Fidel Castro

Since 2001, over 90,000 cyclist's have joined Cycling Forums to discuss topics from general cycling to equipment, training, racing and travel or vacation destinations (especially in europe during the tour de france). We also feature an great deals in our online store, 100's of articles, classifieds and product reviews.

LOL, Each poster is responsible for his or her own content huhhh???? I never said anyone called me a "dickbrain". Once again your bias has been proven. You cant pick and chose who you want to moderate you look like a fool when you do. :p

Yep, each poster is responsible for the content of his/her posts.

You swore at Stevebaby in your message "douchebag...."
Unprovoked too, Bleutrain.

Once again Bleutrain - supply me with the thread and message number where WBT referred to YOU as dickbrain

I could have warned you, blue. Stevebaby knows what that article did and didn't say. He is just being a good communist shill that twists or fabricates "facts" from links that he knows 99% of the people reading will never check. I was going to call him on that one too (about the Coast Guard firing on them) but I had so much to debunk at one time! Then Lim has to come in with the distractions - you are using foul and abusive language, on the soap box for crying out loud. I am the great and terrible Wizard of Oz, don't look at the man behind the curtain!

BTW, Lim's true colors are red.The links in post #116...what do they say?
CNN,the New York Times and the LawNews network...are they "Communist shills"?
The posts about child mortality in Cuba compared to child mortality in the US...from the CIA World Fact book site...are the CIA 'communist shills" too?

Yep, each poster is responsible for the content of his/her posts.

You swore at Stevebaby in your message "douchebag...."
Unprovoked too, Bleutrain.

Once again Bleutrain - supply me with the thread and message number where WBT referred to YOU as dickbrainI've never known WBT to be wrong...
:D :D :D

Yep, each poster is responsible for the content of his/her posts.

You swore at Stevebaby in your message "douchebag...."
Unprovoked too, Bleutrain.

Once again Bleutrain - supply me with the thread and message number where WBT referred to YOU as dickbrainI never said WBT or anyone called me a dickbrain.
So if each poster is responsible for his or her own post, are you exempt from that rule? As the moderator of this forum, you are supposed to be setting the example not abusing it.

I never said WBT or anyone called me a dickbrain.
So if each poster is responsible for his or her own post, are you exempt from that rule? As the moderator of this forum, you are supposed to be setting the example not abusing it.What does it say in the links that I posted?
:D

I never said WBT or anyone called me a dickbrain.


But you felt the need to refer to Dickbrain - after the foul language you used with Stevebaby was removed.



So if each poster is responsible for his or her own post, are you exempt from that rule? As the moderator of this forum, you are supposed to be setting the example not abusing it.

Each poster is responsible for the content of his/her post.
You're responsible for insulting language toward Stevebaby : your offensive language was removed.

What does it say in the links that I posted?
:DIt says the USCG followed the Deadly Force Triangle and the Use of Force Continuum that I told you read.

But you felt the need to refer to Dickbrain - after the foul language you used with Stevebaby was removed.




Each poster is responsible for the content of his/her post.
You're responsible for insulting language toward Stevebaby : your offensive language was removed.OK I am responsible for the insulting language toward Stevebaby, I admit it.
Are you responsible for the insulting language that you use?
Are you responsible for allowing some and not others to use insulting language?

OK I am responsible for the insulting language toward Stevebaby, I admit it.
Are you responsible for the insulting language that you use?
Are you responsible for allowing some and not others to use insulting language?The reports in #116,,,they clearly and unambiguously state that the US Coast Guard fired on Cuban immigrants...don't they?

I suggest that you concentrate on the content of your own posts, first and foremost.
But I have to read his posts if I am on this forum. What is the rule? Can people say that or not? If the rules say they can, then I have to put up with it if I want to be on the forum. If you can't say it, then tell everyone please.

I am a newer member, so I really don't know. I was assuming by your response to blue, that that shouldn't happen. Since you are the moderator, I am telling you I find it offensive and abusive.

The reports in #116,,,they clearly and unambiguously state that the US Coast Guard fired on Cuban immigrants...don't they?No they dont, A warning shot to stop and disabling fire is not firing on an immigrant. If the USCG fired at and hit a immigrant then you would be right.

OK I am responsible for the insulting language toward Stevebaby, I admit it.
Are you responsible for the insulting language that you use?
Are you responsible for allowing some and not others to use insulting language?

There's no need for you to admit it.
I did that for you.

Now if you can show me a post where abusive language was directed toward you.

