Bush is a Good Dude

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I see a hole, and an atéganon-containing encephalon with a shovel, but no ladder.

 

[Japanrocks12]

I have never used a personal attack to discredit your arguments.

calling a person ignorant and dishonest without a real basis doesn't qualify?

 

[LightFang]

The only thing you demonstrate here is your willingness to lie with no shame in a hopeless attempt to save face. That is nothing to take pride in, believe me.

Excusez-moi? Lying? When have I done any lying?

Which only proves your ignorance and dishonesty. The term is in common usage throughout the English-speaking world, which I have proven. Your decision to pretend otherwise is blatantly dishonest.

Alors, je pense que the simple fact that newspapers use it doesn't make it less pretentious. Given your tone, you seemed pretentious. How do I quantify this? I don't. It's a gut feeling. Sort of like, hey, whether or not Bush is a "Good Dude" or not! Understand?

Logically speaking, it sure wasn't. I have never used a personal attack to discredit your arguments. As we can see in this trolling meta-discussion, I used irrefutable proof for that.

Logically speaking, you've insulted my character. If it's not a fancy ad hominem, it's poisoning the well. I will admit that I'm not versed in the logical fallacies. I am just a simple person. But I'm a bonhomie.

Sure does, so your attempt at a literary "gotcha" was both infantile and unwarranted. You can't show that my usage was incorrect.

I thought I just did! Let's review! Ii desu ka.

Let's talk about vis-à-vis, though. Now: it does mean "relating to". However, it is used as "relating to" in the sense that things are in direct relation to one another. For example, supply vis-à-vis demand.

The important part is in direct relation to one another.

There is no "we" here, you have sole ownership of this pedantry.

"We" is a rhetorical device. I'm so terribly sorry for not being obsessive. Mea culpa.

I really have no idea what error you're referring to here. Perhaps you're referring to the fact I didn't bother to put a signal above the "a." It is actually fairly common for many English speakers to simply not bother with it. You're really desperate for a parting shot.

1. It's a spelling error! The word "à" en français is different from the word "a" ne?
2. The fact that English speakers misspell doesn't make it correct!
3. A Parthian shot, by definition, has to be made in parting. I'm still here, darlin'!

The Final Word: Maiora premunt. Mon dieu, let's just sortons this line of conversation. Keep up the little bit of savoir-faire you still have, s'il vous plaît!

--

Postscript:

That was a hilarious post, LF.

Aww, merci! I'll keep these mots. Maybe I should print your post out and tape it to my wall. It would be a nice effect, right?

 

[Fifty]

I wish I was dumb enough to think that irrelevant nitpicking and extremely high use of words like "logic" and "fallacy" and "strawman" and whatnot constituted a decent argument.

brainpins, will you give me some of your dumbness?

In other news, this thread has been one of the most sustained, one-sided pwnings I've seen. I feel kinda bad for brainpan though.

 

[brainpan]

So now you are lying. You claimed that I interpreted your use of "sophmoric" as a buzzword, when I told you I didn't, and instead what I actually meant in my post.

You mocked my use of "sophistry" in an unmistakable attempt to knock down what you perceived as a buzz word.

Accepting some of the answers I gave doesn't equate to admitting your intentions and motives for the thread. Nice try.

Yep. So I did accept answers after all. I also made clear my intentions in this thread, more than once. I even re-explained my intent when you recently asked for it.

You never did prove there was a correlation between people that defend Bush's policies and those that just think he's a good dude, so maybe your premise just flat-out sucks.

That part is simply self-evident. At least in the context I gave it. But the premise expanded greatly from the original. As explained, the goal coalesced over time.

An interest in your complete and utter lack of ability to make any sense to anybody in this thread. Not necessarily an overwhelming interest in the subject at hand though.

So basically you came to troll. I understand that. It was pretty obvious when you waded in with a truckload of off-topic meta-discussions, personal attacks, and blatant lying what you were up to. I guess that's better than admitting interest in your book. Kinda' weird how most efforts to save face just make people look even worse.

It's never too late!

Fair enough, but I would have to stoop pretty low at this point for you to claim a moral highground. You only dig yourself deeper with each post.

Funny, I have yet to see these "trouncings".

I apologise for not facing your decapitated head in the right direction.

There's a webster word of the day for you.

Of course, you won't bother to explain yourself here. But really you should. Trust me, next time I'll let you watch as you get trounced.

 

[brainpan]

I wish I was dumb enough to think that irrelevant nitpicking and extremely high use of words like "logic" and "fallacy" and "strawman" and whatnot constituted a decent argument.

Of course, you can't actually make your case, but will offer a mindless support for the cause of your hopeless friend instead. So sad but funny, just like your avatar.

 

[brainpan]

calling a person ignorant and dishonest without a real basis doesn't qualify?

No. And I have explained why not.

 

[Perfection]

Brainpan have you abandoned our discussion? It's was just getting interesting.

 

[Atlas14]

You mocked my use of "sophistry" in an unmistakable attempt to knock down what you perceived as a buzz word.
Yep. So I did accept answers after all. I also made clear my intentions in this thread, more than once. I even re-explained my intent when you recently asked for it.
That part is simply self-evident. At least in the context I gave it. But the premise expanded greatly from the original. As explained, the goal coalesced over time.
So basically you came to troll. I understand that. It was pretty obvious when you waded in with a truckload of off-topic meta-discussions, personal attacks, and blatant lying what you were up to. I guess that's better than admitting interest in your book. Kinda' weird how most efforts to save face just make people look even worse.
Fair enough, but I would have to stoop pretty low at this point for you to claim a moral highground. You only dig yourself deeper with each post.
I apologise for not facing your decapitated head in the right direction.
Of course, you won't bother to explain yourself here. But really you should. Trust me, next time I'll let you watch as you get trounced.

