Which Poly poster would you most regret getting in an argument with?

[Immortal Wombat]

Lazarus and the Gimp.

[Berzerker]

GP -

A. Show me.

Nah, you show me since you entered this thread to rehash the past.

B. I had no problem remembering the thing.

That's nice. We had a debate about the efficacy of lotteries one month, then in the next month, after you entered a new thread in which Agathon and I were debating, you started griping about whether or not we were debating lotteries without ever mentioning the old thread leaving the impression you meant the current thread. That's the only "proof" you've offered for your accusations in this thread.

It got complicated after you pissed and moaned and had a back and forth argument after.

You were the one doing the pissing and moaning. And what are you doing in this thread? More pissing and moaning.

C. The way you argue leads to these things, Berz.

What happened to that memory of yours? You were the one who instigated the confusion by bringing up arguments made in an old thread without mentioning what you were doing.

you are a slippery little worm. If I try to argue issue A, you will throw in issue B. It's like pinning a butterfly wings down.

Aren't we all impressed by the brave souls who use the internet to insult people when we all know they'd re-discover their manners face to face.

[Berzerker]

GP -

Oh...and Berzie, the threads were referring to each other.

No they didn't. They were a month apart and in the first one we debated lotteries and in the second, a debate about libertarianism you jumped into late, we ended up debating if we had debated lotteries. That's how inane you were. Once you informed me that you meant that we had debated lotteries in an old thread, I acknowledged we had.

And instead of having a big argument disagreeing with me, you could have just investigated it and said "George is right...oh, but it was a while ago."

That's exactly what I said once you identified the old thread. But you expected me to track down an old thread when you didn't even bother telling me you meant an old thread? I might have if you had told me you meant the debate about lotteries occured in an old thread instead of leaving the impression you meant the current thread. Even you complained about how long it took for you to track down the old thread, so why expect me to do your research?

Instead you debated what you had said endlessly until finally pinned down. At that point, coming out with the "it was old" sounds pretty ****ing weak.

Not at all, I kept asking you to identify where in the current thread we debated lotteries and you kept ignoring my request and never let on you meant an old thread until you went and found it. How was I supposed to know you meant an old thread? Agathon and I had been debating lotteries in the second thread, so naturally, when you started talking about lotteries, I figured you meant the same thread with Agathon, not one from a month ago.

[Alex]

I would not like to get in an argument with any Poly posters. I already have enough of these things with my wife.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

now this thread is fun

surely would end in the most useless argument on Apolyton top ten

[Sirotnikov]

I thought at first that this about how I regret arguing against XXX because he was actually a smart and well educated person.

It turns out it's a *****ing thread against people that are annoying to argue with.

I'm not going to mention all the ME posters since it's clear

I'm going to talk about people I respect when arguing, because I think this thread should be positive. The hell with the rest.

1. Ramo. He's a logical and very bright young kid. A bit too idealistic, but very smart.

2. Agathon is both smart but also a pain. I respect him as an intellectual though he often comes off snbobbish when instead of arguing about issues, he does his best to hint at how intelligent he is ("tell me? have you ever read XXX by XXX? Do you even know what the XXX theory is all about?"). It would work much to his advantage if instead of trying to appear wiser, he'd actually explain what he was talking about.

3. Che is fun to argue with. He often gets all kinds of alternate history facts from outer space, but some of them are actually crazy enough to sound true. He's always fun to argue with.

4. Kontiki is quite annoying to argue with. He seems to know a bit about every issue, or at least post about almost every second issue. His views are quite liberal left though he claims to be a centrist. Maybe compared to Che

Wait... this has become about people it's a pain to aruge with going back to fun people

5. Eli is fun because it's fun to see him make rediculous claims.

6. Ned is fun since he's sincere about his intentions to really advance and get your point and explain his point.

7. Dino Doc was fun to argue with when he was still going in his previous nick name. He was annoying, but he gave a good fight.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Berzerker
GP -

No they didn't. They were a month apart and in the first one we debated lotteries and in the second, a debate about libertarianism you jumped into late, we ended up debating if we had debated lotteries. That's how inane you were. Once you informed me that you meant that we had debated lotteries in an old thread, I acknowledged we had.



That's exactly what I said once you identified the old thread. But you expected me to track down an old thread when you didn't even bother telling me you meant an old thread? I might have if you had told me you meant the debate about lotteries occured in an old thread instead of leaving the impression you meant the current thread. Even you complained about how long it took for you to track down the old thread, so why expect me to do your research?



Not at all, I kept asking you to identify where in the current thread we debated lotteries and you kept ignoring my request and never let on you meant an old thread until you went and found it. How was I supposed to know you meant an old thread? Agathon and I had been debating lotteries in the second thread, so naturally, when you started talking about lotteries, I figured you meant the same thread with Agathon, not one from a month ago.

Now I gotta go track it all down again. Suffice it to say that you were wrong. Will be back with some cut and paste crap to get your mouth watering.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Arguing with Bezerker is an exercise in parsing sentences into oblivion.

You forgot "an exercise in wading through mounds of irrelevant objections."

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

2. Agathon is both smart but also a pain. I respect him as an intellectual though he often comes off snbobbish when instead of arguing about issues, he does his best to hint at how intelligent he is ("tell me? have you ever read XXX by XXX? Do you even know what the XXX theory is all about?"). It would work much to his advantage if instead of trying to appear wiser, he'd actually explain what he was talking about.

Sorry if it seems this way. I've been infected by my surrounds too much. If I can nail you down as having read a book or knowing what, say, utilitarianism is, it makes it easier to find common ground and the argument will actually get somewhere. It can be a big time saver in my job. Besides there are a stack of folk on here who answer "yes" to that stuff.

It's got nothing to do with trying to sound smart and everything to do with trying to spur on the argument.

Anyway, whenever I try to explain what I'm talking about Asher starts trolling the thread.

and no one should compare Lloyd with Berzerker. I had a long argument with Lloyd and he argued fairly and charitably without making irrelevant objections. I disagree with him, but at least he fights fair.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Agathon


You forgot "an exercise in wading through mounds of irrelevant objections."

I gotta go read 800 posts and than get back to him. That I need to do so tells you something. And Berzie...many people have this problem with you.

[TCO]

I may goof off a little before getting down to it...

[Ted Striker]

Stop picking fights with the tall people in class
Navy.

Don't make me send Dirk Nowitski after you!!!!

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
4. Kontiki is quite annoying to argue with. He seems to know a bit about every issue, or at least post about almost every second issue. His views are quite liberal left though he claims to be a centrist. Maybe compared to Che

I gotta say, I'm just honored to be mentioned. I didn't think I was enough of a fixture here to be noticed on anything yet.

And I'm aware that I come off as liberal left, although I really do maintain that I'm centrist. I just tend to argue against far right-wing positions more because they tend to incense me more. I find any far-left position to be just as rediculous, though, but I tend to just ignore them as far too idealistic.

[Sirotnikov]

Kontiki - no problem

Agathon - I know. But the problem is that even if I do know what you're talking about, I rarely take time to remember names or definitions (which is a minus, i agree).

I could also demand people to use definitions in morality of war threads, or talk about famous philosophers who talked about the morality of war. But I avoid that so that not to alienate people.

You seem to do it often. I realize it's a time saver in the faculty. But to other people it often sounds snobbish. I realize you don't intend to come off as such, but people may think so.

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Arguing with Bezerker is an exercise in parsing sentences into oblivion, so I will avoid those at all costs.

He must do it intentionally. It is really quite effective at silencing his opponants. After a while I forget what I thought he said that he said.