SUSPECT SHOT IN MCCRACKEN COUNTY HOME INVASION ROBBERY

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

Police say a suspected burglar was shot early Thursday morning during a McCracken County home invasion.

The incident happened at about 2 a.m. at a home in the Kevil area. Tthe McCracken county sheriff says a man was trying to break into the home when a burglar alarm went off. The home owner confronted the burglar, then shot him.

http://www.lex18.com/news/suspect-shot-in-mccracken-county-home-invasion-robbery

[anonymous171]

1. More evidence that guns need to be banned. nt

[rwheeler31]

2. Exactly

[Nostradammit]

3. Whenever I picture "Fire_Medic_Dave" in my mind's eye

I always picture him sitting at home in his basement slowly polishing
the barrel of his gun over and over and over, dreaming of the day when
something will once again come out of it.

[Suich]

4. ...

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

10. Sorry to disappoint.

Haven't been shooting in at least 6 months and haven't cleaned a gun in over 3 years. I probably should get some of them out and at least put some oil on them to prevent rust. I don't have a basement either. Your mental imagery is very telling though, just so you know, I am happily married.

David

[JonQ]

14. Grabbers seem to have very vivid imaginations

usually involving genitalia and guns.

For some reason they think that because they can't separate guns from reproductive organs no one else can.

[Nostradammit]

16. I actually own a gun and believe in people's rights to own them

I just don't obsess on them like some do.

[JonQ]

17. I think some people "obsess" over them

as you say, because there are others who obsess with taking them away.

Get rid of the anti-movement and the pro-2nd amendment movement will likely quiet down.

For instance, you don't hear people "obsessing" over the government quartering troops in your house. Why? Because no one is trying to incrementally do away with the 3rd amendment.

[Nostradammit]

18. And some people are just assholes

present company excepted, of course.

[JonQ]

19. I don't think being pro-constitutional rights

qualifies one as an asshole.

Quit the opposite in fact.

Oh, except for those assholes at the ACLU, obsessing over freedom of speech and religion. What a bunch of douchebags. Get a life.

[Nostradammit]

21. I think that for every instance of appropriate use of a gun

for self-defense there are two instances of inappropriate use of a gun for nefarious purposes
and I think that nothing pleases the powers that be more than seeing the underclass armed to
the teeth and killing each other for a crust of bread. The second amendment appears to have been
designed to keep a corrupt government in check and at that it has failed miserably.

The evolution of our species depends on our ability to overcome the use of violence to settle our conflicts.
Flooding a progressive-minded board with endless posts about how violence is "effective" does absolutely
nothing to further that cause.

Good day to you, sir.

[X_Digger]

22. Interesting assertion..

.. is this just supposition, or do you see something that makes you believe this?

Considering the number of weapons (300M) and the number of gun owners (80M), I'd think there'd be a lot more reported gun crime were that true.

The lowest estimate of defensive uses of guns is about 100k/year (yes, I'm sure Iverglas will be along shortly to hike up her skirt and try to piss on that estimate- again) and there are about 100k gun crimes (we don't have 2008 figures yet, but looks to be down), so looks to be 1 to 1 or less.

[iverglas]

26. calling me, are you?

Or is that calling out ...


I'm just trying to figure out how anything in your post is remotely responsive to what it was supposedly a reply to:

I think that for every instance of appropriate use of a gun

for self-defense there are two instances of inappropriate use of a gun for nefarious purposes and I think that nothing pleases the powers that be more than seeing the underclass armed to the teeth and killing each other for a crust of bread. The second amendment appears to have been designed to keep a corrupt government in check and at that it has failed miserably.

The evolution of our species depends on our ability to overcome the use of violence to settle our conflicts. Flooding a progressive-minded board with endless posts about how violence is "effective" does absolutely nothing to further that cause.

Good day to you, sir.

You "reply":

is this just supposition, or do you see something that makes you believe this?

What are these thises I see before mine eyes?

Damned if I know.


We all know your "estimates" are bullshit to the 10th power, so no need to say any more about 'em.

[X_Digger]

28. If you can't see the relevance..

.. then you really do need more eye surgery..

"I think that for every instance of appropriate use of a gun

for self-defense (1) there are two instances of inappropriate use of a gun for nefarious purposes(2)"

(1) DGU estimates

(2) guns used in crime

My reply:

"The lowest estimate of defensive uses of guns is about 100k/year (1)(yes, I'm sure Iverglas will be along shortly to hike up her skirt and try to piss on that estimate- again) and there are about 100k gun crimes (2) (we don't have 2008 figures yet, but looks to be down), so looks to be 1 to 1 or less."

Nostradammit suggested a 1 to 2 ratio between 'appropriate use of a gun' and 'inappropriate use of a gun'. I presented what the current estimates are of 'appropriate' vs 'inappropriate' uses.

[iverglas]

29. hmm

The lowest estimate of defensive uses of guns is about 100k/year (1)... and there are about 100k gun crimes (2) (we don't have 2008 figures yet, but looks to be down), so looks to be 1 to 1 or less.


We take our "estimates" of "defensive uses of guns" from the most unbelievably unverifiable (defensive? or not?), and wildly varying responses to surveys and wholly improper extrapolations from those surveys.

We take our numbers for "nefarious uses" of guns (yes, that's what you're talking about, because THAT is what the poster to whom you replied said NOT "gun crime") from recorded instances of the use of firearms in crimes.

Gosh.

We're just fair and balanced, aren't we??


Happy now?

[X_Digger]

32. What other stat would you ascribe to 'nefarious uses'?

Please enlighten me, do. If you have a better measure in your back pocket, be sure to share.

[iverglas]

37. did I claim to have one?

"Nefarious use" covers considerably more ground than police-reported/recorded criminal use, which is what you decided to address instead of what was said.

Individuals who threaten members of their households with firearms, or threaten to harm household pets with firearms, or use the presence of firearms of firearms as an unstated threat to secure compliance from members of their household -- all of which are commonly reported by women who are victims of intimate partner abuse -- are not going to show up in your police-reported/recorded criminal use stats. And yet they exist, and their behaviours occur, and most people would call those behaviours "nefarious use" of firearms.

There is, of course, every reason to believe that a not insignificant proportion of those "defensive gun uses" reported in surveys were themselves "nefarious". The fact that someone reports to a surveyor that s/he has used a firearm defensively does not mean that any court, presented with the event, would decide the same way, or should.


On a quick google -- you'll have to google a phrase, because the site itself can only be read by subscription, but the cached version is acessible:

http://www.straightgoods.ca/ViewFeature7.cfm?REF=523

Why abused women stay

Abusive men say they will kill women, their children or their favorite animals, if they try to leave.

