I doubt it. The gist is, you agree with him, right?
Daniel
Well, yeah, the other side “won,” using that criteria. But isn’t that the criteria you are using to determing if you won? It only shows me that someone can win and be very wrong. So why trumpet the fact that you “won” so many debates? Doen’t prove that you won and were right.
Again, I don’t know you and I honestly have no malice towards you. Remember I was the person in the beginning that tried to stop the dog pile that was sure to ensue? Hell, I took a chance of getting flack for that. This is getting ugly; don’t let’s have people write in their votes of how smart you are. I promise this will not be a good thing.
Please just leave this thread, let it die a natural end. Stop giving people fodder for more. If you are sure you have won the arguement that you are a worthy opponent just go gently (and quietly) into that good night. Having the last word does not mean having the best word.
HOLY SHIT!
I just figured out who Scott Plaid really is!
By ghod, he’s JeffK’s older brother!
Bricker, if it is any consolation, recall that he did not beat you with facts, logic, perception, or communicative skills–just bricks.
Well, intelligibility has two people involved for one thing. James Joyce in unintelligible at times.
Being smart isn’t the same thing as being organized, either in writing or in life. And I apparently don’t have the same amount of trouble reading him as some do. Not that I get it all, but there are times when I think his points are quite clear when others argue that they have no idea what he could possibly mean.
I used to hang out on USENET. This could explain much.
I will freely admit to a comprehension problem when reading anything written by you.
No thanks, my head hurts enough from the first time.
I’ve never seen any indication that Scott even reads other posters’ remarks, much less tries to understand the words in them.
Perhaps by providing the slightest iota of evidence that you are going to improve the piss-poor posting style that inspired said pitting in the first place.
Which him do you mean? I’m not sure if you mean Uncle Beer, Metacom, or Scott Plaid.
Dare I step back into this long enough to ask jsgoddess if she also agrees with the definition proposed above?
Or, more to the point, to ask SCOTT if he feels he has self-awareness as far as the ability to read, understand, and respond to others’ reactions to him and to comprehend the point of argument, identify key elements, and respond accordingly.
It was foolish of me to use the word “smart” without a definition, but I was trying to keep things simple.
Got it in one.
Not bad for a Carolina fan. 
Meanwhile in the losers’ tent: I’ve got the grill ready, and am making the sauce for chicken.
Hey! Are you a Dookie? Perish the thought.
Anyway I figured since I was from New York I’d rather not have to deal with the people from Joisey there.
That, and Coach K is ooogly!
Nothin’ wrong with that, man. Gotta play to the audience. And Mr. Plaid is in the house tonight.
A lawyerly definition if I ever saw one. Being smart does not guarantee the ability to communicate effectively.
If a tree falls in the forest, …
It would appear that your entire definition hinges on reading and argument. I disagree that it’s a valid definition of “smart.”
Of course, defining intelligence is simply not something I’m qualified to do. My opinion is that Scott is smart. That opinion is based on lots of wishy-washy, ill-defined feelings.
My opinion is also that he needs to slow down because, in this medium at least, sloppy work creates more trouble than it’s worth. But my opinion is worth exactly what he paid for it. Nuttin.
Now, I’m going to stop talking about him because it feels creepy to talk about someone as if they weren’t right there.
Scott, English doesn’t have a singular term for “mores”. The Latin singular is “mos”, but no one will recognize that, because it’s not used in English.
When you try to use words you don’t understand, you make yourself look stupider.
If you ever managed to do it, it wouldn’t be, I suppose. But your compulsion to dig the hole deeper whenever you get in trouble is pretty hard to understand.
I think this is the wrong tack, Bricker. There’s someone who’ll defend anything. Look at the people squabbling over whether START deserved to be banned (and whether his sock’s admission that he was START actually proves that he was START.)
It’s bizarre when someone is unwilling to acknowledge that, even though no one finds his arguments convincing, perhaps his arguments are unconvincing. And since a good argument is one that convinces people of something, the very fact that no one is ever convinced by Scott is, ipso facto, proof that his arguments are not convincing. Why does he think he can argue his way out of that?
And jsgoddess shows I was right. There’s always someone to defend anything, no matter what it is.
