so much for the "slam dunk"

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by PaulS

I understand pontificate and your posts come across as pontificating.

"Come across" is not a statement of certainty. It is an expression of personal taste or feeling. There is an old expression--their is no disputing taste. How things "come across" to you is not arguable. It is more an indication of how you see rather than what you see. Two people may see the same thing and have a different opinion of what they see, or hear, or read. What may "come across" as pompous to you may "be perceived" as simply true by someone else. Do phrases like "be perceived" seem like pontificating compared to "come across" to you? Do "statement of certainty" or "expression of personal taste" seem a bit uppity? OK, I can see your point, and can't argue with your personal tastes. More important, is my "pontificating" true or false? If by saying that I pontificate, you're implying that I'm not truthful or that I'm wrong, then prove it. Prove that what I've said in response to your posts is wrong. In the thread by Jim in CT re Bush tax cuts only for the rich you kept demanding that he provide a link or back up his assertion, and that he didn't have any credibility in any of his posts if he didn't do so. So if you're implying that my "pontificating" is an indication that what I've said RELATING TO THE TOPIC OF THIS THREAD is wrong, then prove it. If you don't, or can't, then you do not have any credibility (and, as you put it to Jim in CT, you're lying).

If you're saying that I pontificate is just a little personal dig, that's no big deal and doesn't matter to me. That doesn't change the fact that you should, as you demanded of Jim in CT, back up you're assertions re Bush, or you have no credibility.

[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.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

" That doesn't change the fact that you should, as you demanded of Jim in CT, back up you're assertions re Bush, or you have no credibility.

pretty much sums it up...hey..is that HYPOCRICY ?

let's ask the expert...Paul?...what say you?

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

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

Yeah, the Red Wings have been good for a long time and have a long, great history, being part of the original six. They're about the only thing Detroit can brag about now. Yup, the Rhino is closed. It was a fatality of development, if I recall correctly. Too bad--it was a unique touch of the old Detroit riverfront architecture blended into a classy urban restaurant. I knew the owner who recently died. He was one of the leaders in the church that I used to attend. A lot has died in Detroit. If it can survive its government is the answer and provider, anti-business, black victim mentality, there is enough infrastructure for the private movers and shakers like Ilitch (who owns the Red Wings and Tigers) to transform, with friendly tax structures and elimination of the horrible crime problem, the old city into a thriving Midwestern hub. Dream on. Ironically, re the crime problem, the large influx of illegal latinos is refurbishing what had become the dilapidated core city. This may be slowly changing from a rather impotent black power city to one where Central Americans are the bottom up energy. It's a strange new mix here where you have the strongly Catholic latinos of Southwest Detroit separated from the large Islamic community of East Dearborn by an old Cemetary.

[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.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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

Thus one of the reasons why he popped the cherry on my ignore list. The first person ever. If you do the same, you'll find that putting just one or two people on there culls out a large majority of the Rush-type nonsense.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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

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...

[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 know what, I looked at it again and it could be all little ambigious. But what did you think the word etc. meant? Is there really a difference between calling ALL Dems. IDIOTS or MORONS. Isn't the intent the same?

But again, as I said it's hard to keep all your insults straight - especially from a 4 -5 month old tread.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Is there really a difference between calling ALL Dems. IDIOTS or MORONS.

I've done neither, but you are making a great case for yourself as posterboy for either category...

you may have to go back 18-24 months to find some real dirt ....but I don't know....we all know how you are about reading admittedly......

[buckman]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Is there really a difference between calling ALL Dems. IDIOTS or MORONS.

No...

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by scottw

I've done neither, but you are making a great case for yourself as posterboy for either category...

you may have to go back 18-24 months to find some real dirt ....but I don't know....we all know how you are about reading admittedly......

Are you saying that you've never responded to a post that concerns the Dems by saying something LIKE " ..... those Obamamorons..."? You know you have and that is why I called you classless.

You insult more people on this site than anyone else. An indication of the type of person that you are is that you insult JohnnyD a few posts above even though it appears that you know he has you on his ignore list - your a pathetic individual.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Are you saying that you've never responded to a post that concerns the Dems by saying something LIKE " ..... those Obamamorons..."? You know you have and that is why I called you classless.

