Quote from: TechnomancerOr maybe they have the crazy idea that they should be able to decide who they let onto their own property and who they associate with.You know, freedom?

Heaven forbid that these upstanding haters of gays should actually have to accomodate someone they irrationally despise. Anyone would think that in a civilized society people wouldn't be hated for their consensual private sexual activities.Screaming LIBERTY UBER ALLES seems like a distraction away from the fact that these gay haters have despicable prejudices that should belong in the ancient past, not the modern world. But then again most libertarians don't give a fig for anyone else's liberty but that their own.

Quote from: James McMurrayAh, the "I'm way too intelligent for you to understand" maneuver. Followed with a slightly less than perfect, but still good enough for government work "and oh yeah, you suck" gambit. While we get a lot of the second, we don't see too many of the first. Bravo, sir.

You will like this from the Dilbert authour, if you haven't seen it before,
   
If you are new to the Internet, allow me to explain how to debate in this medium. When one person makes any kind of statement, all you need to do is apply one of these methods to make it sound stupid. Then go on the offensive.

   1. Turn someone’s generality into an absolute. For example, if someone makes a general statement that Americans celebrate Christmas, point out that some people are Jewish and so anyone who thinks that ALL Americans celebrate Christmas is stupid. (Bonus points for accusing the person of being anti-Semitic.)

   2. Turn someone’s factual statements into implied preferences. For example, if someone mentions that not all Catholic priests are pedophiles, accuse the person who said it of siding with pedophiles.

   3. Turn factual statements into implied equivalents. For example, if someone says that Ghandi didn’t eat cows, accuse the person of stupidly implying that cows deserve equal billing with Gandhi.

   4. Omit key words. For example, if someone says that people can’t eat rocks, accuse the person of being stupid for suggesting that people can’t eat. Bonus points for arguing that some people CAN eat pebbles if they try hard enough.

   5. Assume the dumbest interpretation. For example, if someone says that he can run a mile in 12 minutes, assume he means it happens underwater and argue that no one can hold his breath that long.

   6. Hallucinate entirely different points. For example, if someone says apples grow on trees, accuse him of saying snakes have arms and then point out how stupid that is.

   7. Use the intellectual laziness card. For example, if someone says that ice is cold, recommend that he take graduate courses in chemistry and meteorology before jumping to stupid conclusions that display a complete ignorance of the complexity of ice.

Those are the basic tools that come to mind.

Anthrobot's "Do you have any idea of semantics?" is a good example of #7, but he goes on to settle for plain old, "u r such a poopyhead!" Sad, sad.

Quote from: AnthrobotMy reply was for someone who obviously has a problem reading and analyzing what I have written.If I were to explain to him what his low mental faculties cannot infer by logic, then I'd be here all day. If you feel a kinship with this fellow then feel free to blurt out another knee jerk reaction to what you haven't read properly and is the product of your own misinterpretation.

"Me smart, u poopyhead!"

I'm always in favour of keeping things in plain English. That way, we can more easily see if they're bollocks or not.

Quote from: JimBobOzYou will like    6. Hallucinate entirely different points. For example, if someone says apples grow on trees, accuse him of saying snakes have arms and then point out how stupid that is.

   7. Use the intellectual laziness card. For example, if someone says that ice is cold, recommend that he take graduate courses in chemistry and meteorology before jumping to stupid conclusions that display a complete ignorance of the complexity of ice.

Those are the basic tools that come to mind. [/COLOR]

Anthrobot's "Do you have any idea of semantics?" is a good example of #7, but he goes on to settle for plain old, "u r such a poopyhead!" Sad, sad.

I ain't accusing anyone of intellectual laziness.It is PHYSICAL laziness I'm accusing you and your mate of. Since your mate can't be arsed to either read my posts properly or use a search engine.Big difference, not that you'd be bothered to notice.
Since you wish to defend someone who has read all sorts of things into my posts I will have to explain myself to you.

Why can't someone who has never heard of stuff mentioned in a post not use a search engine to do some research before complaining that they haven't heard of the the things mentioned? Is that not lazy?
If you know something about words you will know that by their very nature they are open to interpretation and misunderstanding.If I had to explain everything in my arguments in infinite over the top detail, as you and your mate want me to,then my posts would be very long indeed.
When someone willfully misinterprets my posts because they have been angered by something that I wrote and doesn't have the brain to defend their view point then I have to jump on that misinterpretation.
If I'm being too vague for you here Sadboy, then I could write in E prime or even Rheomode if you like!:p

Again, you could have just posted, "me smart, u poopyhead."

Unfortunately, as smart as you may be, you have to show it, not simply proclaim that. One kind of intelligence is being able to explain complicated things in a simple way, without making the listener feel like a moron. One kind of stupidity is being unable to explain simple things except in a complicated way.

