Again, your reading comprehension sucks.
Originally Posted by ChuckWepner
Never did i claim such, put down the straw already.
Your post that i responded to came four days and nearly 100 posts later.
So you and i both had the benefit of seeing the context of the conversation; thus my "changed his stance numerous times".
"Whole of" is a strawman on your part.
I was responding to "initial issue", and quoted you in fact.
No the content of the initial point is not up for debate, i quoted it.
so your "correcting" me as to what his original position was by ignoring the second sentence and arbitrarily choosing a less plausible interpretation of the first sentence was a piece of fucktardedness on your part, Chen.
Neither is the chronology, so stop lying.
You are attributing some logic and structure to itwasn'tme's posts, that is your failure.
Again, first and second sentence is your diversion.
There is (in any relevant sense) no chronological separation between the first and second sentences of the same paragraph. You are being a dipshit, not correcting me or clarifying any chronology.
The Hitler's morality argument came after the Hitler should be commended argument.
It's there in black and white, unless you'd like to continue to be itwasn'tme's champion and extrapolate a logical sequence when there is none.
Hahahaha, you call this garbled?
Your statement of Azatdawn's argument was garbled and semi-coherent. I was being generous when I described it as a poor thumbnail sketch of his position.
Dude, you really need to stfu about reading comprehension.
You are addressing Azatdawn's argument then.
You cannot even see the distinction between itwasn'tme's argumentS, and Azatdawn's argumenT, even when it's quote blocked for you.
Please refer to that last paragraph of yours below and the s/v disagreement; i corrected you on numerous things including chronology, content and even your little s/v disagreement.
You didn't correct me on anything, since your first "correction" was full of dubious interpretation and your second was very badly expressed and irrelevant, since I was disagreeing with *both* of their positions.
Quote me doing so, liar.
Then you made some pinheaded comment about my argument that implied that I agreed with Azatdawn's position.
I said you were attributing Azatdawns argument(and in fact his reasoning) to itwasn'tme.(Edit, more accurately you conflated itwasn'tme's original point, with his subsequent "rebuttal" to Azatdawn's argument.)
The quote is right up there.^
Aww, Chuckie is butt-hurt.
Ordinarily, your posts are intelligent and, whether I agree with you or not, worth reading. The posts you've made replying to me in this thread have been sloppy and gratuitously insulting.
I have no doubt you will persevere, it is but the least of your failings in this thread.
Good catch on "given" vs. "gave." My shame at missing that when I changed that sentence will weigh upon me, but I will try to carry on.