The best part is that - knowing that no one thinks he’s actually held his own in a debate, he still thinks he’s going to debate until we agree that he wins debates. It’s a bizarre sort of meta-argument he’s having, and he actually thinks he’ll convince all of us that every time we were completely unconvinced by his blatherings, we actually were secretly convinced and didn’t realize it. There’s simply no conceivable situation in which he could convince us that his arguments were somehow relevant, and yet he keeps trying.
I love this shit. I am just flabbergasted by the difference between his self-conception and reality. Not only does he think he’s holding his own here, but he constantly suggests that he’s smarter than the rest of us. He really things he’s equipped to teach the rest of us what’s what, whether he’s teaching us vocabulary (“social morays”) or Jewish law (“Well, my answer is yes, and as for what a jew can use to accept as claims about about jesus as true, my answer is: A TARDIS (a certan kind of sci-fi time machine)”).
Scott, one way of proving something is by examining the alternate hypothesis and showing it to be false. So, Scott, if indeed you’re brilliant and an amazing debater and incredibly knowledgeable about religion and politics, why is no one ever impressed by you? Why does everyone think your writing is incomprehensible, and your arguments are weak, if you’re so brilliant? What possible explanation can you come up with to explain why people here think you’re a jackass? The closest you can come are some statements by certain posters that you were correct on a factual matter. Do you think getting the facts right is some sort of great accomplishment? Here, at least, having the right facts is an accomplishment on the level of brushing your teeth in the morning. You don’t deserve congratulations for doing it. And everyone will be disgusted if you don’t.
So why, Scott, if you’re a brilliant debater, is no one impressed? What does it mean to be great at debating things? Shouldn’t it mean that some people are convinced by your arguments? You have yet to come up with anyone even suggesting that you’ve made a reasonable argument. In your 4,000 posts, no one has congratulated you on your reasoning, or your clear thinking, or your unique perspective. Why would that be? I mean, you have the advantage here. You’re on a board where most people share your attitudes on politics and religion. And yet even your allies are constantly trying to distance themselves from you. If you could compose a reasonable argument, why would that happen?
Scott, are you using your skull to store your lunch leftovers? I mean, this is such a small issue, but the point under discussion is how you present yourself on the boards. Everyone thinks your little obsession with strikethrough is irritating, and stupid, and childish. It’s not like when you do it, people are somehow amused and impressed by it, you know? So why do you continue to do it? What’s the point? Why do you even argue it? Do you think it’s possible to argue with someone until they agree that you’re not being annoying? It’s logically impossible, but you can continue to try.
But the point is that people’s reaction to your stupid little strikethrough obsession has been pretty clear: everyone thinks it’s moronic and annoying. So why do you keep doing it? I mean, some things are just not going to change through debate. If everyone told you you had body odor, and you couldn’t smell it yourself (I can only assume, based on the way some people smell, that they become so used to it they don’t detect it), would you argue with them about it? What would be the point? Argue all you want, and you’d still smell like armpit. Well, constantly overusing some cutesy board feature like smileys or strikethrough or colored text is the online equivalent of body odor. No one likes it. Some people are too polite to mention it, and others will gladly tell you. No one likes it, though. So why keep doing it?
Yeah, but Scott ain’t real smart, either. Or at least he hides it well. He’s posted more factually false statements about the shit he claims to know about than I’ve ever seen a member do.
And by the way, you have tried to ineptly defend your poorly-written, poorly-thought out arguments from the very first time you stepped onto the boards. Why in the world do you think that continuing the same behavior is “responding” to this pitting?
Responding would mean changing your behavior. Writing clearly. Not using strikethrough constantly. Not trying to pretend that you’re smarter than everyone else here. Not deciding that you’ve “won” an argument just because the other person realizes there’s nothing to be gained in speaking to you.
Continuing to try to act like you’re “winning” your debates is exactly the wrong thing to do.
Odd – I didn’t see that rule anywhere in the Great Debate stickies. Must have overlooked it…
If you’re going to start quoting Bible verses, you might as well have a look at these while you have it open – because they pretty much illustrate the reasons for this thread’s existence. This is what people here keep trying to tell you:
Proverbs 12:15
Proverbs 18:2
I’d like to note that I’ve seen at least two different posters insult another poster by comparing him or her to scott_plaid. He has apparently entered the SDMB lexicon as a synonym for “clueless blockhead.” Congratulations, scott, your Jack Dean Tyler memorial hoodie is in the mail.