Conquer Club

Ray Rider wrote:Actually, that's common of any poster in the forum--to not ask for sources about a post you agree with, but demand sources for info in a post you disagree with. That doesn't make anyone a troll. In that case, BBS calling you a troll seems uncalled-for, however, since you were making positive contributions to the thread. You seem to think it perfectly appropriate to fire the ad-hominem attacks right back though, so now you're both at the same level.

thegreekdog wrote:I lied? Neoteny doesn't think I lied.*

Juan_Bottom wrote:

Ray Rider wrote:Actually, that's common of any poster in the forum--to not ask for sources about a post you agree with, but demand sources for info in a post you disagree with. That doesn't make anyone a troll. In that case, BBS calling you a troll seems uncalled-for, however, since you were making positive contributions to the thread. You seem to think it perfectly appropriate to fire the ad-hominem attacks right back though, so now you're both at the same level.

Yeah, but at this point they aren't ad-hominem at all but are pretty much straight insults designed to look like accidental ad-hominems. tgd insulted my sacred honor by calling me a coward, so what else could I do? People here respect him so I could not simply ignore him without the label sticking.

thegreekdog wrote:I lied? Neoteny doesn't think I lied.*

You said that I always cowardly refuse to respond to bbs' posts attacking mine while you also know that I cannot see his posts. You're a liar.

Juan_Bottom wrote:

Ray Rider wrote:Actually, that's common of any poster in the forum--to not ask for sources about a post you agree with, but demand sources for info in a post you disagree with. That doesn't make anyone a troll. In that case, BBS calling you a troll seems uncalled-for, however, since you were making positive contributions to the thread. You seem to think it perfectly appropriate to fire the ad-hominem attacks right back though, so now you're both at the same level.

Yeah, but at this point they aren't ad-hominem at all but are pretty much straight insults designed to look like accidental ad-hominems. tgd insulted my sacred honor by calling me a coward, so what else could I do? People here respect him so I could not simply ignore him without the label sticking.

thegreekdog wrote:I lied? Neoteny doesn't think I lied.*

You said that I always cowardly refuse to respond to bbs' posts attacking mine while you also know that I cannot see his posts. You're a liar.

thegreekdog wrote:

Juan_Bottom wrote:

Ray Rider wrote:Actually, that's common of any poster in the forum--to not ask for sources about a post you agree with, but demand sources for info in a post you disagree with. That doesn't make anyone a troll. In that case, BBS calling you a troll seems uncalled-for, however, since you were making positive contributions to the thread. You seem to think it perfectly appropriate to fire the ad-hominem attacks right back though, so now you're both at the same level.

Yeah, but at this point they aren't ad-hominem at all but are pretty much straight insults designed to look like accidental ad-hominems. tgd insulted my sacred honor by calling me a coward, so what else could I do? People here respect him so I could not simply ignore him without the label sticking.

thegreekdog wrote:I lied? Neoteny doesn't think I lied.*

You said that I always cowardly refuse to respond to bbs' posts attacking mine while you also know that I cannot see his posts. You're a liar.

Well, let's parse this out, shall we. I never said you refused to respond to BBS's posts attacking yours. I said you responded (which is the opposite of "refuse to respond"), generally, with ad hominems. I never called you cowardly. I didn't label you at all. I did not know you had him on foe. I don't keep track of who anyone has on foe.

So what now?

Juan_Bottom wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:At the risk of being accused of bias (although, really, I don't always agree with BBS), the history of BBS vs. Symmetry or BBS vs. JB goes something like this:

Step One: JB/Symmetry make a point.
Step Two: BBS attempts to refute.
Step Three: JB/Symmetry do not adequately refute BBS's refutation.
Step Four: BBS notes the inadequacy.
Step Five: JB/Symmetry accuse BBS of being... whatever... ad hominem attacks usually.

When BBS gets into discussions with others (say, for example, Neoteny or Haggis), this process does not happen. Therefore, it's not BBS that's "an anything goes poster of late." If that was the case, there would be any number of forum regulars who we could sub in for JB or Symmetry. Perhaps it's you who is doing something wrong (I would say Step Five).

This is retarded. How insulting is this to me? YOU ALREADY KNOW and I HAVE ALREADY SAID IN THIS THREAD: I HAVE BBS ON FOE SO I CAN'T SEE HIS POSTS.

HOW THE f*ck DO I "INADEQUATELY REFUTE" SOME SHIT I CAN'T EVEN READ? That makes your whole post an outright lie. Take it back.

Obviously the reason Sym and I are in a whole other category is because we're the only one's who fricking think before we post. Jesus.

Juan_Bottom wrote:Yes you did, page 32.

