Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Salaried, ExemptFollow

#152 Jan 15 2015 at 10:19 PM Rating: Good
*****
15,952 posts
Not wearing a flag lapel pin is not a demonstration of anti-patriotism. Not putting your hand on your heart is not a demonstration that you are actually lying, or that you are dissing the ceremony, or that you are not patriotic. Nor are they demonstrations that you think the USA is not a good country.

I think the way the Australian government and a lot of Australian people are thinking about and treating refugees are shameful, disgraceful and cruel. I still think Australia is a good nation.
#153 Jan 16 2015 at 1:05 AM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
gbaji wrote:
The exact opposite of "does believe that American is innately good" is "does not believe that America is innately good'.
Or; The exact opposite of "does believe that American is innately good" is "does believe that America is innately evil".

Context is important and the only context I can work with is what you've written for most of the last decade.
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#154 Jan 16 2015 at 8:37 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Aripyanfar wrote:
I still think Australia is a good nation.
I think NYC is good. It's the rest of these shmucks making us look bad.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#155 Jan 16 2015 at 5:21 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Aripyanfar wrote:
Not wearing a flag lapel pin is not a demonstration of anti-patriotism. Not putting your hand on your heart is not a demonstration that you are actually lying, or that you are dissing the ceremony, or that you are not patriotic. Nor are they demonstrations that you think the USA is not a good country.


Love the triple negative! I'm curious why you're going so far out of your way to use only negative terms when Joph used a positive one? Saying, it's not, not, <some negative thing> is a tortured way of mangling what's going on. Why not say it's not <some positive thing>?

When you do that (the latter method) the point about Obama makes sense. No one's saying he's anti-america (Ok, I'm sure some are, but that's a different topic), but the bigger point is that he's not particularly pro-america. Someone who believes in the innate goodness of something (like their own country) will tend to make a point of spending the effort to show this whenever they can. They don't have to remember to wear a flag pin, or put their hand over their heart (for pledge or anthem), or in other ways show the love for their country. They just do it because that's who they are. And that's precisely the point people were making. Obama is not the kind of person who loves his country and just automatically expresses that love.

Twisting that point into "you're saying he hates America" is a way to side step the real complaint. Some people think that the president of the country should not have to be reminded that he should appear to be patriotic. He should actually be patriotic. Crazy idea, but there you have it.

Quote:
I think the way the Australian government and a lot of Australian people are thinking about and treating refugees are shameful, disgraceful and cruel. I still think Australia is a good nation.


Sure. But there are a number of people (myself included) who don't believe that Obama thinks the US is a good nation. I think it's the nation he finds himself in. I think he views that nation as deeply flawed (not just "has some flaws, but is mostly good"). I think he wants to change it to make it more like other nations which he admires much more. And while that's perfectly fine for some random person, that's not so great a quality for a president. And frankly, given the abysmal performance of his administration, our fears seem to have been borne out. He's taken a number of actions that are hard to justify with any explanation other than "kinda actually doesn't care if the US falls, and maybe even wants it to be knocked down a peg relative to other nations".


All that from an absent lapel pin? Not by itself. But when you look at the combination of actions (and lack of actions) there is a picture there. One that some of us spotted back when he was first running for president, and one that more people have come to realize since he took office.

Edited, Jan 16th 2015 3:32pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#156 Jan 16 2015 at 5:30 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
The exact opposite of "does believe that American is innately good" is "does not believe that America is innately good'.
Or; The exact opposite of "does believe that American is innately good" is "does believe that America is innately evil".

Context is important and the only context I can work with is what you've written for most of the last decade.


Which is why it's so odd that you apparently fail to actually read what I write most of the time. You're probably the worst offender on this forum when it comes to accusing me of saying something when there's a direct statement from me (often actually quoted by you) that refutes your own accusation. I've literally on several occasions simply re-quoted your own post where you had previously quoted the very statement that you "forgot" I'd said and used it to correct some crazy claim you were making. In some cases, said quote is still on the same page of the thread.

I don't think you do this deliberately (because it's so obvious that it can only be a goof), but you do this quite often. I suspect you get caught up in the conversation and forget what I'd originally said. I don't know if this is because you imagine I said something else, and that somehow replaces the real post in your mind, or if there's some other mental process going on. But in any case, you're terrible at following context. You consistently replace the words I actually write with your own and then insist that's what I said all along. Again, I don't think you do this on purpose, but you really should be aware that you do this and maybe make an effort to occasionally go back and re-read earlier posts to refresh your memory before you respond.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#157 Jan 16 2015 at 5:47 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
The exact opposite of "does believe that American is innately good" is "does not believe that America is innately good'.
Or; The exact opposite of "does believe that American is innately good" is "does believe that America is innately evil".

