|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26034 Posts |
 Posted - 02/27/2007 : 11:08:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
The argument is only full of holes from your perspective, not from mine. I posted several pages before declining further engagement
You've lost the referent. I was talking about this one post of yours being full of logical holes, because you were talking about my response to that one post as being nothing but "little quips."
On the other hand, I think that your argument in the Net Neutrality thread was valid, but as we all know, valid logic can lead to incorrect conclusions if the premises are false. I wasn't questioning your logic in that thread, just your premises. I was asking to see evidence that your argument was sound, not just valid.quote:
No, I didn't read your page listing logic arguments. It invited the reader to ignore it.
I am already aware that you feel that way. I was trying (and apparently failing) to point out to you that your third correction of me when I'd already accepted correction makes you look like a thug.quote:
You are still angry I have declined a debate which I am within my rights to do.
And I also understand that you incorrectly believe me to be angry about you decling a debate. This premise of yours is wrong in two ways. First, that I am angry, and second that I was requesting a debate. But I also understand that you require your premise to be true, and are unwilling to entertain the possibility that you are wrong about it.quote:
Is there a forum rule I missed?
No.quote:
Trying to goad me into it or simply berating me for my decision is uncalled for.
Yes, and it's a good thing that nobody has done so, isn't it?quote:
I have taken the time to explain why I chose not to discuss a particular topic further. I think it was reasonable and simple explanation.
Except in light of your complaints about wasting your time, it becomes inconsistent and possibly hypocritical.quote:
"I won't engage you ever again?" Kind of a juvenile comment, don't you think?
Yes, and it's something I wouldn't have said. You, clearly, have once again created a new meaning for something I wrote, a childish caricature of my intended meaning. And you did so as your response to me being conciliatory. How can I read that as anything but an attempt by you to be gravely, personally insulting, beskeptigal? Is that what you intended? I extend a virtual hand in a good-will gesture and you spit in my virtual face? Is that really what you meant to do?quote:
Has it ever dawned on you to think about what it is that pisses you off simply because a person chooses not to reply?
Given the insult, above, I can only now conclude that you are engaged in projecting your own anger onto me. After all, I'm not angry, and I am certainly not angry "simply because" you chose to not reply. I've explained my motivations to you several times now, and you plainly reject my explanations and substitute your own fictitious reasons for my actions. Of course, now that I know that I've challenged some of your central dogmas, I at least understand why you're lashing out like this, and then blaming your victims (note the plural) for your abuse of them. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9698 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2007 : 17:11:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
The argument is only full of holes from your perspective, not from mine. I posted several pages before declining further engagement
I know you are not going to like it, but here it is...
The post of yours, which Dave analyse in this post is full of logical holes.
That you can't see them, even when Dave points them out to you, is cause for concern in my opinion. Normally a skeptic would acknowledge a logical error when someone else points them out. Like Starman disapproved of my use of an Ad. Hom. in another thread, when debating Mycroft.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5311 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2007 : 06:46:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Can I nominate this for the "Worst font colour in a forum post".
Envelopes please.
Why, because it's a far left color!!!???? |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5311 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2007 : 06:49:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
"I won't engage you ever again?" Kind of a juvenile comment, don't you think?
Yeah, since some thought I was piling on one way, I'll pile on the other way and say I didn't get that from Dave's post either. I don't think you two are that far away from each other here. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5311 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2007 : 07:33:22 [Permalink]
|
As far as me being a leftist or radical leftist or anarcho-syndicalist, I don't know enough about what any of those are to say for sure. I keep wavering on that. I don't have too much of a problem with radical (wanting to change things at the root) leftist (wanting resources to be used for the benefit of all as much as possible and reasonable). I am not anti-capitalist, per se, that is, I work for a living and appreciate the work that owners and managers put in. I don't hate Bill Gates because he's wealthy. I don't hate the owner of my company because he "downsized" my plant as I understand that he's part of a system. I'm a landlord, and understand how difficult it is for young people to make a living but I can only lose so much money so I evict people and wish there were a better way. Capitalism, as it exists, is deeply flawed.
