Originally Posted by PaulS
Your right I do find you a little boring and don't generally read most of your posts (nor do I read many of the other long winded, parsing type of posts but most people don't see fit to comment on every sentence someone writes like you do).
Thanks. Being a little boring isn't so bad. I bore myself sometimes. So, if I'm not totally boring, that's probably why you read some or a few of my posts? Or, maybe, sometimes you're so bored with everthing else that, oh, what the hell, let me check out detbuch's crap?
The "parsing" as you call it (not really parsing, but I know what you mean, so I won't nitpick)--the responding sentence by sentence is just easier to do than going off forum and crafting something that tries to coherently put together all the responses in a really long-winded essay. I'd think that reading brief responses would be short-winded, no?
BTW, you might note that your claiming that I see fit to comment on EVERY sentence is exactly the same kind of hyoperbole that Jim in CT committed when he said ALL Democrats instead of some. I often do sentence by sentence, as I'm doing, somewhat, here. But many times I don't. You made a big deal about Jim's exaggeration--can you now give him some slack and see that it was only, as he admitted, hyperbole, and not a big detraction from his argument?
If you find my posts "scintillating" then either don't read them or put me on your ignore list.
I said your posts scintillate with interesting comments. Why wouldn't I read them?
I made one statement on Bush in about 3 months and you claim I “hate” him and then I'm "obsessed". If you disagree fine, except you start with the “hate” insults, say I'm obsessed, moral, the holder of truth, etc.
Saying that I get it, you hate Bush, was not an isult, but a perception (if you disagree, fine) based on the context of your stubbornly wanting to blame him with unsubstantiated comments and throwing irrelevant jabs. To say that you hate someone is not an insult, certainly no more than saying someone is boring. And I didn't "claim" you were obsessed. I put a ? after it, which is to say, since you denied that you hate Bush, why did you insist stubbornly, without doubt, on blaming him?
Claiming that is a "Bush jab" is fine, but I haven't seen you get so upset with most of the posts here that are off topic jabs. Frankly, the Bob Jones Univ. was more of a jab. So you take a somewhat low level heated argument and personalized it.
Am I required to comment on all off topic jabs before I can comment on your's? And, I'll agree with you that I shouldn't have "personalized" it by wondering if it was hate or obsession, but I just should have stuck strictly, without asides, to the argument that you couldn't substantiate that Bush had Ghaillani tortured, etc. Ergo, Bush cannot be "blamed" for the outcome of the trial or that the outcome would have been the same in military court.
Some people here don't post anything but jabs but when I mention Bush, you act as if I insulted the Pope.
The Pope gets insulted on a regular basis. I've got no dog in that hunt.
My reference to ScottW (and another poster) being classy was their previous constantly posting things like calling all democrats idiots, democraps, etc. Frankly, I have seen much less of it. Scott still does his best to insult people but he has toned it down quite a bit – read his posts (even in this thread) where he constantly will make a statement, post a copy of something and then throw an insult in. The other person has toned it down much more. If I insult anyone here, it’s directly to them and not to all people who have a certain belief/feeling. So yes, there is a difference.
|