rooting for Goliath

lets all just let it go

... or we can just all royal rumble.

My strategy: I choose to lay low take a few shots like this. I'll be patient and let others do the dirty work and knock everyone else out and then explode when it's me and someone else left standing :)

... or we can just all royal rumble.

My strategy: I choose to lay low take a few shots like this. I'll be patient and let others do the dirty work and knock everyone else out and then explode when it's me and someone else left standing :)Thats dirty pool man.:cheeky-sm

Schneed10



When people mostly agree on an issue, they discuss it. When they don't, and they make an argument for their positions, it's a debate by my definition.

Besides, you're coming across as holier-than-thou for someone who arrogantly puts down posters with regularity for the stupidity of their opinions.

I don't do that.

I don't remember ever calling a single soul on this site stupid. I've never even said an opinion is stupid. I tend to say things like "that makes no sense to me", or "I strongly disagree with that."

I don't mean to come across holier than thou, because no doubt I've gotten on people's nerves around here before. I'm probably annoying several people other than you just by perpetuating this discussion. And I tend to express strong opinions, which annoys people sometimes. And I like that you have strong opinions, but I'd rather see us stick to discussing those opinions rather than get into such banalities as "logical fallacies" and "ad hominem attacks."

I don't mean to come at you or put you down. I respect your opinions. But it'd be good if you showed respect for the opinions of others as well, because I think the disrespect and condescending nature is what is making people chafe at your presence here. If we just focus on the content of our discussions rather than try to win debates like we're on Crossfire, I think we'd get along a bit better. That's all.

Huddle, just wanted to point out that this shows I'm not the only one you're chafing. There are no grudges held, it's just your style is grating.

I just don't get where this guy comes off making a statement like he did to me? The mere implication that perhaps he was actually wrong lead to an attack about my ability to make logical arguments? It's a completely unsupportable statement made simply because he took it as a personal attack when I dared suggest that his royal highness could actually have been wrong for once? And then he has the nerve to say that other people (namely you) are acting "holier-than-though"? If there's one thing I can't stand it's a hypocrit. I can deal with just about anything else, but hypocracy makes my blood boil.

Hey Huddle, which political debate boards are you a member of ? I'm into the political thing too, I just wish we had one here at the Warpath again.

Wow, pot calling the kettle black here. Bit hypocritical aren't we? Given your recent "I'm of a higher standard than everyone else here" posts?

I've tried arguing with you on multiple occasions via sound logical argument. And rather than engage me, you've deliberately avoided taking my arguments head on. Or, you've simply addressed only small segments of my overall arguments, quoted them, taken them out of context, focused on them even though they weren't the main thrust of the argument I was making, and/or have completely ignored every argument I've made that has proven your point wrong (even when a number of other people on the same thread could understand my arguments and points without confusion). I'm not about to rehash the whole statistics argument, but the fact is I killed you in that debate.

See, you're not the only one who can come off like a condescending prick.


In the stats debate, you tried to taunt me and browbeat me into setting myself up for some flim-flam logic. Now, if you had just asked me nicely if I could prove that your Aaron Brooks claim was untrue, I would have told you that I could not.

I would have added that if you claimed that Santa existed, I could not prove you wrong either. And, if you claimed Elvis lives, I could not have proved that wrong either.

Unfortunately, the thread was locked before we got to that point.

Do you want to finish it here?

I just don't get where this guy comes off making a statement like he did to me? The mere implication that perhaps he was actually wrong lead to an attack about my ability to make logical arguments? It's a completely unsupportable statement made simply because he took it as a personal attack when I dared suggest that his royal highness could actually have been wrong for once? And then he has the nerve to say that other people (namely you) are acting "holier-than-though"? If there's one thing I can't stand it's a hypocrit. I can deal with just about anything else, but hypocracy makes my blood boil.

Since he's such a fan of logic, one might think he'd detest a hypocrite as much as you do. So I hear you. The fundamental argument he's making amidst all this ruckus is that he hasn't been wrong in this thread, and hence any argument in which he's been challenged is deemed illogical. That shows a refusal to even consider other viewpoints as valid. Someone who was open to discussion would just say well I disagree, and maybe explain why he disagrees. But by actually dismissing other viewpoints as "illogical" reeks of arrogance.

Opinions cannot be won or lost. They are discussed and debated. But (and this is a LOGICAL argument) opinions are by definition a personal thing. There is no right and wrong conclusion when an opinion is debated, only the own personal conclusions to be drawn on our own as individuals. To assume than any argument contrary to yours is invalid, illogical, and is a losing argument reeks of arrogance and disrespect for the thoughts of others.

Schneed10
Besides, you're coming across as holier-than-thou for someone who arrogantly puts down posters with regularity for the stupidity of their opinions.

I don't do that.

And wouldn't this qualify as an "ad hominem attack"? Seems like you're calling me a name, with the whole holier-than-thou reference. Isn't that the last stage, as you put it?

How about you go back and address my posts #71 and #73. I never heard your opinion, and since your opinions are always right, I'd like to know if I got these questions right on my test. I await your opinions.

In the stats debate, you tried to taunt me and browbeat me into setting myself up for some flim-flam logic. Now, if you had just asked me nicely if I could prove that your Aaron Brooks claim was untrue, I would have told you that I could not.

I would have added that if you claimed that Santa existed, I could not prove you wrong either. And, if you claimed Elvis lives, I could not have proved that wrong either.

Unfortunately, the thread was locked before we got to that point.

Do you want to finish it here?

Why bother? Is there any way short of God striking you down that you'll admit you're wrong? I see no point to continue an argument in which you were proven wrong by a number of members of this site, yet failed to admit or recognize such.

And what the heck are you talking about? If you asked me nice. What? First of all, when I first asked that question, I was anything but hostile. Second, to the extent you believe you are entitled to any special courtesies, I can assure you I've never treated you with any less respect than you have shown to the other members of this site including myself. Third, to the extent you believe I need to ask you to answer my question in a certain or extraordinarily polite way: this isn't college, you are not my professor, and you are no better than me or anyone else on this site. Finally, your above post just proves that you completely missed the point of the Aaron Brooks argument (either that or you've intentially side-stepped it), and I have no interest in trying to explain it to you all over again. Last I saw, however, I don't know of too many people who have used statistics to show that Santa Claus exists or that Elvis is dead (which, by the way, are factual issues, not matters of opinion that are supportable or not supportable by statistics).

I just don't get where this guy comes off making a statement like he did to me? The mere implication that perhaps he was actually wrong lead to an attack about my ability to make logical arguments? It's a completely unsupportable statement made simply because he took it as a personal attack when I dared suggest that his royal highness could actually have been wrong for once? And then he has the nerve to say that other people (namely you) are acting "holier-than-though"? If there's one thing I can't stand it's a hypocrit. I can deal with just about anything else, but hypocracy makes my blood boil.

Your insecurities are showing.

You've been digging at me. I tossed a line back at you and you crumple.