CDZ What's with the TL;DR thing?

[320 Years of History]

It's meant to irritate the poster who posted some long ass post.

Oh, well TY for the explanation.

How bizarre?....I've always found the best way to irk a writer is to deliver a substantive sacathing rebuttal. Are there actually writers for whom anything other than that will get under their skin? I don't know why a writer would give a wet rat's ass about learning that someone didn't read what they wrote. After all, writers have a target audience and not everyone is in it, and folk who think something too long to read are definitely not in the target audience.

Sorry, I stopped reading after "How bizarre?" What about a wet rat's ass has you ticked off?

Just how does one stop reading that post after "how bizarre," yet know the phrase "wet rat's ass" appears in the middle of the paragraph? Hmmm....

You are choosing to ignore the results of your content, your product. Might I suggest you review that thinking using the Ford Edsel or AMC Pacer as a base?

It's called scanning....How Bizarre.".......................
................ ".................................
.......wet rats ass......................
.".............

Well, I don't write for scanners. I write for readers. When you become one, you'll know what I wrote.

 

[DarkFury]

At least you admit that you only like his posts because he's a far left nutjob.

Come on PR, let's not sink to ad hominem attacks. I came to this subforum to escape such attacks.

It's not ad hominem if it's true. You like his posts because you're both lefties.

Indeed. Thanks for leaving out the "nutjob" part this time .

I personally don't care if he's left or right, if someone's posts are pointlessly long with one sentence worth of content, just to feed the writer's ego, then that happens to be the case.

Your entire argument hinges on that "if".

We don't need one of his posts to 'debate' over.

We disagree on that...

Arguing over something that's a plainly observable fact is a waste of time.

I'm fond of repeating an old line: Never argue with someone who knows they're right. That being said, I've always kind of liked arguing with you, so I'll make an exception. Let me put it this way: don't rush to the conclusion that just because -you- believe something is "plainly observable" that everyone else will come to the same conclusion.

In fact, if you want to prove my point for me, you can just look at his post history. Have fun.

I've heard this kind of argument before . I describe it as a debater asking their opponent to do their homework for them. You're the one who made the argument as to the nature of his posts. To give credence to your claim, you need to bring forward evidence that supports your claim.

Why does she need to prove he is long and boring. Is she not entitled to that thought without having to prove?

Of course. People can believe the sky is purple too. Free country and all ;-).

Complaints about his posting style or lack there of draws more comments than his content. Now what does that say?

 

[DarkFury]

Oh, well TY for the explanation.

How bizarre?....I've always found the best way to irk a writer is to deliver a substantive sacathing rebuttal. Are there actually writers for whom anything other than that will get under their skin? I don't know why a writer would give a wet rat's ass about learning that someone didn't read what they wrote. After all, writers have a target audience and not everyone is in it, and folk who think something too long to read are definitely not in the target audience.

Sorry, I stopped reading after "How bizarre?" What about a wet rat's ass has you ticked off?

Just how does one stop reading that post after "how bizarre," yet know the phrase "wet rat's ass" appears in the middle of the paragraph? Hmmm....

You are choosing to ignore the results of your content, your product. Might I suggest you review that thinking using the Ford Edsel or AMC Pacer as a base?

It's called scanning....How Bizarre.".......................
................ ".................................
.......wet rats ass......................
.".............

Well, I don't write for scanners. I write for readers. When you become one, you'll know what I wrote.

Guess its time to put you back on ignore. One question, how many thread starts by your readers have you commented on?
ZERO, NADA, ZILCH.

 

[phoenyx]

Come on PR, let's not sink to ad hominem attacks. I came to this subforum to escape such attacks.

It's not ad hominem if it's true. You like his posts because you're both lefties.

Indeed. Thanks for leaving out the "nutjob" part this time .

I personally don't care if he's left or right, if someone's posts are pointlessly long with one sentence worth of content, just to feed the writer's ego, then that happens to be the case.

