FSTDT Forums

Community => Religion and Philosophy => Topic started by: Ambulance Chaser on July 03, 2017, 09:18:35 am

Title: Another Royce E. Van Blaricome Bannination
Post by: Ambulance Chaser on July 03, 2017, 09:18:35 am
This is an old story , but I just stumbled on. I wanted to share it because it's still hilarious. Royce got banhammered from Charisma Media for, basically, what you'd expect. He then gets banned across multiple Disqus sites. He keeps saying he has no idea why!

https://getsatisfaction.com/strang/topics/disqus-ban-from-charisma-moderator?page=1#reply_16772783

Title: Re: Another Royce E. Van Blaricome Bannination
Post by: BobRumba on July 03, 2017, 09:28:10 am
Wow.  That IS hilarious.  It's funny that he thinks he is justified in being rude to people as long as he's rude using the words of scripture. THEN it's ok apparently.

Have you seen his Twitter and Facebook accounts?
Title: Re: Another Royce E. Van Blaricome Bannination
Post by: Ambulance Chaser on July 03, 2017, 09:48:05 am
Wow.  That IS hilarious.  It's funny that he thinks he is justified in being rude to people as long as he's rude using the words of scripture. THEN it's ok apparently.

Have you seen his Twitter and Facebook accounts?

Yes, when he's not being banned from those too :)

"79% of respondents think that the Founding Fathers would not be proud of the country today! You can count me soundly in the NO category!"

Hey, what do you know? I finally found something I agree with Royce about. The Founding Fathers probably WOULDN'T be happy with the country today. What with black people running corporations and voting, women wearing pants and having opinions...
Title: Re: Another Royce E. Van Blaricome Bannination
Post by: KingOfRhye on July 03, 2017, 10:39:34 am
My favorite part is how at one point he blames the "trolls" (meaning people like us, I assume) for goading him into making such comments.   LOL
Title: Re: Another Royce E. Van Blaricome Bannination
Post by: BobRumba on July 03, 2017, 10:40:38 am
Is it a surprise to anyone that he appears to have been kicked out of the military, and is a hunter?  His Facebook feed shows lots of picture of him playing in his camo outfit and shooting defenseless animals.

This is EXACTLY the kind of guy you expect to read about in the newspaper in the morning when you have your coffee about a guy who took an automatic rifle up to the bell tower and started randomly shooting people.
Title: Re: Another Royce E. Van Blaricome Bannination
Post by: Ambulance Chaser on July 03, 2017, 01:35:06 pm
I know what you mean about most of that stuff, but where did you see he might have been kicked out of the military?
Title: Re: Another Royce E. Van Blaricome Bannination
Post by: BobRumba on July 03, 2017, 02:13:03 pm
I am positive I didn't imagine it, maybe I assumed it from his FB profile which listed it as a former career...but it seems to me he made reference to it himself once.  Don't quote me on that one...we will leave it as an unconfirmed rumor :)
Title: Re: Another Royce E. Van Blaricome Bannination
Post by: Bob J. on July 03, 2017, 06:34:54 pm
The Founding Fathers probably WOULDN'T be happy with the country today. What with black people running corporations and voting, women wearing pants and having opinions...

Somehow I don't see Grace and Benjamin Franklin agreeing on much.
Title: Re: Another Royce E. Van Blaricome Bannination
Post by: BobRumba on July 03, 2017, 08:07:33 pm
My mistake.  Royce is a "retired Navy & Eagle scout".

But he IS divorced.
Title: Re: Another Royce E. Van Blaricome Bannination
Post by: Sharon_at_home on August 24, 2017, 10:08:20 pm
Find out if his divorce was for fornication and on whose side and you will have him hands down LOL!!
Title: Royce Has Come Back to Haunt Me
Post by: Ambulance Chaser on December 03, 2017, 02:08:55 pm
Royce found me again this past week on the Washington Times. He's the same as ever: Aggressively stupid and stubbornly insistent on staying that way.

(http://i67.tinypic.com/25ev3g0.jpg)
(http://i67.tinypic.com/e8r4tc.jpg)
(http://i65.tinypic.com/1z4efkx.jpg)
Title: Re: Another Royce E. Van Blaricome Bannination
Post by: Ambulance Chaser on December 03, 2017, 02:20:33 pm
Just a quick bit of background to what we're discussing here:

Proving a source is "biased" is not an argument. It establishes literally nothing. Everyone is biased in some sense. Biased sources can be absolutely accurate. Unbiased sources can be totally wrong. "Bias" is not a determinitive factor of anything.

