Response to Bam Bam's Rebuttal
John Boy's Comments:
1) The Supreme Court rules vouchers are constitutional. Sorry.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/06/27/scotus.school.vouchers/index.html
You got me there. I should have done some fact-checking! Can you help me with that? Or, was I being purposefully deceptive to mimic you? Hmmm.
2) Sure, the armed cops have to go through special training. So their armed guards with special training. I'm not sure what's deceptive about stating the obvious. They will be having guns and patrolling the school.
Cherry-picking the truth is deception.
Mom: Where were you last night?
Son: With my friends.
Mom: What did you do?
Son: We hung out at John's house. [Not mentioning the fact that they smoked some serious dope.]
Mom: Okay. You're a good boy.
Son did not lie, but was he deceptive? Hmmmmm
3) Learn what sarcasm is.
How convenient. When you say something that people find fault with, call it sarcasm. Yeah....I didn't mean that...I was being sarcastic. Yeah...that's the ticket.
4) I have 650 words. Your complaints that I don't write a 12 page paper in defense of a position are a little silly.
Perhaps you should stick to sharing opinions that can be fully treated in 650 words. Limited space is no excuse for limiting the truth. Here's a topic suggestion: Impeach Bush. That point can be made rather quickly.
5) You got my on Culver, my editor and I missed that. But fine, I screwed up the guys name, you didn't even bother to verify that vouchers ARE constitutional before running off your mouth. My screwing up his first name undermines nothing. You screwing up assertions you make certainly do undermine your argument and your credibility.
Thank you for playing.
You lose.
Do try again.
You clearly didn't proofread these comments either. Sheesh. You're horrible at this writing business. Ever consider another hobby?
You might try the local dairy farm. You seem to have some experience with bullshit. Or...am I being sarcastic?
Game. Set. Match.
1) The Supreme Court rules vouchers are constitutional. Sorry.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/06/27/scotus.school.vouchers/index.html
You got me there. I should have done some fact-checking! Can you help me with that? Or, was I being purposefully deceptive to mimic you? Hmmm.
2) Sure, the armed cops have to go through special training. So their armed guards with special training. I'm not sure what's deceptive about stating the obvious. They will be having guns and patrolling the school.
Cherry-picking the truth is deception.
Mom: Where were you last night?
Son: With my friends.
Mom: What did you do?
Son: We hung out at John's house. [Not mentioning the fact that they smoked some serious dope.]
Mom: Okay. You're a good boy.
Son did not lie, but was he deceptive? Hmmmmm
3) Learn what sarcasm is.
How convenient. When you say something that people find fault with, call it sarcasm. Yeah....I didn't mean that...I was being sarcastic. Yeah...that's the ticket.
4) I have 650 words. Your complaints that I don't write a 12 page paper in defense of a position are a little silly.
Perhaps you should stick to sharing opinions that can be fully treated in 650 words. Limited space is no excuse for limiting the truth. Here's a topic suggestion: Impeach Bush. That point can be made rather quickly.
5) You got my on Culver, my editor and I missed that. But fine, I screwed up the guys name, you didn't even bother to verify that vouchers ARE constitutional before running off your mouth. My screwing up his first name undermines nothing. You screwing up assertions you make certainly do undermine your argument and your credibility.
Thank you for playing.
You lose.
Do try again.
You clearly didn't proofread these comments either. Sheesh. You're horrible at this writing business. Ever consider another hobby?
You might try the local dairy farm. You seem to have some experience with bullshit. Or...am I being sarcastic?
Game. Set. Match.
posted by Don at 6:54 PM
2 Comments:
Don, I'm pretty sure John nailed you here.
1) You made an incorrect substantive assertion. He got you. Incapable of owning up to it, you concoct a clearly false backstory.
2) The fact they have special training might be irrelevant. You failed to establish relevancy. John's complaint focused on possible profiling, a subject which does not appear in the course outline. You might as well stated the officers would be wearing socks.
3) You don't even know what he was referring to here. You still chose to respond. A brave strategy.
4) Most editorials don't explore issues fully because of space limitations. You could have dismissed his complaint by stating he did not fully develop his position, but instead you drew a bright-line rule that's rarely applied. There's a pattern here - you're insanely defensive.
5) Grammar police on the blog! No one is going to be impressed with your use of the "hail mary" play of internet debate.
In any case, Culver's first name is hardly relevant to the issue.
You've been pwned. Now, dedicate 3 blog posts defending yourself.
yer rite cuz its just plane wrong to expict a 'profezionl wrtr" to wrte wit claruty or proofreed his werk.
______
I'll own up to the incorrect assertion. The "defensive mode" was a mockery of the Bamster. Why do you hate America?
Post a Comment
<< Home