Juan_Bottom wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:At the risk of being accused of bias (although, really, I don't always agree with BBS), the history of BBS vs. Symmetry or BBS vs. JB goes something like this:

Step One: JB/Symmetry make a point.
Step Two: BBS attempts to refute.
Step Three: JB/Symmetry do not adequately refute BBS's refutation.
Step Four: BBS notes the inadequacy.
Step Five: JB/Symmetry accuse BBS of being... whatever... ad hominem attacks usually.

When BBS gets into discussions with others (say, for example, Neoteny or Haggis), this process does not happen. Therefore, it's not BBS that's "an anything goes poster of late." If that was the case, there would be any number of forum regulars who we could sub in for JB or Symmetry. Perhaps it's you who is doing something wrong (I would say Step Five).

This is retarded. How insulting is this to me? YOU ALREADY KNOW and I HAVE ALREADY SAID IN THIS THREAD: I HAVE BBS ON FOE SO I CAN'T SEE HIS POSTS.

HOW THE f*ck DO I "INADEQUATELY REFUTE" SOME SHIT I CAN'T EVEN READ? That makes your whole post an outright lie. Take it back.

Obviously the reason Sym and I are in a whole other category is because we're the only one's who fricking think before we post. Jesus.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=177067
Page 2 you immediately posted after I said that I had BBS on foe. You were making fun of my post. And there are other threads that you've posted in where I said I had BBS on foe. Certainly you participated in the discussion when I foed him.

Juan_Bottom wrote:Hypocrite GOP Congressman runs as anti-abortion, but wife had two abortions

I don't think that this is hypocritical, if he now thinks his past actions were wrong. But he hasn't said as much yet.

thegreekdog wrote:The Tea Party is racist against white men.

The 2010 elections saw Republican Nikki Haley win the governorship in South Carolina. She is the first woman ever elected to statewide office in South Carolina from either party and the first Indian-American to become governor. Republican Susana Martinez, governor of New Mexico, because the nation's first female Hispanic governor from either party and Republican Brian Sandoval became Nevada's first Hispanic governor ever.

In the 2010 Congressional elections, Republican Allen West became the first African-American Republican elected in Florida since a freed slave served two terms in the 1870s. Republican Tim Scott defeated Strom Thurmond's son (Strom Thurmond was a massive, proven racist) to become the first African-Americna elected from either party in South Carolina since Reconstruction. Republicans Bill Flores, Francisco Canseco, and Jaime Herrera (the first Latino ever elected to Congress from Washington state) were elected in 2010. And in the senate, Cuban-American Marco Rubio won.

In 2012, Tim Scott was named to a South Carolina senate seat.

spurgistan wrote:In a related story, Essie Washington-Williams, who we might know as Strom Thurmond's half-black daughter, died this week. She deserved a better father.

Phatscotty wrote:Why should House Science Committee discriminate against religion?

Phatscotty wrote:You said yourself, that he is a scientist.

Woodruff wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:You said yourself, that he is a scientist.

I said no such thing. I'm sorry you're unable to understand that the term "Christian Scientist" does not refer to a Scientist who is a Christian, but it does not. At all, in fact.

Woodruff wrote:I have just found out that Lamar Smith, head of the House Science Committee, is a Christian Scientist

Phatscotty wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:You said yourself, that he is a scientist.

I said no such thing. I'm sorry you're unable to understand that the term "Christian Scientist" does not refer to a Scientist who is a Christian, but it does not. At all, in fact.

Woodruff wrote:I have just found out that Lamar Smith, head of the House Science Committee, is a Christian Scientist

I think you just trolled yourself

Woodruff wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:You said yourself, that he is a scientist.

I said no such thing. I'm sorry you're unable to understand that the term "Christian Scientist" does not refer to a Scientist who is a Christian, but it does not. At all, in fact.

Why do you support having someone who doesn't believe in science to be the head of the House Science Committee, Phatscotty?

Woodruff wrote:I have just found out that Lamar Smith, head of the House Science Committee, is a Christian Scientist. Which means that he believes a reliance on conventional medicine should be discouraged and that physician methods should be seen as ineffective because they treat disease as originating in the body rather than the mind.

And this is who the House selected to head the HOUSE SCIENCE COMMITTEE?

Good Lord.

Phatscotty wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:You said yourself, that he is a scientist.

I said no such thing. I'm sorry you're unable to understand that the term "Christian Scientist" does not refer to a Scientist who is a Christian, but it does not. At all, in fact.

Why do you support having someone who doesn't believe in science to be the head of the House Science Committee, Phatscotty?

Then what is the correct term for a scientist who is a Christian?

Phatscotty wrote:Then what is the correct term for a scientist who is a Christian?

Woodruff wrote:So the conservatives here are supportive of the head of the House Science Committee being a "Christian Scientist"?

(Quotes added so dipshits don't misunderstand any more than they do naturally.)