For two years, volunteer Frank Coyles has played Santa for chemotherapy patients at the Hollings Cancer Center in Charleston, S.C. This year, the center told him to stay away:
"Because of our state affiliation, we decided not to have a Santa presence this year," Hollings spokeswoman Vicky Agnew said. Hollings is a part of the Medical University of South Carolina.
Decorations will be "more secular and respectful to all beliefs," Agnew said. "We don't want to offend a volunteer with good intentions, but we need to think of the bigger picture. People who are Muslim or Jewish or have no religious beliefs come here for treatment," she said
That is just priceless. They want to get rid of Santa so they can be more secular. I do not think that word means what they think it means.
I probably shouldn't even comment since I'm agnostic on the whole Santa thing, which is why I refer to him as X Nick. Hey, makes him sound Muslim, which will please some people.
Comments
Well, pretty much everything you said there was the same B.S. you've been saying all along. You're obviously unable to comprehend very much at one time, so I'll just focus on your last two points.
I wasn't talking about what anyone might believe. I was talking about how the rancorous tone alone would lead any unbiased observer to conclude that this was not a serious conversation taking place here. A position that you did far more than anyone else to move us to.
And no, you're absolutlely wrong on that last point. When the conversation degrades, everyone participating in it loses. Your belief in the ideology of total warfare with no need to guard against the unbounded escalation of hostilities, as well as you're inability to realize that such extreme hostilities often harm the attacker as much as the attacked is probably why you have strayed so far off course here without even realizing it.
What is your goal? Is it to prove that OWS is a good thing? Is it to prove that Santa Clause is a symbol of Christianity? Or is it to prove that Tim is more interested in heckling you than discussing the issues? Honestly, right now the point you seem to be arguing is that harassing a young girl who has not involved herself in this discussion is OK simply because you don't like her dad.
Oh christ. Now it's a tone argument effectively.
You want to blame me for "derailing the conversation," go right ahead. Leo could have fixed that at any time and chose not to, and I'm not required in any way to take shit from Tim Zank or John B. Kalb. They start in on me again and Leo chooses to let it go, same thing will happen. Leo's blog has a bunch of jerks in it because Leo lets there be a bunch of jerks in it.
And you're still dumb enough to think I'm harassing a young girl. Clue time: the fake account and the people who made it are harassing her. You, Leo and Tim Zank are only continuing to fuel the Streisand Effect that's calling attention to it. Good job on that.
Chris,
Is your mother a crack whore?
Did your father sexually abuse you as a child?
Is it fair tio call it sexual abuse if you willingly participated well into adulthood?
Did you once accept a dare from a friend to have sex with your neighbors goat?
Now, before you get bent out of shape, keep in mind that I made no accusations here, I'm merely keeping the dialogue going by asking a few questions. And while I realize these questions would seem irrelevant to most people, you have said they are fair game. After all, you attacked me by calling me an idiot.
So, you brainless shit, how about your mother? Do you even know who your real father is? Because if some man raped you when you were a child that's pretty bad. But if he wasn't your real father then at least you can be thankful that you weren't a victim of incest as well.
Been nice discussing the issues with you, you freaking moron!
Keep going Phil, you're not making me look bad here. :D
Just because you want to believe countering a fake account accusation with an example of an actual fake account is somehow off topic... of fake accounts, doesn't make it so. You can't see past the content, which could have been anything, apparently.
Once again, Phil:
Christopher Swing Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.
November 26th, 2011 at 12:49 am
Well, if you want me to get started on an actual fake account, that can be arranged, though I think someone beat me to that last December in one case. Such a well-loved family you have there, Tim. :D
No, Chris, your'e doing that to yourself - by repeatedly asking questions I've already answered.
I also think it's very telling that you chose to ignore the points I just brought up. I really didn't think the rumors were true, simply because they were so far-fetched. But it's apparent that you are uncomfortable discussing them. I can now understand why you are such a bitter fellow. Don't worry, though, one day you'll meet a nice goat who really loves you for who you are. Or I suppose you could just marry your step-father since it wouldn't be incest.
No Phil, you haven't answered the question. And you've sunk down to Tim Zank's level now. Don't you feel great?
Answer the question, Phil.
Here, let me spell it out for you Phil:
"I didn
Wow, you guys have been busy tonight...
Phil, I would like to ask how googling someone's name and pointing out a fake account made to slander that person (from all appearances by a party not involved in this thread) constitutes "harassing a young girl"?
Joel, suppose that my own mother or wife or sister was actually a crack whore. And suppose you found the police report online that detailed her arrest for it. Now, suppose you and I are debating an issue here. Would there be any valid point to you tossing out that link?
Chris
Chris, if you recall back when I questioned who you were I put out a little bait to draw you out if you were actually Michael. As I said, my only purpose in doing this was to find out early on whether I was going to be wasting my time in a long and futile effort to achieve meaningful dialogue. Your response at that point told me that either you weren
Joel: Phil can't seem to stop being distracted by what was in the fake account to realize the point is that it was a fake account.
Phil: You still didn't answer Joel's question.
But it seems your memory of the thread is selective.
