No, I've chosen not to play his game. I certainly could if I wanted. It's simply a matter of copying and pasting mountains of your favorite propaganda, converting to HTML, and storing on a computer file. Then, when someone questions your beliefs, you do your docu-dump, and hope someone takes the bait and chases their tail. Unless your ego is as big as a house, you know it's unlikely that anybody cares enough about your biased sources and views to actually take the time to respond, point by point. Then you declare victory. It takes about 1/100th of the time to do this than to respond to such a dump. Again, if someone can't make a point without trying to weary you to death by making you chase down a thousand points, they aren't worth my time. It would be like being in debate with John Kerry, where it's UNDERSTOOD that your comments should be brief and to the point, except Kerry gets up there to respond to a point and drones on for 5 hours. Now, are you going to dignify it by responding? For how long? 10 minutes to rebut one point? 20 hours to respond to every point? Personally, I leave after about 5 minutes into the windbag's lovefest. Some people love to hear themselves talk. Some people love to see their words on a computer screen. For either, the more the better. If you want to stick around and fawn over your Kerry, you go right ahead.
By the way, did you look up everything he posted? You DIDN'T????
Maybe your new dog ate the rebuttal. That's the excuse I'd use.
Well, each to their own.
You're right. Some people love to see their words on a computer screen.
No, I've chosen not to play his game.
My "game" is to argue the issue on its actual merits. And yes, I've noticed that you don't want to "play" that.
I certainly could if I wanted.
Uh huh. Sure.
It's simply a matter of copying and pasting mountains of your favorite propaganda, converting to HTML, and storing on a computer file.
If that's what you think, then you're even more ill-equipped to debate this topic than I originally thought.
Then, when someone questions your beliefs, you do your docu-dump, and hope someone takes the bait and chases their tail.
If discussing the evidence would cause you to "chase your own tail", well, then you should get a clue and consider that you're on the wrong side of the discussion.
Unless your ego is as big as a house, you know it's unlikely that anybody cares enough about your biased sources and views to actually take the time to respond, point by point. Then you declare victory. It takes about 1/100th of the time to do this than to respond to such a dump. Again, if someone can't make a point without trying to weary you to death by making you chase down a thousand points, they aren't worth my time. It would be like being in debate with John Kerry, where it's UNDERSTOOD that your comments should be brief and to the point, except Kerry gets up there to respond to a point and drones on for 5 hours. Now, are you going to dignify it by responding? For how long? 10 minutes to rebut one point? 20 hours to respond to every point? Personally, I leave after about 5 minutes into the windbag's lovefest. Some people love to hear themselves talk. Some people love to see their words on a computer screen. For either, the more the better. If you want to stick around and fawn over your Kerry, you go right ahead.
Excuses, excuses. Look, if you don't dare discuss -- or even *look* at -- the actual real-world evidence, just be a man and admit it. That would be a lot more dignified than your current hand-waving and blustering about why you have all the time in the world to blather on about why you won't address the material head-on, but no time to actually do it...