DENNIS VERSUS NEW GUY | 2006-05-03
As we say down South, I glory in New Guy's spunk.
Most antis I rip up jsut get made or, more often, leave in a huff.
Not New Guy.
And he catches me in the same thing you other commenters catch me at, cofusing one commenter with another.
Since he's new here, he doesn't know I do that yet.
No excuses, New Guy, when I do that I'm just plain wrong.
My readers stick with me because they think I have a lot to say.
So here is 1) Dennis's reply to New Guy, 2) New Guy's comment and 3) my windup:
Dennis:
What is interesting, is that the questions the anti's have about what we say, are vague. Having followed the thread, it is intersting to note that anti's say, and I'm paraphrasing here "I don't understand". What they fail to ask for is, is clarification on the parts they don't understand.
If you are posed a question or a position which you are trying to respond to, and you do not understand part of it. You question the writer on the section that you didn't understand. This is the standard response when someone genuinely doesn't understand.
If they don't understand any of it, then either they are too intellectually challenged to make a coherent argument, or they are trying to avoid the question being posed.
Comment by Dennis —
Spunky New Guy:
Since the mods haven't let my response to you through yet, let me tell you what I will say.
I never assumed that you didn't go to college. You might well have been a professor of
economics. You still don't understand economic rationality. I have disagreed with
professional intellectuals on all sorts of subjects when I know I'm right. I am not afraid
of your credentials.
Also, the fact that you were a professional writer doesn't mean you know how to write
properly. The world is full of writers who are witty and clever, but do not understand logic
and thus cannot articulate their positions well enough to pass the scrutiny of people who DO
understand logic. If your standard of argumentative writing is that arguments should be
clearly stated with easy to understand trains of reasoning then the writers I refer to are
poor writers, no matter how much money they make at their trade. Since we were having an
argument, argumentative standards are the only proper standards to apply to the quality of
our writing. So the fact that you have made a large amount of money at writing does not tell
me that you are a good argumentative writer. It might just tell me that you are witty and
clever, but don't understand logic. This seems quite likely.
I did not write the comment about defining antis.
MY WINDUP:
First, SILENCE IS CONSENT.
Newguy, you antis constantly complain, probably often correctly about the heavy had of Stormfront moderators. So do the eregular Stormfronters.
But Mommy Professor, like so many priests, lacksa a sense of humor.
It is a bit funny to hear people on a side that absolutely bans all debate on race, that uses riots here and PRISON in Europe, complain about censorship in the area provided for you on Stormfront.
When I SAY this, antis belatedly say they don't like all that censorship.
But they NEVER use the antis thread to protest that censorship unless we throw it in their faces.
Don't blame us for assuming you approve of the criminal suppression on your side:
SILENCE IS CONSENT and you are SILENT about it.
I have already apologized for misquoting you.
Regular readers will get a laugh out of your telling me you are not afraid of me. I give them hell for any apology for their opinions. The last thing I do is ask themt o be afraid of my credentials.
The problem is that antis keep ASKING for credentials. Was it you who said I had skimmed through Atlas Shrugged -- I have read it several times -- and then said I didn't know what economic rationality was?
"Skimmed through" is a heavy accusation. It implised strongly that since I am not on your side, I don't read much.
No, you didn't accuse me of not going to college. You just said I had trouble reading.
Reciting my credentials is very, very boring for me. But every word you said demanded that I do so.
Then you accuse me of bragging or defiantly say you are not afraid of me.
I am doing neither. You accused me of being an ignoramus so I had to go through all that credentials crap to answer you.