Originally Posted By Mr X K2M, I think it is. Relatively speaking, anyway. He used to back up his arguments with the rhetoric of the day, whether from Rush Limbaugh or whoever. But more and more that stuff sounds like the tripe it always was, and what easier way to hold a position than to simply contradict what everyone writes. I know he's always done the "nope, you're wrong. end post" thing a lot in the past, but he also used to back up his arguments from time to time. Not any more.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <You said you disagree. Tell us why.> I disagree with your opinion because it's wrong. You want more than that, back up your statements. You said my statement was absolutism - back it up. You said it was off-putting - back it up. You said that "the more facts becoem known, the more it appears this Administration wanted war" - back it up. You said that's a problem for me somehow - back it up.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <One can only assume this is because his position has become undefensible.> No, DouglasDubh is tired of the double standard that he is supposed to prove all of his statements are factually correct, and others get away with throwing out unsubstantiated opinions. Plus, I'm busy.
Originally Posted By Mr X >>>I disagree with your opinion because it's wrong.<<< Brilliant. Let's not back any of this up with FACTS though (cause you CAN'T!). >>>No, DouglasDubh is tired of<<< NOW I'm seriously worried about you bro. First person speach is a common symptom of some scary "shrink stuff". I don't know you personally, but I would suggest you make your way to the nearest psychiatric center! Seriously.
Originally Posted By Mr X >>>Plus, I'm busy.<<< Time for a nice, long rest bro. Seriously. You are in need of some time off (rubber suit optional)?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Let's not back any of this up with FACTS though (cause you CAN'T!).> Why is it up to me to prove that SPP is wrong? Why doesn't he have to back up what he claims? Like I said a while ago, I'm getting tired of being insulted by the clueless.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Why is it up to me to prove that SPP is wrong?" Because you made the assertion that he was.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Why is it up to me to prove that SPP is wrong?" Because you made the assertion that he was.
Originally Posted By jonvn Then it would be easy to show he is wrong. Otherwise, if you can't show that it is wrong, it isn't.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh So he can say anything, and it's up to me to prove him wrong? But if I say anything, it's up to me to prove myself right? Sorry, it doesn't work that way.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Sorry, it doesn't work that way." Sorry, we're no longer doing it YOUR way.
Originally Posted By jonvn "So he can say anything, and it's up to me to prove him wrong?" If you say he is wrong, then yes. This how conversations work.
Originally Posted By Mr X This is childish. In light of new evidence, Doug you need to back up what you say, since it's been pretty much PROVEN that you are supporting and endorsing what has proven to be a total fraud. Even BeauMandy said as much, before his posts got erased. It was nice to hear his confessions. So, back it up or go away.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <If you say he is wrong, then yes. This how conversations work.> Nonsense. As I pointed out before, he said my post was absolutism and off-putting. He has proven neither. He claimed, "the more facts becoem known, the more it appears this Administration wanted war" and that's a problem for me somehow but has never backed it up. It's the person who makes claims that should support them, not the one who points out they are not correct.
