Elvis:
I’m not. Not worth the effort. I just strongly agree with Izzy. As you know, I’ve called you out on doing this probably dozens of times.
Hopefully you’ll take it as constructive criticism, and treat your opponents’ arguments and statements as you would like yours treated.
Kal wrote:
Elvis wrote:
And the beat goes on…
As I explained, the problem is with precision and care being wasted on you. Your legacy continues. I eagerly wait to see how you will reformulate this response.
That was I, and not Edlyn, who posted the above — which should make the inevitable forthcoming distortion even more interesting.
Again with the tempest.
Again with the teapot.
Well gee, Elvis, I’m convinced. You are obviously superior to eveyone on this message board.
Oh, and Izzy R, you’re beginning to sound like JustThink.
Again with the pointless post.
I thought you would say that Elvis indeed DOES live…
Damn.
Psst! They ain’t stars they’re, mullets.
Mullets and Stripes <snigger>
The case against friend Elvis is, thus far, tenuous at best. Or perhaps “nebulous”. One cannot help but notice that his detractors are all of the same political stripe.
Of special note is friend Scylla:
Followed by:
Elvis must be much relieved at this turn of events. Scylla has Cites of Mass Destruction, literally dozens of instances of Elvis blatant mendacity and fabrication BUT…
He is too busy, he cannot be bothered beyond alluding to such overwhelming proof, he has the time and the inclination to make the gesture of impugning Elvis’ character, but not to back it up. He has, however, just enough time to intone the pious hope that, one day, with enough reform and repetant self-examination, Elvis might one day aspire to the lofty peaks of objective and reasonable debate occupied by that paragon, Scylla.
This is a chestnut, a chucklesome drollery. No further comment is possible with a straight face.
I find the defendant Not Guilty, and a rather good sort of chap altogether.
I’d like to be the first to welcome Scylla to libertarianism.
Does that mean he has to wear a bow tie?
Yes. And turn his skin blue.
All of it? Even his DeLay? He’ll never do it. Libertarianism is a creed for partisans, but not fanatics.
As long as you don’t coerce him into doing it, right? That requirement is “precise and clear”, one might have thought.
Everybody happy now? Got it out of your systems? Good. Now go outside and get some fresh air into your systems.
*elucidator, next time I’m in Nipples, the Pig’s Eye is on me, pal. You’re one of the many reasons to love this board.
Well, I posted in the linked thread, a tangentinal reply dealing with a question not related to the OP. Elvis’s reply to me?
Now, I had not addressed the subject of that OP at all, and suddenly I was being lumped in with Izzy. In my mind, that’s textbook “reading what you want to see and not what’s written”.
**In doing so, one would be relying upon a logical fallacy, which would be a nebulous case indeed.
Elucidator:
What’s my `political stripe?’ Please be specific.
Well, no, Elvis, you did not “summarize the effective point of several posts” I made because there are no posts I have ever written in my entire life that could be truthfully summed up by your statement. Elvis, if your memory is in fact excellent, then you deliberately made a statement that you knew to be false. What else would you call it? It’s a fact; you lied… assuming, of course, you have an excellent memory. It doesn’t matter what I do or don’t like; you said something you knew to be false. It’s right there in black and white.
I wasn’t concerned about it, but the thread reminded me, and it’s just an observation relevant to this thread; you lied about ME, attributing to me something I never wrote or even came within a light year of suggesting. Therefore, it might not just be IzzyR’s perception.
I have less of a dog in this fight than kaylasdad99, but (and I’m sure someone will think this is a drive-by post due to my recent crash in post-per-day count):
Attempting to lump your opponents into one particular group is a good way to hide the fact that there may be some validity to what they have to say. It is particularly less useful when the group does not encompass them all (viz. “political leaning”).
Playing the Moral Superior, unless it is far and away obvious to everyone including the dead, is not really the best way to go.
You may well have 126 examples of someone misrepresenting you. I can’t speak for anyone but myself (and as such this point may well be largely moot), but after example 34 (give or take two dozen), it had better be something like “No, I did not say I murdered a man in Reno just to watch him die.” or else my eyes glaze over. It serves your point better to make it quick, effective and empirical (and the risk of missing a quote tag and throwing off the entire post is considerably lessened) rather than risking your audience falling asleep on you.
There ought to be some sort of Quorum Rule that if enough people think someone is wrong and they keep on arguing in the face of logic and reason and all that is good and chocolatey, they ought to have duct tape covering their mouth hole. This would, of course, only apply to those who are actually wrong (wrongness to be arrived at by me;)).
This would be another reason I don’t go into GD much. Way too much semantics for me. If you’re not going to give me the benefit of the doubt that, if there are two ways of interpreting something and one fo them makes no sense, that I’m making sense, then begone with you;)
Tell the truth, I didn’t really notice you. If its any consolation, you are not lumped with said group. Upon review of your post, I note that no link and no proof is provided, only your assertion that it is so. So…I dunno. No doubt there are persons who feel offended by friend Elvis’ opinions, I cannot doubt that, there are those who are offended by mine own.
No, really! Hard to believe, I know.