[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]squating_bear wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
^
Were you or were you not insinuating that my post about Hitler and Dahmer represented a red herring?
That’s yes or no, please.
I’m sure you were–though, the slovenliness of your thoughts and grammar, coupled with the goofy crypticism you’re fond of peddling, often make it difficult for even the simplest of your sentences to convey what they’re supposed to. But, as I said, I’m sure that you were. Yes?
If yes, I’ll bury the matter in a single post and be done with it.[/quote]
slovenliness is definitely inaccurate, but the goofy crypticism I enjoy very much indeed
You demand that I withhold the goofy crypticism for a second - I will do that, and answer your question. Then I will explain to you why the goofy crypticism is so fun, and further how it even serves a purpose at times
No, I was not insinuating anything about you. I was not even thinking about you specifically until you replied to me, much less that post in particular
The thread had taken a few wrong turns in my opinion, and it was feeding frenzy time. Just about the perfect time for me to say what I did. It was a ‘statement’ so goofy and cryptic, it could have been construed to mean anything, and was designed that many in there psychological states at that time would do so. To try and hold me to the nonexistent ‘claim’ you saw in that post is just biting the bait[/quote]
I doubt very much that you didn’t have me at least partially in mind there, since my own post was embedded in the quotations of your own. I could also see very clearly how what I’d written could be (unappositely) called a red herring. One of the most misunderstood and inaccurately identified fallacies, I add.
More generally–you may think it’s clever to toss some cryptic rusty wrench into the wheel every once in a while, but it really isn’t. I could jump into each political discussion on the face of the planet with some or another bit of self-satisfied imprecision and then, when challenged on the details, give a hearty HA! and declare myself unbeholden to intellectual honesty and philosophical precision. Because, you know, I was just tossing wrenches. But what would be the point? The fun of debate is in thinking clearly and engaging unabashedly, and you seem lazily confident that neither of those two things would do you any good. So I excuse myself from the slovenly (and yes, slovenly fits like a fist in the eye) fatuity of going back and forth with a (presumably) grown man who takes the lion’s share of his pride in his “slipperiness.”
[/quote]
Then why didn’t you just say so?
It’s all I even asked
Sure, you were partially in mind, as was every other thread participant.
On the cleverness or lack thereof - it was a clever enough bit of bait that even you bit for it - don’t sell yourself short. It serves a definite purpose if the feeding frenzy stops - I wasn’t just tossing wrenches
On my honesty or lack thereof - I claimed immense slipperiness from the get go, you’re just mad it didn’t go your way