Dateline: Monday, October 15, 2007

by Ginette Petitpas Taylor

Anyone who has ever wondered why abused women don't just leave their partners should talk to abused women in rural areas.

Deborah Doherty and Jennie Hornosty of Fredericton have done just that. Their study, funded by the Canada Firearms Centre, looked at the experiences of rural abused women.

Their research would be of great interest to New Brunswick even if it had been conducted in another part of Canada, but it was done mostly with New Brunswick women. With half of us living in non-urban areas, and with New Brunswick having such a high rate of gun-related deaths and spousal murder-suicides, we should be paying attention to their results and recommendations.

Here's the executive study of the summary:

http://www.acswcccf.nb.ca/english/documents/EXECUTIVE%20SUMMARY%20Short3.doc

Despite the growing body of literature on family violence, there are few studies which deal specifically with family violence in a rural context. None have examined extensively the social and cultural context of firearms in rural homes and the impact this may have on women dealing with abuse. Yet we know from our previous research1 that the availability of firearms in rural homes is a perceived threat by abused rural women (see Doherty, Hornosty & McCallum, 1997; Hornosty & Doherty, 2004; Doherty & Hornosty, 2004; Hornosty & Doherty, 2003). We also know that threats often extend to family pets and farm animals.

The current study, which was funded by the Canada Firearms Centre, examines family violence, firearms, and pet abuse within a rural context where firearms are positively valued. The research was by conducted by Drs Doherty and Hornosty, as part of a research team, Family Violence on the Farm and in Rural Communities, at the University of New Brunswick. The research partners in the study included all the transition houses in New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, Victim Services in Prince Edward Island, the Chief Firearms Officers in both provinces, Victim Services of the Fredericton City Police and Codiac RCMP in New Brunswick, and the RCMP “J” Division. The major goal of the study was to examine, from a broad regional perspective, the various dimensions or forms in which firearms serve as instruments of control, intimidation and abuse in family violence situations with a view to expanding the information base and gaining a better understanding of the risk factors that lead to, or escalate, firearms victimization of women and children in rural homes. The research documents the experiences of abused rural women and explores service providers’/crisis workers’ perceptions of domestic firearms abuse and its influence on safety planning and intervention strategies. It also sheds light on rural perceptions, norms and values on the relationships between firearms, family violence and animal abuse.

The research was carried out in New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island in 2005-2007, over an 18 month period. We used both surveys (quantitative data) and semi-structured interviews and focus groups (qualitative data). The research instruments were available in both official languages. We conducted a review of the literature on firearms misuse, family violence, and animal abuse as a backdrop to the research. In addition, a media content analysis of newspaper articles on selected family violence issues helped us to understand public perceptions, particularly in association with firearms. Finally, an analysis of court cases in Atlantic Canada over the past several years relating to family violence provided insights into the justice system’s response to family violence, particularly when it involved firearms victimization and/or abuse of pets.

With respect to firearms, we learned that:

* 25% of the women who answered this question had firearms in their household;
* Of these, 72% had long guns. 18% had both long guns and hand guns present;
* Nearly 40% said partners did not have a license to own firearms; 44% of firearms were not registered; 50% were not kept locked, and 11% indicated the guns were kept loaded;
* 66% of the women who indicated there were firearms in their home said knowing about the firearms made them more fearful for their safety and well-being;
* 70% said it had an affect on their decisions to tell others or seek help;
* Women were more likely to express concern for their safety when the firearms were not licensed, registered or locked;
* 83% of the women who knew the guns were loaded were fearful;
* The presence of firearms increased a woman’s fear when her partner used drugs and alcohol or was threatening suicide, or there were concerns that the partner would harm her, the children, family, or property.

Survey questions about the abuse of pets and farm animals revealed that:

* 70% of households had a pet or farm animal (based on the 273 women who answered the question concerning pets);
* 57% of the households with pets also had children;
* 45% said their partner deliberately threatened to harm their pets or farm animal, and, of those, 41% said their partner deliberately harmed or killed the pet;
* 64% of women in homes with firearms thought firearms were used to harm the animal;
* 27% of the women who owned pets said they were more reluctant to get help for fear the abuser would harm their animal if they left;
* 60% said they were reluctant to disclose even when an animal had been harmed;
* 24% of women with children said that their child was aware that an animal had been harmed or threatened with abuse.

Now that there is some real research.


Oh, I know. Stuff like that doesn't happen in Montana, or Alaska, or Idaho, or Kansas ...

If you felt like exhibiting some o' that intellectual honesty, you'd find the studies that show it does instead of me dredging through my bookmarks to show you.

[X_Digger]

41. How many ways will you split a hair?

I think you got four slices out of that one.

[iverglas]

44. how many ways will I call anyone who pretends

that someone said something s/he didn't say?

As many times as someone wants to do it.

You did not reply to a post about crimes committed using firearms.

I pointed that out, and explained the relevance of the distinction between what the poster you replied to really said and what you decided to talk about.

All done.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

23. Likely those two inappropriate uses were with illegally possessed firearms.

How are the law abiding supposed to immediately stop violence directed at them without resorting to violence?

[iverglas]

27. ... with illegally possessed firearms ...

that had dropped like lawn darts from the sky.

Nobody ever possessed them legally, and nobody could possibly have done a single thing to stop them from being possessed illegally.

We know.

[Taitertots]

33. The same way cocaine and heroin drop in like lawn darts

Do you really believe that the people who are capable of getting large volumes of cocaine and heroin have no means to obtain firearms?


So what gun control law do you propose that is going to make it impossible for criminals to get guns?

[iverglas]

38. did someone once possess that stuff legally?

Do you really believe that the people who are capable of getting large volumes of cocaine and heroin have no means to obtain firearms?

Are you really meaning to tell me that the largest source of illegally possessed firearms in the US lies somewhere outside its borders?


So what gun control law do you propose that is going to make it impossible for criminals to get guns?

Allow me to laugh in your face.

:rofl:

There. I did.

That's the only reasonable response to such a pig-ignorant question.

Do you not fucking have fucking GOOGLE?

Learn to use it.

Or just stay awake when you're reading this forum.

Whatever you choose to do, do not shove yourself in my face and demand that I do something that I have done several dozen, if not hundred, times in this forum already.

You weren't here? TOUGH SHIT.

