Dennis Miller on Politics

bed! no supper!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

"lie" - A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.

Which evidence was that, Counsler?

And just for the record, I'm happy to explore that aspect:

• "The mudslinging started here:" This expresses your opinion but doesn't make any real demonstration.
• "Tiassa, you cannot talk your way out of this with a 500 word post. You insulted a poster. Everyone here sees it, including me." You passed up an opportunity to state the connection clearly.
• "I just showed you the insult. And the only person who doesn't see the insult is you." Again, a masterful demonstration of nothing, Counsler.
• "This Tiassa, is getting to be retarded. You're disputing four words to defend your own position. You know what "in a like manner" means? It means that your defense on this matter is faulty at best." Here you're actually running from a connection between Gregoftheweb's words and mine which actually undermines what excuse you attempt to pass for a case.
• "You then ask him if his conservative heros do coke. Meaning that you basically asked Greg this questions: 'Is your father a coked out whore?'" This is your strongest attempt to state the issue, but it simply tells me the result of your chosen interpretation. You haven't even begun at this point to make clear the case for how you come to read it this way, and given your retreat from four simple words--your screaming flight from that consideration--to describe your position as "weak" would be giving it too much credit.
• "I’ve reread this thread more times then anything. I’ve reread “in a like manor” about fifty times. And I still do not see the argument that you’re making." Gosh, Counsler, if you were at all capable of telling me what troubles you instead of just complaining uselessly, perhaps I might be able to make things a little more clear for you.
• "Tiassa, seriously. Your current stance on this situation is somewhat, retarded. You can see the evidence on page four of this thread. I have posted it, and reposted it again and again." You're seriously asserting your unsubstantiated opinion as evidence?
• "I proved my point. And the evidence that I presented was solid as rock." Are you sure about that? In what topic? Where is that evidence, Counsler?

Says you. But, as we see from your, uh ... evidence ... relying on falsehood and the implicit superiority of your own ignorance is something you're much more comfortable with than I.

Really, Counsler, I'd write the argument for you and ask you, "Is this what you're trying to say?" Except that this time out people are so off the mark that I have no clue where to begin. Any presumption I can make about what you or 15 or Wes might be thinking casts you as even more stupid than you're making yourself out to be.

I've addressed controversy and potential controversy, but apparently I haven't yet hit upon whatever it is you think you're seeing, so until you tell me, there's not much more I can do except to say that your "evidence" is without substance, unless you'd like to point to that vital documentation that would constitute "evidence" that I've somehow missed.

Did you deliberately make the false statement that you've provided evidence that is "solid as a rock"? Or would you like to support that statement of yours in light of my documentation of your consistent failure to provide evidence?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

*Sigh* It was deliberate. Of course you could have just, instead of posting all of that, ask one little question. Am I making since right now? No. Have a been drinking agian; yes!!!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

How to make a point revisited.

Look, when you verbally scold someone as this appears to me:

I see you as doing the same thing you accuse him of doing.

I found it hypocritical and made a harsh comment in which I professed I was having a difficult time to figure out what to say besides to characterize your behavior as that of an asshole. As it seems apt, I don't see what your problem is. You could have been straightforward and explained yourself, but you write a book about it. Fine I suppose, but IMO, well, I simply don't see the point to over-complicating it. Straight forward: Did you lie? "I didn't think I lied" (for example) that's all it had to be. You obviously have the right to do what you wish on whatever terms you choose, but it seems you don't like it when people attack you like this, so why should you indulge in it yourself? You don't think you were judgemental? Were you not spiteful? Is this not bigoted?:

Then when you are confronted with your narrow, bigoted spiteful view which I addresses as:

"I think you are acting like a freakin little child in this thread

your accusational vehemence and unprovoked attacks on character are simply out of freakin control here

I want to communicate to you that you're acting like a serious asshole to these dudes

They are not learning anythign except that you are a jerk"

, you respond not to my allegation, but that I am somehow infatuated with you for making it:

- without ever even demonstrating that you are aware you could possibly have been out of line. This gives the impression you are simply unconcerned with such matters. As you wish I suppose, but if this is the case, I believe the term asshole has a more permanent pertinence to your character than I'd originally intended. It's probably just that I'm confused right?

 

Wes, you are not confused. You are right., T could of turned this shindig aground awhile ergo.

 

Would it be cruel to keep handing you rope if I knew what came next?

