DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Oligarchy Fail

Quote:

---

You just made my point. Thanks for playing.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

You just made my point. Thanks for playing.

---

HAHA...which point was that exactly?

---

Quote:

---

Funny, don't you think? You won't "debunk" what Beck says, you'll just suffice to say " I don't think your assumptions of science people are right". or something along those lines.

You have actually proven my point, whether you see it or not.

---

Quote:

---

You just made my point. Thanks for playing.

---

Quote:

---

You can over analyze anything you want.

---

Quote:

---

Re read your last post. If you don't get it, sorry about you being out of it. You can over analyze anything you want.

---

You're an extremely snide person. All of your posts seem to be about ad hominem, veiled, character attacks all aimed at poisoning the well to help your point. First, with the "scientific" bullcrap and then equating all science to that of climate science which you've announced your disdain for previously. Then with the above quote. So instead of reasonable discourse you say to someone, "I'm sorry you're too dumb to get it, guess you lose out on that bit of info." And you call "scientists" elitists And then you have the gall to make fun of how someone posts? And even making another post after the one you just to do so? Maybe calling you "snide" is letting you off easy.

It's all aimed at one thing, discrediting the person posting counter to you by bullying them with subtle character attacks and making fun of them. Answer his question Arch!

Quote:

---

pHIL ... i would think that you'd like Glenn Beck. He argues a lot of the same points you do about govenment and big business becoming one and the same entity ......

---

Quote:

---

There were no facts?

My goodness - you know not what you speak of.

NO facts?

Okay.

Archbolddawg

---

Quote:

---

You're an extremely snide person.

---

Quote:

---

All of your posts seem to be about ad hominem, veiled, character attacks all aimed at poisoning the well to help your point.

---

Quote:

---

First, with the "scientific" bullcrap

---

Quote:

---

and then equating all science to that of climate science which you've announced your disdain for previously.

---

Quote:

---

So instead of reasonable discourse you say to someone, "I'm sorry you're too dumb to get it, guess you lose out on that bit of info." And you call "scientists" elitists And then you have the gall to make fun of how someone posts? And even making another post after the one you just to do so? Maybe calling you "snide" is letting you off easy.

---

Quote:

---

It's all aimed at one thing, discrediting the person posting counter to you by bullying them with subtle character attacks and making fun of them.

---

Quote:

---

If your disdain for me is half as much as it appears to be, I feel for you, bud. I guess we can't all be as good as you.

---

And there you go When did I say anything about me or compare yourself to myself? Why would you even bring something like that up when I had nothing to do with this other than to call you out on being mean to Lyouk? Don't turn this on me, the only thing I'm trying to do is stop you from bullying people :P

Also, for the record, I don't disdain you. You have great points and a viewpoint that's different from my own. Talking with you can be enlightening. I just don't stand for people being snide or snarky to one another based on differences.

Quote:

---

Also, for the record, I don't disdain you.

---

disdain is a noun, not a verb...

Sorry, got carried away from the grammar discussion in the other thread.

Quote:

---

disdain is a noun, not a verb...

Sorry, got carried away from the grammar discussion in the other thread.

---

Quote:

---

* Main Entry: (2) disdain
* Function: transitive verb
* Etymology: Middle English desdeynen, from Anglo-French desdeigner, dedeigner, from Vulgar Latin *disdignare, from Latin dis- + dignare to deign — more at deign
* Date: 14th century

1 : to look on with scorn <disdained him as a coward>
2 : to refuse or abstain from because of disdain <disdained to answer their questions>
3 : to treat as beneath one's notice or dignity
synonyms see despise

Retrieved September 3, 2009, from ]http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disdain[2]

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

If your disdain for me is half as much as it appears to be, I feel for you, bud. I guess we can't all be as good as you.

---

And there you go When did I say anything about me or compare yourself to myself?

---

Quote:

---

I just got the pm you sent me, in reply to the one I sent you.

I do believe I apologized in my pm, and also explained myself. At least I tried to. It apparently wasn't good enough for you, so I will do so here.