There's no need for you to admit it.
I did that for you.

Now if you can show me a post where abusive language was directed toward you.I already told you twice that the language was not directed at me. I never said it was. Get it?
Are you going to answer the questions I asked you or are you going to keep ducking them because you know you are wrong and biased?

No he keeps circling around and avoiding the answers because he knows this is stupid and he never should have started it but now he's caught in it and is hoping people will stop bringing up the double standard where he and his cronies can use whatever language they want....all while he chastises someone else for ridiculous stuff.


It's amusing at least.

No they dont, A warning shot to stop and disabling fire is not firing on an immigrant. If the USCG fired at and hit a immigrant then you would be right.You are trying to distort what I said,which was that the US Coast Guard had fired on immigrants.I posted reports that confirm what I said.
If someone fired into your house while you were inside it,would you not consider that you had been fired upon?
If someone fired at your car while you were in it,would you not consider that you had been fired upon?
If the immigrants on the boat had fired "warning" or "disabling" shots at the Coast Guard vessel,would the Coast Guard skipper....or the US government...consider that they had been fired upon?

I already told you twice that the language was not directed at me. I never said it was. Get it?
Are you going to answer the questions I asked you or are you going to keep ducking them because you know you are wrong and biased?

I am responsible for the language I use.

And for the record - my use of abusive language in that specific instance was directed toward that member who'd been banned two days previously in early 2005.
Unfortunately because that member was banned - his posts were deleted from this site. Therefore I cannot cite the specific thread in which that abusive term was used toward me, by the member.
I can assure you that the member in question used the same abusive term toward me first.

Of course, this doesn't mitigate the fact that I shouldn't have used abusive language in reply in that instance.

mea culpa.

It says the USCG followed the Deadly Force Triangle and the Use of Force Continuum that I told you read.They say no such thing...they say that the Coast Guard fired on them.
Now that you have drawn attention to the links,I think that people
will check the links now,and anyone can see that the reports in those links say that the Coast Guard fired on them.

You are trying to distort what I said,which was that the US Coast Guard had fired on immigrants.I posted reports that confirm what I said.
:confused: I am not trying to distort anything.


If someone fired into your house while you were inside it,would you not consider that you had been fired upon?
QUOTE]





[QUOTE=stevebaby]
If If someone fired at your car while you were in it,would you not consider that you had been fired upon?
?If I was doing something illegal(which alien smuggling and drug smuggling is according to the US Govt.) and local law enforcement deemed it necessary to fire upon my house or car (not me) in order to get me to stop then I wouldnt consider it being fired upon

If the immigrants on the boat had fired "warning" or "disabling" shots at the Coast Guard vessel,would the Coast Guard skipper....or the US government...consider that they had been fired upon?Once again, read the Deadly Force Triangle and the Use of Force Continuum. You obviously did not read them or you would not have asked this STUPID question.
They both say in a nutshell that any Federal Law Enforcement Officer can use the reasonable amount of force necassary to compell compliance. In this case the immigrants would be toast. :p

:confused: I am not trying to distort anything.

If I was doing something illegal(which alien smuggling and drug smuggling is according to the US Govt.) and local law enforcement deemed it necessary to fire upon my house or car (not me) in order to get me to stop then I wouldnt consider it being fired upon
Once again, read the Deadly Force Triangle and the Use of Force Continuum. You obviously did not read them or you would not have asked this STUPID question.
They both say in a nutshell that any Federal Law Enforcement Officer can use the reasonable amount of force necassary to compell compliance. In this case the immigrants would be toast. :pFirst you deny that they were fired on,then you admit that they were fired on...but not really!
:D :D :D :D
If the people on the vessel were political refugees fleeing a repressive regime,why did they not stop when ordered,and claim asylum?
You're really funny...someone shoots at your car or house while you're in them and you don't consider that being "fired on".
ROFLMAO

If the people on the vessel were political refugees fleeing a repressive regime,why did they not stop when ordered,and claim asylum?
ROFLMAOWhy are you asking me this question? I or the USCG could not possibly have any idea why the people onboard didnt stop when ordered until after the fact. Only the people onboard can answer that.

You're really funny...someone shoots at your car or house while you're in them and you don't consider that being "fired on".
ROFLMAOOk I will try to make it simple for you. If the USCG "fired on" those immigrants they would be dead. No one was killed so no one was "fired on". And I will say it again the USCG does not "fire on" anyone unless all 3 parts(ability, oppurtunity, and jeopardy) of the Deadly Force Triangle are present.