Quote from: AnthrobotIf you know something about words you will know that by their very nature they are open to interpretation and misunderstanding.

That's certainly so. And that's why an intelligent and careful writer will write in such a way that it's hard for their words to be misunderstood - assuming people actually read them thoroughly (a big assumption on the internet). A writer ought to be clear.

There's a saying that it's a poor craftsman indeed who blames his tools. I'd say that it's a poor writer who blames their readers. Again, assuming they actually read what the writer's said. But if they've read it, and still haven't understood you, it's probably your fault.

If you'd rather always blame the readers for their failure to appreciate your stupendous genius, then I suggest you take up posting at The Forge, where that point of view is widely-promoted.

Quote from: JimBobOzAgain, you could have just posted, "me smart, u poopyhead." ( or I could have posted READ MY FUCKING POSTS PROPERLY)

Unfortunately, as smart as you may be, you have to show it ( No I don't), not simply proclaim that. One kind of intelligence is being able to explain complicated things in a simple way ( No shit,Sherlock?), without making the listener feel like a moron,even if he is one. One kind of stupidity is being unable to explain simple things except in a complicated way (like the stupid guy wanted you to).

You appear to have a bee in your bonnet about intelligence. Have I hit some nerve there that takes you back to your school days?. Most of the people replying to my posts don't seem to misinterpret my writing. One lazy individual did. He also can't even be bothered to research anything he writes about and appears not to know anything about the subject matter that was being discussed.If I see that as retarded and sad that is my perception. I'm not here to educate someone who appears to be a dullard.If you wish to do so, be my guest.
If you wish to defend this kind of posting then be my guest, after all thats what we're here for.
You seem to be trying to defend stupidity. You also need someone else's criteria to slag my position off. Are you able to think for yourself? Do you understand this? Wa karimasu ka?
I don't think you can.

Saying this:

QuoteIf I had to explain everything in my arguments in complete detail, that a normal person can work out using common sense, then my posts would be very long indeed.

To JimBob is truly a sign of...well...I'm not going to get in the middle.  It's just damn funny...

Quote from: JimBobOzAgain, you could have just posted, "me smart, u poopyhead."

Unfortunately, as smart as you may be, you have to show it, not simply proclaim that. If you'd rather always blame the readers for their failure to appreciate your stupendous genius, then I suggest you take up posting at The Forge, where that point of view is widely-promoted.

Me not claim smart. me claim u moron.Is diffrent ugh! Me simplify , u like?

By way Jim Booby don't fucking tell me to post anywhere. You arrogant ass ain't fuckin' moderator!
U use searchin' enjin look up :
logic
semantics
learn diffrence between "THEY THINK THEY HAVE A RIGHT" and what ur brotha Moron Wrote. Me never said anyone had a right. Me said "they think they have a right." Me not say is illegal to have bigot opinion. Me do research find is illegal in Austria.
Think they have a right.They do to b bigots.
Them Kristyans them have no rights, not even 2 b bigots.
U no like this u fuck off and die cos u bigot also.OK?

Quote from: James J SkachSaying this:
To JimBob is truly a sign of...well...I'm not going to get in the middle.  It's just damn funny...

Ugh am guilty as charged.Too complex. me say eye cannot go into level of detail that morons want me 2. Morons have other agenda. Stamp on anti bigotry posts.Cos them bigots.
U unnerstan?

Quote from: JimBobOz2. Turn someone's factual statements into implied preferences. For example, if someone mentions that not all Catholic priests are pedophiles, accuse the person who said it of siding with pedophiles.

Although it may fall under #2, another method can be added.

"Accuse the poster of being a pedophile, homophobe, communist, catpissman, 40 year old virgin, or whatever other blacklisting type of label regardless of what they initially stated."

Quote from: James J SkachSaying this:


To JimBob is truly a sign of...well...I'm not going to get in the middle.  It's just damn funny...

Like I keep saying, some people post way more than they read. This leads to them making tits of themselves.

Quote from: GabrielAlthough it may fall under #2, another method can be added.

"Accuse the poster of being a pedophile, homophobe, communist, catpissman, 40 year old virgin, or whatever other blacklisting type of label regardless of what they initially stated."

But what happens if they really are in one, or more of these categories?

Well then they write a book, and get a spot on Oprah? Or a cell mate named Bocefus Cletus who's been asking for a new sissy for a week now.

This is Jimknob's particular affliction in a nutshell.BTW Jimknob thanks for providing me with enough ammo to blast your hallucinatory shit to atoms!

"Hallucinate entirely different points. For example, if someone says apples grow on trees, accuse him of saying snakes have arms and then point out how stupid that is."

Quote from: Serious PaulWell then they write a book, and get a spot on Oprah? Or a cell mate named Bocefus Cletus who's been asking for a new sissy for a week now.

Then please put Jim Booby in that cell as he is a frowzy mollusc!