Hi gwayneco. I thought I would bump this thread - i have not been able to post the last few days, and am interested in following up on a specific question from earlier - If you could point me directly to a specific post number(s) in the earlier thread where you 'demolished' FranchiseBlade - I assume it is in the thread that Burzmali pointed out - i would consider it a big favor. I am asking as sincerely as I can, it is not meant to goad you or get into an argument. From my end, i am trying to understand a little bit more about the sort perceptual differences in the dueling sides in these sorts of arguments. The style of the debate is very important, i think, possibly as important as the content of the debate. My feeling is, all partisanship aside, i honestly do not see it. My assumption is that if it was a demolishing, you be able to cite some dramatic samples of FB's opinons being proven misguided with a contrary opinon supported by fact or unquestionably superior interpretation. The threads have post numbers, so if you could direct me to one or more, then I could analyze where the discrepancy is in your opinon and mine. I will absolutely NOT follow up with a "no no no you did not!!" type of reply, it is purely for my understanding. I appreciate your time and attention to this reuqest, i consider it a favor.
Thats hilarious, because if you really typed away with a sheepish grin thinking to yourself you "owned" in THAT thread....then you must truely believe the earth is indeed......flat.
Hi gwayneco - I thought i would bump this thread from last week in case you missed it while you were gone - I was wondering if you could point me directly to a specific post number(s) in the earlier Olberman thread where you demolished FranchiseBlade - i went more in detail as to why it would be helpful to me above; same senitments remain about it being a favor. Thanks for your time and consideration -best, cbfc
Do you need any help in finding the direction of a sunrise? A sunset? The year in which the War of 1812 started? Whom the Russians fought in the Russo-Japanese war?
Nope, just the post number in which you "demolished" FB. All those others are obvious, but your demolition is not.
If you can't find that, I doubt that you have the intelligence to tell your ass from your elbow. Now... Traitors, Piglibs, and Democrats, lend me your one brain cell for just one moment. Here is what happened: Dude said "In" when he should have said "After". Dude previously had written it correctly as "After" in an online magazine. Dude corrected himself in response to an email. So, to recap in mostly words of one syallable - nothing to see here folks. Meanwhile, our great and noble hero, Krazy Keith Olbermann, tells an emailer to "Go kill yourself."
I think we're seeing a kinder, gentler gwayneco. He differentiated between traitors, piglibs, and democrats. At least he sees us as distinct now . (is Piglib an insulting way of saying Libpig?? I'm having a tough time keeping up).
... a topic with particular resonance for middle-aged males from Anahuac, Texas, or so it would seem.
Btw, O'Reilly can be criticized for a lot of things, but this was just a case of a guy with ratings envy making a mountain out of mole hill.
Sorry if I did not express the request clearly, thanks for responding above. My specific question was, and reamins actually, not for a recap of the argument, but for the post numbers where you perceived a 'demolishing' in an argument. Like someone said earlier, it just was not obvious to me, so I was hoping to get an idea of how you demolished him. People are different, see things differently, i was just hoping for some further clarification on the thread. My question was not about Malemedy, O Reilly and certainly not Olbermann, it was about the debate between you and FB, and that maybe some of the disconnect between posters involves an overuse of hyperbole, or maybe misunderstanding or possibly even stupidty on my part. i just wanted to see the debate as you saw it, sort of go back and examine and understand where the contours of that discussion lead you to believe you demolished him. i know it is a small point to you, or an obvious one, but to me it is not and was not, and in the - geniuine - pursuit of greater, non-insulting or non-hostile understanding of how people who are different than me see discourse. I think that is more important to me in this case than Olbermann or O Reilly. I did not mean for you to feel attacked, I just did not think a man of your convictions would have a problem breaking down the play, especially when you thought it was so dramatic. Seriously, gwayneco, my request was made - and remains on the table - with no insults or disrespect - i was just looking for concrete reference points in the thread where his points were not just rebutted by your differring opinion (which is not demolishing) but where, specifically where, they were proven incorrect. To my mind, it is a distinction worth noting, and to me it seems like you just interpreted it differently, maybe a little louder. I was hoping to get a non-emotional non-insulting fact-based point of reference from you about it, because i think it is important. I get the jist of debate, that was not the question, though. Thanks again cbfc
Guy said in when he should have said after. He did it earlier as well. The fact that he had a better fact checker for his writtten work doesn't matter. He never apologized for it, and by changing those words he slandered WWII soldiers who were slaughtered by Nazis. Your argument that it was only one preposition that was changed is beyond ludicrous. "I was shooting with my neighbors." "I was shooting at my neighbors." Thos two statements only have one preposition changed. In one of them I am at the range partaking in recreation with my neighbors. In the other I am committing a crime. "Gwayneco jumped near the edge of a huge cliff." "Gwayneco jumped over the edge of a huge cliff." Again, changing one little preposition completely changes the meaning. To pretend like that is insignifcant shows a less than firm grasp on rudimentary concepts in the English Language.
It funny how you are always trying to get in the last word. It wasn't slander. It will never be slander despite you and "Go kill youself"s pyschotic efforts to transform it into slander. It was a slip of the tongue. Just get over it! You know we've been told that a mind is a terrible thing to waste, but in your case - not so much.
"go kill yourself?" I never suggested Bill O'Reilly go and kill himself, or suggested that Bill O'Reilly suggested that to anyone else. You claim it isn't slander but when O'Reilly states on multiple occasions that U.S. troops who surrendered, and were brutally killed while unarmed and with their hands in the air are guilty of committing the very crimes they were victims of to the Nazis. I call it slander. I think it fits the definition perfectly. People apologize for a slip of the tongue. They don't try and cover it up, then have their news network rewrite the transcripts only to change them back after being caught doing it. Bill never aplogized. And what you call a slip of the tongue, that slipped more than once, turned it into slander. Like I said before, if it is more important for you to defnd Bill O'Reilly than the reputations of the WWII soldiers who were slaughtered by the Nazis, then that is your perogative. If you want to resort to personal insults directed at me, go ahead and get your fill. But it doesn't help your case.
1. "Go kill yourself" = Keith Olbermann 2. multiple occasions - twice. The same number of times that he has gotten it correct. 3. Fox changed the transcript to it's correct version. 4. The reputations of the soldiers were never in doubt. O'Reilly corrected himself. What the hell more do you want him do? Honest to Christ. 5. Personal insults - I have rebutted you at every turn with facts. Your inability to comprehend them is truly staggering. In a neutral forrum this pig-headedness would not help your case. Here, at Kos Kidz Central, your home boys lap it up like a drunk at last call.
Your main argument which you repeated here was that it was just one preposition. I demonstrated that changing a preposition can drastically change the meaning of something. As far as Bill correcting after the e-mail, that wasn't a correction. That was him trying to cover his own hide, rather than admit that he got it wrong. That e-mail and O'Reilly's lame attempt to cover himself was even used by Keith Olbermann to show how week Bill's stance was. I wrote that Fox News changed the transcript back AFTER they were caught and ridiculed for changing it the first time. The soldiers reputations are obviously in doubt when O'Reilly mistakenly accuses them of the very war crimes they victims of at the hands of the Nazis. I don't care that you want to defend it, but just have the honesty to face up to the fact that you are defending it, and stop trying to pretend like Bill never made the screw up.
And despite this lack of intelligence, you are scared to take me on in a structured debate? Is that because you can't even answer a simple question like: Which post in that thread do you think "demolished" FBs argument? At least, you can't answer it without hurling insults.
