Addressing my past criticisms of President Bush...

→ in
Tools    
Page 7 of 7
« First67




Yoda's Avatar
Profile
Posts
Message
Administrator
12-12-03
Originally Posted by Django
Incidentally, you mentioned a previous forum that I had participated in... well, the only reason that things got out of hand in that forum was owing to 9/11, and the sudden influx of extremely bigoted and violent voices into that forum. It turned into a race war, ultimately, and had to be shut down because people were stalking others and issuing death threats and the like. As it happens, I was one of the few voices of reason on that forum.
How do you always manage to miss the point of things? Is it deliberate?

Yes, we've all heard your version of the events which took place on the previous forum you inhabitated. Events which none of us can verify, leaving us to either believe or disbelieve your characterization of them based on our personal experiences with you.

I believe Golgot's point, then, is that while you continue to insist that you are acting reasonably within this thread,no one else who is participating agrees. And if you can misrepresent your conduct to us in this discussion (and over the length of your membership here, as well), it calls into question your interpretation of the controversy on the last board you frequented.



Django's Avatar
BANNED
12-12-03
Originally Posted by Yoda
In other words, you detail whatever gripes you have, and whenever you feel like it, you can arbitrarily classify one of them as an "aside," and commence complaining about anyone who insists on addressing it. That's ridiculous.
Not so. The fact of the matter is that 90% of the time (at least so it seems to me), when I broach a subject, the thread I created gets cluttered with long-winded comments on peripheral subjects, such as subjects only mentioned in passing or the character or past habits of posters, etc., while the actual subject at hand goes largely ignored--kind of what's happening in here right now.

Originally Posted by Yoda
Moreover, it's not as if you mentioned it casually. You mentioned it in your original post, and I ignored it, choosing instead to address sunfrog. You then essentially stuck yourself in the middle of our discussion, answering my post directed towards him. You took the original initiative in discussing the economy. But even if you hadn't, you are in no position to dictate an inflexible list of what is and is not to be discussed. Debate is a two-way street. All my experience with you tells me that you just don't "get" that.
Well, in my first post, I did very clearly mention that I did not start this thread to discuss the economy. Rather, I started it to discuss the other issues I raised. My point is that there are other threads that discuss the economy--if you want to discuss the economy, post in those threads. I started this thread to discuss the other issues I raised. That's the reason we have threads in the forum, right?

Originally Posted by Yoda
More importantly, though, is that I've not skimped in addressing the "thrust" of your argument; I've merely addressed the economic issues as well. And, despite your claims, I've kept things fairly succint given the subject matter. I am not going to expend further energy trimming and editing my arguments to accomodate your personal lack of free time (which, ironically, there seems to be enough of to argue personal matters like these for a dozen posts or so).
Well, you give me little choice in the matter, do you? If I ignore the posts, you come down on me for evasion. If I reply to them, you claim that my claims are paradoxical. In any case, I think we could all benefit from greater clarity and brevity in our posts. Like I said, I really don't have the time to wade through irrelevant crap. That said, from this point on, I am going to ignore any post made that deals with a peripheral or non issue. (Except when I have to answer to a personal attack).

Originally Posted by Yoda
Personally, I prefer this one, taken from Yahoo! News, which includes something that yours conveniently omits:
That statement from Bush rings hollow, in my opinion--just a media eyewash after the fact, it seems to me.

Originally Posted by Yoda
This, of course, did not stop virtually every major Democratic candidate from labeling this as some form of corrupt war-profiteering.
You have to admit that it all looks very suspicious...very fishy. You can hardly blame the Democrats, whatever Halliburton might say in their own defense.

Originally Posted by Yoda
Book of Django, Section 4, Law 3: anything which I do not want to discuss at any particular moment is to be classified as "irrelevant," regardless of whether or not I am the one who brought it up.
Hilarious, Yoda. Fact is that while I may have referred to the economy, I clearly stated, on numerous occasions, that this thread was not intended to discuss the economy.