[Taitertots]

43. We both know that no gun control is going to make....

Getting guns in America difficult by any standard. We both know that tons of drugs pour in from countries flush with real automatic weapons. So what gun control scheme is going to have any results? Obviously even the Canadian system can't stop criminals from using guns, because there are still people being killed by them. Why don't you try to have a successful gun control scheme in your own country before lecturing us about ours? Especially considering places like North Dakota have no problem not killing each other despite being able to legally buy pre 1986 registered machine guns, and new silencers.



You seem to be full of whining, but absent any sort of meaningful, actionable plans. I'm not going to patrol thousands of google results to find something you took twice as much time to bitch about than it would to have answered. I keep having to ask it because you refuse to offer a direct answer. How can I discuss something with someone who refuses to say what they believe in?

[iverglas]

45. blah blah blah

We both know that no gun control is going to make....
Getting guns in America difficult by any standard.

I've never claimed to know bullshit. You claim to know bullshit if you want. Leave me out of it.


You seem to be full of whining, but absent any sort of meaningful, actionable plans.

You seeeeeeem to be speaking something other than the truth.


I'm not going to patrol thousands of google results

Your choice. Not my problem.

to find something you took twice as much time to bitch about than it would to have answered.

Nope. I don't offer "meaningful, actionable plans" in 30 seconds on demand.


I keep having to ask it because you refuse to offer a direct answer.

Nope. You keep asking it because

(a) you're too lazy to find it for yourself

and

(b) you're too rude to ask a straightforward question.


How can I discuss something with someone who refuses to say what they believe in?

I wouldn't know. You could try finding someone who refuses to say what they believe in and asking them.


Do you behave this way at parties? Find a group of people talking about something, identify someone who has apparently taken a position on it that you don't like, and demand that they explain themselves to you?

I wouldn't be surprised. But I doubt it.



typo fixed

[Taitertots]

49. You will do just about anything other than admit what your position is

Do you behave this way at parties? Find a group of people talking about something, identify someone who has apparently taken a position on it that you don't like, and demand that they explain themselves to you?
No, people would just openly discuss what they believe. If we were discussing something and someone had a different view I would surely ask them to explain why they felt that way. Then they would explain how they felt and why. They surely wouldn't spend more time crying than explaining what they believe. That is the whole point of talking to people, discussing what you believe and why.


You are going to spend more time bitching than explaining your views. If you are so intellectually dishonest that you won't even stand up and explain what you believe then I question why you are even here. Further, this conversation is over until you come forward and openly admit your beliefs. You have already taken ten times as much time responding in this thread than it would have taken for you to explain yourself. I'm not going to wade through a sea of garbage to try and find what may or may not be a pearl.

[iverglas]

61. you will do anything other than admit the truth

Do you behave this way at parties? Find a group of people talking about something, identify someone who has apparently taken a position on it that you don't like, and demand that they explain themselves to you?
No, people would just openly discuss what they believe.

Ah, your acquaintances are a tolerant group.

If someone I didn't know barged into a discussion I and other people were involved in and demanded that one of us state a position on something that was entirely TANGENTIAL to the topic at hand -- perhaps you noticed that the topic of this thread is SUSPECT SHOT IN MCCRACKEN COUNTY HOME INVASION ROBBERY and that I was replying to a post headed Likely those two inappropriate uses were with illegally possessed firearms, in reply to which you decided to say Do you really believe that the people who are capable of getting large volumes of cocaine and heroin have no means to obtain firearms?, followed by THE 100% FALSE ASSERTION You seem to be full of whining, but absent any sort of meaningful, actionable plans -- I'd tell him/her to fuck off. As would any serious person I know.

Just over 12 hours ago my generous nature overcame my disdain, and I suggested that since one of your colleagues was evidently too lazy to get off his ass and do what it is incumbent on any person of goodwill to do -- INFORM THEMSELF about the content of a discussion before they joined it -- they might try googling something like iverglas "safe/secure storage" (since that was the topic of a thread in which another of your colleagues reported that my arguments in that regard had persuaded him to take action).

Give it a shot. Hours of reading await you, going back several years:
Results 1 - 30 of about 269 from www.democraticunderground.com for iverglas "safe/secure storage"

Along the way, you'll see how many of your colleagues have exhibited the same boorish and incivil behaviour as yourself.

Let me know what you'd like to take issue with.


typos fixed

[SteveM]

86. Second verse, same as the first... (nt)

[iverglas]

87. indeed

And your rendition of the refrain is just as vapid.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

46. Who are you implying said or believes those things?

[eqfan592]

35. You're wrong. Look at the numbers yourself (I'm sure somebody else has posted them....

....I'm only here shortly and have to go. But google is your friend.

[backwoodsbob]

84. see theres the problem

it's all *I think I think*

Nothing to back it

[JonQ]

109. But you don't have evidence for that claim

you simple made it up.

I could just as easily say that for every inappropriate use of a gun there are 3 instances where it is used for self-defense, to save an innocent life. Neither would be substantiated, so they are both as accurate.

And when everyone else on earth is "civilized" enough to never resort to violence or the threat of violence to get their way then we can dismantle every weapon in existence.

Until then, I won't put my life at risk on the assumption that every crackhead, thief, and psychopath out there is too civilized to ever even consider violence.

[Nostradammit]

20. *

edit

[SteveM]

85. The OP hits hard, but is not deserving of your insult (nt)

[slackmaster]

12. Thanks for sharing your prejudice with us

:hi:

[iverglas]

25. ...

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

48. I actually wrote mine of you, then I realized it would just be mean and immature to post it.

I hope you, your mom and sis are recovering well from the surgeries.

[National Steel 27]

5. Yeah, really...

If that pesky Homeowner wasn't armed.....


Everything would have turned out just peachy.....

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

11. After all, we all know how good criminals are at following the rules.

[inkool]

50. Could you please explain why? n/t

[Mimosa]

6. What if?

What if a burglar broke into a house with the intent to steal from a woman and rape her? Here's a link to a random story where a woman was raped and stabbed which was on the sidebar of the 'homeowner shoots burglar' report:

http://www.lex18.com/news/man-charged-with-raping-stabbing-boyle-county-woman/

To repeat, what if a man breaks into a woman's apartment or house. Maybe she doesn't have a burglar alarm system because it's too expensive. She hears the break-in and picks up her gun. What if she shoots the burglar? Would somebody post guns should be banned?

As to the OP burglary story I wonder why the burglar stuck around after the alarm went off. Was he armed? BTW, at 2 a.m. the burglar knew it was likely a homeowner would be at home. The less dangerous burglars break in during daylight and attempt to make sure the house is unoccupied.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

9. Did you think I was posting this because I was against people defending themselves?

[iverglas]

40. RAPE! RAPE! RAPE!

What if a burglar broke into a house with the intent to steal from a woman and rape her?

