Iehovah insists on continuing an argument.

[Iehovah]

Classic. Instead of just humbly admitting you were wrong and moving on, you have to include a petty jab just to help your wounded ego survive the fact that it got owned. Sorry Iehovah, but I successfully argue points all the time. When they are obscured by bullshit, it's usually because the other guy is so vested in making a shitty point that the whole discussion gets derailed.

I don't pretend to be something more than human. I make mistake and am capable of being wrong and admitting it without my ego committing suicide in the process. As for the rest, what you call petty, I call warranted. I believe that it's worth pointing out when someone like you steps past your usual bullshit.


Again, it doesn't refute what you said (and I didn't say otherwise), but that doesn't make it irrelevant. That's exactly what i said from the beginning.

You talk about "derailing" yet quibble over bullshit like this? You admit that it did nothing to refute my point, but harped on it for what? The sake of being right? I'll remind you that you made the completely ignorant assertion that I forgot to add it when I did no such thing.

Yeah, sorry, but like usual, you're talking out of your ass. I decided to respond to you, and not to ChargerCarl. That doesn't make me a hypocrite, that makes me selective. I have time, resource, patience, and entertainment constraints so I'm not going to respond to everything I disagree with.

You were responding to me, and Charger's comments were completely relevant to my attitude. Selective perception, ignoring relevant information because it REFUTES YOUR POINT is what we call "hypocrisy".
That goes into the issue of honesty as well.

You've stated that if he made a blanket accusation against Republicans, conservatives, or "what have you", then you disagree with that. The "what have you" in Charger's case is making an unfounded cry of racism against anyone that disagrees with amnesty, for no purpose other than to discredit them out of hand. He knows it, that's why he's steering well clear of this argument.

Charger's attack was completely unwarranted and my attitude stemming from that vicious and uncalled for personal attack was completely justified.

[Rust]

Now it's my fault that you insulted me, accused me of saying something irrelevant, and made it seem as if I was saying your point was refuted when I did nothing of the sort. :rolleyes:

Yeah, there's really no point in continuing this. Congratulations; that's clearly what you wanted.

[Iehovah]

Now it's my fault that you insulted me, accused me of saying something irrelevant, and made it seem as if I was saying your point was refuted when I did nothing of the sort. :rolleyes:

Yeah, there's really no point in continuing this. Congratulations; that's clearly what you wanted.

Nope, just looking for a little honesty from you is all, Rust. I've yet to be able to get that from you, but it's always nice to have hope.

As I recall, you insulted me -first- by claiming that I forgot something I had not, added further insults when I pointed out you were wrong. You refuse to explain what your purpose was in bringing it up and clinging to its relevance, which leads to the question - what was your purpose exactly? Did you have one, or were you just picking shit, or trying to insinuate something you didn't have the balls to state directly?

You made an assertion that was completely untrue and then fell back on further insults and bitching about a relevance when I called you on it. Was that your real purpose? Obscure the fact that you made a completely unfounded claim with a lot of other bullshit?

[Rust]

Wow. You can't even take that as a hint to stop discussing the issue? Your ego is so hurt that you still need to harp on this? Fine. Have it your way. :)

I don't pretend to be something more than human. I make mistake and am capable of being wrong and admitting it without my ego committing suicide in the process. As for the rest, what you call petty, I call warranted. I believe that it's worth pointing out when someone like you steps past your usual bullshit.

All of that is contradicted by your petty responses so far. Instead of humbling accepting you were wrong, and admitting it without your ego getting in the way, you decided to insult me even when you were wrong.

The fact remains that all you have is your petty characterization of me, which I could easily revert back to you in the same manner. If this is what you've been reduced to, then honestly it's sad.


You talk about "derailing" yet quibble over bullshit like this? You admit that it did nothing to refute my point, but harped on it for what? The sake of being right? I'll remind you that you made the completely ignorant assertion that I forgot to add it when I did no such thing.


I talk about "derailing"? You accused me of doing that as soon as I spoke! All I did was point out a relevant fact. Instead accepting it and moving on, you decided to insult me by saying I hadn't read the thread and then insisted the fact I pointed out was irrelevant.