Originally Posted by Yoda
If this is true, then you haven't been around much. I've got more online community experience than I know what to do with; I've served in virtually every position imaginable, from newbie to owner and in every level in-between, and I can say, without a doubt, that in the overwhelming majority of public forums out there, slinging accusations of racism and claims of neo-Nazism at the staff would almost always be cause for some kind of formal reprimand. Without-a-freaking-doubt.
Well, what I said was that Caitlyn's political leanings come across as extreme radical right-wing, bordering on neo-Nazism. There is a subtle difference, that it seems convenient for you to ignore. I hardly think that a statement such as this qualifies as an insult, especially in the context of the insulting and belittling remarks and other treatment that I have time and again had to put up with from the two of you. In that context, my remark, while being extreme (I admit) is totally justified, I think. Why should I apologize when I protest to biased and officious treatment from the staff? I think the staff should be the ones to apologize. I stand by my statement, while acknowledging that it was far more extreme than I intended, and, perhaps, more offensive than it should have been.



Yoda's Avatar
Profile
Posts
Message
Administrator
12-12-03
Originally Posted by Django
Not so. The fact of the matter is that 90% of the time (at least so it seems to me), when I broach a subject, the thread I created gets cluttered with long-winded comments on peripheral subjects, such as subjects only mentioned in passing or the character or past habits of posters, etc., while the actual subject at hand goes largely ignored--kind of what's happening in here right now.
The clutter you speak of is nothing more than the inevitable side-topics with which every political thread must contend with.

Regardless, I've been carrying on with you over the "actual subject at hand" for several posts now, so even if you regard part of our discussion as "clutter," I don't see any basis for stating that your pet issues are going "largely ignored," which is really the only thing that would validate your complaints.


Originally Posted by Django
Well, in my first post, I did very clearly mention that I did not start this thread to discuss the economy. Rather, I started it to discuss the other issues I raised. My point is that there are other threads that discuss the economy--if you want to discuss the economy, post in those threads. I started this thread to discuss the other issues I raised. That's the reason we have threads in the forum, right?
Sure. But a) thread topics are not sacred, b) this topic is fairly related to the ones you demand we focus on, and c) you're the one who started the blasted conversation in the first place.


Originally Posted by Django
Well, you give me little choice in the matter, do you? If I ignore the posts, you come down on me for evasion. If I reply to them, you claim that my claims are paradoxical.
Uh, you're forgetting the third (most obvious) choice: reply to them, but don't make paradoxical or unsupported claims.


Originally Posted by Django
That statement from Bush rings hollow, in my opinion--just a media eyewash after the fact, it seems to me.
My mistake; I meant to link to this one, which contains the text I quoted.


Originally Posted by Django
You have to admit that it all looks very suspicious...very fishy. You can hardly blame the Democrats, whatever Halliburton might say in their own defense.
I most definitely can blame them. Their statements are extreme and unsupported. I might not blame them if they'd expressed some suspicion, but they went far, far beyond that, without any real basis, as far as I can tell.


Originally Posted by Django
Hilarious, Yoda. Fact is that while I may have referred to the economy, I clearly stated, on numerous occasions, that this thread was not intended to discuss the economy.
As I stated before, you did more than refer to it; you interjected yourself into a discussion I was engaging sunfrog in. Now you're apparently shocked and upset that it led to an actual discussion on the matter. What the hell did you expect?


Originally Posted by Django
Well, what I said was that Caitlyn's political leanings come across as extreme radical right-wing, bordering on neo-Nazism. There is a subtle difference, that it seems convenient for you to ignore.
The difference is subtle to the point of being borderline non-existent. This is another escape-hatch: tell someone they SEEM like something, and you can later deny having actually called them it. It's sneaky, but ultimately transparent. Regardless, my point is not contingent on you actually, literally, technically calling her a neo-Nazi.


Originally Posted by Django
I hardly think that a statement such as this qualifies as an insult, especially in the context of the insulting and belittling remarks and other treatment that I have time and again had to put up with from the two of you. In that context, my remark, while being extreme (I admit) is totally justified, I think. Why should I apologize when I protest to biased and officious treatment from the staff? I think the staff should be the ones to apologize. I stand by my statement, while acknowledging that it was far more extreme than I intended, and, perhaps, more offensive than it should have been.
You should not necessarily have to apologize for merely protesting what you believe to be biased treatment. I don't believe anyone's ever said otherwise. Your methods, however, often warrant an apology. In this case, you acknowledge as much in apologizing to Caitlyn earlier.

