Amnesty International

C

catqueen 15 March 2012 10:14 · Member since March 2009

Micrówave wrote:
catqueen wrote:
Micrówave wrote:
i don't actively 'do' anything about execution, beyond occasionally signing petitions
That should counterbalance my rants on Queenzone... Thank you for making the world a safer place.
I don't think your rant is actually doing much to convince people of the value of execution, so i doubt its doing much damage. :P
Exactly. Change the topic. So now you're saying that this is the "Value of Executions" thread? Maybe we should call it the "Catqueen does nothing to stop executions" thread???

Eh... no... i responded to YOUR comment about me counterbalancing your rant. But it was a bit low, and i apologise if i offended you.

T

tcc 15 March 2012 10:50 · Member since June 2009

catqueen wrote:
Micrówave wrote:
catqueen wrote:
Micrówave wrote:
i don't actively 'do' anything about execution, beyond occasionally signing petitions
That should counterbalance my rants on Queenzone... Thank you for making the world a safer place.
I don't think your rant is actually doing much to convince people of the value of execution, so i doubt its doing much damage. :P
Exactly. Change the topic. So now you're saying that this is the "Value of Executions" thread? Maybe we should call it the "Catqueen does nothing to stop executions" thread???

Eh... no... i responded to YOUR comment about me counterbalancing your rant. But it was a bit low, and i apologise if i offended you.

The End ?

M

Micrówave 15 March 2012 11:14 · Member since January 2006

Well, we don't seem to be starting any other good threads lately. If anything, we got this place talking.

This thread reminded me a lot of that kids game where you whisper something to one kid, and he passes it along. Once the final kid gets it, it's totally different from where it started.

C

catqueen 15 March 2012 11:16 · Member since March 2009

tcc wrote:
catqueen wrote:
Micrówave wrote:
catqueen wrote:
Micrówave wrote:
i don't actively 'do' anything about execution, beyond occasionally signing petitions
That should counterbalance my rants on Queenzone... Thank you for making the world a safer place.
I don't think your rant is actually doing much to convince people of the value of execution, so i doubt its doing much damage. :P
Exactly. Change the topic. So now you're saying that this is the "Value of Executions" thread? Maybe we should call it the "Catqueen does nothing to stop executions" thread???

Eh... no... i responded to YOUR comment about me counterbalancing your rant. But it was a bit low, and i apologise if i offended you.

The End ?

haha, u getting tired of it? I only apologised for if i upset microwave, not for defending what i think lol.

C

catqueen 15 March 2012 11:17 · Member since March 2009

Micrówave wrote:
Well, we don't seem to be starting any other good threads lately. If anything, we got this place talking.

Wasn't really a 'good' thread though... lol
Discussion is good, but try to not attack people, it just makes everyone annoyed.

M

Micrówave 15 March 2012 11:18 · Member since January 2006

You should never have to apologize for what you think unless it causes harm to others.

If anything, I do respect you for your passion.

M

Micrówave 15 March 2012 11:19 · Member since January 2006

catqueen wrote:
Micrówave wrote:
Well, we don't seem to be starting any other good threads lately. If anything, we got this place talking.

Wasn't really a 'good' thread though... lol
Discussion is good, but try to not attack people, it just makes everyone annoyed.

I doubt you'll get an apology from Amazon, who started the attacks.

And 13 pages? That's definitely a good thread. You may have not liked the subject matter and interpreted it all ass-backwards, but, again, it got more comments than most of the recent threads like "Freddie's last photo session".

C

catqueen 15 March 2012 11:41 · Member since March 2009

Micrówave wrote:
I doubt you'll get an apology from Amazon, who started the attacks.

Well, i didn't get an apology from you either, and you were the one who attacked me. Amazon didn't attack me, so i wouldn't expect one :)

H

Hangman_96 15 March 2012 12:30 · Member since July 2010

The following discussion just won't be making sense anymore.

C

catqueen 15 March 2012 12:42 · Member since March 2009

Lostman wrote:
The following discussion just won't be making sense anymore.

Did it in the first place?

H

Hangman_96 15 March 2012 12:52 · Member since July 2010

catqueen wrote:
Lostman wrote:
The following discussion just won't be making sense anymore.

Did it in the first place?

Nope.

C

catqueen 15 March 2012 13:06 · Member since March 2009

Lostman wrote:
catqueen wrote:
Lostman wrote:
The following discussion just won't be making sense anymore.

Did it in the first place?

Nope.

thought not lol

M

Micrówave 15 March 2012 13:28 · Member since January 2006

I'm sorry, Catqueen, for attacking you for attacking me because I attacked you for attacking me.

Here's your second post, where you begin to twist my words:

And if you are, what do you feel is wrong with them stating that someone was executed?

Where the hell did I say that? You created that. Everybody then piled onto YOUR assessment of my words, not what was actually said... which was quite clear and concise.

I never said it was wrong with them stating that someone was executed.... BECAUSE that is not what they did. They "attacked" the policy of execution by painting the convicted as rehabilitated members of society who were railroaded thru the legal system.

So the first "attack" really came from you, by twisting my words into what you wanted to hear.

Then, you further your attack by stating that I

[/QUOTE]

also said that the guy who tried to kill himself should have been allowed to die/QUOTE]

No, I said the guy that killed a man and his two young children, should have been allowed to finish his suicide attempt. Shouldn't you be mad at him for trying to kill himself? He was trying to EXECUTE himself.

If I'm going to apologize, which I did, when will you admit that I didn't say what you said I did. You simply tried to 'sum up' my comments by totally changing the context.

M

Micrówave 15 March 2012 13:40 · Member since January 2006

And I apologize for all the quoting. Since NONE of you were able to directly quote what you "think" I said, yet I was able to quote your word twisting SEVERAL TIMES, I found it necessary.

C

catqueen 15 March 2012 13:56 · Member since March 2009

Micrówave wrote:
I'm sorry, Catqueen, for attacking you for attacking me because I attacked you for attacking me.Here's your second post, where you begin to twist my words:
And if you are, what do you feel is wrong with them stating that someone was executed?
Where the hell did I say that? You created that. Everybody then piled onto YOUR assessment of my words, not what was actually said... which was quite clear and concise.I never said it was wrong with them stating that someone was executed.... BECAUSE that is not what they did. They "attacked" the policy of execution by painting the convicted as rehabilitated members of society who were railroaded thru the legal system.So the first "attack" really came from you, by twisting my words into what you wanted to hear.Then, you further your attack by stating that I

also said that the guy who tried to kill himself should have been allowed to die/QUOTE]

No, I said the guy that killed a man and his two young children, should have been allowed to finish his suicide attempt. Shouldn't you be mad at him for trying to kill himself? He was trying to EXECUTE himself. If I'm going to apologize, which I did, when will you admit that I didn't say what you said I did. You simply tried to 'sum up' my comments by totally changing the context.[/QUOTE]

Asking someone to clarify their meaning is not a personal attack. And it did look like that's what you meant. What is wrong with highlighting that someone has shown evidence of rehabilitation?

Posts in chronological order