Entry for the first Annual JPP Cup World Championship

This is the tally so far. If 3D wants to get out of this he needs to find a youngun to replace him. If he runs from this he'll never, ever have any street cred.

OK, so here are the entries so far and I"m assuming those who've posted are in.

Mott
Super Freak
Yurt
Cap'n Billy
USLoyal
3-D (you are not getting away with being a spectator fly boy)
Southernman
Watermark
Asshat Zombie
Damocles
Winterborn
Zappasguitar
USFreedom911
Beefy

OK that's only 14 entries. We need at least 16 to make this a go. Some players I'd like to see

Charver
Anyoldiron
Tom Pendegrast
Dixie
Cypress
Nigel
Jarod
Desh/Evince
Topspin
Tinfoil
Cawacko
Apple
Smarter Than You
Annie
Chapdog
Onceler
Singlemankenneth
Socrtease
Webway
Bravo
Christiefan
DonQuixote
Norman
Thaichiliberal

If I missed anyone on this list, please don't be offended. Shoot me a PM and I'll add you to the list of comeptitors.
 
Last edited:
Mott the Hoople said:
This is the tally so far. If 3D wants to get out of this he needs to find a youngun to replace him. If he runs from this he'll never, ever have any street cred.

OK, so here are the entries so far and I"m assuming those who've posted are in.

Mott
Super Freak
Yurt
Cap'n Billy
USLoyal
3-D (you are not getting away with being a spectator fly boy)
Southernman
Watermark
Asshat Zombie
Damocles
Winterborn
Zappasguitar

OK that's only 12 entries. We need at least 16 to make this a go. Some players I'd like to see

Charver
Anyoldiron
Tom Pendegrast
US911
Dixie
Cypress
Nigel
Jarod
Desh/Evince
Topspin
Tinfoil
Cawacko
Apple
Smarter Than You
Beefy
Annie
Chapdog
Onceler
Singlemankenneth
Socrtease
Webway
Bravo
Christiefan
DonQuixote
Norman
Thaichiliberal

If I missed anyone on this list, please don't be offended. Shoot me a PM and I'll add you to the list of comeptitors.
Click to expand...

Any chance of getting in touch with Adam whathisname? He is one well informed fellow. I'd love to see him in it.

Charver just makes me laugh too much. I'd lose ro him because I was pewing coffee thru my nose.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
This is the tally so far. If 3D wants to get out of this he needs to find a youngun to replace him. If he runs from this he'll never, ever have any street cred.

OK, so here are the entries so far and I"m assuming those who've posted are in.

Mott
Super Freak
Yurt
Cap'n Billy
USLoyal
3-D (you are not getting away with being a spectator fly boy)
Southernman
Watermark
Asshat Zombie
Damocles
Winterborn
Zappasguitar

OK that's only 12 entries. We need at least 16 to make this a go. Some players I'd like to see

Charver
Anyoldiron
Tom Pendegrast
US911
Dixie
Cypress
Nigel
Jarod
Desh/Evince
Topspin
Tinfoil
Cawacko
Apple
Smarter Than You
Beefy
Annie
Chapdog
Onceler
Singlemankenneth
Socrtease
Webway
Bravo
Christiefan
DonQuixote
Norman
Thaichiliberal

If I missed anyone on this list, please don't be offended. Shoot me a PM and I'll add you to the list of comeptitors.
Click to expand...

Go ahead and sign me up and I'll take a stab at it.
 
Genious Moot can't count, seeing as how he has 13, not 12, on his list. Unless he's deliberately not counting me, whose not playing, or Asshate, who proabably won't, either.
 
Alright. I'll be one of them, but I won't be participating any further than that, unless of course I sleep post.
 
WinterBorn said:
Any chance of getting in touch with Adam whathisname? He is one well informed fellow. I'd love to see him in it.

Charver just makes me laugh too much. I'd lose ro him because I was pewing coffee thru my nose.
Click to expand...
I initially wanted Adam Weinberg as the moderate but he didn't answer my PM. So Grind go the job.
 
Superfreak said:
The above is a prime example of what I meant by your horrid skills. The ARTICLES quoted EXPERTS in the field. Direct QUOTES CAN be used. You also ignored the research reports given to you... also a sign of poor debating skills. Rather than debate the CONTENT of the reports, you decided to arbitrarily proclaim them unworthy. A bad habit you likely picked up from Cypress.... he who makes wild accusations like 'the University of Delaware doesn't count because no one has heard of them and they are laughable' blah blah blah.

You make excuses for not reading anything that might contradict your preconceived position. You refuse to accept or acknowledge anything that might damage your views of the world.
Click to expand...

One more time for the dumber people here...

Op-Ed pieces are OPINION PIECES.

They contain the OPINION of the author...therefore making them AN INVALID SOURCE of information for debates.

If an Op-Ed piece contains some "factual info" you've got a real hard on for and feel must be included...then go find said "factual info" outside the aforementioned Op-Ed piece...IT'S JUST THAT SIMPLE.

