03 Aug 05
Originally posted by sasquatch672True.
Possessing more knowledge in a given area than another person doesn't give you the right to abuse people.
It does, however, create the very natural reaction of being frustrated with people who try to act like they know something when they don't.
I would agree with you that no1 could tone down the MANNER in which he says things a bit - and I have told him so once or twice. I also think he holds a grudge rather too strongly.
But I don't tolerate fools gladly either. And to me, a 'fool' is someone who holds themselves out as having knowledge they don't actually possess. So on that level I understand where his attitude comes from.
03 Aug 05
Originally posted by sasquatch672Yes, there are viewpoints on everything. Well-informed, rationally argued viewpoints.
Mmm, okay, but no one person on this planet can claim to have an infinite understanding of any issue at all. There are viewpoints on everything. (The funny thing about this is, I think that no1 and I actually probably agree on more than he would care to admit. It's just that my disagreement with my government and my dislike of President Bush stays w ...[text shortened]... ower-class, frustrated, angry, rejected kid that you've tried to get away from your whole life.
I am perfectly happy disagreeing with people who are able to put their perspective in a reasoned way. But that requires starting with a knowledge of some basic, non-debateable facts about the topic at hand.
To take an example from this thread, try finding ANY person with a decent amount of legal knowledge who thinks that Congress can abolish the courts. It's an assertion worthy of derision. If it had been framed as a *question*, fine, but it wasn't. It was thrown out as a fact.
Contrast that with a debate on, say, the extent to which Congress can restrict court review of the decisions of the executive, which would be a perfectly legitimate debate.
As to 'staying within the sane range', it absolutely amazes me how many people around here do NOT understand the function of rhetorical questions in debate. Every time no1 (or someone else, for that matter) poses a question, it is assumed that a certain answer to the question would be given by no1!
This is just rubbish. Today at work I argued strongly for an outcome I didn't like because I wanted to tease out with my supervisor the LOGIC of the position, and identify where the problem was. We both understood what was happening. I come here on the forums, and sometimes I ask questions I don't even know the answer to because I want someone to flesh out their line of thinking.
And finally, as for 'not respecting anybody'... I think he respects me. I have disagreed with him on issues several times - particulaly religious issues - and I cannot recall ever being subjected to a hostile word.
03 Aug 05
Originally posted by sasquatch672You're an a**hole who is very ignorant of pretty much every subject you've tried to discuss in this Forum. Invariably, in every thread where we've "argued" you have pretty quickly moved from the subject matter of the debate to direct personal attacks. Look at your last 10 posts here; you haven't put a single word about the topics being discussed (which is probably to the good since you don't show any understanding of them) but have instaed went on yet ANOTHER long personal vendetta. You did the same thing in the first thread I ever dealt with you, immediately starting with "you hate America" "you love terrrorists" and the rest of your garbage. Apparently you feel that I should take your personal attack s**t, smile and say "you're sooooooooooo right Sasquatch". Well kiss my a**; you stink at Debate, your musings about my personal life are good for a laugh and you're bringing a pea shooter to a gun fight when you try to trade barbs with me. I see no reason to take a bunch of s**t from a bunch of neo-fascist, right wingers who's main method of debate in my country is immediate mudslinging and lies. You're following the Rush Limbaugh and FoxNews playbook, but I ain't taking it with a smile, numbnuts.
Mmm, okay, but no one person on this planet can claim to have an infinite understanding of any issue at all. There are viewpoints on everything. (The funny thing about this is, I think that no1 and I actually probably agree on more than he would care to admit. It's just that my disagreement with my government and my dislike of President Bush stays w ...[text shortened]... ower-class, frustrated, angry, rejected kid that you've tried to get away from your whole life.
03 Aug 05
Originally posted by WeadleyBut that's half the issue here: why should it be competitive?
When the Dems win they can phark up the government all they want.
We won get over it No1 and other limp wristed lefties.
Elections clearly are fought and won on some issues. But when it comes to something like a diplomatic posting, why SHOULDN'T it be something that's bipartisan and in fact has nothing to do with party lines? Wouldn't it be better for everyone if the Republicans had nominated someone that they liked AND was considered suitable by the Democrats as well?
I think an attitude of "well, we WON so go suck eggs" is completely misplaced. That's a schoolyard argument, and I think it's a major reason why we can't get politicians to behave like mature adults.
03 Aug 05
Originally posted by WeadleyI'm not a Democrat and can't for sure remember the last time I voted for a Democrat in a Federal government election (maybe Schumer when he first ran again scumbag D'Amato, but I didn't vote for his re-election), so your comment is misdirected.
When the Dems win they can phark up the government all they want.
