Jetrell Fo

My avatar has changed from that so what is wrong with my new one? It’s a picture of Tesla’s Energy Tower I think. Is that bad too?

TV’s Frink said:

Jetrell Fo said:

If you’re gonna be a baby and cry and talk shit it’s on you buddy.

???

Anything I’ve said to you or about you is completely unrelated to the point, which is that you think everyone who disagrees with you is doing so because they’re mean people who are out to get you. Case in point, you accused Ryan of acting dickish and oojason of acting shitty simply because they had a different opinion than yours or didn’t understand what you were trying to say. It’s a pattern that everyone but you seems to recognize.

But OK I’LL BACK OFF!!!

YOU are NOT a MOD. Ryan accused me of being dickish first and you didn’t say a fucking thing about that did you? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, not Mr. Frink, you can say anything you want to Fo he just can’t return it. Go stick it in your bum and blow.

I begrudgingly changed my avatar today.

😦

dahmage said:

Jetrell Fo said:

TV’s Frink said:

Jetrell Fo said:

TV’s Frink said:

Jetrell Fo said:

TV’s Frink said:

Jetrell Fo said:

TV’s Frink said:

Jetrell Fo said:

I’m guessing some of you don’t remember this.

False equivalency.

Not so. A President is within his legal power to do it no matter which President it is.

This has nothing to do with my point, and everything to do with why it’s pointless to engage you on any topic.

Well then, explain, why do you believe it is a false equivalent?

Because Comey is not under investigation for using public funds for private use.

Because Sessions was not investigating Clinton’s possible collusion with another nation to > undermine the election.

Fair enough but I didn’t say anything about it being equivalent.

But when I said “false equivalency” you said “not so”…argh, whatever.

I said once before that I don’t want to have a normal civil conversation with you because I don’t understand 90% of the things you say and it’s not worth the effort to try and decode everything. I stand by that.

I’m just going to leave this here so people can see for themselves the answer you gave to my olive branch. I was very sincere and you just gave me the finger. Have it your way. I don’t want to see any crying or complaining from you or the others when I question or try to discuss things you might post.

and yet you are the user who’s avatar is literally giving the finger. It might be time to change that. 😃

I’ve had that for like 2 weeks now, LOL.

TV’s Frink said:

Anyone who disagrees with or doesn’t understand Fo is just being shitty or dickish.

Fuck You Frink. I gave you full opportunity in the open to bury the hatchet. If you’re gonna be a baby and cry and talk shit it’s on you buddy.

Now BACK OFF!!!

oojason said:

Jetrell Fo said:

oojason said:

Jetrell Fo said:

oojason said:

Jetrell Fo said:

oojason said:

TV’s Frink said:

oojason said:

Sean Spicer ‘spent several minutes hidden in the bushes’…

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/sean-spicer-spent-several-minutes-hidden-the-bushes

http://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/1075247

To be fair - it may not be the first, or last, time that Spicer will likely be hiding in bushes…

😉

(a shame the journalists didn’t turn the cameras on the bushes and start asking ‘why are you hiding in the bushes?’)

This off camera meeting was actually planned ahead of time so it wasn’t like he was hiding for some dubious purpose. The condition of the meeting was that there was no video feed recorded.

Sean Spicer spent several minutes hiding in bushes - and in fact it seems he was hiding for a dubious purpose - in that he didn’t want to be filmed for a meeting taking place - which was agreed upon by the media present during his time whilst hiding in the bushes.

 

from the article…

"After Spicer spent several minutes hidden in the bushes behind these sets, Janet Montesi, an executive assistant in the press office, emerged and told reporters that Spicer would answer some questions, as long as he was not filmed doing so. Spicer then emerged.

“Just turn the lights off. Turn the lights off,” he ordered. “We’ll take care of this…. Can you just turn that light off?”

Spicer got his wish and was soon standing in near darkness between two tall hedges, with more than a dozen reporters closely gathered around him. For 10 minutes, he responded to a flurry of questions, vacillating between light-hearted asides and clear frustration with getting the same questions over and over again.

