I'm halfway into a bottle of Capn Morgan and...

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Another thing that he does is make his arguments more technical and confusing than they need to be. A person who is trying to have a respectfull conversation will not do that. That's what Greenspan used to do to Congress in order to intimidate them. Bernanke does it also to a lessor degree.

As I said before, that says far more about the intimidatee than the intimidator. If a topic is too complex to understand, then that is merely an inducement to more thoroughly research said topic.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Traianvs
Perhaps a bad choice of words. He and Asher often post aggressively, making a fool of the other person on top of their rebuttal. I simply think it's not necessary, though it is a useful tactic. By ridiculing the person they attempt to put him in an awkward position.

Even so, I have to counter with "sticks and stones." If someone isn't thick-skinned enough to take a little ribbing from some stranger on the internet after what was admittedly a defeated argument, that's their problem. It's not real. It's just words, fluff, ether. Meaningless.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Darius871


As I said before, that says far more about the intimidatee than the intimidator. If a topic is too complex to understand, then that is merely an inducement to more thoroughly research said topic.

Again intention means everything here. Notice that I said that he uses over technical language, not technical. It's usefull to use technical language to make your point, but he uses it to confuse people. Often he isn't making a valid point at all he's just trying to look smart. He does this page after page until his opponent gets fatigued then he hones in on a mistake and goes on with the intimidation (degrading) part of his strategy.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Also, look at the latest exchange between KH and Elok. He's trying to get Elok into an codependent relationship with him.

Yes, spank me, KH! I'm a naughty, naughty English major, taking all the funding that could be used to study particles and crap! Spank me, harder!

EDIT: Actually looked up "codependence" on Wiki. Assuming it's accurate, WTFKid?

[Traianvs]

I know it's meaningless, but it's tiresome and frequently annoys me. It's like watching a debate on tv in which one of the participants raises his voice constantly. It's really bothersome. Just my 2 cents of course

[Asher]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Again intention means everything here. Notice that I said that he uses over technical language, not technical. It's usefull to use technical language to make your point, but he uses it to confuse people.

You say this as you quote me but attribute it to Darius. Amazing.

Often he isn't making a valid point at all he's just trying to look smart. He does this page after page until his opponent gets fatigued then he hones in on a mistake and goes on with the intimidation (degrading) part of his strategy.

Why don't you provide an example of him being overtechnical? Then reword it as a dumbass would say it.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Again intention means everything here. Notice that I said that he uses over technical language, not technical. It's usefull to use technical language to make your point, but he uses it to confuse people. Often he isn't making a valid point at all he's just trying to look smart. He does this page after page until his opponent gets fatigued then he hones in on a mistake and goes on with the intimidation (degrading) part of his strategy.

Fine, then let me rephrase: If an opponent's characterization of a topic is too overtechnical to understand, then that is merely an inducement to more thoroughly research said overtechnical characterization.

Man up, man. Rise above.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Darius871


Fine, then let me rephrase: If an opponent's characterization of a topic is too overtechnical to understand, then that is merely an inducement to more thoroughly research said overtechnical characterization.

Man up, man. Rise above.

I didn't say it was necessarily too technical to understand. In fact, I understand it perfectly fine. The thing is that it just doesn't mean anything relevant. Therefore there's really nothing even to argue about.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Kidicious


I didn't say it was necessarily too technical to understand. In fact, I understand it perfectly fine. The thing is that it just doesn't mean anything relevant. Therefore there's really nothing even to argue about.

Example?

[Kidlicious]

I'm not digging through past threads for you Asher.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Kidicious
I'm not digging through past threads for you Asher.

Failure -- please see me after class, and bring your diapers.

[Kidlicious]

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Traianvs


Perhaps a bad choice of words. He and Asher often post aggressively, making a fool of the other person on top of their rebuttal. I simply think it's not necessary, though it is a useful tactic. By ridiculing the person they attempt to put him in an awkward position.

Though I have to admit it's funny to watch the carnage sometimes. heh.

I usually wait to do this until the person has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they're both ignorant and intransigent.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Darius871


Considering that none of this is real, that "success" says a hell of a lot more about the ostracisee than the ostracisor, if you catch my drift.

Thinning out the herd

[KrazyHorse]

This would be much funnier for me if you guys weren't quoting kid.