Actually, I tried the same trick once when I claimed I thought I was kinda’ witty. tom asked for for a cite, and I linked to posters complementing my posts.
::About the thread that inspired this::
Before I begin, I want to point out something. I am upset about a certain behavior. That is to say, the fact that a certain issue gets argued to death, then, months later, someone tries to re-debate the issue, while pretending that all the points they brought up were not proved wrong on the previous thread. I saw an example of this in the threads I talked about, and I wanted to know what to do about it. I suppose I could have asked for advice on how to solve this without even the least mention of what the latest example was, but I suspect the thread would have been called a pitting anyway? I was upset about the posters too , but I did not feel upset enough to pit them. Anyone else want to tell me why they enable this behavior, by responding to the the re-debater, rather then ignoring them, as Larry Borgia advised me to do in the same thread.
::About your responses on this thread::
At first, reading your posts, I had no respect for what you were saying. After all, I view many of you as seeing things through a “bush is always right, no matter what”, viewpoint, or a “Christianity is the best way”, viewpoint, and I cannot respect that. It smacks of starting from a doctrine, and only noticing points which agree with that P.O.V., and forgetting those that don’t. Just plain stupid.
However, as I read more and more posts, I see more lurkers who I have no idea of the personal views of, and so, I am forced to consider that there might be something to what people are saying. So, I will now post less, and review my viewpoint. A month or so ago, I went through the same process. This was brought on by the fact that Bricker and I hijacked a discussion, and argued forever over what judaism said, and did not say over the “savior” I was correct about the situation, and was proven right on the issue a day after it ended, when Polycarp stepped in to point out that no matter how sure Bricker was about the issues, I was stating just what judaism says. Afterwards, however, it occurred to me that no one stepped in to agree with what I was saying, save for Poly, and that was a day latter. Sure, I was correct, but my way pointing that fact out did not win me any friends, nor did it change Ricks views in any way. (I suspect that not even if og himself came forward and told bricker he was wrong, would he admit to it, but that is besides the point.) After that, I posted only to cafe society, pretty much, for a while, and watched as others combatted what I saw as the worst pubs on the board. After a while, I saw they were making just as little headway as when I was there, and I through myself back into the fray.
Now, I see I still have a lot of thinking to do. I am simply going to browse some tomorrow, wrap up the debates I am participating on tomorrow, start a GD topic that has been brewing in my head and then simply lurk for the next few weeks, save for that GD thread, and some social threads. (Mostly) Hopefully, I will see what I have been missing via debating people. (I did this before I joined, by the way, its just that I missed something. A few thoughts before I get on with that, however.
[ol]
[li]Oh holy god, I use the back slash when I feel it is appropriate, how horrible of me. :rolleyes:[/li]
It is a tool, and I use it as such. Don’t find it surprising that I use it a lot. Some people use the rolleys icon a lot. Big hairy deal. While ^h^h^h^ serves the same purpose, and is far older, it was implemented here after I suggested it, so you should not be surprised that I use it so much.
[li]I post a lot, which gets on the nerves of some of you. Boo fucking hoo. You are much to sensitive. [/li][li]I expected to see more people supporting me. But again, possibly it is that the thread has only been up a week or so, or perhaps it is that as I have said, the fault of my tone.[/li][li]You don’t think my points against Bricker hold much water? Well then, post better points. I only started to post again because I thought the arguments being made against him were just more of the same, and I felt someone should come at things from a different angle.[/ol][/li]
One last thought. Personally, I read my own posts before posting them, and in doing so, imagine them being read to myself in a conversational tone. I printed one particularly long one out, around lunchtime, and showed it to a friend. He told me something interesting. He pointed out to me that rather then all my points coming to a coherent whole, I made several points within one paragraph, made different points in another paragraph, and my last paragraph did wrap things up, in a way, but only once you clicked on the hyperlink I was talking about. By itself, it just didn’t tie things together.
He agreed with that my conclusion was correct, but because his thoughts headed that way prior to my essay, he doubted I would convince any head-up-ass republicans who thought all roads lead to bush being right. On one hand, he added, nothing would change the minds of such people. However, on the other hand, my post will not convert those who have always been convinced of das leaders rightness, but are willing to be swayed by facts. This was a few days ago, fyi, and this was the post, in case you are wondering.
P.S. Occasionally, I look up what the chuckleheads on the anonboard are saying. Well, no need to wonder what I think of what you are saying. I will read your complaints, later, and rather then start a flame war, I will see what problems you have with me, and rather then flame you right back, I will respond with why I think I was reasonable to say what I said. Hopefully, that will not give any of you sneaks a thrill.
