In other words, I also can not find anything that is incorrect but I'll make a semi-clever post that looks like it is, because that's the best I can do.
At least you didn't compare me to Satan this time.
-
Discover new ways to elevate your game with the updated DGCourseReview app!
It's entirely free and enhanced with features shaped by user feedback to ensure your best experience on the course. (App Store or Google Play)
OTB Lawsuit Predictions
- Thread starter denny ritner
- Start date
- Status
In other words, I also can not find anything that is incorrect but I'll make a semi-clever post that looks like it is, because that's the best I can do.
At least you didn't compare me to Satan this time.
I prefer to vote with my $$.
I am not a fan of the PDGA for completely different reasons, and prefer not to throw good money after bad. Besides your solution won't solve the issue you have with the DGPT.
I suspect that you are simply encouraging people to throw more money into the PDGA coffers so that they have a bigger fund to pay their attorneys. Your 36 people aren't enough to tip the number of voters in your favor.
nevermind
All I'm saying is if you can prove your case with facts, rather than resorting to having the moderators ban anyone who disagrees with you or have them delete any posts that point out some of your threatening or incendiary language, you'd do a lot better convincing people to support your cause.
It's not a debate if posters that don't tow the DGCR line are silenced.
Like MLK said, "Hate can not drive out hate; only love can do that."
Codified sources, please?
Last edited:
"Semi-clever" is the nicest thing anybody's said about me today. But it's still early, though there's hope.
I'm inclined to think that straw men shouldn't be associated with fire & brimstone, but I'm only semi-clever, so probably wrong about that, too.
I was wondering what Bobby Riggs has to do with the OTB Lawsuit, but perhaps "...an assistant golf pro at a Florida country club, says he overheard two infamous mobsters..." goes to the standard of evidence question.
Skamanda
Double Eagle Member
I have, on literally hundreds of occasions on these forums, proven my case with facts. The only time the moderators have removed posts or banned someone is when they were using hate speech.
If you think hate speech directed at them is something anyone should be forced to endure, you're not worth my effort to teach, and I don't care one whit if you don't like that, nor do I owe you any attempts to do so.
RowingBoats
Eagle Member
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2020
- Messages
- 929
There is a reason people stick to the trite absurd arguments, rather than do something like read your article to find a point of disagreement to discuss.
Skamanda
Double Eagle Member
The privileged often feign persecution, to avoid accepting they may be wrong, or that their words and actions have harmful effects on those worse off than themselves...
No, I was calling you out for labeling people as "bad" when they don't share your viewpoint.
Just in the last three days the moderators have removed at least ten posts in this very thread from not only me but others (some that agree with you even), none of which were using hate speech. I know you saw these posts…and we all know if any of these posts contained hate speech someone would have received a warning, or been banned. So your claim about that is provably incorrect.
Do you think the hate speech constantly directed at Heinold is okay, just because he's privileged?
Hampstead
* Ace Member *
You're not paranoid, Mike. Everyone is out to get you.
Skamanda
Double Eagle Member
Actually, I probably didn't see most of them. I reported two for hate speech, when that guy was going off the rails getting more and more aggressive with it after he had it pointed out that the words he was using are, in fact, hate speech. He was warned, and he continued and he is banned now by no request of mine. The rest, I came to post quotes notifications of "Posts deleted", and never saw them.
Nate Heinhold is consistently called a bigot, and a religious zealot. He has openly, publicly, and repeatedly spoken hate towards the LGBTQIA+ community, calling us sinners, and saying he is disgusted by us. Given his behavior, neither appellation applied to him is incorrect, unjust, or unearned. If you feel his behavior is acceptable at any position, no less the head of the board of directors of the PDGA, that says more about you than it ever will anyone who's called him one of those things. You should ask yourself why it is that you feel the need to defend him.
Skamanda
Double Eagle Member
You've repeatedly ignored me pointing out that I'm fine with people disagreeing with me, and you've repeatedly ignored me actively engaging in productive discussion with people who disagree with me. When I say someone is "bad", it's because they're using hate speech (which Heinhold does), or acting in a prejudiced or discriminatory manner (which several men on the board do).
Why is it you feel those aren't the actions of bad people? What does that say about you?
nar·cis·sist
[ˈnärsəsəst]
NOUN
a person who has an excessive interest in or admiration of themselves
Bad actions do not necessarily mean that a person is irredeemable. Keeping the door open even a crack keeps the possibility of finding a middle ground alive.
Could you show me when I defended him?
I appreciate the rest of your explanation about Heinold but don't accuse me of things I haven't done.
More hate speech that goes unpunished. It's very tiresome that all you have to offer is ad hominem attacks. It's unfortunate that you can't see how you weaken your case with personal attacks.
- Status
