Mmm… Perhaps I should have left out the “of”, instead.
That works as well. Let’s try this one-
“However, people look at arguments in favor of Bush’s bald-faced lying, and come away from it with the idea that people are making the claim that bush lied, proof-positive.”
Breaking it down-
However, people look at arguments in favor of Bush’s bald-faced lying
So far so good.
and come away from it
Come away from what? The argument? The looking?
with the idea that people are making the claim that bush lied, proof-positive."
What people? What claim?
Are you saying that there is an argument that Bush lied, and examination of that argument is convincing? Or are you saying that examination of it merely shows that claims have been made? Or something else entirely?
Let me see if I can sum up what I meant to say. Now that you point this out, I see how it can be confusing. Reading it aloud doesn’t work, for I am aware of who I mean, and have a hard time seeing it from the listeners p.o.v. Let me try dividing it into multiple sentences. Perhaps you could then suggest how I could have said it better, if you are so inclined.
Democrats on this board claim that bush lied. Personally, I believe them. Pubs, however, come back and argue that while he did give the impression that Iraq had WMDs, he never said an out-and out lie. They (the pubs) then claim that since the dems can not prove that bush ever said the exact words "Saddam has WMDs, so we must stop him.”, they should give up there claim that he lied.
That is much much much better. Dividing it into muliple sentences is a good strategy. Remember, it is your job to make your points crystal clear to your reader; it is not the job of the reader to ferret them out. “Seeing it from the listener’s p.o.v.” is the essence of effective writing.
Look in your third sentence above and you will see what I mean about proofreading. I have bolded the word “who,” which I assume you meant to be “what.” Slow down. Take your time. Five well written posts a day are worth tremedously more than twenty-five garbled ones.
Pick up a copy of Strunk and White’s The Elements of Style. It is a small volume. A used paperback should be no more than a few dollars. You will find it to be invaluable.
Miller, I can appreciate that you do not like my posting style. I have already commented on this. However:
Do I do this? The claim that I do sticks in my craw. Now that it looks like Contrapuntal has paused in posting genuinely good advice, I am going to put on some headphones, put on the pet shop boys, (an 80s to current new wave group, fyi, nothing like any of the modern bands with “boys” in their name) and review past threads for the next long while to see if I leave threads unanswered, or if I real do win as much as I think I do.
Before I do, however, I need to make some distinctions. First, there are kinds of victories. First, is the best kind, wherein someone like, say, AirmanDoors, agrees that the democrats had it right in the first place, and that he was supporting the wrong side. A very happy ending.
Next up, there is the kind where one side agrees that they were victorious, and that they have proved their point. You can tell this is the case when someone who argues for weeks at a time stops posting, and the last post in the thread is someone showing how Rick is incorrect. True, he might come back later and pretend nothing was ever proven, but he has no comebacks to the same points made last time. Par for the course.
Lastly, there is the kind where the exact same thing happens, but the battle field is littered with people who normally agree with the poster, but have sworn off this debate. Not good. As a consequence, the person who is the last standing usually declares victory, but it is a pyretic victory. How can this even be told apart from people getting tired of arguing the issue? Because, some people (Bricker) are not afraid to revisit the issue days later, so if those people have not posted, is seems indicative of a “victory”. Also, sometimes, it might also end with the other side saying "Yeah, technically, you are right, but good luck getting that to work in the real world. :wally " Again, this is the worst kind of “victory”.
*See, I do preview, no matter what it looks like.
Whither White? Am I living in the past?
Thanks for the link.
Personally, I am the most horrified by this one. Just to try and break this down and fix the grammar some:
-In order for a religion to attract converts, they must convince those they are preaching to that good things, are good. (WTF???)
Um, no, I think you mean to say that they must convince the people they are preaching to that what they consider to be good, really is good and what they believed previously was flawed.
-The founders of the US (?) believed that people would naturally come to this opinion (that what is good, is good)–but in truth, the founders were being dishonest to themselves, or at least feared that they were incorrect and what is good, really may not be good…or something. (WTFX2???)
No idea.
Bah. He’s made my own brain stop working.
The religion must convince the populace that the tenets of their old religion is flawed and that it is the tenets of the new religion which properly teach what is moral.
No. The Bartleby site is. They are using public domain publications, in this case, the 1918 edition of Strunk, written when White was 19, the year before White had Strunk as a professor. White had the book republished with some updates (and his name added) in 1959, then reprinted it with further updates several times through the 1970s. Those versions are not in the public domain and are not (that I am aware) found on the internet.
Alterrnatively, someone who has the better of the argument may review the discussion, realize that they have been arguing with a blockhead who could neither recognize the validity of the arguments nor draw a logical conclusion if it was posted in all caps in one-syllable words, then notice that the audience at home has drifted away so that there is no longer a point in making sure that the peanut gallery is not led astray by the illogic and lack of facts being presented. At that point, the poster may simply walk away from the discussion as a waste of time, leaving the dolt to cry “Victory!” in the empty hall.
