That's what I used to think, but when he uses faulty reasoning, not faulty grounds for reasoning, it's either more elaborate than I expected ( ie, how can I make myself look more stupid while seeming to try and appear intelligent ) or it's genuine. That said, I don't get the treating arguments about war, the government, and our future like a joke humor, at least not with any regularity. Oh, and SJC, virtually every phrase in your last statement got a genuine laugh out of me, especially the first one. Keep it up.
Guys, I met TJ at the Smeg thing and all I can say is that the madder you get at his posts, the more he is laughing his ass off at you.
I agree with SJC and Manny...TJ essentially controls every debate. Regardless of who "wins" TJ owns it all and ends up winning for the simple fact that he establishes himself as the winner. The fact that he can continue the cylce on a daily basis is an added bonus.
I'm with Manny it is hard to take him seriously. iIf he bothers you just try to ignore him. I feel Jorge does believe in conservatism and Bush and Orlando Sanchez, but his level of sophistiation is bumper sticker deep. He appears to be a number cruncher with little social study background, so it is tough for him to back his arguments up beyond a cliche or two about markets or hating government or taxes or liberals. I never try to really argue with him; what is the point. Trade casual insults or ignore him.
You're generally a smart guy, rimmy, so this makes no sense to me at all. Is Jorge successful in getting a reply? Embarassingly, yes. But the fact that a troll gets fed once in a while hardly means he 'wins' a debate. Did TroyBaros 'win' the Steve vs. Yao 'debate' or did he just make for a series of entertaining days on the BBS by making an ass of himself? The debates, if you can call them that, are about other things than who can get a response. In recent cases they've mostly been about the war. And on that topic Jorge has never come close to winning by any standard. Manny, I've met Jorge too and he was very nice. But just because he wants you to believe he doesn't take this stuff seriously doesn't make it so. He absolutely does. He has an unlimited supply of specious arguments about what he's doing here, but he absolutely cares about what he posts. If he didn't, would he be volunteering for Sanchez? Or is that just part of the elaborate ruse? And incidentally, Jorge, to the best of my recollection, has never made me angry. He's made me laugh, he's baffled me, he's downright blown my mind with his hilarious leaps of logic, but I'm pretty sure he's never made me angry. Bush makes me angry. He actually has people killed. Jorge just jumps up and down with his pom poms when it happens. There are too many guys like him to get mad at them. I reserve my hate for the guys who actually do the crimes.
Ummm...what was the price we put on the Hussein sons' heads? What's the other term for collateral damage? Agreeing with the actions doesn't alter what they are.
Yeah, I don't get it either, and I'm not sure I buy it, as said earlier. But I do think that debate over the war is important, and valid, and interesting. If there are, in fact, posters out there who equate that debate with a BBS version of " I made you say underwear!", then I'm not interested. Like Batman, I am not sure that T_J's claim to hold that position is any more than a refuge he falls back on when his attempts at actual argument don't fly. I would be surprised that rimmy sees value in it as well, but then I don't get the fact that he thinks acting like you think you're smarter then people about whom you know nothing is somehow interesting, so I just don't get rimmy. And I also agree with Batman re: anger. T_J has made me laugh, has made me curious, but even the whole pro-war insult and duck routine has been more dissapointing and frustrating than maddening.
I've met rimbaud too and he's also nice. I like him a lot better on the board though when he uses his smarts to actually participate in arguments than when he plays his above it all, too smart to argue thing.
It is in no way clear that he is talking about Hussein's sons. Nevertheless, they are criminal psychopaths who deserve whatever they get. My interpretation of BJ's prose was that he was referring to the deaths of US soldiers who battle under the leadership of the Bush Administration.
I'd like to meet all of you, really. By the way, I'll most probably be in Houston Sep. 12, but will only have time to go out very late at night (maybe 2 a.m. or so). Are there any places to go and have a beer at that time nowadays?
giddyup's right. I misspoke. I should have said 'causes people to be killed' rather than 'has people killed.' I wasn't talking about the rare cases where Bush requests a specific hit -- I was talking about his illegal war in which hundreds or thousands of innocent people have been murdered.
Not any places that anyone's gonna post on a public board. I'd like to meet you too, Jackie. Anyone who takes Jorge's posts seriously has gotta be a gas. Especially drunk. Alas, I'll be gone from Houston by then. Have a good time while you're here.
Where did I say that I take them seriously? (I'm not saying that I don't take them seriously either... ). All I'm saying is that T_J has seriously been destroying you guys... Oh yes, and there is a certain probability that one could see me drunk if I go out late. I'll only be in Houston for one night and half a day, though.
You misunderstand. He controls in that certain people will always respond to him pretty much where and whenever he wants. It is not feeding him "once in a while" but everytime he appears. MacBeth even repeatedly asks him to debate him more, despite the fact that TJ doesn't really debate anything. That is why he wins - he controls. The actual argument is an afterthought. That is why I said he wins because he says he wins. That post in no way was backing up or legitimizing TJ. I don't know where you get the "too smart to argue thing" part as an explanation for my posts. Most of my posts in the last year+ have been coming from the realm of stupidity and not superiority. And...MacB once again brings up the "smarter" act.
Sorry...I was just going on the fact that many people, yourself included, told me that that was your thing, schtick, persona, whatever. In that that's what i don't get about you, and now I don'tget this, I was ascribing them both to the obvious conclusion that i don't get you. You object?
