What’s this all about? Anyone? Anyone?
Do you mean the whole thread, or the previous enigmatic post?
I take Malacandra’s post to mean that Scott is getting a new asshole ripped in this thread; said new asshole is being delivered; the delivery person wants Scott to sign for it.
Scott of course isn’t going to sign for it. He still thinks that everyone *else *is wrong.
Thanks. Now I’m laughing and feeling a little stupid.
It is possible that Scott Plaid is getting a new asshole ripped. The rest, I think, is a modal ontological proof, and I defer to the acknowledged expert on that one.
An effect to get me to A: Stop Posting, or B: Stop posting temporarily, but then resume posting at a later date, after I have improved my writing. Neither part has entirely succeeded . Why? Well:
A number of posters have offered me some very good advice. Others have pissed me off. Problem is, some are of only one group, and others are of both groups. While I detest some of the comments offered by many posters, I appreciate the good advice offered by others. (No, I am not saying who is who.)
The end result has been that I will attempt to improve my writing style, off the board, for the next long while. I will also change my behavior in GD, till next week, and maybe beyond that.
There is a downside, however, in the eyes of many. I believe I was right to post most of my earlier statements, and so, contrary to the advice of many, I will defend my past statements on this thread.
It’s worse than that; he thinks he’s ahead on points.
Since you don’t listen to any of the good advice anyway, I say we start concentrating on pissing you off.
Okay, I’ll offer up myself as a guinea pig. I felt that I (and others) made some decent points in this thread, which discusses membership in a group and individual responsibility for the group’s behavior. My primary debating opponent in this thread was Scott Plaid. By the end of the thread, I had completely lost track of what he was trying to say. The thread spun into a debate on Christianity, morals, and possibly the equating of turtles and fish. I’m not sure.
Anybody want to comment on the debate? (Warning: the thread linked is a three-pager from GD.) I’m perfectly willing to admit I didn’t represent my views well at all, but I’m interested in a reasonably objective review. I don’t spend a lot of time in GD, so I don’t know how to score these things. 
I agree with Rubystreak. I’m amazed at Scott’s concept of winning, without even considering his remarkably skewed view of what debating points he may have scored. Suppose I have a position or belief which I put forth in GD. Suppose further that some folks with a different position engage me in debate and factually or logically refute some or all of my support for that position. So now I have more information, a sounder position on some subject, and have had the pleasure of a reasonable discussion with intelligent, thoughtful people. How can I be construed to have lost anything? Seems like everyone wins in an exchange like that.
Ah, I have it.
Scott is from Bizarro World. There, winning am losing.
In fact, he may be Bizarro Bricker #1.
I think that’s unnecessarily insulting to Bricker.
But see, he’d be Bricker’s opposite in almost every way.
Not that it helps me? I think you are forgetting. In post 74, I said
You yourself then answered my question two posts later with the example of internment camps. True, you are likely to have come up with that on your own, but your post was worded in response to mine.
Just to go back a moment,
So basically, Myself, and many others have shown that registration is dangerous, and based on past experience, likely to lead to round-ups. It has also been show on the thread that there is no reason to believe that just because there are a few mutant terrorists in the world, that they pose anymore of a threat then non-mutant criminals. Thus, in my eyes, my side is wining, and besides which, none of my points in that thread have been refuted.
This however ignores the concept that GD is a place where people discuss issues, and learn more about the subject. Under either definition however, I can not see how any of my posts in that thread were duds.
Close, but no cigar.
If you look back over the past six pages, you would find that the majority of posts [1] were devoted to one simple message:
Read more. Post less.
Read more. Post less.
Got that? Read more. Post less.
One more time: Read more. Post less.
All together now:
[1] At least the ones which were not concerned with ripping you that new asshole that Malacandra so kindly delivered.
Except that many of the Japanese sent to camps were not aliens at all, but were instead American citizens of Japanese descent. They had not registered as aliens under the Smith Act since, you know, they weren’t aliens.
At the risk of re-opening that debate in this thread…
Scott, the two things you’re quoting as proving your point, don’t prove your point.
(1) The Smith act required the registering of aliens – that is, citizens of foreign nations.
(2) The Japanese-American internments involved the relocation of US citizens.
(3) Since the people being rounded up in Step 2 were US citizens, they wouldn’t have been registered as aliens in step 1.
Ok, Scott, how about this gem from that thread?
Care to explain to those us who can’t parse this mess what, if anything, you thought you said?
Scott:
Your ability to comprehend when points are addressed, refuted, or not refuted, is seriously flawed.
How many people need to tell you that before you will believe it?
Cite, just about every thread you have been in, when you argue for a majority forcing it’s views on a minority,MA gay marriage being judical activism, or many other points.