Obama's Rhetoric is the Real Catastrophe

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

I'm not trying to cajole a response or anything - I'm just saying that your disconnect isn't simply a by-product of the other person being narrow or whatever, it's also related to the very simple fact that you're presenting the information in the way you are.

I'm absolutely certain you're not ignorant on the matter, but the degree to which you're informed is impossible to parse out given your responses. You're subjecting yourself to the whim or caprice of the audience, whether by intent or by consequence, and you shouldn't be surprised by the responses.

Again, I recognize it's not your responsibility to post anything, but it may make the conversation better if you did.

I totally understand what you are saying. And I appreciate the fact that YOU realize I'm not ignorant in the matter simply because I choose not to go into detail.

However, as far as subjecting myself to the whim of the audience, I don't think I have done anything to subject myself to an accusation that google is the only research option I know how to use. Mind you, I was annoyed by her whole post, but THAT was just over the top.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

I totally understand what you are saying. And I appreciate the fact that YOU realize I'm not ignorant in the matter simply because I choose not to go into detail.

However, as far as subjecting myself to the whim of the audience, I don't think I have done anything to subject myself to an accusation that google is the only research option I know how to use. Mind you, I was annoyed by her whole post, but THAT was just over the top.

Well, to be fair, you said this:

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

ith respect to your question about the constitutional issues, information about that has been revealed. i thought everyone knew about that.

Which, if you'll be honest with yourself, comes off as a bit condescending.

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

Well, to be fair, you said this:



Which, if you'll be honest with yourself, comes off as a bit condescending.

It was no more condescending than remarks I have been subjected to in this forum. When I said that, I genuinely meant that I thought everyone had heard about the constitutional issues that were raised. Some people are just going to automatically take issue with every single thing I say. I have come to terms with that.

And even with all of that, it still doesn't provide a basis for what she said.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

It was no more condescending than remarks I have been subjected to in this forum. When I said that, I genuinely meant that I thought everyone had heard about the constitutional issues that were raised. Some people are just going to automatically take issue with every single thing I say. I have come to terms with that.

And even with all of that, it still doesn't provide a basis for what she said.

You really need to get over this martyr complex. Can't you just admit that there are posters that disagree with you, or at least disagree with your methodology?

Looking at it as some bigger issue, like a "mob" mentality, or that people are going to take issue with every thing you say, makes it seem like there's no possible problem with your logic. It makes it seem like there must be some issue with the rest of the posters if you don't find support for your theories. People are disagreeing you on both sides of the political spectrum; that doesn't make you right or wrong, but it does mean that you can't chalk this up to some simple claim that people "automatically" take issue with your points.

I disagree with a lot of your postings, but I have a bigger issue with this idea that there are people on the board who are out to get you. You've been fairly steadfast in your ideas; that's certainly your right, but you have to expect that some people are going to be just as steadfast in disagreeing with you, right?

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

You really need to get over this martyr complex. Can't you just admit that there are posters that disagree with you, or at least disagree with your methodology?

Looking at it as some bigger issue, like a "mob" mentality, or that people are going to take issue with every thing you say, makes it seem like there's no possible problem with your logic. It makes it seem like there must be some issue with the rest of the posters if you don't find support for your theories. People are disagreeing you on both sides of the political spectrum; that doesn't make you right or wrong, but it does mean that you can't chalk this up to some simple claim that people "automatically" take issue with your points.

I disagree with a lot of your postings, but I have a bigger issue with this idea that there are people on the board who are out to get you. You've been fairly steadfast in your ideas; that's certainly your right, but you have to expect that some people are going to be just as steadfast in disagreeing with you, right?

LOL. This is why disclaimers for certain posters are unnecessary. Even after your disclaimer, you're still doing the same old gratuitous song and dance with deepimpact2.

ETA:
Might I add that this thread began with no one even thinking about deepimpact's existence. She announced her presence when she quoted my first post and said "hateration." People can't have it both ways, either you want to be noticed and be in the mix...or you don't. If you do, you understand that people may disagree with you and they will express that no matter how many people are disagreeing with you. Am I the only one who has disagreed with a room full of people IN REAL LIFE before? They weren't disagreeing with me, they were disagreeing with my ideas. I was right and they were wrong......so I stood strong in what I believed, had my evidence, and didn't get defensive and personal about it. At the end, some people came up to me off the record and said "good job!" or "ya know, I agreed with you but didn't know how to express it" (those types of people are cowards, btw).

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

LOL. This is why disclaimers for certain posters are unnecessary. Even after your disclaimer, you're still doing the same old gratuitous song and dance with deepimpact2.

