Goodbye "Papa John" - Schnatter resigns

UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
cogitech said:
Unwarranted condescension. Hallmark of the regressive left.

You choose to be insulting and aggressive towards someone who is simply willing to join the conversation and offer another perspective - all the while assuming that I know something about @schuylaar playing stupid (which sounds like an assumption or projection, to me).

Is it so difficult to accept that some people appreciate being pointed to the same source when a topic is being discussed? (this is a rhetorical question, but feel free to answer if you feel the need)

Note: jokes (and snide comments) about how to use google stopped being funny/clever about a decade ago.
Click to expand...
Fuck your feelings

Poor snowflake got sad about being condescended to. Awwwwwww

When trumptards like you complain about insults I feel like a severe beating is in order
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
cogitech said:
WTF does Trump have to do with this thread?


Nobody in this thread is crying. I simply offered my perspective on why someone might appreciate a link to a source in discussions such as these, because the source of the information is often very important these days.

Are you now inferring that, in doing so, I have somehow implicated myself in one of the groups you just mentioned?
Click to expand...
You cried about being condescended to by the mean insulting left

You are a bitch
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Roger A. Shrubber said:
i have no idea who he supports politically. his racism, and his inability to censor himself on public record, is enough for me to be glad he's gone
Click to expand...
Oh come now. Trump and Republicans crossed the line a long time ago and their crossing was made crystal clear the day that Trump said murderous white supremacists in Charlottesville were good just like the people who protested against them. If he's an overt racist then he's a Trump supporter. The two are like hand in glove.
 
Roger A. Shrubber

Roger A. Shrubber

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
Oh come now. Trump and Republicans crossed the line a long time ago and their crossing was made crystal clear the day that Trump said murderous white supremacists in Charlottesville were good just like the people who protested against them. If he's an overt racist then he's a Trump supporter. The two are like hand in glove.
Click to expand...
probably, but i hate to hang someone on assumptions. not that he hasn't already strung the noose, himself
 
Unclebaldrick

Unclebaldrick

Well-Known Member
cogitech said:
As you are (should be) well aware, knowing the source of information these days is just as important as the information itself.

In order to have a coherent conversation about something, it only makes sense to point others to the source of the information being discussed.

Start from a common source, and then it is up to others to seek out other sources if they so desire (whether it be for more detail, or a different perspective).

For instance, I would like to know which source indicated "Apparently he was jealous that Col. Sanders never took any heat for using it." as posted by the OP. Or, is this just commentary by the OP?

Beyond all this, it is common courtesy to post links. How difficult is it to simply copy the url of the source from one browser tab and paste it at the end of one's commentary? Who's the lazy one?
Click to expand...
The source was the Forbes article that originally broke the news. From the article: “Colonel Sanders called blacks n-----s,” Schnatter said, before complaining that Sanders never faced public backlash.

I did not specifically attribute it because it seemed ridiculously easy to find. While it did not specifically use the word jealous, I stand by my statement. He cleary was jealous. The motivation for the jealousy is up to you. Was he jealous because Kentucky Fried Chicken did not suffer because of the founder's racism or because Schnatter wished he were able to call blacks ni**ers without repercussions? Make your own inference.

As far as who is the lazy one, I can't comment. It wasn't like I semi-heard a four minute interview, spent thirty minutes drawing up a ridiculous conspiracy theory and then initially refused to divulge the source while admonishing you to "do your own homework rather than cribbing mine", finally divulged the source of the information after a dozen more posts and then claimed that I got it wrong because I heard "an early version of the story" despite the fact that the cited "early version" had all the information I had missed and then changed my stance without accepting responsibility for my deplorable "research".

You pretty much cannot find a story about the Papa John incident that did not contain the information I based my post on.

Any more questions?
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
cogitech said:
Unwarranted condescension. Hallmark of the regressive left.

You choose to be insulting and aggressive towards someone who is simply willing to join the conversation and offer another perspective - all the while assuming that I know something about @schuylaar playing stupid (which sounds like an assumption or projection, to me).

Is it so difficult to accept that some people appreciate being pointed to the same source when a topic is being discussed? (this is a rhetorical question, but feel free to answer if you feel the need)

Note: jokes (and snide comments) about how to use google stopped being funny/clever about a decade ago.
Click to expand...
I find asking for a link in order to better understand what the poster is saying to be reasonable. That said, I don't know why anybody should be obligated to respond to that request.

Facts are easy to check out on line. I don't know why you are so upset over this.
 
londonfog

londonfog

Well-Known Member
cogitech said:
Unwarranted condescension. Hallmark of the regressive left.

