1
   

Help! Craven needs new words for his lengthy debates.

 
 
K e v i n
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Mar, 2004 01:48 pm
Teblococa
0 Replies
 
cavfancier
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Mar, 2004 01:50 pm
I've got it...Teblococa: a bad argument fuelled by way too much coffee.
0 Replies
 
SCoates
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Mar, 2004 05:29 pm
How about, a "shortcut argument" in other words, an argument which looks good, but really isn't.
0 Replies
 
cavfancier
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Mar, 2004 06:04 pm
Shortcut argument is good, but we need a pretentious-sounding fake word for it....let's see...what if one is posting a "ciliconology?" Looks good, but really isn't. Laughing
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Mar, 2004 06:07 pm
You might call that a silicone argument, or a bolt-on argument.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Mar, 2004 06:26 pm
blickerish

i think he's feeling blickerish ... your blickerish style of arguing suggests you are fighting simply because you feel fighty, not because this argument is specifically objectionable.
0 Replies
 
SCoates
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Mar, 2004 06:41 pm
How about a limbic argument. As if their argument is more of a reflex against the annoyance of the logic with which they are faced. Kind of like nimh's idea.
0 Replies
 
cavfancier
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Mar, 2004 06:45 pm
I just realized that I changed the spelling of silicone, but it makes it more fake, so what the heck. How about "armumentative" which could have a different meaning whether or not you are using the left or right arm to type with?
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Mar, 2004 06:49 pm
Yeh, SCoates has a good one too.
0 Replies
 
SCoates
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Mar, 2004 06:52 pm
How about "Uber cliche" I just like the mixing languages.
0 Replies
 
Merry Andrew
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Mar, 2004 07:09 am
We cannot say that Craven is arfickulate (i.e. articulate but prone to quick abandonment of his arguments). He is, however, frequently bomblastic, a quality akin to philiblustering (gee, I hope you're right on the spelling, BGW).
0 Replies
 
jespah
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Mar, 2004 08:08 am
I'm prone to committing foobles; I wonder if Craven is.
0 Replies
 
Merry Andrew
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Mar, 2004 05:01 pm
I've never seen you commit a single fooble, jes. Your posts are always sheer perflexion (perfect even if. at times, a tad perplexing).
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Mar, 2004 05:12 pm
I like to blother at length, as you all know; blother, the noun, is - unlike blather or blither - supplemented with blotches of sheer brilliance that evanesce as the post is sent.
0 Replies
 
drom et reve
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Mar, 2004 04:20 am
Shifficate-- to talk BS to such an extent that it begins to asphyxiate all others involved in a conversation.



0 Replies
 
jespah
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Mar, 2004 08:27 am
Merry Andrew wrote:
I've never seen you commit a single fooble, jes. Your posts are always sheer perflexion (perfect even if. at times, a tad perplexing).


Thank you. I think. Hmm. Cool

And your posts are the quintessence of qualinomy - you can tell they're quality just due to the name on the post! :-D
0 Replies
 
K e v i n
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Mar, 2004 12:53 am
What about Imbiggoning?
0 Replies
 
caprice
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Mar, 2004 01:39 am
crapp·o·ne·ous
Pronunciation:krap-O-nE-us
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin crapono literally meaning "crap on us"
1 : containing or characterized by bullshit : MISTAKEN <crapponeous assumptions>
2 condition of being wrong, wrong, wrong dammit!
- crappo·ne·ous·ly adverb
- crappo·ne·ous·ness noun

Example: I found his explanation of the event somewhat crapponeous after reading a more realistic version of the topic in the newspaper the following day.
0 Replies
 
caprice
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Mar, 2004 03:16 am
K e v i n: Just read your signature line! *LOL*
0 Replies
 
BoGoWo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Mar, 2004 07:36 am
cavfancier wrote:
Shortcut argument is good, but we need a pretentious-sounding fake word for it....let's see...what if one is posting a "ciliconology?" Looks good, but really isn't. Laughing


or one might refer to a 'siliclone'; where the whole damn thing is 'fake'!
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 05/16/2024 at 11:08:15