This retard didn't realize that he/she was replying to a phony... who also was using other commonly known names. I'm not surprised that this phony easily fooled this person into thinking that he/she was replying to me. This turd fell for one of my spelling/word usage/grammar traps... after I talked about how I used these traps in a debate.
"Really. How much money did you spend to get all those bogus degrees?" -- Retard DSS poster
First, they're actual degrees from accredited universities.
Second, the tax payers paid for my degrees via Tuition Assistance and some of my Montgomery GI Bill. Once you're entitled to receive them, getting them isn't a guarantee. One major requirement is that the student attends an accredited university. Another requirement is that the student works toward the next higher degree. Students must also maintain a certain level of GPA.
If you think that my degrees are "bogus," take that up with the Department of Defense so that you could get laughed at... again.
"Did not one of your logic courses tell you how to spell 'ad hominem'? Maybe you'll say 'ad homonym' was a pun. Nice try." -- Retard DSS poster
Yes, that's a trap, and you fell for it.
Like I said earlier, desperate posters, in an online debate, will wage an unprovoked grammar war. They can't take on their opposition during the debate. So they'll aim for grammar errors just to have something to say in response.
These people don't have the integrity to know that they've been beat. They don't take the honorable course of action of bowing out of a fight they've lost. Arrogance blinds them to reality, and drives them to keep on fighting.
I end up using their arrogance against them.
I deliberately put the wrong words in, or screw things up grammar wise, once the debate reaches a certain stage. I do this knowing that desperate people like you will fall for it. You're like one of the starving kids that I've seen clawing against each other on their way to tossed candy or coins.
You've also proven the other posters wrong, about people "not" reading my posts.
You shouldn't be speaking about logic if you decide on taking illogical courses of action... like continuing a debate that you've lost before you even started.
Also, you should police your own writing before you sweat other people's writing. "Really," in the context that you used in your first sentence on your post, should be followed by a "!" or "?"
I could keep using the term that you're belly aching over if I wanted to. Generations of people doing that caused Latin to turn into Spanish, French, Portuguese and Italian.
So what does this all boil down to?
Your massive fail, at scoring points, speaks volumes about your desperation.
"Your site reminds me of people who are proud of winning arguments with parents who are Alzheimer's patients. When you set the bar that low, you shouldn't tell people how proud you are to have jumped over it." -- Retard DSS poster
First, I'm pointing out the fact that I've argued against people like you before. I've got you guys pegged. I have a good idea of your psychological makeup based on your comments, reactions, attitudes, and demeanor.
Second, most of the retards that debate with me might as well be Alzheimer's patients. In Demand Studios Sucks, they came looking for a fight. I gave them that fight, and am making them look stupid as a result. I'm proud of destroying their argument and credibility. They deserve that treatment for checking their brains at the door before interacting with me.
What you dismiss as "setting the bar low" is actually good strategy.
For example, if I'm in charge of carrying an ambush out... and I notice that the enemy outnumbers my element in people and firepower, I'd stay put and not attack. I'd let them pass. If I see a hostile element that I could easily overpower, I'd initiate the ambush once their lead vehicle/element reaches the trigger point.
This is a combat strategy that most nations engage in. Judging by your comment, I doubt that you've ever heard the advice, "Pick your fights," or "Chose your fights wisely!"
This strategy applied to online debating?
I don't engage in debate unless I know far more about the topic than the opposition. Every time the debate turns to circumstances surrounding me, I've got a delicious advantage. Every single retard that talked nonsense about me got it wrong.
That puts them at a severe disadvantage in that part of the debate.
When it comes to topics that don't involve facts about me, I debate subjects that I have an extensive knowledge in. This knowledge is based on either first person experience, or topics I've done extensive research in.
Arguing the same topics puts me in position to where I've argued with people that play from the same script.
Again, I've got people analyzed and categorized. I have a good idea of you guy's psychological profile. I could also tell how long someone would fight before they wizen up and take the right course of action.
The people that tend to debate with me are the same ones that are arrogant, full of themselves, and think they know better when they don't, etc. These people accuse me of thinking that I'm always right, yet ignore the fact that they talk and act as if they think that they're always right.
You're one of them. So, if you want to apply the "Alzheimer's patients," comment, you're also slamming yourself.
So yes, anybody that keeps debating with me is a dumbass retard. They deserve to be treated like retards. Playing the opposition like a violin is part of what makes this hobby very entertaining.
"Your claim to fame is winning online debates since 2003 . . . in anonymous forums," -- Retard DSS poster
Wrong. What I've actually said:
"Like everybody else, you missed the concept behind my pointing out that I've debated online since 2003." -- thebesig (the real one)
However, someone, in their juvenile reactions to my persistence, changed that to "winning online debates since 2003." This tells me one of two things.
1. Someone, in their move to take me out of context, successfully got you to believe them...
Or...
2. You're Ladidah herself.
I advance the above, "Perpetual debate since 2003," statement when I see that someone isn't bright enough to cut his/her loses. That's me telling them that they're not going to accomplish what they hope to accomplish with the exchange. Smart people get it, and act accordingly. Retards keep plowing on.
After a person replies to me a third time, there's a very good chance that I'm in for a protracted debate. When they start pulling the same ANTIQUES as those before them, they confirm their specific psychological makeup.
That's when I provide the statement, "I've been debating/doing this" since 2003.
" with no idea of the limited sensibilities of the people you're up against." -- Retard DSS poster "No shit"
If they had limited sensibilities, they would've ignored me from the beginning. They would've stopped talking about me shortly after I got banned. But they didn't. They kept belly aching about my debating on the Demand Sucks thread, and they still took swipes at me, months after I could no longer post there.
I'm sorry, but your posting buddies' actions prove you wrong.
Again, based on my online debating experiences, those with limited sensibilities don't debate with me. They ignore me from the beginning.
"What have you contributed to this world in the last eight years?" -- A retard DSS poster
Care to go to Iraq and talk to the Iraqis that thanked me? Or to the New Yorkers that thanked me for my service when I went to New York? Perhaps you could direct that question at those that have hired me for my services, other than Demand Media Studios.
Your next point deserves a post on its own. You obviously can't recognize a "cause and effect" trend.
No comments:
Post a Comment