Context is important and the only context I can work with is what you've written for most of the last decade.


Which is why it's so odd that you apparently fail to actually read what I write most of the time. You're probably the worst offender on this forum when it comes to accusing me of saying something when there's a direct statement from me (often actually quoted by you) that refutes your own accusation. I've literally on several occasions simply re-quoted your own post where you had previously quoted the very statement that you "forgot" I'd said and used it to correct some crazy claim you were making. In some cases, said quote is still on the same page of the thread.

I don't think you do this deliberately (because it's so obvious that it can only be a goof), but you do this quite often. I suspect you get caught up in the conversation and forget what I'd originally said. I don't know if this is because you imagine I said something else, and that somehow replaces the real post in your mind, or if there's some other mental process going on. But in any case, you're terrible at following context. You consistently replace the words I actually write with your own and then insist that's what I said all along. Again, I don't think you do this on purpose, but you really should be aware that you do this and maybe make an effort to occasionally go back and re-read earlier posts to refresh your memory before you respond.
Provide 5 different links to where I have done the bolded and I'll agree with your above statements. Don't provide them and, I dunno, fuck off?
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#158 Jan 16 2015 at 5:55 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Call a professor and ask HIM to provide five links!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#159 Jan 16 2015 at 6:10 PM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
But there are a number of people (myself included) who don't believe that Obama thinks the US is a good nation.
There are a number of people that thought there was a space ship behind a meteor and all committed suicide in order for their souls to hitch a ride with it while that meteor destroyed the world. The difference is that the people that committed suicide sounded more credible than most of your beliefs.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#161 Jan 16 2015 at 6:12 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I figure one of the advantages of having a candidate who not only enjoyed a sweeping win to election but then enjoyed another sweeping win to re-election four years later is that I can skip the asinine debates on whether he "loves America enough" (or whatever permutation on the same theme) or not.

Edited, Jan 16th 2015 6:14pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#162 Jan 16 2015 at 6:12 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
There are a number of people that thought there was a space ship behind a meteor and all committed suicide in order for their souls to hitch a ride with it while that meteor destroyed the world. The difference is that the people that committed suicide sounded more credible than most of your beliefs.

Solid banter. 7/10 would read again.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#163 Jan 16 2015 at 6:42 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Call a professor and ask HIM to provide five links!
I'll take maple apple.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#164 Jan 16 2015 at 9:18 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
Provide 5 different links to where I have done the bolded and I'll agree with your above statements. Don't provide them and, I dunno, fuck off?


Don't feel like digging too much, but this thread itself contains the example we just talked about. To be fair, it was Tricky who initially misstated my earlier post, but you chose to pick up that torch and carry it (not even sure why given I'd already pointed out his mistake prior to you getting involved). Um... There's this thread, which is the one I was most directly thinking about. You did it, not once, but twice. Ironically, like in two posts in a row:


gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
you wrote:
to pad profits

Did you forget you wrote that part?


Actually, Smash wrote it originally. But I do agree that private industry accepts government funding/assistance/favorable regulations as a means to increase revenue and/or decrease costs. Which results in higher profits.


You took what I quoted from Smash, attributed it to me, and then completely missed what my point was at the time and assumed I was saying it was good for government to subsidize businesses to help them pad profits (um... which wasn't remotely close).

You then, in the very next post, quoted and bolded the second paragraph of that post thusly:

gbaji wrote:
And, as I pointed out just a bit ago, I'm far less concerned about someone pursuing a profit motive than a control motive. One enriches someone, which may or may not benefit or harm me at all. The other grants someone else control over me. Which always harms me.


Later in the thread, we had this exchange:

gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
You wrote that if a government subsidy increases profit to a business that does not harm you.


Sigh. I said it may or may not harm me. You even bolded it when responding the first time. Do people just not freaking read?


This being in reference to the earlier quote by you, of me, where you could not have missed that I said it "may or may not benefit or harm me at all" in specific reference to businesses gaining/padding profits as a result of government subsidies. So yeah. You absolutely suck, both at reading what people write *and* following context. BTW, this is the thread where it occurred to me that you do this a lot.

Then, there's this thread. Don't feel like quoting the whole exchange, but post #297 is a good central point. You missed entirely the context of my tazer comment (which you admittedly acknowledged when I pointed it out), but then you also accused me of changing Smash's comparison criteria when it was actually Smash who had changed mine (a couple times). Then, when I pointed this out, you basically went off on some tangent trying to claim that it was bad logic when trying to determine if race is a determining factor to create a comparison case in which only the race of the person is changed, but good logic to change the size, weight, and se.x of the person as well.