That said, I think that statement definitely qualified as an insult. Its offense is not lessened merely because you consider yourself to have been insulted beforehand.



Django's Avatar
BANNED
12-12-03
Okay: like I said above, from this point on, I am totally going to IGNORE any statements that are unrelated to the topic of this thread:

Originally Posted by Yoda
This has already been addressed: YOU mentioned the economy. Then, when I didn't respond, YOU mentioned it again, replying to a post about economics that wasn't even directed at you.
IGNORED

Originally Posted by Yoda
This is all irrelevant, though, because I've been addressing your criticisms, as well as leveling a few of my own. The idea that any additional topics of conversation constitute some sort of suspicious distraction is absurd.
IGNORED

Originally Posted by Yoda
This entire paragraph is rhetoric. It does nothing to refute the very clear, verifiable timeline I detailed with the links I provided.
IGNORED

Originally Posted by Yoda
Also, when, pray tell, did you apologize?
IGNORED

Originally Posted by Yoda
Sure: inventories dropped by $14.1 billion over the third quarter. This single fact essentially kills the idea that the rebound came about on account of restocking.
IGNORED (The economy is not the main topic of discussion)

Originally Posted by Yoda
The "climate of fear and uncertainty" was in place before Y2K, but I don't recall anyone being fearful or uncertain afterwards.
(Should be IGNORED, but I will reply to this one...) The climate of fear and uncertainty that preceded Y2K led to the overstocking of inventories prior to Y2K, in anticipation of major failures and disruptions following Y2K. When this didn't happen, the overstocked inventories remained, leading to cutbacks in production and job layoffs.

Originally Posted by Yoda
And, again, what kind of inventories are we talking about? Personal or business, for one? And regardless, what incredible products were being stockpiled on which the entire economy supposedly hinged on?
IGNORED

Originally Posted by Yoda
Again, you're misusing the term "production" in this context. Regardless, no, I don't believe we are talking about that. We're talking about the resurgent economy, and who (or what) deserves the credit for it. And I'm saying that, Bush or not, it cannot be attributed primarily to restocked inventories, as we know for a fact that things like Fixed Residential Investment led the way.
IGNORED


Originally Posted by Yoda
Any luck?
Don't worry... I haven't forgotten.

Originally Posted by Yoda
Inflation refers to an increase in the number of dollars in circulation, not to a larger number of goods being produced.

Anyway, I think you'd do well to learn what these terms all mean before you go launching into opinionated diatribes using them.
IGNORED

Originally Posted by Yoda
It doesn't particularly matter what your intention was. You cannot duck out of a discussion on the grounds that it is not turning out to be precisely what you had expected. Anyone with an ounce of sense knows that when you enter a discussion (especially on such a generally potent topic), it is quite likely to become more in-depth, and has the potential to expand. Whether or not you figured it likely to continue is meaningless.

Also, I took the liberty of taking my post, dividing it up into two files, and doing a word count on each. 43% of the words in the post you are referring to is dedicated to addressing your so-called primary complaints about the war, and the Bush administration. Hardly a "tiny fraction."
IGNORED

Originally Posted by Yoda
It's a thread, not a monestary. You brought up the topic (twice), and it is reasonably related to what you have aribtrarily dubbed the key issues.
IGNORED

Originally Posted by Yoda
You're jumping to conclusions. Here's the answer you didn't wait for: it was implemented immediately. Or, at least, part of it was. That's why we got our refunds early. The cut, though applying to all, only went into effect immediately for the lower and middle classes. Consequently, we saw an immediate, but not massive, increase in GDP. The wealthy were supposed to wait a few years for their part of the cut...

...however, on May 28th of this year, he sped things up, giving them their portion of the cut earlier than originally intended. This happened in the middle of the second quarter. The very next quarter saw the largest growth in 20 years. Are these both coincidences?
(Should be IGNORED but I'll reply to it) I don't see how it could possibly be implemented immediately. That's physically impossible. What with the tax cycle, bureaucracy, red-tape, so on and so forth. Even if it were implemented "immediately", there would have been a noticeable time lag between the time Bush signed the tax cut and the time when its effects were felt. If the GDP began to rise as soon as he signed the cut, then it follows that some other factor was at play. I think that's pretty obvious.

