One time on Facebook, I saw a pro Texas meme. It stated, paraphrased, that where the other states were just “land” before becoming a state, Texas was a nation before it became a state.
This was created under the assumption that when 13 colonies declared their independence, via the Declaration of Independence, they were doing so as a single country.
This assumption is based on some misconceptions. One assumption was that these were just colonies in the same sense as they were during the beginning of the colonial period. They did start off as colonial ventures, under a colonial charter, charged with developing and colonizing the land identified by the colonial charter. During this time, one could have argued that this was all just open land.
By the time the “colonies” declared independence, they had evolved into provincial entities with a form of government and even a provincial militia. They still had plenty of “open land”, and continued to carry out their mission, but they had a similar arrangement that Texas had prior to its revolt.
What occurred during the Declaration of Independence?
Thirteen provinces/colonies declared themselves as independent states. “States” had a similar meaning to what we would identify as a “nation-state” today. This was a declaration of 13 individual states.
From the Declaration of Independence:
We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.
Thirteen different colonies were speaking as a single voice, collectively declaring each colony as a “state”. They make this clear in the above statement, as opposed to the single entity, State, of Great Britain. This is well before the conclusion of the American Revolution as well as before acceptance of the U.S. Constitution.
Another assumption is that Santa Anna’s authority was “final” with regards to granting independence.
Santa Anna did have plenty of power. However, his granting Texas its independence did not get support back in Mexico. The Mexican government, both politicians and bureaucrats, continued to list Texas as a province in revolt. They also considered California as a province in revolt.
Both Texas and California were operating as independent states until the U.S. annexed Texas, and the U.S. Army arrived in California during the Mexican-American War. Texas, as a republic, was already recognized by the U.S. before annexation.
It wasn’t until the signing of the Treaty concluding the Mexican-American war that the Mexican government stopped considering them as “provinces in revolt”. Both had been ceded, with other territory, to the United States.
Likewise, King George III considered all the colonies as “being in a state of revolt”. Vermont was not one of the 13 that signed the Declaration of Independence. They declared their own independence. So, Texas with its similar evolution as the original 13 plus Vermont, would not be the only state that was previously a “nation” before becoming a state.
Texas did have embassies overseas, made treaties with other countries and Indian tribes, and were in the process of negotiating a treaty by the time the U.S. annexed them into the U.S. During this time; however, Mexico still controlled large areas in Texas.
Texans could argue that Texas went further than most of the others with regards to acting in the capacity of a nation state. But, it wouldn’t be the only one. Hawaii, previously the Kingdom of Hawaii, accomplished similar activities that a nation would expect to accomplish.
And now you know.
References:
California actually made a bid to sever from Mexico in the 1830s under Governor Juan Batista Alvarado. The Californios had been Spanish, and did not particularly like Mexico City. When Santa Anna sent Miguel Micheltorena and about 200 Cholos from Mexico to govern the restless province, the Californios along with Americanos under Sutter ran their asses back to Mexico.
If you are looking for a fight, you picked the right subject. Suggest you read T.R. Fehrenbach’s “Lone Star.” And which eventual states were recognized as independent nations? My opinions are stated from the perspective of history, and not just from a man whose ancestors arrived in the Republic of Texas in 1837.
Looking for a fight? I don’t post about a subject like this unless two conditions are met:
1. I have extensive researched knowledge on the topic that I’m posting…
2. Those who’d want to debate the topic would do so from the standpoint of lacking knowledge of the topic that I posted about.
My arguments are stated based on the perspective of history as well… 40 years of being a history fanatic. Not just from a man whose ancestors arrived in New England and Mid Atlantic seaboard starting from the beginning of the colonial period. Or from the fact that I have direct ancestors who served against the British during the American Revolution as well as during the War of 1812.
If you read the post above, to include links, you’d find that I acknowledged that Texas went further than most other states with regards to diplomatic efforts. This includes recognition as a Republic.
Regardless of how far Texas went relative to most of the others, the fact of the matter is that the Mexican government didn’t recognize Texas’s independence, and Texas didn’t get recognized, as a Republic, by the international community at large. Just a few countries who intended to use Texas as an instrument in their foreign policy… Like how few countries recognized the Taliban government in Afghanistan before we topped that government early this century.
These other countries knew that Texas had the U.S.’s backing. Something that didn’t exist relative to Great Brittain when the colonies revolted. We had to earn that by winning against the British in the battlefield before both Spain and France would be comfortable jumping in on our side.
Texas had more favorable conditions than the original 13 colonies to go further than what most the other states have done.
Mexico maintained its hold on large sections of Texas and didn’t recognize Texa as a non-Mexican territory until the conclusion of the Mexican American War. When the U.S. annexed Texas, the Mexicans saw it as us annexing a part of their territory and saw that as causa belli to go to war with the U.S… To preserve their territorial integrity.
In both Texas’s case, as well as that of the original 13, it took an act of war, and then a treaty, for the mother country to accept that they no longer fell under the mother country’s rule.
In the peace treaty that ended the American Revolution, King George III acknowledged the independence of each of the 13 colonies… listed as states. He didn’t grant them their independence but acknowledged such. You acknowledge something that has “already been the case”.
A big point that I made above is that it would be inaccurate to claim that Texas was the only state that “wasn’t just land like the other states” before becoming a state. That’s not the case. I also made a point that they could say Texas went further than most states with regards to engaging in activities that independent countries engage in.
Good to see your still treating posters like you did 2/17.
If you weren’t trying to start a fight why post it?
Don’t say truth, because someone might object?
Wrong forum.
Who said I was objecting?
However, if you’re going to take shots at Texas for no good reason other than to hear himself talk and then dissect someone’s comments to ad nauseum, one might want to grow a little thicker skin when he gets push back.
Hey, at least he didn’t take each sentence, wrap it in quotes, and then issue a 5 paragraph response in blue font to each one… Ending with the Declaration that his opponent has narcissistic personality disorder.
Perhaps he’s evolving?
As for taking them apart point by point, that’s what I’ve been doing for almost 16 years, and will intend to do that while I have the ability to debate with people online.
On the bit about narcissism, I’m waiting on a trend of their future responses to make that assessment.
Animal: Who said I was objecting?
A reading of their initial reply here indicates someone who was objecting to what I have done here. You appeared to object to the argument that I advance in the post above. Then, you appear to object to my defending my position. What you say after this is an indication of why you jumped in and made erroneous assumptions about my posting and about my intent/action.
Animal: However, if you’re going to take shots at Texas
False. I wasn’t taking shots at Texas. I was simply doing the equivalent of “setting the record straight”. I’m sorry if the information provided, that you appear to not be able to argue against, makes you erroneously assume that I am simply taking shots at Texas. I’m not. I’m simply stating the facts.
The fact that you would reply this way indicates that you have a problem with what I said and are reacting to it as if I got under your skin.
Animal: for no good reason other than to hear himself talk
False again. Just as what I do with regards to the climate change debate, I’m going to provide information on the results of the knowledge search that I have done.
You guys have seen my posting arguing against man-made global warming. The main trend, of my argument, debunks the misconception of man-made global warming. What I did, with the above post, is equivalent to what I did with regard to my study and research of long-range climate/weather.
Likewise, the reactions that you guys have given me here are no different from the reactions I’ve received from those who disagree with my argument against man-made global warming.
You’re dismissing this as “no good” and “just to hear myself talk”, simply because my argument is against something that you support. To add damage to injury, you found yourself in position to where you cannot effectively debate against my position.
So, you’re left with no other option but to do the equivalent of pulling crap out of your rear end and slinging it around.
Animal: and then dissect someone’s comments to ad nauseum,
Like I said, I’m not going to post something like this, like what I posted above, unless two conditions are met:
1. I have extensive studied/firsthand experience backing the topic that I talked about.
2. The opposition would have to have little to no understanding of the topic should they desire to argue against my position.
Meaning, I’m not going to post something like this unless I am willing to defend my position. It is my defending the position that you have a problem with… Right after the problem you have of my advancing an argument that you cannot stand up against.
Animal: one might want to grow a little thicker skin when he gets push back.
I’m sorry, but here are some of the things that I noticed about your argument.
1. You have advanced no argument to attempt to counter what I argued in the above post, or in defense of the above post.
2. You have made erroneous assumptions about my intent, and about why I said things.
3. You are projecting onto me the things that I am seeing in you based on your replies.
The only person that I see, that needs to grow a thick skin, is you. You’ve done nothing to defend your disagreement, you’ve done nothing to argue against the original post. All you done is bellyache about the way I defend my position.
Do not confuse my defending my position as my “having a thin skin in the face of getting pushback”. Again, I’ve been debating online for almost 16 years. Likewise, I take sadistic pleasure in arguing against the opposition. I’ve stated this fact in previous threads. Hence, the expectation of pushback. The last part is needed for me to engage in this hobby.
Animal: Good to see your still treating posters like you did 2/17.
Good to see that you’re only seeing one side of that equation and not the other.
You lament how I treated 2/17 but failed to see the “cause and effect” that led to such treatment.
Since you seem to be blind to this, I’m going to spell it out for you. I’m going to treat people the way they treat me. Approach me in a combative/confrontational mindset, and you will get a confrontation. I get a kick out of seeing people reacting to receiving the treatment they dish out to others.
My response to you is an example of that.
I’ve been debating against people online for almost 16 years. When you come across somebody that debates with others as a hobby, maybe, just maybe, you’ve come across somebody that would be willing to debate with you if you give them the incentive to do so.
SgtBob’s approach began with “if you’re looking for a fight”, and then commenced with being dismissive of my position. That is NOT how you get somebody into a mood of being willing to be in a “discussion” mode. That simply gets me to see that I have somebody that wants to debate.
Animal: If you weren’t trying to start a fight why post it?
I post things, like the above, as a way to show people information that they otherwise would not be aware of.
Throughout my life, I’ve researched information that most people don’t know about. Then, once I had commanded that information, I was willing to spread that information. I don’t do it to start a fight. However, whether it involves a fight or not depends on the delivery of those who respond.
If their actions, and comments, indicate that they want a debate, I’m willing to oblige.
Again, I’ve been debating online from 16 years. In every single instance, of somebody approaching me the way you guys approach me, it is because you guys have a problem with my argument. And then, when I respond in kind, you guys come out and start acting like I am trying to cause trouble.
I’ll spell it out.
You’re a fucking asshole.
“Debating” for 16 years. {insert GOLF CLAP}. During those 16 years, how many times did you go back and edit your words in your “debates”? Judging from the way you “debated” me on Facebook, I’m guessing the answer is 80%. You’re not nearly as smart as you give yourself credit for (a symptom of your NPD, no doubt). You’re a fucking self-inflating blowhard who equates opinion with fact.
But, since you’re an admin here…thank you for your service. Sincerely.
It was kinda cute when he treated the sock puppets this way. Now that he’s doing it to people who’ve been integral in making this site what it is, it’s not so cute anymore.
Besig if you’re looking for people to tear down in debates you need to stick with your other sites. Unsat to do it to fellow veterans.
He’s a One-trick Pony.
For the record, I never served. Neither have I EVER before said “thank you for your service”.
Tell that one brain celled activity of yours to quit trying to take you over and to start doing its job so that you don’t post as if a retarded ghost possesses you.
Animal: It was kinda cute when he treated the sock puppets this way. Now that he’s doing it to people who’ve been integral in making this site what it is, it’s not so cute anymore.
I’m sorry, but I see no difference between the actions of these sock puppets, and of those who’ve posted here regularly when they decide to respond to me the way you guys responded to me here.
Yes, you guys considered it cute, even appreciated it, when I was doing it to those who came here to attack people here. But, when subjected to the same treatment, you reacted no different from the sock puppets.
Animal: Besig if you’re looking for people to tear down in debates you need to stick with your other sites. Unsat to do it to fellow veterans.
Being a veteran doesn’t give you the “immunity card” with regards to how I respond to your arguments. Likewise, being an integral part of this site doesn’t give you guys the immunity card either.
If you’re going to treat me the way these sock puppets treated this community, I’m going to give you the same treatment that I gave them. If you’re going to treat me the way the opposition has treated me on other forums, I’m going to give you guys the same treatment.
What you’re really doing is, like these sock puppets, demanding that I ignore the fact that your actions warranted my responses. What I find unsat is your refusal to see your part of this equation.
Notice how you’ve made statements against me, and against my arguments. I stand up and defend myself and my argument position.
You come back and reply, I provide a counter-reply. Do you see a pattern here? You can’t control what I do, but you most certainly can control what you do on your end.
The only criticism I’ve made concerning your post was that you were an asshole to 2/17. I’ve neither agreed nor disagreed with your original post because I could care less either way. My comments are aimed only at the way you treat the others that post here. You can claim purely intellectual discussion all you want, but the truth is you get something out of this or you wouldn’t keep doing it. Somewhere in your psyche you have a deficiency that needs to be filled and you do it at the expense of others. The fact that you do it at the expense of fellow veterans is reprehensible. The fact that your now doing it as an admin on this site is just plain rotten. I didn’t know Jonn well, but I don’t think he would’ve let you get away with it. Your excuse that someone treated you badly first makes you sound like someone else that posts here.
I believe 2/17 told you all these things previously, but you didn’t stop for a moment to reflect on whether there may be some nugget of truth in what he said to you.
I’m done with you.
If anybody’s looking for me I’ll be hanging out with 2/17 wherever he went.
Animal: The only criticism I’ve made concerning your post was that you were an asshole to 2/17.
