This i beieve you think is true..this is why i did not wish to play your game ..i have said that you are arrogant ..this is what i am talking about. you calling me a friggin natzi now..whatever next....hahahahaha Yup. You've got me there. well..*sigh* i can't be arsed with responding anymore tonight ..speak with you soon Dok'
Yes, so you've said many times now, and yet every time I've asked you to furnish me with an example, you've failed to do so. And now you think that it makes me arrogant to state that I believe you're stupid, when finally responding to your repeated name calling? Hardly. I'd be arrogant if I was convinced you were stupid and didn't allow room for any other possibility. See, this is why I think you're stupid. I provided an example of similar behaviour. I didn't call you anything. But obviously that subtlety is lost on you. Catch ya tomorrow Well done. Accepting you have a problem is the first step on the road to recovery. I wish you luck.
What, like one of your PMs? Just hurling around a few random insults? Yes, I can see how that would've helped.
Hehe dear dear what great late night entertainment this brings us almost beats bill bailey (who we just saw wooooo!!! *grin*) Hey Dok if your down on Friday we should meet up at some point, im working for a few hours but aside from that and other essential student things ...like..... sleeping.....and............sleeping im pretty much free
alright both of you. This has gone on quite long enough. You're starting to repeat yourselves. maybe a little timeout is in order.
thats true......we are repeating ourselves , i just re read what i was saying . Some of my spelling and grammer was bloody awful hahahaha but thats what happens when your a little wound up. I see dok's was alright ... possibly because he was just doing the same tactic he always does . Its easy too picking faults with stuff .. He gave up not realy answering what i was saying after the 3rd page or so.. Its a bit sad that we drifted into such behaviour . . I gave up reading what he was saying upto a point , because i was just banging my head against a brick wall. No i was tired and bored with your 'debating' sommersaults. It was not lost on me at all, was not the laughing at the end an indication that i was trying to make out you were calling me nasty names ... It was a strange thing to say Dok', an odd anology , you must have digged deep for that one hahahaha. This i did a few days after we started this ..and after we both lost intrest in not offending each other. thats why i say you pick things our were ever just to make your point. You pepper you posts with enough under hand insults , for me to assume that you not joking half the time. If its just going to end with us endlessly littering our post with nastyness then i don't believe its worth it. You have your opinions of me .... i have my opinions of you . Like i said earlier your not altering any original thoughts i had of you at all.THE END
No, the Dok's spelling and grammar was faultless because the Dok is a good speller and has a fair grasp of the rules of grammar. No need to look for complicated explanations..... well, unless you're struggling for a sensible reply and are just settling for being offensive again. Just because you don't understand an answer, it doesn't mean that an answer hasn't been given. For example? What initial assumptions would these be? Would they be the ones about your offensive attitude? The asumptions that you confirmed by resorting to sending me abusive PMs? So you were having trouble following the arguments then? No, I didn't dig deep at all. I was looking for a simple enough analogy for you to understand. Ah, I see. So sending someone abusive PMs is OK so long as you wait a little while before you do so? Rubbish. If I set out to insult you, you'll know about it. If I intend to insult you, I'll make it nice and clear so you'll understand it. Let's remember, I'm not the one who needed to attempt to hide my insults from public site by sending them via PM. And like I said earlier, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.