Actually I believe part of the article is incorrect. I saw the opening of this interview before I turned to something different (before the cameras went off). John Roberts said they were just waiting for this briefing and they might get permission for audio recording. Sean Spicer was nowhere to be seen on the stage by the sets but everything else had been arranged prior. I did not see that woman they say came out.

So I don’t know that it really matters but what I saw and how it is reported starting here is a little different.

Again, what you believe is irrelevant - let’s just try and stick to the facts, yes? and not pass off opinion/belief as the fact, eh?

What the article says is NOT incorrect - and there was no pre-arranged meeting/briefing for those media waiting - as the Press Staff had stated that he may do a briefing - though that he (Spicer) definitely wouldn’t be saying more that night.

Spicer has just finished a pre-arranged outside interview with Fox Business - but to get back to his office he would have to pass a waiting media wanting questions to their answers - Spicer then hid in a bush! Several minutes passed and then Janet Montesi, an executive assistant in the press office, emerged and told reporters that Spicer would answer some questions, as long as he was not filmed. Spicer then emerged…

so it had not ‘been arranged prior’ as you claim.

 

other fuller accounts here;-

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Analysis-After-Trump-fired-Comey-his-staff-11135009.php

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/sean-spicer-bushes-white-house_us_59133322e4b0a58297e1721f

 

No need to be shitty mate. This is supposed to be a discussion, not a pissing contest.

😦

Not being shitty in the slightest mate. You are right though - this isn’t a pissing contest - it’s just getting to the facts (so far).

Discussion is always welcome - no-one said it isn’t.

And opinion, belief and varied discourse should thrive and be encouraged in the quality forums like we have here - but let’s not get away from the actual events and facts of the matter(s) being discussed - nor try and portray opinion or belief as fact, yes?

I just don’t appreciate you saying that I was trying to portray my opinion or belief as fact. I was just telling you what I saw, nothing more. We have plenty of posts in this thread that read as if they’re doing what you say and for the most part they get left alone. Ask me fine, but there is no need to be smarmy.

😉

oojason said:

Jetrell Fo said:

oojason said:

Jetrell Fo said:

oojason said:

TV’s Frink said:

oojason said:

Sean Spicer ‘spent several minutes hidden in the bushes’…

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/sean-spicer-spent-several-minutes-hidden-the-bushes

http://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/1075247

To be fair - it may not be the first, or last, time that Spicer will likely be hiding in bushes…

😉

(a shame the journalists didn’t turn the cameras on the bushes and start asking ‘why are you hiding in the bushes?’)

This off camera meeting was actually planned ahead of time so it wasn’t like he was hiding for some dubious purpose. The condition of the meeting was that there was no video feed recorded.

Sean Spicer spent several minutes hiding in bushes - and in fact it seems he was hiding for a dubious purpose - in that he didn’t want to be filmed for a meeting taking place - which was agreed upon by the media present during his time whilst hiding in the bushes.

 

from the article…

"After Spicer spent several minutes hidden in the bushes behind these sets, Janet Montesi, an executive assistant in the press office, emerged and told reporters that Spicer would answer some questions, as long as he was not filmed doing so. Spicer then emerged.

“Just turn the lights off. Turn the lights off,” he ordered. “We’ll take care of this…. Can you just turn that light off?”

Spicer got his wish and was soon standing in near darkness between two tall hedges, with more than a dozen reporters closely gathered around him. For 10 minutes, he responded to a flurry of questions, vacillating between light-hearted asides and clear frustration with getting the same questions over and over again.

Actually I believe part of the article is incorrect. I saw the opening of this interview before I turned to something different (before the cameras went off). John Roberts said they were just waiting for this briefing and they might get permission for audio recording. Sean Spicer was nowhere to be seen on the stage by the sets but everything else had been arranged prior. I did not see that woman they say came out.

So I don’t know that it really matters but what I saw and how it is reported starting here is a little different.

Again, what you believe is irrelevant - let’s just try and stick to the facts, yes? and not pass off opinion/belief as the fact, eh?

