Coltrane and then the Lindsey del ragio (sp?) that someone else mentioned too. Barnes trolls, but you almost have to give credit for the immense effortJohn Francis Donaghy said:MASAXET said:True all the way around. Her and I (plus some other attorneys on the board) used to openly engage on legal discussions, but the last few years she really went down the rabbit hole. I think it began around Mueller and the Gen. Flynn case and she kept getting deeper into all sorts of nonsense. There were PLENTY of legitimate areas for criticism and debate on both of those but she bit on some really outlandish stuff. It really popped off during the election and, you're right, she was even citing Watkins as an "expert." The worst part was if anyone actually dared to disagree with the deeply flawed legal "analysis", how defensive she became when she didn't used to be that way.John Francis Donaghy said:Duncan Idaho said:oragator said:
True story - Years ago I posted in F16 a bit. Liked the idea of seeing the POV from a different part of the country. Some dude (can't even remember who) was following me around, comparing my posts, at one point he accused me of being a sock (I didn't even know what that was at that point). Apparently he thought I was some known crazy person, a girl maybe if I remember right? And he got like 10 likes on that post, as if he had made some massive investigative discovery. And when I pointed out that I had posted here for years and wasn't a sock, instead of apologizing he blamed me for being hypocritical and inconsistent and making it look like that's what I was (for saying I voted for someone I didn't agree with 100 percent because they were the least worst choice) in my posts and got a whole bunch more likes. Rather than explain why all of that was crazy to a group that was out for blood, that was the end of my foray.
To her credit, Aggiehawg defended me a bit, but nothing from anyone else, especially the mods, so that was it. And it wasn't even a question of thin skin, and I don't care about that... it was just a ludicrous conversation, and seems to be the norm. Wasted energy.
/coolstorybro
There is a cautionary tale.
Seems to have been a fairly competent attorney in a previous life but damned if she didn't fall hook line and sinker for an MFBarnes sock and all the "kraken" BS
Sadly, agree. Used to have lots of good legal conversations with Hawg about current legal events. But over the last year or so she got deep into some corners of the internet she didn't really understand, and ended up in a rabbit hole. To make it relevent, she followed/cited Ron Watkins as an authority on a number of issues following the election, particularly election technology. Something I would not have expected from Hawg even a year or two ago.
It's sad and unfortunate that the Q thread was allowed to live as long as it did on F16. People say they didn't follow it, or it was only a handful of active posters, and the rest didn't believe. But the reality is the Q thread tainted the board as a whole. The true Q believers being around on a daily basis and posting Q adjacent stuff on non-Q threads blurred the line between reality and Q world, and even people who don't think they were Q followers ended up exposed to enough Q related fake news that it became part of their reality. Gradually being desensitized to the BS until it sounded normal.
You would have thought maybe she'd learn a lesson after falling for the latest barnes troll where he was posing as an ex-FBI agent, but no such luck.
Was that part of his Roscoe P Coltrane schtick, or has there been another Barnes event since then that I missed?
*** Q: INTO THE STORM *** (HBO Docuseries)
61,662 Views |
790 Replies |
Last: 2 yr ago by St Hedwig Aggie
Someone on the entertainment board: says anythingbluefire579 said:You say this like you're coming on here trying to have civil discourse. Your past several posts on this very thread have been drive-by attacks, either on liberals or on the board itself. There's a reason people are either mostly ignoring what you're saying or being hostile back. You're contributing nothing to the conversation.aTmAg said:
I find it hilarious when 13 claims that 16 suppresses civil discourse. No forum on TexAgs does that more than 13.
atmag: "yeah but nothing is as dumb as libs!"
Someone else: ". . . ok? I disagree"
Rest of the board: [tries to ignore him]
atmag: "snowflakes!"
Rinse and repeat on the next thread
expresswrittenconsent said:
Hawg gives real Sydney Powell vibes.
with Powell, i always got the sense she didn't really believe all the **** she was saying, and was just collecting a check from the people who did. don't think the same is true for hawg.
clearly she has great legal acumen, but it has become increasingly colored by partisanship and conspiracy theorizing in the last year (like many others on the board). she was genuinely baffled and dismayed that the supreme court either dismissed or refused to take up the "election fraud" cases following the election and rather than take that as a chance to reconsider her position, simply concluded that SCOTUS (including the 3 Trump appointees) was now derelict in their duties and compromised.
that's about when i realized she's more partisan than legal analyst these days. shame too, considering how revered she is as an authority on all legal matters. you can find her now doing play by plays of the derek chauvin trial and cheerleading for the defense.
I've intentionally avoided the derek chauvin trail thread because I am sure it is pretty disgusting.
