Originally posted by Southern Guardian
Yes I am, and I'll be saving this quoted piece from you to be used for possible future references.
References? ha ha No, hey don't sugarcoat it SG, You will do with that quote like you have everyone elses in this thread and apply it as answers in
context to things we have never said as quote mined response you will fit to make you look like you are winning the debate. Everytime I explain the
facts to you, where you have been unequivocally drop dead wrong, you'll borrow that quote to make it look like I am saying you're right, like you
have already.
I was not sayiing you are right to anything other than what the quote was reffering to and Ill bet you don't even remember do you.
Here let me make it easier for you SG, here is the alphabet in upper and lower case AaBbCcDdEeFfGgHhIiJjKkLlMmNnOoPpQqRrSsTtUuVvWwXxYyZz
Now you can reconstruct my quotes even better having me say what ever you like and still say it was something I actually posted! Why not? it is what
you have done to everyone you have responded to in this thread you have butchered their quotes making them look like posts your comebacks have nothing
to do with a damn thing their original quote was reffering to. And why?
Well basically because you don't have the skill to do it honestly as you appear to conscientiously emulate, your hero your idol, the man whose ass
you kiss everyday when you don't have a clue about the man and never did. You know NOTHING SG absolutley nothing about him but you have spent the
last years campaigning for him, defending him and back then you used to do it honestly.
You were still naive and basically backing a traiterous communist who would sell us all out INCLUDING YOU, but at least you didn't have to restort to
"cheating" by mis-representing everyone creating entire quotes that are taken so far out of context, you may as well have a conversation with
yourself. EXAMPLE: see below:
When I said: " that wasn't what he thought he was talking about."
You said:
Ofcourse thats not what you "thought" he was talking about. I mean obviously you "thought" he wasnt really a
liberal right? Obviously you "thought" he was going to continue on conservative policies to satisfy the rightwing. Maybe you should have thought
about it alot more..
Now as clever as you might think it is to draw the readers attention to the word "Thought" by putting it in quotation marks, to sneak it past the
readers, I have taken the liberty to bold out and underline the REAL and despicable tactic you used to take this from something I said "HE" was
talking about to something you repackaged in a new context making it something you're saying "I" thought he was talking about.
What I said:" that wasn't what he thought he was talking about."
SG Version: Ofcourse thats not what you "thought" he was talking about.
I mean their aren't too many ways you can screw this up is there ?
Conventional wisdom would have suggested you respond to my quote by saying something like "
You believe he thinks he was talking about something
else?" If you were honest and wanted a real debate but no, it was easier for you to use it as a quote referring to me personally so you could
attack me rather than address the person I was talking about.
Now imagine someone having to correct every damn thing they say to you in your long disected, reconnected discontextualized versions of your posts
you have quoted them.
You just trying to piss people off or is that the whole idea because it isn't something you do by accident. I have seen you cover your tracks by
reffering to quotes in greneral terms because even YOU forgot what they really meant and said "regarding your,, what you said" lol.
I would have enjoyed watching them press you to ask just what it is they DID say and if you even have a clue.
But then I'd have to ask what your doing posting here?
Well, Ill tell you SG, I don't think their is a person on this board that wouldn't find that classless method and tactic you have used to debate
people, one, if not thee lowest forms of dishonesty, one can engage in when they don't have the skill nor the willingness to deny ignorance when you
stand as a perfect example of the very motto of that ignorance we seem to not only relish in denying but I have never heard a name as repeated as one
so appropriate for their ignore list as the one named "Souther Guardian" .
It is my hope, that this post will stand as a shining example, displaying the only method of debate you seem to know how to engage in, so others will
not waste their time, back tracking their posts trying to recapture its original context and correct your incessant and childish sophistry of your
intentional use to missrepresent everything they say.
It is my hope that even though some may agree with your position regarding the OP, they at least admit and speak up about the dishonest tctics you
have used to raise tempers, destroy context, frustrate members and waste their time. I know if it were me, reading this post rather than having to
write it, I wouldn't care if your opinions were in lockstep with mine, that garbage would piss anyone off and obviously has where as many here
have'nt quite put thier finger on what it is you do to frustrate them so, but I am sure they are already checking back on their posts and saying
"Ill be damned", and calling you some colorful expletive you couldn't care less about.
But ya know what, I don't give a rats ass how much they dislike you for it either. All I care about is that you don't justify my dislike for you by
using such amateur and dirty tactics to win an argument, none of us can even recognize having anything to do with a thing we said, or meant to
say.
If that is what it takes for you to win a debate, In the words of Clint Eastwood, you're a legend in your own mind.
[edit on 22-9-2009 by Stylez]