My 2007 Chevrolet Cobalt

[G35COUPE]

You edited your post after the response. thats malicious.

Here is a website where one can indulge in the definintion of "malicious". I hope it is helpful. Malicious Definition | Definition of Malicious at Dictionary.com. Lets avoid being semantically inaccurate and/or improper. Lets avoid recruting and re-inforcing the "thought" police as well.

People can edit responses for any number of earthly and celestial reasons, and at any point, and by your defintion, if it occurs after a post, that must be mailicious? Please, tell us this is NOT what you are trying to say here? This argument holds absolutely, no water. As you had stated earlier, "they say the definition of insanity is repeating the same process expecting a different outcome". They also say, "if wishes were horses, beggars would ride"

Once again, we appear to be over-reaching in our assertions. So, what does one then call editing "before" a response---benevolence and/or good citizenship behavior? Malice is partly a function of intent. And since one cannot prove prove intent, as no one is incapable of reading the mind and hearts of others, such an assertion will remain blatantly spurious, to say the least. Secondly, because intent is an attitude and NOT a behavior, it will take more than a miracle to convincingly prove to anyone that one knows what is going on in the heart and mind of any human being on this planet and beyond.

When you're in charge, you can make the calls.

Until such time, your asssertions as to "hazing", which by the way this isn't - Hazing is also associated with a sense of community and welcoming, something which, you have to admit, we aren't doing to you - are false.

Correction! Once one is in charge they have a duty to act objectively and not emotionally, as illustrated by the negative labels thrown around carelessly and aimlessly. Again, labels are strongly associated with bullying. One would be well fortified to learn that parsimony in semantic expression, can sometimes be a great virtue of leadership

Since I am not a magician, I could not possibly over-reach to make a bogus statement of certitude that "hazing" is occuring here, and I NEVER did make such a comment of certitude as implied. I used the term, "suspect" as a prefix, in my comment on "hazing", to suggest that suspicions can be true or false depending on the quality and quantity of information gathered.

Unfortunately, "hazing" has been associated with bullying, and it is seriously frowned upon by many organizations and sometimes described or referred to in many texts as "deviant workplace behavior" or "deviant behavior", depending on which texts you consult.

Don't refer to yourself as an ethical person. Ethics are irrelevant here.

I never referred to myself as an ethical person. I don't know where one got that from. In addition, If one takes time to study leadership and its components, they will be pleased to realize that ethics is a profound aspect of leadership. Without it, corporations and organizations usually do fail or falter.

also, your judgement could not be considered sound. they say the definition of insanity is repeating the same process expecting a different outcome...you appear to be repeating the process of arguing in a rambling, disjointed form.

What one thinks of my judgement or a soundness of it, is a matter of perception. We are free to be victims and guests of our perception.

In addition, one's definition or connotation associated with the term "insanity", is surprisingly false and misleading. Here is a website that may help us clarify what "insanity" really means. Based on the definition in the link below, is one suggesting that i am psychotic or suggesting such an attribution? If one is inclined to make such a suggestion then we may be witnessing the onset and emergence of bullying, given the constant use of a repertoire of negative labels which are sometimes associated with bullying and which appear to be routinely used spuriously around here.

Insanity Definition | Definition of Insanity at Dictionary.com

I'm sorry, what?

We're asking you to prove something now?

No, we're asking you to make sense. Hard thing to grasp, I realise.

I have asked several logical questions that have produced spurious or non-existent answers. What is there to prove when there is no solid basis to do so?

You've become a victim to your own way of thinking. Congratulations

We are all victims of our thinking and thought processes, as evidenced by our divergent expressions on this matter and many matters. We both share a lot in this regard. There is a brotherhood that develops when we identify and acknowledge what we do have in common, don't you think? LOL!


Nota Bene:

It is grossly "UNETHICAL", for anyone to REPOST a comment any poster deleted in good faith. Ethics is a function of individual characteristics/traits, behavior, style, environment, etc. It is unclear how each of these variables interact to create such an outcome in an "unethical individual".

[IBrake4Rainbows]

Here is a website where one can indulge in the definintion of "malicious". I hope it is helpful. Malicious Definition | Definition of Malicious at Dictionary.com. Lets avoid being semantically inaccurate.

"wanton, or mischievous in motivation or purpose."

Yep, that pretty much covers it.