So was I harassing Dan Turkette when I pointed his /admitted/ fake accounts out multiple times before as an example to Tim that maybe he should worry about those he cared about first? Or that maybe he was projecting? How many times did he ignore that?
Oh, what's this right before Tim Zank finally begging one last time?
Christopher Swing Says:
November 26th, 2011 at 12:18 am
Says the guy who hasn
Phil, the scenario that you described is a false analogy for what happened here. In the situation that you're describing it seems that your pointing to that fact would be a non sequitur to the conversation whereas the link that Chris posted was directly related to the topic of false accounts and pseudonymous writing.
Whether or not it was in good taste is open to debate, but your equating of Chris' post to
Joel, the fact that it was not in good taste is exactly the point. I think I made my opinion of that clear when I said it was vulgar.
Suppose you and I are debating whether the speed limit in our neighborhood should be changed. At some point, you say
Again, a false analogy. The situation you described bears only the most superficial resemblance to the event in question here.
Tim was accusing Chris of using a false account, Chris pointed to a false account.
I'm not going to bother continuing with this if the best you have are specious arguments and false analogies.
It's interesting, Joel, that you would accuse me of using a false analogy when you are in fact the one doing so.
Chris says that Tim was arguing that it is easy to set up a fake account. So how does Chris showing another fake account counter that point in any manner? If anything, what he did reinforces Tim's point.
If Tim were arguing that it was difficult to set up a fake account, then Chris' point would be logical as a rebuttal, although I still think it would have been unnecessary to use that particular link.
It's as if I said "Hey, I believe it snowed last night." And you go outside, scoop up a handfull of snow and come back to say "No, you're wrong." True, we're both talking about snow. But youre action is irrelevant because it actually counters rather than supports the point you claim to be making.
"Chris says that Tim was arguing that it is easy to set up a fake account."
The hell I was. Tim was accusing me of being a false account. I know it's easy enough to set up a false account. I never said it wasn't easy.
Phil, you don't even have the basic facts of this thread right, never mind you admitted you weren't even aware of the things that predated it in other threads. You keep making these arguments rooted in half-remembered things that didn't even occur... it just makes you look senile. Give up.
Chris,
Tim was speculating that you were actually Michael. That's all he said. You then ranted for a while about people setting up fake accounts then tossed out that link. Again, there was no logical connect to Tim's accusation and the link.
You called Tim a cunt earlier. I suppose that now I could add a link to a page that shows pictures of naked women. After all, you opened the subject and I would just be going along with it.
I think you and Joel are confusing 'related' with 'relevant'. If you're going to go with related, then that opens the dialogue to all kinds of Monty Pytnonesque illogical leaps. Intelligent people try to make their comments relevant to what was previously said, especially when they posit that it is a direct response to those comments.
I have made several salient points, all of which you continue to ignore and instead just throw out a bunch of jibberish. I said your response to Tim was overblown. Never mind the link for a minute, just look at the fact that you called him a cunt. At times you claim your response was no worse than his. At other times you contradict yourself by claiming that anything is fair when you are attacked.
I don't know, maybe I was wrong about your grandmother. Maybe she wouldn't be shocked to hear your foul language. Is it really her, and not your mother, who was the crack whore? I've heard that kind of lifestyle can desensitize a person.
I'd also like to point out another peculiarity in your style, since you decided to introduce the subject of people getting their asses kicked. I notice that the only person you have insinuated is a coward here is Tim, a person who lives three counties away. Yet when I, a person who lives right here in Fort Wayne, give you the same harsh treatment, you shy away from calling me a coward. This makes me wonder if perhaps you are the real coward here.
No Phil, I'm not afraid of. I know Tim's a coward based on his big talk from far away. You're just now trying to be obnoxious in a bad attempt to make a point.
You're just on an old man senile rant now, Phil. I didn't want to say anything earlier because you seemed like you might see reason. But seeing how you treat Joel as well, I know now that's not going to happen.
So no, I'm not afraid of you, you just need a little help right now, I think...
As much as I
Joel had the right idea... lacking a Thorazine tranq delivery system over the internet, there's nothing to be had here. Phil's ranting about running over bicycles in the street now, whatever that's all about.
Chris, I owe you an apology.
I started my last comment with a sincere compliment towards you. I ended with what any intelligent person would recognize as pure sarcasm. I did this only to satirize and hyper-illustrate the extremely low level that this conversation has degraded to (something that you and I both are to blame for.)
You seemed to miss the compliment entirely, and you took the obvious joke as being sincere. You also seem to think that I am somehow at fault for not drawing on previous conversations that were never even mentioned here. I had previously thought that you were just pretending to be dumb, which was why I was so harsh with you. But I am now convinced that you actually are dumb, and it would not be right for me to hold this uncontrollable problem against you.
So, Chris, I sincerely apologize for making fun of your stupidity. I realize now that you truely are incapable of understanding simple thoughts, so I will stop overburdening your weak mind.
Heh, what Phil said.
I knew people were still reading this! My efforts have been validated and I can finally go to sleep now.
Phil, you really do need to go to sleep.
It just bears repeating, what Phil said.
Tim Zank, shouldn't you be busy talking to Twitter about getting that fake account removed?