Unless you've been living under a rock, heated arguments tend to keep going.
After three exchanges, it's obvious that both sides are trying to make the final statement. This happens on message boards, just as it happens anywhere an argument happens. Get two people on TV going at it, and you'll see what I'm talking about. Even when you have a few seconds left, each guest would try to slip the last word in.
This isn't a recent phenomenon either. You're busting your aneurysm in your head over something you have no control over.
My continuing to argue until I fire the last shot has more to do with principle. It also has to do with meeting the objective. It doesn't have anything to do with what you assumed.
For instance, what right would I have to argue that the United States should continue fighting until we accomplish our objectives... if I can't even do that on an online debate?
Demanding that we fight until we accomplish our objectives; while abandoning an online debate; would only make me a hypocrite.
My fighting until I fire the last shot also serves another point... measuring someone's integrity. A good way to measure someone's integrity is to see if they're willing to do what they preach.
Anybody that opposes the wars, who advocates that we should pull out before we accomplish our objectives, should walk the walk. They should cede an argument early in the game, instead of drawing it out.
But they don't.
So anybody that continues to argue with me, who believes that we should end the wars before we accomplish our objectives, proves that he/she lacks integrity. For me, that's a two for one deal. I destroy their credibility during the debate, and I show them for what they really are... people who lack integrity. They're willing to prescribe something for the United States, but are unwilling to do what they preach.
Another purpose behind my persistence is to "keep the record" straight. I do that by continuing to provide a counter rebuttal to their rebuttal.
New Castle's post is a perfect example.
He tries to make it sound like I'm making "circular" arguments. That poster tries to make it look like that I "didn't" read my source. That has to be fact checked. Hence, my replies correct his disinformation.
There are other reasons to why I argue for as long as it takes to complete the discussion. But none of them match what you assume is the case. I'll list some of the others later when I show you how you didn't do what you claimed you did.
I have no problems about my importance in life, or to those around me.
I've accomplished many things that I've always wanted to accomplish. I'm doing what I've always wanted to do. I have no problems with people listening to what I have to say in real life. Whenever I talk about things the news talks about, I have a captive audience. These are people from both sides of the political isle.
I have no problems connecting to the center left, and to the center right. And getting them to see where I'm getting at. But again, I don't find myself debating them. I share similarities in positions with them.
Total strangers read this board. But that doesn't excuse me from doing my best in these debates... just as I do my best with things that I do outside of Craigslist.
I came here to accomplish my objective. Balancing every rebuttal--attack, and post removal with a counter rebuttal, counter attack, and repost--is an integral part of accomplishing my debate objectives. Doing otherwise would go against doing my best.
This isn't a case of my simply making a point, and moving on. That's not my objective. If that's how you think things should be it, so be it. You're welcome to do just that. But I don't think like you, and I don't operate the way you want people on this board to operate.
I highly recommend that you thoroughly understand what I'm saying before you assume what my intentions are, or assume why I do things.
What you said:
1. "They haven't figured out that we heard what was said in the first 15 minutes of speech, or in this case, the first one or two postings. Instead of feeling like they made their point, they feel like it is their JOB to actually try to change your opinion to their opinion." - out looking on
2. "Because the person or people they are trying to communicate with did not agree then they somehow have come to the conclusion that the person or people being spoken or written to, were not listening, when in fact, the opposite is true. Not only did we hear or read it, but we understood what you were saying, but actually DISAGREE with what was said." - out looking on
What I actually said in the posts that you claimed that you (and your clones) read and understood what I was saying:
1. "Changing people's minds isn't my intent. But there are people who are sitting on the fence who could go either way. So, when I rebut a political post that I disagree with, I'm not aiming to change that person's mind. I'm balancing what I see is a media fueled statement on certain issues. I've talked to a lot of people who were willing to change their positions--once they saw the facts behind certain topics. I've done that on other message boards, I'm doing that here." - Not Fooled.
2. "The people I rebut aren't going to change their minds. The people that come on here pretending to be Republicans, pretending to be in the middle, complaining about my posts, etc, aren't going to change their minds. Most, probably all, of these people lean left. But there are people that are willing to change their position once they see things in proper perspective." - Not Fooled
3. "I've never changed my mind because of what my opponent said. And changing my opponent's mind isn't my intention." - Not Fooled
Since you said this: "we understood what you were saying" - - out looking on
You should have no problems answering these simple questions:
1. HOW, pray tell, does my saying that I don't intend to change my opponent's mind mean that I'm trying to change their mind?
2. HOW, pray tell, does my continuing to counter them, to balance things for a third party, constitute my "refusal" to "acknowledge" that people will disagree with me? ESPECIALLY when I specifically acknowledged that they WON'T change their minds?
No s#!t Sherlock, they're going to disagree with me. I've stated such in these posts you said you understood. If you understood what I said, as you imply, you'd know that I'm not reposting to try to change someone's mind.
