AL, honey, dearest one, lamb of … well, something…
I wonder if you would fill out this questionnaire for me.
Do you know how to debate?
No
Hell No.
2. Do you know how to quote source material?
Who’s asking?
Look over there!
You need some growing up classes.
Do you know how to properly insult?
Your Mother
You are unchristian
You need some growing up classes.
Do you know that you are the embodiment of willful, deliberate ignorance?
The world book encyclopedia says…
You are all members of a cult.
I foregive you for being unchristian
Do you know the way to San Jose?
You need some growing up classes
No
Would you please go away and stop polluting our board?
No. I am educating people here.
When you are done with puberty you may question me.
No, seriously. Please, PLEASE go away?
You only want me to go away because I am right.
You are not behaving in a christian manner and you ned some growing up classes.
Hmm? I have see no great groundswell of opinion calling for Monty to leave. Even people who tend to find him irascible generally either deal with him on that level or ignore that aspect of his personality.
Therefore, your comments (in light of the single-minded dishonesty that has characterized all of your posts), would seem to indicate that you have come to this MB for the express purpose of picking a fight with Monty. That sort of behavior does come under the heading of things that “people want you to stop”–you, of course, being Angelslantern.
Over half of your posts have been false statements regarding the LDS or direct attacks on Monty. That is coming pretty close to the personification of being a jerk.
Calm down. Back off. Go play in some other threads for a while.
I’ve still got to back AL up here. Opening this thread was silly. It hinges on Monty’s disliking the definition of a word she used in a debate. All good debates hinge on definition. If Monty doesn’t like her definition, it is his responsibility to present a superior definition. That can (should) all be done within the debate. It doesn’t warrant wanking about “dishonesty” in the Pit.
mmm? The definitions were clearly laid out in the other thread. Angelslantern borrowed from several conflicting definitions and changed approach at least three times without ever answering any of the challenges to its own presentation.
Dishonest is the best description of Angelslantern’s tactics in the other thread. (It’s claim to have “only heard” of this thread recently would also indicate dishonesty as it posted to the other thread from which this was linked on several occasions after the link was posted.)
Re-reading that thread, noting the way in which A ignored all the other posts except when they provided an opportunity to attack Monty it certainly appears that A’s sole purpose in the thread was to harrass Monty.
Now, I tend to agree that these “I don’t like the way you post” threads are generally silly. However, they are a part of the SDMB culture and, given the multiple personal attacks that A inappropriately launched in the other thread (all the while lying about its own arguments regarding the definition of cults), this thread seems to be well within that aspect of SDMB culture.
Maybe there is hope after all.
I saw the light, maybe this ditwad will too.
After all, she has many close LDS friends!
this post brought to you by the FriendsOfMontyWhoAreNotLDSSociety
I’m wondering if you realize that you’ve managed to put yourself into a paradoxical position. First, you’ve accused those who’ve disagreed with your, um, stance on the LDS church of being LDS themselves. I disagree with your stance on said church; therefore, I must be LDS, if your logic is valid. Now you’ve posited that (a) I disagree with your stance, and (b) that I’m not LDS.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by kuroashi *
**Dishonesty?
misinformation if anything
I’ve still got to back AL up here. Opening this thread was silly. It hinges on Monty’s disliking the definition of a word she used in a debate. All good debates hinge on definition. If Monty doesn’t like her definition, it is his responsibility to present a superior definition. That can (should) all be done within the debate. It doesn’t warrant wanking about “dishonesty” in the Pit. **[
Right/QUOTE]
So, Angel, are you going to respond to any of the points brought against you, or are you just goint to continue cowering in fear of having been revealed as a dishonest and poor debater?
Monty as I think I said before, and I think you said in different words: do not assign the task of Critical Thinking to those who think they are capable of both but haven’t the foggiest how to do (at the very least) the latter;) You’ve won, and everyone with half a brain knows it. Driving the poor sod further into the ground serves no purpose in the end. I know it feels good (believe me, I KNOW it feels good!), but it’s like beating the crap out of a dead horse; you’re only going to soil your beating stick.
Come to think of it, this whole event reminds me of one round in a Chess tournament I entered in Texas many years ago. My opponent was a young middle schooler who had absolutely no concept whatsoever of proper Chess etiquette. About 20 moves into the game, it was quite obvious that barring me dropping dead on the spot, I would win. It was also obvious by that time my opponent would not resign, no matter how bleak the situation (and it was bleak for him!).
My room-mate at the time (said room-mate went on to play on the All-Army team) liked to go over my game sheets with me after each tournament. He asked me why I played on for another 30 moves or so (I really don’t remember how many moves total the game lasted as I don’t have the game sheets anymore). My response: “Hey, the clown refused to resign, so I took all his pieces and then put him in checkmate.” I would’ve asked him if he’d like to resign had he not been such a rude fool all along.
