Replies

Kevmo: And yet, none of our claims to credibility are disputed. They’re usually met with an argument from silence

mlo: Simply not true. I, and others, have made specific and substantive arguments about various elements of the eligibility question.
***Then I challenge you to a debating duel. We open a thread on the credibility of the certifiGate issue. The winner gets to keep posting on these threads, the loser must stay off until January 21. The loser posts a keyword of “kevmohasTinfoilHat” or “mloIsATroll” , respectively, on every CertifiGate thread from tomorrow onward. Certifigate threads are those with the keyword Certifigate. I’ve been maintaining that keyword for the most part.

How do we determine a winner? JimRob says either this is a valid constitutional issue or it’s a tinfoil hat conspiracy issue. If he says nothing, we both continue on as we have been, Status Quo Ante Bellum. If Jimrob says something up the middle, splitting the baby, then it looks again like Status Quo. So far, as far as I can tell, JimRob has just said the issue is “interesting”.

Anyone else who logs onto such a thread will be absolutely polite or the comment will be asked to be removed.

If you want to explore having a different arbiter than JimRob, let’s look around. I would trust someone like Alamo Girl.

What do you say?

Various people have disagreed with you about a factual issue, the merits of the various CertifiGate claims. This is not a liberal/conservative issue, this is a question of truth. Rather than reason with the facts on the several existing threads on the issue, you and a few people on your side have begun to rely on name calling in place of argument. You are even agitating for Jim to throttle the discussion to prevent people from disagreeing with you.

When you resort to these tactics you've already lost the debate.

I humored you for a bit, answered your questions, hoping it would lead to something more rational. Instead you edited out parts of my answers and continued the attack.

The question is not a matter of whether "troll" is an allowable insult. It's a question of using insults in place of rational debate.

I am not the issue. The facts are the issue. I no more need to justify my existence on these threads than you do. In fact, if anyone is a "troll", your recent conduct tags you.

I'm not going to humor you any longer. I will engage in reasoned, rational debate about this issue on the threads where it is a topic. You are free to do the same. When you and your friends sling insults instead, I will point out that is an admission that you can't argue the subject on its merits.