False. You lamented the way I responded to the person that responded to my post. You made a comment about my treatment of 2/17, then you questioned the purpose of my posting the above post. Then you followed that up with other posts that I responded to.
Animal: I’ve neither agreed nor disagreed with your original post because I could care less either way.
False. Your responses are typical of the responses I see from someone who sides with the opposition. You have a vested interest in this argument, otherwise, you wouldn’t be here. If you didn’t care one way or the other, you wouldn’t have commented, or even cared about how I responded.
However, you reacted the way someone would normally react when someone on their side of the argument gets crushed. You rushed in here feigning neutrality. The cold hard reality is that if you neither agreed nor disagreed with the above post, you wouldn’t have had the need to lament “how I treat others”.
Animal: My comments are aimed only at the way you treat the others that post here.
I’m sorry, but when I go into this mode of responding, it’s justified. There’s no difference from the arguments advanced by the phonies and leftists that I’ve argued against here, and that of yours and others on your side of the argument.
No difference at all.
You didn’t have a problem with my treating sock puppets and leftists this way, but now all of a sudden you have an issue with the way I treat others… using a similar tactic to a similar attitude/argument.
You need to be honest with your intent with these statements. Your main issue is that I destroyed the opposition here, whom you agree with. You have a stake despite claiming that you have none.
One thing that I’m getting with your replies is that it’s fine, or you don’t care if I subject others to this treatment. But, if I subject you, and those on your side of the argument, to this treatment, then all of a sudden, it’s a problem.
Animal: You can claim purely intellectual discussion all you want, but the truth is you get something out of this or you wouldn’t keep doing it.
I’ve admitted to both here, and elsewhere. In fact, what I said above:
“Likewise, I take sadistic pleasure in arguing against the opposition. I’ve stated this fact in previous threads. Hence, the expectation of pushback. The last part is needed for me to engage in this hobby.” — thebesig
Animal: Somewhere in your psyche you have a deficiency that needs to be filled and you do it at the expense of others.
False. I engage in this as a hobby. Claiming that I do this to “fill a deficiency” is as idiotic as claiming that my doing things like long distance running, swimming, oil painting, etc., are done to “fill a deficiency”.
False. I do it because I enjoy it. Not to fill a deficiency.
Again, you don’t have control over what I do, but you have control over what you do. You’re complaining about what I do, and how I do it, as if you want me to stop doing this. If you have issues with the way I do things, you could simply not give me something to dismantle, but you’re not interested in doing that. You want me to stop hammering you, and I refuse to.
Animal: The fact that you do it at the expense of fellow veterans is reprehensible.
No. What is reprehensible is you refusing to see your contribution to this exchange. Could you have expressed your initial position above in a way that would’ve prevented this argument… And resulted in a different outcome? Yes.
You come on this thread, then make a statement that invites a debate. Then, when you get that debate, you start crying about how I “treat others”, while refusing to see that like you, “those others” responded in a way that invited a debate.
Animal: The fact that your now doing it as an admin on this site is just plain rotten.
I’m sorry, but the fact that I could contribute posts here doesn’t give you the immunity card to respond to me the way you’ve responded so far, and not experience the consequences.
Heck, I don’t recall you complaining about how we “trolled” a certain poster to come out then called him out. It wasn’t your hide that was stripped and treated… No problem… It was funny then, “Ha, ha.” Not so funny now that your side of the argument is getting hammered.
Animal: I didn’t know Jonn well, but I don’t think he would’ve let you get away with it.
False. When Commissar first posted on this site, I saw posts from regular posters calling for him to be banned. Other than him staying on other folk’s tails, I didn’t see a justification for him being banned. Some tried to question whether he was in the military.
Result? Jonn came out and said that he let Commissar post because he was a veteran. It wasn’t until Commissar took certain actions, and made certain statements, that he got put on moderation mode.
However, back when you guys called to get him removed, the only “infraction” that he committed was staying on you guy’s tails and refusing to let up.
Animal: Your excuse that someone treated you badly first makes you sound like someone else that posts here.
False. Your refusing to go back and look at your initial posts, addressing me directly and indirectly, shows your refusal to own up to your contributions to you being in this predicament. Heck, if you simply ignored me, I wouldn’t have made the additional posts that I made. You couldn’t even do that, you stayed in the argument, then complained about my tactics while ignoring the contribution on your end.
I flat out stated that I’m going to treat people the way they treat me. That doesn’t make me like someone else that posted here.
Animal: I believe 2/17 told you all these things previously, but you didn’t stop for a moment to reflect on whether there may be some nugget of truth in what he said to you.
False, there was no nugget of truth to what 2/17 told me. I see no nugget of truth to what you’ve said on this thread, none in what the opposition here said. The trend of what he previously said, and to what you guys have said here, reflect a refusal to see your contribution that initiated the exchange.
Animal: I’m done with you.
I predict that you’re going to prove yourself wrong by coming back to reply to something that I said… Or replying to me indirectly.
Animal: If anybody’s looking for me I’ll be hanging out with 2/17 wherever he went.
Yes, act like a spoiled brat kid that didn’t get his/her way. You’re going to stomp walk your way to your “escape place” while seething at the fact that I refused to stop hammering you. Just a closet attempt to get me muzzled… If you don’t shut thebesig up, I’m going to stay away and, by the way, those are my marbles, I’m taking them…
Have you considered that you have exceeded simple courtesy? Doing so greatly reduces persuasion.
I don’t get into debates to persuade the opposition to my side of the argument. I already know that they’re not going to change their positions.
You should pose your question to those that I’m arguing against. How I treat the opposition is going to be based on how they treat me. How they initially react to me is going to set the tone to how I respond to them.
#OneTrickPony
Agreed!
Then that makes you as wrong as the one that you’re agreeing with.
GDContractor: ll spell it out.
You don’t need to spell anything out. The opposition that I’ve debated against over these years fall under specific profiles. I’ve lost count of the number of those that I’ve argued against in the past. However, their styles fall into a predictable pattern. It’s like they’re passing the same playbook around. It’s also like arguing with an NPC.
GDContractor: You’re a fucking asshole.
The only people that have called me an asshole are the ones that I’ve destroyed in debate. None of the people, who have been on my side of the debate, called me such. They had a different assessment of my actions than what you guys have.
Your opinion is based on the fact that I destroyed your argument and wouldn’t let up.
GDContractor: “Debating” for 16 years. {insert GOLF CLAP}. During those 16 years, how many times did you go back and edit your words in your “debates”? Judging from the way you “debated” me on Facebook, I’m guessing the answer is 80%.
First, none of the editing involved changing my position in the argument.
Second, the vast majority of the times that I’ve edited my posts, after replying, it was to fix something that had nothing to do with the argument. For example, adding a period, adding quotation marks, swapping out words, rephrasing a sentence, etc.
Second, the other times I’ve edited a post was because the post posted without my being ready for it to post. This is a problem that occasionally happens when I type instead of use speech to text. Hit “enter” on Facebook to generate another paragraph and you will end up generating a post when you didn’t intend to. In this situation, you have to go in and complete the post then post it the way you intended.
Third, none of what I changed had anything to do with what was said in response.
The fact that you’d ignore these proves that you have control issues. The fact that you’d try to use this as if I was trying to cheat proves your narcissism. Otherwise, you’d recognize that maybe, just maybe, I posted too quick, or posted a word that I didn’t intend to use.
GDContractor: You’re not nearly as smart as you give yourself credit for
My actual argument is that I’ve done research, then I’ve based my argument on that research. That’s a statement of fact. It’s clear, from the opposition, that they haven’t done their research. Your lack of knowledge on what’s being debated, as well as theirs, painfully shows.
That’s not a declaration of “how smart I am”. That’s simply a declaration of the method that I use to gather information, analyze it, put it together, then stand my ground.
The fact that you’d interpret it that way shows that you’re the one that thinks that he’s “smart” and that he “has things figured out”. When it comes to your claims about my argument and about me, you don’t.
GDContractor: (a symptom of your NPD, no doubt). You’re a fucking self-inflating blowhard
The fact that you’re still belly aching over the fact that I accurately identified you as being narcissistic is a strong indication of you being narcissistic.
Again, I’ve seen the same thing in your arguments against me that I’ve seen in the arguments of both Commissar and the Cheese Monster. Very similar reaction.
You’ve done nothing to assist the others that disagree with me, with regards to the arguments that I advanced on this thread. However, you’ve done nothing but show raw emotion… Like what I’d expect to see from someone who has lost control, but who is striving to regain that control.
Every single person that accused me of being a “self-inflating blowhard” themselves were self-inflating blowhards… Blowhards who had problems finding themselves in a situation where they had a severe disadvantage. But, they had a strong need for dominance that they could not gain.
GDContractor: who equates opinion with fact.
Were the other States “just land” before becoming states? YES [ ] NO [ ]
Copy and paste this question to your reply, along with the YES/NO responses. Put an “X” in the box that represents your reply. Spare me any additional argument that you’d want to make with regards to this.
My statement is that some states “were not just land”, in the sense that the meme puts it, before they became a state is a statement of fact. It’s historical fact that’s verifiable. That’s not an opinion.
Don’t mistake a fact, that you disagree with, as “nothing but an opinion”.
GDContractor: But, since you’re an admin here…thank you for your service. Sincerely.
I listen to actions, and not to words. Your statement, above, completely negates this last statement. I mean, if someone walked up to you, deliberately threw up all over you, then said, “Oh yeah, thanks for what you do,” would you forget the fact that he vomited on you? I doubt it, just like I doubt your sincerity with the last sentence.
TLDR, but thanks for proving my point again AS TO your status as a one-trick pony. We are all very impressed.
There are other things that I do, besides destroying people like you on threads like this. My performance here shows that I’m willing to engage in one of the things that I do. Anybody that assumes that my actions here shows that this is the only thing that I know how to do is making a narcissistic assumption.
Keep talking.
No need to remind me to do something that I intend to keep doing. I’m willing to keep hammering you until I’m an old man unable to do this. I noticed that you failed to answer my question per the parameters that I set. So here it is again:
Were the other States “just land” before becoming states? YES [ ] NO [ ]
Copy and paste this question to your reply, along with the YES/NO responses. Put an “X” in the box that represents your reply. Spare me any additional argument that you’d want to make with regards to this.
“Once I had commanded that information”
I hope you were trying to be funny.
I’m not lamenting anything about 2/17. He’s a big boy and carried his own weight. It doesn’t change the fact that you were an asshole to him. I post rarely and try to be respectful of the long time posters. No longer possible with you.
You know the saying about when perception becomes reality? Whether you meant to or not, you did.
I’ll be honest, I didn’t make it very far into your comments because they make my eye twitch.
I could care less what you’ve done for 16 years on the internet.
Animal: I hope you were trying to be funny.
No, not being funny. Not even close.
I was dead serious. I won’t argue a topic unless I’ve spent a lot of time researching the information, studying it, detecting patterns, etc.
For example, in August last year, I made a prediction on this website about how winter would behave in the northern hemisphere. It ended up proving correct. It wasn’t until I was able to do things like this that I started to debate climate related topics. I’m like this with other topics. When a pattern keeps repeating itself, I argue the position that the pattern points towards.
Animal: I’m not lamenting anything about 2/17. He’s a big boy and carried his own weight.
Your opening statement mentioned 2/17, so yes, you are lamenting how I treated him and others.
Animal: It doesn’t change the fact that you were an asshole to him.
Again, I’m going to treat people the way they treat me. You’re lamenting the “effect” of the equation, but not the “cause”. There is a way to approach people, especially if it involves them taking a course of action that you want them to take.
This indicates a bias that you have against my position. Specifically, with my position on this thread. You said nothing to me since I debated with 2/17, until you saw this post. Then, you saw justification to accuse me of being an asshole to him while not seeing his role in bringing that about.
Animal: I post rarely and try to be respectful of the long time posters.
I’m going to go by what you do, and not what you say. The first response to me that you gave was you begging for a debate. Regardless of whether somebody has been posting here for a long time, or just for short time, I’m going to be willing to dish out to others what they dish to me.
If a person who had been posting here for a long time is an asshole to me, I’m going to be an asshole back. Ditto with someone who has posted here for short time who ends up being an asshole to me. I’m going to be an asshole back.
Animal: No longer possible with you.
You and others addressed me the way you guys addressed me above. Then, when I stood up for myself against you guys, you did not like it. What you guys really wanted me to do was to back down as soon as you guys said what you guys said.
That is what you have an issue with, and that is the motivator for you saying that you would no longer have any respect for me. To that I say, “I don’t care.”
I would rather be somebody that people don’t like based on my standing up for myself then to be somebody that is liked for the ability to be a doormat/punching bag.
Animal: You know the saying about when perception becomes reality? Whether you meant to or not, you did.
Looking at your arguments here, as well as that of the opposition, you need to understand that what you guys ranted about… Regarding me… Has been ranted about by others. A common theme behind those rants is their arguments being demolished and their not being able to defend their positions effectively. My refusing to back down motivated them to have these negative perceptions about me.
Animal: I’ll be honest, I didn’t make it very far into your comments because they make my eye twitch.
This, like some of the things that you and other said here, is no different from what others have said before… Especially when it comes to an argument that they can’t argue against. This is essentially an attempt to excuse yourself from having to deal with an argument that you can’t stand up against. Much easier to claim that you didn’t read my argument than it is to come to terms with the fact that you didn’t have an argument on this thread in the first place.
Animal: I could care less what you’ve done for 16 years on the internet.