Okay, that's fine with me. That is, indeed, part of the original point of that part of the post. People didn't have as much trouble with that, the more questionable portion of the post, and that's odd to me, but there's other things to figure out before I worry about that.

That you bought into the false allegation. Look at what you supported when you chimed in: it has nothing to do with the first half of the post in question.

Everything focuses on the cocaine issue and blows it so far out of proportion that I'm at a loss to even guess where the problem lies. Quite obviously, all of my guesses so far have proven unsatisfactory to those who are quite willing to complain but most reluctant to explain what the hell they're complaining about.

If someone could have been reasonable or rational enough to actually explain the problem, there could have been a "straightforward" answering of the issues.

I find it as rational and reasonable as Gregoftheweb's aspersions against people's character.

If you agree that Gregoftheweb's aspersions against character are in fact reasonable, then what the hell is your problem? If you disagree with his assertion of rational voice and reasonable response, I would ask you to reconsider your use of the word "unprovoked."

Too bad you dodged that question earlier, Wes. We wouldn't have to revisit it here. Something about how many posts to get an answer to a straightforward question, Wes?

As I consider 15ofthe19's accusation falsely founded, it has little to do with the issue.

And? I'd say I'm rather quite concerned with unfounded aspersions against my character, such as those 15ofthe19 introduced to this topic, else I would have ignored him and left you to pretend that he had a point.

Coming from someone who espouses such paper-thin, dishonestly-constructed values as you, I'm not particularly worried about your assessment.

Possibly. I'd prefer that explanation to the idea that you really are a piece of sh@t.

If you reach any farther from your gallows pole, you might lose your balance and hang yourself.

 

Re: How to make a point revisited.

spooky has sicked his troll on me. i'm not scared of it and use similar methods to retaliate (wes)

more stinking hypocrisy. who the fuck do you think you are wes? you come on this fucking board to dictate to others on how they should respond to posts while holding yourself exempt? is that why you can..." similar methods to retaliate." and others cannot? if they do you throw tantrums and go into a hissy fit? you are fucking dirt at this point!

go on boy. keep digging your hole. i'll gladly bury you with your own frikking words!

addressing me

thats right punk. you are free to do anything you wish. employ my rhetoric. just stop being a goddamn hypocrite about it!

 

I see

That's one less thing to worry about.

And, for the record, regarding what I could have done, I suppose I could have insulted you ages ago by simply not taking you seriously at all.

I'm aware that you think you see an insult. You've even told me where to look. But I have no clue yet how you're reaching that point unless I presume such silly things about you as you were looking for a fight or you truly have a learning disability that affects your reading skills.

And, given that you flee from evidence and opinions contrary to your assertion ....

Aw, hell, Counsler, should I write your whole presence in this argument up to a jag? It would explain a great deal to me if that's the case.

 

more hypocrisy

 

Re: Re: How to make a point revisited.

LOL.

 

T

You did what he did on purpose.

I read it and it seemed like you were being a spiteful hypocrite.

I thoght about it, decided not to say anything until I figure out how to put it so that this bullshit can be avoided, then I see coffee say something, feel like it's silly that I'm having to spend time trying to sugarcoat an answer, and call you on it by agreeing with coffee. Instead of directly addressing my assertions, you spin off into accusations that I'm somehow "focused on you", which is basically the fork sticking your baited fish onto the side of the boat. Then you commence to twisting.

It has been my eperience thus far in my life that this practice is indulged in by people who get a kick out of cruelty. Perhaps I am naive, but I cannot get past the part where you're supposed to let the fish go.

Say you come along to a conversation where I'm addressing a newby in the manner you were: He says: "you know, i think people who lean right generally lack education" and I say "sounds about right from a leftist piece of shit"... what might you think I was driving at? Am I being a jerk or trying to do to him what he did to me? In either case if you say "jeez wes, you're acting like an asshole", I think that's a fair comment because at the time: I was doing exactly that to make a point. Isn't that exactly what you did? At that time, were you not acting like an asshole?

Perhaps I was a somewhat emphatic, as you have previously suprised me with your apparent tendency to explode over stupid shit like this, so that's my bad. Sorry, but the fact remains: Asshole is a fitting term for a person muttering this crap:

IMO, if I call you an asshole based on asshole comments, the spirit of kindness/friendship/decency requires you to explain if you have an ulterior motive. Otherwise, you remain an asshole. That is not condusive to "getting along" in my experience. As this is a medium which I'm still getting accustomed to, maybe I'm just naive. Of course you have no obligation to honor that spirit, as you may see it differently - but as long as it is seen differently by people who aren't you and you maintain your position, clashes are inevitable.

