Sick to death of all the sock accounts around here

LurchAddams said:
I disagree. This forum is for entertainment, I get that. But.. it is a political opinion forum where integrity/confidence in your own beliefs should count for something. To create a different persona is both dishonest and childish in a forum of this kind. That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it!
Click to expand...
So we consider the possibility that this is coming from one of your many sock accounts, just to optimize the irony. How to we treat your input?
 
LurchAddams said:
You know - the sad part is that you actually thing you're entertaining anyone. May be the other toddlers at your IQ level will give your post a like?
Click to expand...
You know - the sad part is that you actually think you're able to read a post for comprehension. Maybe the other doorstops in the drawer will explain to you how to recognize philosophical questions.

You are stupid. The only things that are certain in life are death, taxes, and your cognitive stasis. Your posting on the internet must be an involuntary nervous twitch.
 
Damocles said:
I'll let folks read what you've written and compare it to what I have written and let them decide.
Click to expand...
I've read through his and your exchanges and I do think that you're being a bit "over dramatic" about Trump's truth social post and what it means. If you wish to criticize Trump's clumsy wording within that tweet, then I'm ready to join right in with you in said criticism.

However, it's clear to me that Trump's foundational point within that truth social post was that fraudulent election results should not be tolerated, and that enough documentable illegal activity occurred in order to (at the very least) put into question the validity of the claimed result, let alone nullifying a legitimate Trump win (and illegitimately installing Joe Biden as the "winner" instead).

IOW, I'm not going to get my knickers in a twist over some clumsy wording on Trump's part... He's absolutely right that documentable illegal activity should not be tolerated, and that it occurred on a level that, at the very least, brings the claimed election result into question, let alone a level that completely overturned the legitimate result.
Damocles said:
Before that day he had a chance to win my vote, after that day he did not.
Click to expand...
BTW, this general (emotionally-driven) attitude right here (amongst people who aren't libtards) is one of the numerous reasons why the libtard agenda keeps advancing while the conservative agenda keeps retreating.
 
Last edited:
Magats_Love_NHB said:
What's the problem of responding just like he does?
Click to expand...
I apologize for leaving you hanging. There is absolutely nothing wrong with responding as he does. In fact, I recommend it, and I should do it more than I do. You just need to do it correctly.

Please glance at this list.

Don't take this the wrong way, but leftists base everything on one fallacy or another, (never making a valid argument) and the fallacies all repeat over and over. Several years ago, Into the Night simply began assigning numbers to the fallacies that were being regurgitated most frequently. At a certain point, I recommended maintaining an online listing for quick and efficient reference (and I got it started). Into the Night is responsible for its content and its maintenance.

Once you peruse the list, you will understand each item and will recognize them when you read them in other people's posts. Feel free to be efficient and reference the number (and possibly provide a link to the list) and let the reader figure out his error.

If there are any fallacies that are missing that you feel belong in the list, let Into the Night know.
 
gfm7175 said:
I've read through his and your exchanges and I do think that you're being a bit "over dramatic" about Trump's truth social post and what it means. If you wish to criticize Trump's clumsy wording within that tweet, then I'm ready to join right in with you in said criticism.

However, it's clear to me that Trump's foundational point within that truth social post was that fraudulent election results should not be tolerated, and that enough documentable illegal activity occurred in order to (at the very least) put into question the validity of the claimed result, let alone nullifying a legitimate Trump win (and illegitimately installing Joe Biden as the "winner" instead).

IOW, I'm not going to get my knickers in a twist over some clumsy wording on Trump's part... He's absolutely right that documentable illegal activity should not be tolerated, and that it occurred on a level that, at the very least, brings the claimed election result into question, let alone a level that completely overturned the legitimate result.

BTW, this general (emotionally-driven) attitude right here (amongst people who aren't libtards) is one of the numerous reasons why the libtard agenda keeps advancing while the conservative agenda keeps retreating.
Click to expand...
Spot on, as usual.
 
IBDaMann said:
I apologize for leaving you hanging. There is absolutely nothing wrong with responding as he does. In fact, I recommend it, and I should do it more than I do. You just need to do it correctly.

Please glance at this list.

Don't take this the wrong way, but leftists base everything on one fallacy or another, (never making a valid argument) and the fallacies all repeat over and over. Several years ago, Into the Night simply began assigning numbers to the fallacies that were being regurgitated most frequently. At a certain point, I recommended maintaining an online listing for quick and efficient reference (and I got it started). Into the Night is responsible for its content and its maintenance.

Once you peruse the list, you will understand each item and will recognize them when you read them in other people's posts. Feel free to be efficient and reference the number (and possibly provide a link to the list) and let the reader figure out his error.

If there are any fallacies that are missing that you feel belong in the list, let Into the Night know.
Click to expand...
What a joke. I'll continue to make fun of the fool.
 
Stone said:
Its dishonest and quite frankly pretty damn childish and weird. I think a forum vote needs to be put up to do away with them and a new rule imposed of ONE account and one account only. ZERO socks. If the vote comes up favoring my proposal then it gets passed on to our CEO Damo for his approval or disapproval. Who's with me? Its high time we put an end to this nonsense for good imo.....
Click to expand...
@FastLane is a sock. Just FYI.
 
Stone said:
Its dishonest and quite frankly pretty damn childish and weird. I think a forum vote needs to be put up to do away with them and a new rule imposed of ONE account and one account only. ZERO socks. If the vote comes up favoring my proposal then it gets passed on to our CEO Damo for his approval or disapproval. Who's with me? Its high time we put an end to this nonsense for good imo.....
Click to expand...

We would lose half the board - and that's just the Douche Duck socks.

I think socks are allowed just to keep the number of users up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top