So we've got you failing to follow context, accusing me of doing what Smash had actually done, but then trying to defend that with what has to be one of the most bizarre arguments I've seen on this forum.


That's not five, but that's four in just the last month and a half. I'm reasonably certain that, barring some very unlikely posting change by you very recently, there are probably a ton of other examples if we were to take the time to examine your entire posting history. And look, I'm not saying that we all haven't done this. I know for a fact that I have too. Sometimes I mix up who said what, or in what order, or just plain misread what someone wrote. But it just seems like you do this at a higher rate than others (or maybe I'm just noticing it a lot recently). Honestly, it just really stuck out in my head in that thread about the police shooting/choking, and when you did it again (even more blatantly) in the Comcast thread, it was reinforced even more, so that when you again launched into an argument with me in this thread based entirely on a misreading of something I'd written, I decided to comment on it.

It just seems like an abnormally high percentage of your posts directed at me involve you failing to correctly read something I wrote earlier. Not all, of course (and you're certainly not the only poster who does this), but I've just noticed it a lot recently. And to be perfectly honest, this is a pet peeve of mine, but it's something that seems to happen a lot here. I'm reasonably certain that some posters (like Lolgaxe and probably Smash) do it intentionally, so I ignore them. But I don't think you do, which is probably why I commented.


Oh. And I think I was also probably annoyed by the whole "You keep tossing out facts like they mean something" bit you threw at me a couple days ago. That one's at least as annoying as the "I don't get my news from anywhere" joke. And in both cases, it's entirely about ignoring the context of the statements I made. So it's possible I was already primed to be irritated at you because of that.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#165 Jan 16 2015 at 9:35 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
That one's at least as annoying as the "I don't get my news from anywhere" joke. And in both cases, it's entirely about ignoring the context of the statements I made.

Nah, "I don't get my news from anywhere" was entirely within context. I understand why you'd want to try to revise history now but it was pretty clear.

You were trying to argue about the spending bill and constantly getting the numbers and facts wrong. I asked where you're getting your news from (since you were so wildly inaccurate) and you famously responded with:
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph. Unlike you, I don't sit around regurgitating what others are saying. I'm looking at what you are saying, finding it to be lacking in sense, and pointing out the glaring problems (and stating a few opinions of my own along the way of course).

Naturally, hilarity ensued that you admitted to not even bothering to look at the facts but were instead just knee-jerk insisting that I was wrong. And, of course, the deal eventually went down exactly as the "regurgitated" news said it would.

Again, I understand that that was a stupid thing for you to admit but you DID actually admit to it. You can pretend now that you never did but you're sort of branded with that one for life Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#166 Jan 16 2015 at 9:58 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
The context being that both of us were clearly using the word "news" as a replacement for the much longer to type "opinion analysis of the political event at hand". It makes zero sense to assume that I was actually claiming that I don't follow, read, or watch any news at all Joph. You and I were not talking about the events, but the meaning of the events, the reasoning behind the events, what each side wanted, etc.

What I was saying was that my opinions were my own. I was not just regurgitating something I heard some pundit say. Um... Which is what I quite clearly stated in the very next sentence. You asked me where I was "getting my news from", but you were actually asking me where I was getting the idea that the budget cuts in the initial house bill was already a compromise figure. My mistake was in using the same incorrect word that you used initially, but my answer was correct. I wasn't getting it from an external source. I was actually looking at the facts and arriving at my own conclusions based on the actions of those involved.

What's funny is that even in the thread in question, all of us kinda laughed at the wording and moved on, because everyone realized it was just an awkward phrasing and understood what I was saying. What's weird is those who have latched on to it and keep bringing it up, years later. If your best shot is a poorly worded sentence I wrote 3.5 years ago, maybe you should just not go there.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#167 Jan 16 2015 at 10:00 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
The context being that both of us were clearly using the word "news" as a replacement for the much longer to type "opinion analysis of the political event at hand".

Hahahah... no.

You were getting basic factual information, not "opinions", about the debate wrong, repeatedly, which is why I asked. In fact, I asked even earlier that I originally linked. Here is me correcting you even earlier; not on "opinions" but on facts that you just had straight up wrong. But again, I get why all the backpedaling. And I'm not honestly going to spend a lot of time trying to get you to admit to what everyone else knows -- it's all in the linked thread.

