duendy said:
R I G H T ONNNNNNNN! Cool Skill. you said it!
TY.
The point is, that this fucktard is putting words into my mouth.
I never said that Charlie did have any sort of reputation.
Nor did I say that Charlie did not have any sort of reputation.
You cannot discuss Charlie's reputation unless you establish certain facts first.
My purpose was to establish that if somebody has a reputation, then the person would likely be risking reputation by
discussing unconventional ideas in public.
At this point of the discussion, I could really care less about Charlie Sheen. He could be the biggest joke of an
idiot on the planet next to phlogistician. Or, he could be the biggest genius on the planet. Who really cares? It's
not even an issue, yet this the dimwit decides to make a huge issue out of it, and goes into a rant about how terrible
Charlie's reputation is and bla bla bla. As if this has any relevance to the point. Then calls me names, and goes off
into a snivling rant about how I am trying worm my way out of something that doesn't exist. Really,is there anybody
that can be this damn dumb?
DISCUSSION:
Does Charlie have a reputation?
I have no problem stating my position, and discussing this with normal people. It is a factor in this discussion, but
there are other factors that need to be established.
For example, if we do not establish that Charlie made such comments, there is no point in discussing Charlie's
reputation.
Too bad all this asshole can do is whimper utter nonsense, call names, make personal attacks, distort my intended
meaning, accusing me of using tactics as if this is some kind of competition. 9th grade debating tactics? What an
IDIOT. WTF would anybody in a legitimate discussion need tactics for? Oh I forget. Fool philo is not interested in
legitimate discussion because he does not know how to have a legitimate discussion. Therefore, all he can do is rant
and rave. Pathetic really.
Let's see this moron's reasoning:
cool skill> Does an person/celebrety risk his reputation by discussing his unconventional ideas in public?
phlogistician> Goes into an irrelevant rant about Charlie Sheen.
3 WORDS: AVOIDING THE ISSUE
CONCLUSION:
This idiot is avoidng the issue. This idiot does not live in reality. He has been avoiding the issue from the
beginning.
I made a post on the 6th page. Philo responded to my post, but he responded to something different from my post. This
has happened dozens of time. I say apple. The person responds with arguments about oranges.
This is a typical psychological distortion similar to denial. It's not that a person is intentionally denying the
legitimacy your opinion. There is nothing wrong with that. It's that the person unintentionally denies the fact that
you have that opinion, is not able to tell you what your opinion is, and is completely unaware of it.
This can easily be seen when you have a difference of opinion with somebody. OR even when you do not, and the person
behaves as if you did.
All you have to do is ask the person: What is my opinion? Many people with this strange psychological distortion are
so self absorebed, they will be completely unable to tell you what your opinion is. Alot of times they will start
talking about their own opinion without even knowing it. They will say everything other than state your opinion. When
they really can't handle the brain activity, they start trying to force the conversation to someting else or try to
push the conversation over. That way, they do not have to confront the reality of your opinion.
So here I was making a post about apple, and this idiot responded with a post about orange. Therefore, I made a post
to check if he was actually living in reality. I posed a few questions in order to see if he knew what duendy's
opinion was. In fact, I can sum up the questions that I posed as "what is duendy's opinion?". Next thing you know,
none of my questions get answered. This idiot starts going insane. He continues with insults and random rants without
directly acknowledging the issue. He distorted what I was saying because he himself has a distorted understaning of
the issue, and the opinions of those in the discussion. He has no intention of answering the questions that I posed
because he has no idea what the subject matter even is. Discussing anything with him is like trying to play music with
a scratched CD. HE'S TOO TOTALLY STUPID to discuss anything legitimately.
Here is probably what this asshole is thinking: "Woo this is just some sort of debate tactic. Such debate tactics do
not work against me. This is after all a debate, and is all about winning. I shall win at all costs because I am not
interested in the opinion of others. I am only interested in my own opinion, and refuse to acknowledge anybody else
even has an opinion. In fact I don't really care about what anybody else's opinion is because this discussion is all
about me and my opinion."
ASSHOLE!