I’ll take that as you declining my challenge while attempting to save face.
How shocking.
And I find it amusing how you’re pretending that all your posts in gun related threads are objective and well spoken when most of the time I’ve seen you in such threads you make posts consisting of nothing but personal digs at other posters (usually with a single digit word count).
Sorry man but you must have me confused with someone else.
0
Quote Originally Posted by StraightShooter:
I’ll take that as you declining my challenge while attempting to save face.
How shocking.
And I find it amusing how you’re pretending that all your posts in gun related threads are objective and well spoken when most of the time I’ve seen you in such threads you make posts consisting of nothing but personal digs at other posters (usually with a single digit word count).
Sorry man but you must have me confused with someone else.
Shooter -- Touche. But that is one post form a thread in June of 2011. I have prob posted a minimum of 100 gun related posts since then.
I will admit that 14daroad and Esplande are two people that I will not waste my time on anymore for obvious reasons. But I have had had MANY drawn out debates with others that I basically completely disagree with (and to be fair they disagree with me as well). Some of these posts include insulting remarks (form both sides) but at least they are debates. You, Bowslit, and Cavnsop as just a few examples that come to mind.
Anyways I am not looking to get into a pissing match I just think it is odd to totally dismiss a previous post, by someone (not sure who) that included links with stats, because you personally do not like that media outlet. It was a statistical post after all and not an opinion piece.
0
Quote Originally Posted by StraightShooter:
I don’t.
Here is one such gun related thread if you need to refresh your memory:
Shooter -- Touche. But that is one post form a thread in June of 2011. I have prob posted a minimum of 100 gun related posts since then.
I will admit that 14daroad and Esplande are two people that I will not waste my time on anymore for obvious reasons. But I have had had MANY drawn out debates with others that I basically completely disagree with (and to be fair they disagree with me as well). Some of these posts include insulting remarks (form both sides) but at least they are debates. You, Bowslit, and Cavnsop as just a few examples that come to mind.
Anyways I am not looking to get into a pissing match I just think it is odd to totally dismiss a previous post, by someone (not sure who) that included links with stats, because you personally do not like that media outlet. It was a statistical post after all and not an opinion piece.
Shooter -- Touche. But that is one post form a thread in June of 2011. I have prob posted a minimum of 100 gun related posts since then.
I will admit that 14daroad and Esplande are two people that I will not waste my time on anymore for obvious reasons. But I have had had MANY drawn out debates with others that I basically completely disagree with (and to be fair they disagree with me as well). Some of these posts include insulting remarks (form both sides) but at least they are debates. You, Bowslit, and Cavnsop as just a few examples that come to mind.
Anyways I am not looking to get into a pissing match I just think it is odd to totally dismiss a previous post, by someone (not sure who) that included links with stats, because you personally do not like that media outlet. It was a statistical post after all and not an opinion piece.
I post in almost every gun related thread I see in the GD and if there is a serious debate they usually feature the same people making the majority of the posts.From what I’ve seen and remember I do not recall you being among them.I seriously doubt the post you made in the link I provided was a rarity, but I have neither the time nor the inclination to investigate further.But hey, I could be wrong.
Either way, it punches holes in the claim you made in post #99 regarding the posts you make in gun related threads.
Although I do tend to remember the most moronic of posters in those threads so the fact that I don’t recall you in them (at least not on any large scale) bodes well for you in that regard.
The point I was making in post #96 and #98 was that for every 100 links someone could post to an anti-gun related article that cited statistics I could post 100 links to a pro gun related article that cited statistics.
I don’t mind having a debate with someone that’s actually going to put forth an effort, but I have better things to do than spend 30 minutes or more picking apart a post it took someone else 30 seconds to make. And even when I did do that the person I was “debating” usually just left or made a personal insult and then left once they realized they were wrong and/or could no longer defend their opinion.
0
Quote Originally Posted by mattbrot:
Shooter -- Touche. But that is one post form a thread in June of 2011. I have prob posted a minimum of 100 gun related posts since then.
I will admit that 14daroad and Esplande are two people that I will not waste my time on anymore for obvious reasons. But I have had had MANY drawn out debates with others that I basically completely disagree with (and to be fair they disagree with me as well). Some of these posts include insulting remarks (form both sides) but at least they are debates. You, Bowslit, and Cavnsop as just a few examples that come to mind.
Anyways I am not looking to get into a pissing match I just think it is odd to totally dismiss a previous post, by someone (not sure who) that included links with stats, because you personally do not like that media outlet. It was a statistical post after all and not an opinion piece.
I post in almost every gun related thread I see in the GD and if there is a serious debate they usually feature the same people making the majority of the posts.From what I’ve seen and remember I do not recall you being among them.I seriously doubt the post you made in the link I provided was a rarity, but I have neither the time nor the inclination to investigate further.But hey, I could be wrong.
Either way, it punches holes in the claim you made in post #99 regarding the posts you make in gun related threads.
Although I do tend to remember the most moronic of posters in those threads so the fact that I don’t recall you in them (at least not on any large scale) bodes well for you in that regard.
