Or maybe I should phrase it as vanilla?
It's become abundantly clear to me that while I can make an arguement just fine, I have a terrible time starting them. Heck, I couldn't even start a decent fight over on Kos by challenging one of their most closely held tenets - that "election fraud" is what lost them that last election.
If I can't do it with chum like that, what do I use? I don't want to just salt the thing with factual inadequacies. That's about as sporting as dynamite fishing. I don't want to just hop around saying random insults like a gigged frog, either.
So, I'm asking for lessons here. How does one start a proper "discussion", but without the lame expedients of kicking sand in people's faces or just trolling?
Monday, October 16, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
"their most closely held tennants"
Oh, dear. That would be tenets. The dictionary is your friend!
If you're a banned user at the Daily Kos who is posting under a different handle, that fact will be discovered, and you'll be banned again. In fact, if you have more than one dKos handle for any reason, that fact will be discovered, and you'll be banned. At the Daily Kos, each person may have only one handle.
At this point, posters who are discovered to be merely members of the Best of the Frayed/switters-defending gang are also likely to be banned.
Here's hoping that y'all find a website where your contributions will be welcome and whose rules you're willing to respect.
I think I pointed out already that I already did find someplace else to be. Several someplaces. I had them before I came. I have far more significant contempt available to me if I need it.
I don't have more than one dKos handle. I never have. Check your IP logs (if you can; Scoop is a real harpy about some things like that). I never broke a single rule of content or comment. Look around.
I respected your rules, and when it became abundantly clear that there was no way for us to interact in an intelligent matter, I left. And now you're here. Are you having fun yet?
Don't worry your head on my account. Please feel free to take your ball and go home. We've got plenty here and I'm sure your invisible friends are waiting and would love to hear your stories of how you slayed 'em out there in the Sandlot over a tiny but brisk cup of pretend tea. (If you can fit an ice cube in the top of your tiny teapot it keeps it fresher, according my daughters.)
Oh, and thank you for the flat out statement that you've made "defending switters" a crime against dKos. I'm sure he's enjoying that immensely.
P.S. Thank you for the spelling correction. Duly noted and I'll fix it as soon as we're done here. I was on a test box and didn't have a real word processor available when I wrote that. It does the beg a question though. Do you have NOTHING else to do?
Anon,
I don't think that your efficiency in sniffing out posters you suspect of malfeasance is in question. None of us doubt your ability to sniff us out and snuff us if we show our faces at dKos. We acknowledge your greatness.
MsZilla--
I came across a reference to this thread on Slate. No, I wasn't planning to point out your other typo, "arguement." I was pointing out only the one that's more egregious, particularly from someone who likes to spout Latin.
Post a Comment