Your entire argument hinges on that "if".

We don't need one of his posts to 'debate' over.

We disagree on that...

Arguing over something that's a plainly observable fact is a waste of time.

I'm fond of repeating an old line: Never argue with someone who knows they're right. That being said, I've always kind of liked arguing with you, so I'll make an exception. Let me put it this way: don't rush to the conclusion that just because -you- believe something is "plainly observable" that everyone else will come to the same conclusion.

In fact, if you want to prove my point for me, you can just look at his post history. Have fun.

I've heard this kind of argument before . I describe it as a debater asking their opponent to do their homework for them. You're the one who made the argument as to the nature of his posts. To give credence to your claim, you need to bring forward evidence that supports your claim.

Why does she need to prove he is long and boring. Is she not entitled to that thought without having to prove?

Of course. People can believe the sky is purple too. Free country and all ;-).

Complaints about his posting style or lack there of draws more comments than his content. Now what does that say?

I don't think there has to be a single answer to that question. I'll give the possibilities I can think of:
1- Perhaps sometimes he is a bit too wordy.
2- Perhaps there are other times when some people just don't have the attention span required to give his posts the time they deserve.
3- Perhaps there are times when the answer lies somewhere in between these 2 possibilities.

I may have found that some of his posts were too wordy for me. If I have, I've just moved on to other posts. I've also liked some of his posts and have responded to them. As mentioned previously, I'm also ok with people letting him know his posts are too wordy in a constructive way.

 

[phoenyx]

Sorry, I stopped reading after "How bizarre?" What about a wet rat's ass has you ticked off?

Just how does one stop reading that post after "how bizarre," yet know the phrase "wet rat's ass" appears in the middle of the paragraph? Hmmm....

You are choosing to ignore the results of your content, your product. Might I suggest you review that thinking using the Ford Edsel or AMC Pacer as a base?

It's called scanning....How Bizarre.".......................
................ ".................................
.......wet rats ass......................
.".............

Well, I don't write for scanners. I write for readers. When you become one, you'll know what I wrote.

Guess its time to put you back on ignore. One question, how many thread starts by your readers have you commented on?
ZERO, NADA, ZILCH.

I'm pretty sure he's commented on atleast one of mine.

 

[DarkFury]

Just how does one stop reading that post after "how bizarre," yet know the phrase "wet rat's ass" appears in the middle of the paragraph? Hmmm....

You are choosing to ignore the results of your content, your product. Might I suggest you review that thinking using the Ford Edsel or AMC Pacer as a base?

It's called scanning....How Bizarre.".......................
................ ".................................
.......wet rats ass......................
.".............

Well, I don't write for scanners. I write for readers. When you become one, you'll know what I wrote.

Guess its time to put you back on ignore. One question, how many thread starts by your readers have you commented on?
ZERO, NADA, ZILCH.

I'm pretty sure he's commented on atleast one of mine.

"Pretty sure on one".....pretty sure.
He has made over 4000 comments here and you THINK you may have got one. *SMH*

 

[320 Years of History]

I happen to like 320's posts a fair amount. This may have to do with the fact that I think he's fairly left wing on the subjects I've seen him talk about, as am I.

TY

I suspect you may not have read some of my remarks/thoughts about economics. I'm more conservative than most folks on that. I'm all about personal responsibility, "reading the writing on the wall" and heeding it, owning one's sh*t, etc., the effectiveness and ultimate efficiency of "the invisible hand." I freely admit to being socio-economically Darwinist, and laissez faire capitalism bothers me very little. Indeed, I prefer it.

You're right, I may well have missed your stance on economics . I think I confused you with someone else who I corresponded with a fair amount in the Economics subforum.

I've never posted in that subforum. You have indeed confused me with another.

I would have never bailed out the banks in 2008, for example. My take is that the collapse was the "bed" we made for ourselves and "lie in it" we will. That would have sucked for the world, but you know what happens when folks face and live through the dire consequences of their errors? They learn from the mistake and they don't repeat it.