You forgot the part where they cry, whine, flag posts and get the posts they don't like deleted.MASAXET said:Someone on the entertainment board: says anythingbluefire579 said:You say this like you're coming on here trying to have civil discourse. Your past several posts on this very thread have been drive-by attacks, either on liberals or on the board itself. There's a reason people are either mostly ignoring what you're saying or being hostile back. You're contributing nothing to the conversation.aTmAg said:
I find it hilarious when 13 claims that 16 suppresses civil discourse. No forum on TexAgs does that more than 13.
atmag: "yeah but nothing is as dumb as libs!"
Someone else: ". . . ok? I disagree"
Rest of the board: [tries to ignore him]
atmag: "snowflakes!"
Rinse and repeat on the next thread
She was just as mean and stubborn 10, 15 yrs ago on the OR board. But it was about silly stuff like the history of the SWC or current crap going on with the sports teams at tech, baylor and texas.
Disgusting how? You think somebody in there is trying to argue for the prosecution?Duncan Idaho said:
I've intentionally avoided the derek chauvin trail thread because I am sure it is pretty disgusting.
Some Junkie Cosmonaut
Joined:
Apr 13, 2004
Posts:
44,823
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Old McDonald said:
that's about when i realized she's more partisan than legal analyst these days. shame too, considering how revered she is as an authority on all legal matters. you can find her now doing play by plays of the derek chauvin trial and cheerleading for the defense.
then why don't you argue the facts and confront her directly on the board you post on as well?
imo it's pretty chicken**** to come to a board you know the poster doesn't post on to trash talk them.
Speaking for myself, it's not possible. I mentioned that we used to engage in discussion, but it can't happen anymore because I'm pretty sure she's blocked me at this point. Over the last couple years anytime I would disagree with her - whether on facts or legal application - she thought it was a personal attack. As her legal "analysis" got more and more lazy I'd point it sometimes, but then any and all discussion simply stopped after a while. So why beat a dead horse?ruddyduck said:Old McDonald said:
that's about when i realized she's more partisan than legal analyst these days. shame too, considering how revered she is as an authority on all legal matters. you can find her now doing play by plays of the derek chauvin trial and cheerleading for the defense.
then why don't you argue the facts and confront her directly on the board you post on as well?
imo it's pretty chicken**** to come to a board you know the poster doesn't post on to trash talk them.
I used to post more on that board from time-to-time mainly to try to start some legal discussions with the other attorneys but that's next to impossible. In fairness, it's a "politics" board not a "legal" board so not sure what I expected
i've sparred with her plenty. i've said nothing in this thread that i haven't already said in some form to her on the politics board.
Duncan Idaho said:
I've intentionally avoided the derek chauvin trail thread because I am sure it is pretty disgusting.
it's about as bad as you'd expect
LOL at ****-talking another poster behind her back while pretending you have the high road. But carry on
I haven't seen anyone claim the high road at all
Please. The past few pages here are high road over anything F16. Reality is that both have a lot of **** that stinks
Oh, I didn't know that one got deleted too. I forgot all about it. I don't care about that.TCTTS said:
One of aTmAg's posts that he's complaining about having been deleted was yesterday, in the thread titled, "Greatest living movie star," in like the fourth or fifth post, in which he angry chimed in with something to the effect of, "Who cares?! They're all playing make believe!" That was his literally all he said, and everyone, including myself, completely ignored him. So, when he talks about "opinions that 13 snowflakes don't agree with," half time he's referring to batsh*t insane posts like that, in which he purposefully attempts to derail threads by what he misguidedly believes is speaking truth to power. When, in reality, he chooses - sadly - to define his existence by stoking conflict, thriving off arguments (with walls if need be), and pathetically attempting to troll a board devoted to a subject matter he has deep and deranged ideological problems with, wasting untold hours of his life doing so.
No, one I am talking about is in the Uncle Tom thread where express can go on a (BS riddled) political tirade about Jim Crow, banking/mortgage discrimination, etc. and have that post remain, yet my response, in which in which I correctly point out that the Democrat party was the party of Slavery, Jim Crow, and modern racism, gets deleted. If my post was "too political" for 13 then his sure as hell should have been too. But no.. you guys are okay with liberal politics being expressed on this board, but get your panties in a wad when conservative politics are expressed.
That is yet one of several examples of how this board is hypocritical and full of snowflakes.
Fore Left! said:
LOL at ****-talking another poster behind her back while pretending you have the high road. But carry on
By "behind their back" you still mean "online" and "anonymously" right? Still, I have spoke and will speak directly to any of those people, saying the exact same stuff I'm saying now.
That said, I quit 16chan cold turkey after Jan 6. Seeing their reaction that day was the last straw for me. I almost quit the site as a whole, but decided most people here aren't like the worst of what that board has to offer.
"I'll say to yo face, I'm just not right now." LOL. Like I said, carry on with your circle jerk that looks just as silly as the crap I see there
This thread has been linked to like three times over there. If any one of them want to come post here, I'd be more than willing to engage.
