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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (479336)	5/8/2009 7:45:32 PM
From: one_less	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1577188

"You put in the 'fly'.....you need to remove it. You need to reread the post I wrote to get a better understanding. I was just trying to help you see how you set yourselves up to get burnt. I'd rather argue with you without being able to take advantage of weaknesses like that. "What you call nitpicking, I call a fly in the ointment. This is central to most of your arguments with reasonable conservatives. In the midst of what could be a well argued liberal view point, you extremist lefties inevitably bolster it with some spurious claim, usually minor but significant enough to belittle or suggest dishonor on some undeserving representative, group, or one of the poster's here, or even an idea." "A whole lot of words posted in the above paragraph........very little said." "When you bolster your argument with spurious claims, you are doomed to fail from the start. Then you blame me for revealing the flaw/fly." Revealing the flaw is not putting the flaw in. "You put in the 'fly'.....you need to remove it." "So what a couple of us try to do is to get you to agree to remove the fly so that the issues can be discussed based on facts, substance, logic and principle." When you wont it exposes a character flaw in the poster(your's), or at a minimum it suggests a hidden agenda." "Well if the words fit........." Which words Tejek? The 'proven' word didn't fit nor did the 'announcement' word. I agreed to the logic and in principle to the argument that Rs would likely presume the nominee unacceptable to their standards and develop a blocking strategy. So on fact, substance, logic, or principle there was no disagreement. The insistence that it had been proven that the Rs made an announcement was false or at least it was false when based on the proof you and CJ submitted. What was exposed was that you guys are willing to make stuff up to bolster an argument, whether it is about Condoleeza Rice, the nomination, or Rs in general, your credibility was damaged. It wasn't necessary this time and it never is but you seem to think it makes your position stronger. It doesn't, it gets you burned. One charcoal bricket wont stay lit alone, this was just one more hot coal on the barbeque which you guys are frying in because you can't resist bolstering up in this way. You add to it every day. You keep complaining that we hone in on these spurious claims but we aren't going to stop so you end up with no credibility and you do that to yourselves.