Quote:

Animalman said:


For someone who hates my posts DTWB, you sure like responding to them.



When they're less personally directed at me, I simply ignore them.


Quote:

Animalman said:

Yes, I did use to treat you with respect (I'd go back and post some examples, but I don't know how many have been deleted, I'll look later). You just never returned it. Instead you'd just use every opportunity to hop onto your soapbox and preach out about how awful liberals are. Notice how the Michael Moore thread progressed.



I'll grant that you demonstrated a degree of respect, a surface veneer of politeness, but there is still condescension and a subtle undertone of you're-a-nut-to-believe-what-you-beleive in the way you addressed me in the gay marriage topic you linked.
And as I said, I answered your questions OVER AND OVER AND OVER in that topic, not new questions, not new or subtle details unexplored, but THE SAME QUESTIONS, over and over !

And as I said in the quoted Gay Marriage topic, each time you didn't acknowledge the validity of the points I made, you just restated the same condescending liberal views and said basically, how can you possibly believe what you believe.
The part you quote, which is clearly my worn out patience, but still far more polite than your attacks on me here, ignores and glosses over that my phrasing --even with the limited firmess that you criticize-- is at the tail end of politely answering long post after long post of yours, and basically wasting my time trying to get through to someone (you !) who absolutely refuses to see my point of view, no matter how much time I spend answering your posts and detailing my opinion.





Quote:

Animalman said:
.
I said, in reponse to Snapman:
.
Quote:

The only real fact anymore is that anyone can spin facts to get their specific point across.


.
No "viciousness", no "vitrol", no "smear tactics", just what I thought was an honest assessment of what both sides of the argument tend to do. You, in response to me, then go off with this:

Quote:

Yes, according to liberals, 'truth is relative'.

Which is just a liberal Newspeak way of saying liberals can ignore facts



Followed by this Ann Coulter-like statement:

Quote:

Liberalism should be a crime punishable by banishment to an Islamic state.



How do you honestly expect me to react to that? As though it's evidence of a fair, accurate, rational thinker? I'd take it as a joke, but it's fairly consistent with what you normally say, in just about every topic here.




I think it's clear that this was not a literal call to make liberalism a crime punishable by banishment to an Islamic state. CLEARLY, I was saying that liberals who wax philosophic in arguments that bypass reality ( reality being that: In wars, American soldiers die, enemy soldiers and civilians die, that wars are messy and mistakes are made in even the most just of wars... ) and these liberals would see things differently if forced to live in a repressive Nazi-like Muslim state.

The only thing clear in your response is that you disagree with my views.

The rest is your caricatured, overly serious literal interpretation of what I said.

I think any trained monkey could see that liberals in this topic, at the point I made this comment, leap vindictively on every last suggestion that Bush has done something wrong.
And simultaneously, rationalize every failing of Democrats.

You (Animalman) feigned mild disagreement with Moore, while saying you agreed with the premise of the movie, and found much of it factual.
That, sir, is doublespeak. You either approve of Moore's propaganda attacks or you don't.

Liberals eagerly endorse any half-baked slander (Michael Moore, Whoopi Goldberg, Al Franken, Richard Clarke...) that supports their cause.
Liberals eagerly endorse these tactics.

Perhaps not all liberals, but certainly most liberals, (including Tom Daschle, Nancy Pelosi, Hilary Clinton, Al Gore, Howard Dean, John Kerry, etc., etc.)
So once again, if the core Democrat leadership is initiating these divisive attacks, what evidence is there that these slanderous tactics are not the standard of Democrats nationwide?!?

And once again, where is this mythical group of liberals who are critical of these tactics, of slandering Bush and Republicans with baseless vitriol ?

Quote:

Animalman said:

Just for fun, let's go waaaaaay back to the root of all this, I think you can look back at this thread. The infamous "Canada to Allow Same-Sex Marriage" thread. I had responded to some of your arguments, politely, with no malice whatsoever intended(afterall, this was the first online discussion we'd ever had), and you came right back with this:

Quote:

Every last one of these nitpicking dissections of yours toward my quoted answers has already been addressed.

Basically, all you've done is come back and say you don't like my answers, and spun them into a nullified category through disinformation.



Needless to say, I was a bit surprised at that one. My response was as follows:

Quote:

Oh, I see. I thought I was participating in a discussing, an exchange of ideas.

I've listened to your argument, I've taken in your points, and I've even tried to ask questions(specifically, on the Canada thing) so as to better understand your perspective. This is an extremely long thread, but from the few pages I did peruse, I didn't see you address those points.

Though I might not agree with them, I never said I "don't like" your answers. Infact, I think I've remained pretty civil throughout my posts. I haven't insulted you or called you names. I haven't generalized you(as you've done to me) or belittled your position. I'd just like to have an honest conversation about a prevalent topic in today's society.



You came back with this:

Quote:

I answer questions (and Captain Sammitch and others) and you come right back and say the same thing of "how can you justify your position, it's just ignorant of you to say that?" when I (and others) just answered.

You just come back and back and back, and offer the same objections and arguments over and over, to points already answered.

You say it's a long topic.

Well, yes it is. But if you're going to accuse me of things, then I think you have a responsibility to read what I and others have already said.



So, now you've put words in my mouth, stating that I said you were "just ignorant"(when I said nothing of the sort), and then you claimed I had accused you of things.

My response, which is too long to post(you can go back and read it if you choose), was once again polite and respectful. I even deflected the part where you said:

Quote:

Again, that's your soapbox editorial, and taking another dig at what I clearly already answered, but you just felt a need to editorialize one last time your self-presumed intellectual superiority on the issue.



with my response:

Quote:

I assume no intellectual superiority. I was simply presenting my point of view, in contrast to you presenting yours. That is, after all, what message boards are for. At no point did I state or suggest that my idea was better than yours. You're more than entitled to express your opinions in any discussion, just as I am.



After all that, you, once again, came back with a fairly nasty response:

Quote:

Animalman, you've done it once again.

You've gone point-by-point through my long post where I was careful to address every issue you raised, and you just came back ONCE AGAIN, ignored my points, just re-stated what you believe, claimed I didn't make my case (by which I can only assume that you can't read, because I've been detailing the case for my perspective since page 2 of this topic).
You've again ignored my arguments and simply re-stated your side, when your side is already abundantly clear.

All you've done is smother my opinion in yet another long post of your attempted deconstruction, re-spin, and misrepresented me as allegedly not having made my case, when in truth I have.
Over and over.



To this day, even after reviewing the discussion just now, I still don't see where I did all this to you, but that's beside the point.

As you can see, we didn't exactly get off on the right foot in our online relationship. I'll gladly admit that recently I've belittled and discredited you, but to suggest that that's always been the case is, quite simply, incorrect. I'm fairly sure there are other examples where I've tried to discuss something with you in a mature and respectful manner, only to have my posts tossed aside as if they're completely worthless, but I don't have the energy to look any more right now. I already spent way too much time breaking down the above example(probably for no other reason than to put myself at ease).



As I said, while I don't think you ever truly gave respect for my opposing views, you were at least more polite on the surface, while dismissing my views over and over with a how-can-you-possibly-believe-what-you-believe condescending tone.

You characterize me in this long quote-and-spin of the excerpted Gay Marriage topic as leaping at every attempt to admonish you, but ignore that I tried to politely answer all your questions, until you repeatedly dismissed my arguments and just re-stated your abundantly already stated perspective, while dismissively deflecting mine.
And completely wore out my patience.