mrdannyg, on Thursday, April 5th, 2012, 6:43 AM, said:
I have been extremely surprised impressed with the reasonability and overall quality of argument coming from Spadey and BG in regards to their own military. Just wanted to throw out that compliment, since I still feel like I'm in the twilight zone hearing either of them talk about anything reasonably, nevermind something as sensitive and controversial as military.
You are staggeringly stupid.
Mercury69, on Thursday, April 5th, 2012, 6:53 AM, said:
I tend to agree, even though I got called a moron, which is nothing new on this site. I would say, though, that some of their posts, especially Spademan's, are delivered without benefit of elucidation, the onus being on the reader to pick up how their logic and how they are framing their info is working. I don't think anyone is likely to call Spademan a moron, but he needs to temper his factual layout with the knowledge that some people just don't know what he knows about this particular subject and that he doesn't need to be such an arrogant ******* about it. Just stick to the facts and don't be such a ****. I don't think that's too much to ask.The funny thing is that I can totally see Spademan working himself up into a furious lather of frustration at how stupid he perceives people to be, kind of like a gorilla/Stooge fusion.
1. Read for comprehension. You didn't "get called a moron". I made an if --> then statement. And since you imply you understood the point, the "then" would not apply. Since you couldn't parse that very basic logic out yourself I'm going to go ahead and call you a moron.2. I'm quite aware "some people don't know what I know about" any given subject. The onus isn't on me to educate every single human being on everything they may or may not be ignorant of. That's absurd. Look at it this way instead; if a person doesn't have much relevant knowledge on a subject, they shouldn't be making factual claims
about said subject. The first onus is on the person making declarative statements, and that onus is to know what the fuc
k he or she is talking about. 3. Your tone trolling
is tedious, blatant, and utterly useless. The tone
of an argument is irrelevant
. Grow the fuc
k up. 4. I don't "perceive" people to be stupid. Many people are
stupid, and many, many more are blisteringly ignorant. Many of them willfully. Regards number 3:
mrdannyg, on Thursday, April 5th, 2012, 7:55 AM, said:
Well, there's no question that Spademan either is a moron, or is a non-moron who purposely plays the role of loud trolling moron on the internet. He has epic trolling skills, but that hardly takes a genius.
Notice I take no issue with the tone
of this blabbering jester. I don't ask him to be nice. I only deal with the meat of his argument. Since he makes no actual argument but, rather, just strings words together without any logical coherence, without premises that lead to conclusions, without any example or description, he is simply ignored or dismissed with quick ridicule.
vbnautilus, on Thursday, April 5th, 2012, 10:26 AM, said:
Mercury69, on Thursday, April 5th, 2012, 10:36 AM, said:
Yeah, Spademan apepars to be one smart ************. On a par with Big Brain Brett from Pulp Fiction. At least. He has a horrible tendency to lash out, though. I suggest counselling and less steroid intake.
This type of hypocrisy is very
common in tone troll types. They say to be nice, they say to show courtesy and try to educate the public on what "civilized discussion" should be - then they start hurling unimaginative, spurious, stupid insults (this is often rationalized with a vapid "when in Rome", "good for the goose, good for the gander", or "I'm just proving how bad it is" apologetic). It makes me wonder how often tone trolls are actually offended by the "mean" and "insulting" and "condescending" tone of their antagonists verses how often they are simply jealous of how much better at it their antagonists are
. Less offense than embarrassment
'"Luck" is people taking the laws of probability personally; Luck is the excitement of bad math.'