I think Mycroft said that some are paranoid about conservatives. I don't think you're paranoid if you're really being followed. If by "conservative" you mean Bush and his crowd, then yes, I think we need to steer clear of those people, and anyone that supports them or treats them as anything but criminals of the worst kind. At this point if you don't understand they're criminals of the worst kind, you're not paying attention, you're not capable of reason (for whatever reason, brainwashing, etc.), or you're one of them. Some people think I worship Chomsky because I quoted him once or twice, and laughed at those who supported FrontPagemag.com's efforts to smear him unjustly. I don't mind reasonable criticism of him or others. I have some criticisms of him as well. In my mind, he is a conservative. He expects the United States to set an example. He expects the U.S. to be what it claims it wants others to be. He is a skeptic and an atheist. He does not buy into wacky conspiracy theories, and sometimes I think he's too careful about that, but he's lumped in with conspiracy theorists. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26034 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2007 : 09:09:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gorgo
As far as me being a leftist or radical leftist or anarcho-syndicalist, I don't know enough about what any of those are to say for sure.
Well, I was just joking around, but here's one sort of explanation:KING ARTHUR: Old woman!
DENNIS: Man!
ARTHUR: Man. Sorry. What knight lives in that castle over there?
DENNIS: I'm thirty-seven.
ARTHUR: I-- what?
DENNIS: I'm thirty-seven. I'm not old.
ARTHUR: Well, I can't just call you 'Man'.
DENNIS: Well, you could say 'Dennis'.
ARTHUR: Well, I didn't know you were called 'Dennis'.
DENNIS: Well, you didn't bother to find out, did you?
ARTHUR: I did say 'sorry' about the 'old woman', but from the behind you looked--
DENNIS: What I object to is that you automatically treat me like an inferior!
ARTHUR: Well, I am King!
DENNIS: Oh, King, eh, very nice. And how d'you get that, eh? By exploiting the workers! By 'anging on to outdated imperialist dogma which perpetuates the economic and social differences in our society. If there's ever going to be any progress with the--
WOMAN: Dennis, there's some lovely filth down here. Oh! How d'you do?
ARTHUR: How do you do, good lady? I am Arthur, King of the Britons. Who's castle is that?
WOMAN: King of the who?
ARTHUR: The Britons.
WOMAN: Who are the Britons?
ARTHUR: Well, we all are. We are all Britons, and I am your king.
WOMAN: I didn't know we had a king. I thought we were an autonomous collective.
DENNIS: You're fooling yourself. We're living in a dictatorship: a self-perpetuating autocracy in which the working classes--
WOMAN: Oh, there you go bringing class into it again.
DENNIS: That's what it's all about. If only people would hear of--
ARTHUR: Please! Please, good people. I am in haste. Who lives in that castle?
WOMAN: No one lives there.
ARTHUR: Then who is your lord?
WOMAN: We don't have a lord.
ARTHUR: What?
DENNIS: I told you. We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week...
ARTHUR: Yes.
DENNIS: ...but all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special bi-weekly meeting...
ARTHUR: Yes, I see.
DENNIS: ...by a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs...
ARTHUR: Be quiet!
DENNIS: ...but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more major--
ARTHUR: Be quiet! I order you to be quiet!
WOMAN: Order, eh? Who does he think he is? Heh.
ARTHUR: I am your king!
WOMAN: Well, I didn't vote for you.
ARTHUR: You don't vote for kings.
WOMAN: Well, how did you become King, then?
ARTHUR: The Lady of the Lake... [angels sing] ...her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water signifying by Divine Providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. [singing stops] That is why I am your king!
DENNIS: Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
ARTHUR: Be quiet!
DENNIS: Well, but you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!
ARTHUR: Shut up!
DENNIS: I mean, if I went 'round saying I was an emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!
ARTHUR: Shut up, will you? Shut up!
DENNIS: Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system.
ARTHUR: Shut up!
DENNIS: Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help! Help! I'm being repressed!
ARTHUR: Bloody peasant!
DENNIS: Oh, what a give-away. Did you hear that? Did you hear that, eh? That's what I'm on about. Did you see him repressing me? You saw it, didn't you?
- Monty Python and the Holy Grail |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5311 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2007 : 09:16:33 [Permalink]
|
| That's great. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2007 : 14:33:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
The argument is only full of holes from your perspective, not from mine. I posted several pages before declining further engagement
I know you are not going to like it, but here it is...
The post of yours, which Dave analyse in this post is full of logical holes.
