Apropos of nothing, my own “colorful nickname” for SPOOFE is “Yammering Busybody”.
I made it up because it describes his finger-in-every-pie approach to the SDMB. Till now I’ve only used it as a mental notation.
Regardless, his posting career can be summed up only as “a mad dash to reach 5000 posts”.
When asked for clarification, give it. If a person dosen’t understand there point well enough to restate it half a dozen different ways, they need to think about it some more. Communication is the responsibility of the writer, not the reader.
Now, when someone fails to misunderstand the painfuly obvious in many different circumstances when talking to many different people who explain the same things in many different ways–well, then, one can think to oneself that they may be willfully ignorant, and to simply start ignoring them. But to assume that lack of understanding is always the other guy’s problem, not yours–that is arrogant beyond reason.
“YEAH!” to the following:
And
Now, SPOOFE…
Not only is this about the most pathetic attempt to split the atom of the hair, it makes no sense besides. Anyone who is endeavoring to be deliberately rude is intending to insult.
in·sult (n-slt) To treat with gross insensitivity, insolence, or ** contemptuous rudeness ** .
stoid
Stoid-like you’re so innocent? loud guffaws
OH MY GOD. I am having serious flashbacks to a Pit thread I was involved in long, long ago where I tried to explain away various statements of mine using tortuous language just like this. I was mercilessly butchered by SPOOFE, Monster 104, and others in their camp. SPOOFE, you are wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. Have the grace to apologize, (as I did, if you recall) and put the matter to rest.
Of course, if you don’t I’ll just lurk and enjoy the delicious irony of all this, as others heap abuse upon you. 
Manda Jo…
I did. And I asked Minty why he seems so upset that I DID clarify him.
If a reader is hasty in his response to something that someone else has written, it is his fault entirely. Again, I restate my position… it ain’t my problem if Minty can’t read my whole post before choosing to respond.
Lizard…
And the result was the same… you eventually realized your mistake, made amends, and life went on.
Uh… I DID.
While I appreciate SPOOFE’s apology, which I did indeed read after I posted here, his colourful nickname for me posted 8 billion times was the least part of the problem. I am not about to feel offended by anyone who has to resort to such cheap ad hominem techniques in order to validate his arguments.
If you think the contemptuous nickname is the root of the problem here, you are on the wrong track. The nickname is simply a device. My problem is with the arguments themselves, which I find in very poor form for a forum called Great Debates (not Highly Subjective Opinions, Denial, and Tangential Arguments Offered as Support for Flawed Reasoning).
SPOOFE is quite clearly pro-guns, and I indicated before that personal positions did not matter to me. The debate was not supposed to be about a foreigner attacking the sanctity of American rights to own firearms, as a few posters seemed eager to assume (were it indeed such an argument, I assume the Moderators would have squashed it). The debate was about the reasoning behind the firearm issues in the US. When some, including Spoofe and later Freedom, posted subjective and illogical arguments that did not address in valid manner the subject matter being discussed, and that simply served to overwhelm the opposition, some people became annoyed. Minty Green was so exasperated at the techniques employed that he opened this thread.
Tension on this gun topic obviously runs very high with some Americans. Freedom, now that Svinlesha has explained the argument of excessive force and its legality in portions of the world, do you feel that you spoke from ignorance? Or can you justify your statement that what I posted on the topic of excessive force was “the dumbest thing I have ever read or seen in any gun debate, any gun thread, at anytime or place”? (not to mention your other comments in the same post)
Czarcasm might have been partially correct in his comment on guns and America: certainly the thread in question has a number of pro-gun arguments that are more typical of fundamentalist religion, with attendant dogmatic reasoning and illegitimate attacks on the opposition, than debate.
I was partially correct?!?
We’re talking about a group of people who believe that carrying a bangstick is a natural right…no, make that a GOD* GIVEN right. Look at who they elected as head of the N.R.A-Moses himself, Chucky Heston!
When posting this:
Please keep this in mind:
If you disagree with my points, then please address them.
Further…
You would do well to address them in the thread where I made them.
Nope.
Stating that a person using a gun to defend themselves from a knife attack is excessive force, and justifies removing guns from the public IS:
It’s a cheap trick to move the debate over here. Pick a thread and stick to it. I don’t plan to chase you all over the board.
I did not have sex with that woman. Ms. Lewinksi.
I see now that two good things have come out of my little rant.
First, SPOOFE offered his apologies to Abe back in the original thread. Well done, sir. I only wish it hadn’t taken this thread to prod you into it, or that I’d noticed it before I left town.
Second, it turns out that I’m one of Duck Duck Goose’s favorite posters. That’s like getting a pat on the head from Mom. Thanks, Duck! I’ll try not to disappoint anymore.
Mods, you can lock up this flamefest anytime.
Freedom has, with characteristically poor “arguments” invited me to stick to the point. I did, and you can find it in the original thread. I posted there because that is where you asked for citations of your poor techniques.
You drone nonsensically on about subjectivity, and you don’t even realize that is has been your hallmark during the gun debate.
The following, by the way, is an evasion that is indeed worthy of the tag “dumbest thing I have heard”:
Your subjectivity prevents you from understanding–or even identifying–the arguments made in that thread. And you will never understand them so long as you refuse to try.