Subject:
|
Re: Robert gets to invalidate logic (was Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races))
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 7 Apr 2001 04:49:29 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
q_harlequin_p@NOMORESPAMhotmail.com
|
Viewed:
|
927 times
|
| |
|
|
On Sat, 7 Apr 2001 04:17:45 GMT, "Bruce Schlickbernd"
<corsair@schlickbernd.org> wrote:
> > > > Ahh, but that's only your interpretation of it, remember, I'm an
> > > > experienced social engineer. Given that you really can't say what I
> > > > really mean or think.
> > > More sophistries. And yes, I can say it (there it is above). Not only
> > > that, I'm right.
> > Let's keep you thinking that way, shall we?
> That's a pretty pathetic comeback.
Well your lame was pretty pathetic. You shouldn't expect any more
than you're willing to give out yourself.
> I thought you said you are clever - I'd
> figure you'd use something good for a stock phrase. I'm not impressed.
I think maybe I missed a meeting, I didn't know we were flaming
against one another. If that was the case I probably would have given
out a classic like, "I cannot believe how incredibly stupid you are.
I mean rock-hard stupid. Dehydrated-rock-hard stupid. Stupid, so
stupid it goes way beyond the stupid we know into a whole different
dimension of stupid. You are trans-stupid stupid. Meta-stupid.
Stupid collapsed on itself so far that even the neutrons have
collapsed. Stupid gotten so dense that no intellect can escape.
Singularity stupid. Blazing hot mid-day sun on Mercury stupid.
You emit more stupid in one second than our entire galaxy emits in a
year. Quasar stupid. Nothing in our universe can really be this
stupid. Perhaps this is some primordial fragment from the original
big bang of stupid. Some pure essence of a stupid so uncontaminated
by anything else as to be beyond the laws of physics that we know."
> > > > That's not to say I'm trying to manipulate
> > > > anybody, it just means I'm trying to control the way the debate
> > > > unfolds.
> > > You failed in your stated purpose. It seems you aren't as clever as you like
> > > to think you are.
> > I like how you say I failed in my stated purpose, but then fail to
> > explain why. Not that it's any real surprise.
> Oh, I'm sorry - you keep telling me how clever you are. I thought you could
> figure it out. Here's a box of cookies while you think on it. Run along,
> junior.
Is there no floor to your intelligence?
> > > > In these debates I'm often times looking for specific
> > > > emotions and feelings, that way I can better understand my opponents
> > > > position.
> > > Sometimes known as jerking people around. What's the point when you are
> > > being so transparent about it? The only person you are fooling is yourself.
> > If you say so.
> Oh no, let's not take my word on it - anyone fooled by Robert's claim that,
> "...I have no problems in letting you believe I'm wrong and you're right"?
> Anyone actually believe his claim? See way up at the top or go back a few
> messages.
>
> See. I'm a fair guy.
I understand your need to dislike me and to think you've somehow
proven me wrong, who am I to deny you that anamilistic urge?
> > > > As I said before, I'm a Nihilist, so I don't really have an
> > > > absolute opinion on anything, in either case. I could just as well be
> > > > arguing the other side of the issue tomorrow, and I probably will.
> > > So you'll be admitting that you were being a fraud tomorrow? Oh, how
> > > condescending of you. :-)
> > No, not at all.
> So you won't be arguing the other side? What a surprise! Don't play poker
> if your bluffs can be called so easily.
Oh dang, looks like ya got me again, Cheif. Man yer a lot better at
this than I am, huh?
> > When I take a side I try to argue and debate it as if
> > I do truly believe in it.
> No, you are just afraid to really take a position. You really are very
> transparent.
Well I suppose that's better than being as thick headed as you, huh?
> > I'm not a fraud, I just don't have a set of
> > beliefs that are written in stone.
> But that means you don't believe the above - or you just lied.
Tell me, would you describe yourself more as a process or a function?
> > I try to redefine my beliefs and
> > understanding through debating.
> Why? To set your non-existent beliefs in stone? Or do you just get off on
> jerking people around?
I don't have an attitude problem. You have a perception problem.
> > However the best way I've found to do
> > that is to argue against the side I'm actually in agreement with.
> Sounds like intellectual masturbation.
Most fortune cookies I've received haven't been half as insightful,
thank you!!!
Robert
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Robert: Just another Troll
|
| (...) Hahaha. You got ever worse - where's this cleverness you keep gloating about? A Mystic 8-Ball has better comebacks. Concentrate and ask again. (...) I think I missed that same meeting - why are you flaming *everyone*? I'm for one sick of it. (...) (24 years ago, 7-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
126 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
|
|
|
|