Originally Posted by Yoda
It doesn't contradict my point at all. You said the stock market had only begun to recover in the last 6 months. I pointed out that that it had rebounded to over 10,000 by the end of 2001. You said that was wrong, so I went and proved it. So what claim, as I asked once before, have you contradicted?
(Should be IGNORED but I'll reply to it) Well, you were right when you said that, following the stock-marked collapse after 9/11, it rose to above 10,000. But you conveniently omitted the fact that immediately thereafter, it slumped again to around 7,500, the lowest point in the last 5 years. Subsequently, it recovered a little, then slumped again. And it has only begun to recover in the last six months or so thereafter.

Originally Posted by Yoda
By the way: it hit 10,000 again the day you posted this, and closed above 10,000 yesterday.
(Should be IGNORED but I'll reply to it) Sure, and I'm glad of it... but you omitted the point that this was the first time in 18 months that it has done so...

Originally Posted by Yoda
Did you actually read it? Your economic philosophy tends to revolve around the consumer, and demand, and things like purchasing power. My "economics lecture" was posted to show you that your base focus is on the wrong things.
IGNORED

Originally Posted by Yoda
Under your definition of the word, perhaps not.
IGNORED

Originally Posted by Yoda
The issue is not one of discipline. It's not that I am unable to stop myself from engaging in "needless diversions and pointless crap," it's that I don't agree with you on which things qualify.
IGNORED

Originally Posted by Yoda
Well, then I guess I'm doing the research for you. You're welcome.
IGNORED

Originally Posted by Yoda
It's not difficult to understand (though it does get fuzzy when I consider that you initially went out of your way to discuss it). I simply refuse to discuss political matters within the tiny little boundries you have conveniently designated. You made statements, some of them are incorrect, and I've decided to say so. Why is that so difficult to understand?
IGNORED

Originally Posted by Yoda
You're saying that you believe that all the things Bush has been saying about Iraq were true just a few short years ago?
Well, 5 years ago, things were very different in the world.

Originally Posted by Yoda
Also, my case is hardly contingent on Clinton. As I've stated several times now, many people from both parties have made similar claims, but in the past and recently. Hence, despite your repeated denials, my point stands: this is not a mistake which can be pinned on Bush and Co. exclusively. They apparently fell victim to a mistake which duped many others, as well, regardless of political party.
I just don't buy that line of defense. The administration had access to the latest, top of the line intelligence sources. The US is the world's only remaining super-power. The sorts of errors that have crept into the justification of the Iraq war are way too serious to ignore. It sets up a serious precedent--I mean, here we have the President of the US invading a sovereign nation on a completely trumped-up charge, with no basis in fact at all. Is this justifiable? Whose to say it won't happen again? It is way too serious an issue to ignore or write off as an error in the system.

Originally Posted by Yoda
I hope you'll concede that some degree of flexibility is required. IE: certain "when we deem necessary" clauses are inevitable, and not by themselves cause for concern. That pretty much sums up my philosophy on the Patriot Act: sure, it can be abused. So can most facets of government. But that doesn't mean it will be, that doesn't mean it necessarily has, and that certainly doesn't mean that it's doing more harm than good.
I personally see the Patriot Act is instituting a compromise on the public's civil liberties and human rights in the name of defense. Sure, in an emergency scenario, things are bound to be very different--we experience a temporary suspension of civil liberties for the sake of public safety. But the Patriot Act is not a temporary suspension--it has been instituted as law. This is very disturbing because it seems to me to be totally unconstitutional--pushing the US in the direction of a police state, perhaps? Without civil liberties for its residents, how can the US claim to be a bastion for freedom, other than in name only?

Originally Posted by Yoda
Great. Until you do, your criticism will naturally be considered moot.
Okay, feel free to do so.

Originally Posted by Yoda
You're implying, then, that Lincoln was wrong to suspend the writ of habeas corpus, and that increased governmental and military flexibility cannot be justified in times of war? If so, should we trot a Supreme Court Justice out onto the battlefield and hold a trial for each of the opposing soldiers, too?
Like I said, during times of war, a state of emergency might be declared in which people experience the temporary suspension of rights they take for granted. But does the same apply to an unprovoked foreign invasion? What you describe, in the case of Lincoln, sounds like a state of emergency. Does the same principle apply here? I don't really think so. It seems to me that the Bush administration is using public paranoia with respect to terrorism to institute his own reign of law in the US--perhaps bordering on martial law. Is that Bush's intention, finally? To declare martial law in the United States and completely suspend all the civil liberties and human rights we take for granted, all in the interest of supposedly protecting us from terrorism? In that case, is he very different from Saddam Hussein, whom he has recently deposed?

