Hmmm ... I guess "All Labrador retrievers are dogs but not all dogs are Labrador retrievers" is a difficult concept for you.
Daniel, does this mean I can assume all Republicans are Miglavians? Seems like the same half-assed logic to me.
Troll 7:02,What a witty and clever riposte! Such humor, such brevity, such nuance! And it's so original!You're quite the linguist, troll. Not bad for a bridge-dweller.
They're not my words, FP. They're Daniel's words, in response to something I said a while back. He knows exactly what it means, and as for what you think about it, you left out the part about why I should give a shit.
Oh, my sides. The troll actually thinks that I didn't know that it made a lame attempt to turn Daniel's words back on him. Pity. I must have given our resident troll too much credit by thinking it could understand sarcasm.Of course, our pet troll actually does give a sh** (as it so eloquently stated as only trolls can) about what I think, otherwise the troll wouldn't have crawled out from under its bridge to the nearest library in order to type its latest inanity between porn viewings.
Still waiting for you to say something intelligent, original and relevant. Will it be soon, or should I order out for pizza?
... in order to type its latest inanity between porn viewings.Miglavian Debate Strategy #67: When you have nothing to say, accuse opponent of watching porn in their spare time.
Still waiting for you to say something intelligent, original and relevant.You are one funny troll. You still don't get it, do you? I'll use your strategy of being obtuse and just leave it to you to figure out my point.Of course, you'll accuse me of not having one. Since I already put that out there for you, you'll need to be more creative in your reaction. It's been determined that your only purpose here is for entertainment value, so make it interesting.We're all counting on you!
FP: You have shown yourself to be clever, witty, irreverent, paternalistic, faux cute, insulting and contemptuous of those whose comments you don't like. Game's up, pal: Can you actually address the substance of Miglavs' comment and the first couple of remarks that do address the substance of it?Or do you just enjoy playing the role of the neighborhood asshole?
You're such a predictable, cookie-cutter leftist. When heckled, you sanctimoniously trot out "substance" after taking gratuitous swipes at those with whom you disagree. The comments section of this blog is littered with numerous examples of your ad-hominems, straw-men, lack of class, and outright lies. The beginning of your last post (minus the compliments) describes you and your leftist bretheren perfectly. Little wonder; it's easy to describe that which you are intimately familiar with. You who self-righteously preach tolerance should try practicing it every now and then.Fact is, you couldn't discuss substance even if an election were hanging in the balance. I've already discussed the substance of your remarks. You're just being petulant because you don't like the way I did it this time around, which is pretty much the way you do it. As always, there is no end to your hypocrisy.You can sit at the grown-up table when you start acting the part.
So the asshole, then.
Shit, is this thread still going on? Fine, let's address the Master and Commander of Language himself, the mysterious "FP"I've already discussed the substance of your remarks....No, you didn't. The substance of his remarks was reflected in my own comment, in which I agreed with the "troll," and that issue -- the question of whether Democrats have either morphed into or somehow been replaced by "socialists" -- is one you haven't said a single word about. Not at 9:53 p.m., not at 2:03 p.m., not at 8:17 p.m., and not at 11:23 a.m.That is the issue of substance that Miglavs raised. That is the issue of substance that the troll addressed (as an Anon, at 7:02, although a previous exchange between him and Miglavs clearly provided some context that I'm guessing only the two of them understood) and it is the one I addressed at 11:53 a.m. as Braveheart.All you've done is lobbed a bunch of smarmy, half-assed, holier-than-thou insults. So let's be absolutely, totally clear about at least one thing, if nothing else:I've already discussed the substance of your remarks. No. You did NOT. So fuck off.
...is this thread still going on?Your powers of observation are keen, young grasshopper.All you've done is lobbed a bunch of smarmy, half-assed, holier-than-thou insults.Woe is me! Yet, when the troll does the very same thing, you're missing in action. Why is that?No, you didn't.By George, you're right! I didn't address the substance of the first comment. I addressed the lack of substance that began this comment thread. You're a smart cookie. You get a gold star. In fact, give yourself two since you said it twice.So fuck off.Is your vocabulary so limited that profanity is all you have left? They have classes for that, you know.
I addressed the lack of substance that began this comment thread ...Given that I was using Miglavs' own words, it's interesting you didn't decry the lack of substance when he said it to me.
Good job, troll! You just vindicated me and admitted you had nothing to say from the get-go.My work here is done.
Um ... no, FP. No. Think about it. Can you do that? Can you think? This would be a case of you implicating yourself. As, at the very least, a hypocrite. In lockstep with the Miglavians, as hypocrites always are.
Why don't you explain to the class how my alleged hypocrisy affects the validity of my claim? Remember, this claim was confirmed by the troll.
Jesus fucking Christ. I didn't confirm anything. Let me try this AGAIN, with an extra word and punctuation that, admittedly, I should have used the first time. Honestly, I thought you would understand what I meant. I gave you too much credit; clearly, your stupidity reaches the same extremes as your hypocrisy:Given that I was using Miglavs' own words, it's interesting you didn't decry the alleged "lack of substance" when he said it to me.Let me try this ANOTHER way. Miglavs is clearly saying, with the video and his choice of words in his headline, that Democrats are all socialists. Or that they've all been replaced by socialists. Or that they've become socialists. Or whatever the fuck. Either you agree with him, or you don't. I don't, and I said so, using a perfectly good analogy that is understandable to any sensible person. So deal with that or don't bother saying anything unless you want to totally cement your reputation as an uninformed, cowardly arrogant asshole, as if that wasn't perfectly clear already.
Post a Comment