What part of "During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the Internet" don’t you understand ?
The part where a politician claiming he "took the initiative in creating" something during his time in office would be interpreted by a reasonable person as a claim of technical invention.
For instance, if my Governor were to claim he "took the initiative in building additional wind power generation capacity" in my state, I'd not assume he was actually out there physically helping install wind turbines. I'd assume it meant signing bills and securing funding, not turning wrenches.
What part of that don't
you understand? In fact, is there some reason you didn't bother to respond to any of the further arguments on the subject, and rather parroted what is basically the starting point from back on page one? Have you nothing else to add?
Back in post #52, you advocated that somebody be banned because you felt they were too insulting. It turns out you’re the biggest offender in this thread. Given your previous position, are you going to do the right thing and ban yourself ? Or are you, like algore, to be given special dispensation because you perceive that the length and verbosity and self-gratification of your expositions outweighs any insults delivered by you, and that you are therefore a “net positive” ?
Just asking.
Hey, wow...maybe you
do get the idea of a net positive. Check this out...my position was that simply throwing insults
while adding nothing else to the conversation was the problem I had with those two. I, on the other hand, have no problem with me (or anybody else) tossing the occasional insult towards somebody's intelligence when
also responding to something that person has said that was.....well, unintelligent.
Also, it's a matter of whether the insult is, for lack of better word,
appropriate to the topic at hand. Questioning somebody's intelligence (in an admittedly insulting way) when pointing out that they're failing to grasp a basic logical concept seems relevant in the course of an informal intellectual debate. Asking if somebody got beat up a lot as a kid bears no relevance.
If I question your intelligence because you can't add 2+2 in a debate on mathematics, it's relevant to the conversation. Your inability to add 2+2 may well disqualify you from adding anything useful to the conversation. However, asking if I get beat up a lot after I do so (or, in person, the more common tactic of actually threatening physical violence) is generally the last resort of somebody who has no intelligent retort, no defense, and nothing else to add to the conversation. How does the frequency with which I got beat up relate to the sum of 2 and 2, or my ability to find said sum? If we were in a debate on self-defense, I suppose it'd be relevant. Here, not so much.
Also, in case anybody wants to bring up the ad hominem fallacy...that's not the same thing. If I say you're wrong because you're stupid, that's an ad hominem attack. If I say you're stupid because you're wrong, that's just a plain old insult.
In fact, those two's simple insults to my character without actually responding to my point would be classic ad hominem attacks.