Lies, damn lies and politics

I think this is true but might be BECAUSE of that period and so many avoiding the discussions now.

 

Fair enough. Would be curious to go back and read those discussions. But as you know I've called you and DW among others out on this before. Maybe you don't read my posts/feel they're worthy of a response. Which is fine.

 

Sure, but there are lots of places where the posters are intelligent. It's journalists' superior intelligence that keeps me here.

 

I wouldn't know. I do know the site is much more "serious" now than it once was. As far back as a decade ago, you were really dealing with some dark, intractable souls -some people who were really settled into the kind of people they were. It was actually pretty interesting; moreso than now. More writing talent back then, for sure.

A lot of the people bouncing around here now would have been minor blips back then. Boom was mildly polarizing - at best - in that cast of characters.

 

Is it further irony that he has failed to respond? Or further evidence that I'm not worthy of a response?

 

It's a message board. As William Shatner said in a Star Trek convention, "Get a life!"

Watch Trekkies from Saturday Night Live on NBC.com

 

I'm not sure what you were asking me, or what response you were looking for.

Are you saying I often don't respond to posts?

I don't think that's true, but I also don't have an OOP-like obsession with getting in the last word.

 

I'm saying you and others don't respond to posts that offer evidence that doesn't fit your positions or you just change the subject. I have pointed it out on several occasions.

 

Well, I'd have to see some examples, but I think it mostly depends on how dumb the response is?

I mean, does every Baron hypothetical, Devil non sequitur, or Riptide joke that falls flat, deserve a response?

Thoughtful replies get replies.

As for "changing the subject", I think that's a false claim.

Take Smallpotatoes' ridiculous argument on the thread he started today. Is is "changing the subject" when you're simply trying to find the the actual standard someone is arguing on behalf of?

Is it changing the subject when I ask folks who tell me we should only be concerned with "radical" Muslims how they would define a radical Muslim?

When someone says they don't like Public Figure A, because they lie, treat women poorly, or whatever, is it changing the subject to try and find out if this is a consistent opinion of theirs? If they would simply say, "I don't like Public Figure A because of his political views, that would be fine, but when you give a specific reason for disliking someone, it's hard to take you seriously if you also love some other Public Figure who shares the same trait.

Knowing if you worth taking seriously is important to me if you expect me to engage you.

 

Of course. Butl I have openly called you out (as well as several others) several times it has happened and ... No response. I just think if you want to debate you should respond to serious questions/rebuttals. You are better than some of the usual suspects but you still do it regularly.

 

I did give a response to your question with an answer on how I thought the gun control issue was just as important, if not more, than the concern over Muslims. Never got a response, that I know of.

 

See the San Bernardino thread for more evidence.