What? You get to do that and it's no problem, but I don't get to defend myself against accusations that what I posted was irrelevant, or against accusations that I was claiming your point was refuted by what I said when I did no such thing? If I defend myself against that it's "quibbling"? :rolleyes:


You were responding to me, and Charger's comments were completely relevant to my attitude. Selective perception, ignoring relevant information because it REFUTES YOUR POINT is what we call "hypocrisy".
That goes into the issue of honesty as well.

You copped an attitude with me.Even after all I did was correct you in your glaring error, and point out a relevant fact. That was the problem. Whether ChargerCal said something to you that you didn't like is irrelevant to that issue. Stop making up excuses.

Nope, just looking for a little honesty from you is all, Rust. I've yet to be able to get that from you, but it's always nice to have hope.

Right. Says the man who dishonestly failed to look at the sources -after claiming he had searched for them and knew they didn't say anything about immigration (and they did) - and ignored relevant facts just a few sentences away from his out-of-context quotations.


As I recall, you insulted me -first- by claiming that I forgot something I had not, added further insults when I pointed out you were wrong. You refuse to explain what your purpose was in bringing it up and clinging to its relevance, which leads to the question - what was your purpose exactly? Did you have one, or were you just picking shit, or trying to insinuate something you didn't have the balls to state directly?

1. I said you had forgotten to post a relevant fact that came right before that. Maybe a little ironic, but hardly "insulting" :rolleyes:

2. I didn't refuse to explain that, I already did. Pay attention. I repeatedly told you it was important to the argument at hand to know to what extent that was true. It was true to a small extent, as the article you were quoting said, and this important to point out.

If person A is making a big deal about a debt he's owed, I consider it important to point out if the debt is just one dollar. Wouldn't you?


You made an assertion that was completely untrue and then fell back on further insults and bitching about a relevance when I called you on it. Was that your real purpose? Obscure the fact that you made a completely unfounded claim with a lot of other bullshit?

What assertion was that? What I posted was true, and relevant. The only reason "I fell back on bitching about relevance" is because YOU bitched about irrelevance first. Your double standard is unbelievable. You get to accuse things of being irrelevant, but if I defend myself against the accusation, its "quibbling" or "bitching". Hah!

So no, there was no untrue assertion. Only in your imagination did I ever claim your point was wrong because of what I posted. I did no such thing. I posted it because it was relevant to the argument as it explained just to what extent what you were saying was true; it was true to a small extent and that was important to point out.

[Iehovah]

All of that is contradicted by your petty responses so far. Instead of humbling accepting you were wrong, and admitting it without your ego getting in the way, you decided to insult me even when you were wrong.


I have already accepted I was wrong, repeatedly acknowledged it and moved on from that. I was under no obligation to do it in a humble manner as you have repeatedly insisted I do. That insistence is nothing more than arrogance on your own part, a petty desire to establish your own dominance over others.


The fact remains that all you have is your petty characterization of me, which I could easily revert back to you in the same manner. If this is what you've been reduced to, then honestly it's sad.

Playing "I'm rubber, you're glue" doesn't make what you're saying valid.

What? You get to do that and it's no problem, but I don't get to defend myself against accusations that what I posted was irrelevant, or against accusations that I was claiming your point was refuted by what I said when I did no such thing? If I defend myself against that it's "quibbling"? :rolleyes:

You started the quibbling, not me. First you insult me by claiming I forgot to add material to my quote, then you insult me again when I correct you. Then you continue insulting me when I point out the irrelevance of mentioning it. That's a 24-page document. There's a lot of "relevant" material in it. None of it changes the truth of what I said.

You copped an attitude with me.Even after all I did was correct you in your glaring error, and point out a relevant fact. That was the problem. Whether ChargerCal said something to you that you didn't like is irrelevant to that issue. Stop making up excuses.

I copped attitude with -you- after you insulted me twice. You jumped into an ongoing argument, claimed I'd forgotten

Right. Says the man who dishonestly failed to look at the sources -after claiming he had searched for them and knew they didn't say anything about immigration (and they did) - and ignored relevant facts just a few sentences away from his out-of-context quotations.

Actually, I looked at the sources, and did searches on the words I thought should lead yield results if they were there. My reasoning was flawed, it was a faulty process I was using, and one that led me to a distinctly wrong conclusion. There was nothing dishonest with that. People make mistakes and I made a very large one. Acknowledged. Repeatedly.