The point I was making in post #96 and #98 was that for every 100 links someone could post to an anti-gun related article that cited statistics I could post 100 links to a pro gun related article that cited statistics.
I don’t mind having a debate with someone that’s actually going to put forth an effort, but I have better things to do than spend 30 minutes or more picking apart a post it took someone else 30 seconds to make. And even when I did do that the person I was “debating” usually just left or made a personal insult and then left once they realized they were wrong and/or could no longer defend their opinion.
I post in almost every gun related thread I see in the GD and if there is a serious debate they usually feature the same people making the majority of the posts.From what I’ve seen and remember I do not recall you being among them.I seriously doubt the post you made in the link I provided was a rarity, but I have neither the time nor the inclination to investigate further.But hey, I could be wrong.
Either way, it punches holes in the claim you made in post #99 regarding the posts you make in gun related threads.
Although I do tend to remember the most moronic of posters in those threads so the fact that I don’t recall you in them (at least not on any large scale) bodes well for you in that regard.
The point I was making in post #96 and #98 was that for every 100 links someone could post to an anti-gun related article that cited statistics I could post 100 links to a pro gun related article that cited statistics.
I don’t mind having a debate with someone that’s actually going to put forth an effort, but I have better things to do than spend 30 minutes or more picking apart a post it took someone else 30 seconds to make. And even when I did do that the person I was “debating” usually just left or made a personal insult and then left once they realized they were wrong and/or could no longer defend their opinion.
Fair enough. A few things
- I rarely post in the GD anymore so I am likely not involved in those threads.
- I hear you about not wanting to put time into posts. But I can say that in the "more serious threads" I put a fair amount of time looking into my posts before I actually port them.
I agree that there are examples om both sides but unfortunately we are unwilling to see that other side.
0
Quote Originally Posted by StraightShooter:
I post in almost every gun related thread I see in the GD and if there is a serious debate they usually feature the same people making the majority of the posts.From what I’ve seen and remember I do not recall you being among them.I seriously doubt the post you made in the link I provided was a rarity, but I have neither the time nor the inclination to investigate further.But hey, I could be wrong.
Either way, it punches holes in the claim you made in post #99 regarding the posts you make in gun related threads.
Although I do tend to remember the most moronic of posters in those threads so the fact that I don’t recall you in them (at least not on any large scale) bodes well for you in that regard.
The point I was making in post #96 and #98 was that for every 100 links someone could post to an anti-gun related article that cited statistics I could post 100 links to a pro gun related article that cited statistics.
I don’t mind having a debate with someone that’s actually going to put forth an effort, but I have better things to do than spend 30 minutes or more picking apart a post it took someone else 30 seconds to make. And even when I did do that the person I was “debating” usually just left or made a personal insult and then left once they realized they were wrong and/or could no longer defend their opinion.
Fair enough. A few things
- I rarely post in the GD anymore so I am likely not involved in those threads.
- I hear you about not wanting to put time into posts. But I can say that in the "more serious threads" I put a fair amount of time looking into my posts before I actually port them.
I agree that there are examples om both sides but unfortunately we are unwilling to see that other side.
- I rarely post in the GD anymore so I am likely not involved in those threads.
- I hear you about not wanting to put time into posts. But I can say that in the "more serious threads" I put a fair amount of time looking into my posts before I actually port them.
I agree that there are examples om both sides but unfortunately we are unwilling to see that other side.
I have no problem putting time into posts if it’s warranted.I’m just not going to spend 30 minutes picking apart a post it took someone else 30 seconds to make.Especially when, IME, there is a strong likelihood that the person I’m responding to is just going to take their ball and go home when they realize they are wrong and/or can no longer defend their opinion.
I’ve changed my opinion on major issues like abortion and the death penalty (and it doesn’t get much bigger than those two).Clearly I have no problem seeing “that other side.”However, “that other side” has to put forth an intelligent and compelling argument.I have yet to see that from any anti-gun people.
Hell, I rarely see anything more than falsehoods, personal insults, asinine comparisons, half-truths, and ludicrous claims from the anti-gun people on this board.
0
Quote Originally Posted by mattbrot:
Fair enough. A few things
- I rarely post in the GD anymore so I am likely not involved in those threads.
- I hear you about not wanting to put time into posts. But I can say that in the "more serious threads" I put a fair amount of time looking into my posts before I actually port them.
I agree that there are examples om both sides but unfortunately we are unwilling to see that other side.
I have no problem putting time into posts if it’s warranted.I’m just not going to spend 30 minutes picking apart a post it took someone else 30 seconds to make.Especially when, IME, there is a strong likelihood that the person I’m responding to is just going to take their ball and go home when they realize they are wrong and/or can no longer defend their opinion.
I’ve changed my opinion on major issues like abortion and the death penalty (and it doesn’t get much bigger than those two).Clearly I have no problem seeing “that other side.”However, “that other side” has to put forth an intelligent and compelling argument.I have yet to see that from any anti-gun people.
Hell, I rarely see anything more than falsehoods, personal insults, asinine comparisons, half-truths, and ludicrous claims from the anti-gun people on this board.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.
Sorry man but you must have me confused with someone else.
Hot Forum Topics
