NFBW: Do not take this the wrong way.
But the vast majority of your sentences, far from being gems that must be left to stand alone to dazzle us with their brilliance, are at best pedestrian and more commonly are repetitive guff.
If you’ve got to post lengthy screeds, string a few sentences together to form a freaking paragraph.
Otherwise you come across as a stylistic failure as well as a clueless ninny.
That is all.
Sayonara.
The OP was not dragging you in here about a particular point but about your entire posting style. There’s already a thread about the point you’re still arguing about; this thread is about something else. And while I accept that you are offended by the perceived slight to your integrity, by continuing this hijack you are neither winning converts to your side nor improving your bruised image much.
And could you, at the very least, explain what this sentence was supposed to say?
Holy shit! :eek: Man, you go away for a brief flight home and a Wall of Text takes over your Pit thread!!
I see that NotfooledbyW is continuing true to form. Vast, incoherent posts that are basically either pedantic points, distortions of what was said or bull dog tenacious lock jaw efforts at semantic drudgery. Ugh. And I see he’s revived the other train wreck here to, now, address points I made in many cases days ago…and address them in a hodge podge and out of context blast of text that is basically too eye watering for the ordinary human to bear. Or the ordinary bear to human.
Rather than parse through all of that drek and create my own Great Wall o’Text, and also go over points that, if anyone was actually interested they could go and see in there native environment in the actual threads I’ve posted links too, I’ll just leave most of NotfooledbyW posts in this thread be, to stand as exhibit A of why he’s a fucking mega-puppy of unbridled exasperation and tedious’atude. 
For what it’s worth, I don’t think that. Rather, I take this comment as yet another sign of your black/white, us/them mindset where “nuance” means “expensive restaurant”.
Most here are not bringing facts. Discussing facts is being on the playing field. Flinging insults and gripes is coming from the bleachers.
I challenged XT on the other thread - at least here I did get from you an acknowledgement that what I said and what Tony Sinclair posted are virtually the same thing.
At least now I have one from here that sees the validity of my counter argument against XT absurd misconception.
If I continue defending my point and myself against XT’s absurd accusation then that thread gets closed and I’ll be told not to talk about Iraq anymore.
That is tantamount to an endorsement of XT’s absurd accusation, and will allow it to stand.
I am happy now to have your reply on record here since I doubt I would get it on the original thread.
As far as whether I should only respond to other issues besides my integrity and honesty, I see those, whatever they are in general as opinions
There’s no value to trying to chain opinions of those who won’t come onto the playing field of facts.
So perhaps I have missed a procedure where I could address XT’s accusation based on the record and the facts besides what I am doing right here. If you know a better way, let me know.
I will be glad to consider it.
I’m curious what the ‘wrong way’ to take this is.
So you have no explanation why my statement about Blix is erroneous and untrue, but what Tony Sinclair cited is factual and accurate.
That is absurd and you must know it.
I assume viewing it as a compliment is contrary to the writer’s intent.
This is neither the playing field nor the bleachers. This is the Pit. If you can’t compete in this forum, you don’t have to play.
Based on what you posted, yes. I did not go back to the other thread for greater context, nor do I care to.
Yeah, let’s not become pen pals just yet.
That will happen if you hijack other threads to talk about Iraq too; in fact, based on previous experience it will likely happen more quickly.
Whatever makes you happy.
Well yes. Yes they are. But if the opinion of others is that your mode of written communication is extremely offputting in a medium reliant entirely on written communication, those opinions are germane to presenting your arguments.
Well, for starters you could start paying attention to what people are saying instead of just barging in to talk about whatever you want to talk about.
And you could answer the exceedingly simple question I posed in my last post while you’re at it. You quoted it, so you must have seen it.
The explanation is a simple one. You’re stupid.
Or to be more precise, you are an extreme and hysterical partisan, who ignores everything said to him, and when refuted, ignores that too and simply says something else stupid. You did that several times in the thread you started about how Tea Party members were actually behind the IRS scandal.
And a hint for the future - repeating stupid doesn’t help. Your posts are way too long already, mostly because you don’t know how to format, but also because you aren’t discussing. You’re just blathering.
This is a very liberal messageboard, especially by American standards. The fact that you cannot find even one person who backs you up ought to tell you something. If it is possible for you to learn at all, which is problematic.
Anyway, to sum up - go away, you’re stupid and Obama dresses you funny.
Regards,
Shodan
No, what he’s saying is that he is not going to argue that point with you in this thread. This is the sort of thing I’m talking about: reading for comprehension.
Well, he/she has pointed out that many did claim that it was incoherent. But one has to notice that it is just like a typical non apology coming from a politician. It is not his/her fault you see, it is the fault of the ones that do notice how incoherent it was.
Now NotfooledbyW let me tell you something, even today I acknowledge that my grammar is a crime against nature as English is my second language, so what is your excuse?
**XP **is one of the most moderate fellows around here and while I do not agree with everything he says, he reports here that he does think that Bush the lesser was not justified in going to war in Iraq.
Demanding that he becomes as pure as you are is really silly when he already agrees with most of what was reported.
Back in a different thread FXMastermind does the retarded bit of claiming that scientists or me are pushing pseudoscience for not looking at his plum cherry pick he did (Looking at just a section of the temperature record gave him the complete opposite of what the ones that look at the big picture are telling everyone, the earth is warming). Then he claims that the reason why all other experts are pseudo-scientists is because they are not looking at the data,** of course they did**, but they do not look **only **at that cherry pick and the most retarded thing is to tell others that scientists do not look at the data he cherry picked when there are even citations that show that that is the case.