That you can't see them, even when Dave points them out to you, is cause for concern in my opinion. Normally a skeptic would acknowledge a logical error when someone else points them out. Like Starman disapproved of my use of an Ad. Hom. in another thread, when debating Mycroft.
But Dr M, that post is not the post I was referring to when I said, "The argument is only full of holes from your perspective, not from mine. I posted several pages before declining further engagement". I was referring to the original discussion on Net Neutrality that Marfknox started. In that thread Dave essentially said, I don't see the argument. I posted at least two long attempts to explain my position and Dave waved it off with a claim there was no analogy.
I am willing to discuss and admit to errors. But in the above thread, I just didn't have time for it. And the one sentence brush off of a person's position they made a reasonable effort to present was a BIG turnoff.
Now look at the post you linked to. Are you trying to say that my logic and intelligence are so bad that an entire page claiming this is wrong and that is wrong and this and this ad nauseum is a fair and reasonable critique of the post he was replying to? Would you really give such a post your time?
I certainly see no reason to waste my time wading through that crap because there might be a valid point in there somewhere. Why would I believe that in the entire post Dave is replying to, not a single thing I said was valid? Not only that, but why would I believe that the errors in my thinking were so bad that every single point could be brushed off as some basic logic error that can be described in a couple words? No, I am not that stupid. I am not that wrong. I am not that void of logic. I had valid points and expressed them.
That was no discussion, it was emotional crap. Which is the very thing you both seem to think I have been affected by, but for some reason you seem to miss Dave has been affected more. Is there a reason I would expect there to be any real exchange in that post or is it not more likely I should expect a one sided tirade given the obvious one sided put down of everything I had written?
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9698 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2007 : 17:56:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
I know you are not going to like it, but here it is...
The post of yours, which Dave analyse in this post is full of logical holes.
<snip>
[size=2]But Dr M, that post is not the post I was referring to when I said, "The argument is only full of holes from your perspective, not from mine. I posted several pages before declining further engagement". I was referring to the original discussion on Net Neutrality that Marfknox started.
Oh... My mistake.
I didn't follow the Net Neutrality-thread other than browsing it, since Net Neutrality seemed to be a US problem and not a European, or even Swedish one. Perhaps I should have a deeper look into it.
quote:
In that thread Dave essentially said, I don't see the argument. I posted at least two long attempts to explain my position and Dave waved it off with a claim there was no analogy.
I am willing to discuss and admit to errors. But in the above thread, I just didn't have time for it. And the one sentence brush off of a person's position they made a reasonable effort to present was a BIG turnoff.
Maybe when I've read the thread thoroughly, I might be in a position to comment that.
quote:
Now look at the post you linked to. Are you trying to say that my logic and intelligence are so bad that an entire page claiming this is wrong and that is wrong and this and this ad nauseum is a fair and reasonable critique of the post he was replying to?
This question reminds me of a similar question a coworker of mine got from his girlfriend: "Would you say I look fat in this dress?"
No matter if he said yes or no, he knew the answer would be interpreted the wrong way. Think carefully if you really want me to answer your question. You might not like the answer you get, even if it is constructive and sincere.
quote:
Would you really give such a post your time?
Yes. I read Dave's post all the way through because I thought it was a good lesson in argument-analysis. He isolated each and every argument and analysed it for valid content.
If your post doesn't have any valid content, then how can he reply to it? I think Dave identified a lapse in your typically good critical thinking skills. You don't usually argue this poorly.
quote:
I certainly see no reason to waste my time wading through that crap because there might be a valid point in there somewhere.
Are we discussing the same post here? I'm was referring to Dave's analysis-post which I already linked to.
quote:
Why would I believe that in the entire post Dave is replying to, not a single thing I said was valid?
Indeed...
Apart from containing constructive criticism, it also have acknowledgements of valid points you made.
quote:
Not only that, but why would I believe that the errors in my thinking were so bad that every single point could be brushed off as some basic logic error that can be described in a couple words? No, I am not that stupid. I am not that wrong. I am not that void of logic. I had valid points and expressed them.
You are usually not afflicted with the flaws expressed above, but from my corner of the boxing ring it certainly looks like something has gotten the better of you. Dave's analysis of that post shows that.
quote:
That was no discussion,
No, and I don't think it was supposed to be either. It was a critical analysis of your post to show that it didn't rise to expected standard, your usual level of arguments.quote:
... it was emotional crap.