dok' the quicker you post ...the less subtlty is their.. I read a comment that i skiped over.. you said something about not liking me posting my thoughts in a prety much liberal website.. i am probably slightly misquoting you , but thats prety much the jist. Can you remember that , i can't find it but anyway. This is why your playing games ..i knew what you were doing from the start ... wasting my time. This a free forum like you say .. and i can say what i like (upto a point). i think you also questioned why i am here , i think i said something about disruptive or something . I think i said being disruptive is a good thing . I don't go around in every thread saying this is all wishful thinking fuzzy logic or anything to that effect.. i try my best to point out my point of view when i can and if i can. You just meander all over the place with me because you don't fundementaly like what i say ... thats all their is too it. Yes you say other wise and i am sure i am being melodramatic ... so this is why i am calling time with you. Your not offended by any of the 'insults' i have thrown your way ... i did not realy mean most of them (i am sure you don't fuck your mum ) . I looked at the evidence and came to a diffrent conclusion to you. Are you saying your right. Yes this is why i asked you to 'show me' you seemed like you knew what you were talking about , it would not have been difficult to just furnish me with a bit of outside sources for your 'inteligence' (i think you did once for the washington post, but you needed to be registered) yes i see that you reduced yourself to personal abuse and personal insults ...how very grown up and wonderfuly inteligent , such wit and verve , i almost thought oscar wilde had been possesing you hahahah
I thought you were both self-important dicks before I read this. And I still do. Dr.A, in the short while I've been using these boards, you've come across as "up yourself", to use a British idiom. It's tedious trying to discuss anything with you because you don't seem to take any notice of anything people say between your posts. It's like talking to someone who doesn't listen to you, just waits for their turn to speak. The key difference is that this is the Web, not a conversation, and it's not like there's any rush; you can read people's posts and respond at your leisure, not just file them under "Against me" and respond with a slight permutation of your last comment. Matthew came across as a little uncomplicated, doesn't know how to argue, and talks out of his arse, but I think I prefer him to Dr.A because at least he has the excuse of being inarticulate, rather than just acting like it. I hate you, I wish you both had head cancer!
yeah i am uncomplicated..probably pisses Dok' off a bit , i realy wonder why he continues with reponding with me.. hahahahah hahahah i can admit to that , i am sometimes reading over some of the stuff i write.... i have not read an awful lot from yourself selfcontrol so i won't be judge you . You seem nice enough .. believe me though i can regonise and not be offended by what you say. as of yet i can't see Dok' being self depricating in any way, so i assume he is much more than me.
I think what you really mean is that you're having trouble keeping up Now you're just making things up. Really, dragging up some comment from god only knows how long ago that you can't even manage to quote, and then using that as the basis for a baseless attack is pretty pathetic. I never said anything about not liking you posting your thoughts. I asked, out of curiosity, why you choose to hang out on a predominantly liberal website when your views are fairly right wing. A valid question, I still think. You're just being paranoid now. Seeing conspiracies behind every action. You're the one wasting your time, Matthew. I can't make you post, can I? Of course you can. In the same way that I'm free to comment on your posts. Actually, this is pretty much exactly what you do whenever Iraq comes up for discussion on the UK forum. Well I don't agree with your views on Iraq. I don't think I've ever made any secret of that? I think I've openly challenged your opinions on these issues in fact. What you mistake for my 'meandering all over the place' is just your inablility to follow a logical debate. You got that right! I'm too busy fucking your mum No, you see that's where we differ. I've come down against the war, but I accept that there's an argument in favour of it. There are specific areas where the facts are unquestionable however, such as the false pretext. We've been over this. I've already explained the arguments to you. If you need more information, look it up. That's what the internet's for. Funny, I coulda sworn it was you sending me the insulting PMs. Clearly I was deluded. Well it would seem that I've allowed you to set the tone then. As you well know, Matthew, you're the one who's resorted to insults. Your behaviour began as insulting, and culminated in sending me insulting PMs. Sort out your own behaviour before you go criticising mine.
Not at all. It's a pleasure to know that there are people as simple as you out there Matthew. After all, where else would idiots like Bush and Blair find the votes to keep them in office?
No its around here somewere and prety recent ... i hate dragging things up from the past...but you tend to do it so what the hell..i am just trying to end this all..with a few final points thats all.. i can follow what you say..but its mostly based on a false premise i think. Yeah you made a point about me , and yeah i agreed to a degree. Its the way you go about things , turning simple things like a friendly word of advice into diatribes that go on for days hahaha..all in the pursuit of a debate..hahahahah Not always , and if i do then i hope that person can defend their way of thinking...and correct my stupidity , but you would say i am being arrogant and its hard to talk to someone who is being that way..but i am not outright that way..if they can't or won't answer this is not my fault realy. You would have trouble doing that , but you would not know about all that..so i can let you off. This is why your intelectualising.. this is why i have one point of view and stick with it. Your waiting for the 'evidence' to fit your thinking and interpreting the information that you do question in a way that suits your fundemental belief .. sorry but this is the way i see it.