The point here is that one has to look at the big picture and a quick search for what he claimed regarding Iraq and his testimony in the recent treads themselves shows that you are cherry picking what XT said, it may be contradictory to his overall assessment of what he thinks: that Bush was dumb for invading; however, trying to make a mountain out of this when your “opponent” agrees with your overall picture is dumb.
And then your efforts are not helped by being incoherent, indeed post 38 and 39 were incoherent.
Post 52 is better, but as **Gyrate **found out, even agreeing is not good enough for you, and the point is missed, “You are alienating people who already agree with you through your posting style, unnecessary pedantry and just plain pigheadedness.”
XT is not going to argue that issue on any thread.
His argument has no merit. It is absurd. So I see the advice I get here in this PIT is to accept XT’s absurd argument and XT’s fallacious accusation that I was dishonest about Dr Blix just so the peanut gallery might think better of me.
I honestly must say I see no value in venturing down that road.
All I ask is for an explanation as to why my statement about Blix is wrong but a similar statement can be right or if anyone agrees they are similar in substance.
I have one response thus far, and that has leaned in my favor.
That is on record now, as it is that XT is incapable to explain his absurd accusation against me.
Lots of stuff is on record, now.
Anything leading to a point-by-point pseudo-refutation with
Lots.
of.
widely.
separated.
sentences.
[QUOTE=NotfooledbyW]
So you have no explanation why my statement about Blix is erroneous and untrue, but what Tony Sinclair cited is factual and accurate.
[/QUOTE]
But, you see, I DID comment on this and give my opinion about it. Several times. In several different ways. You simply seem incapable of reading it for comprehension and actually absorbing what I said. I have even pointed you to links and even posts of other posters who did the same. Again, you seem incapable of grasping this. What this tells me is that it’s not my posts that you don’t get, since my own posts aren’t exactly a paragon of clarity, but instead it’s you who can’t grasp seemingly simple points and then make coherent rebuttals. This is why you simply aren’t a very fun poster to engage in a debate. Which is the whole point of a message board…fun and an engaging discussion where, hopefully, all the posters and readers enjoy and learn from the experience.
‘That’, is just a word. YOU, however, are absurd, and I certainly know it.
[QUOTE=Gyrate]
Based on what you posted, yes. I did not go back to the other thread for greater context, nor do I care to.
[/QUOTE]
It’s a rather pedantic point about whether Blix was or wasn’t completely happy with the level of access he and the UN were being granted to Iraqi sites for inspections in the search for WMD, and whether said access was early enough to prevent the war. Blix himself was unsure of the latter (all of which was cited in the train wreck thread), and while he was happy with the access towards the end (i.e. just prior to the invasion), he was concerned that it might be too little too late…again, this was all cited by other (better IMHO) posters than I in the thread in question. To me, it was a moot point, regardless of what Blix did or didn’t think, since the decision had been placed in the hands of Bush by this point, the army had been deployed and the logistics were in place…basically, it didn’t matter if Blix DID say what NFBW claimed he said (which NFBW never did back up and which sparked this entire ridiculous side discussion), which was that the Iraqis had granted immediate and unfettered access to the UN, because Bush had already decided to take us to war, and had been granted the ability to do so. At that point, we were collectively fucked and nothing short of SH and the Iraqis surrendering would stop the golf shoes from coming down on our collective cranks as we put it into the meat grinder.
All of this was explained in the thread in questions, and I’ve tried to convey the above in several different ways to get it through to NFBW, all in vain as he still thinks I’m ducking the question. I don’t mind if he disagrees with my own assessment…I’m sure a lot of folks do, and that’s fine as I have no huge stake in this position and just think of the Iraqi war as a nightmare that I’m glad Obama got us mostly out of…but that’s not what he’s doing. He’s harping on stuff I already addressed, and doing it in a way that I find exasperating and definitely doesn’t make me want to engage further with him. Then he almost trolls me to come back to discuss things I’ve already discussed and really don’t feel like addressing again when there doesn’t seem any point…I mean, if he didn’t get it the first time why should I try a fifth time to get it through his meter thick skull?
Anyway, as I’ve told him, it’s all in there if anyone wants to slog through. He seems unaware that people can actually go back and read the thread and scroll up to see what was actually said in the context it was said.
You have come into the playing field so I appreciate and respect you for that. So let me get the unpleasantries out of the way before I respond to some of the points you made besides the one noted above.
I may need time to get to all you wrote because you have demonstrated some thoughtfulness into your reply.
I tend to put thoughtful people off to when I can give more time back.
That is not listening to you, just so you understand.
I do take exception to what you wrote above.
I am not demanding that XT become as pure as me by any measure or thing I’ve said
During a specific civil conversation with a Bush Iraq invasion supporter XT volunteered an opinion that I was not being honest about Dr Blix.
As it turns out XT was kind enough to acknowledge that a similar comment in substance about Dr Blix was true.
I simply seek to find out why XT can accuse me if dishonesty on one hand but accept what I said as honest when said by another.
Mine is simple request.
There is no effort to make XT as pure as me, since I have never claimed purity.
I just want the guy to admit that what I said is not wrong, outside of reality, or dishonest.
And my point to Adaher stands. Iraq was cooperation sufficiently with UN inspectors that war should have been as a no-brainer avoided.
Yes you were. Everything you post is a lie. A sad racist little lie.
Only that the OP is not talking about dishonesty NotfooledbyW,** but XT is talking about pigheadedness and stupid semantic discussions**. Hence the point that you are only showing a lack of reading comprehension here.
If you have a beef with **XT **regarding his accusation of dishonesty made in a different thread, feel free to make a pit thread for him, but just as a heads up: it is more likely to be turned in to a reverse pit where more will take the side of **XT **because of your pigheadedness and semantic obtuseness shown here and elsewhere.