Hi -- New here.

ThatOwlWoman said:
If I had to hazard a guess, I bet most of the complainers and the silent lurkers here don't read anything over 140 characters in length, or get their current events information in anything over 30-second sound bites. Anything more than that is just too hard.

What's really going on, of course, is that you are making them feel inferior about themselves (in their minds) because you are well-informed, eloquent, grammatical, interesting, and very, very intelligent. The monkeys can't have you climbing higher than they, so they're verbally trying to pull you back down.
Click to expand...

I was particularly amused by the shift, early on, from people accusing me of not providing enough specifics (when I was trying to be brief so as not to over-tax their attention spans), to people accusing me of being long-winded (when I provided the specifics). There is, of course, no acceptable length for them, because what they actually object to is the argument, not the way the argument is being presented.
 
Oneuli said:
I was particularly amused by the shift, early on, from people accusing me of not providing enough specifics (when I was trying to be brief so as not to over-tax their attention spans), to people accusing me of being long-winded (when I provided the specifics). There is, of course, no acceptable length for them, because what they actually object to is the argument, not the way the argument is being presented.
Click to expand...

That's exactly it. If Jesus came back and appeared to these guys with the same message, He'd be crucified all over again. Don't like the message? Kill the messenger! It's a time-honored conservative tradition.
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello Controlled Opposition,



During the 50's anybody even TALKING about Russia was suspect by the Republicans.

These days, Republicans think Russians are our friends.
Click to expand...

Even without going back to the 50s, you can see a huge change. As recently as 2012, Mitt Romney was effectively arguing that Obama was soft on the Russkies, for failing to recognize that they were our number one geopolitical foe.... and the right-wingers on social media were dutifully parroting that. Ironically, he was making that argument at a time when Russia was just about as friendly with us as they'd ever been since WWII. It was the era of Medvedev -- who may have been a corrupt cat's paw for Putin, but whose presidency was marked by a less confrontational approach. That was a relatively peaceful period, in between the aggression in South Ossetia and the aggression in Crimea. It's funny that the Republicans were raising the alarms about Russia even when they were on their best behavior, but now are running interference for them, by trying to end an investigation into Russian lawbreaking, merely out of fear that it will implicate Trump.
 
Oneuli said:
I was particularly amused by the shift, early on, from people accusing me of not providing enough specifics (when I was trying to be brief so as not to over-tax their attention spans), to people accusing me of being long-winded (when I provided the specifics). There is, of course, no acceptable length for them, because what they actually object to is the argument, not the way the argument is being presented.
Click to expand...
No, you use too many words. This post, for example, could be shortened tremendously.
 
Oneuli said:
Even without going back to the 50s, you can see a huge change. As recently as 2012, Mitt Romney was effectively arguing that Obama was soft on the Russkies, for failing to recognize that they were our number one geopolitical foe.... and the right-wingers on social media were dutifully parroting that. Ironically, he was making that argument at a time when Russia was just about as friendly with us as they'd ever been since WWII. It was the era of Medvedev -- who may have been a corrupt cat's paw for Putin, but whose presidency was marked by a less confrontational approach. That was a relatively peaceful period, in between the aggression in South Ossetia and the aggression in Crimea. It's funny that the Republicans were raising the alarms about Russia even when they were on their best behavior, but now are running interference for them, by trying to end an investigation into Russian lawbreaking, merely out of fear that it will implicate Trump.
Click to expand...

This is why ppl with good memories are so hated by the right. lol

In 2008, who could forget $arah Palin talking about the proximity of Russia to Alaska, how Russians jets supposedly entered Alaskan airspace, with the implication that candidate Obama wouldn't do anything about their existential threat? I know! Our Reichwing friends have *all* forgotten about that in their haste to assure us all that the Russians are now our BFFs.

At 1:40 seconds:
 
Stargazer said:
No, you use too many words. This post, for example, could be shortened tremendously.
Click to expand...

Are you ever going to give an exact word count that will satisfy you so that you can concentrate on the discussion rather than how long it took you to read it (though I doubt you read them)?
 
Gotcha68 said:
Are you ever going to give an exact word count that will satisfy you so that you can concentrate on the discussion rather than how long it took you to read it (though I doubt you read them)?
Click to expand...

Probably not. StarGeezer's one of the monkeys trying desperately to grab Oneuli by the ankles and drag her back down into the monkey cage with her and her ilk.

How freaking petty can you get, anyways?
 
Stargazer said:
I recall you claimed to be here for civil discussion
Click to expand...

I don't recall having said that. I said that I was here for substantive discussion. I've actually stipulated that I don't care about people being civil, so long as they have something substantive to offer. But, either way, it doesn't mean I'm not allowed to offer a convincing example proving that brevity is not clarity. Keep in mind that your personal embarrassment at having your errors illustrated is not a sign that someone was uncivil to you.
 
Stargazer said:
This post, for example, could be shortened tremendously.
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree that post of yours could be shortened tremendously. The whole first sentence (which I helped you by removing) was redundant, since you'd already made the same assertion repeatedly. So, it was a fourteen-word post that could be shortened to eight.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
This is why ppl with good memories are so hated by the right. lol

In 2008, who could forget $arah Palin talking about the proximity of Russia to Alaska, how Russians jets supposedly entered Alaskan airspace, with the implication that candidate Obama wouldn't do anything about their existential threat? I know! Our Reichwing friends have *all* forgotten about that in their haste to assure us all that the Russians are now our BFFs.

At 1:40 seconds:
Click to expand...

What do you mean? Oceana has ALWAYS been friends with Eurasia! You need to get this thoughtcrime of yours under control.
 
Gotcha68 said:
Are you ever going to give an exact word count that will satisfy you so that you can concentrate on the discussion rather than how long it took you to read it (though I doubt you read them)?
Click to expand...
No specific word count, just clear and concise.

Here, I'll show you.

I was particularly amused by the shift, early on, from people accusing me of not providing enough specifics (when I was trying to be brief so as not to over-tax their attention spans), to people accusing me of being long-winded (when I provided the specifics). There is, of course, no acceptable length for them, because what they actually object to is the argument, not the way the argument is being presented.

Clear translation:

The conflicting accusations of me providing insufficient information along with being long-winded are amusing. No length is acceptable for those who object the argument, not the presentation.

See there?
 
Oneuli said:
Yes, I agree that post of yours could be shortened tremendously. The whole first sentence (which I helped you by removing) was redundant, since you'd already made the same assertion repeatedly. So, it was a fourteen-word post that could be shortened to eight.
Click to expand...
Remember, simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.
 
Stargazer said:
No specific word count, just clear and concise.

Here, I'll show you.

I was particularly amused by the shift, early on, from people accusing me of not providing enough specifics (when I was trying to be brief so as not to over-tax their attention spans), to people accusing me of being long-winded (when I provided the specifics). There is, of course, no acceptable length for them, because what they actually object to is the argument, not the way the argument is being presented.

Clear translation:

The conflicting accusations of me providing insufficient information along with being long-winded are amusing. No length is acceptable for those who object the argument, not the presentation.

See there?
Click to expand...

Old liberal tactic, if you can't beat them with facts dazzle them with BS. :laugh:
 
Gotcha68 said:
Are you ever going to give an exact word count that will satisfy you so that you can concentrate on the discussion rather than how long it took you to read it (though I doubt you read them)?
Click to expand...

Perhaps I can stick to the Haiku/Senryu form.

Stargazer gets bored
With too many thoughts to read
5/7/5: just right
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top