Hunter's Laptop
Smedley said:
And, left, right, or center, I think we can all agree that convincing 0 people over almost 40k posts is a very poor record.
Maybe he's not here to convince anyone.
Smedley said:
I didn’t think you’d be able to cite any examples of you convincing anyone else.
If not convincing anyone is a metric of argument quality for me, it also applies to you.
Just yesterday he convinced me that he was walking back “convince.” You must be a tougher customer.
Smedley said:
I didn’t think you’d be able to cite any examples of you convincing anyone else.
If not convincing anyone is a metric of argument quality for me, it also applies to you.
And, left, right, or center, I think we can all agree that convincing 0 people over almost 40k posts is a very poor record.
I've been persuaded to change my mind, or acknowledge I was mistaken based on comments on MOL.
Just not by you.
drummerboy said:
Smedley said:
drummerboy said:
OTOH and on second thought, the only reason you called us (or maybe just me) as partisan is because you couldn't convince me (or otherwise get me to accept your premises) about whatever points you were trying to make. Because you failed, you just wrote it of as me being blindly partisan, rather than not buying your terribly weak arguments.
right?
I mean, I'm not blaming you for that reaction, but at least own up to it.
I didn’t think you’d be able to cite any examples of you convincing anyone else.
If not convincing anyone is a metric of argument quality for me, it also applies to you.
And, left, right, or center, I think we can all agree that convincing 0 people over almost 40k posts is a very poor record.
it's not a question of not convincing. it's a question of blaming your opponents - after not buying into your premises - of being bad faith, partisan actors.
again, you can't own up to the fact that you failed to make your case.
as for "convincing", here's the thing - when you first post on a topic, you're probably expecting some buy in. that's not being convincing (unless you're just trolling), that's just proposing something that you expect people to agree with.
you got essentially no buy-in, so you blame it on people being blindly partisan.
You saying that I'm "probably expecting some buy in" when I post here is one of your more ridiculous statements ever.
ml1 said:
Smedley said:
I didn’t think you’d be able to cite any examples of you convincing anyone else.
If not convincing anyone is a metric of argument quality for me, it also applies to you.
And, left, right, or center, I think we can all agree that convincing 0 people over almost 40k posts is a very poor record.
I've been persuaded to change my mind, or acknowledge I was mistaken based on comments on MOL.
Just not by you.
Boom. Roasted.
I especially like the line break, which builds in a dramatic pause that sets up the coup de grace.
Kudos.
Hunter Biden is a rank amateur.
"Six months after leaving the White House, Jared Kushner secured a $2 billion investment from a fund led by the Saudi crown prince, a close ally during the Trump administration, despite objections from the fund’s advisers about the merits of the deal."
Can we recap? I understand that Hunter Biden and James Biden are jackals to some extent (not as good as the jackals of the Trump clan), but is there any linkage to actions by the U.S. government aiding and abetting their scavenger activities?
tjohn said:
Can we recap? I understand that Hunter Biden and James Biden are jackals to some extent (not as good as the jackals of the Trump clan), but is there any linkage to actions by the U.S. government aiding and abetting their scavenger activities?
smedley should have an answer on the tip of his tongue.
Smedley said:
drummerboy said:
Smedley said:
drummerboy said:
OTOH and on second thought, the only reason you called us (or maybe just me) as partisan is because you couldn't convince me (or otherwise get me to accept your premises) about whatever points you were trying to make. Because you failed, you just wrote it of as me being blindly partisan, rather than not buying your terribly weak arguments.
right?
I mean, I'm not blaming you for that reaction, but at least own up to it.
I didn’t think you’d be able to cite any examples of you convincing anyone else.
If not convincing anyone is a metric of argument quality for me, it also applies to you.
And, left, right, or center, I think we can all agree that convincing 0 people over almost 40k posts is a very poor record.
it's not a question of not convincing. it's a question of blaming your opponents - after not buying into your premises - of being bad faith, partisan actors.
again, you can't own up to the fact that you failed to make your case.
as for "convincing", here's the thing - when you first post on a topic, you're probably expecting some buy in. that's not being convincing (unless you're just trolling), that's just proposing something that you expect people to agree with.
you got essentially no buy-in, so you blame it on people being blindly partisan.
You saying that I'm "probably expecting some buy in" when I post here is one of your more ridiculous statements ever.
oh, so you wrote a post which was about an article you characterized as making good points (I forgot your exact phrase) and expected no agreement with you?
sure you did.
drummerboy said:
Smedley said:
drummerboy said:
Smedley said:
drummerboy said:
OTOH and on second thought, the only reason you called us (or maybe just me) as partisan is because you couldn't convince me (or otherwise get me to accept your premises) about whatever points you were trying to make. Because you failed, you just wrote it of as me being blindly partisan, rather than not buying your terribly weak arguments.
right?
