Yes, cavfancier, I did use the term "elitist left wing phony".
If you are interested, I will check back to find my post two months ago in which I clearly stated--
a. Unless someone has documentation, evidence or quotes from a reliable source, they should state that they are just giving an opinion( unsourced)
b. If someone posts an argument, it is the responsibility( if, of course, the responder is not a goof or just wasting time on these posts) of the respondent to the argument, to DIRECTLY REBUT the argument wiht documentation, evidence or quotes from a reliable source.
c. Inasmuch as that is not done by the large majority of people, I feel free to utliize terms like "elitist left wing phony"
However, if you feel that you would be able to operate under guidelines like the ones above, I would assure you that any comments from me would relate solely to documentation, evidence or quotes from reliable sources.
You must understand, of course, that if I gave a quote from a reliable source that included the term, or a term just like it,--"elitist left wing phony"
I would not be in violation.
I await your answer.
I am sure that the large majority of the left on these threads is either unable( most of them) or unwilling ( a few ) to acceed to the guidelines above which, in my opinion, are reasonable and often endorsed ways of really doing debate instead of the foolishness which takes place on most of these posts.
heh. The right-wingers on this board spend as much time dropping points and failing to substantiate evidence as the left wing does.
The lack of good rhetoric around here is not limited to one ideology.
Cycloptichorn
Note to Foxfyre:
Your comments are right on target. No one needs to "win".
However, I am of the opinion, after reading most of the comments on these posts, that the left holds fast to the ideas that ALL( 100%) of the ideology on the right, is evil and must be destroyed.
I would not argue with a person on the "left" who would be well informed enough to say:
"Well, President Bush may have made some inadvertent mistakes on his comments about WMD's but it has not been proven that he LIED."
Since that has not been the response given, there is present the aspect of total war, that is to totally defeat your opponent and to "win"
There is room for compromise, however, the Blathams of the world allow no room for compromise.
<smacks head in disbelief>
I would say that the RIGHT wing holds the same views about the left wing.
Perspective is a crazy thing, man....
Cycloptichorn
septembri wrote:Yes, cavfancier, I did use the term "elitist left wing phony".
If you are interested, I will check back to find my post two months ago in which I clearly stated--
a. Unless someone has documentation, evidence or quotes from a reliable source, they should state that they are just giving an opinion( unsourced)
b. If someone posts an argument, it is the responsibility( if, of course, the responder is not a goof or just wasting time on these posts) of the respondent to the argument, to DIRECTLY REBUT the argument wiht documentation, evidence or quotes from a reliable source.
c. Inasmuch as that is not done by the large majority of people, I feel free to utliize terms like "elitist left wing phony"
However, if you feel that you would be able to operate under guidelines like the ones above, I would assure you that any comments from me would relate solely to documentation, evidence or quotes from reliable sources.
You must understand, of course, that if I gave a quote from a reliable source that included the term, or a term just like it,--"elitist left wing phony"
I would not be in violation.
I await your answer.
I am sure that the large majority of the left on these threads is either unable( most of them) or unwilling ( a few ) to acceed to the guidelines above which, in my opinion, are reasonable and often endorsed ways of really doing debate instead of the foolishness which takes place on most of these posts.
Well, you pegged me. I don't really give a crap. I should mention however, that as a Canadian, I don't toss terms like 'right wing' and 'left wing' around as loosely as Americans seem to do, unless of course, I'm talking about hockey.
septembri wrote:Note to Foxfyre:
Your comments are right on target. No one needs to "win".
However, I am of the opinion, after reading most of the comments on these posts, that the left holds fast to the ideas that ALL( 100%) of the ideology on the right, is evil and must be destroyed.
I would not argue with a person on the "left" who would be well informed enough to say:
"Well, President Bush may have made some inadvertent mistakes on his comments about WMD's but it has not been proven that he LIED."
Since that has not been the response given, there is present the aspect of total war, that is to totally defeat your opponent and to "win"
There is room for compromise, however, the Blathams of the world allow no room for compromise.
Just a P.S. If you have a problem with Blatham's opinions, take it up with him, don't involve the rest of us.
cav fancier- B Latham is just the most egregious offender. Again, I would welcome a debate without using any "elitist left wing phony"comments. If you really wish to see what I am talking about view the exchange between me and the very erudite and most civil Mr. Thomas on the economic situation.
I think we are talking past one another.
He either can not or will not engage the points I made one by one and either rebut them or agree with them in whole or in part.
Of course, when he does not do so, My points stand.
I am most eager and willing to view any points made by anyone on these posts and, if directly challenged, respond specifically and DIRECTLY to those points.
Others. I am very much afraid, will not or can not do so.
septembri wrote:If you are interested, I will check back to find my post two months ago in which I clearly stated--
Gee,
septembri, it says in your profile that you joined on May 26. So how could you have posted anything two months ago?
Do I smell a smoking gun? Send in the clones.
joe
That's very funny. I thank LW for pointing it out to me.
That was hilarious, the absurd thing is I feel like using the methods outlined.
<bows and scrapes to joe while guffawing, nearly causing a topple>
cavfancier wrote:McGentrix wrote:No. I think as a pre-requsite to winning any argument, no clown suits must be involved.
What if I take off the wig and shoes, and pretend to have an opinion?
fine; just leave the rest of the suit ON!
Darn, just when I was getting interested too.
and i thought i would append a 'scary' thought to this topic/line of thinking;
informal debate, entered into with a familiar group, all of whom are aware of each others general ideology, and agendas, is really a form of demonstrating 'respect' for the abilities of the others to make a sound, believable case - one that is worth refuting - not just worthy of being ignored!
I definitely feel those here discussing this topic, clinging desperately to both sides of the fence, are all well worth reading! :wink: 'seriously' no "elitist left wing phony" slur intended!
does it hurt to think your points serve to validate the intelligence of your 'opponents'?
Send in the clones,
Don't bother, they're here.
[btw light; re:"If a politician found some of his constituents were cannibals, he'd promise them missionaries for lunch. - H. L. Mencken"; in my opinion, they're too bitter!
]
Foxfyre wrote:Darn, just when I was getting interested too.
Okay, I'll take the whole suit off, but that costs extra. Also, if you want more than one opinion out of me while naked, they are $15 a pop.
