Exactly!! I hate it when they do that shit!
That wasn’t very nice, Bear_Nenno.
I must differ with my colleague from Freedonia on this issue.
If someone makes a post in response to me, usually in anger, that makes it clear he or she has not gotten the point my post was aimed at making, I will generally respond with a one- or two-line summary of what I’d attempted to say in the earlier post, preceding or following a comment that effectively tells the other poster to read my post, sometimes with a sarcastic innuendo to the effect that they made a quite cogent argument against some point having nothing to do anything yet said in the thread but apparently directed against the point they misconstrued me as trying to make.
Further wilful intent to misunderstand what I’m saying – as opposed to clear failure to comprehend me, and the two are usually quite easy to separate – gets ignored, a la Tris’s point.
Few if any issues are more important than the person holding the opposite view, and he or she deserves my respect – so long as they accord me the same privilege. But someone convinced that I’m “one of them” arguing an issue that I am not, and in consequence intent on destroying the position that I don’t hold, deserves only my pity and silence.
My boxers appear to be in working order, RTF, but thanks for being concerned. 
You don’t need the acronym. People who use those kind of blanket statements as a response are obviously losing the argument then and there. The observant reader will understand your lack of response to such a statement. And this observant reader would respect such self control a helluva lot more than the use of YAOA[sup]1[/sup].
Other than that, I can’t say it any better than my esteemed fellow moderators already did. It will probably provoke a EURAAPRO[sup]2[/sup], and Lord knows we don’t want that.
If you’ll excuse me, I’ll be off to start the FIWKIOIUA[sup]3[/sup] thread. 
[/quote]
[sup]1[/sup] = Yet Another Useless Acronym
[sup]2[/sup] = Equally Useless Response Aimed At Pissing RTFirefly Off
[sup]3[/sup] = Fuckin’ Idiots Who Keep Insisting On Inventing Useless Acronyms
Personally, unless RT asks me “what’sa bigga, grey, hasada four legs andada longa trunk”, I see no reason to object.
John, that’s irrelevant!
Honk, Honk.
First, I prefer to invoke dismissives when I feel someone (ahem) is purposefully side-stepping major points of the argument. Then, I tell 'em so. They always come back.
Second, I use such “all youses” for a specific reason. Voters and supporters of a political ideology sometimes feel they can get away with merely swallowing that which they support, ignoring the rest. I want to point out to them that their vote forces them to take the full-on Peter North facial, too. They, after all, signed the contract.
People vote in their own best interests. Therefore, as a powerless dope-smoking commune-of-one-living-liberal-ass-abortion-pansy-and-Injun-lover, one of my better chances at knocking someone off the fence is to point out that they are responsible for allowing those in power to do what they do, particularly those things that are not in their own best interests. Remind them of that, and who knows? They might even work to change their own party.
Nevertheless, it’s easy to qualify statements by saying such things as “House Democrats” or “Conservative governors” when circumstances warrant. I will try to adhere to such civility in the future.
Poly- Hey, dat’sa right!
DNFTMSL.
[sub]Do Not Feed The Mods Straight Lines.[/sub]
What the hell is this? Some sort of crazy Dutch acronym scheme?
Can you tell I’m not really good at this acronym shit?
What? You mean “Coldfire” doesn’t stand for “Cranky Old Lycanthrope Dunce Focusing on Impressive Rectal Examinations”?