It's time for you, the POSTERS, to decide!

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

It's a lot less friendly but it's still a popular debating strategy.

 

Um Mad Dog, I don't think the style I usually see from Mike is much of a debating strategy. Maybe I just haven't been enlightened to the debating strategies where you insult your opponent and various other people, while blaming others.

Then you don't pay attention to debates very much. They take it somewhat to an extreme but taking shots at the person you're debating is fairly common.

So you're saying in CE they debate a topic not with the intent of drawing a conclusion, but merely to stress each individual's personal ideals to the point of repetition?

 

Great debating strategy right there.

Since you're completely devoid of it I wouldn't expect you to understand. You typically win the debate if your opponent loses his composure.

[Nighthawk 0]

Ask your opponet to have a whiff of the flower pinned to your lapel, then squirt em in the face. If that doesn't work, it's time to bust out the pies.

[Guest slacklet]

It's a lot less friendly but it's still a popular debating strategy.

 

Um Mad Dog, I don't think the style I usually see from Mike is much of a debating strategy. Maybe I just haven't been enlightened to the debating strategies where you insult your opponent and various other people, while blaming others.

Then you don't pay attention to debates very much. They take it somewhat to an extreme but taking shots at the person you're debating is fairly common.

So you're saying in CE they debate a topic not with the intent of drawing a conclusion, but merely to stress each individual's personal ideals to the point of repetition?

 

Great debating strategy right there.

Since you're completely devoid of it I wouldn't expect you to understand. You typically win the debate if your opponent loses his composure.

That's not winning a debate, that's winning a flame-war.

 

Winning a debate requires a resolution to the topic that is mutually agreed upon by all contributing sides.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

Which doesn't happen in college style competition debates or online forums where no one's mind ever gets changed. And in the case of CE it's a great way to weed out the morons who have no business in there to begin with.

[Nighthawk 0]

And this doesn't make you wonder why you bother in the first place? Unless it's practice for when you debate for real. That I could understand.

[Art Sandusky 0]

If someone makes me lose my composure in an argument, I kick their ass. That's a nice goal to have, I guess. It ensures I win in some fashion.

[Slayer 0]

I respect Tom's opinion on the CE folder people, as I wouldn't call for their banning either, even Mike, whom I have had problems in the past (though we've made up now...I think). However, I do think that it is somewhat preposterous to perceive that the CE folder regulars reside on some plateau above us "lower-halfs" just because they're really good... well, they're really persistent in arguing how much Bush is good/bad, or how much the war in Iraq is good/bad, or how much (random political issue of the day) is good/bad. Also, superfluously verbose posts flexing one's vocabulary tend to turn me off more than anything else, which is why I adopted KKK's policy towards the CE folder, (i.e. get in, make smartass remark and get out)

 

At the end of the day, the posts in CE folder amount to the same pile of textual shit as the posts in HD declaring people ghey.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

"This gets filed under "tough shit"." - Carter, 80, commenting on the recession

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

That is really good. I'm stealing it.

[KTID 0]

There's nothing really to add here. Mike has broken all of the rules of the board and deserves to be banned. That he isn't has been repeatedly justified by various mods as "erm, well, i agree with his political views so he can stay". That is rubbish, and if you want everyone else here to act mature and obey the rules that you, the mods, set for us, then you have to enforce them.

[Dr. Tom 0]

You're not very good at reading comprehension, are you?

 

Stick to the WWE folder.

[The Czech Republic 0]

ARM THE TREEHOUSES

[NYU 0]

Well, I would at least hope Mike got a warning for what he did in this topic: Official "I saw Fahrenheit 9/11" thread

 

That was one of the worst examples of thread hijacking I've ever seen. People are not allowed to talk about Michael Moore and his movie around here without facing the wrath of Mike. You would think he had his fill of making his hatred for Moore known in all the various topics of Current Events, but he just couldn't help himself. He felt the need to scream out his opinion multiple times in the Movies/TV folder. Then, when NoCalMike questioned him about keeping some of his political feelings out of that particular thread, what was respectable Mike's response?