What if a burglar broke into a house with the intent to steal from a MAN and rape HIM???


Can we not have a little variation on the sexploitation once in a while???


Jeez. Looking real forward to your obviously priceless and original contributions in this forum.

[JonQ]

52. Or pinch him

as you've claimed in the past, raping and pinching are the same thing.

Maybe that's why you don't believe in self-defense, you don't think being raped/beaten/murdered is really all that bad?

Hopefully you never have to find out.

[iverglas]

57. and as I've said in the past

A large majority of the contributors to this forum seem to have a serious cognitive impairment.

What else would explain all the false statements?

Well, I guess an ethical impairment would do it.

As I say to able-bodied drivers parking in disabled spaces: is you handicap mental, or just moral?


Hopefully you never have to find out.

Hopefully you'll figure out how swinish that comment is.

[JonQ]

65. You really seem to be pro-rape

or at least apathetic to the idea.

Why is that? Do you not acknowledge the trauma it causes, physical and emotional? Do you think some people have it coming? Do you put the rights of the rapist to practice his trade above the rights of the victim to not be abused?

What exactly fuels your pro-rape beliefs?

[iverglas]

69. and you're a vicious fool

You really seem to be pro-rape
Posted by JonQ


or at least apathetic to the idea.

Why is that? Do you not acknowledge the trauma it causes, physical and emotional? Do you think some people have it coming? Do you put the rights of the rapist to practice his trade above the rights of the victim to not be abused?

What exactly fuels your pro-rape beliefs?

[JonQ]

77. Oh dear, you seem to be offended

when I quote your own words back at you.

I suggest you take more care with what you type in the future if your words cause you such distress. Just imagine what they do to everyone else.

[iverglas]

82. place my previous subject line here

And you have quoted none of my own words back at me.

Were you to quote my own words back at me, they would look something like this:

When I was in law school, I was abducted while hitchhiking in southern Ontario - with a male companion, when this was a common and accepted means of transport for anyone who wasn't rolling in money, or even who was. My male companion was not going as far as I was - and only in hindsight did we note his comments about how you can't tell the girls from the boys these days; my companion was my height and slight, and had long curly dark hair to my long straight light hair, and we were both in jeans. We had been taken for two young women.

The driver had removed all of the door and window handles from the inside of the vehicle; it was a junker, and his explanation was that they were broken. There was nothing particularly suspicious about that, in the time and place and circumstances, and in my experience. I was not aware that at the time the police in southern Ontario were looking for him in connection with his abduction and rape of two teenaged girls two days before, and an attempt he had made to abduct three other teenaged girls on the intervening day. Those were the victims who had reported their experiences to police; if there were others, we don't know.

After we left my companion at a ramp to continue his journey into the city where he was going, the driver left the highway - on a legitimate alternate route to where I was going - and drove through a rural area where he pointed out a couple of sights to me that he seemed familiar with. And then he turned off, and drove down to the bottom of a disused quarry - just as he had done two days before in a different part of the province. There was discussion, there were attempts by me to break out and to attract attention and to injure him, the last of which which I did manage, and then there were his hands around my throat and the beginning of loss of consciousness.

At that time, I was employed by a research agency doing a study of the sentencing of sexual offenders. I had recently read the police files and newspaper reports of countless sexual assaults. I was familiar with the numbers and nature of the offences. I knew that the odds of a girl or woman being killed by someone who sexually assaulted her were minute; I decided that I might have hit the jackpot. I therefore conceded by ceasing to struggle before I would have fallen unconscious. After recovering, I expressed my agreeableness to whatever he might have in mind.

After raping me, he opened the door of the car and informed me that we were going for a walk in the woods, and told me to put my shoes on. I calculated that I ran better in bare feet. I had convinced him that I was a chain smoker who could not be without my cigarettes, so, in order to have identification with me, I said I must bring my purse. When I reached back for it and he turned his head, I ran. I ran up a steep gravel road, I fell down and lost my glasses, I hoped he would not try to catch me or run me down. He took off in a cloud of dust.

I was unable to see, being terribly myopic, but started to wander down the country highway I got to, toward what looked like a farmhouse. It was. I began banging on the door. When the householder answered, I said "I've just been raped, can I use your phone to call the police." I had to repeat myself. Why did I say this? Becuase there is an old doctrine called "recent complaint" to soften the rule that a woman's word alone was not sufficient to convict on a rape charge, but if she immediately reported the assault, that would be corroboration. I knew about it, because I was in law school. I made my recent complaint. The law was changed here very shortly after that. (This is not a Canadian rule; Google finds me a case where it was cited in Virginia in 1997.)

The Ontario Provincial Police came. When I identified myself and my occupation, they questioned whether I was doing research, but accepted my No. When I said I couldn't see but I was the one who found my glasses on the gravel road, because I knew where I'd fallen, they were skeptical until they looked through them. I spent several hours with them identifying places where he had stopped, where they questioned the occupants, going to hospital, giving a statement, etc. About eight months later, I testified at the trial on the charges involving the two teenaged girls. It was fortunate they had reported; being South African and of mixed race, it had not been their first impulse. Ditto for the three girls who had thwarted him by threatening him with three people and a hairbrush against one; they didn't want to identify themselves until they heard about the first two. After that, he bargained a sentence for the assault on me, which the Crown agreed to only after consultation with me.

This, on top of a horrific childhood ordeal, and two significant events since then, has left me with posttraumatic stress. Not nightly nightmares, but other pervasive effects.

There you go. Did google find you that?

What google will tell you is a tale that I was raped at gunpoint. I was not.

But I know you're dying to ask. What if I had had a gun?

Well, if I had been toting a gun around in the 1970s in southern Ontario, then I really do think that a man who was prowling the highways and biways for women to assault and, in all likelihood by the time he got to me, kill, would have been toting one too. And I just don't think he would have waited for me to pull mine on him.

This has all been reported in this forum in the past on more than one occasion. I will leave you to imagine my gratitude at having the opportunity to tell the story all over again.

I hope this helps you in your future endeavours.

[JonQ]

88. If any of that were true

you wouldn't routinely make light of others being raped (unless you really are as crazy as you come across).

Sorry, not buying it. An actual victim wouldn't seek to belittle and disarm other potential victims.

So please, don't invent these stories to try to "prove your point" in the future, it's a despicable habit.

[iverglas]

91. say it loud and say it proud

I'm a liar; right?

And you're dogshit.

