QatzelOk wrote:It sounds like very little useful content has made it into your rants on the last few pages.
Emotional issues can often make useful discussion impossible. Calling people silly names isn't **a game** most posters who post on this board are interested in. Even those that can easily win them realize how useless the content of those types of discussions are.
Have you thought of posting on Gorkiy once in a while, just to take a step back from the text? Or reading your posts to your grandmother or young daughter before posting them - just to get their neutral feedback?
I have friends and family - even people that disagree with me read my posts. In this case, several people I know have offered me their views. Here's the deal:
IF, instead of criticizing me, you actually READ the posts you would realize that when I first came here I tried a logical approach by starting out with two primary sources. Out of the chute, my critics began calling me names, harassing me, trying to guess what organization / religion I was and baiting / trolling me. There was
never any serious attempt to have any logical discourse, so excuse me - the back and forth pissing match is
NOT of my doing. The ONLY effort any critic put into the discussion was the communist that Googles everything to find someone that disagrees. Upon finding that, he proclaims that he refuted my position and you can go home because that POS is God's gift to intellectual discourse. Screw that.
On the points I've already proven, there is no need to keep arguing. Once the people you are defending drew first blood and started the name calling, badgering, etc. they
LOST any pretend debate. I'm not going to validate their loss by continuing to argue the fact that all that was ever presented was a feeble attempt to Google someone that disagreed with my primary sources without the critic having actually
READ the primary sources offered. Looking over the primary source material I provide in a thread can be done in less time than what we accomplish by having this never ending pissing match.
This has generated into a shouting match with those who lost trying to reestablish their positions via mob rule. I welcome it because I've already changed the mind of someone from another board who read this and had to admit that my critics drew first blood and lost any argument by way of the name calling and, particularly, what he characterized as straw man arguments they made against me. He admitted that if they had any substantive counter issue, they would not have resorted to straw man arguments while refusing to address the issues I put on the table. If you want to take sides, I'll tell you what I told the critics. Maybe you need to read the freaking thread and avail yourself to my sources instead of just running off and checking Google to see if you can find someone that disagrees.