I suspect too that letting the whole "house of cards" (no reference to the TV show) that is the banking industry fail as I would have allowed to happen would have brought about a wholly new approach, one that would be both ethically and fiscally better than what we saved and thus perpetuated.

 

[phoenyx]

You are choosing to ignore the results of your content, your product. Might I suggest you review that thinking using the Ford Edsel or AMC Pacer as a base?

It's called scanning....How Bizarre.".......................
................ ".................................
.......wet rats ass......................
.".............

Well, I don't write for scanners. I write for readers. When you become one, you'll know what I wrote.

Guess its time to put you back on ignore. One question, how many thread starts by your readers have you commented on?
ZERO, NADA, ZILCH.

I'm pretty sure he's commented on atleast one of mine.

"Pretty sure on one".....pretty sure.
He has made over 4000 comments here and you THINK you may have got one. *SMH*

Laugh . It just doesn't really matter to me. I generally get more than enough responses from people to make up for any particular individual not responding to me.

 

[phoenyx]

I happen to like 320's posts a fair amount. This may have to do with the fact that I think he's fairly left wing on the subjects I've seen him talk about, as am I.

TY

I suspect you may not have read some of my remarks/thoughts about economics. I'm more conservative than most folks on that. I'm all about personal responsibility, "reading the writing on the wall" and heeding it, owning one's sh*t, etc., the effectiveness and ultimate efficiency of "the invisible hand." I freely admit to being socio-economically Darwinist, and laissez faire capitalism bothers me very little. Indeed, I prefer it.

You're right, I may well have missed your stance on economics . I think I confused you with someone else who I corresponded with a fair amount in the Economics subforum.

I've never posted in that subforum. You have indeed confused me with another.

Yeah, thought so .

I would have never bailed out the banks in 2008, for example.

Neither would I. I think the U.S. should have done what Iceland did...
This Is Where Bad Bankers Go to Prison

But alas, in the U.S., the banker is king, lavished with bailouts by both Democratic and Republican Presidents while the working class foots the bill...

My take is that the collapse was the "bed" we made for ourselves and "lie in it" we will. That would have sucked for the world, but you know what happens when folks face and live through the dire consequences of their errors? They learn from the mistake and they don't repeat it.

From what I've seen, no one's learned much at all in the U.S. or the EU, atleast not on the political decision making level...
The Looming Financial Crisis Nobody Is Talking About, But Should Be | Zero Hedge

I suspect too that letting the whole "house of cards" (no reference to the TV show) that is the banking industry fail as I would have allowed to happen would have brought about a wholly new approach, one that would be both ethically and fiscally better than what we saved and thus perpetuated.

Agreed, only I think the U.S. should have taken the Icelandic approach, imprisoning its thieving bankers and trying to help out some of the people who could no longer afford to make payments on their loans. Iceland essentially did this to some extent:
A Green Road Journal: Iceland Bailed Out People Instead Of Banksters; Is Now Doing Much Better Than EU, or US

 

[320 Years of History]

Neither would I. I think the U.S. should have done what Iceland did...
This Is Where Bad Bankers Go to Prison

Call me crazy, but I suspect that had the banking system been allowed to go into full on collapse, there'd have been no need to imprison the bankers. They'd have been sentenced to the kind of isolation that no prison could ever replicate.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

So that you'll quit filling your posts with lots of nothing. They WANT to read your posts, but when you write an entire three page report that could be summarized in one sentence, nobody is going to bother. You are a PRO at expanding a single sentence into a massive post just to impress yourself, so nobody reads them. It also feels like you hold a dictionary while you do it(And you most likely do) just so you can attempt to sound like you have a larger vocabulary than you actually do. In other words, it's because your posts are long, pointless, and stupid, and people want you to know that so you'll eventually learn how to properly engage in debate without wasting everyone's time, but you're blaming everyone else for it, so you likely won't learn.