 

Re: Re: Re: How to make a point revisited.

you have a point to make, provide context. show everyone how i am the same as your lying hypocritical ass! go on boy! i dare you. drag out my posts that support your play.

i notice when you have shit you.... "lol"

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: How to make a point revisited.

It's more that you have completely invalidated yourself to the point that I do not take anything you say to be serious, no matter how serious you pretend to be.

 

cut your nose off to spite your face

i am spookz!
i cant stand lying hypocritical mutts!
i am typing
blah!

there you go, tard, imagine everything that is possible

lemme illustrate this retards problem...

nevermind that civilizations and societies depend on "common context!" any frikking body of knowledge depends on "common context!"

in this freak's world....everything is up for grabs!
flail away mutt! flutter around in the wind! you will be left behind!

 

Re: cut your nose off to spite your face

Pretty much yeah. That just the way things are as far as I can tell. The "common context" of anything is illusory, as it is all really a subjective context which you pretend to yourself is "common". For instance we speak the same language spooky, yet we apparently do NOT speak the same language. How common of a context is that? We may have similar contexts, but I don't think that means they are common at all.

Apparently we share a common medium which we refer to as "reality", but it is only the interpretation of this medium that allows a context. Since everyone interprets it based on their individual experience, context is inherently subjective.

It's all a pack of lies though right troll?

 

no just misguided. it is only in the "frontiers of knowledge" that a context has to be agreed on or an existing one refined. however in established bodies of knowlege, a common context is implicit or it (body) would not exist

take a simple college course....the rules of syntax/scope of content are laid out. work within that and you get from a to b. insist on bringing your subjective take on it/defining the rules and you do not progress

 

/no just misguided. it is only in the "frontiers of knowledge" that a context has to be agreed on or an existing one refined.

I wholly disagree. Hmm. Maybe I just see everything as "the frontiers of knowledge". Yeah I guess maybe from your context that might be right I dunno. I see it as subjective see, so everything is really always the "frontiers of knowledge" to me if you can follow. My personal knowledge is my personal fronteir of knowledge, so.. I dunno. Maybe I've missed the point or maybe we're just fundamentally diametrically opposed.

/however in established bodies of knowlege, a common context is implicit or it (body) would not exist

well, it is strived for, but never really achieved as you have so masterfully illustrated.

/take a simple college course....the rules of syntax/scope of content are laid out.

of course, we strive to have a common context but it's still as I said before - subjective. It's not bullshit, it's reality. we are individuals. we have a perspective. we can attempt to see others, but it's never more than a projection of our own or our own would no longer be.... see? common context is a beautiful myth, like the concept of world peace or something.

/work within that and you get from a to b.

you are working within what your subjective take on a set of instructions or whatever laid down by the proff or TA or whatever.

/insist on bringing your subjective take on it/defining the rules and you do not progress

i disagree. i think you have to be aware of the subjective take in order to actually progress, otherwise, you go set yourself up for serious communication problems. for instance if I read "hey this kicks ass" how many different ways can that be taken? even mundane bullshit like "he it's 1:00 PM" conjures wholly subjective takes in the minds of the people thinking it... as it MUST, because you are a perspective.

/by the rules of the ys

I can function fully knowing that I may have misunderstood something. You see what I can do is have someone check my work, talk about it, blah blah, attempting to find the common context. We can even agree on something, but that does not at all mean our context is the same - only similar.

 

you got me though eh?!? you pretended to be serious and I took you seriously, what a chump I am!

 

not at all. however illustrate something for me please

even mundane bullshit like "he it's 1:00 PM" conjures wholly subjective takes in the minds of the people thinking it... as it MUST, because you are a perspective.

i am assuming you mean "it's 1:00 PM."
that to me is an extremely technical statement. it works from a system that we have established to measure time. the 24 hr cycle/time zones/blah. it is a convention that all agree on and is based on actual physics

now show me how to spin your statement.

i agree that it is mundane bullshit that is quite often up for grabs. 90% of social discourse tends to be gossip and the rules here are not laid out in stone. it is often under constant revisement. you still gotta figure out there are basic conventions that are followed or you would be living in chaos.

it is entirely another thing to imply that the remainder (10%) is similarly open to subjective interpretation. take for instance a flight manual. i dare you not to follow it to the letter. the conventions laid out here are quite strict and do not allow for any deviation in interpretation