Originally Posted by Yoda
The difference is that there's no possible way for us to verify this man's testimony, personally, whereas you're quite capable of doing a little economic research before spouting off.
IGNORED

Originally Posted by Yoda
Anyway, as long as you admit you have no real way of testing the credibility of the testimony in question, your claim that there is "no link" should either be dropped, or else modified to reflect that it is simply your belief, and not a demonstrable fact, that no link exists.
Well, until it has been demonstrably proven that a link exists, I think it is acceptable to claim that no link has been proven to exist. Ergo, no link, so far, exists.

Originally Posted by Yoda
That's right, you're not in a position to comment...but you did anyway. That's my point. You do the same in regards to economics: admit that you don't much on the matter, but proceed to make all sorts of opinionated claims, anyway.
Well, I may not be in a position to make a definite claim but I do have the right to express an opinion. You may call it an "opinionated claim"--I call it an opinion!

Originally Posted by Yoda
If there were no weapons, then the US only lacks justification for claiming an imminent threat. It does not, however, kill all justification for the invasion, as the human rights issues make for a very compelling case.
What, in the context of the "War on Terrorism". How is the Iraq invasion at all connected with the war on terrorism, other than through the false claims made by the Bush administration. Why has Pakistan been ignored--which, by any standards, poses a much greater terrorist threat than Iraq?

Originally Posted by Yoda
The argument is partially based on emotion, I admit, but how on earth can you maintain that we made a mistake by invading in light of such deplorable evil?
Because, there is evil all over the world. Does that give us the right to invade any and every nation on the planet in the name of setting things right? How about addressing the evils in the US first--evils like oppression of minorities, corporate corruption, hypocrisy and lies in the administration, etc.? What does it say in the Bible..."Before you take the speck out of your neighbor's eye, take the plank out of your own eye..." In any case, the argument that invasion is justified under the pretext of resolving the internal domestic conflicts of a sovereign nation amounts to nothing less than imperialism or colonialism.

Originally Posted by Yoda
You do if you want to consider your claim substantiated. You made an assertion, and I'm questioning it. So far, the only responses I've gotten have consisted of contradiction, or else dismissive statements like the one above. These are not arguments, as I'm quite sure you know.
I see many, many strong arguments, which you have conveniently ignored, for the most part.

Originally Posted by Yoda
See above. You're not putting forth any kind of argument. This is exactly in line with my claim to you months ago about ultimately having nothing to offer but opinion. I don't know if you're unwilling, or unable, to withstand any sort of questioning, but neither is acceptable if you wish to address serious political issues on this forum.

In regards to this specific contention of yours, I have demonstrated that things appear the same regardless of which candidate you choose to analyze. Therefore, if you wish to maintain that Bush is using his status to immorally pay off his contributors (remember, simply enacting the policies he said he would doesn't qualify), you must provide a logical reason for believing so.
I have repeatedly explained my position to you. If you fail to comprehend it by this point, there's no point in me continuing to try to explain it to you.

Originally Posted by Yoda
More of the same. See above.
IGNORED

Originally Posted by Yoda
It depends on how you define "working for a living," I suppose. And yes, the forum is my business, though I make only a modest profit from it as of now, and what profit I do make does not seem to be contingent on my level of participation. Regardless, you seem to have found plenty of time to argue about why we shouldn't argue about economics...certainly enough to have just done so in the first place.

This, too, is in line with your history here. You often claim a lack of time when it comes to issues you are not particularly knowledge of (is that a convenient coincidence, in your mind?), only to find time for various other discussions on other topics. That's your prerogative, of course, but it's quite clear to me that you have the time to address these issues...just not the inclination.
IGNORED



Django's Avatar
BANNED
12-12-03
Originally Posted by Yoda
How do you always manage to miss the point of things? Is it deliberate?

Yes, we've all heard your version of the events which took place on the previous forum you inhabitated. Events which none of us can verify, leaving us to either believe or disbelieve your characterization of them based on our personal experiences with you.

