herfacechair
Posts: 1046
Joined: 8/29/2004
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: thompsonx
You have this interesting technique...
Every question you do not want to answer you call it a red hearing.
Maybe that works for you but to those who read your drivel it is just more proof that you
are nothing more than an apologist for the war in the sandbox and your opinions are just that...
opinions.
I'm going to answer things that have to do with the debate, and I'm going to skip over things that have nothing to do with the debate, or with your attempts to change the subject. I'm sorry, but your question about John McCain's actions in Vietnam has absolutely nothing to do with Iraq, and my answering questions about Iraq.
Questions that have nothing to do with my thread title, either directly or indirectly, are red herrings. They're an attempt to lead the discussion away from its original track.
Your last sentences give your, and your battle's, true intentions away. You'll dismiss FACTS about the war as nothing but "opinions," apologist comments for the war, etc to sooth your egos. This is an example of what I mean by setting up stress shields.
Thompsonx: Perhaps in your world that is how you see it. Rational people see you as plastering the board with bullshit and refusing to actually answer questions which your op says you will. REPEAT POINT
The OP indicates my addressing questions that have something to do with what's going on in Iraq. Not questions demanding that I answer a question that you asked another poster.
You need to actually display rational thought before you could tell me what rational people would see. Anybody with critical thinking ability would notice that you, and others like you, tend to shift the topic rather than admit that you don't have an argument. Your opinion on something gets demolished, so instead of recognizing that you're wrong, you shift the topic to something else. This "something else" tends to have nothing to do with what we're arguing about. I refuse to play that kind of game; consequently I force the topic back on track.
Yes, I'll answer questions... questions that have to do with what's going on with Iraq, as well as what's going on with the topic that I'm staying on. The key here is that these have something to do directly, or indirectly with the OP. I'm not going to entertain questions that causes this discussion to drastically stray to something else.
Thompsonx: No you skip over questions you find difficult or impossible to answer so instead you wrap yourself in red white and blue nonsense and expect us to think you actually know what you are talking about. REPEAT POINT
WRONG!
For instance, you asked another poster on this message board about John McCain. What does John McCain's actions in Vietnam have to do with a discussion on what's going on in Iraq? NOTHING! John Kerry's actions during the Vietnam War? Very relevant to the Iraq war, as his actions in the past influenced events in this war. HENCE, my answering relevant Kerry questions, while ignoring questions you've directed toward another poster's post.
Your questions were neither difficult nor impossible, they were irrelevant. For someone that claims to be rational, you simply didn't get it. Your claims of "rationality," have as much validity as your claims of being a stock holder.
However, lets put your assumption to test:
From MSNBC: "Bomb Said to hold deadly sarin gas explodes in Iraq"
"The Iraqi Survey Group confirmed today that a 155-millimeter artillery round containing sarin nerve agent had been found," said Kimmitt, the chief military spokesman in Iraq. "The round had been rigged as an IED [improvised explosive device] which was discovered by a U.S. force convoy.
Were the Iraqi Survey Group, and Kimmitt, lying and telling half truths in that MSNBC article? YES [ ] NO [ ]
I don't want your SPIN... simply copy and paste everything from "From MSNBC" all the way to "YES [ ] NO [ ]." Place an "X" in the appropriate box.
I don't want your bullshit, just make your selection. If you chose, "YES," then you're guilty of what you're accusing me of doing. If you chose "NO," then your assumptions, that I'm "pretending" or "acting" like I know what I'm talking about are FALSE.
If the facts are on your side, you'd be able to answer it per instructions, and you'd be able to answer it without looking stupid. If you feel the need to try to baffle me with bullshit, to avoid what I'm requiring you to do, then obviously you've got no confidence in your statement that I'm, "trying to "make" people believe that I know what I'm talking about."
Your failure to answer the above given the restrictions, on the bullshit, that I give you will prove that I DO know what I'm talking about. And, it'll prove another thing true:
"Their contribution to political debate is worthless, since even they do not believe things they say." - Ann Coulter
Thompsonx: Your "facts" are half truths and whole lies...nothing but propaganda.
You have to prove me "wrong" before making that assumption. You've consistently failed to prove me wrong, choosing instead to shift the topic to something that doesn't have anything to do with what we're debating about. You're even shifting the topic away from the topic that you shift to.
If I were giving "half truths" and "whole lies," quotations used strongly, then you'd be able to answer the above YES or NO question. Again, if you chose "NO," then your opinion that I'm giving "half truths" and "whole lies" is wrong. If you answer "YES," then you're a liar. Your failure to answer that question will simply mean that I was right about you.
Thompsonx: If you had the balls that god gave a girl scout you would answer the questions put to you. REPEAT POINT
Yes, I'll answer questions... questions that have to do with what's going on with Iraq, as well as what's going on with the topic that I'm staying on track on. Not questions that you want to ask to extend your stay in a debate, not questions that you're asking that amount to you shifting the topic to something else.
NEWSFLASH! I've got the balls to keep this on topic, and to hold you accountable for trying to drag this away from topic.
Thompsonx: Kinda like ann coulter who substitutes vituperative verbage for discussion. POT CALLING THE KETTLE BLACK
Didn't realize that the facts tremendously offend you; you need to grow some thick skin.
quote:
ORIGINAL: thompsonx
quote:
ORIGINAL: herfacechair
Can't have a little thing like the facts get into the way of our daydreams now, can't we?
When you use a double negative in english it reverses the meaning of your statement that is why it is gramatically incorrect. Your little freudian slip is noted.
First things first, let's look at what's grammatically correct and what isn't.
"English" is spelled with a capital "E."
"Freudian" is spelled with a capital "F."
There should be a comma after "English," and a period should follow "statement."
Now, let's look at three ways you could make your sentence, "grammatically correct."
"When you use a double negative in English, it reverses the meaning of your statement. That's why it's grammatically incorrect."
"When you use double negatives in English, they reverse your statement's meaning. That's why it's grammatically incorrect."
"When you use a double negative in English, it reverses the meaning of your statement; that's why it's grammatically incorrect."
Those examples aren't perfect, but they're definitely better than your grammatically incorrect statement. When you correct someone's grammar, do so with a grammatically correct sentence.
|
RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer yo... - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread