222387 Bullies, 4347 online  
  • Register
Our Sponsors:

Results 181 to 190 of 257
Page 19 of 26 FirstFirst ... 91516171819 20212223 ... LastLast
Sponsored Links Spacer Image
  1. Keslet is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    The Badlands of Ohio
    Posts
    310

    Posted On:
    9/20/2013 12:00am


     Style: Wrestle, Kickbox, Aikido

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    You know what? I went long anyways...plenty of content if you're interested, and a reminder that "No BS" applies to everyone on this board...

    Okay It Is Fake, lets have a chat…
    Here is all that you typed in your first post directed at me:

    Post 173 - You know what makes this entire argument sad? You expect him to take you seriously, when you responded to his point with a sarcastic tirade.

    You want respectful replies? Then post in a respectful manner.
    Yeah SARCASM. You set the tone, don't complain now.


    Okay, so you weigh in with an opinion that I was sarcastic and disrespectful, oh so sarcastic, and having set the tone I shouldn’t complain about it.

    Or did you?

    In my reply to you, my first statement was that I hadn’t complained about the tone of the dialogue in the post you were referring to.

    Your response?

    Post 180 - Read my post again and ask yourself where I said you complained about tone.

    Okayyy. I suppose you could make the claim that you don’t directly state that what I am complaining about is tone. Sure, every statement you make is about tone, the introductory phrase to the sentence refers to my setting the tone, and then the command to not complain about…the price of coffee? My cholesterol level? Wow, that is certainly a nuanced and sophisticated approach to OH STFU! Either be an honest participant in the discussion or bow the **** out man.

    By the by, the “SARCASM” that you identify as being so disrespectful is a technique called REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM - disproof of a proposition by showing an absurdity to which it leads when carried to its logical conclusion (Merriam-Webster). You, of all people on this board, should not have needed me to spell this out, but even though I explain what I did in layman’s terms in post 175 (go ahead, take a look…I’ll wait), you don’t get it. (“It's not the most respectful rhetorical technique, but it does serve a purpose other than just being obnoxious.”). Kind of interesting as you yourself reference it in post 124, more or less. Later, in post 191, you return to your misunderstanding of what I was doing by referencing my “harping on snarkiness”. One line in one long post (166) mentions Goodlun’s more respectful and COHERENT responses to PL, which was really the main issue…the respectful piece could be completely left out and the point still stands. Jeez, if only I had encouraged people to concentrate on the actual point of discussion rather than trivial…

    Post 143 - (I'm sure folks could argue with some of the generalizations, but honestly, why bother? I can spend a little more time coming up with better examples to make the same point, which will stand up under crossfire. If you can't refute the point don't waste time arguing about some minor detail or hyperbolic language).

    Huh, looks like I did…anyways, from there you state:

    I am laughing at you talking about emotional responses, have you looked at your own posts? I know I await the dissertation about "that's not emotional." (Straw man)
    Yes, this is EXACTLY what I just said. THAT'S YOU setting the tone for goodlun's response. (Tone again, how about that?)
    Seriously? You thought I'd appreciate a poorly worded argument full of logical fallacies? ME? Of all the people on this website? Me? Really?
    Are you trolling?

    Tell you what, I'll leave the psychobabble to you, you leave the semantic word games to me?

    Well, I do declare Ms. IIF, how could I presume to be in the regard of such an august personage? You practically have the vapors! (Yep, sarcasm, but you’ve earned every bit).

    So, a statement of opinion (my post is poorly worded and full of logical fallacies) with no supporting elements. Outstanding! Pretty much meaningless, but rock on you crazy diamond! Lets continue…

    Post 185 – I respectfully address each and every point you have raised (complaining about tone (see above), emotionality in posting, wording of my posts, logical fallacies, psychobabble, semantic word games). Go ahead and glance over it…I’ll wait. Guess I ‘understood’ your posts.

    You later indicate that you were making a funny with the ‘Psychobabble’ and ‘Semantic Word Game’ statement. How nice! A friendly exchange with jokes, how unexpected! Of course, if I am to ‘leave the semantic word games’ to you, I must have been indulging in them, so that part of my response still applies…

    You’re response…

    Post 188 - Wrong. I explained the context. I even gave you a reason why it headed this direction. Again, you misunderstood the post. (in relation to whether you stated I was complaining about tone)

    ????

    I’m sorry, what did I misunderstand that is explained by your explanation of context and direction of the dialogue? How does any of that relate to the ‘complaining about tone’ issue? I’m looking at what you wrote, its all listed above…nope, nothing there. I clearly understand that you thought I was sarcastic and disrespectful, which has nothing to do with whether you did or didn’t say I was complaining about tone. This is total bullshit, a Non Sequitor where you have the appearance of logical structure but your own premises either don’t hold up or simply don’t exist.

    Now you state I have written a dissertation full of semantic word games. (Statement of personal opinion with no supporting elements – referring to post – 185. No word games, clearly stated, and whatever the **** you think a dissertation is? You keep mentioning it, not me.)

    I hope you understand that you just argued "structured argument" vs professional then later typed:
    You don't like to be challenged, so flame away. I would be interested in hearing the logical fallacies though.

    Yeah, no. I stated that I’m not a professional writer (true story!), but I can write a coherent argument. No ‘vs.’, no false dichotomy, no argument that involves the term “professional” at all…its purely present as an informal conversational element. My argument is that my post is adequately worded because it communicates its content clearly, which I then referred to and supported. You can take the whole “professional” term out of the statement and it changes nothing. Hint: this is how you know it’s not actually a part of the argument.

    Seriously, get out of my boat because the dissertation fits your comment. Also, I commented on a poorly worded argument, you introduced "professional" that's a logical fallacy. Do you know why?

    Okay, WTF is it with you and the term “dissertation”? Who wrote one that fits which comment of mine? WTF are you talking about, because what you have actually posted has **** all to do with “dissertations” fitting my “comment”? Also, you didn’t comment on a poorly worded argument…that implies that you actually gave input or feedback on it. You simply stated a label with no supporting elements.

    Second, Logical Fallacies. According to the Purdue OWL, these are common errors in reasoning that will undermine the logic of your argument. Other sources are generally in agreement. Is my use of the word “professional” a logical fallacy, like some type of false equivalency with “poor wording” or something? Nope, not even close. Reason being, as stated above, the use of the term “professional’ has no bearing on any aspect of my argument…doesn’t relate to it in the slightest. I’m not attempting to make any point of any significance with it, so it has not impact on the validity or “soundness” of any argument I’m making. By definition, then, not a logical fallacy. I tell you this, generally speaking, in post 190. This should take care of things for an experienced debater such as yourself…

    Post 191 - Okay, you do not understand what constitutes a logical fallacy cool.

    Or not. I understand it just fine. Surprisingly, you do not. WTF is up with that? I mean, isn’t this kind of your wheelhouse around here? Quite frankly, your contribution to this discussion has been pretty much crap to this point, despite your apparent sense that you have generated some really AWESOME content! I mean, from here on out you keep referencing how I have been too stupid to understand the wisdom you have laid down. You haven’t made any kind of complex point yet…you really haven’t made any real points at all in the accepted sense What the **** do you think you have said that is so profound that any literate individual would have difficulty with the meaning? Simple statements of personal opinion with no support? Basically, from a debate standpoint, this is kindergarten level.

    Yep, now I am 100% sure you didn't understand my post. (In reference to there being no semantic word games or, again, “dissertation”)

    And what would I have misunderstood? Let’s take a look at your only comments relating to these terms…a basic statement labeling a portion of my post as A dissertation full of semantic word games, as well as the suggestion that I should leave such word games to you, with no other comment or support. Well, that is a pretty weak and meaningless contribution, but it is open to a variety of interpretations by a truly evolved and sophisticated OH STFU! You didn’t say a damn thing that takes any effort to be understood! Jesus Christ man, you’re supposed to be good at this!

    Nope. I said it was worded poorly, I have said nothing about whether I agree or disagree with what you are attempting to address.

    True enough, you’ve added nothing to the point actually being discussed.

    Nope, you do not understand the post. I explained it you do not get it. (again about the “complaining about tone” issue)

    Right, you haven’t “explained” **** about this point, as clearly evident above. Total bullshit.

    Yep, this went over your head. For someone who keeps harping on snarkiness, you sure do miss it when it is directed at you. Basically, I insulted your profession and mine. Like I said, you do not get my post. (re: psychobabble etc.)

    Well, can you blame me? What with such a complex and involved OH STFU! You make a series of totally unsupported claims…why not add in that I’m “psychobabbling”? It makes as much sense as anything else you have said. You intended it as a joke, great, but to say it ‘went over my head’? If anything I have been giving you way too much credit as a debater. There is absolutely nothing you have said in this thread that has come even close to my threshold of comprehension/understanding. Not because I’m some kind of genius but because, based on your contributions to this thread, you SUCK at this! Seriously man, WTF? I KNOW you can do better than this!

    Oh I can, quite easily, but like you "I don't like to be challenged." (In response to a request for some examples of all these unsupported labels being tossed around). So, it will be:
    IiF: Example
    YOU: Nuh unh.
    Iif: Uh huh.
    You: Nuh unh.
    Oh LOL@Rhetoric. Everyone, including you is using it right now.

    Damnit Yes, because that is definitely what I have been doing in every other post in this thread and it’s about time that…wait, what? I haven’t done this at all at any point in this discussion…what else are you planning on just pulling out of your ass here?

    Out before "I am a Psychologist, this was all a test" post.

    Well, that answers that.

    I have specifically not engaged in any discussion of my profession, with the sole exceptions of mentioning my experiences as a direct crisis services clinician (which came up on the DC Naval Yard discussion thread, so I had it on my mind), and Goodlun’s whole IT tangent where I self-disclosed as part of an example. Other than that I have generally left it off the table as irrelevant.

    So, a couple more Straw Men, and an example of you flat out misreading something I wrote as a bonus;
    Me: “You don't like to be challenged, so flame away”
    You: like you "I don't like to be challenged."

    I don’t mind being challenged at all…never said I did. See the error? I actually LOVE a good debate!

    Unfortunately, what we have here is a far cry from a good debate, at least from your end. I have to give Goodlun credit..he is sincerely trying to present his viewpoint in a rational framework. gotta respect that. Your input, IIF? Weak as hell.

    Not a single example of you actually organizing an argument…presenting a thesis you are going to argue, providing evidence to support the claim, an explanation of why the evidence supports the claim, and so forth (Purdue OWL). You have four posts in this thread in response to my engagement with it, and your net contribution to the debate? Not a damn thing of any real substance.

    You know what? I went long anyways...plenty of content if you're interested, and a reminder that "No BS" applies to everyone on this board...

    Okay It Is Fake, lets have a chat…
    Here is all that you typed in your first post directed at me:

    Post 173 - You know what makes this entire argument sad? You expect him to take you seriously, when you responded to his point with a sarcastic tirade.

    You want respectful replies? Then post in a respectful manner.
    Yeah SARCASM. You set the tone, don't complain now.


    Okay, so you weigh in with an opinion that I was sarcastic and disrespectful, oh so sarcastic, and having set the tone I shouldn’t complain about it.

    Or did you?

    In my reply to you, my first statement was that I hadn’t complained about the tone of the dialogue in the post you were referring to.

    Your response?

    Post 180 - Read my post again and ask yourself where I said you complained about tone.

    Okayyy. I suppose you could make the claim that you don’t directly state that what I am complaining about is tone. Sure, every statement you make is about tone, the introductory phrase to the sentence refers to my setting the tone, and then the command to not complain about…the price of coffee? My cholesterol level? Wow, that is certainly a nuanced and sophisticated approach to OH STFU! Either be an honest participant in the discussion or bow the **** out man.

    By the by, the “SARCASM” that you identify as being so disrespectful is a technique called REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM - disproof of a proposition by showing an absurdity to which it leads when carried to its logical conclusion (Merriam-Webster). You, of all people on this board, should not have needed me to spell this out, but even though I explain what I did in layman’s terms in post 175 (go ahead, take a look…I’ll wait), you don’t get it. (“It's not the most respectful rhetorical technique, but it does serve a purpose other than just being obnoxious.”). Kind of interesting as you yourself reference it in post 124, more or less. Later, in post 191, you return to your misunderstanding of what I was doing by referencing my “harping on snarkiness”. One line in one long post (166) mentions Goodlun’s more respectful and COHERENT responses to PL, which was really the main issue…the respectful piece could be completely left out and the point still stands. Jeez, if only I had encouraged people to concentrate on the actual point of discussion rather than trivial…

    Post 143 - (I'm sure folks could argue with some of the generalizations, but honestly, why bother? I can spend a little more time coming up with better examples to make the same point, which will stand up under crossfire. If you can't refute the point don't waste time arguing about some minor detail or hyperbolic language).

    Huh, looks like I did…anyways, from there you state:

    I am laughing at you talking about emotional responses, have you looked at your own posts? I know I await the dissertation about "that's not emotional." (Straw man)
    Yes, this is EXACTLY what I just said. THAT'S YOU setting the tone for goodlun's response. (Tone again, how about that?)
    Seriously? You thought I'd appreciate a poorly worded argument full of logical fallacies? ME? Of all the people on this website? Me? Really?
    Are you trolling?

    Tell you what, I'll leave the psychobabble to you, you leave the semantic word games to me?

    Well, I do declare Ms. IIF, how could I presume to be in the regard of such an august personage? You practically have the vapors! (Yep, sarcasm, but you’ve earned every bit).

    So, a statement of opinion (my post is poorly worded and full of logical fallacies) with no supporting elements. Outstanding! Pretty much meaningless, but rock on you crazy diamond! Lets continue…

    Post 185 – I respectfully address each and every point you have raised (complaining about tone (see above), emotionality in posting, wording of my posts, logical fallacies, psychobabble, semantic word games). Go ahead and glance over it…I’ll wait. Guess I ‘understood’ your posts.

    You later indicate that you were making a funny with the ‘Psychobabble’ and ‘Semantic Word Game’ statement. How nice! A friendly exchange with jokes, how unexpected! Of course, if I am to ‘leave the semantic word games’ to you, I must have been indulging in them, so that part of my response still applies…

    You’re response…

    Post 188 - Wrong. I explained the context. I even gave you a reason why it headed this direction. Again, you misunderstood the post. (in relation to whether you stated I was complaining about tone)

    ????

    I’m sorry, what did I misunderstand that is explained by your explanation of context and direction of the dialogue? How does any of that relate to the ‘complaining about tone’ issue? I’m looking at what you wrote, its all listed above…nope, nothing there. I clearly understand that you thought I was sarcastic and disrespectful, which has nothing to do with whether you did or didn’t say I was complaining about tone. This is total bullshit, a Non Sequitor where you have the appearance of logical structure but your own premises either don’t hold up or simply don’t exist.

    Now you state I have written a dissertation full of semantic word games. (Statement of personal opinion with no supporting elements – referring to post – 185. No word games, clearly stated, and whatever the **** you think a dissertation is? You keep mentioning it, not me.)

    I hope you understand that you just argued "structured argument" vs professional then later typed:
    You don't like to be challenged, so flame away. I would be interested in hearing the logical fallacies though.

    Yeah, no. I stated that I’m not a professional writer (true story!), but I can write a coherent argument. No ‘vs.’, no false dichotomy, no argument that involves the term “professional” at all…its purely present as an informal conversational element. My argument is that my post is adequately worded because it communicates its content clearly, which I then referred to and supported. You can take the whole “professional” term out of the statement and it changes nothing. Hint: this is how you know it’s not actually a part of the argument.

    Seriously, get out of my boat because the dissertation fits your comment. Also, I commented on a poorly worded argument, you introduced "professional" that's a logical fallacy. Do you know why?

    Okay, WTF is it with you and the term “dissertation”? Who wrote one that fits which comment of mine? WTF are you talking about, because what you have actually posted has **** all to do with “dissertations” fitting my “comment”? Also, you didn’t comment on a poorly worded argument…that implies that you actually gave input or feedback on it. You simply stated a label with no supporting elements.

    Second, Logical Fallacies. According to the Purdue OWL, these are common errors in reasoning that will undermine the logic of your argument. Other sources are generally in agreement. Is my use of the word “professional” a logical fallacy, like some type of false equivalency with “poor wording” or something? Nope, not even close. Reason being, as stated above, the use of the term “professional’ has no bearing on any aspect of my argument…doesn’t relate to it in the slightest. I’m not attempting to make any point of any significance with it, so it has not impact on the validity or “soundness” of any argument I’m making. By definition, then, not a logical fallacy. I tell you this, generally speaking, in post 190. This should take care of things for an experienced debater such as yourself…

    Post 191 - Okay, you do not understand what constitutes a logical fallacy cool.

    Or not. I understand it just fine. Surprisingly, you do not. WTF is up with that? I mean, isn’t this kind of your wheelhouse around here? Quite frankly, your contribution to this discussion has been pretty much crap to this point, despite your apparent sense that you have generated some really AWESOME content! I mean, from here on out you keep referencing how I have been too stupid to understand the wisdom you have laid down. You haven’t made any kind of complex point yet…you really haven’t made any real points at all in the accepted sense What the **** do you think you have said that is so profound that any literate individual would have difficulty with the meaning? Simple statements of personal opinion with no support? Basically, from a debate standpoint, this is kindergarten level.

    Yep, now I am 100% sure you didn't understand my post. (In reference to there being no semantic word games or, again, “dissertation”)

    And what would I have misunderstood? Let’s take a look at your only comments relating to these terms…a basic statement labeling a portion of my post as A dissertation full of semantic word games, as well as the suggestion that I should leave such word games to you, with no other comment or support. Well, that is a pretty weak and meaningless contribution, but it is open to a variety of interpretations by a truly evolved and sophisticated OH STFU! You didn’t say a damn thing that takes any effort to be understood! Jesus Christ man, you’re supposed to be good at this!

    Nope. I said it was worded poorly, I have said nothing about whether I agree or disagree with what you are attempting to address.

    True enough, you’ve added nothing to the point actually being discussed.

    Nope, you do not understand the post. I explained it you do not get it. (again about the “complaining about tone” issue)

    Right, you haven’t “explained” **** about this point, as clearly evident above. Total bullshit.

    Yep, this went over your head. For someone who keeps harping on snarkiness, you sure do miss it when it is directed at you. Basically, I insulted your profession and mine. Like I said, you do not get my post. (re: psychobabble etc.)

    Well, can you blame me? What with such a complex and involved OH STFU! You make a series of totally unsupported claims…why not add in that I’m “psychobabbling”? It makes as much sense as anything else you have said. You intended it as a joke, great, but to say it ‘went over my head’? If anything I have been giving you way too much credit as a debater. There is absolutely nothing you have said in this thread that has come even close to my threshold of comprehension/understanding. Not because I’m some kind of genius but because, based on your contributions to this thread, you SUCK at this! Seriously man, WTF? I KNOW you can do better than this!

    Oh I can, quite easily, but like you "I don't like to be challenged." (In response to a request for some examples of all these unsupported labels being tossed around). So, it will be:
    IiF: Example
    YOU: Nuh unh.
    Iif: Uh huh.
    You: Nuh unh.
    Oh LOL@Rhetoric. Everyone, including you is using it right now.

    Damnit Yes, because that is definitely what I have been doing in every other post in this thread and it’s about time that…wait, what? I haven’t done this at all at any point in this discussion…what else are you planning on just pulling out of your ass here?

    Out before "I am a Psychologist, this was all a test" post.

    Well, that answers that.

    I have specifically not engaged in any discussion of my profession, with the sole exceptions of mentioning my experiences as a direct crisis services clinician (which came up on the DC Naval Yard discussion thread, so I had it on my mind), and Goodlun’s whole IT tangent where I self-disclosed as part of an example. Other than that I have generally left it off the table as irrelevant.

    So, a couple more Straw Men, and an example of you flat out misreading something I wrote as a bonus;
    Me: “You don't like to be challenged, so flame away”
    You: like you "I don't like to be challenged."

    I don’t mind being challenged at all…never said I did. See the error? I actually LOVE a good debate!

    Unfortunately, what we have here is a far cry from a good debate, at least from your end. I have to give Goodlun credit..he is sincerely trying to present his viewpoint in a rational framework. gotta respect that. Your input, IIF? Weak as hell.

    Not a single example of you actually organizing an argument…presenting a thesis you are going to argue, providing evidence to support the claim, an explanation of why the evidence supports the claim, and so forth (Purdue OWL). You have four posts in this thread in response to my engagement with it, and your net contribution to the debate? Not a damn thing of any real substance.
  2. goodlun is online now
    goodlun's Avatar

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Ramona
    Posts
    4,898

    Posted On:
    9/20/2013 12:22am

    Join us... or die
     Style: BJJ

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    You know the use of the quote /quote tags would go a long way towards that being legible. If you want to quote across multiple post there is a multi-quote button its the one with the "+ also you may want to edit it as it looks like it double posted which makes it look even longer.
  3. It is Fake is offline
    It is Fake's Avatar

    Administrator

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    33,785

    Posted On:
    9/20/2013 12:26am

    staff
     Style: xingyi

    2
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    You spent all that time, crafting two long ass posts, to still get it wrong?
    Two things:
    1) Learn how to use the quote function.
    2) Arguing your own straw man arguments doesn't mean you have a "structured argument."


    The fact you had to visit Purdue owl's tutorial is all I needed to read. Yep, I have posts attacking your bullshit, don't like it? Stop being a pretentious, condescending, diploma spewing, git and argue goodlun's point not your own.
  4. PDA is offline
    PDA's Avatar

    Welterweight

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    London
    Posts
    865

    Posted On:
    9/20/2013 1:05am

    supporting member
     Style: MMA

    3
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Wow that is a serious wall of text .
    I have no idea what you are arguing about but I'm sure it is absolutely worth spending that much time on.
    One or two more posts like that and you will undoubtably bring everybody round to your way of thinking.
    King without a crown
  5. goodlun is online now
    goodlun's Avatar

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Ramona
    Posts
    4,898

    Posted On:
    9/20/2013 1:38am

    Join us... or die
     Style: BJJ

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by PDA View Post
    I have no idea what you are arguing about but I'm sure it is absolutely worth spending that much time on.
    Well if it makes you feel better, after reading some of his smug yet incoherent ranting/rambling I am not entirely sure he knows what he is arguing about either.
  6. Keslet is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    The Badlands of Ohio
    Posts
    310

    Posted On:
    9/20/2013 5:50am


     Style: Wrestle, Kickbox, Aikido

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by PDA View Post
    Wow that is a serious wall of text .
    I have no idea what you are arguing about but I'm sure it is absolutely worth spending that much time on.
    One or two more posts like that and you will undoubtably bring everybody round to your way of thinking.

    Oh, I have no illusions, but this was never intended to persuade the average reader of what's being discussed at this point in the thread. This was all for IIF. When arguing with a pedant, you gotta get pedantic.

    No worries, though...1 or 2 more posts like that make Homer go crazy...that was a one shot.
  7. Keslet is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    The Badlands of Ohio
    Posts
    310

    Posted On:
    9/20/2013 5:55am


     Style: Wrestle, Kickbox, Aikido

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by goodlun View Post
    You know the use of the quote /quote tags would go a long way towards that being legible. If you want to quote across multiple post there is a multi-quote button its the one with the "+ also you may want to edit it as it looks like it double posted which makes it look even longer.
    I wrote it in Word so it wouldn't get accidentally erased again. I did try to include a number of breaks within the text, though...
  8. Keslet is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    The Badlands of Ohio
    Posts
    310

    Posted On:
    9/20/2013 6:02am


     Style: Wrestle, Kickbox, Aikido

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by goodlun View Post
    You know the use of the quote /quote tags would go a long way towards that being legible. If you want to quote across multiple post there is a multi-quote button its the one with the "+ also you may want to edit it as it looks like it double posted which makes it look even longer.
    You are definitely correct that it doubled my post up though...not giving me the option to edit it that I can see, though...ill try it from my laptop and see if it lets me. Thanks
  9. Keslet is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    The Badlands of Ohio
    Posts
    310

    Posted On:
    9/20/2013 6:13am


     Style: Wrestle, Kickbox, Aikido

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by goodlun View Post
    You know the use of the quote /quote tags would go a long way towards that being legible. If you want to quote across multiple post there is a multi-quote button its the one with the "+ also you may want to edit it as it looks like it double posted which makes it look even longer.
    Yeah, option to edit is gone...if a mod could allow me to remove the repeated post that would be great...
  10. Keslet is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    The Badlands of Ohio
    Posts
    310

    Posted On:
    9/20/2013 6:38am


     Style: Wrestle, Kickbox, Aikido

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by It is Fake View Post
    You spent all that time, crafting two long ass posts, to still get it wrong?
    Two things:
    1) Learn how to use the quote function.
    2) Arguing your own straw man arguments doesn't mean you have a "structured argument."


    The fact you had to visit Purdue owl's tutorial is all I needed to read. Yep, I have posts attacking your bullshit, don't like it? Stop being a pretentious, condescending, diploma spewing, git and argue goodlun's point not your own.

    1) Wrote it in a word processor, not online within the forum reply box...had to cut and paste. Had it formatted to make it more clear which statements were yours, but it didn't transfer when I brought it over as a post. Did helpfully double up what I had written for some reason, though, so there's that...

    2) Yes, arguing my own Straw Man doesn't make an argument "structured"...good thing I never said that...If only I had stated what would make a structured argument...

    "... organizing an argument…presenting a thesis you are going to argue, providing evidence to support the claim, an explanation of why the evidence supports the claim, and so forth (Purdue OWL)."

    I see you are unfamiliar with the concept of providing a reference...its handy when you don't expect to be considered an authoritative source on your own. I didn't need to go to Purdue OWL for that information.

    I have no problem with you "attacking my bullshit"...I have a problem with you actually being a source of bullshit. That's also pretty clearly stated in the post.

    My academic credentials - I mentioned them in one context when making a point about the length of time needed to prepare for certain professions. Haven't appealed to its authority in any other way. You are the only one talking about "dissertations" and what not.

    So, yes, clearly I got it all wrong because you made strong well supported points, which I did in fact fail to understand, so you could validly refer back to your earlier posts as having "explained" everything...except that none of that is true, which is also clearly spelled out in the post.

    This post wasn't about the discussion with Goodlun...it was all in reference to your "contributions", as they are.


    For a a self-described Pedant you sure are missing a lot of details.
Page 19 of 26 FirstFirst ... 91516171819 20212223 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Powered by vBulletin™© contact@vbulletin.com vBulletin Solutions, Inc. 2011 All rights reserved.