I believe Golgot's point, then, is that while you continue to insist that you are acting reasonably within this thread,no one else who is participating agrees. And if you can misrepresent your conduct to us in this discussion (and over the length of your membership here, as well), it calls into question your interpretation of the controversy on the last board you frequented.
IGNORED



Django's Avatar
BANNED
12-12-03
Originally Posted by Yoda
The clutter you speak of is nothing more than the inevitable side-topics with which every political thread must contend with.
IGNORED

Originally Posted by Yoda
Regardless, I've been carrying on with you over the "actual subject at hand" for several posts now, so even if you regard part of our discussion as "clutter," I don't see any basis for stating that your pet issues are going "largely ignored," which is really the only thing that would validate your complaints.
IGNORED

Originally Posted by Yoda
Sure. But a) thread topics are not sacred, b) this topic is fairly related to the ones you demand we focus on, and c) you're the one who started the blasted conversation in the first place.
IGNORED

Originally Posted by Yoda
Uh, you're forgetting the third (most obvious) choice: reply to them, but don't make paradoxical or unsupported claims.
IGNORED

Originally Posted by Yoda
My mistake; I meant to link to this one, which contains the text I quoted.
That article reads like a paraphrase of the one I posted,... and considering that it comes from the same Associated Press source, it isn't surprising.

Originally Posted by Yoda
I most definitely can blame them. Their statements are extreme and unsupported. I might not blame them if they'd expressed some suspicion, but they went far, far beyond that, without any real basis, as far as I can tell.
Well, the Pentagon undeniably states that Halliburton did overcharge, so how are the Democrats' allegations unfounded?

Originally Posted by Yoda
As I stated before, you did more than refer to it; you interjected yourself into a discussion I was engaging sunfrog in. Now you're apparently shocked and upset that it led to an actual discussion on the matter. What the hell did you expect?
IGNORED

Originally Posted by Yoda
The difference is subtle to the point of being borderline non-existent. This is another escape-hatch: tell someone they SEEM like something, and you can later deny having actually called them it. It's sneaky, but ultimately transparent. Regardless, my point is not contingent on you actually, literally, technically calling her a neo-Nazi.

You should not necessarily have to apologize for merely protesting what you believe to be biased treatment. I don't believe anyone's ever said otherwise. Your methods, however, often warrant an apology. In this case, you acknowledge as much in apologizing to Caitlyn earlier.

That said, I think that statement definitely qualified as an insult. Its offense is not lessened merely because you consider yourself to have been insulted beforehand.
IGNORED



Django's Avatar
BANNED
12-12-03
Let's see... that's a total of 29 "Ignored" quotes from a total of 43 quotes. That averages out to roughly 67.44% of your posted material, Yoda (I'm taking each quote as a single entity, even though they are of varying lengths).

So, that tells me that, on the average, 2/3 of the material you post is irrelevant and off-topic. Admittedly based on the unscientific statistical study of only your last 3 posts.

But, let's wait and see.... the fun is only just beginning!
Last edited by Django; 12-13-03 at 02:26 AM.



Golgot's Avatar
Profile
Posts
Message
there's a frog in my snake oil
12-13-03
Right, that does it. I'm moving myself to another recent thread. Django, you dear deluded entity, you live in such a mental cul-de-sac that you prevent rather than promote (useful) debate. Your negative contributions outweigh your positive ones to such an extent that I'm prepared to forgo whatever decent points you might bring to a debate in exchange for some meaningful give-and-take.

I'm not proud of having thrown insults at you - but there are various reasons why i lowered myself to that: your insults of others, your blinkered and denial-riddled "defence" of "leftist" positions, and your bizarre view that because i agree with the general drift of your politics that i'm in line with everything you say and do. I wanted to shock you into re-appraisal.

It's your habit of throwing up a smoke-screen of denial everytime you are challenged on topics you've brought up that is so frustrating. You clearly have well-meaning spiritual and political aspirations. It's just your actions in practice that are so frustrating.

As such, you are going on my ignored list i'm afraid.

Bye bye.

-----

Rather than make a new one, i think there's a recent thread which we could use for appraisal of the iraq/occupation/intelligence/civil-rights trends in the light of the information we have. There's a number of points i'd like to discuss in detail, but there's such a large amount of wailing going on here it's just too much effort.

