Which you did, to my surprise, manage to quote. However, you then asked this question…
At the same time, while butting in on an exchange between myself and Zeb, you threw in insults suggesting I thought I was on some pedestal and was sanctimonious. I followed up with this…
I also added other stuff which was on par with your insult concerning pedestals and sanctimony. Notice you insulted me, out of the blue, when I wasn’t even talking to you? Then you lecture me on my behavior? Hypocrit.
Soon you say this…
[quote]You specifically said you try to bring up points that others might not see.
[/quote]
Did I? Where did I say that? I think this is your interpretation of what I said. Go back and read what I said, find my words that say that, and show me that isn’t your chosen interpretation of my words.
If you can’t, an admission of error or perhaps an apology would be in order. I expect neither from the likes of you, but it would be appropriate.
On that note, go back to my first post on this concept… “I MIGHT IMAGINE MYSELF HAVING”… hmmm. Why do you think I chose that wording? What does “might imagine” imply?
Sigh, this isn’t the first time you’ve got into trouble about not being able to interpret what other people are saying Sasquatch. Maybe you should take a bit more time thinking about what I say, instead of assuming what you thought I said?
Hmm, the only agenda I might imagine myself having would be one to make people think about issues, to consider them carefully instead of accepting dogma from some source or another.
Which you did, to my surprise, manage to quote. However, you then asked this question…
Do you honestly believe this to be true? That you give us all pause to our thoughts and beliefs?
At the same time, while butting in on an exchange between myself and Zeb, you threw in insults suggesting I thought I was on some pedestal and was sanctimonious. I followed up with this…
Sasquatch, I only said what I might try to do, not that I’d actually have any prayer of achieving anything like that.
I also added other stuff which was on par with your insult concerning pedestals and sanctimony. Notice you insulted me, out of the blue, when I wasn’t even talking to you? Then you lecture me on my behavior? Hypocrit.
Soon you say this…
You specifically said you try to bring up points that others might not see.
Did I? Where did I say that? I think this is your interpretation of what I said. Go back and read what I said, find my words that say that, and show me that isn’t your chosen interpretation of my words.
If you can’t, an admission of error or perhaps an apology would be in order. I expect neither from the likes of you, but it would be appropriate.
On that note, go back to my first post on this concept… “I MIGHT IMAGINE MYSELF HAVING”… hmmm. Why do you think I chose that wording? What does “might imagine” imply?
Sigh, this isn’t the first time you’ve got into trouble about not being able to interpret what other people are saying Sasquatch. Maybe you should take a bit more time thinking about what I say, instead of assuming what you thought I said?[/quote]
You chose “I might imagine…” so you can do what you always do. Take no sides in an argument. Pontificate mythery–(your word) and then say…“I only suggested”
It’s old vroom and so is the same old crap each time.
The likes of me…
Which, to your surprise, I did manage to quote.
Calling someone who is both sanctimonious and self aggrandizing as such is not insulting–it’s calling a spade a spade. You are the one who likes to drop little bombs inyour “prose” to belittle your poster, as I’ve quoted above from just one of your posts.
It’s a vroom tactic from as long as I’ve been reading your posts.Again, same old stuff. Don’t take a stand, but bash anyone who does. That is EXACTLY your m.o. and I have alot of evidence to back that up.
Bye vroom, I move from here to the articles. You would never allow anyone but you to get the last word so I will man up here and move on. It’s your time to shine–I got my back turned and am walking away! Flame away
[quote]vroom wrote:
Bye vroom, I move from here to the articles.
What, without addressing the fact you were mistaken? That I didn’t lie?
I take stands all over the place, but I’m not foolish enough to admit to an agenda, stand or belief that I don’t actually hold.
You wish I’d take a stand like that, so you misinterpret my statements as if I did. It’s pretty visible to anyone watching.
Bye Sasquatch. Come back when you are willing to admit your mistake.[/quote]
You are a liar and you continue to lie now. I’ve made no mistake, your m.o. is obvious to all. I’ve made no point that is not true. If I have–please point it out.
You take little nibbles from posts and qualify them. A poor debate tactic. You must look at the totality and then tell me if and where my mistake lies.
Your ability to present sophist arguments is your strength?! You take no stand but feel free to bash those that do. You make ridiculous analogies and then tell others that you sre just trying to dig deeper into the issue. We all see it vroom, please give us poor dumb bastards that much credit.
In the above posts you have taken my words and then questioned me on when you ever said this. Right! Why not try to argue any point on its merits instead of with a bunch of what ifs.
Remember your last one where you suggested that if there were a way to stop terrorism without violence-you wondered if Bush would pursue it because of his ego. Now that was your best one of all so far. I suppose thought that I misinterpreted it as I have been so want to do with every single one of your posts.