What the article says is NOT incorrect - and there was no pre-arranged meeting/briefing for those media waiting - as the Press Staff had stated that he may do a briefing - though that he (Spicer) definitely wouldn’t be saying more that night.

Spicer has just finished a pre-arranged outside interview with Fox Business - but to get back to his office he would have to pass a waiting media wanting questions to their answers - Spicer then hid in a bush! Several minutes passed and then Janet Montesi, an executive assistant in the press office, emerged and told reporters that Spicer would answer some questions, as long as he was not filmed. Spicer then emerged…

so it had not ‘been arranged prior’ as you claim.

 

other fuller accounts here;-

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Analysis-After-Trump-fired-Comey-his-staff-11135009.php

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/sean-spicer-bushes-white-house_us_59133322e4b0a58297e1721f

 

No need to be shitty mate. This is supposed to be a discussion, not a pissing contest.

😦

Jeebus said:

In honor of the day;

Smoking Broccoli Day?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVlef4nTU0w

Tucker Carlson is a gas.

oojason said:

Jetrell Fo said:

oojason said:

TV’s Frink said:

oojason said:

Sean Spicer ‘spent several minutes hidden in the bushes’…

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/sean-spicer-spent-several-minutes-hidden-the-bushes

http://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/1075247

To be fair - it may not be the first, or last, time that Spicer will likely be hiding in bushes…

😉

(a shame the journalists didn’t turn the cameras on the bushes and start asking ‘why are you hiding in the bushes?’)

This off camera meeting was actually planned ahead of time so it wasn’t like he was hiding for some dubious purpose. The condition of the meeting was that there was no video feed recorded.

Sean Spicer spent several minutes hiding in bushes - and in fact it seems he was hiding for a dubious purpose - in that he didn’t want to be filmed for a meeting taking place - which was agreed upon by the media present during his time whilst hiding in the bushes.

 

from the article…

"After Spicer spent several minutes hidden in the bushes behind these sets, Janet Montesi, an executive assistant in the press office, emerged and told reporters that Spicer would answer some questions, as long as he was not filmed doing so. Spicer then emerged.

“Just turn the lights off. Turn the lights off,” he ordered. “We’ll take care of this…. Can you just turn that light off?”

Spicer got his wish and was soon standing in near darkness between two tall hedges, with more than a dozen reporters closely gathered around him. For 10 minutes, he responded to a flurry of questions, vacillating between light-hearted asides and clear frustration with getting the same questions over and over again.

Actually I believe part of the article is incorrect. I saw the opening of this interview before I turned to something different (before the cameras went off). John Roberts said they were just waiting for this briefing and they might get permission for audio recording. Sean Spicer was nowhere to be seen on the stage by the sets but everything else had been arranged prior. I did not see that woman they say came out.

So I don’t know that it really matters but what I saw and how it is reported starting here is a little different.

TV’s Frink said:

Jetrell Fo said:

oojason said:

Comey requested more money for Russia scandal probe before (his) firing…

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/comey-requested-more-money-russia-scandal-probe-firing

I haven’t found anything that proves this has been confirmed one way or the other so I don’t know why Rachel Maddow would even suggest it has been.

http://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/1075117

That is not an official confirmation of anything one way or the other.

oojason said:

TV’s Frink said:

oojason said:

Sean Spicer ‘spent several minutes hidden in the bushes’…

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/sean-spicer-spent-several-minutes-hidden-the-bushes

http://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/1075247

To be fair - it may not be the first, or last, time that Spicer will likely be hiding in bushes…

😉

(a shame the journalists didn’t turn the cameras on the bushes and start asking ‘why are you hiding in the bushes?’)

This off camera meeting was actually planned ahead of time so it wasn’t like he was hiding for some dubious purpose. The condition of the meeting was that there was no video feed recorded.

oojason said:

Comey requested more money for Russia scandal probe before (his) firing…

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/comey-requested-more-money-russia-scandal-probe-firing

I haven’t found anything that proves this has been confirmed one way or the other so I don’t know why Rachel Maddow would even suggest it has been.