Proving that a source is "unreliable" is a slightly better argument, but still not really a good one. You may be able to cast doubt on what a source is saying by proving that they often say things that can't be trusted. But so what? We're not discussing the reliability of the source in general. We're discussing ONE article written by a source. This is the equivalent of a Irish person announcing, "I'm Jewish," and you responding, "Nope. I don't believe you. Most Irish people are Christian. Therefore you're Christian."

The best way to refute a statement is to ignore who the source is, and focus on what they're saying. This is hard. It's time-consuming. It takes work. It is also beyond Royce's mental capabilities and emotional intelligence level, so he prefers to dash off a hasty, "Haha, your source is unreliable!" rather than actually saying something of substance, then pat himself on the back for being so brilliant. (As the icing on the cake, I should also point out that he doesn't even do that very successfully, since merely announcing something, without any type of documentation, proof, or evidence, is hardly a successful refutation of a source's credibility.)
Title: Re: Another Royce E. Van Blaricome Bannination
Post by: ironbite on December 03, 2017, 03:10:34 pm
................................what in the fuck did I just read and why do I feel dumber for reading it?

Ironbite-someone help me out.
Title: Re: Another Royce E. Van Blaricome Bannination
Post by: Bob J. on December 03, 2017, 04:28:43 pm
................................what in the fuck did I just read and why do I feel dumber for reading it?

Ironbite-someone help me out.

Several posters on CNN, many of whom have been banned, hold strange views on how our court system is supposed to work. For many moons, Ambulance Chaser has fought the multi-head dragon with facts, dry wit, and sarcasm. Yet the beast continues, the current form is a TruthvLies commenter That KingOfRhye and I have been engaging.

Of course this alternate view of our legal system centers around being over-reaching, tyrannical, legislating, and activist whenever a verdict is not to their liking. Which these days is fairly often. In their view the 9th Court is always wrong, and what do you expect it is in California. The nation, na the world is doomed. Doomed I tell you, DOOMED.

Anyway, this Royce fellow likes to follow Ambulance around to pontificate on everything except the facts.

And of course FSTDT is the epicenter of our plotting to destroy everything that is wholesome. (Hence, see my signature.)
Title: Re: Another Royce E. Van Blaricome Bannination
Post by: BobRumba on December 04, 2017, 09:13:26 pm
Ambulance Chaser, do you have a link to this discussion?
Title: Re: Another Royce E. Van Blaricome Bannination
Post by: Ambulance Chaser on December 04, 2017, 10:26:31 pm
Ambulance Chaser, do you have a link to this discussion?

Yeah, it’s here:

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/nov/21/donald-trumps-tweets-are-liability-in-court/
Title: Re: Another Royce E. Van Blaricome Bannination
Post by: Ambulance Chaser on December 05, 2017, 08:49:03 am
It’s an interesting thread. I mean, an “interesting” thread. Vast quantities of it are given over to what the posters want to do to judges who rule in a manner they find displeasing. “Fired,” “disbarred,” and “shot” are the most popular choices.

I wonder why MaxwellEdison hasn’t made his way over there yet. They seem like his kind of people. Conservative, Christian, xenophobic, and boiling over with childish, hate-filled rage.
Title: Re: Another Royce E. Van Blaricome Bannination
Post by: BobRumba on December 05, 2017, 09:04:57 am
I read through some of it.  Interesting is right.  The mix of left and right viewpoints in the comments suggests to me that it's not an echo chamber (even though I know the Washington Times is conservative, it was founded by Sun Myung Moon).

What struck me is that Royce seemed to be going after YOU, rather than you going after him.
Title: Re: Another Royce E. Van Blaricome Bannination
Post by: Kanzenkankaku on December 09, 2017, 02:00:40 am
I like the part where Royce blames us for his banning.
Because it's impossible that anything is through his own faults.
Title: Re: Another Royce E. Van Blaricome Bannination
Post by: Ambulance Chaser on December 09, 2017, 12:17:54 pm
I like the part where Royce blames us for his banning.
Because it's impossible that anything is through his own faults.

Yeah, it’s like they think we have some control over the banhammer. We’re not conspiring against them. We don’t even have that kind of power. We just report them acting like assholes, but they act like assholes all on their own. Nobody forced them to do that.