Let's get the first part done right now: I apologize for my ass scented posts last night.

---

Quote:

---

I was not attacking you, per se.

---

Quote:

---

Archbolddawg's quotes, (my emphasis):

Quote:

---

My goodness - you know not what you speak of.

---

Quote:

---

sorry about you being out of it. You can over analyze anything you want.

---

Quote:

---

You just made my point. Thanks for playing.

---

Quote:

---

You have actually proven my point, whether you see it or not.

---

Quote:

---

Just because your "scientific" mind can't catch things doesn't make it his problem.

---

Quote:

---

Sorry, I know you have a "scientific" mind thought.......

---

Quote:

---

But it hasn't stopped you from having an opinion, has it?

---

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

If you don't like the theater of it, shrug that off and look at the facts of it.

---

So at this point, the problem is that I haven't looked at the facts, and am just making fun of the theater.

Quote:

---

Sorry, I know you have a "scientific" mind thought.......

---

My note: At this point, I have not yet analyzed anything, so you could only be refering to the fact that I haven't looked at the facts yet, as you were in post one.

Quote:

---

So, you can't, or won't, dispute the facts he lays out - you just have a problem with his "theater"???????

---

This is three consistent posts in a row...again, you say that I'm refusing to dispute the facts he lays out, and am only concentrating on the theater...

Quote:

---

There were no facts?

My goodness - you know not what you speak of.

NO facts?

---

Again, you insult my inability to argue against the facts that Glenn Beck presents

Quote:

---

You stated you didn't understand what he was saying. My whole point was you/I/anyone shouldn't have to have it labeled: 1, 2, 3, 4 in order for us to be able to put 1 and 2 together.

---

Now things are starting to change. I apparently need to many facts to make a case, and I can't properly judge the "truthiness" of Beck's argument.

Quote:

---

I wouldn't say I idealize it.........yet, here you are arguing the behind the scenes thing. Funny, don't you think? You won't "debunk" what Beck says, you'll just suffice to say " I don't think your assumptions of science people are right". or something along those lines.

You have actually proven my point, whether you see it or not.

---

OK, back to the original point... I won't argue against glenn Beck's facts...I don't look at facts, only at theater. As of 8:50 PM last night, that is your point, fine.

But then 16 minutes later, I reply to Glenn Beck's post in full detail, and you respond:

Quote:

---

You just made my point. Thanks for playing.

---

It surely can't be your original point, that I don't look at facts and only judge the theater....because that would be stupid, now that I spent about 4 paragraphs responding to the facts of Beck's case.

Then there are some personal insults, where you refuse to clarify your actual point. And then we get to this most recent post:

Quote:

---

I think you over analyze things.....and in my opinion, you did. In your career/schooling (don't know your age or job, just that science is big to you), that is necessary, absolutely. I just thought you over analyzed something, hence, the "you proved my point" comment of mine.

---

Where your point has now completely morphed into the idea that "i overanalyze the facts in a case, and don't respond to the truthiness of your arguments"

---

So, we're both intelligent. And we both know what your real "point" was. You didn't like that I disagreed with your assessment of Glenn Beck, and since I said that I hate his theater, you decided to attack me for not analysing the facts of his case. Then, when I responded in great detail (which you either weren't ready or able to respond to). You decided to shift your attack in the opposite direction. "I am correct because you give too many facts" (which is a ridiculous argument in and of itself).

Then when I call you out on your shifting positions...you disappear, because you have no response. Instead retreat to the "how can you be so dumb to not understand that I am right" stance (the exact quote was "If you don't get it, sorry about you being out of it.")...and refuse to comment further.

When draftdayz and I both call you out again, you disappear. Instead finally answering me on a PM, because you don't want the board to read your mea culpa.

The whole problem with this in the first place, was that you decided to lead off with a snarky comment "But it hasn't stopped you from having an opinion, has it?", and that lead on to a personal attack on me that came from every angle you could think of simultaneously. It's a shame, because, at the end....I still don't know what your point was, on the actual video I posted, all I know is that I both over and underanalyze the facts of Beck's argument...a problem that is connected to my "scientific mind"....As soon as you get confronted by anybody, you back off your arguments, and try to twist out of what you said in the first place, because it's hard to be the snide bully when people are pushing back.