If you’re going to make erroneous assumptions about why I did things, I’m going to match it with the facts. This includes a mode of operation that I’ve been using before and during these debates. You don’t care about something that harms your position.
I think most of what you have argued is correct from a historical standpoint. But Texans tend to have oversized egos. They are quite proud their state was briefly an independent republic. Nothing you can say will sway this emotion. Also, I must say Texas is a very cool state and I would love to live there. Your sin is you have violated their rule: “Don’t mess with Texas.”
I was born and raised in Texas and live there now. I’ll be the first to agree that Texas wasn’t the “only” state to enter the Union that wasn’t previously a country. IL also be the first to agree that besig is a fucking asshole. Now, before you argue with me, I must warn you, I have researched assholes extensively. Rgr769, you are not an asshole. Come on down.
Thanks.
Yes, I’m an “Asshole” for refusing to take a course of action that you, and others on your side of the argument, want me to take. I’m an “Asshole” for consistently, and thoroughly, debunking you guys’ arguments… And for daring to keep challenging your stances. I’m an “asshole” for putting a historical perspective to the assumption that Texas was the “only” nation-state, compared to the other states, prior to it becoming a U.S. state. Likewise, I’m an “Asshole” for not being controllable.
I’ve been called worse over the past 15+ years, for the same/similar reasons that I am being called names here. Others have attempted to control me the way you, and others here, have done. Their overabundance of pride and desire for control failed in attempting to define the debate, or its direction, in a way that massaged their ego.
Again:
Were the other States “just land” before becoming states? YES [ ] NO [ ]
Copy and paste this question to your reply, along with the YES/NO responses. Put an “X” in the box that represents your reply. Spare me any additional argument that you’d want to make with regards to this.
What part of “I’ll be the first to agree that Texas wasn’t the “only” state to enter the Union that wasn’t previously a country.” do you not understand (scroll up, genius)?
You’ve been called an asshole before? Really? I’m shocked!
If you think I’m calling you an asshole because we disagree about something Texas, then you’re even stupider than I thought you were…and that’s quite an accomplishment.
GDContractor: What part of “I’ll be the first to agree that Texas wasn’t the “only” state to enter the Union that wasn’t previously a country.” do you not understand (scroll up, genius)?
Hence:
“I find it hilarious when you claim that your language and punctuation are used with precision to elicit emotional responses from your ‘opposition’.” — GDContractor
This is one of the examples that I’m talking about when I deliberately say things. One of the supporting arguments that I have made, here, is that you and others have narcissism, control, and anger issues.
The way I phrased my questions, and their parameters are designed to force the opposition into having to provide a simple, correct, common sense response in a way that destroys and invalidates their argument.
If you’re one of the first to argue that Texas was not the only nation-state prior to becoming a state, then you would have no problems answering the questions per the parameters.
However, in doing so, you would invalidate the argument advanced by the others that I’m arguing against here.
Neither you nor anybody else on your side of the argument, has answered those questions. Narcissism and the need for control make you guys resist doing so per the parameters that I set.
Additionally, in your case, if you agree with what the questions are gunning for, but refuse to answer, you demonstrate that in addition to what I’ve identified you as here and elsewhere, you’re also vindictive. This isn’t the first time I’ve hammered you in a debate.
GDContractor: You’ve been called an asshole before? Really? I’m shocked!
What I said in the post that you responded to:
“I’ve been called worse over the past 15+ years, for the same/similar reasons that I am being called names here. Others have attempted to control me the way you, and others here, have done.” — thebesig
“Been called worse” was in response to your calling me an asshole. Hint, reading my posts while not being emotionally charged would help you not come across as a dummy in your replies. If you didn’t have a need for control and didn’t have anger issues, the chances that you’d understand what I’m saying would go up.
Another point that I’m getting across is that others have said, and did, the same things that you guys have done here. They failed to achieve what they wanted to achieve. If you think that you’ll have different luck, then you need to think about what others say about doing the same thing and expecting different results.
What I said:
“I’m an ‘asshole’ for putting a historical perspective to the assumption that Texas was the ‘only’ nation-state, compared to the other states, prior to it becoming a U.S. state.” -thebesig
Reading the statement, with the intention of understanding what I said, would show that two things are being talked about here. “Historical perspective” and “Texas as ‘only’ nation state”. Two things, one thing related to the other.
It doesn’t matter that you stated that you would agree to one of the things talked about. The fact of the matter is that you are arguing on the side of those who have issues with my doing both.
Additionally, reading comprehension would’ve told you that this was only one of the combination of items that have caused you… In your narcissistic desire for control… For calling me an “asshole”.
If this were an issue of “stupidity”, then that description clearly fits you, not me. Read the post that you are replying to in order to reduce the chance of coming across as a nitwit.
Given what you said, you should have an easier time answering these questions per the parameters that I set:
Were the other states, “just land”, before becoming states? YES [ ] NO [ ]
Was Texas the only state that was a nation state before becoming a state? YES [ ] NO [ ]
Copy and paste these two questions, in addition to the one above, to your reply. Type an “X” in the boxes that represent your reply. Spare me any additional explanation that you would want to give regarding these questions.
Having done a lot of research means nothing if you continue to draw erroneous conclusions.
Let’s take your original premise: “A big point that I made above is that it would be inaccurate to claim that Texas was the only state that “wasn’t just land like the other states” before becoming a state.” OK. That would be a given. So what? Has someone claimed otherwise? I will grant that just because I have never heard such a claim doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. However, it is not a claim made in the circles I travel, which also proves nothing other than I am surprised that anyone would claim it to be a claim made often enough somewhere by unnamed somebody/ies to warrant this diatribe.
You are either lying or willfully disregarding the simple fact that folks will defend themselves when you throw out unsubstantiated claims that Texans (or someone) are making false claims about Texas and you are NOT picking a fight? Yeah, right.
OWB: Having done a lot of research means nothing if you continue to draw erroneous conclusions.
The entire argument that you make, in this post, fell flat on its face the moment you made this statement. Why?
First, the research that I talked supports the argument that I made above. It doesn’t matter how much you disagree with my position. The fact of the matter is that what I argued above is supported. I provided some links supporting my position.
In order to dismiss my argument as “erroneous conclusion”, you have to prove “wrong” the argument that I advanced above. You failed to do so. Instead, you insist on the “erroneous conclusions” canard simply based on the fact that you disagree with the argument that advanced.
Based on your response, as well as that of the others, my research is crucial and means a lot in this exchange. So far, the opposition has failed to support their position against mine. Likewise, the opposition has failed to “prove” my argument “wrong”.
OWB: Let’s take your original premise: “A big point that I made above is that it would be inaccurate to claim that Texas was the only state that “wasn’t just land like the other states” before becoming a state.” OK. That would be a given. So what? Has someone claimed otherwise?
So what? Yes, someone has made that claim, on social media. There is a MEME that is being shared that advanced that argument. If that MEME is being passed around in social media, and is getting likes and being shared, then yes, that claim is being made and is being pushed.
The fact that it is being made and spread indicates that a whole bunch of people believe in the argument that I argued against.
It was the fact that that claim was made that motivated me to look deeper into the subject that resulted in my posting the above.
OWB: I will grant that just because I have never heard such a claim doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.
This statement is a statement should have spared you from making the comment that you eventually made. You never heard that claim made, and I stated that I have seen that claim being made. The smart thing to do was to assume that I did, in fact, see that claim made. Otherwise, I would not have made the argument that I made in the above post.
OWB: However, it is not a claim made in the circles I travel, which also proves nothing other than I am surprised that anyone would claim it to be a claim made often enough somewhere by unnamed somebody/ies to warrant this diatribe.
Maybe because I have seen this claim advanced, where you haven’t, and I saw a need to clarify that assumption?
Again, this was being passed around on social media. So yes, there are people out there that believe such. Just as I do with climate change related topics, I’m going to talk about topics that most people “generally didn’t know”.
The only “diatribe” that I am seen is what is being argued against what I said.
OWB: You are either lying
False. Again, I’m not going to generate a post, like what I did above, unless these two conditions are met:
1. I have extensive studied/firsthand experience backing the topic that I talked about.
2. The opposition would have to have little to no understanding of the topic should they desire to argue against my position.
There is no room for “lying” or for pulling something out of thin air. I’m going to argue based on the facts. What I stated above actually happened.
OWB: or willfully disregarding the simple fact that folks will defend themselves
Again, if I have debated online for almost 16 years, how would I “disregard” the simple fact that people will defend themselves? In order for me to continue with this hobby of debating with others, they would have to advance an argument, and then defend themselves, in order to get an argument going.
Again, like the others, you are making assumptions about what I am thinking and why I do things. In this case, you are wrong.
How far off would your assumptions be? If your assumptions were similar to luck someone would have should they fall off their boat sitting in the middle of a lake, you would completely miss the water. That’s how far off you guys are.
This is something that normally happens when the opposition is emotionally charged and factually deficient.
OWB: when you throw out unsubstantiated claims that Texans (or someone) are making false claims about Texas and
This is as idiotic as saying that I “didn’t exist” until you saw evidence of my existence (the first post that I made that you saw).
Again, a MEME advancing the argument that the other states were just “land” before becoming states as opposed to Texas being a country before being a state, is being passed around on social media. I’ve seen it, it is fact, it is reality. What you are doing is questioning my firsthand experience; armed with nothing that is equivalent to “first tiered/firsthand” experience.
The only recourse that you have, on this topic, is to acknowledge the fact that I have indeed seen what I argued I have seen.
In order to dismiss anything that I say about Texas as being “false”, you have to prove that it is “false”. I have yet to see you do such. Haven’t seen the others do it. None of you guys have argued against the main argument that I had above.
So far, the only thing that I see you guys doing is pulling crap out of your rear ends and flinging it around.
OWB: you are NOT picking a fight? Yeah, right.
If you bothered reading the post that you responded to, with the intention of understanding what I argued, nowhere would you see that I was denying that anything that I said could result in a debate. Go back and read what I posted. I provided two conditions that would be needed for me to make a post similar to the one I made above. Meaning, I would not post something unless I’m willing to fight back.
The cold hard reality is that those complaining about “picking fights” are those who have issues with the information that I provided above. The people that are accusing me of “picking fights” are people who have colossally failed to defend their opposition to my argument.
If anybody is being sensitive, it is those accusing me of simply picking fights simply because they have issues with the argument that I made above.
No blue font? How disappointing….
No, you are simply wrong. You are arguing something which you didn’t even bother to support by telling us where or why you are arguing the point. To all of us who have never heard the claim you claim was made, your first thing should have been to explain why this was even an issue for you.
Acting like something is common knowledge just because you happened to be somewhere that it was said only makes you sound like a loony lefty. That is exactly how they argue.
To review: You made a point which may or may not be valid (it’s up to YOU to prove that it is) and then feigning outrage that anyone should question your premise, conclusion, methodology or research is questionable at best. Some might even find it silly.
“Some might even find it silly.”
Or, even narcissistic, in fact.
False. The display of narcissism isn’t coming from my end. It’s coming from your end, as well as that of those that I’m debating against here.
Keep talking.
OWB: No, you are simply wrong.
False. My arguments are dead center mass, they’re correct. In order to dismiss anything that I argue as, “wrong”, quotation marks used strongly, you have to advance an argument “proving” that statement “wrong”. You colossally failed to do so above, and you continued to do so here.
OWB: You are arguing something which you didn’t even bother to support by telling us where or why you are arguing the point.
False. I clearly advanced an argument above, and provided references at the bottom. If you read my post, in entirety, you would not have needed me to spell out what it is you’re expecting for me to spell out. Those references are only a sample of what I used to come up with the above post.
You, having a problem with what I argued, have the responsibility of digging up information to try to “prove” me wrong. You failed to do so. Instead, you’re giving me this nonsense that someone, reading my post above with the intention of understanding what I’m arguing, would not have given me.
Additionally, you’re advancing a strawman argument. More on that later.
OWB: To all of us who have never heard the claim you claim was made, your first thing should have been to explain why this was even an issue for you.
Wrong. First, you need to understand my argument in the above post, as well as the argument that I advanced in the thread. My argument was simple, the MEME that I saw claimed that where the other states were just “land”, Texas was a country before becoming a state. That statement was flat-out false.
My post above addressed that misconception. I accomplished that mission.
OWB: Acting like something is common knowledge just because you happened to be somewhere that it was said
False. Using your logic, I could demand from everybody some form of evidence to back everything that they say. I don’t. I give them the benefit of the doubt of being in position of having first-hand experience.
However, when it comes to something like this, when I find myself in similar situations, where somebody makes a statement about something they saw, and they do not provide evidence in their argument, I research it myself. If I have the capability of doing a simple search, everybody else has that capability as well.
How about you come to the terms with the fact that I saw such a MEME, something that you admitted to not seeing.
OWB: only makes you sound like a loony lefty. That is exactly how they argue.
False. I have debated against the left for almost 16 years. The tactic that I used here, and elsewhere, is nothing like how they argue. However, the statements and mythology that you’re using here is exactly how I’ve seen the left argue in over 15 years.
Like the left, you are not basing your argument on the facts. You are not using reason or logic. Instead, you are arguing from emotion as well as advancing strawman arguments. Like you, the left gets into the weeds about a specific action, or tactic, while avoiding the actual argument.
OWB: To review: You made a point which may or may not be valid
Fact: I made an argument here that is valid. I have yet have anybody that has argued against me effectively argue against the argument I advanced in the above post, or the arguments on this thread.
OWB: (it’s up to YOU to prove that it is)
Wrong! It’s up to YOU to prove that it isn’t.