It’s all on me right vroomy–and him–and him–and him–and him…
[quote]vroom wrote:
And only after ZEB agreed with me did you relent. And you weren’t even man enough to say it to me, you backed out of it with ZEB.
Although it has nothing to do with this thread, you are wrong here too.
I suggested that Zeb had to go to the source to know whether or not the bible had it right.
I was never arguing that the bible was wrong you half-wit. Just that without checking we won’t know… and that blind trust is foolish.
Your reading comprehension skills are truly amazing.[/quote]
You were directly questioning the authenticity of the Bible and its interpretation. Directly! I stated to you that the Bible has been interpreted by the worlds best linguists from all denominations and has stood the test of time. Remember!
You argued that very point with me for 2 pages, then ZEB told you that The KIng James version was very accurate and agreed with my assesment. You then made some half-off remark and said it was i minute point anyways. REMEMBER!
You argue the Bible and its interpretation and then say the fact that it is appreciably interpreted I guess was not really that important of a point in your argument.
You are such a fucking tool. Is that the same post where I said that you were free to imagine it was Clinton making that decision, so that I wouldn’t be coming across as anti-Bush with the statement?
My god. You are dense. It was an open fucking scenario you braindead tool. Grab a fucking clue.
My god. You continue to be tool. My point was that going to the source was proper, and necessary. I never claimed that the Bible was incorrect, just that you have to go to the source to argue meanings.
Argue someone elses points, because you continue to imagine my points for me… instead of what I say.
My M.O. is to use the english language as it was intended… halfwit.
It was the ridiculous scenario I was abusing, not the Bush reference. A President that would choose war over sanctions or a peaceful ending. You are so tied up into your liberal bias vs. the conservatives you can’t see the forest through the trees.
This single post further validates my oft posted vroomisms. You take a single reference and then qualify it to make it seem like that’s not how you meant it. Then you immediately resort to foul language and name calling. You repesent yourself well.
Classic wannabe
Why the mods allow you to continue to post in such a manner when others have been warned for much less baffles me.
This will be my last post, I promise. You obviously have little left to actually argue. I’m taking my ball and going to p[lay with someone who actually has something interesting to say. I already have your reply typed in and ready to send to you PM. Want to bet it matches your next ‘classic’ response.
[quote]vroom wrote:
You argue the Bible and its interpretation and then say the fact that it is appreciably interpreted I guess was not really that important of a point in your argument.
My god. You continue to be tool. My point was that going to the source was proper, and necessary. I never claimed that the Bible was incorrect, just that you have to go to the source to argue meanings.
Argue someone elses points, because you continue to imagine my points for me… instead of what I say.
My M.O. is to use the english language as it was intended… halfwit.[/quote]
God should always be shown respect. Per English rules.
The source is the Bible fool.
You continue to show yourself for what you are with your continued name calling anf constant use of half truths
Keep up the good work
Sorry this post was after my last one, but just wanted to acknowlege it.
Show us all again how big and bad you can be. But remember I have a 4 yr old at home so I’ve seen this all before.
There wasn’t a Bush reference in the original… it was a scenario. You, a few posts up yet, said that I said Bush wouldn’t pursue peace because of his ego in that scenario.
Now, you say that you weren’t discussing the Bush aspect of it? You were instead focusing on the ridiculous nature of the scenario itself? Bullshit!
Hahahaha. Nice try! Maybe you should look at yourself with respect to this statement…
The scenario I gave was in respect to whether or not it would possibly be appropriate to disagree with an administration and remain in support of your country.
Are you seriously suggesting that the men and women in politics don’t have egos? Are you suggesting that leaders have never made poor decisions because of egos?
My god man, that is precisely why I suggested that people consider it being Clinton making a poor decision based on ego, precisely because I didn’t want it to be a left vs right issue.
If you think my scenario and reasoning are wrong, have at it, but at least try to figure out what I was trying to say when you attack it. Especially if you are the one claiming all the points I raise have previously been considered by forum geniuses such as yourself.
So, to paraphrase you, when I question your reading and comprehension skills, I’m calling it like I see it.
By the way, I’ve admitted to being a bastard in the political forums many times. Is there a reason you continue to cry about that? Would you perhaps wish that I be censored? Perhaps you prefer “liberals” to be meek?
If you start exercising care in your comprehension, and don’t make up things on my behalf through misinterpretation, then my tone will improve. However, I’m not here to pretend that I’m mature and evolved.
I’m here to learn how to achieve fitness goals – possibly to help others do that too. I didn’t come here thinking it was some type of manners and politeness finishing school.
The Bible, as we see it, is a chosen collection of materials out of a larger set, translated and published so that we, the general public, can read it.
Does admitting a mistake then allow you to continue it? I don’t think anyone is “crying” about anything. It’s just very difficult to have a legitimate conversation when you always show up stomp your feet and name call. Can you see how that might lower the standard around here?
