How far will the "I gave money to a homeless man" thread go?

[Rabrrrrrr]

Any bets? It's over 300 already.

This could top the "How long before this thread dies" thread, but I doubt it.

I'm thinking it might hit the 500s.

[Devoir]

1. Hopefully I've been able to educated people

on the probable harm done by giving cash to beggars who are almost certainly addicted to alcohol or drugs.

[Elidor]

2. Hey, that's a pretty decent imitation of Rush

And all the other sabbath gasbags.

[Loonman]

3. Yeah

We will judge how you use our alms because we are morally superior!

:puke:

[SiobhanClancy]

4. We don't require educating by you....

"almost certainly"? I'm afraid you come across as an arrogant,know-it all,pompous gasbag...you may actually be a nice sensitive person,but you don't present yourself as such.

[Rabrrrrrr]

5. Hey, take THIS damn discussion back to the other thread!

I don't need no hijacking in this one.

Try to stick to the point - I asked people to guess how far the thread would go, not to pontificate about their incredible pedagogical skills, which probably aren't existent anyway.

(And I am neither agreeing with nor disagreeing with you - I just want this discussion taken to the other thread where it belongs).

p.s. - by hijacking this thread, you make yourself look like an idiot. I'm not saying you are, but you've set yourself up very well for others to think that of you.

p.p.s. - welcome to DU! :hi:

[Terran]

15. No comment (sort of)

:puke:

:eyes:

:argh:

:dunce:

:wow:

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Booberdawg]

6. Between 400 and 500

[liberalhistorian]

7. LOL!

That "How long before this thread dies" thread was one of the funniest I've seen on here yet! What was the final post count, anyway?

BTW, my thread will probably go another 50 posts or so.

[Rabrrrrrr]

8. I don't know the offical total, but I saw it over 1100

:hi:

[Devoir]

19. I'm making you go down in history,

honey. You can thank me anytime.

[liberalhistorian]

31. Excuse me, pal,

but my name, if you must know, is Lisa and NOT "honey". God, you are so condescending. I took you off of ignore because I was curious as to what your posts were saying, and now I wish I hadn't!

[gratuitous]

9. I don't think it'll reach 400

Trolls just don't have the staying power they once did. Why, in my day, if a troll wasn't getting any action for his stone-brained posts, he'd make up another handle and argue with himself until someone else was gulled into commenting!

Nowadays, they just want their 100 posts and then hie themselves back to Free Republic or whatever other slimy rock they crawled out from under.

[Devoir]

18. I have a link. I'll just let it do the talking

http://projects.is.asu.edu/pipermail/hpn/2002-May/006130.html

You are free to namecall all you like, but here is a link that echoes my assertion that a large percentage of beggars who call themselves homeless are addicts. I advocate helping these people by donating to and working at homeless shelters or by giving them vouchers for places to stay or something to eat. I get really tired of the Free Republic shit. They would call for the arrest of these people. So it pisses me off when folks have no fucking rebuttal for my documentation other than to scream 'Freeper' and 'Troll'.

[Rabrrrrrr]

20. Hey - Devoir - stop arguing here

This is not the thread for that discussion - take it to the other one.

This thread is about, which you'd know if you'd bothered to read the first post, guessing how many posts will end up in that thread.

[Devoir]

22. Fine Rabrr

Then why don't you admonish others for the namecalling shit. Then I won't feel the need to respond.

[Rabrrrrrr]

24. Because you started it here

Hence that makes you perpetrator numero uno (in this thread).

Plus, I haven't seen anyone call you names. And also, I'm not a mod. I'm just someone trying to protect the integrity of this thread from hijacking; and a hope to keep all the discussion on homeless issues in the thread in which it belongs, just for the sake of continuity and keeping all the conversation in room for later reference, you know?

Cheers!

[Devoir]

26. OK Rabrr. I've shut up for hours while you let others keep bashing

without comment. Are you sincere in not wanting this thread hijacked, or are you just using that as an excuse to take a shot at me?

[Rabrrrrrr]

30. Well, let's see - in the 10 hours, 35 minutes

between my post (#24) explaining why you were singled out, and your post (#26, to which this is a response), there was one post (#25, obviously), which was not a threadjacking post (since it wasn't about the homeless, it was about your debating technique), and hence needed no berating.

Had there been many posts in that 10 hours and 35 minutes, you'd have a point. I'll agree that you can say "I've shut up for hours" - you indeed did, for almost 10.6 of them, in fact - but you cannot say that I let others keep bashing, since a) there was only ONE other, and b) I wasn't concerned with bashing, I was concerned with threadjacking.

Your posts #1 and #18 are threadjackers. Any other posts by others that are threadjackers are merely in response to your posts, so they don't count.

That's how I see it.

[Devoir]

32. How about between #5 and the present?

#5 is when you first brought it up. Any post which doesn't answer the question is a threadjacker, and there were a whole bunch of em. Why not admit that you are sucking up to your pals and be done with it?

[liberalhistorian]

34. Oh, for the love of Pete,

will you please just take your five-year-old logic skills and GO THE HELL AWAY!!!! You were asked to peddle your bullshit on another thread, because this was NOT a "discussion" thread, then, when you don't comply and it's obvious you haven't even read the original post, you get mad at Rabrrr and everyone else for calling you on it. I don't think so!