1. I said you had forgotten to post a relevant fact that came right before that. Maybe a little ironic, but hardly "insulting" :rolleyes:


Afraid it's not that easy, sweets. You decided on your own authority that I was obligated to have known that fact already, and when I pointed out that I didn't nor did I have a reason to, you insulted me for it. While you might have a point on the technicality of "relevance", relevance wasn't what you started levying personal attacks against me for.


2. I didn't refuse to explain that, I already did. Pay attention. I repeatedly told you it was important to the argument at hand to know to what extent that was true. It was true to a small extent, as the article you were quoting said, and this important to point out.

If person A is making a big deal about a debt he's owed, I consider it important to point out if the debt is just one dollar. Wouldn't you?


And that minor (your subjective, opinion, not the article's objective analysis) amount ranges from the millions to tens of billion dollars according to the same quoted text. That might be relatively small in comparison to the spending of the past and present governments, but
none of that is a minor amount of money in the subjective opinion of many others.

More to the point, I was addressing what Charger said, not "making a big deal" out of it.


What assertion was that? What I posted was true, and relevant. The only reason "I fell back on bitching about relevance" is because YOU bitched about irrelevance first. Your double standard is unbelievable. You get to accuse things of being irrelevant, but if I defend myself against the accusation, its "quibbling" or "bitching". Hah!

No, you ignored the topic at hand, the one under discussion in order to focus on your own sub-point. Unlike you, I don't pretend at having psychic powers or nigh-magical insight into the motivations of others, and won't pretend to know why you did that. But the end result was ugly, and the failing was yours. You offered absolutely nothing but selectively bolded text in an attempt to shape the article to your own ideas.

[Rust]

I have already accepted I was wrong, repeatedly acknowledged it and moved on from that. I was under no obligation to do it in a humble manner as you have repeatedly insisted I do. That insistence is nothing more than arrogance on your own part, a petty desire to establish your own dominance over others.

Nobody said you were under any obligation to do it in a humble manner (though I'm glad you admit you didn't). You can act as you did all you want; it's just that I will then point out how you're full of shit and transparently trying to get a jab in given that you're butthurt. And so I did.


You started the quibbling, not me. First you insult me by claiming I forgot to add material to my quote, then you insult me again when I correct you. Then you continue insulting me when I point out the irrelevance of mentioning it. That's a 24-page document. There's a lot of "relevant" material in it. None of it changes the truth of what I said.

Yeah, that' was neither a quibble (it was a relevant fact) nor an insult.

I posted a relevant fact (a fact that went directly to answering to what extent what you were saying was true), and made an ironic comment about you not providing the complete quote to go with it. If you take that as an insult then that's your problem; but to call that a "quibble" is a bold face lie.

And no, you did not correct me at all. You fabricated this idea that I was claiming you were wrong by posting that fact, when I did no such thing, and instead of admitting that now, you've repeated that bold face lie once again. I did not claim you were wrong. I claimed it was a relevant fact. It was. Either refute that or admit that you cannot. You demanded that I quote Peris explicitly considering illegal immigrants, so now I demand you to quote me explicitly saying you were wrong in regards to your original claim.

Actually, I looked at the sources, and did searches on the words I thought should lead yield results if they were there. My reasoning was flawed, it was a faulty process I was using, and one that led me to a distinctly wrong conclusion. There was nothing dishonest with that. People make mistakes and I made a very large one. Acknowledged. Repeatedly.

No, actually, you didn't look at the sources since you would have seen what was being told clearly had you done so. All you did was a shitty Ctrl+F search, pretended you had looked at them carefully, and the insisted that we were wrong.

You also tried to find fault in my sources when there was really none (at least not for their purpose) because you were still butthurt at being proved wrong.

Afraid it's not that easy, sweets. You decided on your own authority that I was obligated to have known that fact already, and when I pointed out that I didn't nor did I have a reason to, you insulted me for it. While you might have a point on the technicality of "relevance", relevance wasn't what you started levying personal attacks against me for.


Wrong. I neither said you were "obligated", nor is saying you missed it ironically an insult (definitely not an insult in any way, shape or form equivalent to the one you provided me). I started levying personal attacks against you once you started doing that to me; not before.