My original point is this: Why not elevate the debate in this section of the Forum? This will not only pull others in who have quality opinions (Both conservative, liberal and everything in between) to share in the political section. But it will also help stop this area from being the laughing stock of T-Nation.
One more point: I question your definition of “meek.” I think that you can refrain from the personal attacks and name calling, the sort that you have once again unleashed on Sasquatch (Brain dead-half wit etc.)without being considered “meek.” Do you think that name calling helps you appear strong? I don’t think that’s the case. It might help you appear temperamental, out of control and immature however.
Simply pursue a legitimate point (as you sometimes do) instead of all of the name calling. Why is that difficult?
I don’t think any of us are “evolved” to the extent that we are never going to lose our temper etc. but we, as men can surely act mature. Does “not being evolved” mean that you almost always have to lose your temper and resort to name calling?
You are here for fitness goals? Then why post in the political section? Because you are here for both! Fair enough? No one is claiming that it is a place for perfect manners, however how does good behavior detract from your point? It cannot! However, the sort of behavior which you have become known for not only detracts from your point, but detracts from you as a man!
Are T-Men subject to fits of rage and name calling at the slightest provocation? I don’t think so, I think you can do better vroom!
Zeb, I’m not against good conversation, and often, when it actually shows up, I’m happy to participate.
Good conversation does not involve libeling (as in slander and libel) other people with inappropriate labels nor does it involve misquoting and mistating anothers beliefs.
If someone wants to engage me in a real conversation Zeb, it is incredibly easy to do.
Until then, there is not the slightest chance I’m going to change my “personality” because you don’t find it to your liking.
I would however suggest you learn to discriminate between silly nonense attacks, such as being called an idiot, fool or tool as opposed to being called a fascist neocon.
I’m not calling you any of those things, but if I were to work to imply you were a fascist neocon, misquoting your own words to show it, then I’d be doing something far worse than calling you a name as a trivial insult.
You attempt to fit me into labels from time to time, when I don’t fit into them, you have very inappropriate tactics in these conversations, worse than simple insults or poor language.
Someone other than yourself should probably lecture me on my discussion tactics. Perhaps Boston? However, strangely, I believe he and I are able to have reasonable and reasoned political conversations more often than not. I wonder why?
So, again, if you’d like to engage me in a good conversation, simply do so, avoiding shady tactics. I’ll do my best to respond in kind. It’s pretty simple. Think about it.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Zeb, I’m not against good conversation, and often, when it actually shows up, I’m happy to participate.
Good conversation does not involve libeling (as in slander and libel) other people with inappropriate labels nor does it involve misquoting and mistating anothers beliefs.[/quote]
It seems you have very thin skin for one who likes to toss the personal insults around so freely. Calling someone a liberal (especially when they are one) is not slander or libel. Just like a liberal to want to involve legalities. However, some of the things that you call others could be “libel” under certain conditions.
[quote]If someone wants to engage me in a real conversation Zeb, it is incredibly easy to do.
Until then, there is not the slightest chance I’m going to change my “personality” because you don’t find it to your liking.[/quote]
I think it takes two to have a reasonable conversation. Take for example how the banter between us began in this particular thread. I was having a conversation with Massif (and naturally anyone can jump in). Then the very first comment between either of us (to the other) came from you:
“Looks like Zeb is grinding his anti-gay axe.”
I stated nothing about gays, you simply jumped to your usual.
My response was moderate considering what was just stated:
" I don’t have an “anti-gay axe” vroom. I do however have an anti-social liberal axe. And you have an anti-President Bush axe. Is there something new here?"
You then began the name calling and only recently stopped.
[quote]I would however suggest you learn to discriminate between silly nonense attacks, such as being called an idiot, fool or tool as opposed to being called a fascist neocon.
I’m not calling you any of those things, but if I were to work to imply you were a fascist neocon, misquoting your own words to show it, then I’d be doing something far worse than calling you a name as a trivial insult.[/quote]
That was clever, you got your digs in without actually stating it. Now that sort of subtlety I appreciate!
By the way “facist neocon” is only spouted by extreme liberals. Just so you know, those words are actually quite enjoyable to read as they say more about the writer (and his or her political leanings) than the person whom the writer is focusing his attack on.
I have to disagree. I do in fact label you not simply from time to time, but just about all of the time. And you do fit the “liberal” label quite well. My intentions are above board and honorable. This is a political forum and calling someone a “liberal” is certainly fair.
On the other hand using the low brow tactics and name calling which you have sunk to with just about everyone whom you disagree with is inappropriate, childish, boorish and really does lower the level of conversation around here. However, I have a feeling that your time is running out! How long do you think this sort of behavior will be tolerated? Think about it.