 

/i am assuming you mean "it's 1:00 PM." that to me is an extremely technical statement. it works from a system that we have established to measure time. the 24 hr cycle/time zones/blah. it is a convention that all agree on and is based on actual physics

Certainly you are correct, but what context is it in? Do you picture a clock when I say it? How do you put it in context in your mind? How does it relate to the other things you are placing it with when you experience it as an input. I say "hey, it's 1:00 PM". Do you think "hey lunch time" or "time for a nap" or "time to get up" or "fuck I hate afternoons" or "hey checkout that bright assed sun!"? Certainly the term has a specific meaning, but YOU are the INSTANCE of that meaning. Just like instancing an object in programming, except that in humans no two objects are the same as they are self-referential POV's with conceptualized experience on board.... or something like that.

/now show me how to spin your statement.

I'm not trying to fucking "spin" anything. I am a fucking freak. I tell you this bullshit because this is how I see it. I have a lot of evidence (personal experience and reflection and blah blah) to support that I'm correct. I've talked about it a LOT and have yet to see one thing that goes against what I'm saying. Maybe you can be the one thing spooky, but I haven't seen it yet. It's very difficult for me to see how it might be otherwise, but hell I'm open for debate I guess.

/i agree that it is mundane bullshit that is quite often up for grabs. 90% of social discourse tends to be gossip and the rules here are not laid out in stone. it is often under constant revisement. you still gotta figure out there are basic conventions that are followed or you would be living in chaos.

there ARE basic conventions that I go by and this is one of them. everything is subjective (relative). as such, I attempt to the best of my ability to factor this into my relations with the other humans. i'm generally quite successful, but I don't think it's possible to get along with everyone all the time.

/it is entirely another thing to imply that the remainder (10%) is similarly open to subjective interpretation. take for instance a flight manual. i dare you not to follow it to the letter.

One of the reasons that we have flight training spooky, is because if we relied on the flight manual to learn to fly, there wouldn't be any pilots. the first time you read it, your subjective take on the shit (i'm guessing having never tried to fly a plane by the flight manual, I've steered a bit in a private plane, but well.. anyway) is so powerful that you won't freakin get it the first time through (most likely). Even at that, you have subtle variations in your mind from all other minds who experience reading that book. Maybe you use pnuemonics to remember the gear up sequence, maybe you touch your cock for luck before firing up the engine, maybe you read page 13 fifteen times because something on it reminded you of something your neighbor said when he was trying to figure out how to install a garbage disposal. Maybe when you read how the "stick" changes the flaps you giggle for a half hour, get distracted and forget to read a paragraph.

Even a successful read on how to fly the plane.. go ask two different people and I gaurentee you will get slightly different choices of words to describe the book (well, after "boring" anyway) and even boring to them has a slightly different menaing that it does to you. I'll bet they have midly different takes on how to fly the plane as well. One guy gets from it that you're supposed to pull back at 130 ft/lbs torque 3 seconds before blah blah, and the other guy has a slightly different take like 123 ft/lbs... blah blah blah. Bah, you see it or you think I'm full of shit. As you wish.

I'm pretty damned sure that in general, those seemingly petty little differences can add up to a lot, depending on the situation etc. I'm as sure as I can be that each person formulates a unique (though similar) context based on any experience even if it's the exact same thing someone else has experienced.

Further, I'm pretty damned sure that this comes into play in major goddamn way when it comes to people trying to relate and communicate with the other people.

/the conventions laid out here are quite strict and do not allow for any deviation in interpretation

that is impossible. any measurement has error. do you see how that correlates to experiences? experiences are the only input people have. stuff happens. you experience the stuff. you experience it from your perspective. how many people take the same thing away from a movie? How about from a math book? It's all the same shit, with different "margins of independence" so to speak. Certainly the common context of the number 1 can be narrowed down to something very close to centering on a common context amongst most humans, but even that simple little concept has about 6 billion slight variations (actually quite large depending on what it is you mean) of experience in which each comes to create to the concept.

you say common context, how is that even possible? you have an experience. I have an experience. we both have different perspectives on the experience, as we have to or we wouldn't be individuals at all, we wouldn't have a perspective. know what I mean? It's the very definition of subjectivity that limits you. you can convince yourself of anything you like, but the fact remains that you are not me and cannot know what it is to be me and I cannot know what it is to be you.