Thu Jul 2 18:47:25 CDT 2009
1) hallelujah, gerbil has decided to cease from misrepresenting my literary debate style and has joined the herd with righteous indignation. gerbil also now works with christian groups to speak out against R movies with violence to further showboat his conversion. chalk one up for the alienation-effect. i now consider you returned to the anus from which the doctor removed you.
historical anecdote on the side -- the king of invective may have been william savage landor who crafted his in latin and is a favorite of nietzsche and poe.
2) not so fast, in your segue into the anti-stroube camp or the "stroube lost cause" camp, you say that previously you felt you could explain similar attacks on other individuals. the problem is, mr. strategist extraordinaire, the only difference between this attack and the other attacks is that you were the culprit. or was it the FUCK YOUs that pushed you over the threshold? not buying it. something slimy and strategically unsound about your sudden indignation but definitely a safe play coming out of the shark's tank. i find a truly disingenuous quality to your entire approach of which this god awful move is a paragon.
3) what's up with your mawkish streak? trying to call me by name to create the human effect. the email title: "whose side are you on?" sounds weak like you're calling for help. presenting me as a lost cause (because i stooped to schlack gerbil) and then pathetically claiming you're the saddest of them all that this terrible day has finally come. nice pity. learn that in the anti-R movie, christian group you're sporting. no violence in pity which flies in civil discourse being discreet. just ask nietzsche.
are you really that inexperienced and stupid to hurl that sheit? it as if my invective is an automatic justifier for the most disgusting parts of your personality. not buying it.
gerbil, mawkish slime.
4) iran -- your terms are not acceptable. you can't hop onto the thread and eventually post a znet article with no analysis of what has been said. that's called being an asshole. you need to backtrack through the arguments that have taken place and come up with your own defense of the soft coup. you started with mousavi good and backed out. you have no strategy. you're just trying to get a word in. coming in late after a compelling case has been made requires more argument structure on your part to be of any value. throwing shit at the wall is boring as it is useless. ironically, what the made the conversation with hester good was a commitment on both our parts to a basic, unspoken argument structure that we both learned as debaters, coaches and judges. i'm not sure gerbil advanced very far in argument. his posts are littered with non-responses, misdirects, failed cross-apps, and drops. 90% of debating gerbil would require disentangling your confusion which surpasses any other i've seen on edebate. for someone with a gross inability to argue strategically, you talk alot. there are two choices for some a poor debater who won't put down the microphone. ignore or raise the price. i don't think gerbil thought anyone would raise the price. i think gerbil was taking for granted his insurance policy of largely being ignored.
5) also, curious how your email content got deleted in transit. did you really mean to say that you accidentally deleted right before you pressed send? a mawkish post with just a title that says "The Big Lie" and no content actually fits gerbil's description dead on. scrambling for strategy in the shark's tank.
Windows Live? SkyDrive?: Get 25 GB of free online storage.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mailman