People can edit responses for any number of earthly and celestial reasons, and at any point, and by your defintion, if it occurs after a post, that must be mailicious? Please, tell us this is NOT what you are trying to say here? This argument holds absolutely, no water.

In this situation, yes.

You were made to look like a fool. you attempted to mitigate damage.

You were caught.

Once again, we appear to be over-reaching in our assertions. So, what does one then call editing "before" a response---benevolence and/or being a good citizen? Malice is partly a function of intent.

So you were malicious?

And since one cannot prove prove intent, as no one is incapable of reading the mind and hearts of others, such an assertion will remain blatantly spurious, to say the least.

Oh right, I get it. So because I don't know what you were thinking it's not malicious.

Something about actions and words.....

Secondly, because intent is an attitude and NOT a behavior, it will take more than a miracle to convincingly prove to anyone that one knows what is going on in the heart and mind of any human being on this planet and beyond.

Red Herring. We are talking about you.

Which I'm beginning to think was kind of the point all along.

Correction! Once one is in charge they have a duty to act objectively and not emotionally, as illustrated by the negative labels thrown around carelessly and aimlessly. Again, labels are strongly associated with bullying. One would be well fortified to learn that parsimony in semantic expression, can sometimes be a great virtue of leadership

This is of course according to your definitions of leadership. and as you so clearly point out, we're all marching to a different drum.



I am under no obligation to act impartially or to spare your feelings. I act with extreme prejudice and my only allegiance is to the good of the forum.

Also, Grow up. It's the Internet.

Since I am not a magician, I can never over-reach to make a statement of certitude that "hazing" is occuring here, and I NEVER did make such a comment of certitude as implied. I used the term, "suspect" in my comment on "hazing" to suggest that suspicions can be true or false depending on the quality and quantity of information gathered.

Unfortunately, "hazing" has been associated with bullying, and it is seriously frowned upon by many organizations and sometimes described in many texts as "deviant workplace behavior".

Red Herring again. Not talking about "other" organisations.

No one is hazing you. That's, like, effort.

I never referred to myself as an ethical person. I don't know where one got that from.

There is an implication when you make assertions that "an ethical person would..." that comments made by the other party are not ethical.

My point was to merely suggest that the pot not call the kettle black.

In addition, If one takes time to study leadership and its components, they will be pleased to realize that ethics is a profound aspect of leadership. Without it, corporations and organizations usually do fail or falter.

UCP has stood for a long time before your gracious entrance.

and will stand long after your glorious exit.

This forum will last 1000 years !!!!

What one thinks of my judgement or a soundness of it, is a matter of perception. We are free to be victims and guests of our perception.

I shall perceive, then, based upon observation and analyis, that you are at once baffling and illogical.

In addition, one's definition or connotation associated with the term "insanity", is surprisingly false and misleading. Here is a website that may help us clarify what "insanity" really means. Based on the definition in the link below, is one suggesting that i am psychotic or suggesting such an attribution?

Wow, a semantics argument. You can tell this is going to end well.

Remember what we discussed about being concise?

My suggestion is that you are continuing with the same pattern and train of thought, somehow expecting us, who are clearly in the wrong and, heaven forbid, arguing against your method of thought, to come around.

If one is inclined to make such a suggestion then we may be witnessing the onset and emergence of bullying, given the constant use of a repertoire of negative labels which are sometimes associated with bullying.

OMG SOMEONE IS BULLYING ME ON THE INTERNETS.

seriously?

Can you not differentiate between dissent and bullying?

I have asked several logical questions that have produced spurious or non-existent answers. What is there to prove when there is no solid basis to do so?

Logic is, by your very definition, interpersonal and chock full irregular interpretation by those who don't follow the same patterns as yourself. Your question was essentially this:

He's not getting treated the same I am.

My answer is this:

UCP is not, nor has ever claimed to be, a Democracy.

your behaviour, which I might add has been confrontational, disingenuous and downright baffling, has meant that in particular my attitude and treatment towards you has been hostile and unwelcoming.

Get over yourself.

We are all victims of our thinking and thought processes, as evidenced by our divergent expressions on this matter. We both share a lot in this regard.

The only thing we share is a passion for gargantuan words where dimunitive phrases will suffice.

And, for the records of prosperity, I would like to acknowledge the last paragraph has changed since I started writing.

[cmcpokey]

I vote IB4R for Admin!!

