EnviroLink Forum
http://www.envirolink.org/forum/

somebody owes somebody else a huge apology.
http://www.envirolink.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1893
Page 1 of 3

Author:  wijim [ Tue Jan 31, 2006 3:28 pm ]
Post subject:  somebody owes somebody else a huge apology.

Quote:
Grace, I think Donnie is right. There are also dads and their sons who take photographs of human children, they watch them too for sure - even take videos. In this case they don't kill them, of course, well not as such but maybe turn them into the latest porn star.

I bet they have meanings for words like "quick kill" and "meat".

Ever read Carol Adam's The Pornography of Meat?

Ranka.


http://www.envirolink.org/forum/viewtop ... c&start=15

i expect a banning for that ridiculous bit of offensiveness...

and i acknowledge i offered a hell of alot of retaliatory remarks myself...if you feel the need to ban me as well...im ok with that. but i will consider it a pathetic breach of b.s. if you allow those types of pointed remarks from a poster, which are far more mean spirited than any other i've seen here.

Author:  DELETED [ Tue Jan 31, 2006 3:40 pm ]
Post subject: 

DELETED

Author:  OHIOSTEVE [ Tue Jan 31, 2006 3:46 pm ]
Post subject: 

xveganx wrote:
I expect a ban as well. If Josh is to make good his word.


josh wrote:
Furthermore... I will ban without warning any user who mentions phantomuk again after the time stamp of this posting. No debate, no "I told you so"... none of it. I am very pissed about this and will not tolerate any BS. This notice is everyone's warning.

-josh



wijim wrote:
bow weevil wrote:
Amy7779311 wrote:
ranka wrote:
Amy7779311 wrote:
OHIOSTEVE wrote:
ranka this post was WAY WAY out of line.....You should be banned for the inference you made about DONNIE and his dead father. SHAME on you for being such a vile despicable person. JOSH this is WAY outta line IMO.


I agree.


I don't know, can't we insert 'deer hunter' here?

http://www.lundybancroft.com/pages/arti ... VERLAP.htm

Ranka.


You know, Ranka, I was told a few weeks ago that you were a very caring and loving person....and I can hardly believe that with what you said just a while ago.

I just seriously don't have a need to even converse with someone who would make such remarks towards another human as you did. I believe it's one of the worst assumptions I've ever seen anyone make in all my years reading these boards.


There was another poster froM UK that often made the same moronic assumtions. I believe he is banned now. I believe he also tried to label every man who operated a small town type butcher shop as a child molester as well.


so phantomuk and ranka share alot of similarities.....like comparing deviant sexuality to hunting baselessley when backed into a corner.

yep i could agree with that.

guess what..my prediction is.....

that all posts get deleted from the point of where donnie is implicated as a child molester baselessly by an idiot....and lil moron ranka does not get banned. nice move in corrupting the thread idiot.

other prediction.....i get either warned or banned because i retaliated on baseless accusations.....



http://www.envirolink.org/forum/viewtop ... c&start=62

Pathetic attempt to divert.

Author:  bow weevil [ Tue Jan 31, 2006 3:49 pm ]
Post subject: 

xveganx wrote:
I expect a ban as well. If Josh is to make good his word.


josh wrote:
Furthermore... I will ban without warning any user who mentions phantomuk again after the time stamp of this posting. No debate, no "I told you so"... none of it. I am very pissed about this and will not tolerate any BS. This notice is everyone's warning.

-josh



wijim wrote:
bow weevil wrote:
Amy7779311 wrote:
ranka wrote:
Amy7779311 wrote:
OHIOSTEVE wrote:
ranka this post was WAY WAY out of line.....You should be banned for the inference you made about DONNIE and his dead father. SHAME on you for being such a vile despicable person. JOSH this is WAY outta line IMO.


I agree.


I don't know, can't we insert 'deer hunter' here?

http://www.lundybancroft.com/pages/arti ... VERLAP.htm

Ranka.


You know, Ranka, I was told a few weeks ago that you were a very caring and loving person....and I can hardly believe that with what you said just a while ago.

I just seriously don't have a need to even converse with someone who would make such remarks towards another human as you did. I believe it's one of the worst assumptions I've ever seen anyone make in all my years reading these boards.


There was another poster froM UK that often made the same moronic assumtions. I believe he is banned now. I believe he also tried to label every man who operated a small town type butcher shop as a child molester as well.


so phantomuk and ranka share alot of similarities.....like comparing deviant sexuality to hunting baselessley when backed into a corner.

yep i could agree with that.

guess what..my prediction is.....

that all posts get deleted from the point of where donnie is implicated as a child molester baselessly by an idiot....and lil moron ranka does not get banned. nice move in corrupting the thread idiot.

other prediction.....i get either warned or banned because i retaliated on baseless accusations.....



http://www.envirolink.org/forum/viewtop ... c&start=62


Thats fine. I changed the post a few minutes ago. It was not intentional, but certainly looks suspect. I wouldn't believe someone else if the shoe was on the other foot.

Author:  DELETED [ Tue Jan 31, 2006 3:49 pm ]
Post subject: 

DELETED

Author:  DELETED [ Tue Jan 31, 2006 3:54 pm ]
Post subject: 

DELETED

Author:  ranka [ Tue Jan 31, 2006 4:02 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: somebody owes somebody else a huge apology.

wijim wrote:
Quote:
Grace, I think Donnie is right. There are also dads and their sons who take photographs of human children, they watch them too for sure - even take videos. In this case they don't kill them, of course, well not as such but maybe turn them into the latest porn star.

I bet they have meanings for words like "quick kill" and "meat".

Ever read Carol Adam's The Pornography of Meat?

