Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan You're insulting yourself in this thread Douglas. I'm embarassed for you at this point.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>You really need to stop telling me what I've done. You almost never get it right.<< Says the guy who forms his opinion absent facts to support it. Sorry you got yourself all tangled up in your nonsense in this thread, but don't blame me for you making yourself look ridiculous.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Says the guy who forms his opinion absent facts to support it.> Are you saying I'm wrong? And what facts are you basing that opinion on?
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan You formed an opinion based on your bias, and it fell apart on you. You've no room to be embarassed for anyone but yourself.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Are you saying I'm wrong? And what facts are you basing that opinion on?<< Hello? You were barely right on one point flat wrong on another, and Kerry's score hasn't been released, so as you said, it's anyone's guess. In other words, you can assume this or that, and it may be right or wrong. I have no opinion on whether his scores are higher or lower, and frankly don't care. YOU were the one who said you had "backup" -- and we know the backup was more oped stuff. YOU were the one who went ahead and formed an opinion with no facts to support it. And now, you can talk to yourself, because if you don't get it now you never will. Have a nice evening.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <You formed an opinion based on your bias, and it fell apart on you.> No, I formed an opinion by viewing the evidence. Despite what you want to believe, there are many facts that can be sited to conclude that Sen Kerry's SAT and GPA was lower than President Bush's. Just because you've chosen to dismiss them doesn't mean they don't exist. <I have no opinion on whether his scores are higher or lower, and frankly don't care.> And yet you've spent a lot of time and energy on this thread, first trying to prove me wrong, then trying to browbeat me into concession, and lastly misrepresenting my statements. I really feel badly for you.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Originally Posted By ReadingMom >>there are many facts that can be sited to conclude that Sen Kerry's SAT and GPA was lower than President Bush's<< Well, which is it? One minute you say there are "many facts" then another minute you say "it's anyone's guess." It's almost like you're two people. >>Get some sleep Ike.<< It's JUST like you're two people.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <You've admitted that you don't KNOW Gore's GPA (though you said you could provide it); but it "must" be lower than Bush's, and you found that conjecture on blogs - i.e. opinion pieces.> <You really need to stop telling me what I've done. You almost never get it right.> I've gotten it right here by your own admission. You admit you don't know Gore's GPA, yet said you were "quite sure" that it was higher than Bush's. If you don't know what his GPA was, BY DEFINITION, your opinion is based on conjecture.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <If you don't know what his GPA was, BY DEFINITION, your opinion is based on conjecture.> Yes, conjecture based on facts. However, I didn't say it "must" be lower; that's the part you got wrong. I'm just pretty sure it is, based on the facts I've read, in several articles, over several years.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<If you don't know what his GPA was, BY DEFINITION, your opinion is based on conjecture.>> <Yes, conjecture based on facts.> No. You have no facts. It's very simple. There are only two numbers to compare. Gore either had a higher GPA than Bush, an equal one, or a lower one. If you don't know what Gore's number is, you can not, by definition, be basing your conjecture of their relative scores on facts, as one half of the salient facts is unavailable to you. <However, I didn't say it "must" be lower; that's the part you got wrong. I'm just pretty sure it is, based on the facts I've read, in several articles, over several years.> As I've said many times, you initially said you were "quite sure" of their relative numbers (now backpedaling to "pretty sure"). The "must" part comes because you ARE basing it on conjecture; if you don't have the number, then you're indulging in conjecture that the number "must" be lower than Bush's, based on these other things that you've read. Care to share these other things you've read, so we can see if they are in fact fact-based in any way, or just op-ed pieces? My guess is the latter.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Care to share these other things you've read, so we can see if they are in fact fact-based in any way, or just op-ed pieces?> It's not worth my time trying to find them again, just as it's not worth my time trying to explain my position again. You, and a couple of other posters here, continually distort what I say, or can't seem to keep anything straight, no matter how many times I say it. That's frustrating enough, but I'm sick of the insults and false accusations. Go ahead and bash Republicans and conservatives all you want, and tell yourselves you're enlightened and fair while you're posting the latest liberal spin, and I won't object. I'm done with WE, at least for a while, and maybe forever.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "...and tell yourselves you're enlightened and fair while you're posting the latest liberal spin..." Let's assume this to be true for a moment. As if you don't post spin? Pleeeease. Your lows are too numerous to mention. Some have been beauts though. Cheney never said he wasn't in the executive branch, Rove never smeared McCain, McCarthy was a good guy, the war wasn't predicated on WMDs, all you ever post are facts, everyone else merely has an opinion, I'm the sword of truth, modern day copperheads...... The pompousness has been off the charts for some time now. Many of us have made entreaties towards you over time with no success. We're left with having to presume the persona you present here is the real you. You consider anyone who doesn't agree with you to be beneath you as well as mentally and morally inferior, which is, of course, a load of crap. Others, such as Dabob, have had an infinite amount of patience debating you, but even he's let go. Just as 50,000,000 Elvis fans couldn't be wrong, neither can dozens of posters here in WE who have tried to deal with you. You're an island for a reason. The fact you now want to take your ball and go home as opposed to doing some self-examining only reinforces that belief.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Care to share these other things you've read, so we can see if they are in fact fact-based in any way, or just op-ed pieces?>> <It's not worth my time trying to find them again, just as it's not worth my time trying to explain my position again. You, and a couple of other posters here, continually distort what I say, or can't seem to keep anything straight, no matter how many times I say it.> Thanks for confirming my suspicions. What you said couldn't have been clearer. Leaving Kerry aside, you said you were quite sure that Bush had a higher SAT and GPA than Gore. That's not a distortion; that's simply what you said. The first claim was immediately proven to be false. The second you said you "could" back up, then admitted Gore's score was unavailable. And so by definition his score relative to Bush's is unknowable. You see this as "distortion" when in reality it's simply calling you to account for what you post. <That's frustrating enough, but I'm sick of the insults and false accusations. Go ahead and bash Republicans and conservatives all you want, and tell yourselves you're enlightened and fair while you're posting the latest liberal spin, and I won't object. I'm done with WE, at least for a while, and maybe forever.> I don't bash Republicans and conservatives as a group - a few others here do, but I happen to love some quite conservative people in my life, so I make sure to address the argument at hand. I do call you to task for some of your nonsense; but when a conservative here posts intelligently without the nonsense (like vbdad), I just disagree in whole or in part with the post in question and don't have to address the nonsense, because the nonsense isn't there. I have addressed certain things to you personally in recent months that you may see as "bashing" but in reality they are, as SPP recognizes, entreaties. You used to post without so much nonsense, and could be a respected (instead of widely lampooned) voice for conservatism here if you'd knock that stuff off. I hope you'll come back some day, actually, having looked at yourself honestly, without the nonsense.
Originally Posted By jonvn Well, SPP hasn't called me a douche or something in weeks now. It's been rough on me.