So you say the premise coalesced over time...give us, in a nutshell what this evolved premise now looks like.

 

[Atlas14]

Brainpan have you abandoned our discussion? It's was just getting interesting.

He's retreated underground. Like a wild potato.

 

[Perfection]

He's retreated underground. Like a wild potato.

But he's not bursting with starchy goodness

 

[LightFang]

But he's not bursting with starchy goodness

Meh, starch is overrated. Honestly, let's just stick to simple sugars like glucose! Save our bodies the work of breaking it down and just start with it so we can have some nice aerobic cellular respiration and get our average of 36 ATP per glucose molecule. Gotta love that C6H12O6!

 

[Perfection]

I love starchy stuffs! Popcorn, bread, pasta, bagels, are all yumminormous. So screw that stupid cell stuff give me some long chained sugarry goodness!

 

[Atlas14]

Meh, starch is overrated. Honestly, let's just stick to simple sugars like glucose! Save our bodies the work of breaking it down and just start with it so we can have some nice aerobic cellular respiration and get our average of 36 ATP per glucose molecule. Gotta love that C6H12O6!

1. Prove starch is overrated.
2. Your insulting of starch is clearly sophomoric. You've been trounced!

 

[Fifty]

Of course, you can't actually make your case,

OMG LOGICAL FALLACY OF THE LOGICAL VARIETY. Won't does not imply can't, kiddo! You're so irrational and unlogical that I don't think its even worth the time to take the time to spend the time to waste time picking apart your arguments! I mean you actually completely confused won't with can't. That is such a fallacious fallacy that if your axioms of fallacy were listed in a fallacious axiom of logic then your strawman would probably start logically axiomatizing how incredibly illogical you are. I mean that mistake is so simple, I bet terry shaivo wouldn't have made it even AFTER they pulled the plug and she was dead. CONFUSING CAN'T WITH WON'T YOU'VE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME! I have to add a new axiom to support my argument now so that I never have to point out a fallacy of logic using my logic.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Of course, you can't actually make your case, but will offer a mindless support for the cause of your hopeless friend instead. So sad but funny, just like your avatar.

What part of this don't you understand? I know they're using French and Latin and other languages that perhaps aren't your vernacular, but I'll put this in plain English, so even you couldn't possibly miss it.

Firstly, thinking Bush is a "good dude" doesn't have to be based on anything that can be "proven," least of all in an internet forum.

Secondly, it being a personal assesment, us thinking he's a "good dude" or not isn't subject to justification to you or to anyone else, because it's our...wait for it...personal opinion.

Thirdly, if you do not consent that either of the above are true, then you by default (you know what that word means, right? They teach that by seventh grade, I think) admit that the only purpose of this thread is for us to state our opinions, and for you to then come and either shoot them down with extreme prejudice, or to dismiss them as being "unfounded," I think that's the word you used. Son, that makes this a troll thread, and you by default (there's that word again) a troll. Sorry, Charlie, but them's the truth.

And fourthly, though your lack of knowledge of foreign languages is excusable, you might make more of an effort to master the language you do know. A word to the wise.

Fifthly, another word to the wise: an argument is of little value to you if you don't enter it prepared to admit that you're wrong.

 

[brainpan]

OMG LOGICAL FALLACY OF THE LOGICAL VARIETY.

This should be rich...

Won't does not imply can't, kiddo!

I'm still guessing you can't.

Lots of incoherent ranting...

So I was was wrong, it wasn't rich. At least when Michael Richards is being pathetic and sad, he manages to also be at least a little funny. You dishonor him and that's quite an "accomplishment," so to speak.

 

[Fifty]

I'm still guessing you can't.

GUESSING. I FREAKING E, BELIEVING WITH NO GOOD REASON. THE SOPHOMORIC SIMPLETON SIMIAN ADMITS HE IS AN ILLOGICAL POOPYHEAD!!!! AHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA

 

[brainpan]

What part of this don't you understand?

Unfortunately, I understand only too well.

Firstly, thinking Bush is a "good dude" doesn't have to be based on anything that can be "proven," least of all in an internet forum.

Yeah, damnit! I never implied otherwise, but yeah! Damn! That had to be said! Good job!

Secondly, it being a personal assesment, us thinking he's a "good dude" or not isn't subject to justification to you or to anyone else...

I don't think I have an argument here. However, quite a few, including yourself, resorted to the most infantile trolling imaginable when I refused to justify it. It seems like you're telling yourself, rather than me, the importance of this point.

Thirdly, if you do not consent that either of the above are true, then you by default (you know what that word means, right?

More unwarranted condescention. Don't let me stand in your way while proving yourself an ass.

And fourthly, though your lack of knowledge of foreign languages is excusable, you might make more of an effort to master the language you do know. A word to the wise.

I simply can't imagine what your prattle is all about. First you make an unwarranted accusation of trolling...only to dive into pure troll behavior, and even with the assistance of fellow jackasses lack the courage to back your claim. Wow.

Fifthly, another word to the wise: an argument is of little value to you if you don't enter it prepared to admit that you're wrong.

Now this is a good point. Judging from your hysterical behavior, I'm actually surprised you have heard this before.

 

[brainpan]

So you say the premise coalesced over time...give us, in a nutshell what this evolved premise now looks like.

Sorry troll master. It's great you have lowered yourself to purely dishonest and trollish discourse, have at it. But I'm not interested in repeating the same answer over and over.