We won get over it No1 and other limp wristed lefties.
03 Aug 05
Originally posted by orfeo
Tip Number One about how to survive the forums - don't argue with no1marauder about legal issues.
Why? Because he knows his stuff, that's why.
Seriously. I'm not from America, but I have legal training (especially in administrative and constitutional law issues) and pretty well every time anything legal comes up, his arguments are solid.
You ain' ...[text shortened]... ith court decisions, but jump about like demented pogo sticks when the result goes against them.
You're a member of the Contumelious Clan ....... lol ...... I was wondering why you would defend such a bully without any manners.
Orfeo: "Why? Because he knows his stuff, that's why."
..... he certainly doesn't know his stuff when he's talking about international law. Our hero needed a few courses before he even knew what I was talking about. He hasn't been following the developments in that field for ages.
...... but he sure has a big mouth, our genius ..... watch out, here he comes 😀 ..... the loudmouth.
03 Aug 05
3 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderNo1: "Invariably, in every thread where we've "argued" you (Sasquatch) have pretty quickly moved from the subject matter of the debate to direct personal attacks."
You're an a**hole who is very ignorant of pretty much every subject you've tried to discuss in this Forum. Invariably, in every thread where we've "argued" you have pretty quickly moved from the subject matter of the debat ...[text shortened]... FoxNews playbook, but I ain't taking it with a smile, numbnuts.
That is another blatant lie. It is No1 who starts the ad hominems ..... EVERY TIME. How dare he put things upside down with his obvious lies ?
It seems No1 is constantly talking to the same person whom he accuses of the most ridiculous and far fetched things like for instance the "personal vendetta" accusation. All accusations, the usual cliché's, keep popping up, no matter who it is who seriously disagrees with the gentleman.
..... maybe you are right, Sasquatch ...... and he is indeed constantly talking to his father ...... 😉
03 Aug 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeWhat a surprise; Ivanhoe pops in to continue his personal vendetta without actually addressing any of the points in the thread. Your modus operandi; you stopped being a debater here a long time ago. How's that getting me banned thing working out for ya?
No1: "Invariably, in every thread where we've "argued" you (Sasquatch) have pretty quickly moved from the subject matter of the debate to direct personal attacks."
That is another blatant lie. It is No1 who starts the ad hominems ..... EVERY TIME. How dare he put things upside down with his obvious lies ?
It seems No1 is constantly talking to the ...[text shortened]... you are right, Sasquatch ...... and he is indeed constantly talking to his father ...... 😉
03 Aug 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeExcuse me, but my membership of CC has absolutely nothing to do with this. I am not that cheap. Membership of the clan has to do with (a) a certain level of entertainment and (b) being part of big, exciting challenges.
You're a member of the Contumelious Clan ....... lol ...... I was wondering why you would defend such a bully without any manners.
I was a founding member, by the way, and I'm not ashamed of that. I also made it quite clear from the beginning of the clan that my personal style is not the same as no1's, and there was never any pressure for me to adopt his style.
I think I have made it reasonably clear that I'm not wholeheartedly endorsing everything no1 does and says in the forum. I think he goes too far with the 'attitude' at times. In fact, you are one of people that comes to mind when I think about him holding 'grudges'.
What I am trying to say is that I think the quality of the substantive content of his posts is a lot higher than average. And I'm a lot more interested in what he says than the way he chooses to say it.
There are quite a few other people who I also think make good contributions here, but it's no1 who, because of his style, gets labelled as doing nothing more than spraying out insults. It's that label I'm arguing against.
PS Please point to his failings regarding international law, if you can.
03 Aug 05
Originally posted by sasquatch672The facts are right there as I pointed out before; go to the "Sucide Bomber kills 19 children" thread; look at my posts in the first few pages and look at yours. You started with the s**t and have never really let up. The idea that you've "won" any of our debates is a product of your deranged mind; all you've ever done is parrot government propaganda and the one book you've apparently ever read while I've dealt with the facts. I don't take insults lying down from you or anybody else and I don't have to make any deals with you on my forum conduct. If you don't like my posts, alert them. Unlike Ivanhoe, I've never gotten even a one minute ban from the forums by the site admins and moderators, so they obviously don't think my posts are much of a problem.
That's right, Wead-o...he's not a democrat, democrats are too conservative for him.
I tried debating you, idiot. And I whipped your ass, several times. It was you who devolved the numerous threads in which you lost - to me - into personal attacks. Do I need to go back and get the post where I found that you had attacked nine different members ...[text shortened]... ate it. Are you a big enough man to do it, not just with me, but with everybody here?
[/b]
This is starting to sound a bit like last August isn't it?