[Rabrrrrrr]

35. I'll explain it one more time, and if you don't get it, then

you don't get it, and no use bashing our heads over it.

Your posts were the threadjacking posts.

Yes, there are other posts that are *seemingly* threadjacking posts, but which aren't, because they are in response to your threadjackers.

There's that odd exchange between Kamika and Liberalhistorian toward the end, but sicne they are actually arguing about how long the thread will go on (though obliquely and flame-filled-ly), I consider those just fine, and within the rules of the game.

if you have taken issue with post #7 (and I don't know that you are, but I cuold see that a possible take-issue-with post), I disagree with you there, too. It names no names, and it is on topic for the particular of this thread.

YOURS are threadjackers because I asked, "How long will the thread go on", and you responded with "I really showed them that I am right about the homeless issue" and "here's a link proving how right I am". Neither of those are on topic.

This is the last I will explain it to you, since I think I've been quite clear all along, and I think it's rather obvious. I know you're bothered by this, but you seem to either just not get it, or else you are so bothered that you need a cooling off time in order to get it. meaning no offense to you at all, but I won't try to explain this again. Accept or don't accept it.

(and I think I'm being quite gracious in letting you say "Okay, I've shut up for hours", and responding to that, and then letting you come back with "Well, what about since post #5?").

Cheers and blessings!

[Lars39]

21. The article is dated May 2002. There are many more homeless on the

streets now, a lot of them families. The people in the article were citing "the experts" to justify getting people off sidewalks, so that they do not interfere with business. Wouldn't do to have black homeless people on the sidewalks of Memphis, would it? <sarcasm off>

Your documentation is old. It does not take into account the new homeless, families. Be pissed off all you like.

on edit: sorry Rabrrr.

[Terran]

23. I just have to ask

(and then I'll shut up): where are all those *other* informative links you mentioned in the other thread, Devoir? Because that anecdotal puff piece just doesn't hold any water. If that's all you've got, then I'm walking away laughing.

[gratuitous]

25. Who was talking to or about you?

But if the shoe fits . . .

Also, I'd hardly call my post "screaming." I strongly suspect your reading for comprehension skills would greatly improve if you got back into your fifth grade classroom, junior, and quit bothering the grown-ups.

[maxanne]

27. Devoir

funny how you slithered away from the other threads when your facts were challenged and corrected. It is droll, that you've clung to it since it is completely inaccurate. It does, however, tell you what YOU want to hear - that all homeless are drunks, addicts, and people with mental illness. In fact, we drunks have a word to describe your behavior around this topic. We call it "denial."

[liberalhistorian]

28. LOL!

And notice how he's hijacked this thread after being specifically asked NOT to by Rabrrr? He really listens, doesn't he? He'll probably still be peddling that stupid useless article from that wingnut rag ten years from now, no matter the demographics of the homeless population!:puke:

Fortunately, I have him on ignore so I've been able to avoid his babbling bullshit, including any responses!

[Devoir]

29. Funny....

My propositions stand completely unchallenged. Some have offered weak attempts, and I've pretty well shut them down. I honestly thought someone might even have dug deep enough to find some off the wall person to try to refute the facts...but not even that. I'm starting to get bored, so I have the feeling my thread will settle into 2nd place alltime. Not too bad an impact for a guy with less than 100 posts. The truth does endure.

[maxanne]

33. that's why you avoided

my factual posts on both other threads? Bwaaahahahahahaha
It's true that facts might blow a hole in your stereotyping.
Don't let me interrupt your patting yourself on the back, however.
At 100 posts you certainly have had an impact. Sadly, you are completely clueless as to it's nature.

[BelleCarolinaPeridot]

10. I predict it will have its own section on the DU

But hey thats just me :hi:

[Kamika]

11. depends on how much lib historian posts in it

Over 100 posts in her own thread heh

[liberalhistorian]

12. Yeah, like you don't respond

to people who post on YOUR threads!

[Kamika]

13. well

Not to every second post heh

[liberalhistorian]

16. Well, if that post is saying something ridiculous

or making points that should be added to or refuted, then, yeah, I'm gonna respond. This is a DISCUSSION BOARD, and that's what people are supposed to do, DISCUSS SUBJECTS BACK AND FORTH.

[SiobhanClancy]

14. There isn't anything wrong with responding to posts in your own thread...

Naturally,one would want to respond to different points of view that might be posted. I think it's known as "discourse" or even "conversation":)

[liberalhistorian]

17. Thank you, that's what

I was trying to point out.

[Rabrrrrrr]

36. Made it to 324!

Unfortunately, it got locked before the discussion became organically and naturally over, but what the hell.

324 it was!

Didn't make any predictions of the three people who actually answered the initial of this thread. :-) (though liberalhistorian said it would go only about 50 more, so that was a close guess - it went about 20 more).

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ronzo]

39. Locking. Burning turkeys

Perhaps our concern for the plight of people who are homeless might be best directed towards helping them obtain food and/or shelter, especially as Thanksgiving draws nigh?
Perhaps the energies expended in this thread would be helpful in that regard? With this in mind... and perhaps to offer some something else to be thankful for... I'm locking this thread.

Happy Thanksgiving!
Share it with others!
ronzoNOLA
DU Moderator