OWB: and then feigning outrage
False, I wasn’t outraged, actual or feigning, over seeing people like you say and do things that I’ve seen others… With no real argument… Engage in.
I meant what I said when I take sadistic pleasure when doing this. Understand that I have fun dismantling arguments like this.
OWB: that anyone should question your premise, conclusion, methodology or research is questionable at best.
This is another tactic that I see the left using constantly. I’m going to tell you that I’ve told these leftists over the past 15 years.
What you’re doing is advancing a strawman argument. Here, let me simplify this for you.
The argument: There is a common misconception about Texas being the only state that was previously a country/Republic.
My argument: it wasn’t, there were other states that were nation-states before becoming states.
That is the just of the above argument in the above post, and that was the focus of the entire post.
Again, you’re advancing a strawman argument. You’re making this an argument about the existence of the MEME that I talked about. You acknowledged that you didn’t see it. I know for a fact that I saw it on the walls of one of my Facebook friends.
That is not the argument, that is not an issue. The fact of the matter is that I saw that MEME. I turned around and advanced an argument against it. That is what matters in this argument.
OWB: Some might even find it silly.
Speak for yourself. What I find silly, amusing, is you advancing a strawman argument questioning the existence of the MEME rather than focusing on the actual argument that I made above.
You said, “Those who’d want to debate the topic would do so from the standpoint of lacking knowledge of the topic that I posted about.”
That’s not starting a fight??? REALLY??
If you bothered reading what I stated, with the intention of understanding what I said, you wouldn’t have come to that conclusion. The fact that I would mention that, and the following statement, indicate that I won’t make a post like the above unless I’m willing to fight back against those who try to fight against my position:
“1. I have extensive researched knowledge on the topic that I’m posting…” – thebesig
It’s a waste of time trying to discern what you are saying because you conveniently change it depending upon how someone responds to your words. Sounds a lot like somebody else’s tactic.
If your postings and comments require a crystal ball and/or tarot cards to guess what you might mean, then most of us are out of luck.
OWB: It’s a waste of time trying to discern what you are saying because
Wrong. The reality is that you don’t want to spend the time reading an argument that thoroughly destroys your argument. The cold hard reality is that what you are trying to bring up, the MEME, is not the real issue of the argument. The argument being advanced is on whether Texas was the only state that was previously a country, and on whether the other states were just “land”. I addressed that argument.
You, making this about the MEME, are avoiding the actual argument. You are advancing a strawman argument… You’re refusing to abandon this strawman argument.
OWB: you conveniently change it depending upon how someone responds to your words.
False. My argument has been consistent throughout this thread. A reading of all my posts here, to include the post above, show a common theme, a common argument.
There is no deviation from my argument. You’re making a flat-out false statement.
Also, I’ve been addressing posts here point by point. Meaning, in addition to the main theme of my argument, I’m also going to debunk the points that the opposition makes.
If you feel that I am “deviating”, is not because of any “attempt” to change the message on my end. There is no such attempt. Since my counter rebuttals are going to depend on what I am rebutting, if you feel that I am “deviating”, it’s because the opposition is deviating.
OWB: Sounds a lot like somebody else’s tactic.
I have debunked many of Dan Bernath’s, as well as others like him here and elsewhere, arguments. I find similarity between your argument tactics, and theirs. Additionally, I find a strong similarity between the arguments advanced by the left, and your arguments.
You’re making assumptions about what I am doing, and about what I am arguing.
OWB: If your postings and comments require a crystal ball and/or tarot cards to guess what you might mean, then most of us are out of luck.
False. It simply requires people to read what I post with the intention of understanding what I am saying. Your responses here painfully show that you have not read my posts, any of them, with a level head. In fact, your responses here show that the emotions that rage through you when reading my replies get in the way of you understanding what I am arguing.
However, since you want to bring up the MEME, answer this question per the parameters that I set:
Now, do you still insist on doubting the existence of that “Texas as a country your state was just land” meme? YES [ ] NO [ ]
Copy and paste this question and associated yes/no options, to your reply. Put an “X” in the box that represents your reply. Spare me any additional explanation that you would want to give.
Choose wisely.
When you say the US annexed Texas, you make it sound as if Texas did not have a choice in the matter and said annexation was involuntary. Due the extremely bad economics and almost completely broke, Texas went into the US completely voluntarily. And this is coming from a Texan whom has traced his family to the first settlers of Colonial Williamsburg.
What I stated above:
“Both Texas and California were operating as independent states until the U.S. annexed Texas, and the U.S. Army arrived in California during the Mexican-American War. Texas, as a republic, was already recognized by the U.S. before annexation.” – thebesig
From one of the links that I provided above:
“The Texas legation in Washington wrestled with many issues, including boundaries of Texas, relations with Mexico and Native Americans, and Blue: annexation to the United States. With the latter goal accomplished in 1845, the legation office closed.” – Texas State Library and Archives Commission
Additionally, on that same page, you would find a hyperlink reading “annexation”. Based on the link that I used, coming to the conclusion that I “made it sound like it was involuntarily done” is baseless… That link clearly indicates voluntary action by Texas.
The main purpose, of the above post, is to address the fact that there were multiple states that were “nation-states” prior to becoming states. Addressing the circumstances, surrounding annexation, was not within the scope of the above post. Otherwise, I would’ve clarified with forced annexation, voluntary annexation, or annexation falling under another category depending on the circumstances surrounding the annexation. That would require another post focusing on annexation.
Since the main focus was to address an argument, the mention of “annexation” was a supporting point… Communicating either a positive or negative meaning related to annexation was not the purpose. That wasn’t relevant.
Same question for you:
Were the other states, “just land”, before becoming states? YES [ ] NO [ ]
Was Texas the only state that was a nation-state before becoming a state? YES [ ] NO [ ]
Copy and paste these two questions to your reply. Type an “X” in the boxes that represent your reply. Spare me any additional explanation that you would want to give regarding these questions.
Big ol’ can of worms here; can be debated/argued till the cows come home, get milked, and bedded down…and taken up the next morning over cat heads with country ham.
Had a supposed ancestor that died at the broken down death trap that the Alamo Mission became. Had some others that were executed at Goliad with Fannin. Were they potential Patriots or just potential land grabbers? One of the requirements for getting land in Texas was becoming a Mexican Citizen and becoming a member of the Catholic Church. Lot’s of fellows took those oaths, knowing, “wink, wink, nod, nod” they had no intention of that being a permanent status. Throw in all the “lawers”, land speculators, and former congress critters that showed up, Stephen Austin, William B. Travis, Sam Houston, David Crockett, James Fannin, James Bowie, et al, and you have the perfect storm potential for revolution. We have to keep in mind that Santa Anna’s Army had been at war for a good while, squashing rebellion in several Mexican States. Washington based politicians looking the other way, remembering how easy it was to “buy” the Louisiana Purchase from France, who had basically stolen all of that from Spain, who had originally stolen/laid claim to lands occupied by Natives.
Even with a border wall, given enough time the Mexicans/Hispanics will, if not own, then at least occupy Texas. Just my opinion! YMMV
ps: The Flag that flew over the Alamo made reference to the Mexican Constitution of 1824. The FIRST Flag of the soon to be declared Republic of Texas was sewn by a young Lady named Joanna Troutman in Knoxville, Crawford County, Georgia and presented to the Georgia Volunteers that died at Goliad. Blue Background and a single white star. This design evolved into the current Lone Star Flag of Texas.
Correction on Joanna’s Flag. WHITE Silk Background with a single BLUE Star. Mea culpa. I really need to improve my proof read before I hit post. Sometimes my brain moves a lot faster than my typing…other times, not so much. I still type like an unfried chicken…hunt and peck.
Distracted by the aromas from the Crockett pot.
All of thebesig’s arguments on this thread: TL;DR. He puts himself out as the “expert” because he’s “researched it”. Whatever.
You failed to capture my argument with that statement. Likewise, you failed to summarize the debate or to even mount one.
What good is all that work, if few read it because of the perception of your delivery?
It doesn’t matter if people read what I post or not. Simply seeing that I responded to them, in the way that I respond, is enough for them to know that they’ve thoroughly been debunked.
In almost 16 years of debating with others online, I’ve lost count of how many times someone in the opposition claimed that they didn’t read my replies. The reality is that many are reading my replies, but are claiming that they didn’t as an excuse to not address my counter-arguments.
The vast majority of the people that would have an issue with the delivery of my response are those that I’m arguing against. I’ve lost count of how many times those, on my side of the argument, would compliment me for the posts… Giving a completely different description of my responses than what was being given by the opposition.
Likewise, ignoring what the opposition does, that warrants the kind of responses that I give, makes the message that you’re attempting to send my way “dead on arrival.”
Again, you are simply wrong. Writing longer sentences, bigger words, or shouting louder does not make you right or anyone else wrong. If you don’t need affirmation, then keep on doing things exactly as you are doing them and the majority of folks will continue to react to what you write as they currently react. You like being ignored? You find some sort of perverse satisfaction attacking those who disagree with you? You can’t be bothered to read the objections others have of your assumptions?
If you would set aside you ego for a few minutes you might actually learn something from the folks who post around here. Acting like a bully only proves that you are a bully. If/when you are correct you still lost the argument because you acted like a bully instead of a sane person with a valid point of view.
Put in simpler terms, no, none of us has to accept that anything you say is factual, well researched, or in any other way worth our consideration until you make a compelling argument for looking at your side of things. Demanding our attention or respet is the least likely way to get it.
OWB:Again, you are simply wrong.
False. I advanced a fact-based, reasoned, logical argument. Nowhere, in any of your replies did you prove me “wrong”. Not even close.
OWB: Writing longer sentences, bigger words, or shouting louder does not make you right or anyone else wrong.
It’s painfully obvious that you are avoiding the argument advanced in my post.
What makes me right is the fact that I’m using a fact-based, reasoned, logical argument. What makes you, and the others, wrong is the fact that you guys have failed to defend your positions or to argue against mine effectively. You have done nothing to weaken my argument or to strengthen yours.
Advancing a fact-based, reasoned, logical argument requires more words. In order to argue otherwise, you would have to “prove” my argument “wrong”. My reading of your reply shows that you did not “prove” me “wrong”.
OWB: If you don’t need affirmation,
This has nothing to do with affirmation. My goal is simple. To prove the opposition wrong. I am consistently doing that. Neither you, nor anybody else that I have argued against here, has advanced a valid argument against me.
OWB: then keep on doing things exactly as you are doing them and the majority of folks will continue to react to what you write as they currently react.
First, I have every intention of replying to guys. There’s no need for you to tell me to continue replying the way I have been replying here.
Second, I’m going to treat you guys the way guys treat me. So, if you guys are going to react to me the way you guys are reacting to me here, and I’m going to react the way I had been reacting here… Ad infinitum.
Again, let “X” be your replies.
Let “Y” be my replies.
What’s happening is this: “If X, then Y” ad infinitum.
This is also applicable with regards to the kind of reaction you guys give. If you think that you’re going to get me to stop doing what I’m doing to “avoid other people reacting to me” the way the opposition has, you’re going to be in for a disappointment.
You guys are lightweight, a joke with regards to your reactions, compared to the reactions I have received on message boards.
OWB: You like being ignored?
I don’t care one way or another. However, if someone is going to complain about my constantly hammering them, I’m going to remind them that ignoring me is an option. I say this knowing that those who complain about my not stopping are the very people who refuse to do what they insinuate or demand I do.
I’m having too much fun to stop.
OWB: You find some sort of perverse satisfaction attacking those who disagree with you?
Correction, I take sadistic pleasure in engaging in debates like this. I don’t engage in debates where the opposition knows more than me in. I engage in debates where I know more than the opposition, and where the opposition clearly doesn’t know what they’re talking about.
Their persistent reaction to my constantly hammering them exposes their psychological makeup. I leverage that knowledge to word my replies in a way that gets them to react in a way that is entertaining.
So far, it has worked like a charm on this thread.
OWB: You can’t be bothered to read the objections others have of your assumptions?
Do you not see how I’m taking you guys apart point by point? You do realize that by taking you guys apart point by point, I have to read your arguments, do you? You’re making pure, emotion-driven, arguments here.
The fact of the matter is that I’m going to read what the opposition says, in entirety, in order to rebut them.
OWB: If you would set aside you ego for a few minutes
The only person that’s letting ego in their way, between the two of us, is you. Dito with those on your side of the argument.
Ego is what’s driving you to zero in on the meme that I talked about, and not about the argument that I advanced. Ego is making you assume that I’m not reading the opposition’s replies… When in fact taking the opposition apart point by point requires a thorough reading of the opposition’s argument.
YOU need to put your ego aside and read what I posted with the intention of understanding what I am arguing. Your replies to me indicate somebody who is emotionally charged. There is no way that someone, reading my posts with a calm, level head, will come to the conclusion about my arguments that you are coming to here.
OWB: you might actually learn something from the folks who post around here.
Again, I don’t engage in arguments unless two conditions are met:
1. I have extensive first-hand/researched knowledge on the topic being argued and…
2. The opposition clearly does not know what it is talking about.
How, pray tell, could I learn something from the opposition when the opposition does not know what it is talking about? I won’t.
OWB: Acting like a bully only proves that you are a bully.
I’m sorry, but taking your arguments apart point by point does not make me a bully. It’s just me showing you that you have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about.
Bullying is insisting or hinting, that I stop doing what I’m doing in this argument to accept what you guys are saying, without you guys taking on the burden of proving your arguments. You guys continuously fail to prove your positions “right” or mine “wrong”. You have devolved to making even more erroneous assumptions about me and about what I am doing.