You know that I'm reposting to continue to match someone's rebuttal/attack/post with my counter-rebuttal/counter attack/reply. I do this for the benefit of those sitting on the fence. I also do it for those like me that like to see someone come out and hammer leftist drivel on this board. I also do this to counter attempts to diminish my arguments.
People that come along after us to read these posts also have a right to see my rebuttals.
What you said, about the kind of person I am, is 180 degrees off mark. It also showed that your claims of reading, and understanding, my posts were nothing but pure BS.
Trying to use what you knew I would do, my replying to you, as "proof" that you're theory is "right" is based on inductive fallacy. That's like saying that you think that the sun goes around the earth. If it rises tomorrow, arcs in the sky, then sets to repeat the cycle, then that's "proof" that your theory that the sun "circles" the earth is "correct."
I told you what I'd do to complete a discussion. It's a given that I'm going to reply to you. Rebutting you has nothing to do with validation. It has everything to do with the above reasons.
It has everything to do with another reason I debate ad infinitum: I LOVE to DEBATE. It's FUN. I consider this one of my hobbies.
I don't care if you, or other people, don't respect me. That's not why I'm here. I'm not here to win any kind of popularity contest. I'm not here to jump in with the herd when it comes to how everybody wants Rants and Raves to be.
However, if you give me an opportunity to argue with you, I'll take it. Provided that it's in an area I know a lot about. Since you tried, and failed, to describe me, the topic was on me. You opened a debate where I'm a subject matter expert.
Opinion is too kind of a word to describe your dishonest drivel. I've got a better term to describe it: Erroneous Assumption.
As for what you wanted to visualize as you go to bed.
You obviously posted before going to bed. For someone that thinks he/she could formulate theories, I'm surprised that you didn't make a simple connection. If you went to bed after you posted that night, don't you think that maybe, just maybe, I did the same after I posted?
So, chances are that I was on my way to dreamland when you were on here hooting and tooting about things you obviously have no clue about. So, by the time you turned your lights off, I was already asleep.
You need to work on your theories more.
I read drivel like yours early in the day, then I generate my replies later in the day. Heck, I could generate my replies in the next day or so. The flames that I put in, the statements that I make, etc, I put in with a smile on my face. I've even gone to bed laughing at posters who spread the very flames they're trying to put out. Without even intending to, I've succeeded where trolls have failed.
I've jumped here, posted in less than an hour, then came back 18 hours later to see how those posts managed to direct this forum's discussions. Simply because too many people don't have the willpower to resist the urge to click on what's obviously going to be a post they don't want here.
They don't like the "Not Fooled" posts, but they click on them anyway, or they just complain about it.
The later contribute to the "problem."
Your post gave me a laugh as well. You obviously don't know what you're talking about. You're just another poser that disagrees with me. I mean, from someone that's supposedly looking "on," ahem, "in," you sure as hell want to contribute to the "spewing" match.
1. "Please, it's only craigslist, no need to burst an aneurysm in your head over this dribble." - (out looking on)
Oh really? And how is that advice working for you? It seems that you've just busted yours over something that you have no control over. You should've spent that time pulling your head out of your @$$ so that you could come up with better theories.
You spewed:
Now it seems like R and R is being used as a spewing match to see who will get the last word in...I love people that feel like they have to have the last word. It only goes to show me that they feel unimportant in their own lives and believe that no one listens to them. They haven't figured out that we heard what was said in the first 15 minutes of speech, or in this case, the first one or two postings. Instead of feeling like they made their point, they feel like it is their JOB to actually try to change your opinion to their opinion. Yet if you try to change theirs, then you are insulting them. But back to what I was originally saying. Because the person or people they are trying to communicate with did not agree then they somehow have come to the conclusion that the person or people being spoken or written to, were not listening, when in fact, the opposite is true. Not only did we hear or read it, but we understood what you were saying, but actually DISAGREE with what was said. You must accept that as a fact of life or you will be constantly plagued by the feeling of being misunderstood. If you feel like you have to have the last word about what I've stated here, it only goes to prove to me that my theory was correct. I have no need to respond to you, as I am self assured that my opinion was just that MY OPINION and I don't need validation from anyone I don't know, much less can't respect because I don't know them to respect them to begin with.
Here is one more paragraph for the person that likes to see paragraphs in postings. Honestly, some posters need to wash the sand out of their clits before coming on here and taking it out on others. With that said, I'm off to bed and hope everyone has a good evening. I'm going to try to get the image of some beet red faced buffoon punching the letters out into words on his keyboard in a lame attempt to piss me off out of my head before I turn off the light and snuggle in for the duration of the nighttime hours. Be well and try to play nice. Please, it's only craigslist, no need to burst an aneurysm in your head over this dribble.
