Ah, but Bricker said “very smart.” Do you think he’s “very smart”? :dubious:
Scott, Maus Magill was not describing a PTA meeting, he was describing a hypothetical debate. This is not suprising because debating is what we’re talking about here. He was responding, as you know, to a statement by you.
Originally Posted by Scott Plaid
So, in short, if there are more reasons for something then against it, then one side has won. True, there might be more reasons why something should not be, but if neither side brought that fact up, then their side loses.
His point, I believe, was that four invalid arguments do not “defeat” one valid argument. Because you apparently can’t read and comprehend, or perhaps because even you could understand that he had refuted your assertion, you ignored his argument.
Scott, you are a complete idiot. It is painful to read your posts. Quit bringing your lost debates into the Pit. Quit insisting that the side who has the most “points” wins. That is the most idiotic thing I’ve witnessed you saying, and you have said many, many idiotic things. You are tiresome. You overuse the [del] function. Your spelling and grammar are atrocious. Stand up pussy boy and start actually responding to your pitting instead of whining about your losses in Great Debates. I’m not interested in holding your hand and trying to show you the light. I mostly just want you to shut up. Please know that you are one of the most loathsome posters on this board.
sigh
No, I’d say you were certainly a regular poster.
I’m a bit curious to know how you reconcile “unintelligible” with “very smart” in the context of a message board. But I asked for “any regular poster” and you certainly qualify.
So I will abandon that line of argument. I can’t really think of another way to reach through Scott’s intransigence, either.
No. The issue is not “Is he very smart?” but “How does the board perceive him?” Opinions from the populace are relevant to the latter inquiry, and not fallacious argumentum ad populum.
Scott Plaid wins another one, bringing his record to 1,041 and 0 since joining this board a few short months ago! He’s taking the SDMB by storm! Thousands cheer his name! It’s only a matter of time before Cecil Adams steps down to make way for the new Master!
Don’t feel badly, Bricker. Join me over here in the loser’s tent. We’ve got beer and chips and strippers.
Perhaps, but consider this: Does not the independent functional principle affect a significant implementation of the preliminary qualification limit? In theory, the characterization of critically co-optive criteria quite obviously presents a valuable challenge showing, at minimum, the necessity of each anticipated epistemological repercussion. Of course, a large proportion of intercultural communication coordination inherently recognizes the importance of other structurally communicative disciplines, all while taking into account the far deeper structuralistic conceptualizations. Summarizing then, any exponential epistemological repercussion is holistically compounded within the context of our hedonic perspective and within any given time period. Right?
Or am I just full of shit?
Bricker, man, I hate to do it to you, but . . .
It’s my opinion, informed as it is only by pixels on a screen, that Scott is very smart.
That said, however, I would point out that smart and stupid are not mutually exclusive. And I believe further that he is both.
Ummm . . . I’ve been a loser for years and years. Can I come play, too? Ohpleaseohpleaseohplease?
I’m in!
Ummm…“B”.
Um.
I’ve been catching up on threads I missed and ran across this …interesting…comment by Scott
Um. Scott. Do you still stand by this statement?
Perhaps you and I are using the word smart in different ways. In my view, a sine qua non of “smart” is self-aware - ability to read, understand, and respond to others’ reactions to you; to comprehend the point of argument, identify key elements, and respond accordingly.
In my view, Scott lacks these qualities.
Am I missing clues to them that you see, or are we using the same word to mean different things?
I have it scored at 1,035 and 6. Can we compare notes? But, it is important to point out, he’s Winning.
Frankly, no. The ontological consequences of the functional principles preclude any epistemological repercussions from being actualized as co-optive criteria. At best, we can seek to use structuralistic criteria to understand a small portion of the intercultural communicative disciplines, but only if we first find a normative mean representative of the relevant population’s structuralistic conceptualizations. The more apropos metric for determining the degree of effect a given logical entity has on the qualification limits is to constrain our perspective to encompass only the sybaratic properties of the hedonistic perspective, and from there arbitrarily determine the extent of influence.
jsgoddess, thank you very much. It is really 
of you to say this.
Actually, I think the one with the reading comprehension problem is yourself. Please read what I actually wrote again.
If you still don’t understand, then only by explaining what I did wrong can I improve.
Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter. But really, I need to get going. I signed off a second ago, but then I saw this. I have a two questions to ask you, for you to consider till I return.
[ol]
[li]I suggested the implementation of the strikethrough feature. Should I not use it? Apparently, ever if you believe ^h^h^h would do the job better, you would rather I use it less. What device shall I use to know exactly how much is too much for you, sir? What if other people are fine with it? Who should I trust to tell me what to do then? [/li][li]So, you think that defending my past threads is something a “pussy” would do? Odd. I see many women defending themselves. Well, I admitted my posting style could be better, earlier in this thread. However, I am also trying to defend past statements I believe were correct. Tell me, though, if not by defending myself, how would you expect myself to “start actually responding to my pitting” Would you prefer that I suck the cock of everyone who agrees I need improvement? But, I already agreed I need improvement. It sounds like you simply want me to bend over. However, wouldn’t that be what a “pussy” would do?[/li][li]Hi, Opal![/li][/ol]
He’s certainly beaten me. I can’t take him any more. In the future, when I leave his posts unanswered, as I likely will, it will be because I really can’t take being beaten any more.
And I’m bringing ribs.
You guys are going to make Scott’s dictionary burst into flames.
We are.
I’m thinking more of potential, perhaps. Or perhaps cognitive ability divorced from the empathic/objective elements you describe. Or perhaps smart as expressed in the sentiment (in North Carolinian accent, if you please) “He’s plenty smart, but he ain’t real bright.”
I’m happy with your definition, though, and agree that Scott does not meet its conditions.