Bryan Posted June 8, 2007 Report Share Posted June 8, 2007 And then you wake up. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I wake up over and over again to find that you without an example to support your claims (implicit or otherwise). Gavin made no significant point that I failed to address--and that's why you're smart to avoid trying to give examples. The cupboard is bare. Paul LaClair's post was instructive. He consecutively criticized my failure to address everything that Gavin wrote, and picked out his favorite things that Gavin wrote--all things that I had addressed in one or another of my replies. A Yay Gavin! G-A-V-I-N! went up from the cheerleading squad--but without examples. No touchdowns or first downs celebrated. Just the big win, minus any detail. Because if you really look at the exchange, there are no details that favor Gavin. He was at his best supposing that his answering exhaustively was strategic genius and trying to argue that treating the details misses the overall point. And, as I've already pointed out, he agreed with me to a great extent on epistemology and on the fact that Paszkiewicz's words were not taken properly in context. But the cheerleaders will assuredly ignore that. How about a perky pyramid? Or maybe a line dance? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bewildered Posted June 8, 2007 Report Share Posted June 8, 2007 Ah yes, Strifey "Super Civil Servant" to the rescue. Strop is a word but hardly common in modern usage. Of course anything goes when trying to make Mr. P look like an out of control animal.And no one mentioned the rest of bewildered's poorly written post, including the generalized attack on priests. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The man's instrument of torture was a leather razor strop. It's a piece of leather about 5" wide, 10" long, and about 3/8" thick. It has a hook or metal grommet on one end to attach it to a wall (usually) and a more narrow piece of leather on the other end with which the shaver holds it while he sharpens his razor. What did you want me to call it? Both the metal part and the wide leather part make contact with the skin of the one being beaten. A generalized attack on priests? I just mentioned that they were both Roman Catholic priests and they were both fu**ked up. I wasn't talking about all RC priests. One of them was moved by his bishop because he was bilking a bunch of widows in his old parish. He was also one of the most obnoxious, nasty people I have ever met. Since I am always trying to improve myself, could you please point out the "poorly written" parts of my post? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted June 9, 2007 Report Share Posted June 9, 2007 Didn't take more than the faintest flicker of hope to find a cheerleading squad forming for Gavin, did it?Gavin is beaten. He's not going to be able to support his charges that I committed fallacies--some of you think otherwise because you don't like my positions and you don't know logic. On top of that Gavin hints very strongly at agreement with the views I've already expressed on epistemology, and agreed with me that Paszkiewicz has had his quotations misrepresented. That directly contradicts a number of you on the cheerleading squad. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The reason so many of us appreciated what Gavin did is not just that we agree with him, though we do. Our appreciation is based on the content of his remarks and the length of time he obviously spent composing them. There is a vast difference, which Bryan does not seem to appreciate, between thinking an argument through from all its various angles, from up close and from a broader perspective; and writing any ridiculous, if high-sounding words that completely overlook what the discussion is about. Unraveling Bryan's illogic in its entirety is no mean task, but Gavin did it. That is what we respect and admire. So Bryan if you really want to insist on answering every point another person makes, you haven't even touched the substance of Gavin's remarks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted June 9, 2007 Report Share Posted June 9, 2007 The reason so many of us appreciated what Gavin did is not just that we agree with him, though we do. I pointed out two areas where many of you disagree with Gavin. Our appreciation is based on the content of his remarks and the length of time he obviously spent composing them. Did you particularly like where he agreed with me about epistemology, or where he assessed the Dranger transcript as making Paszkiewicz look rather mild in class? Or something else, maybe? There is a vast difference, which Bryan does not seem to appreciate, between thinking an argument through from all its various angles, from up close and from a broader perspective; and writing any ridiculous, if high-sounding words that completely overlook what the discussion is about. Unraveling Bryan's illogic in its entirety is no mean task, but Gavin did it. That is what we respect and admire. You seem to be making stuff up. Where did Gavin successfully point out so much as one point of mine as illogical (count his fallacy accusations or whatever)? So Bryan if you really want to insist on answering every point another person makes, you haven't even touched the substance of Gavin's remarks. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> What substantive remark of his do you think I was furthest from addressing, assuming that you can think of as many as one examples? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted June 10, 2007 Report Share Posted June 10, 2007 The reason so many of us appreciated what Gavin did is not just that we agree with him, though we do. Our appreciation is based on the content of his remarks and the length of time he obviously spent composing them. There is a vast difference, which Bryan does not seem to appreciate, between thinking an argument through from all its various angles, from up close and from a broader perspective; and writing any ridiculous, if high-sounding words that completely overlook what the discussion is about. Unraveling Bryan's illogic in its entirety is no mean task, but Gavin did it. That is what we respect and admire. So Bryan if you really want to insist on answering every point another person makes, you haven't even touched the substance of Gavin's remarks. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yea! Gavin's smarter then the two of you so put this puppy to bed. Ok Paul? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted June 10, 2007 Report Share Posted June 10, 2007 Bryan, you are so much fun to play with. Ever read "The Phantom Tollbooth", you're the Terrible Tedium incarnate! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Gavin, you blithering idiot, It's the Terrible Trivium, you reprobate fool! "The Terrible Trivium - The Terrible Trivium is a demon with no facial features. He lives in the Mountains of Ignorance and preys upon travellers, convincing them to undertake tasks that can never be completed." --- http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/tollbooth/characters.html Now drop your drawers and bend over so Bryan so administer an appropriate chastisement. Why would you ever compare Bryan to such a character in the first place? For shame. Bryan's slavish buffoon, Sancho Panza O'Reilly-Limbaugh-Falwell Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted June 10, 2007 Report Share Posted June 10, 2007 Gavin, you blithering idiot,It's the Terrible Trivium, you reprobate fool! "The Terrible Trivium - The Terrible Trivium is a demon with no facial features. He lives in the Mountains of Ignorance and preys upon travellers, convincing them to undertake tasks that can never be completed." --- http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/tollbooth/characters.html Now drop your drawers and bend over so Bryan so administer an appropriate chastisement. Why would you ever compare Bryan to such a character in the first place? For shame. Bryan's slavish buffoon, Sancho Panza O'Reilly-Limbaugh-Falwell <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Ooh, Bryan is getting his strop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted June 10, 2007 Report Share Posted June 10, 2007 Gavin, you blithering idiot,It's the Terrible Trivium, you reprobate fool! "The Terrible Trivium - The Terrible Trivium is a demon with no facial features. He lives in the Mountains of Ignorance and preys upon travellers, convincing them to undertake tasks that can never be completed." --- http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/tollbooth/characters.html Now drop your drawers and bend over so Bryan so administer an appropriate chastisement. Why would you ever compare Bryan to such a character in the first place? For shame. Bryan's slavish buffoon, Sancho Panza O'Reilly-Limbaugh-Falwell <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Great art imitates life. We all owe a debt of gratitude to Bryan for making so many rich fictional characters come to life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bewildered Posted June 11, 2007 Report Share Posted June 11, 2007 The man's instrument of torture was a leather razor strop. It's a piece of leather about 5" wide, 10" long, and about 3/8" thick. It has a hook or metal grommet on one end to attach it to a wall (usually) and a more narrow piece of leather on the other end with which the shaver holds it while he sharpens his razor. What did you want me to call it? Both the metal part and the wide leather part make contact with the skin of the one being beaten. A generalized attack on priests? I just mentioned that they were both Roman Catholic priests and they were both fu**ked up. I wasn't talking about all RC priests. One of them was moved by his bishop because he was bilking a bunch of widows in his old parish. He was also one of the most obnoxious, nasty people I have ever met. Since I am always trying to improve myself, could you please point out the "poorly written" parts of my post? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It's been three days since my writing has been criticised; this is just another example of right-wing unsubstantiated person attacks I must also assume that my description of the torture and that I was only talking about 2 RC priests and not the whole damn church. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted June 11, 2007 Report Share Posted June 11, 2007 The man's instrument of torture was a leather razor strop. It's a piece of leather about 5" wide, 10" long, and about 3/8" thick. It has a hook or metal grommet on one end to attach it to a wall (usually) and a more narrow piece of leather on the other end with which the shaver holds it while he sharpens his razor. What did you want me to call it? Both the metal part and the wide leather part make contact with the skin of the one being beaten. A generalized attack on priests? I just mentioned that they were both Roman Catholic priests and they were both fu**ked up. I wasn't talking about all RC priests. One of them was moved by his bishop because he was bilking a bunch of widows in his old parish. He was also one of the most obnoxious, nasty people I have ever met. Since I am always trying to improve myself, could you please point out the "poorly written" parts of my post? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bwildered Posted June 11, 2007 Report Share Posted June 11, 2007 No. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> So now I can assume that anything you post is unsubstantiated garbage? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted June 12, 2007 Report Share Posted June 12, 2007 It's been three days since my writing has been criticised; this is just another example of right-wing unsubstantiated person attacks I must also assume that my description of the torture and that I was only talking about 2 RC priests and not the whole damn church. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Take a deep breath and read the above post. You will see that your screen name fits you well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.