OWB: If/when you are correct you still lost the argument because you acted like a bully instead of a sane person with a valid point of view.
There is no “if” about this. I am correct. Nowhere, in any of these posts, have you or those on your side of the argument “proven” my argument “wrong”. In fact, the more you reply, the more you drift away from the real topic of the argument. That is not the action of someone who is “right” in the argument. That is the action of someone who reacts to losing an argument by utilizing the “step back and draw a new don’t cross the line” tactic.
Your insistence on a strawman indicates that you don’t care which side of the argument is right. It speaks volumes that you refuse to even address the argument that I advanced in the above post.
OWB: Put in simpler terms, no, none of us has to accept that anything you say is factual, well researched, or in any other way worth our consideration until you make a compelling argument for looking at your side of things.
This is another strawman that you’re advancing.
The cold hard reality is that I did, in fact, provide a compelling argument. Was Texas the only state that was a country before becoming a state? NO. Were the other states “nothing but land” before becoming a state? NO. I pointed out examples of how the other states were “nation states” before becoming states.
That is the CRUX of the argument, an argument that you’re avoiding. What you demand is that I address a strawman. You and those on your side of the argument have no intention of accepting anything that I say as long as I continue to contradict your arguments.
You are demanding from me the very actions you refuse to engage in.
OWB: Demanding our attention or respet is the least likely way to get it.
Wrong. What I’m doing is giving you guys the treatment that you guys are giving me. I could tell, by your reaction to how I treat you, that you don’t like the way you treat me. Again, I will great you guys the way you treat me. The ball is in your court.
Blah, blah, blah. More wishful thinking on your part. Thus proving several of my earlier points.
Thank you, besig.
If you read the post, that you replied to, with the intention of understanding what you were reading, you would not have come to that conclusion. Not wishful thinking, but a fact-based, reasoned logical argument.
No, I didn’t prove any of the points that you made earlier. The only points that I proved are the ones that I advanced. You, on the other hand, are demonstrating control and narcissism issues. Yes, saying, “Blah, blah, blah,” is a way for the ego to protect itself. What follows is spoken from a combination of the need for control and narcissism.
It also speaks volumes that you ignored my other post asking you a yes/no question. So, here it is again:
However, since you want to bring up the MEME, answer this question per the parameters that I set:
Now, do you still insist on doubting the existence of that “Texas as a country your state was just land” meme? YES [ ] NO [ ]
Copy and paste these questions and the associated yes/no options, to your reply. Put an “X” in the box that represents your reply. Spare me any additional explanation that you would want to give.
And:
Were the other states, “just land”, before becoming states? YES [ ] NO [ ]
Was Texas the only state that was a nation-state before becoming a state? YES [ ] NO [ ]
Copy and paste these two questions, in addition to the one above, to your reply. Type an “X” in the boxes that represent your reply. Spare me any additional explanation that you would want to give regarding these questions.
An Independence Day battle over the issue of sovereignty–how appropriate…
Boys, Boys, boys !!!
Behave when you post here, in 100 years nobody will know or even care !!!
Otherwise, you’re going to go see…
“The Penguin” !!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzXXJWBndmE&ab_channel=PotentiumPodcast
“I take sadistic pleasure in arguing”
“Tell that one brain celled activity of yours to quit trying to take you over and to start doing its job so that you don’t post as if a retarded ghost possesses you.”
“There are other things that I do, besides destroying people like you on threads like this.”
This constitutes conduct unbecoming an admin of this site. I never addressed the substance of your argument because I DON’T CARE one way or the other about your topic of debate. I’m addressing your conduct, for which you have ZERO justification. It doesn’t even matter WHAT you’re debating, nor does it matter whether you’re right or wrong. Animal is right–you’re being an asshole. If this is how you treat long-time forum members, most of us veterans, then you dishonor Jonn’s memory and all of the work he put into this site. I, for one, have lost every shred of respect I had for you.
This site is rapidly diminishing as a major voice in the fight against Stolen Valor. If the other admins (Dave Hardin, AW1ED, Ex-PH2, I’m looking at y’all) don’t put a stop to this behavior of yours, then you, thebesig, are going to be left talking to yourself. You will have single-handedly succeeded in doing the one thing that all of the posers on this site combined were never able to do–destroy TAH. Bernath is probably laughing in his grave.
Agreed
Eden: This constitutes conduct unbecoming an admin of this site.
You’re ignoring the other side of the argument. What I’ve also stated, which you’ve failed to quote:
“I’m going to treat people the way they treat me. You’re lamenting the ‘effect’ of the equation, but not the ’cause’.” – thebesig
I’ve stated this repeatedly. I’m sorry, but my status isn’t going to stop me from giving people a taste of their own medicine. No, my actions don’t constitute conduct unbecoming of an admin. If it does, then the actions of everyone here, including you, that I’ve debated against, constitutes conduct unbecoming of a long time poster, as well as that of someone who’s supposed to be a veteran/adult.
Eden: I never addressed the substance of your argument because I DON’T CARE one way or the other about your topic of debate.
False, You’ve refused to address the substance of my arguments because you don’t have an argument to make. However, you have a vested interest in the argument that I’m countering. You don’t care to come to terms with the fact that you don’t have a valid argument against the one that I’m making.
Eden: I’m addressing your conduct, for which you have ZERO justification.
You don’t have a leg to stand on when you consistently ignore the cause. I’m sorry, but the initial responses, from you guys, justifies the way that I’m responding to you guys. Insisting that I have “zero” justification for the way I’m replying to you guys ignores the role that you, and others, play that results in my responding the way I’m responding here.
Eden: It doesn’t even matter WHAT you’re debating,
If what I was debating didn’t matter, you, and to the others, you wouldn’t be replying to me the way you guys have replied to me. In fact, you guys wouldn’t even have participated on this thread.
Eden: nor does it matter whether you’re right or wrong.
Actually, it does. I’m right with regards to the debate, and I’m right with regards to the attitudes that you guys are displaying towards me. You guys are complaining about my “conduct”, yet say nothing about yours. It’s like blaming the red stove burner for constantly burning you every time you touch it.
Eden: Animal is right–you’re being an asshole.
Wrong. The only thing that makes me an “asshole” is my refusal to stand down on my end. You guys want to advance your arguments in a way that invites debate, then continued the debate with follow on responses, then you guys get mad when I reply.
Again, I’m going to treat the opposition the way they treat me. If anybody in the opposition, including you, doesn’t like what I’m doing, then the opposition needs to look hard at their own statements and at how they’re contributing to my hammering them the way I hammer them.
Eden: If this is how you treat long-time forum members, most of us veterans, then you dishonor Jonn’s memory and all of the work he put into this site.
Again, when Commissar first posted here, the only problem that many had with him was his persistence with replying to responses to him. Many here had issues with that, and some called for his banning. Jonn allowed him to keep posting his disagreements. It was when he did something, inconsistent with what I’m doing here, or with what he did originally, that caused him to be placed under moderation.
The opposition jumped on here and made initial comments, and continuation comments, that weren’t conducive to nonconfrontational exchanges. Nope, they came here making statements that invited debate.
I’m not going to let you guys treat me like a doormat simply because you guys are veterans, or have been long time posters here. My doing this doesn’t dishonor Jonn, see above explanation with regards to Commissar’s initial run here.
Eden: I, for one, have lost every shred of respect I had for you.
Your initial responses to me indicated to me that you never had any respect for me. Do I care if you have zero respect for me? NOPE.
Eden: This site is rapidly diminishing as a major voice in the fight against Stolen Valor.
Outside of actual posts involving stolen valor, I don’t see how participation on this thread, or on other non stolen valor threads, constitute a diminishing of the fight against Stolen Valor.
The reality is that we appear to be in a famine period with regards to stolen valor cases. This is a reality that would’ve existed independent of this argument.
Eden: If the other admins (Dave Hardin, AW1ED, Ex-PH2, I’m looking at y’all) don’t put a stop to this behavior of yours, then you, thebesig, are going to be left talking to yourself. You will have single-handedly succeeded in doing the one thing that all of the posers on this site combined were never able to do–destroy TAH. Bernath is probably laughing in his grave.
Let’s see:
Let “X” be your responses/oppositions responses.
Let “Y” be my counter-responses.
What’s occurring, above, is this: “If X, then Y:
You, and the rest of the opposition seem to have no problems advancing “X”, yet complain when “Y” results. You’re demanding that the others step in and “put a stop to this”, yet refuse to do what you have control over.
You don’t have control over what I do. I intend to keep hammering you. You do; however, have control over what you do… You have control over “X”.
Instead of demanding that someone stops “Y”, you, as a veteran/grown adult, should see the connection, then own up to your actions. Remove “X”, and “Y” doesn’t happen. No need to call on others, or on me, to stop “Y” in this equation.
Ignore me, and the argument stops. It’s that simple. You lament how I “treat other veterans/long time posters”, yet refuse to take action that shows that you know that you can’t control what I do, but you can control what you do. Want this to stop? Do something on your end.
What you’re essentially saying is that this site’s survival depends on my not hammering you every time you argue against me. This is precisely what Dan Bernath and the others wanted us to do… To stop hammering when we had the initiative on our side.
As usual, you completely ignore the primary point of the comment as well as subvert the details. Gee, why am I not surprised.
False. I addressed the poster with a point by point rebuttal. Not only did I address the main point, but also the supporting points.
I expected you to respond as if you didn’t read my post. Reading my responses without emotion would help you understand what I’m arguing.
You and Lars are cut from the same cloth. If this forum had a twit filter function, you would both be in mine.
You clearly didn’t bother reading, much less heeding, the admonition you received from Dave Hardin.
You didn’t post a rebuttal; you posted a completely unsupported diatribe of blather based in nothing but your own nonsensical fantasies about what I may or may not think. Don’t bother with another so-called “rebuttal”–I’m not going to read it.
Eden: You and Lars are cut from the same cloth.
“This site is rapidly diminishing as a major voice in the fight against Stolen Valor.” — Eden
In one of the other threads, Commissar advanced an argument that was very similar to that. He was lamenting the fact that he was getting the opposition that he was getting, and tying that into the discouragement of people from participating here. He even argued that if the individuals here did not “run the opposition off the board”, that “we could have some participation here”.
In fact, he provided information related to this site’s Alexa rankings. He provided numbers of how the sites numbers were declining.
Meaning, you are incorrect. Neither Lars nor I are “cut from the same cloth”. However, based on my debunking him as I’ve debunked you, I could definitely say that both Commissar and you are cut from the same cloth. Heck, both the Cheese Monster and you are cut from the same cloth.
I have dismantled their arguments just as I’ve dismantled yours here. There is not that much difference between your apparent demeanor, and apparent psychological profile, and those of either Blobfish or Commissar.
Both Lars and you mentioned something about the “diminishing participation” with regards to the site. Both of you guys did so in the face of getting hammered.
Eden: If this forum had a twit filter function, you would both be in mine.
Yes, judging by your actions, you would do the very things that others have done. I’ve lost count of how many times I have been put on “ignore”. Those who put me on ignore brag about it. Then, they jumped into the thread and argued against something that I said… As if their ignore button was broken. I enjoyed calling them out on this in my counter rebuttal.
The trend of your actions here would show that even though you would have me on “ignore”, you would still see what I posted before you logged into your profile.
Eden: You clearly didn’t bother reading, much less heeding, the admonition you received from Dave Hardin.
First, did Dave say the following:
If you don’t like what someone posts…don’t read it or respond to it. YES [ ] NO [ ]
If “yes”, include this follow-on question to your reply:
Did you heed the admonition you received from Dave Hardin (see previous question)? YES [ ] NO [ ]
Copy and paste those two questions, their yes/no options, and the sentences preceding them, to your reply. Place an “X” in the box adjacent to the applicable answer. Spare me any additional explanation that you would want to add to these questions.
Second, I read his post. What I said above:
“I don’t get into debates to persuade the opposition to my side of the argument. I already know that they’re not going to change their positions.” — thebesig
In doing this for over 15 years, it didn’t matter how I presented my disagreement against the opposition elsewhere, or with that of the other opposition here. The opposition is going to see the mere fact that I’m disagreeing with them in a way that they can’t logically argue back, as offensive.
I could disagree with you guys as nice as one could disagree with someone, and it wouldn’t matter. Those who have absolutely no intention of changing their position are going to get triggered by disagreement no matter how nice it’s delivered.
Third, as I repeatedly pointed out on this thread, nobody in the opposition has control over what I do. However, they have control over what they do. You appear to be focused on what you do not have control over. This indicates control issues driven by narcissism. Otherwise, you would not have a needed to respond to me… An action that would spare you additional counter rebuttals.
You have no leg to stand on reminding me of what Dave Hardin said when you disregarded what he said that applied to you.
Eden: You didn’t post a rebuttal; you posted a completely unsupported diatribe of blather based in nothing but your own nonsensical fantasies about what I may or may not think.
False. I presented a rebuttal. In that post that you replied to, I argued that I expected you to respond as if you didn’t read my post. That has been applicable throughout the thread. That is very applicable to this post.
My arguments are based on fact, reason, and logic. This has been consistent on this thread. This has been my mode of operation in nearly 16 years of debating against the opposition online.
Likewise, you are no different from countless others that I have debated in the past. Your reactions are the same, many of your arguments were also the same. You’re not the first one to demand that I stop.
Folks here are definitely not the first to attempt to get admin/mod support in an attempt to muzzle the person handing them their ass in a debate.