I can't see how it was. I don't understand where you get that idea from.
quote:
Which is the very thing you both seem to think I have been affected by, but for some reason you seem to miss Dave has been affected more.
I can only call it as I see it. I don't see any content in Dave's post tainted by emotions. What I see is a lot of arguments from you where you ascribe negative emotions to Dave, that in my eyes are simply not there. I find your argument - that Dave is pissed off at you - to be unsubstantiated.
One reason for this could be because you are projecting those emotions on Dave. Perhaps there could be other reasons for doing this, but presently, projecting is the only one that comes to mind.
quote:
Is there a reason I would expect there to be any real exchange in that post or is it not more likely I should expect a one sided tirade given the obvious one sided put down of everything I had written?
It looks to me like Dave is genuinely interested in having a discussion with you, with good arguments. Lately, you haven't been able to do much other than mis-characterise Dave and his arguments, assigning Dave a state of mind he does not have, and reading into his posts things that are not there. For example, see Starman's post. From what I understand (and I still consider myself a newbie in the name-the-logical-error-game, so anyone please correct me if I'm wrong) your comment was classic Misrepresentation if there ever was one.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2007 : 20:26:30 [Permalink]
|
Does the idea that a post such as the one of Dave's we are discussing is dismissive and inconsiderate of what I was trying to say even cross your mind? Is every post a debate? Might Dave have looked at what the bigger issues were in my post rather than the trivial claims he chose to focus on?
I don't agree with you that my post was full of crap, or than Dave's wasn't. I identified a problem, Dave experienced emotional discomfort that I wouldn't debate an issue with him. With 30 years experience in the nursing field, I do have the skills to recognize that underlying issue which affected many things in this dispute. I experienced much frustration at the gall of someone who would insult and condemn my actions merely because I chose not to debate an issue.
To claim these things did not affect this exchange, for whatever reason or rationalization is contained in that page of supposed errors in judgment or logic is claiming I don't have the skills to recognize what I recognize. No amount of claimed reasons of logic or rationalization about what I did or didn't do have anything at all to do with the underlying resentments.
When Dave gets around to discussing why he has such an emotional reaction to people who won't debate something with him, we might have something to discuss. If the discussion is going to be about the debate issues he still can't let go of, then he's going to keep posting all the supposed errors in judgment or whatever else he is focused on while he misses that bigger picture of his reaction to wanting something the other person simply isn't responding to.
Maybe Dr M, you are missing the bigger picture here as well. If you only look at Dave's page which addresses everything I had to say on a superficial level, I fail to see how you can possibly say Dave's post was so peachy keen. After all, you didn't even know what I was talking about, yet you believe the criticism of what I posted.
I am still my logical intelligent self. You need to look at little more deeply into this exchange.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26034 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2007 : 21:28:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
I don't agree with you that my post was full of crap...
And now you're going through your hypersensitive defensive rage script at Mab, who never once said that your post "was full of crap."quote:
I identified a problem, Dave experienced emotional discomfort that I wouldn't debate an issue with him.
You keep repeating this as if repetition will make it true.quote:
With 30 years experience in the nursing field, I do have the skills to recognize that underlying issue which affected many things in this dispute.
Even experts admit they can be wrong, which is why the best experts are their own worst critics. The worst experts rest on their laurels and imply they couldn't be wrong, because they've got all sorts of experience.quote:
I experienced much frustration at the gall of someone who would insult and condemn my actions merely because I chose not to debate an issue.
You're still quite wrong about what this is about, especially the "merely" part. You're also thoroughly incorrect about the "condemn" bit. You seem to be purposefully mischaracterizing my stated intent (in effect, calling me a liar) in order to keep yourself worked up in "frustration" at my alleged "gall."quote:
When Dave gets around to discussing why he has such an emotional reaction to people who won't debate something with him, we might have something to discuss.
I have discussed this. You have refrained from replying to the pertinent parts of my latest posts. Is it more insulting for me to give you detailed reasons why I don't think you are correct, or is it more insulting for you to simply stop responding to me when I've calmly taken the insults you've been flinging my way, perhaps due to your admitted frustration?quote:
If the discussion is going to be about the debate issues he still can't let go of...
This discussion has been about your behaviour, not about any "debate issues" that you fabricated for me.quote:
...then he's going to keep posting all the supposed errors in judgment or whatever else he is focused on while he misses that bigger picture of his reaction to wanting something the other person simply isn't responding to.
