Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder If Doug is looking to be offended then he'll get offended. Over time, rather than answer a particularly pricky question, this is the tact he has taken. I don't know why I'm surprised that he keeps doing it.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <"It's typical of you" (to avoid answering my question) is not a personal attack either, IMO. It's a critique of your pattern of answering posts. And it's arguable whether or not it's factual.> I disagree, to both points.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <If Doug is looking to be offended then he'll get offended. Over time, rather than answer a particularly pricky question, this is the tact he has taken.> I'm not offended; I simply pointed out what you had done. I will always answer honest questions. However, I will also continue to point out when people are making personal attacks rather than debating the issues. If you don't want me pointing out when you make personal attacks, then don't make personal attacks.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>However, I will also continue to point out when people are making personal attacks rather than debating the issues.<< Except you never debate anything. You say "I disagree" a lot; at best, you descend into meaningless discussions about semantics and whether or not the most obvious of statements really mean what they say. That's not debate, it's obfuscation.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< "It's typical of you" is a personal attack. >>> Although not my quote originally, perhaps it could be rephrased to "It's typical of your posts."
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Except you never debate anything.> Of course I do. I've presented facts which have proven you wrong countless times. But when it gets down to people repeating opinion, then I try to just disagree, rather than start throwing out perjorities and making personal attacks. <Although not my quote originally, perhaps it could be rephrased to "It's typical of your posts."> Perhaps it could. It would still not be a factual statement that furthers the discussion.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Of course I do. I've presented facts which have proven you wrong countless times." Between your post 204 in the Saddam Execution thread, where you say you post "facts that undermine liberals opinions" and the above, you don't see the arrogance of which we speak? Here's your predictable answer- "I don't see it and I've been personally insulted." Alrighty.......
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder And here's the thing. You've still not explained why the statement in the first post is false. Instead, you found an insult that wasn't there and then nothing but obfuscation. One can only presume you can't prove it.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Of course I do. I've presented facts which have proven you wrong countless times.<< Nonsense. This thread is the perfect example of your M.O. Let's review your posts. Post 12: The sentence is false, as is gadzuux's silly idea that only GOP politicians try to avoid responsibility for failure. Hmm...hardly any kind of factual information there. Just your typical "it's false". And what's more, most of the thread is you talking about how you were personally attacked, even though you just did the same thing by calling gadzuux's idea "silly". Post 20: "Like I said, your idea is false." You offer this statement in response to someone else actually making a statement about the GOP. Where are the facts? Post 21: "How is it true?" You throw out this beauty in response to someone asking the question of *how* the statement is false. Talk about total nonsense. Post 23: "I'd have considered it, if you had asked nicely instead of making a personal attack." Here you do exactly what I accused you of: you start discussing how people post and the meaning of their words instead of just answering the simplest of questions by backing up your assertion that it's false. Good lord, so far we're 24 posts into this thread and you can't even answer the most basic question, "Why is it false?" or post anything on the actual topic. Post 31: In response to SPPs, "Asking "how is it false" is a personal attack?" you say "It's not. The "Typical avoidance on your part" was." So typical Douglas. You've now misdirected the issue beautifully because you clearly have no response to any of gadzuux's posts (which originally spurred the "it's false" posts). You're now discussing what constitutes a personal attack, and nothing at all about the issues at hand. Post 33: "I'm not kidding, and yes, it's an attack. What else would you call it? It's certainly not a factual statement that furthers the discussion." Now if that's not irony, I don't know what is. Here you of all people tell SPP that it's not a factual statement that furthers discussion. Seriously? You're accusing someone else of doing that? So now we're 33 posts in and still not a single statement from you on the topic at hand beyond telling someone else that their post was false, but despite repeated requests, you can't tell them why. Post 36: "But there's no evidence they did that. The fact that the Clinton administration said the same things about Saddam that the Bush administration did indicates they didn't." Holy crap! An actual post about an actual statement about the actual topic! It only took you 7 of your posts to spit it out, 36 posts into the discussion! Bravo, Douglas! But then... Post 39: "No, saying "Your post avoided answering my question" is a critique of my post. Saying, "It's typical of you" is a personal attack. What's more, as I noted earlier, it's not a factual statement that furthers the discussion." Now we're back to the discussion you managed to invent over whether another post was a personal attack or not. And again you're actually accusing someone else of not furthering discussion. Wow. Post 42: "I disagree, to both points." This speaks for itself. Post 43: "I'm not offended; I simply pointed out what you had done. I will always answer honest questions. However, I will also continue to point out when people are making personal attacks rather than debating the issues. If you don't want me pointing out when you make personal attacks, then don't make personal attacks." Why is it the only time you can string more than five words together is about how people post, semantics, and other meaningless minutia? I then came in and said (wow, where would I get such an absurd idea...) that you never debate anything. I think the evidence I've presented from your own posts shows that's absolutely true. You then responded with the laughable statement that "Of course I do. I've presented facts which have proven you wrong countless times." Good one Doug, and some people say you don't have a sense of humor. Try dropping the nonsense you've demonstrated on this thread and just making a statement for once about the topic at hand beyond "I disagree."
Originally Posted By gadzuux Republicans? Dodging responsibility and accountability? What a silly, baseless notion that is. And completely unsupportable by any recent history at all. Thanks doug, I've seen the light.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<<"It's typical of you" (to avoid answering my question) is not a personal attack either, IMO. It's a critique of your pattern of answering posts. And it's arguable whether or not it's factual.>> <I disagree, to both points.> How can you disagree that the idea that you often avoid the pertinent question is arguable? Of course it's arguable - we're arguing about it. To suggest it's not even arguable is more of that arrogance. ecdc provided the only facts necessary here - your posts themselves.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Between your post 204 in the Saddam Execution thread, where you say you post "facts that undermine liberals opinions" and the above, you don't see the arrogance of which we speak?> No. The arrogance on this thread is not eminating from me. <Here's your predictable answer- "I don't see it and I've been personally insulted."> I said earlier I'm not offended. I'm also not insulted. What I am is tired of the double standard. <You've still not explained why the statement in the first post is false.> And no one has explained why the statement is true. But that's okay with you, huh? Only conservatives have to "prove" their opinions.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <How can you disagree that the idea that you often avoid the pertinent question is arguable?> Because it's not true.
Originally Posted By Mr X I want to ask you a serious question, Doug... What would it TAKE for you to actually admit that the neocon agenda these past 8 to 10 years or so has been a failure (or, at least, flawed)? Seriously, give me a hypothetical example of what would need to happen for you to actually concede that some of your arguments were, after all, incorrect? Can you do that for me? Can you give me an example of what would make you bend even an inch off your staunch position?
Originally Posted By jonvn Some people don't bend. At all. When Nixon resigned, he still had a 22% approval rating, or some figure close to that. There is just a certain segment of the population that simply does not care about the facts of the matter, they will continue to go with what they believe, regardless. And you can't press them on facts, because they don't have any. Some people are very adept at avoiding discussing facts that are discomforting. Circular logic and such are not new things to this forum. But it's interesting to see how they are being invoked, and how some people think they are presenting facts without actually presenting any.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<How can you disagree that the idea that you often avoid the pertinent question is arguable?>> <Because it's not true. > Sorry - this thread is an example of it being true. You even admit to not addressing the pertinent question here; you said at one point you would if you had been "asked nicely," but because you weren't, you won't address it.