Why SF is being such a jackoff about this, I don't know...oh, wait...yes I do.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
One more time for the dumber people here...

Op-Ed pieces are OPINION PIECES.

They contain the OPINION of the author...therefore making them AN INVALID SOURCE of information for debates.

If an Op-Ed piece contains some "factual info" you've got a real hard on for and feel must be included...then go find said "factual info" outside the aforementioned Op-Ed piece...IT'S JUST THAT SIMPLE.

Why SF is being such a jackoff about this, I don't know...oh, wait...yes I do.
Click to expand...

This is why you continually lose. Just because you label an article as an OP-ED piece does not make it so. Also, if a direct quote is from an expert, you most certainly can use that direct quote to support your position. It matters not that an author then states his/her opinion on the quote throughout the rest of the article. The quote is still the direct response from the expert. Unless you think the experts deliberately lied? Because that is the only way that experts quote is going to change from the article to some other source (that you would find a reason for also dismissing without cause)
 
ZappasGuitar said:
One more time for the dumber people here...

Op-Ed pieces are OPINION PIECES.

They contain the OPINION of the author...therefore making them AN INVALID SOURCE of information for debates.

If an Op-Ed piece contains some "factual info" you've got a real hard on for and feel must be included...then go find said "factual info" outside the aforementioned Op-Ed piece...IT'S JUST THAT SIMPLE.

Why SF is being such a jackoff about this, I don't know...oh, wait...yes I do.
Click to expand...
Op Ed pieces frequently link to gathered information which they used to form the opinion in the op ed piece. Often those who are arguing with you will ignore certain portions of the information that conflicts with their already set opinion.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
One more time for the dumber people here...

Op-Ed pieces are OPINION PIECES.

They contain the OPINION of the author...therefore making them AN INVALID SOURCE of information for debates.

If an Op-Ed piece contains some "factual info" you've got a real hard on for and feel must be included...then go find said "factual info" outside the aforementioned Op-Ed piece...IT'S JUST THAT SIMPLE.

Why SF is being such a jackoff about this, I don't know...oh, wait...yes I do.
Click to expand...
Op Ed pieces frequently link to gathered information which they used to form the opinion in the op ed piece. Often those who are arguing with you will ignore certain portions of the information that conflicts with their already set opinion.
 
Superfreak said:
This is why you continually lose. Just because you label an article as an OP-ED piece does not make it so. Also, if a direct quote is from an expert, you most certainly can use that direct quote to support your position. It matters not that an author then states his/her opinion on the quote throughout the rest of the article. The quote is still the direct response from the expert. Unless you think the experts deliberately lied? Because that is the only way that experts quote is going to change from the article to some other source (that you would find a reason for also dismissing without cause)
Click to expand...

I don't continually lose...I've kicked your ass three or four times now...

And let's not forget that your making such a claim would be YOUR OPINION and nothing more and therefore not allowed as evidence. Call me when you've got some evidence besides your OPINION.

You are correct about one thing. Just because I label something an Op-Ed piece does not automatically make it so.

It is when the author expresses his opinion in said article that makes it an Op-Ed piece.

Simple as that.

If someone uses a direct quote from an "expert" in their Op-Ed piece, that is fine, but you can't reference the editorial as EVIDENCE to back any claim you might be making. You must find the original source the quote was from and use it.
 
Last edited:
ZappasGuitar said:
I don't continually lose...I've kicked your ass three or four times now...

And let's not forget that your making such a claim would be YOUR OPINION and nothing more and therefore not allowed as evidence. Call me when you've got some evidence besides your OPINION.

You are correct about one thing. Just because I label something an Op-Ed piece does not automatically make it so.

It is when the author expresses his opinion in said article that makes it an Op-Ed piece.

Simple as that.

If someone uses a direct quote from an "expert" in their Op-Ed piece, that is fine, but you can't reference the editorial as EVIDENCE to back any claim you might be making. You must find the original source the quote was from and use it.
Click to expand...

But yo, man. If you take away op-ed pieces, rightwing think tanks, and wingnut blogs away from NeoCons they’re going to be pretty much completely disarmed.

But, you’re totally right. Op-Ed authors and columns, in and of themselves, aren’t valid to substantiate a position. Dudes who write Op-Ed columns aren’t experts, intellectuals, or academics. They’re dudes who have an opinion and get paid to write them. David Brooks and Arianna Huffington aren’t trained or academic experts in economics, science, or foreign policies. They’re just hacks who have good writing skills, and have a partisan opinion. And crap from partisan think tanks don't have to go through any normal sort of peer review or scrutiny. They're Agenda Papers.

Good luck, brother! The empirical and academic facts are usually on the side of liberals.
 
Damocles said:
Op Ed pieces frequently link to gathered information which they used to form the opinion in the op ed piece. Often those who are arguing with you will ignore certain portions of the information that conflicts with their already set opinion.
Click to expand...

What? You mean opinions are not formed in vacuums? :cof1:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top