[iverglas]

92. .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3968464&mesg_id=3979425

iverglas
Wed Jun-29-05 01:53 PM
Response to Reply #121

192. me with you

Another victim -- a little older, abducted by a stranger, assaulted (choked), sexually assaulted ("raped", in language that is no longer used in Canadian criminal law), found a tiny window of opportunity to escape alive, took it.

I puke every time I see someone here exploit MY EXPERIENCE for their own ends. "Rape" is an experience of women, most women in fact, that has for most of human history been used, in one way or another, for MEN's (and more importantly, "the patriarchy's", and the ruling classes' ...) ends, for controlling women's lives, in a variety of ways.

The individual man who commits the individual act of assault is no more deserving of being tortured, or mutilated, or permanently deprived of liberty, or killed, than any other individual who commits any other act of violence.

And the bilious outrage that some people are so fond of expressing against sexual assault offenders does absolutely nothing to enable women to live our own lives, and in particular to shake off the patriarchal, oppressive, exploitive imposed definitions of our sexuality, and many women's not insignificantly irrational fear of sexual assault, and their suffering as a result of it.

"I thank God that I do not have to walk around every day wanting to murder my rapist because I would be one miserable human being."

Absolutely. And doing nothing to assist other women overcome their fears or get on with their lives if it does happen to them.

[iverglas]

93. .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=56444&mesg_id=57465

iverglas
Thu May-13-04 08:36 PM
Response to Reply #16

18. my dear fellow; follow the breadcrumbs

... "Casting them as eternally powerless victims doesn't help anyone."

Yes, we all know that Wendy McElroy has a big fan club out there. And I find the words no less disingenuous in anyone else's mouth.

And in case you missed it, I AM A VICTIM. I was abducted, choked, raped and almost killed by a man FOR NO REASON OTHER THAN THAT I AM A WOMAN. I am NOT "powerless", but I AM A VICTIM. And I could have shot him dead, and I WOULD STILL BE A VICTIM. What he did, and the fact that I and all women are vulnerable to it being done to us, is not changed by calling me and us something else.

I feel no shame at being a victim. I was not responsible for what was done to me. So I'm just not easy prey for the right-wing, misogynist effort to persuade me that my life will be better if I deny that I was and am potentially, at any time, a victim. Sorry.

[iverglas]

94. .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2811645&mesg_id=2813346

iverglas
Thu Apr-19-07 08:47 AM
Response to Reply #22

23. you got a link?

"Iverglas, whose post is just below, once recommended curling up into a little ball as the best response to an attacker."

Where the fuck did that come from?

Not from my keyboard, unless I was in one of my rare moments of finding myself dryly hilarious ...

Source and quotation, please. You really don't get to play "iverglas is a moron" without actually having a card to lay on the table, you know.

Just so's you know, when I was abducted in a locked car with no interior door or window handles, I progressively leaned on the horn and screamed, attempted to kick out a window (windshield glass beats plastic sandals), grabbed me a handful of flesh and squeezed and twisted, unfortunately missing what I was actually aiming at but leaving a big old bruise, and played dead only when I was starting to lose consciousness from the hands closed around my throat, as I calculated the odds (being a novice expert in the field at the time) of having encountered not just a sexual assailant but a murderer. They're way low, but I'm pretty sure I'd hit the jackpot, and that had I accepted the invitation for a walk in the woods a little later instead of hitting the gravel running in bare feet, we wouldn't be having this little chat.

I didn't have a gun. But then (internet reports to the contrary), neither did he. He went to jail, I got called to the bar ... and one of those wouldn't have happened if he'd had a gun. If we'd both had guns, we could have entertained ourselves shooting each other dead in the front seat of a sealed vehicle ... assuming, of course, that he was stupid enough not to have drawn first.

[iverglas]

95. .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=11122&mesg_id=11759

iverglas (
Tue Sep-23-03 10:25 AM
Response to Reply #26

27. no, I'm a vicious idiot too

"Would it have been in your self-interest if...
...a previous victim of your rapist had done whatever was necessary to stop the SOB? Did you do anything to make sure there were no more victims of this rapist?"

It would have been in my interest, and in the interests of anyone else whom he might have victimized before or after.

The fact that you ask the second question means that you think you have reason to believe that I would have done nothing -- else you wouldn't ask such a thing, or at least phrase the question as you did. (You didn't ask "what did you do ...?", you chose to ask "did you do anything ...?") How bizarre.

There were previous victims. One situation amounted only to an attempt: a group of three teenaged girls he abducted but released when one threatened him with a hairbrush from the back seat, the day before. In the other, he had succeeded: two teenaged sisters he abducted, two days before; each was afraid to try to escape and leave the other there. They had made complaints to the police. (Whether there were any others prior, I have no way of knowing, but it seems that this was a sudden and isolated behaviour on his part.) The police were looking for him when he found me. I was particularly grateful to the two sisters, who were recent arrivals from South Africa and were of mixed race, and had been apprehensive about going to police.

I escaped from him at the moment he let me out of the car with no interior handles to take me for "a walk in the woods" ... and turned his back for an instant to wait for me to put my shoes back on as he'd told me to do -- I ran instead, faster than I'd ever run before. I went immediately to the farmhouse I could vaguely make out down the road. I'd lost my glasses as I scrambled barefoot up a steep gravel road, expecting to be run down or cornered by him (he panicked and sped off), and could barely see anything.

I banged on the door until someone opened it, and said "I have just been raped, can I use your phone to call the police?" I said this because I was quite aware that Cdn law at the time, like most other places, required corroboration of a rape complainant's report, and "recent complaint" was corroboration (there were of course no eye-witnesses). Otherwise, I might have just asked to call police without bothering to give an explanation to total strangers. They took me in, and gave me coffee and sat with me while we waited for the police.

And I spent the next 12 hours in the police's company, being questioned, being medically examined, writing statements, and assisting them in locating the places he had taken me. The first thing that I told them was that I was a law student who was employed by the <senior govt. agency> and was currently examining the sentencing of dangerous sexual offenders, and assured the cop who asked that no, this was not research.

I took a week out in the middle of my second-year law school exams -- postponed one, but should have postponed all of them, had I had any idea of the real stress involved in the process and the effect it would have on my test-taking skills -- and travelling 300 miles to testify at the trial on the first two charges as a similar-fact witness. That involved hanging out in a little room for 3 days, feeding the prosecuting and defence counsel cigarettes on their breaks and, bizarrely, having lunch with defence counsel. I then testifyied both in the absence and in the presence of the jury while, in the former situation, defence counsel took a stab at impeaching my credibility. He in fact managed, whether because of skill on his part or just free-floating liberal guilt on my part, to leave me internally questioning my own judgment on the issue of "consent" ... maybe, after the man had held me captive for 2 hours and choked me into submission and I had assessed the odds of dying as high, and I had then tried to reassure him that I'd just been a little confused when I tried to put my foot through his windshield, he'd thought I was "cosenting" ...