After three exchanges, it's obvious that both sides are trying to make the final statement. This happens on message boards, just as it happens anywhere an argument happens. Get two people on TV going at it, and you'll see what I'm talking about. Even when you have a few seconds left, each guest would try to slip the last word in.
This isn't a recent phenomenon either. You're busting your aneurysm in your head over something you have no control over.
My continuing to argue until I fire the last shot has more to do with principle. It also has to do with meeting the objective. It doesn't have anything to do with what you assumed.
For instance, what right would I have to argue that the United States should continue fighting until we accomplish our objectives... if I can't even do that on an online debate?
Demanding that we fight until we accomplish our objectives; while abandoning an online debate; would only make me a hypocrite.
My fighting until I fire the last shot also serves another point... measuring someone's integrity. A good way to measure someone's integrity is to see if they're willing to do what they preach.
Anybody that opposes the wars, who advocates that we should pull out before we accomplish our objectives, should walk the walk. They should cede an argument early in the game, instead of drawing it out.
But they don't.
So anybody that continues to argue with me, who believes that we should end the wars before we accomplish our objectives, proves that he/she lacks integrity. For me, that's a two for one deal. I destroy their credibility during the debate, and I show them for what they really are... people who lack integrity. They're willing to prescribe something for the United States, but are unwilling to do what they preach.
Another purpose behind my persistence is to "keep the record" straight. I do that by continuing to provide a counter rebuttal to their rebuttal.
New Castle's post is a perfect example.
He tries to make it sound like I'm making "circular" arguments. That poster tries to make it look like that I "didn't" read my source. That has to be fact checked. Hence, my replies correct his disinformation.
There are other reasons to why I argue for as long as it takes to complete the discussion. But none of them match what you assume is the case. I'll list some of the others later when I show you how you didn't do what you claimed you did.
I have no problems about my importance in life, or to those around me.
I've accomplished many things that I've always wanted to accomplish. I'm doing what I've always wanted to do. I have no problems with people listening to what I have to say in real life. Whenever I talk about things the news talks about, I have a captive audience. These are people from both sides of the political isle.
I have no problems connecting to the center left, and to the center right. And getting them to see where I'm getting at. But again, I don't find myself debating them. I share similarities in positions with them.
Total strangers read this board. But that doesn't excuse me from doing my best in these debates... just as I do my best with things that I do outside of Craigslist.
I came here to accomplish my objective. Balancing every rebuttal--attack, and post removal with a counter rebuttal, counter attack, and repost--is an integral part of accomplishing my debate objectives. Doing otherwise would go against doing my best.
This isn't a case of my simply making a point, and moving on. That's not my objective. If that's how you think things should be it, so be it. You're welcome to do just that. But I don't think like you, and I don't operate the way you want people on this board to operate.
I highly recommend that you thoroughly understand what I'm saying before you assume what my intentions are, or assume why I do things.
What you said:
1. "They haven't figured out that we heard what was said in the first 15 minutes of speech, or in this case, the first one or two postings. Instead of feeling like they made their point, they feel like it is their JOB to actually try to change your opinion to their opinion." - out looking on
2. "Because the person or people they are trying to communicate with did not agree then they somehow have come to the conclusion that the person or people being spoken or written to, were not listening, when in fact, the opposite is true. Not only did we hear or read it, but we understood what you were saying, but actually DISAGREE with what was said." - out looking on
What I actually said in the posts that you claimed that you (and your clones) read and understood what I was saying:
1. "Changing people's minds isn't my intent. But there are people who are sitting on the fence who could go either way. So, when I rebut a political post that I disagree with, I'm not aiming to change that person's mind. I'm balancing what I see is a media fueled statement on certain issues. I've talked to a lot of people who were willing to change their positions--once they saw the facts behind certain topics. I've done that on other message boards, I'm doing that here." - Not Fooled.
2. "The people I rebut aren't going to change their minds. The people that come on here pretending to be Republicans, pretending to be in the middle, complaining about my posts, etc, aren't going to change their minds. Most, probably all, of these people lean left. But there are people that are willing to change their position once they see things in proper perspective." - Not Fooled
3. "I've never changed my mind because of what my opponent said. And changing my opponent's mind isn't my intention." - Not Fooled
Since you said this: "we understood what you were saying" - - out looking on
You should have no problems answering these simple questions:
1. HOW, pray tell, does my saying that I don't intend to change my opponent's mind mean that I'm trying to change their mind?
2. HOW, pray tell, does my continuing to counter them, to balance things for a third party, constitute my "refusal" to "acknowledge" that people will disagree with me? ESPECIALLY when I specifically acknowledged that they WON'T change their minds?
No s#!t Sherlock, they're going to disagree with me. I've stated such in these posts you said you understood. If you understood what I said, as you imply, you'd know that I'm not reposting to try to change someone's mind.
