(03-23-2015 07:34 PM)He1nousOne Wrote: (03-23-2015 09:46 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote: (03-23-2015 12:40 AM)He1nousOne Wrote: (03-22-2015 11:27 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote: (03-22-2015 10:26 PM)He1nousOne Wrote: My credibility? It was my opinion. It is hardly a matter that can actually be predicted.
My credibility is assured simply because you feel the need to try and prove otherwise. Thank you.
I am pretty sure that your 180 posts do not put you anywhere near the kind of credibility to be even having a discussion around here with me if your goal is to come at me.
Oh, thank you almighty lord for bringing up post counts. I assure you I've rolled out the red carpet to genuflect inside your temple.
I didn't bring up post counts first, you did. Since you seem to be intellectually lacking, I even put the example in bold print for you to go back and peruse.
Pretty words you use but you're still an idiot.
Whew! My ass is burning from being called an "idiot" and "intellectually lacking"--I'd have expected more wit from the all-powerful judge of intelligence. The reading comprehension might need some work.
I referenced 5 posts of yours trolling Wichita about how they wouldn't get past Indiana, as you kept repeating it ad nauseum to anyone who said something positive about Wichita.
How on Earth you interpreted that as me attacking your "post count" rather than "content" is beyond my planet. You're the one who explicitly stated someone with 180 posts shouldn't even hold a discussion with you for no reason other than your post count.
But if you want to keep employing strawman tactics, have at it! You're absolutely entitled to that modus operandi. I'm rubbing my palms with evil glee eagerly awaiting the next strawman concocted to "call me out on".
Nice attempt to obfuscate the main point. The main point was that someone who recently joined the forum and had very few posts of his own, such a person is foolish for trying to act like a judge about when someone around here "loses credibility" because you yourself have none.
Now, you can try and label that as a "straw man" but that will only show you as a fool.
So by all means, give me another freshman attempt to misrepresent another post of mine all while trying to make me out to be "the bad guy".
Just so you know though, what you are doing isn't all that impressive and it certainly isn't original. Here is all that matters. You know of me well enough to have actually counted the number of posts I made about a particular topic. I didn't even know of you until you came at me. Trying to make a name for yourself around here? Get some better tactics then if that is your goal.
Guess I'll have to make it clear once again since you keep misrepresenting (strawman) what I've made pretty clear:
I'm attacking your content. That is, all of last week no one could say anything positive about Wichita without you jumping down their throat and looking for anyway to demean Wichita. Since you are so liberal in dishing it out, surely you can take a small little jab in return when that trolling didn't pan out. If one can't take back a fraction of what you dish, that's a bit on the little man side.
Coin my attempts "freshman" all you'd like. I'd just hope you'd have the self-awareness to see the irony of that coming from someone calling another the oh-so-witty "idiot", "intellectually-lacking", "a fool", and "traumatized in life by bullies". I attack the content. You attack the person via assumptions and strawmans.
But then again, this is all a secretly devised tactic to accrue e-fame on my behalf. The irony in that claim?
Posts I've referenced you when not responding to you: 0
Posts you've (subtly) referenced me when not responding to me: 3
It wasn't my intention, but I guess I can now celebrate how much real estate I now consume upstairs for you? Hip-hip hooray? Phew! After all, I only care about my name in CSN headlines.