YMMV
{bolding added} Heh. Am I the only one amused by this?
People tend to get pissed because Bricker and Shodan are the only coherent righties on this board. Nobody wants to dare suggest that this board leans to the left or if it does, at least it respects a well-constructed argument. So they overreact when someone seems to pick on them. “Please don’t leave Bricker and Shodan, we value your opinions.” Yeah right. Personally if I want to hear the standard right-wing bile, I’ll yank their chain.
But at least they aren’t Uncle Beer who is an idiot.
Scott,
I’m a teacher and thoroughly endorse Rubystreak’s advice.
Here’s another of your sentences:
“Now, personally, for my volunteer hours before I graduated high school, I worked with an archivist with a local museum, so believe me, I know a little about archiving.”
I can work out what you meant, but consider the alternative reading:
You wanted to please someone (only known as your ‘volunteer’), so, a very short time before you graduated, you worked with an rich archivist (who owned a building) and didn’t learn much.
Scott, you lack the insight - the wit - to understand when points have been proved, not proved, or reached a point at which both contributors understand that their discussion has reached an end without either concession or conviction.
Stop relying on your own judgement to determine which side, if any, has “won.” Your judgement on these matters is seriously flawed.
(emphasis mine)
Here’s another thing. Something about the way you “explain” things makes me want to, well, punch you. Do you honestly think anyone who was alive during the 80’s could have possibly not heard of the Pet Shop Boys? Do you realize how many of the board’s members were in fact alive during the 80’s? While you’re at it, why not just explain how a flush toilet works or what a telephone does?
The same goes for your explanation of how message board debates work. We’ve seen you on the message board. You clearly have no idea of how debating works, so your attempts to educate us are frankly embarrassing, not to mention irritating.
Tone counts for a lot online, and you often project a combination of clueless and condescension. It’s not a good combination.
You need to read more threads with Sam Stone, Mr.Moto, furt, or Dewey Cheatem and Howe in them.
I grant you that Bricker is one of the most articulate and reasonable of we Vast Right-Wing Conspirators, but I doubt you could get a knife blade to fit between him and, say, Mr. Moto when it comes to Well-Reasoned Rhetoricians of the Right.
Actually, there are several members of wring’s “Liberal but not a Raving Loonie” movement who can recognize a well-constructed argument. And it is mostly the complete assholes who simply refuse to engage in rational debate. Certainly assholes are not rare hereabouts, but there are enough non-Raving Loonies to keep the place at least interesting.
On the other hand, we have a few Dopers - not many, but a few - who are doing their part to prevent civilized debate.
For instance:
What an interesting way to express your motives and the reaction you are seeking.
What percentage of your posts would you say were designed simply to elicit a response? And could you mention a few examples?
Regards,
Shodan
One of the major themes of this thread is that your judgment as to whether you’ve won a debate is completely unreliable. What do you think that reading your old threads and convincing yourself that you’re right is going to achieve?
Sorry, Sage Rat, but you have been thinking to much into it. In fact, in the next post in the thread this comes from, I corrected that to say “(pretty much) every religion on earth teaches that god is good.”
The reason why this is an important point is that that argument can not be true, because of the fact that evil exists, and it must be the fault of this god.
tomndebb: Whatever. Sure, this might happen in other boards, and in real life, but I have seen no sign of this so far. However, I will see if my searching my own back archives shows if I am wrong or right.
Maybe. After all, if it meant fiery, then I would have spelled it right. However, I meant to use "pyrrhic " Whoops.
The Highwayman: Don’t see exactly what you see. I see people getting real pissed at them, but not enough to ignore them. I constantly see people patiently show how these two are wrong, only to have the next post be another Brick, this time taking a different tack, while not acknowledging that the first claim was wrong. Drives me crazy. (No, not literally. :rolleyes: )
Now, I understand that the purpose of this board is to fight ignorance, but with apologists like them, you will never get anywhere. As far as I can tell, looking through the archives, Bricker used to be much more reasonable. Thus, people carry over that image of him to how they see his current posts.
Glee: Whatever.
Same to you. Oh, and just to be snippy, and to dig myself in deeper, it is spelled without an “e”
I understand your frustration, and am taking this as constructive criticism, rather then act offended. Indeed, they were all over the radio, with Domino Dancing. However, I have the following[del] rationalization for my action[/del] mental image every time I mention their name. Some newbie guest wonders in and says the following:
:smack: You’ve got to be fucking kidding me. Could you be any more clueless?
Helpful tip: before you correct someone else’s spelling, check to make sure you’re right. You aren’t. Judgement is correctly spelled as written.
You might come across better if you address your posts to the actual members of the board rather than imaginary idiots.