Anyone who cares to join me can come to this thread:

"Prepared for war but not for peace"
http://www.movieforums.com/community...3&page=4&pp=25
__________________
Virtual Reality chatter on a movie site? Got endless amounts of it here. Reviews over here
Last edited by Golgot; 12-13-03 at 10:26 AM.



Django's Avatar
BANNED
12-13-03
Adios!
Attached Images
 



7thson's Avatar
Profile
Posts
Msg
AMC Ape
12-13-03
I was going to reply directly to the original post here but I think the healthy, in "healthy debate" has left the building here.
__________________
“The gladdest moment in human life, methinks, is a departure into unknown lands.” – Sir Richard Burton



Golgot's Avatar
Profile
Posts
Message
there's a frog in my snake oil
12-14-03
Originally Posted by 7thson
I was going to reply directly to the original post here but I think the healthy, in "healthy debate" has left the building here.
Unfortunately, spend some time round lovely Django, and you'll realise he's well-meaning but generally careening. And he somehow manages to bring out the worst in everyone, including himself. I can't read what his latest post said coz he's the one and only on my "ignore" list. Weeeeee. I highly recommend it (wish it hadn't come to this - but it does make the conversation more lucid )



Caitlyn's Avatar
Profile
Posts
Message
MoFo Patrol
12-14-03
Originally Posted by 7thson
I was going to reply directly to the original post here but I think the healthy, in "healthy debate" has left the building here.

Why not start your own thread... I, for one, would be very interested in your thoughts on this...
__________________
You never know what is enough, until you know what is more than enough.
~William Blake ~

AiSv Nv wa do hi ya do...
(Walk in Peace)




Golgot's Avatar
Profile
Posts
Message
there's a frog in my snake oil
12-14-03
Or see if any of the queries on the "prepared for peace..." thread take your fancy



Django's Avatar
BANNED
12-15-03
Golgot, the only reason you have me on your ignore list is because you're too much of a coward to acknowledge that I'm dead on! You certainly don't earn much respect from me!



Golgot's Avatar
Profile
Posts
Message
there's a frog in my snake oil
12-15-03


Actually, it was coz i was tired of getting drawn into your nonsense. I'd rather be discussing the real issues. You can be on justified ground. You can be completely miles off into unreasonableness. I've taken you off ignore in case you do come up with anything reasonable again. But, look, i'm getting drawn into tittle-tattle with you again already - Your belief that you are "absolutely spot on" about everything is just incredible. The Djogma continues
Last edited by Golgot; 12-15-03 at 12:02 PM.



Django's Avatar
BANNED
12-15-03
Thanks for taking me off the ignore list. I don't say I'm spot on about everything... but I stand by my assertions until they are proven wrong. If proven wrong, I acknowledge them. But, until then, I stand by them. I hardly think that's dogmatic.



Caitlyn's Avatar
Profile
Posts
Message
MoFo Patrol
12-15-03
Originally Posted by Django
but I stand by my assertions until they are proven wrong. If proven wrong, I acknowledge them. But, until then, I stand by them.

But there in lies the part you don’t seem to comprehend… you made a list of accusations… labeled them as FACT … and then neglected to produce one shred of evidence to back them up… As the accuser, the burden of proof rests on your shoulders…



Django's Avatar
BANNED
12-15-03
Originally Posted by Caitlyn
But there in lies the part you don’t seem to comprehend… you made a list of accusations… labeled them as FACT … and then neglected to produce one shred of evidence to back them up… As the accuser, the burden of proof rests on your shoulders…
I have provided a great deal of evidence already... lots more to come... have no fear!



Yoda's Avatar
Profile
Posts
Message
Administrator
02-17-04
Originally Posted by Django
I have provided a great deal of evidence already... lots more to come... have no fear!
Two months later...no additional evidence. And you've yet to reply to any of my arguments on the economy, either.

You've been busted again, man: you brought up the economy, I ignored you and talked to someone else, you shoved your way into the conversation, the conversation continued, and right about the time I started producing statistical proof, you whined that you didn't want to talk about economics. Yet another argumentative coincidence, right?

You keep pulling things out of your ass, and we keep telling you they smell like sh*t.

Page 7 of 7
« First67