Oh and I almost forgot your one other interesting post:

Quote:

---

Oops, forgot:

Archbolddawg.

---

Which, since you never sign posts, is clearly an joke about me (one of the very few people on here that do).....very mature.



~Lyuokdea

Quote:

---

I'm beginning to think I was probably right in my assessment of you - you over analyze things.

---

Quote:

---

Just when you thought Glenn Beck couldn't get anymore idiotic or senseless...

http://www.youtube.com/v/szlLM5lCNJg

---

Quote:

---

Often, by the time a people realize that it's too late .... it's too late.

The danger is not in suddenly waking up and finding yourself without rights .... but rather in the methodical, drip by drip, erosion of those rights.

---

Quote:

---

Often, by the time a people realize that it's too late .... it's too late.

The danger is not in suddenly waking up and finding yourself without rights .... but rather in the methodical, drip by drip, erosion of those rights.

---

Quote:

---

I don't see the crazy.... aside from his zeal in pointing it out.

---

The crazy comes in when Glenn Beck tries to turn a piece of '30's Socialist/Deco artwork, commissioned by a long-dead American business tycoon into a 'prophetic' heiroglyph that substitutes Obama for Mussolini... some 70+ years hence. THAT'S the "crazy."

Slice it or dice it anyway you want, that's just plain out there, Purp.



But, he's also "crazy like a fox," at the same time ( ...at least by TV standards, that is...). The very next thing he says, with a mock-dismissive toss-off, is: "completely unrelated..." [quickly on to the next point]


Mmmm hmmm. Yeah- riiiight.

He entertained us for 3:17 minutes, then dropped his little "subliminal bomb" (at 3:20).
Slick. Sort of... I guess.

It works tho- his devotees who are "sharp enough" will use this as his 'out'... and they'll use this quote to absolve him of anything that he might have inferred from his previous statement. The rest, who aren't "sharp enough," will simply say, "well goooooolllly! Shazaam! I didn't never thunk of that befer in all my life! That thar Glenn Beck, he's shore one sharp cookie. I'm gonna start lookin' at Art... see what commie stuff I kin find. I'll bet Obama's in MY local art museum, too! (What's that address, again?) "

There's a whole raft of "commentators" out there who play this game. Beck is only one of them, on only one side of the political spectrum. He has his counterparts on the opposite side, as well. I've watched each, and couldn't stand any of them for more than about 15 minutes. As a result, I don't watch ANY. Ever. On any side.

Like him if you want, I got no beef with that at all. Taste is in the mouth of the consumer. But face it- when he makes crazyazz connections like Obama=Mussolini because of Rockefeller's commisioned NY Artworks, you GOTTA expect someone to raise an eyebrow.... else, what's a braintrust like Dawgtalkers for?



please.


Crazy is crazy. And I know you know crazy... because I've seen you call it more times than just a few, Dawg.

This particular one by Beck is obvious, ham-handed, and indefensible.



And crazy.



.02

Quote:

---

The crazy comes in when Glenn Beck tries to turn a piece of '30's Socialist/Deco artwork, commissioned by a long-dead American business tycoon into a 'prophetic' heiroglyph that substitutes Obama for Mussolini... some 70+ years hence. THAT'S the "crazy."

Slice it or dice it anyway you want, that's just plain out there, Purp.



But, he's also "crazy like a fox," at the same time ( ...at least by TV standards, that is...). The very next thing he says, with a mock-dismissive toss-off, is: "completely unrelated..." [quickly on to the next point]


Mmmm hmmm. Yeah- riiiight.

He entertained us for 3:17 minutes, then dropped his little "subliminal bomb" (at 3:20).

---

Quote:

---

Neither was a case of democracy slipping through the loss of rights.

---

Quote:

---

Nazi Germany is the worst case.

It went from Democracy to dictatorship in relatively short order as people gave away their rights in exchange for national pride, jobs, security and food.

---