Hey PR, nice to see you again in what I'm now considering to be my primary residence in this forum . I happen to like 320's posts a fair amount. This may have to do with the fact that I think he's fairly left wing on the subjects I've seen him talk about, as am I. Could some of his posts use a bit of a trim? Maybe. I'm like him though- if I think a post is too long, I just don't read it. That doesn't mean that telling someone that their post is too long is necessarily a bad idea, for the very reason you bring up- they may well be interested in the poster's point if it were trimmed a tad (or a lot, depending). I don't mind constructive criticisms of this sort. It's when ad hominems start being used (idiot, stupid, etc.) that I tend to turn off.

At least you admit that you only like his posts because he's a far left nutjob.

Come on PR, let's not sink to ad hominem attacks. I came to this subforum to escape such attacks.

It's not ad hominem if it's true. You like his posts because you're both lefties.

Indeed. Thanks for leaving out the "nutjob" part this time .

I personally don't care if he's left or right, if someone's posts are pointlessly long with one sentence worth of content, just to feed the writer's ego, then that happens to be the case.

Your entire argument hinges on that "if".

We don't need one of his posts to 'debate' over.

We disagree on that...

Arguing over something that's a plainly observable fact is a waste of time.

I'm fond of repeating an old line: Never argue with someone who knows they're right. That being said, I've always kind of liked arguing with you, so I'll make an exception. Let me put it this way: don't rush to the conclusion that just because -you- believe something is "plainly observable" that everyone else will come to the same conclusion.

In fact, if you want to prove my point for me, you can just look at his post history. Have fun.

I've heard this kind of argument before . I describe it as a debater asking their opponent to do their homework for them. You're the one who made the argument as to the nature of his posts. To give credence to your claim, you need to bring forward evidence that supports your claim.

I'm not asking you to do my homework for me, I've read this guy's posts, that's why I have the opinion that I do. He posted a topic called "Anti-Intellectualism", and it's a perfect example of what I'm pointing out. He's basically just saying that anyone who doesn't believe as he does, and who doesn't instantly believe, without evidence, anything they're told by the 'scientists' and Establishment, they're anti-intellectual, and that he can't fathom how people can live without being gullible, and how it stems mostly from Conservatives. Yet he says it in several paragraphs. I've already accepted that you're easily impressed, though, so it's fine if you don't come to the same conclusion.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

It's not ad hominem if it's true. You like his posts because you're both lefties.

Indeed. Thanks for leaving out the "nutjob" part this time .

I personally don't care if he's left or right, if someone's posts are pointlessly long with one sentence worth of content, just to feed the writer's ego, then that happens to be the case.

Your entire argument hinges on that "if".

We don't need one of his posts to 'debate' over.

We disagree on that...

Arguing over something that's a plainly observable fact is a waste of time.

I'm fond of repeating an old line: Never argue with someone who knows they're right. That being said, I've always kind of liked arguing with you, so I'll make an exception. Let me put it this way: don't rush to the conclusion that just because -you- believe something is "plainly observable" that everyone else will come to the same conclusion.

In fact, if you want to prove my point for me, you can just look at his post history. Have fun.

I've heard this kind of argument before . I describe it as a debater asking their opponent to do their homework for them. You're the one who made the argument as to the nature of his posts. To give credence to your claim, you need to bring forward evidence that supports your claim.

Why does she need to prove he is long and boring. Is she not entitled to that thought without having to prove?

Of course. People can believe the sky is purple too. Free country and all ;-).

Complaints about his posting style or lack there of draws more comments than his content. Now what does that say?

I don't think there has to be a single answer to that question. I'll give the possibilities I can think of:
1- Perhaps sometimes he is a bit too wordy.
2- Perhaps there are other times when some people just don't have the attention span required to give his posts the time they deserve.
3- Perhaps there are times when the answer lies somewhere in between these 2 possibilities.