Dude..I've had people talk **** about me in facebook groups. I've also had my phone number posted. CHILL
I'm not the one that has gone on for 3 pages about some old lady. Perfectly chilled here
Why did you call her old? How agest of you
What can I say, I call it how it is. Your **** stinks. Their **** stinks. And Aggiehawg is old.
Fore Left! said:
What can I say, I call it how it is. Your **** stinks. Their **** stinks.
On this, we can agree, as I literally said as much a couple pages ago.
clearly
staff having to go around cleaning up your personal attacks
staff having to go around cleaning up your personal attacks
Quote:
TCTTS said:
Legal Drug Pusher?
THAT'S where that name comes from???
The saddest thing is that he basically chose to define his entire existence as some kind of uber-allegiance to Trump, utterly convinced until the bitter end that Trump wasn't only going to win, but do so in a landslide. It was (and still is) incredibly disturbing to witness, combined with all the other insane hate and delusion he spews.
The fact that he's "top dog" over there just confirms how backwards that place truly is.
I've been "personally attacked" on 16chan more times than I can possibly count. They'll live.
Never change forum 13
Charpie said:
On twitter? Yup. The guy took posts from the Mueller thread, posted them on twitter as his own.
I mean, think about it..conspiracy theories/people who fall for stupid ****/blah blah...run rampant. The Q folks sought an audience for attention and found it. Its no different than falling for Barnes's lindsey del regio con that prayed on here. I mean, that con was amazing. Pretended to be a real person, stole her pics, posted them as her own and got credibility because she was a conservative. I'm sure the same **** happens on left leaning boards.
He was also used as a source for several gateway pundit stories as well
nai06 said:Charpie said:
On twitter? Yup. The guy took posts from the Mueller thread, posted them on twitter as his own.
I mean, think about it..conspiracy theories/people who fall for stupid ****/blah blah...run rampant. The Q folks sought an audience for attention and found it. Its no different than falling for Barnes's lindsey del regio con that prayed on here. I mean, that con was amazing. Pretended to be a real person, stole her pics, posted them as her own and got credibility because she was a conservative. I'm sure the same **** happens on left leaning boards.
He was also used as a source for several gateway pundit stories as well
Holy *****
Duncan Idaho said:nai06 said:Charpie said:
On twitter? Yup. The guy took posts from the Mueller thread, posted them on twitter as his own.
I mean, think about it..conspiracy theories/people who fall for stupid ****/blah blah...run rampant. The Q folks sought an audience for attention and found it. Its no different than falling for Barnes's lindsey del regio con that prayed on here. I mean, that con was amazing. Pretended to be a real person, stole her pics, posted them as her own and got credibility because she was a conservative. I'm sure the same **** happens on left leaning boards.
He was also used as a source for several gateway pundit stories as well
Holy *****
Not really surprising at all, actually.
That is shocking, I would have never guessed Gateway Pundit had sources.Ervin Burrell said:Duncan Idaho said:nai06 said:Charpie said:
On twitter? Yup. The guy took posts from the Mueller thread, posted them on twitter as his own.
I mean, think about it..conspiracy theories/people who fall for stupid ****/blah blah...run rampant. The Q folks sought an audience for attention and found it. Its no different than falling for Barnes's lindsey del regio con that prayed on here. I mean, that con was amazing. Pretended to be a real person, stole her pics, posted them as her own and got credibility because she was a conservative. I'm sure the same **** happens on left leaning boards.
He was also used as a source for several gateway pundit stories as well
Holy *****
Not really surprising at all, actually.
Duncan Idaho
Joined:
Apr 3, 2012
Posts:
29,081
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Referring to the boards as numbers is weird
That's exactly something a 6 would say.
Another Doug said:That is shocking, I would have never guessed Gateway Pundit had sources.Ervin Burrell said:Duncan Idaho said:nai06 said:Charpie said:
On twitter? Yup. The guy took posts from the Mueller thread, posted them on twitter as his own.
I mean, think about it..conspiracy theories/people who fall for stupid ****/blah blah...run rampant. The Q folks sought an audience for attention and found it. Its no different than falling for Barnes's lindsey del regio con that prayed on here. I mean, that con was amazing. Pretended to be a real person, stole her pics, posted them as her own and got credibility because she was a conservative. I'm sure the same **** happens on left leaning boards.
He was also used as a source for several gateway pundit stories as well
Holy *****
Not really surprising at all, actually.
LOL. A website treated as gospel on F16 uses a "source" that is blasphemy on F16...but who used to be gospel before he was exposed. Remember folks, only the libtards fall for fake news.
Featured Stories
See All
12:32
53m ago
1.1k
Key Matchups: No. 25 Texas A&M vs. Bowling Green
by Olin Buchanan
19:29
2h ago
2.3k
10:45
21h ago
4.7k
DeangeloVickers
Dan Campbell has to sell his home due to fan harassment
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
72