so much for the "slam dunk"

[PaulS]

you should stop your whining, it's so unappealing.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by PaulS

you should stop your whining, it's so unappealing.

That's all you got? Pathetic.

[PaulS]

ok, sorry I don't read most of your posts as I find your pontificating boring (which could be a reason that you don't like parties. I'm sure after a while you find yourselve in the corner with no one to talk to). I said you pontificate. That is my opinion. Jim made the asinine statement "that ALL Democrats.....". If he said "some", it wouldn't have been an issue. I asked him to back it up and he never did. See the difference?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by PaulS

ok, sorry I don't read most of your posts as I find your pontificating boring (which could be a reason that you don't like parties. I'm sure after a while you find yourselve in the corner with no one to talk to). I said you pontificate. That is my opinion. Jim made the asinine statement "that ALL Democrats.....". If he said "some", it wouldn't have been an issue. I asked him to back it up and he never did. See the difference?

Not even close. It would probably be best if instead of not reading most of my posts, you just put me on the ignore list and read none of them.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Not even close. It would probably be best if instead of not reading most of my posts, you just put me on the ignore list and read none of them.

Good point...one of the reasons I often push off responding is that I'd like to make a meaningful response...to what is most usually a thought provoking remark.

That being said, I'm now in Detroit and need to get to bed so I can get a work out in before our 8am start Tuesday morning.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Good point...one of the reasons I often push off responding is that I'd like to make a meaningful response...to what is most usually a thought provoking remark.

That being said, I'm now in Detroit and need to get to bed so I can get a work out in before our 8am start Tuesday morning.

-spence

The more I "get to know you," the better I like you. As crappy as Detroit is, it does have highlights. Hope all goes well.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

As crappy as Detroit is, it does have highlights. Hope all goes well.

It's an interesting area I've been to many times over the years. Good memories of Red Wings games and dinners at one of my favorite eateries (The Rhino) which I believe is now closed.

I'm in Livonia which isn't all that bad, or that special. Will be good to be back home Thursday evening.

-spence

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Not even close. It would probably be best if instead of not reading most of my posts, you just put me on the ignore list and read none of them.

I have no interest in putting anyone on the ignore list. I guess I'd do that if I got mad enough but I haven't seen a post yet that gets me that upset.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by PaulS

I have no interest in putting anyone on the ignore list. I guess I'd do that if I got mad enough but I haven't seen a post yet that gets me that upset.

The reason I suggest you put me on the ignore list had nothing to do with your anger. It's that I bore you. Why should you submit yourself to boredom? Just read posts, like yours, that scintillate with interesting comments. And I can't blame you for not responding to what I actually referred to when I asked you to prove what I said was wrong. M#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&g through boring, pontificating statements makes it hard to focus and can lead one's mind to stray. Certainly, your pronouncements on Bush's guilt, like a Popes message to his flock, need no proof, and your injection of off-topic Bush jabs, and your certainty on how I would fair at a party, could never be mistaken as pontificating. After all, you generally don't use big words. And, in contrast to what you said about ScottW, your posts in this thread have amply demonstrated that you're one of classiest guys on this forum. What was it, again, that you said about mirrors? Perhaps,except for ocasionally asking them who is the fairest one of all, and getting ready to go out, you should avoid them.

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Jim made the asinine statement "that ALL Democrats.....". If he said "some", it wouldn't have been an issue. I asked him to back it up and he never did. See the difference?

Jim, with my help, backed it up with direct quotes from all MAJOR democrat leaders from Kerry to Pelosi that said exactly what Jim stated. You just wanted to nit-pick since you had no other point to make.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by detbuch

The reason I suggest you put me on the ignore list had nothing to do with your anger. It's that I bore you. Why should you submit yourself to boredom? Just read posts, like yours, that scintillate with interesting comments. And I can't blame you for not responding to what I actually referred to when I asked you to prove what I said was wrong. M#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&g through boring, pontificating statements makes it hard to focus and can lead one's mind to stray. Certainly, your pronouncements on Bush's guilt, like a Popes message to his flock, need no proof, and your injection of off-topic Bush jabs, and your certainty on how I would fair at a party, could never be mistaken as pontificating. After all, you generally don't use big words. And, in contrast to what you said about ScottW, your posts in this thread have amply demonstrated that you're one of classiest guys on this forum. What was it, again, that you said about mirrors? Perhaps,except for ocasionally asking them who is the fairest one of all, and getting ready to go out, you should avoid them.