Edited, Jan 16th 2015 10:05pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#168 Jan 16 2015 at 10:03 PM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
You asked me where I was "getting my news from", but you were actually asking me [...]
gbaji wrote:
You consistently replace the words I actually write with your own and then insist that's what I said all along.
Teehee.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#169 Jan 16 2015 at 10:06 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Oh. And let me point out that this was yet another example of the liberal mind being unable to separate "facts" from "opinion". We were all speculating about the motivations and goals involved in an entire sequence of political activities. We were not remotely debating facts. No one was in disagreement over the actions each side took, but rather why they did it, and whether what they did would hurt them or the other side. And I suppose this was why you used the incorrect word "news" in the first place. Because to you, fact and opinion are both received from the same source and muddled together.

Again, my mistake was in repeating the same wrong word that you used when I responded to you. So bad on me for not spotting your mistake and correcting it in my response. Of course, had I done that you would certainly have just accused me of changing the subject, moving the goalposts, or some other silly thing. In any case, it's a really silly thing to make hay about now. I guess I just don't get the value of crowing over something that you know is contrived. It's another example of "made you flinch" humor. But if that's what gives your life meaning and makes you feel superior, I guess that's what you've got to do.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#170 Jan 16 2015 at 10:15 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
You asked me where I was "getting my news from", but you were actually asking me [...]
gbaji wrote:
You consistently replace the words I actually write with your own and then insist that's what I said all along.
Teehee.


Yeah. Which is why I made the mistake of using the same wrong word Joph used. I didn't want to be accused of changing his phrasing when responding to him. But if you actually read the freaking thread, you'll see that he was not demanding that I provide sources for any actual facts. We were all in agreement over what actions were taken. The "facts" were not in dispute. We were disagreeing about "why" they were taken, and what effects those actions might have. Joph used the wrong word. Every time I said something like "The GOP wants this result" or "The public will perceive the actions this way", Joph would demand that I tell him what news I was getting this from.

He was clearly asking where I got my opinion and/or analysis from, not what news sources I watch or read. I get that this makes a funny quote out of context because it appears as though I'm saying I don't watch or read news at all, but just make it up or something. But that is clearly not remotely what I was saying. It only appears that way if you take it out of context. Which is the exact point I was making in this thread.

Edited, Jan 16th 2015 8:16pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#171 Jan 16 2015 at 10:16 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
gbaji wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
you wrote:
to pad profits

Did you forget you wrote that part?
Actually, Smash wrote it originally. But I do agree that private industry accepts government funding/assistance/favorable regulations as a means to increase revenue and/or decrease costs. Which results in higher profits.
You took what I quoted from Smash, attributed it to me...........
Nope. Direct attribution from Post #58. Swing and a miss.
.
.
gbaji wrote:
And, as I pointed out just a bit ago, I'm far less concerned about someone pursuing a profit motive than a control motive. One enriches someone, which may or may not benefit or harm me at all. The other grants someone else control over me. Which always harms me.


Later in the thread, we had this exchange:

gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
You wrote that if a government subsidy increases profit to a business that does not harm you.


Sigh. I said it may or may not harm me. You even bolded it when responding the first time. Do people just not freaking read?
Give you that one.



gbaji wrote:
Then, there's this thread. Don't feel like quoting the whole exchange, but post #297 is a good central point. You missed entirely the context of my tazer comment (which you admittedly acknowledged when I pointed it out), but then you also accused me of changing Smash's comparison criteria when it was actually Smash who had changed mine (a couple times). Then, when I pointed this out, you basically went off on some tangent trying to claim that it was bad logic when trying to determine if race is a determining factor to create a comparison case in which only the race of the person is changed, but good logic to change the size, weight, and se.x of the person as well.
The above has zero to do with "bijou changing what gbaji wrote", so; strike two.


gbaji wrote:
That's not five.
No shit.
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#172 Jan 16 2015 at 10:17 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Oh. And let me point out that this was yet another example of the liberal mind being unable to separate "facts" from "opinion".

Whatever it takes to make you feel better Smiley: laugh
Quote:
No one was in disagreement over the actions each side took

You had NO IDEA what actions were being taken which is what made it so funny and prompted the questions in the first place. Again, it's not as though no one else can read the thread for your vaunted "context" that you think will change things.
Quote:
But if that's what gives your life meaning and makes you feel superior, I guess that's what you've got to do.

Yeah, if I was you I'd probably pout and stomp my feet around as well.

