“Yes, it is just your opinion. And you cannot find even one other person on earth who shares that opinion/agrees with you. You posit this opinion without a particle of evidence to back it up. You have been forced to make a ridiculous statement because that is the only way you can defend your anti-birther stance.”
‘If you’re eager for a debate on the literary merits of Dreams of my Father, start a thread on it. I doubt I’ll participate. I’ve given you my opinion of the thing. I’m indifferent if you don’t agree with me on it. Life’s too short to get involved in the debating the merits of that lacklustre effort.’
This, in a nutshell, is why it is impossible to have a rational discussion with you. I said Dreams is not gibberish. No one, not even the book’s most virulent detractors, claim it is “gibberish”. That is the most absurd and idiotic claim ever made about Dreams. Search the world over, and you will not discover one other person who believes it is gibberish.
But you, being as slithery as the typical anti-birther and either really dense or just pretending to be dense, set up the usual straw man. If Dreams is not “gibberish”, then then the issue must be “literary merit”.
This leads to the one question I have never satisfactorily seen answered, nor can answer myself. To wit: are anti-birthers stupid, or do they just see some advantage in *acting* stupid? I honestly cannot say.
I doubt you will be able to grasp the following examples, or that if you can, you will acknowledge it. It will just be another opportunity for you to dissemble and slither away from the facts. But fwiw.
The book, Rules for Radicals, is not “gibberish”. To make that statement is not to affirm that one likes or admires the book. It makes no allusion to its literary merit. It is simply a factual statement. The book is not “gibberish”.
The book, Our Lenin, is not “gibberish”. To make that statement is not to affirm that one likes or admires the book. It makes no allusion to its literary merit. It is simply a factual statement. The book is not “gibberish”.
The book, Germany Awakened, is not “gibberish”. To make that statement is not to affirm that one likes or admires the book. It makes no allusion to its literary merit. It is simply a factual statement. The book is not “gibberish”.
The book, Dreams from my Father, is not “gibberish”. To make that statement is not to affirm that one likes or admires the book. It makes no allusion to its literary merit. It is simply a factual statement. The book is not “gibberish”.
I give exactly zero odds that you can understand the point of these examples. I don’t know if you are pretending to be deliberately dense, or if this is really the best you can do. It doesn’t matter which it is. The result is the same. & if you can’t figure out the result, after I’ve said it in so many words...then there is no ‘pretending’ going on.
I’ll put it another way. If you are operating in good faith & are not a drooling moron, you should be capable of understanding the examples I gave. If so, you will acknowledge it. If you are incapable of even such a basic, elementary function of communication, then what are you doing on a conservative site? Conservatives are capable of honest communication, & we do it routinely. It is just liberals who use language to obfuscate, dissemble, propagandize & waste time. It is their métier.
So which are you?
gib·ber·ish (jbr-sh)
n.
1. Unintelligible or nonsensical talk or writing.
2.
a. Highly technical or esoteric language.
b. Unnecessarily pretentious or vague language.
I found the parts I read of Dreams of my Father (I didn’t finish it) to contain a lot of nonsense, very pretentious and rather vague (among other things). Hence the use of the word ‘gibberish’, it seems very apt and it is a direct commentary on the literary merit of the book.
Now, are you genuinely offended by the use of an adjective to describe a book or is this just a bunch of handwaving to divert the thread?