I may have found that some of his posts were too wordy for me. If I have, I've just moved on to other posts. I've also liked some of his posts and have responded to them. As mentioned previously, I'm also ok with people letting him know his posts are too wordy in a constructive way.

I have read his posts in their entirety, it's not about attention span, it's about his posts being a waste of time because he fluffs them out to the max. A good writer is capable of getting their point across as quickly and concisely as possible, rather than trying to make it look as though they have a wide vocabulary range and can say something in as many words as possible.

 

[phoenyx]

Neither would I. I think the U.S. should have done what Iceland did...
This Is Where Bad Bankers Go to Prison

Call me crazy, but I suspect that had the banking system been allowed to go into full on collapse, there'd have been no need to imprison the bankers. They'd have been sentenced to the kind of isolation that no prison could ever replicate.

Perhaps. But I think I understand why Iceland would jail some of them. By deceit, bankers can rob much more then a regular thief.

 

[phoenyx]

Hey PR, nice to see you again in what I'm now considering to be my primary residence in this forum . I happen to like 320's posts a fair amount. This may have to do with the fact that I think he's fairly left wing on the subjects I've seen him talk about, as am I. Could some of his posts use a bit of a trim? Maybe. I'm like him though- if I think a post is too long, I just don't read it. That doesn't mean that telling someone that their post is too long is necessarily a bad idea, for the very reason you bring up- they may well be interested in the poster's point if it were trimmed a tad (or a lot, depending). I don't mind constructive criticisms of this sort. It's when ad hominems start being used (idiot, stupid, etc.) that I tend to turn off.

At least you admit that you only like his posts because he's a far left nutjob.

Come on PR, let's not sink to ad hominem attacks. I came to this subforum to escape such attacks.

It's not ad hominem if it's true. You like his posts because you're both lefties.

Indeed. Thanks for leaving out the "nutjob" part this time .

I personally don't care if he's left or right, if someone's posts are pointlessly long with one sentence worth of content, just to feed the writer's ego, then that happens to be the case.

Your entire argument hinges on that "if".

We don't need one of his posts to 'debate' over.

We disagree on that...

Arguing over something that's a plainly observable fact is a waste of time.

I'm fond of repeating an old line: Never argue with someone who knows they're right. That being said, I've always kind of liked arguing with you, so I'll make an exception. Let me put it this way: don't rush to the conclusion that just because -you- believe something is "plainly observable" that everyone else will come to the same conclusion.

In fact, if you want to prove my point for me, you can just look at his post history. Have fun.

I've heard this kind of argument before . I describe it as a debater asking their opponent to do their homework for them. You're the one who made the argument as to the nature of his posts. To give credence to your claim, you need to bring forward evidence that supports your claim.

I'm not asking you to do my homework for me, I've read this guy's posts, that's why I have the opinion that I do. He posted a topic called "Anti-Intellectualism", and it's a perfect example of what I'm pointing out. He's basically just saying that anyone who doesn't believe as he does, and who doesn't instantly believe, without evidence, anything they're told by the 'scientists' and Establishment, they're anti-intellectual, and that he can't fathom how people can live without being gullible, and how it stems mostly from Conservatives. Yet he says it in several paragraphs. I've already accepted that you're easily impressed, though, so it's fine if you don't come to the same conclusion.

Lol . Sometimes, you have a way of arguing your points that wins me over. In this case, what you've said is buttressed by what someone else here said (can't remember his name). He mentioned that you don't need to prove anything to me, and while I came up with a quick quip, I never denied the basic thrust of his point. Furthermore, while you haven't proven your case, you -have- given me a solid lead. This Anti-Intellectualism thread that you mention. So I took a look at it, and your initial response. You say pretty much the same thing here as there ...

Wow, that was a long post. Well-worded, too. Though it feels like you're saying "Conservatives are idiots, the government never lies, and Liberals know everything" in as many words as possible. Most of the words you did use just fluffed out your post more, and served no purpose in reinforcing your points. Uhm... neato post, though. I'm sure you're impressed with how many characters you managed to reach, I certainly am.

