Selective quoting

Mahatma coat

Please have the decency to fully quote posts and if you feel the need to respond to multiple posts please denote each individual post.

I am gettin annoyed at individuals here selectin points from posts to bunch together out of context

Or worse, takin one line of a post and posting it on a separate forum to misrepresent the views of the OP for your own personal gratification

YOU KNOW WHO I MEAN

humanji

Mahatma coat wrote:

I

Mahatma coat wrote:

gettin

Mahatma coat wrote:

personal gratification

Mahatma coat wrote:

from

Mahatma coat wrote:

your

Mahatma coat wrote:

posts

Weirdo!

Sherifu

Mahatma coat wrote: »

YOU KNOW WHO I MEAN

XENU!?!?!?!?!?

Diogenes

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Or worse, takin one line of a post and posting it on a separate forum to misrepresent the views of the OP for your own personal gratification

YOU KNOW WHO I MEAN

Well one always tries to be very careful when using the quote function.

bonkey

Mahatma coat wrote: »

YOU KNOW WHO I MEAN

Come, now. Have the decency to say who you mean, rather than resorting to such innuendo.

Mahatma coat

Diogenes
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=118301

Congratulations you're in joint 2nd place in June's Stundies!

this is what I'm talkin about

see the response above for another example of Diogeness 'Wit'

Diogenes

Mahatma coat wrote: »

this is what I'm talkin about

see the response above for another example of Diogeness 'Wit'

Hang on

I am gettin annoyed at individuals here selectin points from posts to bunch together out of context

How exactly is that taking it "out of context" I posted the original point, my response, and your rebuttal, all two words of it. Despite repeated requests for you to elaborate further on the point, you have steadfast refused to do so.

I may be ridiculing you, but your argument is ridiculous.

bonkey

Mahatma coat wrote: »

this is what I'm talkin about

I think its unfair to suggest that it was intended to misrepresent anything....unless when you said "very carefully" you meant something other than "very carefully".

For the record, though, I think the "Stundies" are a stupid idea which demean those partaking in them as much as they are trying to demean those they are supposedly interested in discussing the topic with. I find them the intellectual equivalent of Nelson Muntz.

Diogenes

bonkey wrote: »

I think its unfair to suggest that it was intended to misrepresent anything....unless when you said "very carefully" you meant something other than "very carefully".

For the record, though, I think the "Stundies" are a stupid idea which demean those partaking in them as much as they are trying to demean those they are supposedly interested in discussing the topic with. I find them the intellectual equivalent of Nelson Muntz.

I will agree with you bonkey. And if I may, you're possibly one the smartest posters I've met on the internet. I lack your ability for critical thinking and your way of dissecting a post into it's specific.

Me I'm more I'm of a blunt object, I see something ridiculous I will ridicule it. Mahatma coat, made the statement, was challenged on it, was asked for clarification by several posters, and refused to do so. I added him to a list of people who are proud of the ignorance.

Bonkey where I think your Nelson Muntz comparison is fundamentally flawed is that, in general, a stundie nomination comes out of the blue, in the middle of, or in response to a specific scientific question or argument. And suddenly you are presented, with, well, anti logical, or just nonsense.

Mahatma was posed with a several fundamental flaws in his mini nuke scenario, rather than rise up and challenge them, he descended in sophism. He just decided to ignore the problems in his claim and avoid it.

Rather than let this go, I quoted Mahatma on a thread dedicated to ridiculing this idiocy.

Bonkey do you reject the darwin awards?

Mahatma theres someone who I admire, intellectually agreeing with you that philosophically he objects the the concept of the Darwin awards. Perhaps you could explain how I misquoted you to allow us both to see eye to eye.

bonkey

Diogenes wrote: »

Mahatma was posed with a several fundamental flaws in his mini nuke scenario, rather than rise up and challenge them, he descended in sophism. He just decided to ignore the problems in his claim and avoid it.

Rather than let this go, I quoted Mahatma on a thread dedicated to ridiculing this idiocy.

Thats kinda my point. Why not just let it go? The point was made and countered on a thread on a bulletin board. Anyone reading the thread saw this. I see no benefit, whether it be from posts on JREF, or anywhere else, to draw attention to the issue, particularly if one wishes to credibly claim to be interested in further discussion.

I accept that this is a personal opinion...but I find what you did distasteful. I think I understand why you did it, and it boils down to either differing values or differing perspectives. There's undoubtedly some people reading this who'll prefer your bluntness to how they see my posting style.

Besides...as a card-carrying NWO agent, I need to say things like this occasionally in order to....ummm....never mind....I said nothing

Bonkey do you reject the darwin awards?

No...but then again, if someone was an "almost-candidate" on account of surviving, I wouldn't hold their stupidity up to ridicule, whilst at the same time claiming to be interested in a serious discussion of the topic with them. It is this dichotomy which I was objecting to with regards to these Stundies.

Mahatma theres someone who I admire, intellectually agreeing with you that philosophically he objects the the concept of the Darwin awards.

Are you sure this isn't a typo?