A lot of what you said here, and elsewhere on the thread, looks like it came from the same playbook used by those that I debated against in the past.
Eden: Don’t bother with another so-called “rebuttal”–I’m not going to read it.
Again, you don’t have control over what I do. I, on the other hand, have control over what I do. And, my intent is to continue to provide counter rebuttals to your rebuttals. I intend to do the same with the rest of the opposition. See X/Y analogy above.
This is just another ploy that you are using to try to throw me off your tail. Countless others have made the same demands of me in the past. I disregarded every single last one of them, just as I am disregarding you now.
I predict that you are going to reply to me and in doing so, prove me right and you wrong regarding what you would do.
In addition to the above, answer these questions:
Were the other states, “just land”, before becoming states? YES [ ] NO [ ]
Was Texas the only state that was a nation-state before becoming a state? YES [ ] NO [ ]
Copy and paste these two questions to your reply. Type an “X” in the boxes that represent your reply. Spare me any additional explanation that you would want to give regarding these questions.
For the record, thebesig is not an Admin. He merely has the ability to post articles.
I read most everything posted here.
If you don’t like what someone posts…don’t read it or respond to it.
I am the Admin here, but Jonn gave him posting privileges.
I don’t agree with all kinds of things that are posted here, nor do I have to.
Lastly, I have no idea why some people have their panties in a bind over this. I am really sorry, and I do sincerely mean that, but the fucks to which I do not give on this matter cannot be adequately conveyed.
If I am doing something that seems to be pissing everyone off, I tend to reflect more about how I am delivering my message than its accuracy.
It is possible to deliver an unpopular view without alienating your audience, an most often more productive.
Best Regards to All.
Out of curiosity, who ARE the current admins (besides yourself)? I don’t recall seeing a list.
I am he …
Thanks for the clarification. I had the idea that others (AW1Ed, Ex-PH2, etc.) were admins as well.
Dave, the crucial thing I’m interested in is whether or not you read my personal message on the “Thursdays are for cooking” segment. Much more crucial than all this sound and fury.
For what it’s worth, thebesig sounds to me like an equally compulsive, albeit conservative, Lars.
Much as I like to write, I simply couldn’t put that many words on the screen in one day.
Poor Ed,
I try not to read too much into anyone’s soufflé
Wait. You can read? Thought youse jarheads had to have crayons and pictures…mwahaha
LOL! One time in the field I positively amazed an infantry 0-6,that I, a lowly cavalry 0-3 type actually READ!
Am I just being branch centric, or is there some irony there?
I’ve argued against Lars more thoroughly than others here. There’s a strong similarity between Commissar’s actions, and that of those that I’m debating against here. I’ve even shown one of the posters that I’ve responded to how their reply matches the one that Lars gave when faced in a similar situation.
Lars, like the opposition, did not pursue the argument in the face of constant pushback. Had the opposition possessed the facts, and I didn’t, then the opposition would’ve done the exact same thing to me had I done what the opposition here has done.
For example, a review of past threads where phonies came here and argued persistently shows that pretty much a large percent of the posters here are just as compulsive as others claim Lars and I are.
Just ask folk like the Cheese Monster, who managed to have thousands of replies to posts related to him. He feels about this community the way some here feel about me. He did complain about the refusal of many here to drop the subject on him.
Dave Hardin said:
For the record, thebesig is not an Admin. He merely has the ability to post articles.
Well in that case, I retract my niceties.
Oh boy, now the gloves come off…
Based on his performance on this thread, those debate gloves would’ve been a step up, as his debate knuckles would be akin to something people pour dishwashing soap onto in order to wash dishes.
Time to put your dicks back in your pants, boys. Nobody cares whose is bigger.
Wasn’t Hawaii its own Nation prior to becoming a State?
Yes, and it was at one time referred to as the Sandwich Islands by the Brits.
And the only state that has a royal palace.
Only if you attribute the same status to the Choctaws, Cherokees, Chickasaws, Creek and Seminole, not to mention the numerous plains and mountain tribes, most if which now bear the formal, if greatly vitiated, designation of “nation.” Hawaiian’s, like North American tribes, were considered aboriginals and not accorded “nation” status until and unless it served the purposes of the American federal government.
I’m a through and through conservative, and no bleeding heart, but having been raised in the former Indian Territory, and spending some of my adult life on and around reservations, I can assure you, no peoples ever got screwed out of their homelands and their way of life any more thoroughly than our North American tribes.
Sadly, their only recourse has been revenge through House Odds.
Yup, my 14th star was a republic and now a nice beer.
My apologies
GahDAMN, what a load of verbal diarrhea…
And yes, Texans often say that Texas is the only state to have been a prior country. But what do I know, only been here since ’85.
That was NOT a post by post rebuttal to Eden. It was a scream at everyone telling us that you are right and no one else has an opinion, especially if it differs from yours. You are the sort that will keep arguing on and on and keep proving to everyone that you are, in fact, an intolerant asshole!
Andy: That was NOT a post by post rebuttal to Eden.
False. I advanced a point by point rebuttal to Eden. Anybody reading my replies, with the intention of understanding what they are reading, would come to this same conclusion, not yours.
In fact, it is the opposition that dismisses or denies that I had advanced a point by point rebuttal. I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve been in the situation where I advanced such a rebuttal… Just to have the opposition say the same thing then that you guys are saying here.
At the same time, those on my side of the argument described this same argument as indeed a point by point, fact-based, reasoned, well thought out, etc., logical argument.
Like clockwork, those who support the opposition, or those among the opposition, are going to insist on what you insisted here. However, you like the others here, are wrong.
Andy: It was a scream at everyone telling us that you are right and no one else has an opinion, especially if it differs from yours.
First, what you’re dismissing is a fact-based, reasoned, logical argument that countered Eden’s argument, done so point by point. Backing my position this way is not me telling others that I’m right and that others can’t have their own say.
Second, if I didn’t want others to have their own opinion, I would simply delete what they said from this thread… Or from any other argument that I have on my other threads. I didn’t.
Nowhere in any of the above posts do I argue that nobody else could have an opinion. If you’re coming away with that assumption, it’s because your ego wants you to argue, but common sense/logic is telling you that you’d get crushed by a blistering fact check scrutiny.
I have every intention of providing counter rebuttals to the opposition. You guys don’t have any control over that, but you have control over whether or not you’re going to provide an environment where the counter rebuttals keep coming.
Andy: You are the sort that will keep arguing on and on and keep proving to everyone that you are, in fact, an intolerant asshole!
And this bothers you, doesn’t it? Absent from your complaint is the action of the opposition. Nowhere are you complaining about the fact that the opposition is doing its part to keep this argument going. No, you’re not complaining about how they keep going on. Your only issue is the fact that I keep arguing.
This shows that you are clearly on the side of the opposition. If you’re having trouble understanding why I keep going, while completely disregarding what you and others on your side of the argument are doing, then zero in on the fact that you are ignoring the faults of those that you support.
I mentioned above how the opposition could do something on their end that would stop these rebuttals. It is an action that they have complete control over. This is simple common sense, not rocket science.
What makes me an “intolerant asshole”, in your eyes as well as that of those that I am arguing against, is the fact that I refuse to back down. This is based on the fact that you’re only complaining about my persistently arguing. You’re not complaining about the other side continuing to argue. Your actions indicate that you want the other side to keep arguing.
If my consistently providing a counter-rebuttal bothers you, nobody is forcing you to read any of my responses. If; however, you are unable to resist the urge to read my posts, nobody is forcing you to reply. However, if you are unable to resist the urge to reply to my posts, you do not have a leg to stand on when I provide a counter-rebuttal.
Meanwhile, the next time you reply to me, answer these questions:
Were the other states, “just land”, before becoming states? YES [ ] NO [ ]
Was Texas the only state that was a nation-state before becoming a state? YES [ ] NO [ ]
Copy and paste these two questions, in addition to the one above, to your reply. Type an “X” in the boxes that represent your reply. Spare me any additional explanation that you would want to give regarding these questions.
And here I thought this thread was about Texas.
More like I walked into a bar and some one said “Niagra Falls”………
https://youtu.be/VuBtURtFNX8?t=1
Or a baby nuke walked into The Hub in Idaho Falls back around 1987, sniffed, and hollered, “I smell sheep shit!”
No matter how many times it happened, it never ended well.
Never ended well, but always fun to watch from a secure corner table!
Or you could do what that witless idjit used to do when he was in the chow hall in Vietnam: stand up in the middle of a meal and yell “Legs Suck!’ just to start a fight. He’s even stupider now.
You learned, huh? LOL
And I heard that Alaska was trying to divide itself in two, just so Texas will be the 3rd largest state. Had a room mate from Houston. You didn’t have to ask where she was from she happily told you, sort of like a naval avaiator.
Wow…when I started reading this, I thought it was going to be an ‘interesting history’ thread. Boy was I wrong.
So, besig, this here little goat rope of yours is based upon a made up Texas history meme, that you saw on FB. Then you decide to bring your debate er goat rope, over here, knowing you were going encounter resistance and critical responses to such.
Bear with me… In my time on-line, I’ve known one or two people with vast on-line debating experience. So, I suspect you and myself know each other.and the other party I’m thinking of, lived in upstate New York. That said, lets move along through the haze gray hallway.
Dickweeds, pay attention.
So, doc I’m gonna call you doc, because besig is like dumb. Now, pay attention here because you know I ain’t gonna repeat myself. Okay you know I was an MP. And MP’s are known for what through out both branches of jar heads and grunts? Being nosy and attentive.
Fine, so you found a meme on Texas history to debate, its too bad you didn’t follow through on your supposed research with the official authority (since 1867) of Texas History, the Texas State Historical Association (TSHA). You might have learned something more that you did.
Texas history is also a bit complicated and is why you should have used TSHA. Texas was constituted a Republic
same as California. Nothing to do with the US at the time, though Texas did have representatives in DC.
https://tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/mzr02
Were the other states, “just land”, before becoming states? YES [ ] NO [ ]
Was Texas the only state that was a nation-state before becoming a state? YES [ ] NO [ ]
Copy and paste these two questions, in addition to the one above, to your reply. Type an “X” in the boxes that represent your reply. Spare me any additional explanation that you would want to give regarding these questions.
streetsweeper: :So, besig, this here little goat rope of yours
This isn’t a “goat rope”. This is an organized, methodical, well-thought-out fact-based, reasoned, logical argument. Back and forth between the opposition and me follows a pattern.
streetsweeper: is based upon a made up Texas history meme, that you saw on FB.
The meme isn’t made up. It exists. I asked one of the debaters a question that challenged their doubts of the existence of this meme. I knew for a fact that a quick check via internet search would’ve proven that the meme existed. It took seconds for me to find it.
streetsweeper: Then you decide to bring your debate er goat rope, over here,
False. The debate, not goat rope, began here. It did not start elsewhere just to be delivered here.
I tend to do additional research on things as I see and on things that I read. I saw this meme on Facebook. I knew, right off the bat, that it did not reflect reality.
I went back to refresh, and to expand, my knowledge on that topic. Result? I had a topic idea for a post to generate for Independence Day.
streetsweeper: knowing you were going encounter resistance
I saw this as a possibility. As I argued above, two criteria had to be met before I generate a post, or jump into an argument. One of those is that I have extensive experience/knowledge of the topic that I post or argue about. The other is that the opposition would clearly not know what they would be talking about if they wanted to argue against me in the topic.
streetsweeper: and critical responses to such.
None of the responses that I have received here, or in any other argument that I was engaged in, qualified as “critical response”. Instead, the response that I have received, either in response to my original post or in response to something in the thread, reflected a painful lack of knowledge in the topic area on the part of the opposition.
streetsweeper: Bear with me…
That’s a given. Given my trend on this thread, on other threads here and elsewhere, I “bear” with those who respond to me in order to generate the reply to them.
streetsweeper: In my time on-line, I’ve known one or two people with vast on-line debating experience. So, I suspect you and myself know each other.and the other party I’m thinking of, lived in upstate New York.
The only area that I know you in is this website. Likewise, the other people that I’ve debated against also have vast online debating experience. Unfortunately, those that I have debated against have consistently practiced poor debating tactics during their years debating. This shows in their responses. See the second criteria above.
When I state that I have debated for almost 16 years, I’ve done so methodically, using a system, doing research beforehand, finding trends in data, etc.
streetsweeper: That said, lets move along through the haze gray hallway.
Yes, let’s continue this debate.
streetsweeper: Dickweeds, pay attention.
Based on what you have stated on this thread so far, it does not appear that you paid attention to anything that I said on the thread. Likewise, you have not paid attention to the mistakes that the opposition has made above. You are making some of those mistakes here.
streetsweeper: So, doc I’m gonna call you doc, because besig is like dumb.
If I were inclined to believe anything that you said without your proving your case, and had you not made the mistakes that you made in your response above, this one statement would have killed your chances.
The term “thebesig” or “besig” is a name pulled from a traditional story that I came across during one of the times that I went overseas. It’s not dumb.
streetsweeper: Now, pay attention here because you know I ain’t gonna repeat myself.
Considering that I could read your statement, there would be no need for you to repeat yourself. I can simply reread the statement. I did that last night, I did that today. No need for you to do anything extra on your end.
streetsweeper: Okay you know I was an MP. And MP’s are known for what through out both branches of jar heads and grunts? Being nosy and attentive.