SilverWook said:

I meant maybe overeager Bigfoot hunters accidentally trespassing into remote areas the government doesn’t want the public near for safety or security reasons.

None that I’m aware of or that I have seen reported.

FBI Dir Comey mislead Congress today when he stated that emails on Republicans were not released during 2016.

http://archive.is/jmZse

It seems he did mis-speak and he also said that both parties were hacked.

James Comey’s goodbye letter.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/10/politics/james-comey-farewell-letter/index.html?sr=twpol051117comey-goodbye-letter1223AMStoryLink&linkId=37457481

Your smarmy answer infers it so that is why I asked. I wouldn’t want to … misundertsand … or not understand at all … something you’ve said.

yhwx said:

Jetrell Fo said:

yhwx said:

Jetrell Fo said:

TV’s Frink said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

TV’s Frink said:

Jetrell Fo said:

TV’s Frink said:

Jetrell Fo said:

TV’s Frink said:

Jetrell Fo said:

TV’s Frink said:

Jetrell Fo said:

I’m guessing some of you don’t remember this.

False equivalency.

Not so. A President is within his legal power to do it no matter which President it is.

This has nothing to do with my point, and everything to do with why it’s pointless to engage you on any topic.

Well then, explain, why do you believe it is a false equivalent?

Because Comey is not under investigation for using public funds for private use.

Because Sessions was not investigating Clinton’s possible collusion with another nation to > undermine the election.

Fair enough but I didn’t say anything about it being equivalent.

But when I said “false equivalency” you said “not so”…argh, whatever.

I’m amazed that people continue to respond to Jetrell’s posts. Every time someone does, a new rabbit hole opens up, and it’s frustration all the way down.

To be clear, I don’t think that Jetrell is a bad guy - in fact he seems like a totally nice person. Just staggeringly illogical.

Definitely on the first part and probably on the second.

I’m an imperfect person, as we all are, and one of my negative traits is my inability to ignore him. However, in my defense, it’s pretty hard to ignore someone who responds to every one of your posts and misunderstands or misrepresents everything you say.

You’re reaching here buddy … we both reside on the same forum, you are a far more prolific poster than I am so your posts are like everywhere, and don’t you feel even the tiniest bit egotistical trying to get folks to actually believe what you just said? The Fonz you’re not, and neither am I, but that really isn’t a rational defense for refusing an olive branch with such indigence.

yhwx said:

Jetrell Fo said:

yhwx said:

Just added the “Neighborhood Watch / OT.com Meta” section. Ranking will be coming soon.

Are you running for President here or something? Maybe looking to usurp Frink’s singular spot here?

LOL

I can almost never understand what you’re trying to say.

Then why respond?

I just want to know the deal with these allusions and analogies. What’s the deal with The Front? And what about the olive branch?

And what is Frink reaching for? I mean, just some basic reading comp. stuff I want answered.

You should consider becoming a novelist. I think you’d be good at that.

Being as simplistic as I can here. If you are asking me to give you answers so you don’t have to go back in the thread to read, I don’t know what else to tell you.

“The Fonz” = Fonzie from the old Happy Days T.V. show.

SilverWook said:

That’s news to me. I can’t imagine what the government’s interest in Bigfoot would be. Does it happen near restricted areas?

People don’t go to Restricted Government Areas looking for Bigfoot. They do go into the wilderness in remote locations to do it. I could not tell you why they follow some of these people but it might have something to do with National Parks and the rather disturbing number of almost impossible to explain disappearances in them.

yhwx said:

Jetrell Fo said:

TV’s Frink said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

TV’s Frink said:

Jetrell Fo said:

TV’s Frink said:

Jetrell Fo said:

TV’s Frink said:

Jetrell Fo said:

TV’s Frink said:

Jetrell Fo said:

I’m guessing some of you don’t remember this.

False equivalency.

Not so. A President is within his legal power to do it no matter which President it is.

This has nothing to do with my point, and everything to do with why it’s pointless to engage you on any topic.