I looked at his opening post. Unlike you, I don't think he wrote all those words to impress himself with his character count . That being said, I'm also a firm believer in trying to reach a wide audience. I think he probably put a lot of work into it, and so I can understand why he was non plussed by your response. His own response was, ironically, even shorter than your own, and I don't think it gave a lot of room to respond in turn to. To your credit, you went back to his OP and pointed out specific parts of it that you didn't like. To his credit, he responded with more points. I'll quote at this point because I think this is where it gets a bit interesting:

Well, had you spent your time reading the essays to which I linked instead of drawing boxes, you'd have noticed that the phenomenon isn't limited to conservatives, and had you reread my OP, perhaps you'd have figured out that castigating any one party isn't the post's aim. You may even have figured out that although noting that the anti-intellectual movement finds a happier home among the GOP is a point I did make, it isn't the key point. You may too have noticed that my signature line carries a quote from among the most staunch Conservatives to have lived in modern times, and who was in no way, shape or form an anti-intellectual. Indeed, he's one of the few modern Conservatives who I can think of off the top of my head who openly admitted he was mistaken about a position he took quite stridently and later recanted. Most importantly, however, you'd have avoided twice being an illustration of precisely the phenomenon the thread is about.

I think he makes some good points there. Your response:

I don't know why you're attempting to deny it if you were okay with heavily implying it in your post. You should take responsibility for your claims when it's pointed out, instead of pretending. The quotes I've boxed can easily be interpreted by anyone as claiming that the 'anti-intellectual movement' is mainly a Conservative one. That's a silly claim, but pointing out that it's silly isn't my point, it's that you made you post much larger than it had to be to claim that.

I think your response misses an important point, but you do also seem to realize another of his points, which he gets to:

And now you have thrice illustrated the phenomenon the thread is about. Over half the of the things you "boxed" aren't quotes at all. Additionally, and more importantly, you've moved from asserting in the absolute that "Conservatives are 'anti-intellectual' to claiming that "the 'anti-intellectual movement' is mainly a Conservative one." That's at least a start. Perhaps if you keep rereading the post and linked material you'll discover that I don't actually care whether anti-intellectuals are liberal or conservative, and that my source of annoyance is anti-intellectualism, regardless of whether it's expressed by conservatives or liberals.

Finally, your last response to him:

So, you claimed Conservatives are the main part of the 'Anti-Intellectual Movement', and then started denying you heavily implied that. Maybe you didn't read your own post. It's a bit long, I didn't really want to read it either. It's okay.

You've always had the ability to make me smile . It looks like he never responded to this post of yours, so I will. Perhaps I missed something, but I tend to agree with your first sentence. You know I'm a lefty, so I think it's hardly surprising that I would find the premise that you ascribe to his OP as valid. From my short conversation with him on the subject, I'm not sure that -he- considers himself a lefty, so perhaps he took offense. Anyway, if that first sentence didn't offend him, I imagine that the second and third one that he may well have. I would have responded, though. I almost always did with you. I think it's pretty hard not to offend opponents online in some way or another (I'm sure I've done my part here), but you tend to back down when you really get going (for instance the whole "nutjob" thing), and that's why I keep on responding to you .

 

[phoenyx]

Indeed. Thanks for leaving out the "nutjob" part this time .


Your entire argument hinges on that "if".

We disagree on that...

I'm fond of repeating an old line: Never argue with someone who knows they're right. That being said, I've always kind of liked arguing with you, so I'll make an exception. Let me put it this way: don't rush to the conclusion that just because -you- believe something is "plainly observable" that everyone else will come to the same conclusion.

I've heard this kind of argument before . I describe it as a debater asking their opponent to do their homework for them. You're the one who made the argument as to the nature of his posts. To give credence to your claim, you need to bring forward evidence that supports your claim.

Why does she need to prove he is long and boring. Is she not entitled to that thought without having to prove?