The MPs I knew did investigations. The kind of investigations that, if you were to do the same thing, would not have made the argument that you made here. Otherwise, your “nosiness” and “attentiveness” would have led you to see that I was arguing two points. I will address this below.
streetsweeper: Fine, so you found a meme on Texas history to debate,
No, I found a meme that served as a catalyst to research the claim made on that meme. I followed that up by generating the above post. I see each post, and response, as a potential for debate. Not always an “intention” to debate. However, once the debate gets underway, then the following responses are the “intent” to debate.
streetsweeper: its too bad you didn’t follow through on your supposed research
There is no “supposed research” about this. I did my research, additionally, I have read related topics in the past. The more accurate term would be “actual research”.
First, someone being “nosy” and “attentive” would have gathered the following two-part theme that the above post is centered on:
1. The other states were not “just land” before becoming a state.
2. Texas was not the only state that was a nation-state prior to entering the union.
Any information not related to supporting these two parts of the theme is not relevant. The above post was not intended to go into detail about Texas’s overall or general history. I read the link that you provided, it was a review of what I already knew. Additionally, your link does nothing to argue for, or against, the theme of the above post.
Second, the delivery style that you chose, to deliver your argument, would have guaranteed my not reading your link had I just been looking for topics on history to read.
You, as an MP, trained in interpersonal relations to include influencing and persuading people to take a certain course of action, would not have used nonapplicable statements like, “goat rope”, “besig is stupid”, “you didn’t follow through”, “supposed research”, and others… If you wanted me to read that link.
In addition to being inaccurate, these statements have a tendency to make your message result in someone taking action other than what you wanted them to take. It was my motivation to debunk you that made me read that link. It was nothing but a strawman.
Again…
Were the other states, “just land”, before becoming states? YES [ ] NO [ ]
Was Texas the only state that was a nation state before becoming a state? YES [ ] NO [ ]
Copy and paste these two questions, in addition to the one above, to your reply. Type an “X” in the boxes that represent your reply. Spare me any additional explanation that you would want to give regarding these questions.
Did I miss where Hawaii was mentioned? Perhaps a better claim to nationhood than California.
No, it’s right here, up above: https://www.azuse.cloud/?p=88540&cpage=1#comment-3232326
There’s also a hyperlink in the above post that leads to Hawaii.
The_blowhard wrote:
Neither you, nor anybody else that I have argued against here, has advanced a valid argument against me.
OK then genius, why did you edit the title of your post several months ago to include the word “conspiracy”? You fucking jackass. You know damn well why you did it. Because SOMEONE ELSE took you to school. And yet, even though you edited your own words in accordance with what THEY pointed out TO YOU, you still fucking argued with them and insulted them…like the good little one-trick pony that you are.
I find it hilarious when you claim that your language and punctuation are used with precision to elicit emotional responses from your “opposition”. If it is so fucking precise, then why are you constantly editing your own shit?
You are the Dunning Kruger Effect, personified. And, congratulations…because of your own words and behavior, you are now equated with Commissar by at least three people here at TAH. That’s quite the fucking accomplishment. My only hope is that you (like Lars) never led men.
GDContractor: OK then genius, why did you edit the title of your post several months ago to include the word “conspiracy”?
In every instance where I have changed a title, or someone else changed the title, it wasn’t a result of an argument. Pointing something out in the title is NOT an argument.
Cheese Slayer: You fucking jackass.
Denny? Is this you? Like blobfish, your need for control is such that you’ll call people, that you can’t control, names constantly throughout your response. Lots of anger and control issues with you.
GDContractor: You know damn well why you did it. Because SOMEONE ELSE took you to school.
First, pointing out something in a title is NOT an argument. What you quoted from me:
“Neither you, nor anybody else that I have argued against here, has advanced a valid argument against me.” — thebesig
Second, if you assume that pointing something out in one of my titles amounts to a “valid argument”, then you clearly are not reading my statements with the intention of understanding what it is you’re reading. You’re driven by a narcissistic level of anger and control that you’re desperately trying to find something to “prove me wrong”.
In this case, you haven’t. If you need me to explain what a strawman argument is, let me know. You’re making one and appear to not realize it.
Third, nobody schooled me on anything. That would be as idiotic as claiming that someone “schooled me” when they pointed out that I forgot to cross my “T”.
GDContractor: And yet, even though you edited your own words in accordance with what THEY pointed out TO YOU,
There’s a colossal difference between changing a title (not a response to an ongoing argument), and an ongoing argument. My statement was applicable to an ongoing argument. You’re attempting to splice two different arguments into one statement.
GDContractor: you still fucking argued with them and insulted them…
Because in the area that I argued with them about, they were indeed wrong.
Blobfish: like the good little one-trick pony that you are. [REPEAT POINT]
Says the narcissistic guy with control and anger issues. Again:
There are other things that I do, besides destroying people like you on threads like this. My performance here shows that I’m willing to engage in one of the things that I do. Anybody that assumes that my actions here shows that this is the only thing that I know how to do is making a narcissistic assumption.
GDContractor: I find it hilarious when you claim that your language and punctuation are used with precision to elicit emotional responses from your “opposition”.
No, you don’t find it hilarious. Your narcissism is such that you refuse to see that you could be indirectly controlled by what you read… That I, like a puppet master, could get you to react a certain way.
There’s no claim about it. There’s a purpose behind every word, sentence, paragraph, etc., that I use. I will say things in combination with my argument based on the psychological makeup that the opposition is exposing.
The opposition reacts exactly the way I expect them to react… Every… Single… Time…
The tactic that I’m using against you is one that I’d use against a narcissistic, controlling, anger issue profile. It’s working like a charm, your latest post is an example.
GDContractor: If it is so fucking precise,
Don’t confuse “precision” with “strategic use and placement of words, sentences, etc.” The “precision” comes in the end… Where the opposition reacts the way I expect them to react.
Your attitude on this thread is such that I know that I control you even when I’m away from the computer. I live “rent free” in your head. Result?
One of the reasons to why I take sadistic pleasure with debating the opposition.
GDContractor: then why are you constantly editing your own shit?
Again, you’re confusing a title fix with an argument. There’s a difference between the two with regards to my statement about the opposition not advancing a valid point.
What I stated above, with regards to your statement on Facebook:
First, none of the editings involved changing my position in the argument.
Second, the vast majority of the times that I’ve edited my posts, after replying, it was to fix something that had nothing to do with the argument. For example, adding a period, adding quotation marks, swapping out words, rephrasing a sentence, etc.
Third, the other times I’ve edited a post was because the post posted without my being ready for it to post. This is a problem that occasionally happens when I type instead of use speech to text. Hit “enter” on Facebook to generate another paragraph and you will end up generating a post when you didn’t intend to. In this situation, you have to go in and complete the post then post it the way you intended.
Fourth, none of what I changed had anything to do with what was said in response.
The fact that you’d ignore these proves that you have control issues. The fact that you’d try to use this as if I was trying to cheat proves your narcissism. Otherwise, you’d recognize that maybe, just maybe, I posted too quick, or posted a word that I didn’t intend to use.
GDContractor: You are the Dunning Kruger Effect, personified.
“The Stanford Prison Experiment is a perfect example of what thisainthell is.” — Dennis Chevalier
Yes, just like Blobfish/Cheese Slayer, you erroneously tack a label onto the opposition that not only refuses to be controlled, but hands your ass to you in the process. Both of you guys missed the mark, but neither of you guys cared as both of you wanted to regain control.
Second, identifying what I’ve done, and what I do, based on patterns, trends, and to what I could point to, doesn’t constitute “an illusion” of being better. Your narcissism, anger issues, and control issues would much rather dismiss me as such than to come to terms with the fact that you have no real argument. You’re desperately trying to regain control in a situation where you’ve lost control. Your ego won’t accept that.
Cheese Slayer: And, congratulations…because of your own words and behavior, you are now equated with Commissar by at least three people here at TAH.
You mean, multiple people, all arguing against me, all equating me with Commissar? Color me surprised. 🙄 That’s as idiotic as bragging about the opposition all upvoting a comment that one of their own made. 🙄
The cold hard reality is that unlike you guys, I’ve debunked Commissar the way I’ve debunked you guys. It’s one thing to have people, driven by ego and the need for control, call me something, but it’s another thing to actually be the person that you claim I’m like.
You guys are not that much different from Commissar or from Dennis Chevalier. You, and the others here, demonstrate the narcissism that both displayed, you guys demonstrate the control issues that they displayed. You guys display the anger issues that Dennis Chevalier displayed in a way that made Commissar look mild in comparison.
GDContractor: That’s quite the fucking accomplishment.
Getting you to react precisely the way I wanted you to react is quite the accomplishment.
GDContractor: My only hope is that you (like Lars) never led men.
I’ve led men most my military career… Up to 30 men at one point.
Based on a review of Commissar’s profile, it appears that he has led men throughout a good percent of his military career.
I’ve led men in Iraq, Commissar has led men in Afghanistan.
The fact that I’m willing to go by the facts with someone that I’ve debated against the way I’m debating against you… Where you refuse to do the same… Speaks volumes to the anger issues, control issues, and narcissism issues that you possess.
In fact, your hoping that neither of us have led men in the past speaks volumes of the fact that you are what you’re accusing me off with regards to the Dunning-Krueger effect.
I highly recommend that you get help with your anger issues, and with your control issues.
I remember one Facebook post that you made complaining about the fact that a bunch of Facebook users followed you from another site just to say things on your wall. I wouldn’t be surprised that if I were to read what you said, and how others reacted to you there, that these other people following you to your own wall to argue with you would be understandable.
Now, answer these questions the next time you reply to me:
Were the other states, “just land”, before becoming states? YES [ ] NO [ ]
Was Texas the only state that was a nation state before becoming a state? YES [ ] NO [ ]
Copy and paste these two questions, in addition to the one above, to your reply. Type an “X” in the boxes that represent your reply. Spare me any additional explanation that you would want to give regarding these questions.
Wow. That’s awesome. 27 more pathetic paragraphs of your bloviating bullshit that I won’t read. Keep talking!
let’s see, you “won’t” read anything that I say, yet you would respond. This is an action of somebody that I would expect to be driven by narcissism, the need for control, and having anger issues.
You dismiss an argument, destroying yours, yet you do nothing to provide a valid argument supporting your non-defendable argument.
What you dismiss as “bloviating bullshit” is a fact-based, reasoned, logical argument thoroughly destroying your own argument. It’s much easier for you to dismiss it as above then it is to come to terms with the fact that you cannot defend your own position.
The fact that neither you nor anybody in the opposition, has answered my questions per the parameters I set is indicative of the fact that you guys have absolutely no confidence in the baloney that you guys keep pedaling on this thread.
Just for posterity, here’s a link to one of The_Blowhard’s greatest hits (which I referenced above).
https://www.azuse.cloud/?p=84564#comment-3200437
A reference that happens to not support the argument that you made above. I read through all the comments in that link, before generating this post. What I found through reading the comments months after I read them the first time:
1. As I mentioned above, there is a clear difference between changing a word in the title and an ongoing debate. What you did above was to create a straw man, attempting to argue that changing the title of my post constituted an argument. It didn’t. That argument started below the post.
2. Just as I argued above, nobody schooled me in the debate. After reading this argument months after reading it during the debate, I could see that I crushed the opposition more than I thought I did while engaged in that debate.
3. One common theme, between the opposition there and the opposition here, is a general lack of tact. This is one of the variables, to both debates, that the opposition here either refuses to see or is completely blinded by ego that they don’t see that.
4. The opposition here feigned indignation on how I treated the opposition over there. Meaning, they were there to witness the debate going on. Yet, they sat there and did nothing. They watched him get shoved through the meat grinder and did nothing to argue on his side.
I had gotten into debates with other veterans/long-standing posting members in this website after the one in the link. Neither you nor the rest of the opposition here said anything with regards to my debates against those others.
Heck, where were all of you guys when I engaged in debate with Dave a few years ago? That was more heated than either the one that you linked to, or than this thread. In fact, that specific debate made both of these thread debates look like a “Ladies tea drinking social” in comparison.
Just where were you guys at when I was posting not just one long post, but a series of long posts in sequence in response to the opposition’s single post?
The cold hard reality is that through your actions, you guys proved that you don’t really care about those whom I’ve debated against in the past. At least, not until I started to hammer you guys. Then, it became a problem in your eyes, as well as that of others on your side of the argument.
5. Out of all the opposition here, you’re the only one that jumped into the other debate; however, it wasn’t to join the opposition against me. You jumped in to fellate the one that was getting shoved into the meatgrinder.
Yep. You’re an asshole! Confirmed!
Keep talking. You’re wearing me down! Moron.
Sometimes, when you open your mouth, Dennis Chevalier comes out:
“These fools are truly morons!” — Cheese Eater
“…so they cannot go on to contaminate the rest of the world with their moronic buffoonery.” — Blobfish
“Like I said, you are the biggest collection of retards and morons in the world” — Cheese Slayer
“Well guess what asshole.” – Denny
I’m going to provide an analogy describing your actions, as well as that of the opposition.
You’re like that person that looks at the stove and sees that one of the burners is red, and “glowing”. You walk up to that stove, touch that red stove burner, flinch in pain, pull your hand back, and then get mad. In this scenario, you scream at the red stove burner, complain that it was hot, and demand that it stop burning you.
Then, you reach out and touch the red stove burner again. As with the last time, you snap your hands away and get mad again. You scream at the stove burner again and demand that it quits burning you when you touch it.
Then, you reach out and touch it again… Repeat cycle indefinitely. Throughout the scenario, you keep complaining about the “hot stove burner”, you complain about its burning you constantly, and say all sorts of negative things about it, but refuse to entertain that one action that would prevent your hands from being burned.
