Supreme Court limits "Whistleblower" revenge casesFollow

Gbaji. If I'd just made the two above posts in the same thread, I'd at least like to think I'd say, "oops" or "okay, I'm busted" or something.

To state one thing categorically as "reasonable" and to deny it without at least some sort of "my bad" - well, it could be interpreted many different ways.

Now I'm starting to see why Bod said he won't argue with you on the other thread, not that Bod is always a bastion of logic or consistency (but I like a lot of his posts - and for that matter I'm not a bastion of logic or consistency all the time, either).

G, maybe you feel embattled - I can see you're way outnumbered. Maybe you take the "Sean Hannity" politics ala pit bull approach, at least to some extent (Sean never ever admits to any weakness on his side).

Your overall point is well taken, actually. Actually, you're a tough debater - you like to use facts - and the idea of abusing free speech protection to be a flake - you're not afraid to say this is a bad thing. You've made your case far better than anyon else in this thread.

Anyway, I'm getting a sense of a loooong-standing political rivalry here - maybe I have no idea what I'm getting myself into. Perhaps it's normal to never say "oops" in here. I can see that people who debate against you aren't too keen on the concept, either.

Well, I'm still trying to figure out if other posters try to dismiss you out of hand because there really is something so objectionable or unreasonable about you ... or do are they arch-loyal to politics that are opposite yours - and just can't stand that you argue a strong case for your side?

EvilGnomes. Read the above post. Read the two sentences. Ignore Smash. He loves to deliberately misinterprete statements like that. I'm still not totally clear if he just does it as a debating tactic, or if he's realy just a very very poor reader.


Again. Read that two statements. They are not in violation with eachother at all. Smash chose to misread my first statement by ignoring the "be able to" phrase. He then asked a question based on that (and designed specifically to get me to make two statements that on first glance might appear to be contradictory).

It's a little game he likes to play when he knows he can't win an argument on its merits. Kinda pathetic really. I play along with it (like I did in this case) specifically so I can point out what he's doing so that people like you will learn how to avoid being manipulated in a debate by cheap tricks.

For pointing out your inadequacies and slapping down your rather weak debating tricks? Sure. Anytime... :)


I'll give you a hint Smash. That tactic works much better in a spoken debate where the audience wont precisely remember the exact words that were said and you can make subtle changes to them in order to get that "zinger" in. Doesn't work so well in a written format, does it?

You are easy to bait into putting them side by side and making a totally idiotic argument about them though. You're normally pretty good at avoiding making direct arguements you can be nailed down to, but can't quite resist the opportunity to get a zinger in if you can. Which is why I played dumb just long enough for you to unzip your fly and show us how little you've really got...

Predictable as usual.


Now that the chaff's been disposed of. Some people's assertations to the contrary, protected speech does not mean you have a free pass to make any allegation you want and be free from damage to career as a result. Freedom and responsibility must go hand in hand, or you wont really have either. You are free to say anything you like, but maust accept the respnsiblity for the repercussions of what you say. It's just amazing to me that people think it's ok to ruin someone else's life or career, but think that yours should be totally safe no matter what.


Oh. And shadow. As Gnome pointed out, it was the liberals on the court that passed the imminent domain ruling. Funny thing is that I know this is at least the 3rd time you've been told this, but you keep bringing it up as though you haven't. So either you keep forgetting, or you just keep saying it even though you know it's wrong because you hope that no one will call you on it. I suspect the latter, but who knows?

Predictable as usual.

Me telling you what to do, you doing it and me laughing about it?

Guilty!


You're normally pretty good at avoiding making direct arguements you can be nailed down to, but can't quite resist the opportunity to get a zinger in if you can. Which is why I played dumb

Yeah. I rarely can, it's true:

http://wow.allakhazam.com/forum.html?forum=4;mid=11491921938085064;num=106;page=3

Anyway, you can stop playing dumb now, 4 years is plenty, really.



Edited, Sun Jun 4 04:21:20 2006 by Smasharoo

Smash, so far this sort of post is indicative of your style:



That and the "functionally retarded" phone worker metaphor, which was so brilliant it whooshed me - or it made no sense (was basically so "mixed" it made me think "mixed drinks" then "Smash" then... ah, someone likes to post while brain-pickled on yeast-urine, excuse me, alcohol).

Smash, at some point you have to back up your guff and bluff with substance.

So far I've seen none.

Even in the link you posted, there was a complete lack of understanding of why the US doesn't have socialized medicine. I personally wouldn't mind socialized medicine if it were to actually work, and if you understood more than just a few of the many complex issues involved, you'd understand why I say this.

But Smash, you don't seem to me to be a person who is into understanding. You post like a soccer hooligan.

If you really have "dead on legal insight," prove it. Otherwise, shut up.

Yeah, posts like a soccer hooligan.