Several months later, I travelled back again, to a different town, to attend the sentencing on a negotiated plea to the charge relating to me, that I had been fully consulted on and agreed to. My situation was the opposite of what many women experience -- the prosecution told me that they would not agree to what was really a shorter sentence than might have been appropriate, if I did not concur. Being somewhat "expert" in sentencing, and the sentencing of sexual offenders in particular, I felt too pressured by my own knowledge and beliefs to agree to what I knew and believed to be objectively appropriate. That's the court's job, and victims should really not be asked to do it (or insist on doing it, of course). I didn't want, and shouldn't have been given, the responsibility for either accepting or rejecting a sentencing proposal. Prosecution counsel had simply gone a little overboard on being "sensitive" to the victim.

So there you are, the answer to your question. So glad you asked; maybe you actually cared about the answer. But maybe you'll just announce that you found it not worth reading. No skin off my nose.

[iverglas]

96. and now the assembled masses

can make up their own mind about who is the despicable piece of crap in this scenario.

We'll just let them think it silently, shall we?

[JonQ]

101. Yeah, ok

so you've repeated this alot, I guess that makes it true then. :eyes:

Fact is people who have actually been raped don't tend to be so flippant about it as you are, they don't view it as humorous, as you seem to. I know people who were actually abused and believe me, they don't joke about it the way you do.

You break out this story after a history of mocking rape, at a time when your arguments are being shredded more than usual by a large number of people. Sorry that doesn't add up.

[iverglas]

104. fact is

You're a very sad excuse for a human being.

[JonQ]

107. That's rich

you know what disgusts me most about what you're doing here? It's not the lying, that's expected from your side. Or even the attempt to use emotions to trump logic and weasel your way out of a losing argument (also expected). No, all that I could ignore. It's when people use false stories of rape to "prove their point" they make it all that more difficult for *actual* rape victims to be taken seriously. As if their lives weren't difficult enough, here you have women selfishly using their plight for their own benefit (without the ensuing trauma) and making things even harder for them.

Disgusting.

[JonQ]

110. Also, you're the one mocking people whose family members were killed by guns

tsk tsk. Can't claim to be a delicate little flower in need of sensitivity while pulling that crap.

[rd_kent]

54. It just hit me, iver, you're an instigator who gets off twisting the original point

in order to facilitate a heated exchange. The response was a valid one and instead of dealing with the actual intent and point of the response, you twist it and try to change the subject to get the poster to confront you on this new, iverglas made-up, issue. You are exposed for what you are, and after dealing with your bullshit over the past couple of days in other threads, I see it for myself.
I also found plenty of postings, about you, on other message boards. You have done the same thing to many other and it seems like I'm late to the party in realizing who and what you are. Here is a sample:(found at http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=353949&page=2

"As for Iverglas, she seems to be a frustrated cat lady "of a certain age" that lives in Toronto, claims to be a canadian lawyer and, as one of my old friends used to describe people like that, is a self described "world's foremost authority" on pretty much everything. When caught in a blatant lie she quickly changes the subject, the issue, or just attacks the author, his family and the country as a whole.

I find it hilarious that a canadian has all the answers for fixing everything in our country, including who to vote for or support. One of my old bosses explained to me when we had a Canadian client that; "American's are benevolently ignorant of all Canadian politics, while Canadian's are Malevolently well informed about some American politics."

She is obtuse, tedious, verbose to a fault, ill informed, seems to spend all day on her computer ... and is pretty much on everyone's "Ignore" list except the new people that show up from time to time. Then they figure it out and ignore her too. All in all kinda pathetic and pitiable if the person in questions was not quite so rude and totally intolerant of most other posters."

Pretty much sums it up, huh? Welcome to MY ignore button too, iver (I know you hate that). You give Canadians a bad name, like the redneck American on vacation, making the rest of us look like assholes. Congrats! job well done. Now taste my ignore button!

[JonQ]

58. Well yeah

But she (is iver female?) is fun to poke with a figurative stick.

[rd_kent]

60. Yes, I think so

but we wont know for sure until (s)he releases the long form birth certificate!

[iverglas]

62. maybe when it hit you it caused a hard drive failure

I am someone who is fully aware of the misogynistic nature of the gun militant agenda.

I am someone who long ago became sick to the back teeth of whining white men in particular exploiting vulnerable groups and the victimization of those groups and their members for their own ends, those ends being diametically opposed to the interests of those groups and those individuals.

I am an individual and a member of a group whose victimization is regularly exploited in the service of the gun militant agenda.

And I don't stand for it.

That's who I am.


I find it hilarious that a canadian has all the answers for fixing everything in our country, including who to vote for or support.

I find it beyond hysterical that you, who out of one side of your mouth accuse me of "dodging the subject" and the rest, now accuse me out of the other side of your mouth of having all the answers.

Maybe YOU can direct some of your colleagues to where they can find my answers, since they seem to be unable to do it for themselves.

Sadly, neither you nor they will find such a thing, but I'm sure you can all have fun trying. Today's a holiday where I'm at; too bad it isn't for you, or it would have made a fine project for a lazy day off.


She is obtuse, tedious, verbose to a fault, ill informed, seems to spend all day on her computer

Hmm. Here you are talking to me, about ...?


seems to spend all day on her computer

That much is true. Like many people, I work at a computer. Like quite a few, I am self-employed. Like not too many at all, I earn in the top 2% of the income scale. Focus and work like mad for a while til my brain needs a break and come nip at your heels ... or more often, go find somebody's long-lost ancestor for them. Some of us just enjoy intellectual activity. Summer, when the govt is in hybernation, is a bit of a slow period for me, so I've dropped back in for a while. Lucky you!


Welcome to MY ignore button too, iver (I know you hate that).

I keep asking for the url where I can go to order one of those crystal balls.

And I know you and the rest know that I laugh at you.


You give Canadians a bad name

Hahaha. How one could give anyone of any nationality other than that of the great and good USofA a bad name here ... not possible to give a bad name to that about which so many already hate and fear out of such profound ignorance, I'm afraid.

[JonQ]

66. Too much irony!

2nd amendment rights are evil white males keeping minorities down. Funny, since the gun control movement originally started by evil white males trying to keep minorities disarmed and subservient.