Of course. People can believe the sky is purple too. Free country and all ;-).

Complaints about his posting style or lack there of draws more comments than his content. Now what does that say?

I don't think there has to be a single answer to that question. I'll give the possibilities I can think of:
1- Perhaps sometimes he is a bit too wordy.
2- Perhaps there are other times when some people just don't have the attention span required to give his posts the time they deserve.
3- Perhaps there are times when the answer lies somewhere in between these 2 possibilities.

I may have found that some of his posts were too wordy for me. If I have, I've just moved on to other posts. I've also liked some of his posts and have responded to them. As mentioned previously, I'm also ok with people letting him know his posts are too wordy in a constructive way.

I have read his posts in their entirety, it's not about attention span, it's about his posts being a waste of time because he fluffs them out to the max.

Does he know ;-)? Again you've got me smiling . I think he's doing his best to make arguments that he thinks will be persuasive. With some audiences, the way he writes may be just the thing. With others, perhaps not so much. You and I have gone mano a mano a long time in the past, and my own personal take is that when faced with arguments you don't like long enough, you seem to tire of them. In this case, it seems he's come to the conclusion that you don't examine his arguments with enough thoroughness. Here's a question: you read his entire OP, but did you also read all or even some of the links in it?

 

[320 Years of History]

Neither would I. I think the U.S. should have done what Iceland did...
This Is Where Bad Bankers Go to Prison

Call me crazy, but I suspect that had the banking system been allowed to go into full on collapse, there'd have been no need to imprison the bankers. They'd have been sentenced to the kind of isolation that no prison could ever replicate.

Perhaps. But I think I understand why Iceland would jail some of them. By deceit, bankers can rob much more then a regular thief.

If it were a situation where the preponderance of the global banking system and its major and intermediate players were to cease to be going concerns, I see no point in criminal prosecution and imprisonment. If it's a matter of individuals being malfeasant, sure, acting to bring charges and prosecute the convicted defendants is what I'd do too.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Oh, well TY for the explanation.

How bizarre?....I've always found the best way to irk a writer is to deliver a substantive sacathing rebuttal. Are there actually writers for whom anything other than that will get under their skin? I don't know why a writer would give a wet rat's ass about learning that someone didn't read what they wrote. After all, writers have a target audience and not everyone is in it, and folk who think something too long to read are definitely not in the target audience.

Sorry, I stopped reading after "How bizarre?" What about a wet rat's ass has you ticked off?

Just how does one stop reading that post after "how bizarre," yet know the phrase "wet rat's ass" appears in the middle of the paragraph? Hmmm....

You are choosing to ignore the results of your content, your product. Might I suggest you review that thinking using the Ford Edsel or AMC Pacer as a base?

It's called scanning....How Bizarre.".......................
................ ".................................
.......wet rats ass......................
.".............

Well, I don't write for scanners. I write for readers. When you become one, you'll know what I wrote.

You ever write anything funny? You don't appear to recognize humor when you read it, or at least when it is directed towards you.

 

[320 Years of History]

I don't think he wrote all those words to impress himself with his character count

TY. I did not. The only reason my posts are long is because I am to comprehensively communicate the full nature of my thoughts, both the literal and tonal aspects. I do that because I don't care to force readers to infer I think or believe something I do not. Additionally, if one carefully reads what I write (and the linked content where applicable) there's no reason for one to inaccurately paraphrase my remarks; indeed there'd be no need to do so at all, thus permitting one to address directly the substance of my comments rather than having to waste time discerning what I truly intend by them.

I don't think it gave a lot of room to respond in turn to.

Well, if one is going to debate with another, why would one? If one is no longer willing to engage with another on the matter at hand, why would one?

I'm not sure that -he- considers himself a lefty, so perhaps he took offense.

I consider myself neither leftist nor rightist. It's more likely I was frustrated with the pettifoggery and triviality of the discussion than it was that I was offended. I don't know of whose conversation with me you write, so it's hard to say for sure.