You choose to be insulting and aggressive towards someone who is simply willing to join the conversation and offer another perspective - all the while assuming that I know something about @schuylaar playing stupid (which sounds like an assumption or projection, to me).

Is it so difficult to accept that some people appreciate being pointed to the same source when a topic is being discussed? (this is a rhetorical question, but feel free to answer if you feel the need)

Note: jokes (and snide comments) about how to use google stopped being funny/clever about a decade ago.
Click to expand...
Be wise to know the person before you attempt to defend the bullshit and if you don't know that @schuylaar enjoys the stupid role I would suggest you go back and read.
You can start by using this wonderful sites search function. In the search box type " cite". then in posted by member "schuylaar".
Then if you want to keep defending the stupid, let me know.
Also mail me some damn Poutine
 
londonfog

londonfog

Well-Known Member
Unclebaldrick said:
The source was the Forbes article that originally broke the news. From the article: “Colonel Sanders called blacks n-----s,” Schnatter said, before complaining that Sanders never faced public backlash.

I did not specifically attribute it because it seemed ridiculously easy to find. While it did not specifically use the word jealous, I stand by my statement. He cleary was jealous. The motivation for the jealousy is up to you. Was he jealous because Kentucky Fried Chicken did not suffer because of the founder's racism or because Schnatter wished he were able to call blacks ni**ers without repercussions? Make your own inference.

As far as who is the lazy one, I can't comment. It wasn't like I semi-heard a four minute interview, spent thirty minutes drawing up a ridiculous conspiracy theory and then initially refused to divulge the source while admonishing you to "do your own homework rather than cribbing mine", finally divulged the source of the information after a dozen more posts and then claimed that I got it wrong because I heard "an early version of the story" despite the fact that the early version had all the information I had missed and then changed my stance without accepting responsibility for my deplorable "research".

You pretty much cannot find a story about the Papa John incident that did not contain the information I based my post on.

Any more questions?
Click to expand...
Google be hard :dunce:
 
londonfog

londonfog

Well-Known Member
Roger A. Shrubber said:
i have no idea who he supports politically. his racism, and his inability to censor himself on public record, is enough for me to be glad he's gone
Click to expand...
When that fucker went against the ACA because he has more than 50 employers I was like fuck him and that shitty shitty pizza.
Who would work for that fucker when he does not even want to see nor help his employees with health care.
 
Last edited:
londonfog

londonfog

Well-Known Member
Serious I learn a lot of shit from this site and not just about weed. Helps with my hops and tomatoes as well. I also learned we have a lot of uneducated people in America.
 
potroastV2

potroastV2

Well-Known Member
Unclebaldrick said:
Yeah, I never noticed that. Now I don't even need pinky fingers to hit <ctrl>
Click to expand...

Funny story, recently I was working for a dispensary and my "supervisor" told me to do a CTRL-C, and I said that I just use the mouse-menu. He says what's a mouse menu? I said when you right-click a menu pops us, and you can click on Copy to the Clipboard, and he says what's the Clipboard? :lol:

Then that pea-brain told the owner that he had difficulty conversing with me! :roll:


:mrgreen:
 
cogitech

cogitech

Well-Known Member
Unclebaldrick said:
The source was the Forbes article that originally broke the news. From the article: “Colonel Sanders called blacks n-----s,” Schnatter said, before complaining that Sanders never faced public backlash.

I did not specifically attribute it because it seemed ridiculously easy to find. While it did not specifically use the word jealous, I stand by my statement. He cleary was jealous. The motivation for the jealousy is up to you. Was he jealous because Kentucky Fried Chicken did not suffer because of the founder's racism or because Schnatter wished he were able to call blacks ni**ers without repercussions? Make your own inference.

As far as who is the lazy one, I can't comment. It wasn't like I semi-heard a four minute interview, spent thirty minutes drawing up a ridiculous conspiracy theory and then initially refused to divulge the source while admonishing you to "do your own homework rather than cribbing mine", finally divulged the source of the information after a dozen more posts and then claimed that I got it wrong because I heard "an early version of the story" despite the fact that the cited "early version" had all the information I had missed and then changed my stance without accepting responsibility for my deplorable "research".

You pretty much cannot find a story about the Papa John incident that did not contain the information I based my post on.

Any more questions?
Click to expand...
Thanks for clarifying.

I stand by my point that citing the source of information is a simple and courteous thing to do and creates a common starting point for civil conversations. I'm not saying we should be compelled to do so, however.

Perhaps when someone asks for a link, it isn't always due to being lazy or unable to use google. In some cases (not this one, as you have said) it could be that different sources are providing very different versions of "the truth"™ and the requester is simply interested in knowing where the OP's information came from. There are probably other valid reasons why someone might ask for a link.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top