Ranka.


http://www.envirolink.org/forum/viewtop ... c&start=15

i expect a banning for that ridiculous bit of offensiveness...

and i acknowledge i offered a hell of alot of retaliatory remarks myself...if you feel the need to ban me as well...im ok with that. but i will consider it a pathetic breach of b.s. if you allow those types of pointed remarks from a poster, which are far more mean spirited than any other i've seen here.



You are just trying to push buttons here ain'tcha? Did you not see that I clarified my post. Look to the meaning of "there are also" and "in this case".

I've been accused of saying all kinds about Donnie - wasn't even talking about him, apart from saying I thought he was right.

Ranka.

Author:  bow weevil [ Tue Jan 31, 2006 4:12 pm ]
Post subject: 

xveganx wrote:

Was not pointing out your post bow. I think you are fair with what you post.


I appreciate that, but I am still implicated, and whats good for the goose is good for the gander. I don't wish to be banned, but if Josh deems it necessary, there is not much I can do about it.

Author:  DELETED [ Tue Jan 31, 2006 4:48 pm ]
Post subject: 

DELETED

Author:  Wayne Stollings [ Tue Jan 31, 2006 5:32 pm ]
Post subject: 

I have locked the thread until it can be sorted out and dealt with... do not pick up the discussion elsewhere.

Author:  Sandra John [ Wed Feb 01, 2006 6:50 am ]
Post subject: 

Ranka has said that, in the post that kicked all this off, s/he wasn't talking about Donnie, as s/he indicated by saying, "there are also dads ... etc.".

Ranka also explained, correctly, that the link between some representations of hunting and child molestation is their peculiar shared notion of , "loving", their victim or victimizing the love object whichever is the case. Psychological profiling is a valid methodology and like it or not, hunting psychology is the subject of serious current research and is highly relevant to this debate.

On the other hand I'd say, Ranka, that your original post was certainly very open to misinterpretation as a personal slight and I would suggest that if, as you say and I believe, you had no intention of slandering Donnie, it would be appropriate at this point to say so and apologise for the unintentional offence given.

It's a pity that some people seem to leap on any opportunity to, "stir the possum", and I'd have to say that Ranka's responses did little to dissipate any misunderstanding there may have been. However, I see no grounds for banning anyone on any side.

Author:  Sandra John [ Wed Feb 01, 2006 7:06 am ]
Post subject: 

Quote:
and i acknowledge i offered a hell of a lot of retaliatory remarks myself...if you feel the need to ban me as well...I'm OK with that. but i will consider it a pathetic breach of b.s. if you allow those types of pointed remarks from a poster, which are far more mean spirited than any other I've seen here.


Whim, I don't want to continue this and I don't think anybody should be banned but, just for the record, I do want to say that if you look you will find many references to, "petals", and many similar, and very much more pointed remarks to the effect that AR As have (euphemistically speaking) an unnaturally close relationship with animals.

Author:  ranka [ Wed Feb 01, 2006 10:40 am ]
Post subject: 

Sandra John wrote:
Ranka has said that, in the post that kicked all this off, s/he wasn't talking about Donnie, as s/he indicated by saying, "there are also dads ... etc.".

Ranka also explained, correctly, that the link between some representations of hunting and child molestation is their peculiar shared notion of , "loving", their victim or victimizing the love object whichever is the case. Psychological profiling is a valid methodology and like it or not, hunting psychology is the subject of serious current research and is highly relevant to this debate.

On the other hand I'd say, Ranka, that your original post was certainly very open to misinterpretation as a personal slight and I would suggest that if, as you say and I believe, you had no intention of slandering Donnie, it would be appropriate at this point to say so and apologise for the unintentional offence given.

It's a pity that some people seem to leap on any opportunity to, "stir the possum", and I'd have to say that Ranka's responses did little to dissipate any misunderstanding there may have been. However, I see no grounds for banning anyone on any side.



Hi Sandra - I think I have made the apology you mention - but in case it got lost in the tornado of posts, I do so again.

As a second point, perhaps (but I doubt this) the pro-hunting 'folks' here will accept that even the title of the thread some might find offensive on a list about animal concerns.

Ranka.

Author:  wijim [ Wed Feb 01, 2006 10:46 am ]
Post subject: 

Sandra John wrote:
Quote:
and i acknowledge i offered a hell of a lot of retaliatory remarks myself...if you feel the need to ban me as well...I'm OK with that. but i will consider it a pathetic breach of b.s. if you allow those types of pointed remarks from a poster, which are far more mean spirited than any other I've seen here.


Whim, I don't want to continue this and I don't think anybody should be banned but, just for the record, I do want to say that if you look you will find many references to, "petals", and many similar, and very much more pointed remarks to the effect that AR As have (euphemistically speaking) an unnaturally close relationship with animals.


my name is wijim.

Author:  wijim [ Wed Feb 01, 2006 2:11 pm ]
Post subject: 

Sandra John wrote:
Quote:
and i acknowledge i offered a hell of a lot of retaliatory remarks myself...if you feel the need to ban me as well...I'm OK with that. but i will consider it a pathetic breach of b.s. if you allow those types of pointed remarks from a poster, which are far more mean spirited than any other I've seen here.


Whim, I don't want to continue this and I don't think anybody should be banned but, just for the record, I do want to say that if you look you will find many references to, "petals", and many similar, and very much more pointed remarks to the effect that AR As have (euphemistically speaking) an unnaturally close relationship with animals.


i gotta say sandra, i have looked and looked for those comments lumping all aras into animal sex. only thing i came up with is some quotes donnie posted that were quotes of fact stating the beliefs of a person or small group of people. but for your claim of that as aras being called out as ones who have sex with animals by the very nature of them being ara(as you elude to)....i haven't seen it...maybe im looking in the wrong part of this board.

Page 1 of 3 All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/