[G35COUPE]

"wanton, or mischievous in motivation or purpose."

Yep, that pretty much covers it.

Well, to each their own version of their understanding of their universe. This is welcomed. Secondly, let me say that i thoroughly enjoy your comments, albeit their questionable basis.

In this situation, yes.

You were made to look like a fool. you attempted to mitigate damage.

You were caught.

LMAO! Thrilling!!! Who made me look like a fool? In what scenario was I made to look like a fool? And if so, how did you come to this conclusion, given that our spirited conversation has been ephemeral, to say the least? What damage was being controlled? LOL! Who caught whom? What is the basis for these confounding assertions? One is raising many more questions than they are answering, which raises a red-flag about credibility of comments. Could malice be a reason for these spurious assertions?

So you were malicious?

This has been your position so far (you specifically said, "Editing existing posts with malicious intent is a violation of the terms of service. This included deletion to try and cover one's own incompetance."), and this has been the question you have indirectly tried to prove in great futility. Why? One is incapable of determining what is going on in the hearts and mind of others. We cannot assume the role of "thought" police.

Oh right, I get it. So because I don't know what you were thinking it's not malicious.

Something about actions and words.....

Words are actions. You can't prove malice, without proving intent.

Red Herring. We are talking about you.

Which I'm beginning to think was kind of the point all along.

We are talking about us. Whether you beleive this or not, our discussions are a revelation of our inner souls and persons layed bare for both of us to examine in great detail.

This is of course according to your definitions of leadership. and as you so clearly point out, we're all marching to a different drum.

Once again, it appears a convergence of ideas maybe taking hold here. I am proud of one's valiant efforts in this discussion.

I am under no obligation to act impartially or to spare your feelings. I act with extreme prejudice and my only allegiance is to the good of the forum.

Also, Grow up. It's the Internet.

What feelings are you talking about? I beleive we have been as objective and candid as possible in our hearty conversations. I was told many years ago that humans stop growing at age 25. Maybe I have stopped growing. I have no idea.

Red Herring again. Not talking about "other" organisations.

No one is hazing you. That's, like, effort.

I never said anyone was hazing me. These are your assertions. I only said I have a suspicion that it may be in the process of occuring.

There is an implication when you make assertions that "an ethical person would..." that comments made by the other party are not ethical.

My point was to merely suggest that the pot not call the kettle black.

So, it all boils down to perception? I could see how that could be a reality.

UCP has stood for a long time before your gracious entrance.

and will stand long after your glorious exit.

This forum will last 1000 years !!!!

Amen!!!!!!!!!!! And I wish the same for UCP from the bottom of my heart. I made no reference or attribution to UCP, whatsoever. I have no idea where you got that from.

I shall perceive, then, based upon observation and analyis, that you are at once baffling and illogical.

Let one's perception be a product of objective variables, lest they arrive at wrong conclusions. There is absolutley nothing illogical with my comments when questions I have raised in the past in relation to my comments, have yet to be answered. And being baffled by views that are divergent, is absolutley normal, as it could potentially create an opportunity to initiate taking stock of one's entire being and beleif system.

Remember what we discussed about being concise?

Remember our discussion on one avoiding being a "thought" police?

My suggestion is that you are continuing with the same pattern and train of thought, somehow expecting us, who are clearly in the wrong and, heaven forbid, arguing against your method of thought, to come around.

I have no interest in bringing anyone around to see things my way. That would be considered communism. I am a firm beleiver in democracy. And to correct your previous assertions and beleifs, all organizations operate either in a centralized or decentralized fashion, which is akin to communism or democratic ideals. Of course, there are rare organizations that provide a middle-of-the road coordination system.

OMG SOMEONE IS BULLYING ME ON THE INTERNETS.

seriously?

Can you not differentiate between dissent and bullying?

Dissent will usually not come with labels. Bullying will almost always come with labels at some level. I know, because I study it. Here are labels by you, that have been hurled at me, "The rest of your posts are 'Filler', mindless, useless trash that you appear to use to pad out your posts to make them seem intelligent and well thought out." Perhaps, if we had discussions where one is inclined to drop the labels in their assertions, then, maybe dissent would be most appropriate in describing that scenario. However, I have made no assertions of certitude that bullying is indeed occuring here.

