn't you start it?

Deros had some very good points in that thread.

At that time I did not think that the pros outweighed the cons, there were lot's of good points in the thread.

 

[gogodawgs]

I'm sure glad those security people were there to prevent this and save us from danger.

An ignorant comment. <snip>

<snip>

"ignorant comment" is demeaning, instead of asking why techno felt the way he did and discussing it like rational people.

This does not fit the definition of demeaning. Security is not there to prevent this nor save us from danger. No more than LE. Having met and spent time with Techno I believe he fully understands that Security can not prevent rule breakers nor save us from danger. They can enforce compliance and react afterwards just like police. Having knowledge of this yet choosing a statement that ignores this basic tenet is ignorant by choice. (Absent any other modicum you have to take the comment on face value and not from a sarcastic tone.)

 

[sudden valley gunner]

At that time I did not think that the pros outweighed the cons, there were lot's of good points in the thread.

Yea there were, it appears I joined in late in that thread for some reason maybe why I had my misinterpretation.

I would probably donate to an organization focused on legal battles for OC, but I think it would be fraught with problems once you have people in charge.

This does not fit the definition of demeaning. Security is not there to prevent this nor save us from danger. No more than LE. Having met and spent time with Techno I believe he fully understands that Security can not prevent rule breakers nor save us from danger. They can enforce compliance and react afterwards just like police. Having knowledge of this yet choosing a statement that ignores this basic tenet is ignorant by choice. (Absent any other modicum you have to take the comment on face value and not from a sarcastic tone.)

demean - humiliate and degrade: to reduce somebody to a much lower status in a humiliating way (or simply "put down")

Without clarification your comment does come off that way. I understood that his comment was sarcasm pointed directly at a rule he disagrees with and most people got that too.

Your comment in return although not as bad as others, without the above explanation you just gave is demeaning when took at face value. By the exact same means as your last sentence in parenthesis.

I wasn't aiming my original post at you though I took your post with a grain of salt as I did John's. You were just the first to jump to defense against my post. The other poster didn't answer my queries or refute my statement.