Subject:
|
Is Robert Bevens exceedingly obnoxious? (was: Does God have a name for God? (was: 20 Years...))
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 3 Apr 2001 06:01:34 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2847 times
|
| |
|
|
In just a few days in lugnet.off-topic.debate, Robert Bevens:
> > If you wish to reread what someone said it is easy enough to read
> > back through the previous posts in any case. I also tend to dislike totally
> > linear "point-rebuke-point-rebuke" style arguments as I feel they grow stale
> > very quickly. You are of course entitled to think of this as an avoidance
> > strategy should you so wish.
>
> Uh, I hate to point out your hypocristy...but on the one hand you say
> it's easy to go back through the previous messages in the thread, and
> yet you add spaces to the subject line which as you know breaks the
> thread apart.
Makes unwarranted assumptions about other posters' experience.
> Not only that but it's considered by most experienced
> Usenet surfers as a form of cascade trolling. Just thought I'd let
> you know. : )
Is a smart-aleck about it.
Also: Ignores substantive point on how annoying tit-for-tat arguments are.
> > > Oh so we can only debate about one thing at a time? Hmmm, it seems
> > > I've missed several meetings.
>
> > Certainly not, but Focus Can Be a Good Thing for our Beavis and Butthead
> > style tartrazine infested limited attention span generation.
>
> Again trying to talk about focus when you snip out past responses
> which really don't clutter things up when you format your posts
> correctly. Not only that but I again mention your cascade threading.
> How does that help "focus" things?
Repeats himself unnecessarily. Again, sidesteps substantive point.
> > > Now maybe you can point out my seemingly blind ignorance one again and
> > > show us where you said, "I gather that in most modern monotheistic
> > > type religions" in that initial post (from which I was quoting
> > > earlier).
>
> > Here it is:
> >
> > http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=9608
>
> Let me slow it down for you.
>
> ...from....which...I...was...quoting....earlier...
>
> You know, the part you just snipped out, much to the convenience of
> your strawman.
Continually attacks on non-existent points. Robert himself sets up a
strawman, by quoting in full
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=9638.
This post does not contain the statement "I gather that in most modern
monotheistic type religions". Obviously, that statement cannot be identified
in that post. Robert ignores the thread linking the earlier post
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=9608, which contains the
statement, and http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=9638.
> Now, tell me what part of that sentence you had such a hard time
> grasping? I mean, if you want to throw out of context, backpedal,
> sidestep lames out all day, be my guest, but at least offer some
> warning.
Demonstrates a complete lack of courtesy.
> > > Well of course I do, I know almost everything you could possibly say
> > > before you even say it.
>
> > Looks like you don't know everything I've said once I've said it though ;-)
>
> Maybe if all your strawman would come true perhaps, but I don't think
> that's going to happen any time soon, Kitten.
Demonstrates a complete lack of respect for another person.
> I'm not a God, I just understand human psychology, that and I can
> calculate things. Anyone can do it, it's just a matter of shutting up
> for 5 minutes, analyzing your opponent and then calculating expected
> responses.
Demonstrates a need to play games rather than engage in real conversation.
And on that note Robert, come and get me.
--DaveL
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
137 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
