What is the short term/long term future of a2k?

Yeah. Pitch in and maybe give him a new floor waxer so maybe more people will look and the place and decide to attend.

You're right hightor, everythings dying. So why bother to do anything?

**** seeming to be uncharitable to "criticize too much" I don't believe in anthropomorphizing something as an excuse, excuse, me, "reason" not to seek ways to present ourselves to a Lot of people who are interested in what is offered here. Meaning non-Twitter brained, character count inhibiting communication.

Right now, I'm done with this tete a tete with you where you say A, and I'm supposed to say B.
Back and forth, back and forth, zzzzzzzz.....

I see that tsar started a new thread, so I'm going to go do something and contribute.

Because I'm not dead yet.

People can say anything they wish; no one is "supposed" to respond in a certain manner and that wasn't implied in any of my posts on this thread. I'm surprised if anyone responds at all and god forbid there should ever be a tete-a-tete anywhere, anytime.

I think it will eventually go the way of abuzz. There is more fighting than rational discussion.

No, there isn’t.

That's cute (meant sarcastically) and wildly inaccurate as clearly you don't stray outside the highly contentious political threads. There are far more diverse and more-benign discussions here at a2k than what your meager anecdotal understanding of a2k provides.

Very few of the most active threads (eg: the entirety of the word games section) hold fighting.

You are correct that I only attend the political thread. But I remember abuzz and the fighting that ended the site and the political fighting here reminds me of that site. The a2k site will probably outlive me but I bet not by much.

S'possible.
This would be the third forum I’ve outlived.
Less separation anxiety each time though.

Why do you contribute to that fighting?

I'm not saying that you shouldn't disagree with people (in fact, you should disagree with people), but polite discussion would be massively preferable to the name-calling that you often post.

Because people like you and cj constantly post lie's and if someone docent point them out someone who docent pay attention to the actual news might believe those lie's. If you conserviyives would post the truth rather than blatent lie's I would quit attacking you. Not much chance of that happening.

You cannot provide a single example of an untrue statement in any of our posts.

This is a stupid argument for a couple of reasons.

1. You are arguing based on confirmation bias. You have a couple of "facts" that you hold to be true... and you ignore every other fact. The fact that no one can disprove your narrow cherry-picked facts is irrelevant. This is the core of every conspiracy theory.

2. We can't provide a "single example" because you won't accept them. I could point out that a public outcry leading to a jury trial with due process, rules of evidence is the same as "lynching" is ridiculously untrue. You won't accept this because of your confirmation bias.

3. You seem to be confused between facts and opinions. Most of the rather intellectually shallow things you keep saying repeatedly are simply opinion. You are adamant about them.

An opinion is an opinion no matter how ridiculous it is. It is impossible to disprove an opinion.

That is incorrect. When dishonorable people falsely allege that I am wrong, without ever pointing out anything that I am wrong about, it is perfectly reasonable for me to point out that they cannot back up what they say about me.



That is incorrect. I argue based on facts and logic.



You mean facts that aren't relevant to the subject being discussed? It is proper that they be discarded.



That is incorrect. When the subject of discussion is a claim that my posts are untrue, the fact that people cannot point out any untrue statements in my posts is highly relevant.



I doubt that.



That is incorrect. You can't because you are not able to.



It sounds like you are putting words in my mouth so you don't have to argue against what I actually say.

I may or may not accept it depending on details that you didn't provide.

You cannot provide any examples of me engaging in confirmation bias.



You cannot provide any examples of me confusing facts and opinions.



I doubt that you can demonstrate any intellectual shallowness in anything that I say.



Having opinions is a good thing.



You don't need to tell me that. Go tell all the deranged progressives who keep saying that my opinions are falsehoods.

My problem with your posts is that they aren't even that deep.

Reading an Oralloy post is like reading a series of far right bumper stickers. Your slogans are completely predictable. You are as as narrow an ideological bubble as anyone here. I haven't seen much in the way of independent thought.

You post a lot, But, everything you post can be distilled into a very few slogans.

Guns are always right, cops are always justified, protesters are always bad, progressives are deranged...

I try to read your posts looking for a sign of thoughtfulness or the ability to question your own ideology... it gets difficult because you write a lot of words saying the same things over and over.

Can you challenge any of my facts or my logic?

If yes, you should do so. I'll probably disagree, and the result will be an interesting conversation.

If you can't challenge my facts or my logic, you should consider the possibility that what I say is true.

No, I can challenge any of your facts or your logic. You are too closed minded for that.

I have already explained this here https://able2know.org/topic/548824-3#post-7021433

If you are unable to challenge my facts or my logic, that is a strong sign that you are wrong and I am right.

You should try to accept it when you are wrong.

Actually, it means no such thing.

Many are tired (disgusted, fed up) with your little dance. It wasn't too good even at the start.
So, why bother showing what a ninny you are? You'll just try to deny it and say you once made a cheese sandwich or some other nonsense.

Wrong again. When you are unable to challenge my facts or my logic, that is evidence that you are wrong and I am right.

Many people here have not only challenged you, they have provided links to reputable sites. Sites that even you like (or claim to).

Your response is to ignore (not make a follow up post), whine about how brilliant you are (likely too much time sampling radioactive waste gives that glow). In the end, why bother? You offer a moment of banter for me, not much more.

Lying about me whining is just childishness because you are incapable of making an intelligent argument.

If I posted about my intelligence, it probably would have been a reply to an untrue statement about my intelligence.

If you don't want me to set the record straight about my intelligence, you should stop misrepresenting my intelligence.

If I did not make a follow up post, it is likely that I saw nothing in the post that I objected to (or at least no objection worthy of a reply, as often I pass on nitpicking). Although I guess it is possible that I did not see the post.

As for why bother: because that way you defend your viewpoint. If you happen possess correct information, it is useful to post that information.

If you don't post an argument, it is pretty silly for you to expect anyone to believe that you are correct.