I certainly find it likely that you have found a way to reconcile the apparent discrepencies, however the exact manner in which you have done so is of interest to me.
I am not clear on what you consider the distinction to be. Nor do I understand why it is that you, having determined that you personally do not consider them to subject to the same rules, appear to expect that others will agree with you as to what rules would apply to what situation. Once you allow that democracy is not always a virtue, doesn’t it become a matter of personal opinion when it still, and when it is not?
Do you actually have a counterargument, or are smilies all you have to offer? Is this “we were attacked” supposed to establish that it political issues were not involved? Did opposition to the draft cease to be a political issue after the Kent State incident because “they were attacked”?
So, is there anybody out there who thinks Ryan’s inquiries are worth responding to? Because personally, I find no entertainment value in play along with his childish attempts to play such games. If anyone else is actually interested in the answers (like you can’t predict them), just let me know which ones to respond to.
Is there anything, specifically, that you consider to be evidence of a game? I honestly would like to know what causes this reaction, so that I would have the opportunity to prevent it.
Well, taking you at your word (and assuming you didn’t understand all the times other people have told you this), I’d have to say it’s your habit of parsing others’ posts into individual comments that are ripped completely out of the context of your opponent’s argument. It’s your focus on the literal, grammatical meaning of the sentences typed by your opponent instead of on the factual veracity of his/her assertions or the subject and conclusions of his/her overall thesis.
Your tactics can easily be perceived as “semantic games” which detract from a good debate, and are the reason some posters no longer wish to engage you in discussion.
Exactly, xeno. I mean, can you imagine watching this thread get hijacked onto the causes of WWII, which would probably lead to something else entirely two posts later, which would then get hijacked onto something else again?
So can you give an example of a comment and its original context, and an explanation of how the lack of the latter significantly changes the former? Can give me an example of undue focus on the literal, grammatical meaning?
Furthermore, how am I unique in this regard? In the same thread, minty green said
managed to twist my words to make it sound like
minty green
I really don’t see how you being able to imagine something bad happening is a substantial criticism.
TR, I have long since decided to follow for myself the sage advice minty green gives above. If you would like to start your own “The Ryan Appreciation Thread”, feel free. Maybe someone will come in and hijack it into a continuance of an old argument with you.
The Ryan, get a fucking clue. You’re the biggest buzzkill on these boards. People don’t post responses to you because they’re tedious, and consistently tangential. Develop a thicker skin and the ability to intuit. Until then, bugger off little man.
Yet again I sincerely ask for constructive criticism, and yet again I get vague, general statements posted with great rancor. Just whose irrationality are you trying convince me of, yours or mine?
What makes you think that that criticism was constructive?
Main Entry: con·struc·tive
Pronunciation: k&n-'str&k-tiv
Function: adjective
Date: circa 1680
1 : declared such by judicial construction or interpretation <constructive fraud>
2 : of or relating to construction or creation
3 : promoting improvement or development <constructive criticism>
con·struc·tive·ly adverb
con·struc·tive·ness noun
The fact that you are incapable of seeing what good it did does not mean that no good was done.
