Subject:
|
Re: Is Robert Bevens exceedingly obnoxious? (was: Does God have a name for God? (was: 20 Years...))
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 4 Apr 2001 06:19:57 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
q_harlequin_p@hotmail.comSAYNOTOSPAM
|
Viewed:
|
2916 times
|
| |
|
|
On Tue, 3 Apr 2001 06:01:34 GMT, "Dave Low"
<stinglessbee@hotSPAMFREEmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
Uh, excuse your stupidity, but after doing it just once, one should be
able to tell it breaks the thread apart...unless they're just blind or
stupid, and I sure as heck wouldn't ever call Jennifer stupid. I mean
if you're having such a difficult time grasping the concept add a
space to one the subjects you're following up and see what
happens...gosh...what a surprise.
> > 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.
Well of course I am, that's just who I am. My motto is that it's
better to be a smart ass than a dumb ass.
> Also: Ignores substantive point on how annoying tit-for-tat arguments are.
Actually I clearly pointed out that said conjecture was merely a
sidestep routine and then preceded to point out why. You make it
sound as if I'm forcing the poor girl into arguing with me or
something.
> > > > 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.
Prove that I repeated myself unnecessarily, and prove that I
sidestepped a substantive point. Oh, oh that's right, you can't.
Why? Well because obviously I didn't. You know, I know what you're
doing, and it's only gonna make you upset so you might as well quit
while you're ahead. I seriously doubt Jennifer needs you to "fight"
her battles for her. Yeesh...
> > > > 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.
And you continually fail to point out why.
> 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.
Okay now see you wouldn't have such a hard time grasping if you
bothered to look at the threading. Here's the chain of events (I'll
try and make it as simple as possible for you):
1. I say she makes assumptions, I say so in regards to the post that
*I* followed up, not some obscure post she made to some other person 7
days ago.
2. She says she didn't make any assumptions (although the EXACT quotes
I pulled out of the post *I* followed up to showed she had made
definitive based claims). She then offers some obscure post that had
nothing to do with the debate between her and I and says that somehow
proves she's not making assumptions. And indeed she's correct, in
that post she gave she didn't make any assumptions, but then that's
not the post we were discussing, hence my pointing out it's
irrelevancy.
3. You then pop off and make the assumption that I'm wrong and don't
seem to bother to make any thorough attempt at understanding the
debate. Most likely because you felt poor Jennifer was backed into a
corner and wanted to seem chivalrous or something. Congratulations,
you failed, she was never backed into a corner to begin with.
> > 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.
To me courtesy is like respect, it's earned, not given out for free
just because you showed up with shoes and a shirt on.
> > > > 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.
See above.
> > 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.
But then isn't that what debating is all about? I mean surely you
understand that in most cases all an argument proves is that two
people are present, if I wanted genuinely real conversations I
wouldn't be in a group devoted to debating.
> And on that note Robert, come and get me.
>
> --DaveL
No thanks, I'm kind of a women only guy if you know what I mean. ; )
Robert
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Courtesy? (was: lots of other stuff)
|
| (...) Well, I'm not interested in getting into your other debate, but I disagree with your opinion on this point. I think that is *exactly* the *difference* between courtesy & respect - one is given freely, the other is earned. ROSCO (23 years ago, 4-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
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
|
|
|
|
