Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (239355)	8/14/2007 3:11:32 PM
From: Don Hurst	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Don't BS us with your pompous baloney about "engaging in polite debate". You are a low class jerk. Is that "nasty" enough for you?

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (239355)	8/16/2007 3:49:25 PM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

Peter Dierks, re: ",i>Anyone who starts a post like this is: trying to bully; just be offensive: "You've been sounding the same off-key tune for years and now you've hit another bad note." When a person wants to engage in polite debate they attack ideas not people. Obviously Ed chooses a different course. This is the kind of post I expect from X. While out of touch leftwingism is what I expect from this subject, I choose not to extend discourse when the person is offensive." Let's see; I posted a reasoned response to an editorial that you seemed to think was very deep. Almost all of my post was directed at the fallacious reasoning of the author and all you've got to say is that you view that one sentence as some kind of personal attack? What else do you have to add? Maybe you can't reply to the substance of my post because I misspelled a word? Or maybe it's because you didn't like the print I used? Or maybe it's because I didn't address you as "Mr. Dierks?" Ever notice that when people run out of ideas to rebut counter arguments the first thing they do is feign personal "outrage?" Ever notice that? I'll tell you what; I don't think you had even one intelligent response to my dismantling of the point of view you had found so "interesting." I don't think you could handle that. I think that you hid behind the skirts of that lame excuse; "I'm not talking to you because you hurt my feelings." I think you're running a moped on a high speed intellectual expressway and you're getting further behind with each pathetic thump of that one-piston engine you're astraddle. And, even if you are such a "sensitive" person, what was so "discourse" ending "offensive" about my telling you that; "You've been sounding the same off-key tune for years and now you've hit another bad note?" That's rather a polite way of pointing out the indisputable fact that you've been a blind cheerleading, simpleton for a war that's costing a lot of good Americans and a lot of innocent Iraqis their lives. A less polite person might have said that you are intent on remaining blindly ignorant in support of a policy that is bathed in the blood of those better than you. There, I've spoken truth to stupidity. If you think you're fooling anyone here, you're wrong. You'd better get back to bunkering up in one of those one-voice talk threads you like to moderate. Ed