ETA:
Might I add that this thread began with no one even thinking about deepimpact's existence. She announced her presence when she quoted my first post and said "hateration." People can't have it both ways, either you want to be noticed and be in the mix...or you don't. If you do, you understand that people may disagree with you and they will express that no matter how many people are disagreeing with you. Am I the only one who has disagreed with a room full of people IN REAL LIFE before? They weren't disagreeing with me, they were disagreeing with my ideas. I was right and they were wrong......so I stood strong in what I believed, had my evidence, and didn't get defensive and personal about it. At the end, some people came up to me off the record and said "good job!" or "ya know, I agreed with you but didn't know how to express it" (those types of people are cowards, btw).

The disclaimer was meant more in sarcasm than anything else. As sarcasm doesn't always hit its mark over a message board, I probably should have just scrapped the idea.

You're not the only person who has had those experiences. It's happened to me in both academic and professional settings, and I'm sure it's happened to other people on the board.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

The disclaimer was meant more in sarcasm than anything else. As sarcasm doesn't always hit its mark over a message board, I probably should have just scrapped the idea.

Now I cyber-feel less cyber-heartless. Deepimpact2 appreciates your disclaimer, though.

Originally Posted by KSigkid

You're not the only person who has had those experiences. It's happened to me in both academic and professional settings, and I'm sure it's happened to other people on the board.

Those academic and professional mobs are deadly and out to get us.

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

The disclaimer was meant more in sarcasm than anything else. As sarcasm doesn't always hit its mark over a message board, I probably should have just scrapped the idea.

You're not the only person who has had those experiences. It's happened to me in both academic and professional settings, and I'm sure it's happened to other people on the board.

Was it really sarcasm, or are you now buckling under pressure from Dr. Phil?

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

You really need to get over this martyr complex. Can't you just admit that there are posters that disagree with you, or at least disagree with your methodology?

Looking at it as some bigger issue, like a "mob" mentality, or that people are going to take issue with every thing you say, makes it seem like there's no possible problem with your logic. It makes it seem like there must be some issue with the rest of the posters if you don't find support for your theories. People are disagreeing you on both sides of the political spectrum; that doesn't make you right or wrong, but it does mean that you can't chalk this up to some simple claim that people "automatically" take issue with your points.

I disagree with a lot of your postings, but I have a bigger issue with this idea that there are people on the board who are out to get you. You've been fairly steadfast in your ideas; that's certainly your right, but you have to expect that some people are going to be just as steadfast in disagreeing with you, right?

I think I have stated more than once that isn't not a matter of someone disagreeing. It's the fact that there is disagreement with pretty much EVERYTHING I say and an attempt to find something wrong with just about EVERYTHING I say. When that happens, it's pretty clear that it's not a matter of simple disagreement, but that it's more of a personal issue. Someone on here admitted that I "turned people off with my first post." That in and of itself suggests that there is a prejudice against me and anything I have to say around here.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

I think I have stated more than once that isn't not a matter of someone disagreeing. It's the fact that there is disagreement with pretty much EVERYTHING I say and an attempt to find something wrong with just about EVERYTHING I say. When that happens, it's pretty clear that it's not a matter of simple disagreement, but that it's more of a personal issue. Someone on here admitted that I "turned people off with my first post." That in and of itself suggests that there is a prejudice against me and anything I have to say around here.

You have to be kidding. LOL.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

I totally understand what you are saying. And I appreciate the fact that YOU realize I'm not ignorant in the matter simply because I choose not to go into detail.

However, as far as subjecting myself to the whim of the audience, I don't think I have done anything to subject myself to an accusation that google is the only research option I know how to use. Mind you, I was annoyed by her whole post, but THAT was just over the top.

No, I didn't think that google was your only resource, nor did I suggest that in my post, but I wanted to you to list your ideas without ANY research, which typically for people who have heartfelt and/or well thought out objections, isn't a problem.

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

No, I didn't think that google was your only resource, nor did I suggest that in my post, but I wanted to you to list your ideas without ANY research, which typically for people who have heartfelt and/or well thought out objections, isn't a problem.

You did suggest that in your post when you said you'd like me to list things without googling.

Also, you should be advised, that in order for someone to have a "heartfelt and/or well thought out objection" on an issue like this, SOME research must be done.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

You did suggest that in your post when you said you'd like me to list things without googling.

Also, you should be advised, that in order for someone to have a "heartfelt and/or well thought out objection" on an issue like this, SOME research must be done.

You wouldn't need to do research NEW research to answer a GreekChat level question that you had already expressed a strongly held opinion about.

I'm not really interesting in continuing to talk about this with you. I've reached my conclusion. ETA: even if it's wrong and you're a freaking Constitutional scholar, I still think talking to you, at least in this instance, is pointless.