Logic is, by your very definition, interpersonal and chock full irregular interpretation by those who don't follow the same patterns as yourself. Your question was essentially this:

Once again, we are victims and guests of our perceptions and beleifs. We are free to think what we want.

UCP is not, nor has ever claimed to be, a Democracy.

This is false as an assertion. "All organizations operate either in a centralized or decentralized fashion, which is akin to communism or democratic ideals. Of course, there are rare organizations that provide a middle-of-the road coordination system." You just haven't taken the time, after such an extended membership with UCP, to study the structure of the organization and how it functions, conceptually. Organizations DO NOT exist in an ether. They exist in a structure that CAN be centralized or decentralized, depending on their vision and mission.

your behaviour, which I might add has been confrontational, disingenuous and downright baffling, has meant that in particular my attitude and treatment towards you has been hostile and unwelcoming.

Get over yourself.

I am glad one has finally come to a benign recognition of the differences between a behavior and an attitude. Which potentially troubles you more, my behavior or my attitude?? If you suggest behavior, you will have to show my use of specific terms to denigrate others, in equal measure as I can show some members, including yourself, who have attempted to use terms to denigrate others (like me). For example, the poster called "Whiteballz" a supporting member, said in reference to my earlier comment, "and you are not an adult".

And if you suggest attitude, then you will have to show how you measured and gathered information I maybe rummaging in my heart and mind. So, tell me, what am i thinking right now? LOL!

The only thing we share is a passion for gargantuan words where dimunitive phrases will suffice.

Speak for yourself. Our orientations are different. People can choose to fly 50 miles with a helicopter or they can choose to fly 50 miles with a single engined Cessna fixed wing aircraft or they can chose to drive 50 miles with a powerful v-8 engine. Does that mean that one of them is wrong and the other is correct?

And, for the records of prosperity, I would like to acknowledge the last paragraph has changed since I started writing.

Thanks for the acknowledgement. I consider this an act of being a gentleman. My aspirations are that you will continue to maintain the attribute of a gentleman even in the most testy of circumstance. Thats what true leadership is all about

[G35COUPE]

I vote IB4R for Admin!!

Frankly, I agree with you. Would you consider me for Admin as well?

Best way to deal with a fox is to give it the duty of guarding the hen house. You know who the fox is, you know what the hen-house is, and you know what to do.

[cargirl1990]

I vote IB4R for Admin!!

oh yes... filled with epicness of winningness.

[Rasmus]

Whenever I read these discussions, I feel like posting "are you suggesting coconuts migrate?!" just to keep with the nonsensical contents.

Anyhow, I drove a Cobalt today. It was not all bad. Good AC and looks better than a Neon.

[G35COUPE]

By a wide margin, the Cobalt is head and shoulder above a Neon. Take a look at the paint job and color of most Cobalts---they are awesome. I haven't driven one, but the interior layout is surprisingly good for a car of that price. The same goes for a Pontiac G6---the interior is really nice.

[baddabang]

Well, to each their own version of their understanding of their universe. This is welcomed. Secondly, let me say that i thoroughly enjoy your comments, albeit their questionable basis.




LMAO! Thrilling!!! Who made me look like a fool? In what scenario was I made to look like a fool? And if so, how did you come to this conclusion, given that our spirited conversation has been ephemeral, to say the least? What damage was being controlled? LOL! Who caught whom? What is the basis for these confounding assertions? One is raising many more questions than they are answering, which raises a red-flag about credibility of comments. Could malice be a reason for these spurious assertions?




This has been your position so far (you specifically said, "Editing existing posts with malicious intent is a violation of the terms of service. This included deletion to try and cover one's own incompetance."), and this has been the question you have indirectly tried to prove in great futility. Why? One is incapable of determining what is going on in the hearts and mind of others. We cannot assume the role of "thought" police.





Words are actions. You can't prove malice, without proving intent.




We are talking about us. Whether you beleive this or not, our discussions are a revelation of our inner souls and persons layed bare for both of us to examine in great detail.




Once again, it appears a convergence of ideas maybe taking hold here. I am proud of one's valiant efforts in this discussion.



What feelings are you talking about? I beleive we have been as objective and candid as possible in our hearty conversations. I was told many years ago that humans stop growing at age 25. Maybe I have stopped growing. I have no idea.




I never said anyone was hazing me. These are your assertions. I only said I have a suspicion that it may be in the process of occuring.




