Need help understanding CGN "infractions"

[Aniest]

Yeah, some "Coles Notes" or "CeeGeeEunn Rulz fer Rednex" would be nice to review. I am surprised I haven't gotten the warning yet: I've been too close to throwing the gloves on the ice and having the hockey-esque brawl of typed words..

Yeah, don't turd in the sandbox

Courtesy of the oatmeal (Matthew Inman)

Hard to be young and emotional. Don't worry, that will pass as you grow bitter and quiet.

I don't know Burnaby, I don't know. The older I get, the lower everything droops, the whiter the hair gets (eeek)... the less bitter I am and the less quiet I want to be. I figure if life is going to put me on this bull ride for a total of 8 decades (I'm over half that) I should be able to dig in the spurs once and awhile...

But as I always say in an attempt to prevent people from trying to assumed I am passing my opinion off as fact...

But that's only my opinion...

[geologist]

Hey, that's what the NEED FOR SPEED idiots say about getting driving infractions. Glad you are PROUD of these non candy asses driving recklessly around in your hood.


Click on the black triangle with the exclamation in the center to report the post. Mods are very good at getting those post deleted and assumingly appropriate warning/infraction.

Strawman attack. How feeble.

A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent.[1] One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".

The typical straw man argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition through the covert replacement of it with a different proposition (i.e. "stand up a straw man") and the subsequent refutation of that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the opponent's actual proposition.[2][3]

This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged emotional issues where a fiery, entertaining "battle" and the defeat of an "enemy" may be more valued than critical thinking or understanding both sides of the issue.

[burnaby]

Most folks can't distinguish arguing from debating. You know how to debate, stick to the issue, no personal attack, only subject attacks.
Problem with hockey brawl is you still have to find/pick up all the gear after the fight, that sucks.

Haha, can tsee my cat being totally pissed sitting in the blue toilet water.

So many time half type in a nasty, guarantee THOR HAMMER reply; decide to go get a cup of tea. By the time I'm back lost the train of thought, delete. My definition of older, less bitter, more quiet (think others call it early stage of CNile....next goes the spelling)

Yeah, some "Coles Notes" or "CeeGeeEunn Rulz fer Rednex" would be nice to review. I am surprised I haven't gotten the warning yet: I've been too close to throwing the gloves on the ice and having the hockey-esque brawl of typed words..



Courtesy of the oatmeal (Matthew Inman)




I don't know Burnaby, I don't know. The older I get, the lower everything droops, the whiter the hair gets (eeek)... the less bitter I am and the less quiet I want to be. I figure if life is going to put me on this bull ride for a total of 8 decades (I'm over half that) I should be able to dig in the spurs once and awhile...

But as I always say in an attempt to prevent people from trying to assumed I am passing my opinion off as fact...

But that's only my opinion...

[burnaby]

Good one, you just did a strawman attack there. You had nothing to present so simply accuse strawman. NICE.

Analogy is one of the best way to explain complex ideas to certain folks. Test for you, try explaining to someone HOW TO PUT ON A JACKET. Not easy, give you a hint, use analogy for a one line answer.

Strawman attack. How feeble.

[pikesroad]

Where is foxer and all the deep sixed debates?

[DILLIGAF]

Be proud, only candy asses have zero infractions.

:-)

Only have 36 infraction point in 7 years and never once did I use personal attacks towards any members here...lol...

[burnaby]

Wanna share what some of them were for. Seriously interested as the mods obviously thought you broke the cardinal sin.

:-)

Only have 36 infraction point in 7 years and never once did I use personal attacks towards any members here...lol...

[burnaby]

On the other "He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named" site, the one in Canada with owners of guns.

Where is foxer and all the deep sixed debates?

[win94luver]

I admit I have had a few issues here with infractions.....I've looked at the cgn rules and guidelines but just can't seem to understand how they build up and work.....I'm currently on my 3rd stike and below my profile it reads: 0/1 (2) what does that mean?
under cgn rules it statest this: 3 rd strike -2 points - 180 days
What does the 180 days mean?
I have been suspended for 30 or 60 days before (it was horrible) can't remember fursure how long but it sure did hurt and felt like a year.......anyways where can I find out where my infraction total is ? And is the next one a BAN FOREVER?

Basically what Iam asking is when will I be back to zero like my profile was the first day I signed up?

Even with my limited time on here I notice there are members who will troll and bait you into losing your temper, stepping over the line and getting an infraction.
You will never win an argument with them so it's best just to move on and ignore them.
Silence is the best reply to this type and sends their egos into a tail spin.

[icelink]

^^^^^I hear ya on that thanks!