And misogynist? Yeah, it's sexist to say women should be able to defend themselves on an equal playing field against males. It's much better for women and men to be disarmed, so she can be victimized almost every time (women tend to be smaller than men, disarming both would give males the advantage).

And you are the one who routinely ridicules and denigrates the crime of rape. That sounds misogynist to me.

"I am an individual and a member of a group whose victimization is regularly exploited in the service of the gun militant agenda."

My god, you are a human being! I had no idea. Damn those gun militants, using real world examples to back their pro-freedom agenda. Just use anecdotal evidence and misleading statistics to play on peoples emotions in an effort to push forward an ideology back by most authoritarian governments, racial-supremacist groups and genocidal maniacs everywhere.

[rd_kent]

67. Try as I might, I just can't quit you, iver!

It's like watching a train wreck, horrifying but I'm unable to look away!

In a single post you manage to confirm everything. All the stuff in your last post that you rant about WAS NOT ME POSTING IT. IT WAS A QUOTE FROM ANOTHER BOARD WHERE THEY ARE SAYING YOU DO THE SAME THING THERE. I EVEN PROVIDED YOU A LINK TO IT. Yet you rumble on, unimpeded, into lunacy. I really do look forward to where you are going to take this, although I think you really should seek professional help. You have really made my day, thanks.

[iverglas]

70. I didn't actually read the shit here

I know perfectly well how deep and wide my fan club is.

Do you actually imagine that something said by posters at THE HIGH ROAD or by its fellow travellers interests me, other than as a regular source of hilarity??

Imagine if I decided to spend my time gossiping about you on PROGRESSIVE websites, among decent people.

Well, you might indeed be distressed. I'm pretty easily amused, myself, of course.

[rd_kent]

71. Its appearent you dont read, iver!

Because all of your posts are some convoluted misconstruction of the original point. It would seem that you lack the ability to definitively answer a question, any question, without taking some part of it out of context or simply ignoring it and going somewhere else, usually to personal attacks.
I have no idea what THE HIGH ROAD is. I just did a simple search of your user name and found a PLETHORA of boards where you, yes YOU, are talked about IN THE SAME CONTEXT AS YOU ARE OPERATING ON THIS BOARD. Now, seems to me that regardless of where you post, people have the same thing to say. I don't see how you can pin that on ANYTHING other that yourself and the behavior you exhibit.

[iverglas]

72. you don't know what The High Road is

Well gosh, it's awfully hard to figure that one out.

I refer you to my previous reply.

You might want to note that virtually every single person whose chatter about moi you might find in your travels around the net was once (once! ha!) a poster in this forum, and WAS BANNED.

Some think this means I have magical powers.

What it actually means is that this place is infested by trolls, and few of them manage to keep up their act for long.

[rd_kent]

73. You're right about the troll infestation. Perhaps you should look in the mirror.

But again, you miss the ENTIRE point, on purpose, it would seem, which makes you pathological. I repeat my suggestion that you seek professional help, seriously.

[iverglas]

74. from what I can tell

your entire point is that pieces of right-wing shit say nasty things about me on the internet.

Um, duh. You think I wanted pieces of right-wing shit saying nice things about me on the internet?

Supplementary question: you think I could give a flying fuck about your opinion about me?

Oh, you know. Rhetorical questions.

[rd_kent]

81. Supplementary Answer: Yes, iver, you do care.

You keep coming back for more, so I guess you do care. Thanks for keeping me entertained. Now dance, monkey, dance! (thats from a movie, so dont get your panties all in a wad over it) :) Have a nice day.

[AtheistCrusader]

59. Woah

"Can we not have a little variation on the sexploitation once in a while???"

That's exactly what I was thinking about post 3, Nostradammit.
A little less projection would work wonders around here.

[proteus_lives]

7. Good for the homeowner.

Bad for the thief.

[slackmaster]

8. Breaking into houses is dumb

Especially occupied ones.

[oneshooter]

13. You are almost right

Breaking into homes occupied by armed citizens is dumb.

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas

[JonQ]

15. I wonder how many anti-gun nuts

would be willing to put up signs around their house pointing out that they do not believe in guns and will not defend themselves?

Guns don't deter crime and in fact make violence more likely? Fine, prove it.

[iverglas]

30. surely you realize

anti-gun nuts

that this is just about the most risibly meaningless thing you could possibly say?

"Gun nuts" is a term that not everyone may like, but at least it makes sense. They're nuts about guns.

"Anti-gun nuts"? They're ... uh ... nuts about anti-guns.

:rofl:

[JonQ]

31. Nope, they're nuts about banning guns

as you must realize. Just as other religious fanatics are nuts about banning pornography (for the children!) or banning alcohol (for the children!) or banning rock music (for the children!).

Rapidly the gun grabbers are attaining the same mock-worthy status as the others zealots who base their beliefs on emotions, rather than facts.

[iverglas]

36. it just isn't possible to have an intelligent

... er, intelligible ... conversation here, is it?

"Gun nuts" MEANS SOMETHING. It is a normal, comprehensible noun phrase in English, understandable to anyone with a grasp of idiomatic English.

An "X nut" is someone who is "nuts" about "X".

I'm an EastEnders nut. I'm nuts about EastEnders. I watch 2.5 hours of it a week.

I'm a genealogy nut. I'm nuts about genealogy. I spend a whole lot more than 2.5 hours a week at it.

Someone who is a gun nut is nuts about guns.

Someone who is an "anti-gun nut" is either:

(a) opposed to gun nuts
(b) nuts about anti-guns

Neither one MAKES ANY SENSE.

Show a little originality. Coin a phrase that makes sense.

[JonQ]

51. You claim you want an intelligent debate

then spend paragraphs arguing over a phrase that is clearly intelligible and you know exactly what it means.

What do you mean by gun nut? Is that an actual nut? Like something you can plant to grow more guns? Or is it the ridge on a stringed instrument that the strings run over? Do guns have strings? Are they musical instruments? Guitar nut would make sense, but gun nut?

So a "gun nut" is either:
A) a seed used to grow more guns
B) part of a firearm based stringed instrument.

Neither one MAKES ANY SENSE.

To you this is intelligent debate, to me it is a humorous diversion from doing work.

[iverglas]

63. the word was "conversation"

Not "debate".

See my problem?

Nobody can hold a thought in their head for the space of one post.

[JonQ]

64. Do you really believe there are seeds

that can be planted to grow more guns? Because otherwise your "gun nut" statement makes no sense. Please clarify your position on magic seeds.