You have insulted Boston before as well (would you like to see?). He however seems to have better things to do than hang around and try to correct you. Lucky for you I’m on vacation and have nothing better to do.
There is nothing at all shady about my tactics. That’s one of things that seems to send you off the deep end. I am very up front with my positions and remarks. I think you are a liberal, and I’m not afraid to state it, imply it, reference it etc.
Keep in mind I am not in any way looking for opportunities to call you a liberal. However, when you leap out in front of me with your nonsense such as, I have an “anti-gay axe to grind” you sort of get my attention. That was a low blow (which as I stated is typical of you) and worthy of a lecture, which you got and deserved.
Do you have a fascination with the word liberal Zeb?
If that is all you choose to call me, go ahead and call me that. I have no problems with you deciding that I am a liberal.
However, adding tags like “ultra” or “social” in front, is not exactly the same thing.
By the way, there were no intended digs when I was discussing the “fascist neocon” concept. I was trying to illustrate my point using a possible opposite of something like “ultra liberal”.
Again, you point this out yourself, but my first comment was fairly benign, and very easy for you to counter without resorting to what you call a “moderate” attack…
Do you recall me suggesting that if you want to have a real conversation with me, then simply do so? Perhaps I am a bit hypersensitive to your labelization, but you are incredibly persistant in trying to stick labels on me – then implying I am for or against various things based on that.
If you were but to ask, I would speak for myself and suggest what I was actually for or against. I don’t feel it is appropriate to try to convince the world that someone holds a belief that they don’t actually have. I see that as a large moral wrong, much worse that slapping someone with an insult.
Perhaps you too expect liberals to be meek and wilt under pressure. Apparently that is not me… deal with it, or don’t.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Do you have a fascination with the word liberal Zeb?
If that is all you choose to call me, go ahead and call me that. I have no problems with you deciding that I am a liberal.[/quote]
Actually, the way you have been behaving I think “liberal” is the best thing that you could be called.
[quote]By the way, there were no intended digs when I was discussing the “fascist neocon” concept. I was trying to illustrate my point using a possible opposite of something like “ultra liberal”.
Again, you point this out yourself, but my first comment was fairly benign, and very easy for you to counter without resorting to what you call a “moderate” attack…
Do you recall me suggesting that if you want to have a real conversation with me, then simply do so? Perhaps I am a bit hypersensitive to your labelization, but you are incredibly persistant in trying to stick labels on me – then implying I am for or against various things based on that.[/quote]
Persistent? Yes, that is indeed my middle name. However, you and I would not have had this exchange had you not accused me of having an “anti-gay axe to grind.” And that was in fact your very first comment to me on this thread.
[quote]If you were but to ask, I would speak for myself and suggest what I was actually for or against. I don’t feel it is appropriate to try to convince the world that someone holds a belief that they don’t actually have. I see that as a large moral wrong, much worse that slapping someone with an insult.
Perhaps you too expect liberals to be meek and wilt under pressure. Apparently that is not me… deal with it, or don’t.[/quote]
First you deny that you are basically a liberal, then you claim that I expect "liberals (like you) to be “meek.” As I have stated on prior occasions, you don’t have to be personally attacking someone in a childish manner to not be “meek.” Some of the bravest people I know have never attacked anyone using personal insults and childish remarks. They are not “meek.”
There is one more element involved here which I am sure (as a thinking man) that you will agree with me on, once it is offered up.
In my opinion, there is something very cowardly about rattling off a host of personal insults over the Internet. Now, I know you are not a coward. Don’t ask me how I know, I just do. So…why lower yourself to this form of communication?
Do you know what I mean? If you and I were having a drink somewhere and we got into a heated political argument and called me some of the things that you toss out to most everyone, I suppose that we would be in a fight. Now don’t get me wrong, I don’t want to fight with you over anything that you have written and it’s not a threat in any way. However, some things ought not to be said unless you are there in person to back it up. It seems to easy to call someone names over a computer screen and not have to stand there like a man and back it up.
I hope you understand where I am coming from. I suppose that’s old fashion in a sense, but it only seems appropriate. No? I’m not perfect in this department, but I do try not to say anything to anyone that I wouldn’t say if they were in front of me. And since I can’t prove what I would say in front of them I try to be careful not to approach a certain line.
That’s why it rubs me the wrong way when I read some of your posts. I know you are better than that and I think you get caught up in the moment and it just devalues the point that you are trying to make. Let’s face it you have been involved in plenty of name calling incidents lately. It could be that you are inciting the situation with your remarks. I’m not saying that you are the only one to blame all the time. But why not at least try to raise the bar?
As far as calling you a liberal I think it’s fair game on the political thread. In some instances you come off as ultra liberal. At other times a social liberal, but always…a liberal.
I do think there is a difference between personal attacks and insults and political labeling.