Unless of course you're saying that ironically suggesting that you missed it is a personal insult. If you're going to be that petty, then allow me to go stoop to your level and insist that I take your misinformation about the original article and an insult to everyone in the thread. I'm sure I was as devastated at that "personal attack" as you were at my comment. :rolleyes:

And that minor (your subjective, opinion, not the article's objective analysis) amount ranges from the millions to tens of billion dollars according to the same quoted text. That might be relatively small in comparison to the spending of the past and present governments, but
none of that is a minor amount of money in the subjective opinion of many others.

More to the point, I was addressing what Charger said, not "making a big deal" out of it.

And those millions of dollars refer to billions of dollars in budgets, making them minor in comparison still. More to the point, whether you agree that it's minor or not, changes nothing of what I said. You claimed I had not explained why I had provided that fact, when I had explained why: I believed it was an important fact to point out that what you were saying was only true to a modest extent. You don't? Who gives a shit? Your questioned was in fact answered. You claimed it had not been. You can add that to the long list of things you've been wrong about in this thread.


No, you ignored the topic at hand, the one under discussion in order to focus on your own sub-point. Unlike you, I don't pretend at having psychic powers or nigh-magical insight into the motivations of others, and won't pretend to know why you did that. But the end result was ugly, and the failing was yours. You offered absolutely nothing but selectively bolded text in an attempt to shape the article to your own ideas.

No, I did not ignore the topic at hand, what I posted was relevant. You already conceded that (though you keep insiting it's a "technicality" because you can't bring yourself to even concede that blatantly obvious fact).

Again, it's completely relevant to point out the extent to which what you were saying was true. To pretend otherwise is idiotic. The end result was ugly, yes, but you are to blame for that. By insisting that I was talking about something irrelevant when I was not, by insulting me in the same breath (when I, at worse, made an ironic comment) and by insisting on fanning the flames of this argument just a few posts ago, you've made this worse. I'm just obliging you at this point, since you've made it clear that the only way this is going to end is if I continue to do this until you tire (and we both know you'll tire long before I do).

[Rust]

P.S. Now we have our own little thread to play this game. See you tomorrow! :)

[Iehovah]

Nobody said you were under any obligation to do it in a humble manner (though I'm glad you admit you didn't). You can act as you did all you want; it's just that I will then point out how you're full of shit and transparently trying to get a jab in given that you're butthurt. And so I did.

I'm not doing any such thing. I'm pointing out that you've risen beyond your usual shit and actually addressing a point directly in a manner that proves you are right, rather than dodging, weaving, and evading, which you do quite regularly in this thread.


Yeah, that' was neither a quibble (it was a relevant fact) nor an insult.


Definition of quibble - To evade the truth or importance of an issue by raising trivial distinctions and objections. As you've pointed out, your objection had little bearing on my point, so little in fact, that it not only does not refute it, it also does not bear on the point I was addressing.


I posted a relevant fact (a fact that went directly to answering to what extent what you were saying was true), and made an ironic comment about you not providing the complete quote to go with it. If you take that as an insult then that's your problem; but to call that a "quibble" is a bold face lie.


To claim that it is not quibbling is ignore the definition of the word so that you can present the lie of your new definition as truth. Cut the cowardice, Rust. There's nobody here but us, and so there's really no point in you playing your usual definitions game. We both know that's just showmanship for the masses, an attempt to present yourself as more intelligent than you are, possessing an authority based on mastery of the English language.

It was quibbling, a deliberate attempt to push my actual point aside, and the falseness of your own claim, your claim that I had "forgotten" to add your chosen text.

And no, you did not correct me at all. You fabricated this idea that I was claiming you were wrong by posting that fact,

Did you or did you not post the following? You did:

you forgot to quote the part that says the difference is small.

Did I or did I not post the following in direct response to this claim? I did:

There was no "forgetting" involved here. I didn't read the text you just quoted.

In short, you're a liar, Rust. I corrected you, and you immediately went into raging attack mode over it.

I did not claim you were wrong. I claimed it was a relevant fact. It was. Either refute that or admit that you cannot. .

