He could apply for the role of village idiot, but I think that position is already filled. And by better idiots, too.
Ive thought that he was paid by someone or some group to post like this across the web. He reminds me of a guy who posted on the LA Times on the same subjects.
Post #39. It’s short, clear to the point. You have anything to say?
Twenty to one? Bring 'em on. No takers yet I see.
I thought he was refusing to be outwitted by Tungsten. That wily, wily Tungsten…
We ought to add a rule to the stickies about this: “If every other poster regardless of political, religious or philosophical persuasion is telling you that you’re an idiot, you are.” We’ve had a few of these over the years: Le Jacquelope, GEEPERS, JOSH, others I’ve forgotten. Usually even the weakest or most repugnant argument can find someone else to defend it - we’ve had racists, sexists, pedophiles and the like, all of which have had supporters and lively debates. So if you’re standing alone? Re-evaluate your life.
What - this one?
I can certainly see that anyone would have a hard time refuting that.
Holy shit that was long by NotfooledByW. Seriously, how do you have so much time on your hands?
Why do you have time to complain about the length of some of my posts but have no to respond to such posts as #39?
The long one was necessary primarily to provide a summary based on words put into writing that precisely and clearly contradict the bs that is being written here about me.
It is worth the time to me to spend a little time organizing exactly what was said and then watching so many of you and XT stumble over yourselves with nothing to say, really but insults and playground humor.
#39 is quite easy to understand, can you explain what XT was trying to teach me about Dr Blix’s viewpoint of his work in Iraq from December 2002 to March 2003,
That simple comment to a Bush/Iraq supporter set off XT’s madness.
You all so far think I’m the nut job around here.
Post #39 shows you may have that label pegged on the wrong one.
Because it’s incoherent?
“Precise” and “clear” are not characteristics I would ascribe to your posts. “Scattershot wharrgarbl” is more along the right lines.
Ridicule is the appropriate response to the ridiculous.
No, I think we’ve called this one about right. You really don’t read what anyone else writes, while posting endless wall-of-text screeds that bury actual facts in piles of poorly formatted and punctuated froth. Why should we spend hours sifting through the manure pile in hopes of finding a gold nugget? You show no evidence of caring what anyone else says; why should we care what you say?
The irony here is that I’m one of those people ostensibly on your side of the debate - I think the Bush administration (not necessarily W himself; more like Cheney, Rumsfeld and friends) lied and connived to get us into an unnecessary war for personal and political gain. But damn, man, you’re really not helping.
Well, I think the concept of “every thread Not fooledbyW posts in turns to shit” is hereby proven.
And, as stated above, “Get off of our side, you are making us look bad!” is appropriate here.
New Rules: Don’t be a jerk. * Or an idiot!*
I’m on my way to work but I must ask that you recognize that I wrote the long post as background. I refer to Post #39 as clear.
On #39 I posted two statements. One, XT considers an extreme aberration from the truth or reality.
The other is accepted by XT as real, a fair assessment that is backed up by a link.
Tell me if you can see the difference in context and substance of those two statements if you see it.
I don’t see it.
I see that XT is being absurd.
Is there any reponse other than “You’re right, NotfooledbyW, Obama is incapable of error, no rational-minded person is capable of perceiving him as being in the wrong, and we were all fools for ever daring to use a word such as ‘scandal’ to describe a series of events occurring in relation to him” that the subject of our thread would accept?
I’m leaning towards “No”, with a heavy helping of “Dude, stop trying to help us”.
Post 38 & 39 have been called incoherent, so I am removing the background to see if that helps.
To XT my statement is a bogus, lying, distortion of what Blix said or thought prior to the start of the invasion:
To XT this is accurate:
Can anyone posting on this thread see the difference in context or substance between the two statements posted above?
Firstly, I now see that your multiple references to post #39 should have been to post #38, which is half the problem.
Secondly, while I’m not seeing a substantive difference between those two statements, even if you’re proven entirely correct the fact that you’re going on about it in this thread only serves to demonstrate the characteristics ascribed to you in the OP. You are alienating people who already agree with you through your posting style, unnecessary pedantry and just plain pigheadedness. Chill, dude.
That’s not my argument? On the IRS controversy there is no evidence produced that Obama or the White House political team had anything to do with the Tea Party Targeting.
You must be talking about somebody else.
Excellent idea. Let’s continue the discussion from that 15 page thread here. I’m sure we’ll all reach consensus in this thread!
It must be tough being the one and only true genius in the world. Lonely, it is, at the top.
I deal in facts and logic. You have already proven those two are absolutely foreign to you.
Your what?
If there’s life on other planets, this probably doesn’t make sense in any of their languages, just like it doesn’t make sense to anyone else on Earth than you. WTF?
He’s actually well respected on his Home World, folks. Must be the high oxygen levels here.
Thank you for responding fair and square, but I cannot agree with your questioning my bringing that exchange to this thread.
I will provide you an explanation.
The OP here is based on false depiction of the words that were written that set XT off.
XT’s insertion of the point that I was ‘dishonest’ about Dr Blix into a civil and decent dialogue/debate between Adaher and I, has led to XT’s rage and his bringing that rage here.
I do have a privilege of defending my honesty whether or not anyone agrees with my point, I believe.
You have now acknowledged that you see no substantive difference in the two statements cited.
May I ask if someone accused you of being dishonest, but the very basis for the accuser is borderline absurd because the accuser accepts a similar statement as honest, would you not seek to present that case and evidence to all these fine folks responding to the accusers OP with glee and acceptance that the accuser is normal and honest and you are deservedly ridiculed.
You have already assisted me in bringing the truth to this thread.
If you can answer this question I will consider that as well.
<sigh>
When will you show facts and logic as opposed to talking about them.
Gyrate has taken a lead just moments ago. See if you can follow up in a similar manner.