So, it all boils down to perception? I could see how that could be a reality.




Amen!!!!!!!!!!! And I wish the same for UCP from the bottom of my heart. I made no reference or attribution to UCP, whatsoever. I have no idea where you got that from.




Let one's perception be a product of objective variables, lest they arrive at wrong conclusions. There is absolutley nothing illogical with my comments when questions I have raised in the past in relation to my comments, have yet to be answered. And being baffled by views that are divergent, is absolutley normal, as it could potentially create an opportunity to initiate taking stock of one's entire being and beleif system.




Remember our discussion on one avoiding being a "thought" police?




I have no interest in bringing anyone around to see things my way. That would be considered communism. I am a firm beleiver in democracy. And to correct your previous assertions and beleifs, all organizations operate either in a centralized or decentralized fashion, which is akin to communism or democratic ideals. Of course, there are rare organizations that provide a middle-of-the road coordination system.





Dissent will usually not come with labels. Bullying will almost always come with labels at some level. I know, because I study it. Here are labels by you, that have been hurled at me, "The rest of your posts are 'Filler', mindless, useless trash that you appear to use to pad out your posts to make them seem intelligent and well thought out." Perhaps, if we had discussions where one is inclined to drop the labels in their assertions, then, maybe dissent would be most appropriate in describing that scenario. However, I have made no assertions of certitude that bullying is indeed occuring here.




Once again, we are victims and guests of our perceptions and beleifs. We are free to think what we want.




This is false as an assertion. "All organizations operate either in a centralized or decentralized fashion, which is akin to communism or democratic ideals. Of course, there are rare organizations that provide a middle-of-the road coordination system." You just haven't taken the time, after such an extended membership with UCP, to study the structure of the organization and how it functions, conceptually. Organizations DO NOT exist in an ether. They exist in a structure that CAN be centralized or decentralized, depending on their vision and mission.




I am glad one has finally come to a benign recognition of the differences between a behavior and an attitude. Which potentially troubles you more, my behavior or my attitude?? If you suggest behavior, you will have to show my use of specific terms to denigrate others, in equal measure as I can show some members, including yourself, who have attempted to use terms to denigrate others (like me). For example, the poster called "Whiteballz" a supporting member, said in reference to my earlier comment, "and you are not an adult".

And if you suggest attitude, then you will have to show how you measured and gathered information I maybe rummaging in my heart and mind. So, tell me, what am i thinking right now? LOL!




Speak for yourself. Our orientations are different. People can choose to fly 50 miles with a helicopter or they can choose to fly 50 miles with a single engined Cessna fixed wing aircraft or they can chose to drive 50 miles with a powerful v-8 engine. Does that mean that one of them is wrong and the other is correct?




Thanks for the acknowledgement. I consider this an act of being a gentleman. My aspirations are that you will continue to maintain the attribute of a gentleman even in the most testy of circumstance. Thats what true leadership is all about

Please do me a favor and get the **** out of my thread.

[G35COUPE]

Please do me a favor and get the **** out of my thread.

Lets be nice and be sweet, dear, will we? Come and give daddy a hug, will ya. Daddy loves ya. LOL!

[johnnynumfiv]

Lets be nice and be sweet, dear, will we? Come and give daddy a hug, will ya. Daddy loves ya. LOL!

The man said get the **** out. Have some respect for the thread creator's request, and get the **** out.

[baddabang]

The man said get the **** out. Have some respect for the thread creator's request, and get the **** out.

Virtual high five!

[G35COUPE]

The man said get the **** out. Have some respect for the thread creator's request, and get the **** out.

Who is "the man"? Is there a gender recognition system in place here? How do we know this entities true gender or if they are human to begin with? How does one respect any entity or human being, if at all they are one, who begins a statement with "get the **** out"? I am asking relevant questions unless you are asking me to honor a non-request based on assumptions and incoherent demands. I am curious.

Lets also not forget that someone once said, "I love babbling a lot. I can't help it. In a single week, between both computers, i lay down 600 - 800 words---just typing. 150 of those words are actually important---the rest is aimless dribble, looking for other brain cells to kill all over my keyboard jungle." They know who they are.

Epic!!!!

You know, you can attract a bee with honey rather than with quinine. LOL!

[wwgkd]

So did you ever consider LS9ing the thing? Just curious.

[pimento]

Is there a one-month lock option for threads? Just curious..