You know that I'm reposting to continue to match someone's rebuttal/attack/post with my counter-rebuttal/counter attack/reply. I do this for the benefit of those sitting on the fence. I also do it for those like me that like to see someone come out and hammer leftist drivel on this board. I also do this to counter attempts to diminish my arguments.
People that come along after us to read these posts also have a right to see my rebuttals.
What you said, about the kind of person I am, is 180 degrees off mark. It also showed that your claims of reading, and understanding, my posts were nothing but pure BS.
Trying to use what you knew I would do, my replying to you, as "proof" that you're theory is "right" is based on inductive fallacy. That's like saying that you think that the sun goes around the earth. If it rises tomorrow, arcs in the sky, then sets to repeat the cycle, then that's "proof" that your theory that the sun "circles" the earth is "correct."
I told you what I'd do to complete a discussion. It's a given that I'm going to reply to you. Rebutting you has nothing to do with validation. It has everything to do with the above reasons.
It has everything to do with another reason I debate ad infinitum: I LOVE to DEBATE. It's FUN. I consider this one of my hobbies.
I don't care if you, or other people, don't respect me. That's not why I'm here. I'm not here to win any kind of popularity contest. I'm not here to jump in with the herd when it comes to how everybody wants Rants and Raves to be.
However, if you give me an opportunity to argue with you, I'll take it. Provided that it's in an area I know a lot about. Since you tried, and failed, to describe me, the topic was on me. You opened a debate where I'm a subject matter expert.
Opinion is too kind of a word to describe your dishonest drivel. I've got a better term to describe it: Erroneous Assumption.
As for what you wanted to visualize as you go to bed.
You obviously posted before going to bed. For someone that thinks he/she could formulate theories, I'm surprised that you didn't make a simple connection. If you went to bed after you posted that night, don't you think that maybe, just maybe, I did the same after I posted?
So, chances are that I was on my way to dreamland when you were on here hooting and tooting about things you obviously have no clue about. So, by the time you turned your lights off, I was already asleep.
You need to work on your theories more.
I read drivel like yours early in the day, then I generate my replies later in the day. Heck, I could generate my replies in the next day or so. The flames that I put in, the statements that I make, etc, I put in with a smile on my face. I've even gone to bed laughing at posters who spread the very flames they're trying to put out. Without even intending to, I've succeeded where trolls have failed.
I've jumped here, posted in less than an hour, then came back 18 hours later to see how those posts managed to direct this forum's discussions. Simply because too many people don't have the willpower to resist the urge to click on what's obviously going to be a post they don't want here.
They don't like the "Not Fooled" posts, but they click on them anyway, or they just complain about it.
The later contribute to the "problem."
Your post gave me a laugh as well. You obviously don't know what you're talking about. You're just another poser that disagrees with me. I mean, from someone that's supposedly looking "on," ahem, "in," you sure as hell want to contribute to the "spewing" match.
1. "Please, it's only craigslist, no need to burst an aneurysm in your head over this dribble." - (out looking on)
Oh really? And how is that advice working for you? It seems that you've just busted yours over something that you have no control over. You should've spent that time pulling your head out of your @$$ so that you could come up with better theories.
You spewed:
Now it seems like R and R is being used as a spewing match to see who will get the last word in...I love people that feel like they have to have the last word. It only goes to show me that they feel unimportant in their own lives and believe that no one listens to them. They haven't figured out that we heard what was said in the first 15 minutes of speech, or in this case, the first one or two postings. Instead of feeling like they made their point, they feel like it is their JOB to actually try to change your opinion to their opinion. Yet if you try to change theirs, then you are insulting them. But back to what I was originally saying. Because the person or people they are trying to communicate with did not agree then they somehow have come to the conclusion that the person or people being spoken or written to, were not listening, when in fact, the opposite is true. Not only did we hear or read it, but we understood what you were saying, but actually DISAGREE with what was said. You must accept that as a fact of life or you will be constantly plagued by the feeling of being misunderstood. If you feel like you have to have the last word about what I've stated here, it only goes to prove to me that my theory was correct. I have no need to respond to you, as I am self assured that my opinion was just that MY OPINION and I don't need validation from anyone I don't know, much less can't respect because I don't know them to respect them to begin with.
Here is one more paragraph for the person that likes to see paragraphs in postings. Honestly, some posters need to wash the sand out of their clits before coming on here and taking it out on others. With that said, I'm off to bed and hope everyone has a good evening. I'm going to try to get the image of some beet red faced buffoon punching the letters out into words on his keyboard in a lame attempt to piss me off out of my head before I turn off the light and snuggle in for the duration of the nighttime hours. Be well and try to play nice. Please, it's only craigslist, no need to burst an aneurysm in your head over this dribble.
No comments:
Post a Comment