The OP of the thread to which you refer is my expression of frustration, disappointment even, over the absence of intellectualism in the narrative found on the forum. The forum seems largely populated by conservatives, but I don't frankly care whether anti-intellectuals are liberal or conservative. I find both kinds boring in a conversation.

It's worth noting that a material share of my frustration comes from this being a venue where the sole communication mode is writing and there's no expectation of immediate reply as there is in a face-to-face conversation. In written discourse, one has all the time in the world to carefully research one's ideas, beliefs and lines of argument. Yet those seem precisely the things folks here eschew.

It looks like he never responded to this post of yours

Yes, well that's the consequence of my frustrations leading me to determine that it's just not worth it to try to have a discussion with the person. I'm at the point now whereby I'll give someone whose ID I don't recognize as being one from which comes nothing but drivel and insults one "free" immature and reply that's offered as a serious retort, but that's it. Earlier in my tenure here I was more patient, but those days have gone.

On many occasions I've posted/linked seriously first rate scholarly research -- stuff that discloses not only the results of the research but the methodology used to obtain the results -- only to receive replies where folks refute the findings by saying "the researchers were biased liberals" or something of that nature. They didn't refute the findings by citing specific weaknesses in the researcher's approach. They didn't cite specific insufficiencies in the data used. They didn't identify specific modeling or statistical invalidities. They assumed the researcher has a given political leaning, and that was the sole basis for their refutation. I don't have time for folks from whom that's all the rebuttal they can muster.

I mean come on....I'm just not going to engage with someone whose remarks are evasive, unverified, equivocal, deflective, off topic, irrational, insubstantive, puerile, etc. I created a thread about it. The most recent illustration of what I mean is here.

I created that thread just past the halfway point of my time here and that was about the time I'd decided that my friend was right and I wrong about the nature and extent of thought and discourse among "typical" voters. As I wrote, I fully expected to find far more gravitas than I have. There's some, to be sure, but nowhere near enough.

 

[phoenyx]

Neither would I. I think the U.S. should have done what Iceland did...
This Is Where Bad Bankers Go to Prison

Call me crazy, but I suspect that had the banking system been allowed to go into full on collapse, there'd have been no need to imprison the bankers. They'd have been sentenced to the kind of isolation that no prison could ever replicate.

Perhaps. But I think I understand why Iceland would jail some of them. By deceit, bankers can rob much more then a regular thief.

If it were a situation where the preponderance of the global banking system and its major and intermediate players were to cease to be going concerns, I see no point in criminal prosecution and imprisonment. If it's a matter of individuals being malfeasant, sure, acting to bring charges and prosecute the convicted defendants is what I'd do too.

Could you elaborate on what you mean by "going concerns"? I googled it, came up with this: "Going concern is a basic underlying assumption in accounting. The assumption is that a company or other entity will be able to continue operating for a period of time that is sufficient to carry out its commitments, obligations, objectives, and so on." I don't really understand how it relates to what we're talking about...

 

[phoenyx]

Sorry, I stopped reading after "How bizarre?" What about a wet rat's ass has you ticked off?

Just how does one stop reading that post after "how bizarre," yet know the phrase "wet rat's ass" appears in the middle of the paragraph? Hmmm....

You are choosing to ignore the results of your content, your product. Might I suggest you review that thinking using the Ford Edsel or AMC Pacer as a base?

It's called scanning....How Bizarre.".......................
................ ".................................
.......wet rats ass......................
.".............

Well, I don't write for scanners. I write for readers. When you become one, you'll know what I wrote.

You ever write anything funny? You don't appear to recognize humor when you read it, or at least when it is directed towards you.

Some of us are just a bit slow when it comes to humour sometimes. I had a feeling there was something funny about what you said, but once you said the above, I looked again and, yeah, funny . That being said, I think 320 is aiming for a serious discussion and doesn't want to get sidetracked .