Well then, explain, why do you believe it is a false equivalent?

Because Comey is not under investigation for using public funds for private use.

Because Sessions was not investigating Clinton’s possible collusion with another nation to > undermine the election.

Fair enough but I didn’t say anything about it being equivalent.

But when I said “false equivalency” you said “not so”…argh, whatever.

I’m amazed that people continue to respond to Jetrell’s posts. Every time someone does, a new rabbit hole opens up, and it’s frustration all the way down.

To be clear, I don’t think that Jetrell is a bad guy - in fact he seems like a totally nice person. Just staggeringly illogical.

Definitely on the first part and probably on the second.

I’m an imperfect person, as we all are, and one of my negative traits is my inability to ignore him. However, in my defense, it’s pretty hard to ignore someone who responds to every one of your posts and misunderstands or misrepresents everything you say.

You’re reaching here buddy … we both reside on the same forum, you are a far more prolific poster than I am so your posts are like everywhere, and don’t you feel even the tiniest bit egotistical trying to get folks to actually believe what you just said? The Fonz you’re not, and neither am I, but that really isn’t a rational defense for refusing an olive branch with such indigence.

yhwx said:

Jetrell Fo said:

yhwx said:

Just added the “Neighborhood Watch / OT.com Meta” section. Ranking will be coming soon.

Are you running for President here or something? Maybe looking to usurp Frink’s singular spot here?

LOL

I can almost never understand what you’re trying to say.

Then why respond?

Ryan McAvoy said:

Jetrell Fo said:

TV’s Frink said:

Jetrell Fo said:

TV’s Frink said:

Jetrell Fo said:

TV’s Frink said:

Jetrell Fo said:

I’m guessing some of you don’t remember this.

False equivalency.

Not so. A President is within his legal power to do it no matter which President it is.

This has nothing to do with my point, and everything to do with why it’s pointless to engage you on any topic.

Well then, explain, why do you believe it is a false equivalent?

Because Comey is not under investigation for using public funds for private use.

Because Sessions was not investigating Clinton’s possible collusion with another nation to > undermine the election.

Fair enough but I didn’t say anything about it being equivalent.

Oh for goodness sake.

You posting an article about a somewhat (on the surface) similar historical case (that the Trump team has also been spinning all over the place today), during a discussion of the current case and sarcastically saying “I’m guessing some of you don’t remember this” isn’t you suggesting they are equivalent? Really. Then what was it for?

Please explain exactly what you meant by posting it, who “some of you” are, why you think those persons won’t remember it and exactly what you meant by your comment in general.

(EDIT: Frink’s comment above was posted at the same time as mine, not before. So please don’t take this as another example of the mob persecuting you. We just happened to both think your comments were baffling)

Okay Ryan, I don’t want you to get all huffy and blown this out of proportion over nothing (even though someone already tried doing just that).

“some of you” = those of us posting in the thread old enough to remember it. Pretty simple.

“I’m guessing some of you don’t remember this.” = to anyone complaining about the President firing the FBI Director because it’s not the first time it’s ever happened.

So, there you go, it was not posted to equate it to the reason or the stuff happening now when Comey got fired. So it is not a false equivalent because as you can see, I never equated it to Comey’s situation regarding reasoning, just his firing.

Wow, even I feel weird now that I had to do that, but there it is.

They have had some pretty bad tactics over the years when dealing with them and the Bigfoot community. I’ve heard stories of people searching for signs of Bigfoot being watched by Government agents, being stopped by them, and after a sighting or incident occurs, they are rushed out by them only for the area to be scrubbed of any signs those people were there the day before.

A lot of weird ass shit happens to all these folks.

TV’s Frink said:

Lol, sure.

Can you provide an actual reason as to why you believe Imp could not do one better than you?

I totally understand your point Puggo. I do wonder though, if our government retrieved black project crafts and not UFO’s, why not just say they were black project craft? Why change the story numerous times?

I think we can have a reasonable discussion about how anyone of us sees an event we witnessed even if we could not identify a craft/flight phenomena we saw in the sky.