I couldn't help noticing that you didn't quote any of the rest of what I said. And that thing where you dissect a whole post into quotes of a few words is really annoying. What's the point? So far, the only reason I can see is that you want to catch people on minutiae of their post, rather than actually pay any attention to what they're saying, and generally give the impression that you're more intelligent than you are. Sciolism is really really immature, teenage and idiotic, and the fact that you're doing it in your 30s amazes and frightens me.
I know exactly what I said, and I said no such thing. If you can prove I said differently, please do. Otherwise you're just blowing hot air. Yeah Matthew. It's all one sided. It's just me that makes it go on for days. You don't participate in these discussions at all. The problem is that you don't seem to listen. Points are made to you repeatedly, but you choose to ignore them. No, you see that's where we differ. I've come down against the war, but I accept that there's an argument in favour of it. There are specific areas where the facts are unquestionable however, such as the false pretext. What, exactly, do you mean by this? Using my brain? Then...uhhh.... yeah, I am. Really dude, what the fuck are you talking about? I made two statements: 1. I do not support the war, but I accept that there's an argument in favour of it. What's unreasonable about that? I have my personal belief that the war is wrong, but others may feel that the ends justify the means. Much of this comes down to a matter of personal opinion. 2. We were led into the war on a false pretext. Well we were. This is documented fact. So I'm a little confused..... what exactly do you mean by "waiting for the evidence to fit"? On point 1, the 'evidence' does not relate to the argument, because the argument is a matter for personal moral opinion. There is no absolute right or wrong, and evidence will not change that one way or another. Say, for example, the war was widely accepted to have been about oil. That won't prove the war was wrong. There will still be those who believe that the pursuit of oil was sufficient reason to invade Iraq. On point 2, the evidence already fits. The governement have accepted, for example, that there are no WMD present in Iraq. What exactly do you mean by "interpreting the information that you do question in a way that suits your fundemental belief"? On point 1, I've examined the evidence and reached an opinion. I had no "fundamental belief" beofre I examined the evidence, so it would've been impossible for me to be influenced one way or the other. On point 2, the evidence is clear. Interpretation is not possible. There were no WMD in Iraq. Period. I'm still not clear on exactly what it is you're accusing me of though, so please feel free to clarify.
Seems like you were just setting out to insult me, so I didn't really see the point. In spoken dialogue, you can respond to each thing a person says as they say it. In written dialogue, this is impossible. So quoting comments is necessary if you wish to respond to a number of points that a person has made throughout their post. How else would you suggest it's possible to do so? You might find it annoying, but that's really just a matter of personal taste. So you really are just setting out to be offensive, aren't you? Firstly, if you respond to a point made by someone during a conversation, are you trying to 'catch them out'? Secondly, if I wasn't paying attention to what people say, I wouldn;t be interested in replying to them. Thirdly, you're either inteligent or you're not. If there's a way to give an impression of intelligence without actually being intelligent, then I've never come across it. People can reach whatever conclusion they like about my intelligence. I really couldn't give a fuck how smart I appear to a bunch of people who I'm never likely to meet. If I really wanted to try and appear intelligent, I imagine I'd swear far less than I do. Yes, but even using the word 'sciolism' in this context is itself, sciolistic. So really, you're just demonstrating the same trait that you accuse me of having *edit* As an afterthought, surely if I actually was intelligent, the only way I could clear myself of the charge of sciolism would be to dumb down all my posts? So in order to demonstrate my intelligence, I'd need to make myself appear stupid?!!? Can't really win in that scenario.......
So you're basically trying to do the on-line equivalent of interrupting someone while they're making a point? That's really fucking gay, it undermines the whole idea of a forum as a place to air your views. The fact that it makes the threads so much longer when they don't have to be, coupled with the fact that you write bigger than everyone else, all give the impression that you're desperate for attention. Sadly you appear to get it. None of the previous stuff was intended to be insulting, merely critical, but the fact that you've taken it as such serves to prove what others have been suggesting: that you can't bear to have anyone criticise you or your precious opinions. If you really were a doctor I wouldn't be surprised, you seem to have the arrogance down pat.