[rd_kent]

55. I love it, you do it again here!

Poster makes a valid point, and instead of addressing it, you go off on some tangent about the "meaning" of a word, try to dazzle with your alleged intellect, and fail miserably. Pathetic.

[iverglas]

24. and this one, among all its fellows

merited a subject line ALL IN CAPITAL LETTERS.

What might there be about it that makes it stand out?

[X_Digger]

34. You bitch at copy/paste?!?

New low, even for you.

(Clue: visit http://www.lex18.com/news/suspect-shot-in-mccracken-county-home-invasion-robbery and look at the title-)



eta: interesting- in two different browsers it appears as all uppercase, but in one it copies/pastes as mixed case.

[iverglas]

39. I care?

Oops. No.

A subject line in a forum is not an identical set with a newspaper headline. Duh.

[X_Digger]

42. Okay..

Form over substance, gotcha. What's next, laughing at someone's spelling?

[JonQ]

53. Iver isn't a big fan of rational debate

he prefers to latch on to meaningless details that for some reason offend him and then go in to tirades over those. If you ever call him out on saying the things he has said, he will deny every writing anything of the sort.

[rd_kent]

56. Hahaha! In response to iver - "a new low, even for you"

thats too funny! I agree wholeheartedly.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

47. The title was cut and pasted from the link. Please unwad your panties.

[rd_kent]

68. Careful, dave, she might think youre hitting on her!

"unwad your panties" is canadian for "youre hot. Lets do it!"

[iverglas]

75. "panties in a wad" is an ignorant USAmericanism

and a perversion of the actually cute "knickers in a knot", from the British side.

"Panties" is one of the ickiest words in the modern lexicon. Referring to the underwear worn by grown women in this childish way triggers the gag reflex; no woman I know does it. It's a word that serves two purposes:

- triggers another reflex altogether in adolescent males (regardless of age)
- provides yet another way for men to insult one another by feminizing the target of their derision

Charming, both.

[JonQ]

76. So only nonsensical british slang is acceptable?

You're really reaching on this one. I guess you just throw out as many arguments as you can and hope some of them work, the shotgun method (probably another offensive american slang in your eyes).

Very parochial of you as well, to only accept phrases that you are used to as real with everything else being a "perversion". Try to be more open-minded in the future. As I've attempted to teach you in the past, there are other countries out there besides canada (and apparently britain). Other cultures, other ways of doing things. Different doesn't mean evil.

[iverglas]

78. the moronicity astounds

Very parochial of you as well, to only accept phrases that you are used to as real with everything else being a "perversion".

Being "used to" anything has nothing to do with anything. You really don't read well, do you? You see so many things that just aren't there.

"Knickers in a knot" is cute. "Panties in a wad" isn't cute, and is just icky. Its national origin has nothing to do with that fact. It's just icky. It contains an icky word that infantilizes women and titillates men, and enables men to insult other men by feminizing them which is just one more way of degrading women, and it doesn't even benefit from alliteration to make it cute. Can I make this clearer for you?

http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/26/messages/1267.html

(Edit - there is comment that "knickers in a knot" is actually Aussie for the Brit "knickers in a twist", which again benefits from alliteration and the visual image for cuteness. There just ain't nothing cute about "wad", I assure you.)

[rd_kent]

80. You sure don't FAIL to amaze, iver.

""Knickers in a knot" is cute. "Panties in a wad" isn't cute, and is just icky." Hehe, well, i guess that's a matter of opinion, right? Unless every time you look at your panties, you get that icky feeling. Perhaps you should go see a doctor.

And "panties" is a perfectly acceptable word, even in canadaland.

[JonQ]

89. Yep, definitely going for the shotgun method

next you should go after spelling and punctuation. That certainly helps "make your case".


You've kind of gun arse over tit on this one (I know how you adore British colloquialisms). Isn't it sophisticated?

[iverglas]

97. now that's funny

You've kind of gun arse over tit

I wonder what it tells us?

Shall I emphasize, in case someone misses it?

"You've kind of gun arse over tit"

:rofl:

See? I do get my jollies here. Even being called a liar by such as you is really quite amusing.

[JonQ]

90. Also

moronicity isn't a word.

I find it to be an offensive, juvenile and frankly, icky foreign phrase that is probably also somehow degrading to women. So you must never use it again.

[iverglas]

98. write 100 times on the blackboard

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=moronicity

1. moronicity

(n.) The degree to which one is a moron.
Can you believe the moronicity of that guy?

Well, I wouldn't believe it if I didn't constantly see it with my own eyes.

Not you, chum. What my eyes see in your case is quite other.

[rd_kent]

99. For someone who thinks they are sophisticated, educated and just generally smarter than everyone

I'm very surprised you used the "URBAN DICTIONARY - Urban Dictionary is the slang dictionary you wrote." as you basis for defining a word. iver, you never fail to make me smile, which is why I just could not force myself to put you on ignore. Say hi to your cats for me, ok, and try to open a window now and then, you could use the fresh air to get rid of that cat-piss smell.

[iverglas]

100. for someone trying to be clever

you do a damned bad job.

I used the Urban Dictionary as an instrument of mockery.

Got anything to say about your good buddy calling a rape victim a liar upthread there?

[JonQ]

103. I don't believe I did

I did call you a liar though.

[JonQ]

102. Um, urbandictionary.com

is not the foremost source on *real* words.

For someone that had major issues with "panties" being a made up word this is somewhat hypocritical.

[iverglas]

105. you just can't tell the truth about ANYTHING, can you?

For someone that had major issues with "panties" being a made up word this is somewhat hypocritical.

For someone who can't tell the truth about anything, you have way too much to say.

I have no issues with "panties" being a "made up word", for the very obvious reason that it is NOT a "made up word" in any sense other than the usual one: all words are "made up words" (duh).

[JonQ]

106. I'm sure most people have noticed

the pattern you employ.

Say something obnoxious/factually incorrect, when called out on it nitpick their argument on trivial details unrelated to the original point. When they call you out on that then merely claim you did no such thing and state something obnoxious/factually incorrect. It's getting dull, try something new. Find a new source of righteous indignation.

[iverglas]

108. quote me

Since you can't, and never have, your words stand as what they are.

Made up.

:rofl:

[rd_kent]

79. OH MY GOD! Iver, you ARE a class act

or a sadomasochist, one of the two. You just keep coming back, like a bad rash.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

83. Interesting.

The phrase panties makes me think of old wrinkly women. Definitely nothing sexual, actually quite the opposite. I may have used it generically in referring to a bunch of men and women but I usually consider it a term to be used towards a woman that is acting irrationally.

David