3

27 comments

[–] InnocentBystander -1 points (+0|-1) Edited

Your point was that I only post from a single perspective, was it not?

No. Pay attention, I'm not going to repeat myself.

If you are claiming that naturalnews.com and counterpunch.org are not the same

That is not what I said and has nothing to do with anything I said.

These two sites are diverse from each other, therefore, they contain "some variety.

When you say "diverse" do you mean "different"?
There's not much "diversity" in sites being repeated 15 times, or all posts being to extremely biased politics.
None at all. Just you playing the same game over and over, with no variety.

There is more than one source, you know. Like this one

That's not a source, it's an entertainment article. A source would be a dictionary, wikipedia, or the like. None of which include your made up phrase.
I can make up a fallacy also, that doesn't make it a common expression. You can't just invent a word and then pretend it's valid.

What are you doing here? Is this your idea of discussion, or debate? Are you trying to win? I was curious about your motives, you've made it clear that they are malicious, and you are not open to discussion.

A source would be a dictionary, wikipedia, or the like

Does that change anything about what I said, or are you just playing the "red herring" card here, trying to get involved with discussing what are valid sources rather than the fact that ANY repsonse is greater than zero, thereby making your point invalid. Sorry, it just is. You could change it to "very few responses" and we'd be golden. But you want to play the attack game, the diversion game, and the deflection game rather than admit a simple mistake that really shouldn't be the end all, be all of your existence, but for some odd reason, you refuse to make. Why is that? What is so important about being 100% correct? I fuck up all the time. So what? Just admit it, and move on with your life. Seriously, I can't keep giving out these free lessons! (Name the movie for 100 free internet points!)

What are you doing here?

Posting articles that interest me. Is that against a by-law I am unaware of?

Is this your idea of discussion, or debate?

I am just responding to your queries and your comments.

Are you trying to win?

Win what?

I was curious about your motives, you've made it clear that they are malicious,

Malicious to whom or what? So, posting articles is malicious behavior? In what way, pray tell? Let's say, for rhetorical sakes, I am a raving mad lefty. How is that "malicious"? Is having a differing viewpoint "malicious" to you? Or is this an echo chamber site, where only one viewpoint is allowed? If so, than we probably should have that on the sidebars.

you are not open to discussion

Open is discussion. We have been communicating. Communicating doesn't mean that I must swallow and accept everything you say as gospel truth. Discussion means

the action or process of talking about something, typically in order to reach a decision or to exchange ideas

We re talking about something, and exchanging ideas. Therefore this is a discussion. Not the most interesting or informative discussion, but it is still a discussion.

Care to explain why I am "malicious" and why you care so much?

this is a discussion

If this is your idea of discussion, then I feed bad for you.

Let's say, for rhetorical sakes

You don't know what the word rhetorical means, but you still tried to use it. Did you think I wouldn't notice, and I'd be impressed?
Well, unlike you, I know what the word means. So it just exposes your retardation even more.
Also 'sakes' is not a word. The word 'sake' is a plurale tantum (means it is the same when plural or singular).

Care to explain why I am "malicious"

I have no idea. I could take a guess at a bad upbringing, or maybe a mental disorder.

why you care so much?

I think I've made it clear that I don't.
Sorry.

f this is your idea of discussion, then I feed bad for you.

Cool. Thanks for the empathy.

You don't know what the word rhetorical means, but you still tried to use it. Did you think I wouldn't notice, and I'd be impressed? Well, unlike you, I know what the word means. So it just exposes your retardation even more. Also 'sakes' is not a word. The word 'sake' is a plurale tantum (means it is the same when plural or singular).

Neat. You be so smart. I is so dumb. I truly hope you preen about for the next couple of days with your air of superiority about wording rather than ever addressing a single point. You SHOULD be proud of yoruself! Keep it up!

I could take a guess at a bad upbringing, or maybe a mental disorder

Nice! Let's attack not only the person's character, let's double down and insult their parents and their mental health! APPLAUSE! That's awesome, dude! Double peacock on that slam! Well played!