I mean, I'm not blaming you for that reaction, but at least own up to it.
I didn’t think you’d be able to cite any examples of you convincing anyone else.
If not convincing anyone is a metric of argument quality for me, it also applies to you.
And, left, right, or center, I think we can all agree that convincing 0 people over almost 40k posts is a very poor record.
it's not a question of not convincing. it's a question of blaming your opponents - after not buying into your premises - of being bad faith, partisan actors.
again, you can't own up to the fact that you failed to make your case.
as for "convincing", here's the thing - when you first post on a topic, you're probably expecting some buy in. that's not being convincing (unless you're just trolling), that's just proposing something that you expect people to agree with.
you got essentially no buy-in, so you blame it on people being blindly partisan.
You saying that I'm "probably expecting some buy in" when I post here is one of your more ridiculous statements ever.
oh, so you wrote a post which was about an article you characterized as making good points (I forgot your exact phrase) and expected no agreement with you?
sure you did.
Doubling down on a ridiculous post - always a good idea.
I've only been here for years and made a few thousand politics posts, probably 90% of which have been disagreed with to some extent. But now suddenly I crave buy-in and agreement from others.
Makes sense.
drummerboy said:
oh, so you wrote a post which was about an article you characterized as making good points (I forgot your exact phrase) and expected no agreement with you?
sure you did.
Post comments and share articles for affirmation? Sounds like a waste of time.
tjohn said:
Can we recap? I understand that Hunter Biden and James Biden are jackals to some extent (not as good as the jackals of the Trump clan), but is there any linkage to actions by the U.S. government aiding and abetting their scavenger activities?
that's been my point throughout. Hunter's business activities in Ukraine ended years ago. Where's the evidence of Joe wielding influence on his behalf? Without that evidence, it's Hunter's ethics issue, not Joe's.
Smedley said:
ml1 said:
Smedley said:
I didn’t think you’d be able to cite any examples of you convincing anyone else.
If not convincing anyone is a metric of argument quality for me, it also applies to you.
And, left, right, or center, I think we can all agree that convincing 0 people over almost 40k posts is a very poor record.
I've been persuaded to change my mind, or acknowledge I was mistaken based on comments on MOL.
Just not by you.
Boom. Roasted.
I especially like the line break, which builds in a dramatic pause that sets up the coup de grace.
Kudos.
all in the timing.
Smedley said:
drummerboy said:
Smedley said:
drummerboy said:
Smedley said:
drummerboy said:
OTOH and on second thought, the only reason you called us (or maybe just me) as partisan is because you couldn't convince me (or otherwise get me to accept your premises) about whatever points you were trying to make. Because you failed, you just wrote it of as me being blindly partisan, rather than not buying your terribly weak arguments.
right?
I mean, I'm not blaming you for that reaction, but at least own up to it.
I didn’t think you’d be able to cite any examples of you convincing anyone else.
If not convincing anyone is a metric of argument quality for me, it also applies to you.
And, left, right, or center, I think we can all agree that convincing 0 people over almost 40k posts is a very poor record.
it's not a question of not convincing. it's a question of blaming your opponents - after not buying into your premises - of being bad faith, partisan actors.
again, you can't own up to the fact that you failed to make your case.
as for "convincing", here's the thing - when you first post on a topic, you're probably expecting some buy in. that's not being convincing (unless you're just trolling), that's just proposing something that you expect people to agree with.
you got essentially no buy-in, so you blame it on people being blindly partisan.
You saying that I'm "probably expecting some buy in" when I post here is one of your more ridiculous statements ever.
oh, so you wrote a post which was about an article you characterized as making good points (I forgot your exact phrase) and expected no agreement with you?
sure you did.
Doubling down on a ridiculous post - always a good idea.
I've only been here for years and made a few thousand politics posts, probably 90% of which have been disagreed with to some extent. But now suddenly I crave buy-in and agreement from others.
Makes sense.
this I agree with. If I were you I wouldn't be expecting buy-in either.
the owner of the laptop repair shop (who I could have sworn was dead?) is now saying the hard disk that's floating around looks a little suspicious.
drummerboy said:
the owner of the laptop repair shop (who I could have sworn was dead?) is now saying the hard disk that's floating around looks a little suspicious.
Well you can't trust him, right?
For Sale
Free Items
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
it's not a question of not convincing. it's a question of blaming your opponents - after not buying into your premises - of being bad faith, partisan actors.
again, you can't own up to the fact that you failed to make your case.
as for "convincing", here's the thing - when you first post on a topic, you're probably expecting some buy in. that's not being convincing (unless you're just trolling), that's just proposing something that you expect people to agree with.
you got essentially no buy-in, so you blame it on people being blindly partisan.