Edited, Jan 16th 2015 10:18pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#173 Jan 16 2015 at 10:29 PM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
But if you actually read the freaking thread,
I thought you'd never accuse!
gbaji wrote:
He was clearly asking where I got my opinion and/or analysis from, not what news sources I watch or read.
Jophiel wrote:
I'll ask again: Where are you getting your news from that you keep getting the facts wrong?
Jophiel wrote:
Hey, I noticed you're still trying your best to avoid answering where it is you get your news from.
Looks pretty clear he wrote what he actually meant and now you're changing the wording and then insisting that's what he said all along, much like you're accusing Bijou of doing to you.

Edited, Jan 16th 2015 11:30pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#174 Jan 16 2015 at 11:14 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
gbaji appears to have the insane notions that:

a) I have something to gain by making stuff up

b) I don't read all of every thread in =28 and =4

and

c) I don't know how the Forum Search feature works


Smiley: rolleyes
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#175 Jan 16 2015 at 11:23 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
Nope. Direct attribution from Post #58. Swing and a miss.


Wait, you're actually going to re-argue an argument you lost back? Sigh.

gbaji wrote:
The private sector seeks government funding to pad profits, but you failed to ask "why does government allow them to do this?"


The private sector seeks government funding to pad profits. However, the question I asked you later (in post #61) was:

gbaji wrote:
Why do you think governments fund things? I'm serious here. And "corruption" is a meaningless answer, because that's a means, not an end. The end for the private industry is profits. The end for the government is power and control. Period.


To which you responded with

Friar Bijou wrote:

gbaji wrote:
to pad profits

gbaji wrote:
to pad profits

gbaji wrote:
to pad profits

gbaji wrote:
to pad profits


Did you forget you wrote that part?


Did you forget that I wrote that The private sector seeks government funding to pad profits? But I asked you why the government would fund it. Those are not the same freaking things. What's bizarre is even after I pointed this mistake out to you then, and even after I pointed it out to you again just now, you still repeat it and think that what you did was perfectly ok.

This is what I'm talking about.

Quote:
The above has zero to do with "bijou changing what gbaji wrote", so; strike two.


In this case you didn't actually misquote me, you just quoted me and then claimed that what I'd written had a completely different meaning than it did. You accused me of changing the conditions Smash had made (of a 19 year old blonde girl), but you failed to realize that I was the one who originally proposed that we test the idea of Brown's death being because of his skin color by imagining an identical set of events except with a 300 lb while male instead of Brown. Smash responded with his "19 year old blonde" example, and I responded back to him that if she were 300 lbs and made the exact same choices Brown had made, she'd probably be as dead as he was.

Then you jumped in and accused me of changing the narrative and putting words in other people's mouths.

My point is that the common thread in all these cases is you failing to read the conversation and grasp the context, and then attacking me based on that gross misreading of what I wrote. It's not strictly about misquoting. I guess why I find it so jarring is that I'm ok with someone disagreeing with me and arguing with me. That's fine. We're all entitled to our opinions, and I certainly enjoy a good argument. But I don't enjoy having people respond to me with an accusation that I said or did something I didn't. In that last case, you accused me of misrepresenting what Smash had said in order to make some kind of unfair response. But I didn't. But now I have to spend time explaining to you why I didn't, and how the flow of the conversation went, and a whole host of things that you should have understood just from reading the thread. Which is not fun.

And now I have to do it. Again. Which is even less fun. I guess the other reason this annoys me is that it really does seem like a lot of posters prefer to respond to me by derailing the conversation or arguing some side point rather than actually addressing the argument I'm making. I can't say that this is your motivation, but your particular style of debate seems to be to find some flaw in something I wrote and attack that, regardless of how relevant said flaw is to the actual discussion. You are far from the only person who does this, but in your case, the "mistakes" you accuse me of making are almost always mistakes that you are making. Which is interesting because it's actually easier and quicker to respond to someone pointing out an actual mistake (easy to just acknowledge it and either adjust the argument I'm making or argue that the mistake isn't relevant to said argument and move on), but when the accusation is wrong, I know that if I don't challenge it, it becomes accepted as truth and I'll be dealing with people saying "remember when you <insert mistake here>" for years. So I'm basically forced to have this very kind of exchange with the person making the accusation.

Which makes it annoying, and is why I pointed it out.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#176 Jan 16 2015 at 11:32 PM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
I guess the other reason this annoys me is that it really does seem like a lot of posters prefer to respond to me by derailing the conversation or arguing some side point rather than actually addressing the argument I'm making.
Other posters prefer this to actually addressing the arguments you make because in two months you'll bring up the exact same arguments and pretend two months ago people didn't already address them.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 360 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (360)