 

My intention in creating this thread was for people who have seen this film, to discuss it, not just paste other people's reviews of the flick.  We already have a couple of those in the Current Event Forum, but as with most threads relating to Michael Moore, this thread has been hijacked......

This gets filed under "tough shit".

 

"Sure, he's a lying sack of shit --- but he's OUR lying sack of shit"

-=Mike

 

Gets filed under Tough Shit? Sure, he may have completely disrupted the thread, making sure that absolutely NO ONE can offer a positive opinion of Moore....but he doesn't care. Tough shit, as he says. Wonderful.

 

Oh, let's not forget when Betty Houle posted up Ebert's review of Fahrenheit 9/11. Now, while normal people would actually concentrate on Ebert's opinion....well....of the movie, what does Mike do? What does he do the ONE TIME he decides not to unleash an angry attack on Michael Moore? Why, he goes wildly off-topic, trying to take the thread even further of course.

 

"The Reagans" was MILDLY critical?

 

Ebert is a fucking moron.

-=Mike

 

Beautiful.

 

Just because someone can post their opinions in an intelligent matter doesn't mean they should be completely exempt from acting like a decent human being. While -iB- and Man of 1,004 Modes weren't nearly as eloquent as Mike, they weren't nearly as dangerous either. It's not bad enough that people can't argue with Mike without facing insults. Now, people can't discuss a topic that Mike doesn't personally agree with, or they might face his constant negative/sarcastic/unfunny/flaming posts in the subject until the entire topic winds up dying down. The Movies/TV "I saw Fahrenheit 9/11" thread should have been the last straw as far as I'm concerned. But, even if Mike isn't banned for what he did in that thread, he should at least be warned for what went on. I just can't understand why people like him are allowed to run roughshod over entire topics without any restrictions.....

[KTID 0]

Tom, you're exactly what I was taliing about. Now i'm not going to post in this thread again because it's pointless and you'll ban whomever you want with or without a good reason. However, all i'm saying is that Mike has broken every rule that you have set, rules that each and every other poster here has either complied with or been banned. If you don't ban Mike then you set a bad precedent of "oh well, i can do this because that other guy got away with it" when it should be "you break the rules, you get banned".

[Guest Vitamin X]

RVD, Tom didn't set those rules, Dames did.

[bob_barron 0]

Tom, you're exactly what I was taliing about. Now i'm not going to post in this thread again because it's pointless and you'll ban whomever you want with or without a good reason. However, all i'm saying is that Mike has broken every rule that you have set, rules that each and every other poster here has either complied with or been banned. If you don't ban Mike then you set a bad precedent of "oh well, i can do this because that other guy got away with it" when it should be "you break the rules, you get banned".

You're dumb

[Art Sandusky 0]

Tom also doesn't ban people wantonly.

[Dr. Tom 0]

Tom's also gone to bad for a lot of people he's vehemently disagreed with when they've come under fire recently, too, making "RVDMARK4:20'"s (OMG a wrestling reference and a pot reference in one screen name -- YOU WIN TEH PRIZE) post even more pointless than it already was.

 

Tom also refers to himself in the third person sometimes, though Tom's not a big fan of it.

[Highland 0]

So, is it just anyone that frequents the CE folder that gets Dr. Tom's get out of jail free card, or is it only an elite, select few?

[bob_barron 0]

Tom's also gone to bad for a lot of people he's vehemently disagreed with when they've come under fire recently, too, making "RVDMARK4:20'"s (OMG a wrestling reference and a pot reference in one screen name -- YOU WIN TEH PRIZE) post even more pointless than it already was.

 

Tom also refers to himself in the third person sometimes, though Tom's not a big fan of it.

What's the prize?

[Nighthawk 0]

Your ass.

[bob_barron 0]

I've always thought I had a decent ass.

[Guest cobainwasmurdered]

I've always thought I had a decent ass.

LIAR!

[Art Sandusky 0]

I'd rather not think about Bob's ass.

[geniusMoment 0]

Thats not what you said last night.

[Guest Dids]

speaking of banning (see above)