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). If you find my posts "scintillating" then either don't read them or put me on your ignore list. 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. 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.

Some people here don't post anything but jabs but when I mention Bush, you act as if I insulted the Pope. 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

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

Jim, with my help, backed it up with direct quotes from all MAJOR democrat leaders from Kerry to Pelosi that said exactly what Jim stated. You just wanted to nit-pick since you had no other point to make.

He never said all "Major" leaders in his original posts. That's not nit-picking, it makes a world of difference.

[detbuch]

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.

I see all of the posts that you mention. Some are meant to be funny. Some, I whince at. I'm generally not into the insult thing. But if I'm insulted enough I might give back. For the most part, the kind of posts you talk about are not worth the rile. Let it go. You mentioned in this thread that the only reason you posted was because of the constant theme of the Repub attacks. Is that what upset you to the point of irrelevantly inserting Bush into the discussion? Just sort of turning the tables--silly tit for silly tat? I get that. But you also said here, in another context, that you don't want what others do to be the standard of what we do.

That it's become a pissing match between you and me is also irrelevant to the thread and, by now, probably boring everybody else.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

My reference to ScottW (and another poster) being classy was their previous constantly posting things like calling all democrats idiots, democraps, etc.

He never said all "Major" leaders in his original posts. That's not nit-picking, it makes a world of difference.

I never called "all" democrats idiots.....not even "major" democrats...or "all democraps", for that matter....I love that...democraps...gotta remember that one

you are losing credabiity by the post.......ooops....was that insulting?...or just nit picking?

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by scottw

I never called "all" democrats idiots.....not even "major" democrats...or "all democraps", for that matter....I love that...democraps...gotta remember that one

you are losing credabiity by the post.......ooops....was that insulting?...or just nit picking?

I think it was ObamaMorons- right, was that the insult and not idiot? Sorry, its tough to keep all your attempted insults straight.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by scottw

you wrote that I called "all democrats idiots"..... your exact words....

.....now are you going to hold yourself to the same high standard that you aggressively demand of others ?...or have no credability?



..... "it makes a world of difference"

I'm on JD's ignore list because he's a self-absorbed blowhard(politically speaking) that loves to run off at the yap and savage others but hates to have his duplicity and the intellectual shortcomngs of his arguments pointed out...

Originally Posted by PaulS

. My reference to ScottW (and another poster) being classy was their previous constantly posting things like calling all democrats idiots, democraps, etc.

Scott - No, I didn't say what you claimed I did. I've highlighted what I said "ie - posting things LIKE calling all .....". So if you want to hang your hat on the difference b/t moron and idiot, go right ahead. And if it makes you feel good, I did apologize. As I said earlier, its hard to keep all your insults straight - especially from a 4 month old thread.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Scott - No, I didn't say what you claimed I did.



posting things like calling all democrats idiots

you wrote that I called "all democrats idiots"..... your exact words....


-

you are obviously right...I quit

[PaulS]

You refered to all dems. as Obamamorons in those posts and I'm sure there were many, many more posts. I showed you a tiny sample. Frankly, I can care less if you want to ignore them.

I wonder if anyone has more people than you on their ignore list?

But hey if I don't post again, you can have another thread where you were the last poster and you think you won (don't forget to add a few laughing emicons (especially the rolling on the floor one) to go with a snide comment).

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

You refered to all dems. as Obamamorons in those posts did not

a dedicated Obamoron
free counseling to the Obamarons
that you are infact...an "Obamoron"..funny, nothing about all democrats

and I'm starting to question your sanity, do you assume that all democrats voted for Obama?
and I'm sure there were many, many more posts. prove it I showed you a tiny sample. Frankly, I can care less if you want to ignore them.

I wonder if anyone has more people than you on their ignore list? just two that I'm aware of and could give a rats a$$

But hey if I don't post again, you can have another thread where you were the last poster and you think you won (don't forget to add a few laughing emicons (especially the rolling on the floor one) to go with a snide comment).

it's not about winning...at this point I feel like I'm doing a great service to one who is delusional and needs a great deal of help, I'm here for ya buddy