More EU Madness!

It was a compliment. I liked how you admitted "myself included."
We all do it. We love to do it!
We should have an "only flames" thread (let people blow off some steam)!

Here's a direct response - every side accuses the other side of doing the exact same things.

cool, so you were wrong, glad we agree

__________________
letterboxd

This “stalking” of your vivid imagination took all of perhaps one minute. One doesn’t have to be a Sherlock Holmes cyber sleuth to retrace my steps. After leading me to believe that you are Australian (or at least not correcting me when I referred to yourself as such), I began to wonder about the validity of that assumption. The information came from that which you yourself made publicly available elsewhere on the internet, if not on this forum. What I referred to was innocuous. So you are native to one country and live (or perhaps now did) live In another, both totally respectable venues, one might add.

You want me to say something nice about you notwithstanding your constant nightclub heckling type responses? Okay. I greatly admire your apparent facility with languages. Voltaire said that the mark of the truly educated man is to speak at least two languages. Like the vast majority of my compatriots, I have failed in that beyond a smattering of German (a vestige of my childhood days when I was more adept in the ancestral tongue) and Latin (from my Catholic school education). You apparently are fluent in more than two, so salute!

That's internet stalking. Just shaking my head. Trying to track a stranger down on the net is STALKING, and your claims I was born and now live elsewhere are simply quite ludicrous. They're also irrelevant. I;m pretty sure the forum owner knows where I live, not that it has anything to do with you. So where was I born and where do I claim to live according to the World According to Don? Do I need Yoda to PM me to let me know? I need a passport so I can go and visit Christine for some nefarious fun.

Don't try to Captain Kirk me!

"If I agree I am wrong, then the fact that I am wrong is wrong because I am wrong... which means I cannot be wrong if the assertion that I am wrong is wrong, which mean I am right, but how can I be right if I am wrong... error... error... bzzzt!"

I just linked to it above. Here it is again.

It is, of course, one of at least half a dozen rebuttals that were subsequently ignored. It's just particularly egregious when the exact same argument is repeated later, as if nothing had happened.

Looking at information that you put up about yourself in a public manner is not stalking, notwithstanding your apparently twisted definition of such. If you don't want such known for whatever reason, then don't make such publicly available.

Huh? I literally linked you to it in my reply and summarized it in the same post. What clarification do you need, exactly? And if you actually wanted it, wouldn't you just say which part required clarification upfront?

Unless, of course, this is all just a deflection, or a stall tactic. At which point I'll have to reply a couple more times, which you'll then turn around and point to as proof that I actually like this, even though the replies are primarily just a reflection of the level of evasiveness on display.

What information did I put up? And your claim I lied to mislead you about my nationality is hilarious. I have no interest in where you think I live, but claiming I mislead you is down right disturbing. For what purpose? I'm not obligated to give some stranger on the net my address. What the hell makes you think I am?

OK so I was born in Tibet and now live in Zanzibar. Happy now? This is the net, Don. Anyone can tell you anything. Dear god. What are you imbibing?

Very creepy vibe.

Your "address"? Like mine: America?

“Creepy vive”? I’ve beginning to understand what you mean.

I think I need what you're imbibing to understand what you mean. Where did I claim I was born in and now live back in USA?

Look, I think you'd better put down whatever it is in your coffee and stop your fiction. It;s very disturbing. Believing a stranger on the need is obligated to you is just mindblowing. Do you do this to women you dont know frequently?

This is my last post to you of any kind. Anyone reading here will be well advised to follow suit. That's their decision, of course.

Are you trying to 'persuade' again? Hasn't worked so far.

As I said elsewhere, I rarely respond to a poster unless he or she is replying to me (except perhaps to express agreement, usually with a simple “Hear! Hear!") . No one is obligated to do so. I would, therefore and respectfully, suggest you address such sentiments to others as opposed to me. I cannot and do not command what others are interested in discussing.

You have also frequently mentioned my “contradictions.” Can you please be more specific as with exhibiting examples?

Thank you.

Don I know you're capable of civil discussion, you were quite civil in your Global Warming thread. But here, you've done nothing but be disruptive with switch & bait, evading and debasing entire groups, continents and countries. You've used this thread to troll by deliberately insulting for a reaction, a large segment of the board.

It's clear you could be civil if you chose to be, so it's equally clear that your are deliberately choosing to be disruptive.

First: this is obviously false. The number of responses a topic gets is reflective of how it's phrased, how accurate it is, how often someone repeats it, and many other things which you have control over. "I didn't love Casablanca" will get a different response than "Casablanca is an awful movie and people who like it have the same mindset as the PC liberals destroying civilization." Similarly, I can get lots of responses if I say something ridiculous, or offensive, or obviously incorrect. It does not follow that saying ridiculous/offensive/incorrect things is good, or that people who feel obligated to condemn them actually like them.

Second: I have no idea why you think "I rarely respond to a poster unless he or she is replying to me" has anything to do with what I said. You suggested people replying meant they must like these discussions, I pointed out why that doesn't follow, and now you've just reiterated the opinion by saying, again, that other people are replying to it.

If someone thinks that what I say is “obviously incorrect,” then they rebut. If I am not persuaded, then I post a rejoinder. That is the normal course of debate. I think the problem here is that neither of us can understand what the other is saying, not unlike the oft debated topic of the nature of consciousness in philosophy; neither side can even comprehend what the other is talking about. I honest to God don’t comprehend your point. Someone replies to me, I respond. If someone does not respond, then I remain silent regarding that poster. You construe that as saying the same thing over and over again?

I am truly sorry, but I think we are at an impasse here. In deference to your proprietary rights (which, as a confirmed capitalist, I truly respect), I shall shortly leave this thread and perhaps take at least a hiatus from your esteemed forum. Thank you for your forbearance heretofore. It is most appreciated. I wish you well.

HAHAHAHAHA sport is also not legendarily popular with women.

Wtf.

I did indeed appreciate your insightful input regarding my question about global warming. It was and is appreciated. I cannot, however, agree with your characterization of my posts. As I told Chris, I wish you well.