Ah right... I have trouble picking out sarcasm on the web. Fair enough.

Originally Posted by plums

just a little more blunt? she harrassed the guy, was rude and equally condescending

I believe the term is "griefing".

Originally Posted by sniderj

Ah right... I have trouble picking out sarcasm on the web. Fair enough.

Ya no, it definitely WASN'T meant to be taken seriously...

People need to troll 4chan more and learn this sarcasm thing.

ITT: free lessons

Originally Posted by lawleypop

Ya no, it definitely WASN'T meant to be taken seriously...

People need to troll 4chan more and learn this sarcasm thing.

I understand sarcasm... haha. I think... But it's tough when the non-verbal cues are not present.

Originally Posted by sniderj

I understand sarcasm... haha. I think... But it's tough when the non-verbal cues are not present.

Perhaps everyone should start using opening and closing tabs? XDD

[sarcasm]iheartsociologyolol[/sarcasm]

Originally Posted by plums

my pooper? seriously? ARE U 5 YRS OLD?! grow up.

short pier, short cliff...idc. take a long walk off either

Hahaha it's hilarious that you're getting riled up about this.

You realize pooper isn't censored, right?
And pooper's an awesome word.

Pooper.

I'm not 5 years old, I just don't take everything as seriously as you. Calm down. Smoke a joint.

The toronto 18 case is an interesting one. Most of CSIS's intel is based of what Mubin Shaikh testified to and provided to them. Mubin Shaikh has admitted to having a cocaine addiction during this case. Now when a drug addict cant afford a fix, what do they do? They lie,cheat and steal.

If you guys are just going to argue about something off topic, please do everyone a favour and create your own thread: lawleypop vs. plums. Stick to the topic if you are going to post about instead of spamming it.

Originally Posted by sew12

Cheri was a little more blunt than I would have been but I kind of agree with her. I think Huzaifa, is being super condescending and annoying. Again, what Kathy and I said was opinion. We don't feel like he's getting a long enough sentence and wouldn't feel comfortable having him back in society. Last time I checked we were allowed personal opinions and feelings, I guess not.

Terrorists, terrorist sympathizers, wannabe terrorists etc don't deserve to be on the street. I don't feel comfortable that he'll be out in 4 years regardless of what any psychologist says. Last time I checked humans aren't infallible, no matter what kind of assessment they've performed on Saad doesn't mean they're right, and that he won't involve himself in terrorism in some way in the future.

I applaud you for ability to judge my tone and label it condescending and annoying from behind a computer scene as well as being able to telepathically figure out what Kathy was implying. Well done Asking you to read into both sides of the issue before making claims that appear to be presented as facts is called being annoying? Interesting....I prefer to know absolutely any angle I can find about any issue before I make my "opinions".Here is one of the opposing angles for starters. As for why I bring my discipline up, it is to imply that since I have an interest in the field I have spent a large number of hours on various sources gathering the aforementioned angles rather then just reading or listening to the news from my armchair and forming my prejudiced opinion on an issue. But that's just the way I see things, I see an opinion or statement based on a singular source or ideology "prejudiced"(But maybe that's not the correct word for it). I don't see Mowicz being called condascending for bringing Maths into most arguments, why the hate on Liberal arts?

Secondly, just wondering: Why do you think he did what he did?

Originally Posted by huzaifa47

I applaud you for ability to judge my tone and label it condescending and annoying from behind a computer scene as well as being able to telepathically figure out what Kathy was implying. Well done

"Do I think Saad Gaya is going to be a threat to society when he leaves jail in 4 years? Yes." Is what Kathy said. "Do I think" is a question of opinion, not fact. No implication is needed, nor is telepathy to interpret this.

Originally Posted by huzaifa47

I applaud you for ability to judge my tone and label it condescending and annoying from behind a computer scene as well as being able to telepathically figure out what Kathy was implying. Well done Asking you to read into both sides of the issue before making claims that appear to be presented as facts is called being annoying? Interesting....I prefer to know absolutely any angle I can find about any issue before I make my "opinions". Here is one of the opposing angles for starters. As for why I bring my discipline up, it is to imply that since I have an interest in the field I have spent a large number of hours on various sources gathering the aforementioned angles rather then just reading or listening to the news from my armchair and forming my prejudiced opinion on an issue. But that's just the way I see things, I see an opinion or statement based on a singular source or ideology "prejudiced"(But maybe that's not the correct word for it)

Secondly, just wondering: Why do you think he did what he did?

Apparently your ability to read and comprehend the words I THINK are lacking too.

Also for the record I don't read into both sides of the issue when the issue is terrorism (or rape, child molestation, hate crimes, genocide, murder* or other crimes of that ilk).

I don't care why he did it, I don't care why terrorists do anything they do. There is no excuse for terrorism, or any of those other heinous crimes.

*this one is more iffy in certain circumstances