You insult more people on this site than anyone else. An indication of the type of person that you are is that you insult JohnnyD a few posts above even though it appears that you know he has you on his ignore list - your a pathetic individual.

I'm saying I never said what you are claiming I said, you just keep changing the subject ....yes, I speak feeely knowing that I'm on JD's childish ignore list....

there are so many ironies in your posts...not the least of which is your contention that Detbuch's posts are boring... and of course, your repeated insults and pontification .....

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by scottw

I'm saying I never said what you are claiming I said, you just keep changing the subject ....

How am I changing the subject? B/c I said that you have repeatedly called all dems either idiots or morons? Again are you making your statement on the basis that the insults was slightly different? I admitted I wasn't 100% sure. I can't remember all your insults b/c you make them in most threads. 4-5 months ago I started telling you that it was classless to repeatedly post in a thread that ALL dems are morons, idiots, or some very similar insult (I better add the word similar b/c that seems to be the key in this discussion). That is why you continue to use the word classless now - like a little 12 year old trying to get digs in (similar to how you comment on my reading things b/c I once said I don't read every link, cut and paste or post and also now your repeated use of the word pontifiate).

I've don't have a problem with you complaining about a single person's statement, its the insult of 50% of the voting public that I've commented on.

You make more insults than anyone else here - by far.

I guess its just a difference in how we see things. I see your knowing JohnnyD can't see your posts but insulting him as low. You see it as speaking freely.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

How am I changing the subject? B/c I said that you have repeatedly called all dems either idiots or morons? once again...I have not Again are you making your statement on the basis that the insults was slightly different? I admitted I wasn't 100% sure. I can't remember all your insults b/c you make them in most threads. so, as usual you pontificate assertions with no actual facts 4-5 months ago I started telling you that it was classless to repeatedly post in a thread that ALL dems are morons did not, idiots did not, or some very similar insult (I better add the word similar b/c that seems to be the key in this discussion)no, all would be the key...your sticking point with Jim remember?. That is why you continue to use the word classless no...CLASSY now - like a little 12 year old trying to get digs in (similar to how you comment on my reading things b/c I once more than once said I don't read every link, cut and paste or post and also now your repeated use of the word pontifiate).yup

I've don't have a problem with you complaining about a single person's statement, its the insult of 50% of the voting public that I've commented on.

You make more insults than anyone else here - by far. prove it
I guess its just a difference in how we see things. I see your knowing JohnnyD can't see your posts but insulting him as low. You see it as speaking freely.

no, just having a little fun

you have effectively solidified yourself as posterboy

[scottw]

btw....I said "I quit" a while ago because you'd been thoroughly discredited but you seem to have a twisted desire to always get in one last false assertion I guess you are just having a really bad thread....I won't put you on my ignore list...despite all of your insults...you are oddly amusing

[PaulS]

A quick search the following uses of the term "Obamamoron".

“I supposed a dedicated Obamoron would suggest that Bo is actually engaged in "shared sacrafice" because he was willing to "share" his private jet with the Presidential Dog Walker”


“they are going to need to order doctors and insurance companies to provide free counseling to the Obamarons for their imminent suicidal depression, after the realization finally sets in for these people who have been duped, first by the New Deal, Great Society, Al Gore/Global Warming...and then Barry Obama/Hope and Change...and the realization that all of the goodies the dems have been selling them in return for votes all of these years was a ponzi scheme crock and all that they've come to rely on is bankrupt and can no longer sustain them ..these poor demented souls are going to need a lot of therapy.... ”


And then I called you on your use of obamamoron, you directed it at me –the prior 2 were some of your many, many general insults.

“C'MON....coming from you??? one of the least informed people here ...that means absolutely nothing...beyond the admission that you are infact...an "Obamoron" you can't stand the fact that I force you to look at the truth... ”

I have no interest at counting the number of insults on this board but if you don't realize that you have many, many, many times more than anyone else, you just have no common sense.

Scott, as I said, I think you’re a sad individual.