That's one of your fabrications, and not one of my motivators. Until you can discuss that, instead of just pontificating about it, you're just going to get more and more angry. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9698 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2007 : 09:05:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
Maybe Dr M, you are missing the bigger picture here as well.
Maybe I am. I can't see the forest for all the trees, and recently the trees looks like unsound arguments.
If you re-start with a brief outline of the bigger picture, I might get back on track. Sometimes I need to be hit over the head with the obvious. Getting bogged down in the details is a character-flaw of mine.
(Edited to add that it's a character-flaw) |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 03/01/2007 12:15:45 |
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2007 : 19:43:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gorgo
quote:
Can I nominate this for the "Worst font colour in a forum post".
Envelopes please.
Why, because it's a far left color!!!????
Something like that. It'll never be a great fight though, as once we settle on the convention of whether left or right means longer wavelengths, we can settle the whole thing with science.
We could always argue about which colours reinforce particular political leanings.
|
John's just this guy, you know. |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2007 : 02:21:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
Maybe Dr M, you are missing the bigger picture here as well.
Maybe I am. I can't see the forest for all the trees, and recently the trees looks like unsound arguments.
If you re-start with a brief outline of the bigger picture, I might get back on track. Sometimes I need to be hit over the head with the obvious. Getting bogged down in the details is a character-flaw of mine.
(Edited to add that it's a character-flaw)
Dave was emotional over my refusing to debate with him on the Net Neutrality thread. He carried it over into 3 different threads. That's the summary. He seems to think it isn't true. Perhaps you both should re-examine that rather than dismiss it as my supposed faulty logic, but it's your choice.
It's quite a bother spending any more time on this.
If you are interested, it isn't hard to find examples such as the following in Dave's posts:
http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=7633&whichpage=3#113282
[Dave:] "I'm not so sure, especially after beskeptigal has responded to a self-described Democrat with this:
[Beskep after being fed up with Mycroft who I read as supporting torture and Bush, and I explained just how I interpreted Mycroft's statement which led to that conclusion]: "The problem as I see it is, you like the right wing theocracy, over consuming lifestyle, and don't think it's bad the US has made enemies all over the world."
[Dave continuing:] "If that's not "extreme," I don't know what is. She is "cut[ting] off a lot of dialog that might have useful information in it," by attributing to Mycroft and me positions we do not hold. The classic strawman tactics of a radical position that doesn't actually have evidence to support it. Anyone who's cut their skeptical teeth on creationists can see the exact same lack of logic and reason in beskeptigal right now."
And I mistakenly thought Dave was a Libertarian because of the position he took in the Net Neutrality thread. BIG DEAL! For that I am supposedly using a straw man tactic. Of course all the crap from Mycroft (see below) is left out of Dave's post. Talk about emotional. Give me a break, this post is full of emotional distortions. Just look at the actual facts below instead of Dave's personal version.
http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=7633&whichpage=4#113323
[Dave:] "As I've said before, I think beskeptigal is very passionate about her politics, and I think her passion clouds her judgement as much as it clouds her perception of others who don't share her politics. Because of that, and because of many of the things she's said to me recently about me which are obviously wrong, I can't help but conclude that beskeptigal's own political positions are more based upon faith than reason, and such seems to be the norm for the political extremist.
And "Democrat," encompassing such a wide array of positions, allows one to go pretty damn far left without being a socialist or a communist. The fact that she thinks a fellow Democrat (Mycroft again) is a right-winger is evidence of that all by itself. She's so far left she sees the moderates of her own party as radical Republicans."
I drew conclusions about Mycroft by what he posted. I'm not the only one who didn't think Mycroft was a Democrat, let alone a moderate one considering what he said in this thread in particular. And part of that was how he worded a statement about supporting t |
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
 Posted - 03/04/2007 : 02:56:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
Dave's posts responding to that issue were especially revealing. I'm supposedly a bad person because I only chose to debate to a point. "Well you shouldn't have said anything" and "next time just tell me, I'll NEVER debate with you again" or whatever the inappropriate immature statements were he made. What was the point of such posts if not an emotional reaction?
So you still have to invent own versions of Dave W.s posts.
Says a lot.
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
My supposed left wing media sources
