Hush up, Lance Strongarm.

In this thread on SSM, lance has participated avidly. Start around post 338 to see the quality of his participation, ranging from a wacky theory about how marriage is really about whom you exclude, to the idea that if I am wiling to deny any sort of marriage I may be a bigot, to the idea that (and this is his big one) there may be somewhere in the cosmos an argument against SSM that’s not bigoted, and if you’re unwilling to give someone the benefit of the doubt until you’ve heard their own personal, individual arguments against SSM, you must be a bigot.

Hush, Lance. Your posts make no sense. The arguments you make are foolish and borderline incoherent, and I’m not saying which side of the border they fall on. I can’t tell if you’re always stoned when you post, but I remember having more cogent philosophical arguments with my pothead college roommate.

I’ll do my best not to respond to you in threads in the future, because you’re the definition of low-hanging fruit, and I try to be better than that. No promises, though, because you’re the definition of low-hanging fruit, and I’m not always better than that.

If you improve your arguments, I’ll retract the hush.

The OP has the tone of an old lady scolding her cat. What has this forum become? Somewhere, Veb is weeping.

If your cat can’t argue better than lance strongarm, it may be time for that last visit to the vet.

Of course it is, by definition. If it weren’t we wouldn’t be having a discussion about who to exclude and who to include in marriage.

That’s what YOU say when you talk about those who oppose gay marriage though.

I didn’t say that. But you don’t need to listen anyway.

Why am I not surprised that you’re not interested in my rational argument either?

You could have just called me a bigot and ran away. Easier.

Feel free to ignore me all you want. Or not. I’m not interested in your chest-thumping.

I don’t care.

It is indeed a fairly milquetoast OP, but since the target is quite obviously a troll - and not even a particularly clever troll, just an exhaustion troll, i.e. the kind of troll that tries to inspire weariness instead of outrage - how much effort is really warranted?

I might adapt the above sentence into a Bulwer-Lytton entry.

Cite?

I’m no more interested in your rational argument than I’m interested in your prehensile adamantium hair, and for much the same reason.

No, you’re not a bigot. I use that word carefully. You’re just not very bright, and you think you are. You seem like a nice enough guy, but good lord you’re annoying in a debate.

I’ll forever see myself as an old lady yelling at her cat and thumping her chest.

Her own chest or the cat’s? Please give ten or fifteen reasons for your choice and explain how they prove you’re not a bigot.

It’s easy to call someone a troll, isn’t it?

Of course you’re not interested in rational arguments. That’s abundantly clear.

Instead of whining about it, just ignore me.

Then ignore me.

Fun, too.

I don’t think he’s a troll, in the classical sense: I think he really is that dim. If you’re right, though, then he’s brilliant at it.

Even so, you’re right that he’s not exactly inspiring a lot of effort from me. I mostly posted this thread because his inanity was hijacking a thread I’m interested in.

What? Lance is posting idiocies? Well, that’s to be expected, today ends in y after all.

Well, we’ll see how far this “ignore me” thing goes. If it becomes his standard response, where getting people to ignore him counts as a victory, then I figure he’s like brazil84… in reverse!

I didn’t say it counted as a victory. It doesn’t. It’s simply a dignified end to the conversation that beats whining and insults.

See, that’s more of you putting words in my mouth. Which is not surprising - you want to believe what you want, not what I say. Much like you don’t want to even consider the possibility that someone else could have a rational argument for something.

I didn’t hijack it. In fact, I just posted that we should get back to the OP.

I think our conversation was on topic. If it was hijacked, well, it take two to tango. Hence my reccommendation that you ignore me if you are done with me.

Well, it is in the Pit. It’s harder in Great Debates and Elections without a mod seeing through ones subtle accusation and calling one on it. In the peanut thread I had to refer to endless back and forth and ask you to say, in a single post, exactly what you believe and you referred me back to pages of back and forth. I could not call you an “exhaustion troll” in GD, both because of the rules and because the term is new to me, but I can here.

Indeed you did–in the stupidest way possible, namely, acting as though there were no responses to the OP, when there obviously were. This is symptomatic, lance. You need to hush up if you’re not going to bother reading the thread before you post something like that.

Again, it takes two to tango. So if I’m an exhaustion troll, so is everyone who is going back and forth with me, aren’t they?

The only reason you pick on me with that name is because it’s me vs. several other posters. The number of posts on each side, though is about the same.

So if anyone should complain about exhaustion, it’s me. You guys are running relays while I run the whole race.

I will always think of you like this