We've already discussed this. Yes, it was a relevant fact. I stated that it was tangentially relevant, and you continued quibbling over that, pitching a fit over the fact that I used that word. In other words, there's nothing for you to demand, because we both agreed that it was "relevant". I considered, and still do consider, that relevance so ridiculously marginal, and your purpose in raising it to have nothing to do with your claims of relevance.

No, actually, you didn't look at the sources since you would have seen what was being told clearly had you done so. All you did was a shitty Ctrl+F search, pretended you had looked at them carefully, and the insisted that we were wrong.

Quote me where I said "researched carefully". I believe the exact words I used were fact-checked, and I already admitted failure in my method of doing so. Seems to me that the only reason you continue raising this point when I've conceded it is because you want to impress my failure upon me and distract me from your own. You want absolute victory, something you've completely failed to achieve.

You also tried to find fault in my sources when there was really none (at least not for their purpose) because you were still butthurt at being proved wrong.

Again, rehashing conceded territory to detract from your own failures.

Wrong. I neither said you were "obligated", nor is saying you missed it ironically an insult (definitely not an insult in any way, shape or form equivalent to the one you provided me). I started levying personal attacks against you once you started doing that to me; not before.

If you consider having a reply dismissed as irrelevant, something you do to others on a rebular basis, an attack, then you have no place whatsoever talking about "butthurt". Calling someone sloppy and lazy is a personal attack. Insinuating they've deliberately or stupidly "forgotten" to add important, wait no, just "relevant" information, that's a personal attack. You know it, you just don't have the guts to stand behind it. You play politics and you do it badly.

Unless of course you're saying that ironically suggesting that you missed it is a personal insult.

Seems to me that you'd better recheck your definition of irony as well, since you're basically saying here that you didn't really mean that I'd forgotten it, but that I'd deliberately left it out.

That's a personal attack.

And those millions of dollars refer to billions of dollars in budgets, making them minor in comparison still. More to the point, whether you agree that it's minor or not, changes nothing of what I said.

That it is your subjective opinion that it is "minor" or "small" (again, your words, not the articles) dramatically changes the context of the extra material you are providing. Given that you went on to attack me for not having read that as sloppy and lazy, as I theoretically would have recognized your subjective opinion for truth and included it in my reply is nothing more than arrogance, dishonesty, or stupidity. Pick one. Any and all can apply here.

Your questioned was in fact answered. You claimed it had not been. You can add that to the long list of things you've been wrong about in this thread.

I don't recall you saying that, but I'm going to assume on this at least that you know what -you- said and can provide a quote to back it up. Looks like we're both wrong on a number of things, eh? Zomg, he said Rust was wrong about somethings. Cue the doomtrain.

No, I did not ignore the topic at hand, what I posted was relevant. You already conceded that (though you keep insiting it's a "technicality" because you can't bring yourself to even concede that blatantly obvious fact).

Word I actually used was tangentially, but apparently you were so inspired by your own subjective opinion that you felt your subjective opinion made that quote important enough to claim I'd forgotten it.

I'm just obliging you at this point, since you've made it clear that the only way this is going to end is if I continue to do this until you tire (and we both know you'll tire long before I do).

Oh yes, Rust. You've made it abundantly clear ever since your Totse days that you suffer from an extreme case of LWS. Nobody gets the last word with you, because you are so far gone in your conceit that you simply rely beating the same arguments to death. That's why you keep pushing this discussion away from the actual mistakes you made to focus on those that I made. Rust considers itself perfect, and will not accept that there is any flaw in any comment he makes.

Like I said, there's always that little hope, but in truth, short of a miracle, there's little chance in Hell you'd ever admit you were wrong about anything of consequence. By god, that would lower your prestige in the eyes of the masses!

When I leave this argument, as I have with many others we've played out, it will not be because you are right, and it will not be because you tired me out. It will be because you have completely exhausted your repetoire of new arguments.

We're pretty close to that point, but haven't passed it yet.

[Rust]

I'm glad you wasted your time responding, while I didn't eve read a single word you just said. Hope was was worth it. :thumbsup:

[Iehovah]

I'm glad you wasted your time responding, while I didn't eve read a single word you just said. Hope was was worth it. :thumbsup:

Like I said in that reply, you'll get your Last Word. You always do, not because you're right, but because you're Rust.