Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Indoctrinate U
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="SeniorGeek" data-source="post: 179637" data-attributes="member: 4823"><p>Are you asking the meaning of the word? Please do not expect me to be your dictionary.</p><p> </p><p>If you are doubting that there were weaknesses in your statements, I might agree - because you have not stated much of anything. You have mostly implied things that you have not backed up, and you have ignored those things you are not capable of arguing against (or, possibly, incapable of understanding). I find your arguments lame - but I was trying to make that point with the most recent YouTube link I posted. I will <em>not</em> wait for <em>you</em> to submit proof that you have been <em>correct</em> about anything, since we are not likely to agree on what constitutes proof. I guess that your limited frame of reference will not allow you to understand anything that might challenge what you already believe.</p><p> </p><p>Not much can be proved by the words in this thread. I dislike criticism of spelling and typography errors on electronic forums, so I'll skip all those. </p><p> </p><p>Your words, "...those Communists professors...", "Nothing but a communist attempting to disguise himself as a 'libertarian'", "...that Marxist Chomksky..." <em>might</em> prove that you see a Communist conspiracy all around you. But it does not constitute proof in your limited frame of reference.</p><p> </p><p>Your words, "No...I'm not interested in what that nut has to say" might prove that you resort to name-calling of those with whom you disagree. And it might prove that you are afraid to have your opinions challenged. But it does not constitute proof in your limited frame of reference.</p><p> </p><p>What? Which "that" is such a typical liberal [<u>again</u> with the name-calling] tactic? Be careful how you answer this question, in that you do not lay out a tactic you use - that might be a sign that you are a Liberal.For the most part, I have been giving my opinion. It appears that you view opinions that differ from your own as inherently wrong and contrary to fact. I see mostly opinion in your writing, too. Maybe you believe that your opinions are facts? Wasn't he the guy who won an award for making a movie out of a slide show with voiceover? It sounds like "The Hellstrom Chronicles" all over again. [Yup, I am that old.] You mean the guy who won the 2000 presidential election, but then lost it due to the actions of the brother of his opponent and an activist court? Maybe some help from Diebold, too? I think I remember that guy. Somewhere, I have a photocopy of a traffic ticket he got for speeding in a rented Lincoln - which I thought worthy of a laugh.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Your defensive, broken-record posts, along with the unwillingness or inability to address [or understand?] most of my points, makes me reluctant to continue this thread. I should have been as smart as those who pointed out the laughability and the out-of-context quotes of the "Indoctrination U" trailer. They made their statements and got out. Maybe they know you are a lost cause, or maybe they fear the uncontrolled rage expressed in your writing.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="SeniorGeek, post: 179637, member: 4823"] Are you asking the meaning of the word? Please do not expect me to be your dictionary. If you are doubting that there were weaknesses in your statements, I might agree - because you have not stated much of anything. You have mostly implied things that you have not backed up, and you have ignored those things you are not capable of arguing against (or, possibly, incapable of understanding). I find your arguments lame - but I was trying to make that point with the most recent YouTube link I posted. I will [I]not[/I] wait for [I]you[/I] to submit proof that you have been [I]correct[/I] about anything, since we are not likely to agree on what constitutes proof. I guess that your limited frame of reference will not allow you to understand anything that might challenge what you already believe. Not much can be proved by the words in this thread. I dislike criticism of spelling and typography errors on electronic forums, so I'll skip all those. Your words, "...those Communists professors...", "Nothing but a communist attempting to disguise himself as a 'libertarian'", "...that Marxist Chomksky..." [I]might[/I] prove that you see a Communist conspiracy all around you. But it does not constitute proof in your limited frame of reference. Your words, "No...I'm not interested in what that nut has to say" might prove that you resort to name-calling of those with whom you disagree. And it might prove that you are afraid to have your opinions challenged. But it does not constitute proof in your limited frame of reference. What? Which "that" is such a typical liberal [[U]again[/U] with the name-calling] tactic? Be careful how you answer this question, in that you do not lay out a tactic you use - that might be a sign that you are a Liberal.For the most part, I have been giving my opinion. It appears that you view opinions that differ from your own as inherently wrong and contrary to fact. I see mostly opinion in your writing, too. Maybe you believe that your opinions are facts? Wasn't he the guy who won an award for making a movie out of a slide show with voiceover? It sounds like "The Hellstrom Chronicles" all over again. [Yup, I am that old.] You mean the guy who won the 2000 presidential election, but then lost it due to the actions of the brother of his opponent and an activist court? Maybe some help from Diebold, too? I think I remember that guy. Somewhere, I have a photocopy of a traffic ticket he got for speeding in a rented Lincoln - which I thought worthy of a laugh. Your defensive, broken-record posts, along with the unwillingness or inability to address [or understand?] most of my points, makes me reluctant to continue this thread. I should have been as smart as those who pointed out the laughability and the out-of-context quotes of the "Indoctrination U" trailer. They made their statements and got out. Maybe they know you are a lost cause, or maybe they fear the uncontrolled rage expressed in your writing. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Indoctrinate U
Top