In this scenario, you are not able to turn the stove, or its burner, off. There is only one option to prevent your hands from burning, and it does not involve powering down the stove or turning the burner off.
Yet, you reach out and touch the red stove burner again. You couldn’t resist that nice red glow.
That is how I’m seeing the opposition here. You guys stumble over each other pounding BS into the table. Then, when you guys get demolished like playground children that had the wind knocked out of their arguments, you guys do the equivalent of calling the victor “stupid”.
Your side of the argument has no argument. Instead, you guys resort to ad homonyms and strawmen to make up for a lack of such argument… As opposed to advancing them in combination with a valid argument. In other words, your side of the argument is attempting to baffle the audience with BS. Then, when that attempt is destroyed with a blistering fact check scrutiny, your side of the argument does the equivalent of stomping around like a two-year-old having a terrible two tantrum.
You’re still going on about this?
You go back and read your posts and touch yourself don’t you.
Yep, David Carradine style I’m guessing. That whole “sadistic pleasure” thing, and mommy didn’t love him enough.
GDContractor: Yep, David Carradine style I’m guessing.
“David Carradine style” would describe my destroying your arguments, as well as that of those on your side of the argument. All of you guys are pounding BS into the table, in an attempt to baffle the audience… To make up for the fact that your “argument” consists of nothing but name throwing and strawman arguments. No fact, no real substance.
GDContractor: That whole “sadistic pleasure” thing,
Yes, I take sadistic pleasure in taking the opposition’s arguments apart, point by point, then watching their reactions.
Those with narcissistic, anger and control issues utilize the same ploys that I’ve seen previous oppositions utilize over the past 15+ years… The amusement that provides me never gets old or tiring.
Your reactions, as well as those of the others I’m rebutting, shows that you guys aren’t used to getting pushback. This was true of those that I argued against in the past. The crap that you guys pull out of your asses, in a desperate attempt to regain control, is funny.
There are even times when I’ve laughed at what I said in my response, after I logged out from the computer, knowing how that’s going to make the opposition feel.
GDContractor: and mommy didn’t love him enough.
My hammering you guys is completely dependent, in part, on what you guys say, and is independent of what my family relationships were like. You, on the other hand, come across as someone that has issues with not getting his way.
The_douche_sig said: You, on the other hand, come across as someone that has issues with not getting his way.
And yet, I’m not the one throwing a hissy fit because you’re not putting an “X” in a particular box.
Wrong, that’s not me throwing a hissy fit. The opposition’s failure to answer those questions is an impact indicator.
I keep asking those questions, and then remind people about their not answering those questions, because I know that they will refuse to answer those questions. Why? The answers to those questions, per the parameters that I set, destroys the opposition’s arguments.
When the opposition ignores those yes/no questions, they’re telling me that they have narcissistic, anger, and control issues. The latter, “control”, drives the negative actions that some people engage in when they don’t get their way.
If the opposition answers those yes/no questions, per the parameters that I set common sense dictates that there would be no other reason for the opposition to continue to engage in debate. They would have lost effective the correct responses to those questions.
This is based on similar reactions while debating this on other threads during the previous years.
You see, when the opposition avoids those questions, they prove my point about them not having an argument and knowing that reality. Likewise, the more they ignore those questions, the more rapid their credibility erodes.
Whether the opposition answers these yes/no questions per the parameters I set, or not, is damaging to the opposition. I keep pointing out that failure, and keep reminding the opposition to answer the questions, because I know the opposition does not like to be reminded of how wrong they are.
They want those questions to be forgotten, or to disappear. I intend to keep those questions “in the front”.
Are you the one deleting comments?
Animal: You’re still going on about this?
First, how about asking, “You guys are still going on about this?” You know, since it takes two sides of the argument to keep the argument going? You probably know that, and see that, but only have issues with me defending my position and destroying the opposition in the process.
What I said to you earlier on this thread:
“You come back and reply, I provide a counter-reply. Do you see a pattern here? You can’t control what I do, but you most certainly can control what you do on your end.” — thebesig
Second, what you said earlier:
“I’m done with you.” – Animal
To which I responded:
“I predict that you’re going to prove yourself wrong by coming back to reply to something that I said… Or replying to me indirectly.” -thebesig
If you can’t get right what you would do, what makes you think that anything else you said would be right? Even when it comes to what you’d do, you got it wrong and I got it right.
Others have done this exact same thing over the years; hence, my statement predicting that your actions would prove your statement wrong. Whatever your intent was, with making that statement, was doomed to failure. So, I’m going to ask you the same thing that I asked them when they did the same thing:
Were you wrong about your claims of “being done” with me? YES [ ] NO [ ]
Was I right about your coming back to reply to something I said? YES [ ] NO [ ]
Copy and paste these questions to your reply, along with the YES/NO responses. Put an “X” in the box that represents your reply. Spare me any additional argument that you’d want to make with regards to this.
Animal: You go back and read your posts and touch yourself don’t you.
On the part of going back and reading my posts, yes, before I post them. Then, after the fact, when I need to reference them. I did that here to show you that you were wrong and that I was right about what action you’d take. Then, after the opposition gives up the debate, only occasionally.
On the part about “touching myself”, no.
I do take sadistic pleasure in destroying your arguments, as well as that of the opposition. This pleasure is not sexual in nature. It is similar to the fun I have doing other activities. I love reading the responses of those whose arguments are destroyed.
In fact, anticipating just how sensitive and offended you guys are to being subjected to a fact check scrutiny makes me feel like a kid on Christmas morning before the presents are to be opened.
With that being said, here are more questions for you to answer:
Were the other States “just land” before becoming states? YES [ ] NO [ ]
Was Texas the only state that was a nation-state before becoming a state? YES [ ] NO [ ]
Copy and paste these questions to your reply, along with the YES/NO responses. Put an “X” in the box that represents your reply. Spare me any additional argument that you’d want to make with regards to this.
thebesig: I’d have to read it first so this is just words to fill in something.
1. Fuck
2. Off
You’re full of it if you expect me, or anybody else, to believe that you don’t read any of my posts. I highlighted the questions in bold blue. Even if you were to scroll past it, you would have a hard time not seeing those questions.
Your denial of reading the post is just you giving yourself the excuse to remain in an argument that you have lost. You know, as well as I do, that the simple answers, to those questions, destroys your argument. By logical extension, your answering those questions would remove the purpose of your continued participation.
However, you have control issues and your narcissism would not want to recognize that. Instead, your driven to keep arguing just to have a sense of control.
I do have a question though.
Comments are disappearing on this thread.
You wouldn’t happen to have the ability to delete those comments would you?
I noticed that too. Particularly Eden’s comment: “Um, what dick?”
The_douche_sig probably deleted them. The edit button is his best friend. I went back and checked a Facebook “debate” I had with him and he deleted some of his own comments there too, the pussy.
I deleted three comments from this thread that had nothing to do with the debate. Normally, I would not have done that.
This thread is under a higher level of moderation than the other ones that I have started. The chief reason for this is that someone ran to the site admin, and complained about my debate tactics. Admin subsequently contacted me.
This changed the game plan for moderation on this thread. Normally, I would’ve hammered those posts with a counter insult… Hammering the opposition harder. However, with this thread being previously reported, I did not have that leverage. Had they advanced an argument in those posts, they still would’ve remained up.
Otherwise, I’m generally more flexible with regards to what kind of statements could remain on my threads.
Like Chevaliar, like GDliar.
I know for fact that I did not delete any of the comments that I made in the debate that I had against you. I am a fanatic about ensuring that my counter rebuttal remains against the opposition’s rebuttal. Deleting one of my counter rebuttals would leave one of the opposition’s rebuttals unchallenged. That is completely out of the question for me.
If they don’t show up on your end, there’s a good chance that you deleted them from your view. If you did that, those posts would still be visible to my friends and to me.
Additionally, as I mentioned above:
First, none of the editing involved changing my position in the argument.
Second, the vast majority of the times that I’ve edited my posts, after replying, it was to fix something that had nothing to do with the argument. For example, adding a period, adding quotation marks, swapping out words, rephrasing a sentence, etc.
Second, the other times I’ve edited a post was because the post posted without my being ready for it to post. This is a problem that occasionally happens when I type instead of use speech to text. Hit “enter” on Facebook to generate another paragraph and you will end up generating a post when you didn’t intend to. In this situation, you have to go in and complete the post then post it the way you intended.
Third, none of what I changed had anything to do with what was said in response.
The fact that you’d ignore these proves that you have control issues. The fact that you’d try to use this as if I was trying to cheat proves your narcissism. Otherwise, you’d recognize that maybe, just maybe, I posted too quick, or posted a word that I didn’t intend to use.
And that’s bullshit. That in itself should get your posting privileges revoked.
Not bullshit, but cold hard fact. The information that I provided you is based on a combination of knowledge of how things are done in the background here, as well as what my mindset was as of the time I took the action.
In other words, I know what my cognitive process was during that time, and you don’t. Your narcissism, anger issues and control issues would disagree with that and insist on what you argued above.
The fact you would be dismissive of this speaks volumes to the fact that you have control issues. You want to control the direction that this debate is going. Likewise, you want to minimize the risks and impacts of your actions.
You know you can’t effectively engage in this argument. So, you’re pulling your stunts to make up for that.
I was wondering about that, as well.
Genius that he is, he probably misconstrued your comment to imply that he (The_douche_sig) has no dick. (Hey, if the truth hurts!)
… which reminds me of a Ghostbusters scene.
False. I knew who it was intended for. Again, since someone reported this thread to the Admin contact, and I got contacted, an exchange of message occurred. Once “eyes” are put on a thread like what happened in the aftermath of that reporting, more policing has to occur. I deleted that, as well as the other two posts, for being outside of left/right limits.
You refuse to answer my questions, yet here you are asking me a question. If I were to answer a question, would you even read it? After all, you are claiming that you are not reading any of my replies. The fact that you are asking this question indicates that yes, you are indeed reading my replies.
I saw this question last night when you post that. However, I did not respond to it just to see what you would do afterwards. If you were not blinded by ego and the desire for control, you would notice that if you were to post something at the same time, or around the same time, the somebody else post something in the same thread, in the same vicinity, there would be a chance that your post would be “nowhere to be found”… As if it disappeared.
Nothing of that sort happened, the thread adjusted and updated right after you made your post. If you quit beating yourself off, quit being emotionally charged when you read posts that trigger you, and focused on what you are doing to include paying attention to what’s going on, you would have noticed that.
I’ve deleted three non-debating posts from this thread. I did that a day or two before my last batch of replies. As of the time you posted that question, no, I didn’t delete any posts from this thread.
I’m not answering your questions dumbass. You’re not very quick are you.
You’re allowed to post stories. You’re not an admin.
Time for your privileges to be revoked. Only admins are supposed to decide who’s comments are appropriate.
Animal: I’m not answering your questions dumbass.
You’re not answering simple, straightforward questions that I ask that only require a yes or no. The reason you refuse to do so is that you know that the correct responses destroy the arguments that you support. I’ll ask these questions multiple times knowing full well that the opposition will not answer them. The later speaks volumes about the opposition, including you.
Animal: You’re not very quick are you.
Correction, I choose to do what I want to do and not what you want me to do. What you want me to do is to quit asking you questions related to the argument when you advance an argument in support of the opposition. My continuing to ask you these questions, knowing that you would not answer them, speaks volumes about the lack of confidence you have in your own argument.
You’re left with dodging the question, and resorting to insults. These are traits of a narcissistic person with control and anger issues. My refusing to do what you guys want me to do drives you guys up the wall. Knowing how you guys are reacting to this does bring great pleasure.
Animal: You’re allowed to post stories. You’re not an admin.
Who should I listen to? Admin, or you? When I first came on board as a blog article contributor, I spoke to Admin by phone. According to this conversation, and what is available to me and to the other editors, we are also authorized to do the things that we have been doing… Including the one thing that you complain about. Garbage posts not constructively contributing to the argument are that, garbage. Despite that, I only deleted three, none of them actually engaging in debate.
Animal: Time for your privileges to be revoked.
You’re not speaking for this website, nor are you speaking for the administrator. You are just speaking for yourself. You want my privileges to be revoked because I’m not doing the things that you want me to do.
If you are going to exercise poor judgment, to include debating with somebody that is able to perform moderator functions, that is on you. I have previously debated, on other forms, against administrators and moderators.
I did so knowing full what they were able to do. I didn’t make demands of them as if they worked for me rather than the message board.
You, on the other hand, are acting like a spoiled brat kid who wants things to go his way. Your real issue isn’t with the post deletions… It’s with the fact that I refuse to back down from this argument.
Animal: Only admins are supposed to decide who’s comments are appropriate.
The one admin, mentioned above, delegated that to the rest of us. So, are you telling me that you are overruling the one that identified himself as the sole admin? Are you telling me that in addition to doing stolen valor investigations, that you want him to take up additional duties that was normally delegated to the rest of us?
He made clear what posts wouldn’t be appropriate to delete… Posts that harms one’s world view. None of the posts deleted did that. Heck, none of the posts advanced against me harmed my position.
If you had access to the trash folder, you would find that when it comes to deleting posts, I am not in the lead. In fact, I rarely delete posts.
So from the choice of graphic we’re all supposed to assume thebesig considers himself the most interesting man in the world?
It also seems to me a fundamental mission of a weblog is to attract and retain readers such those who might donate to the tip jar. It’s not to run them off with abrasive and tedious comment gibberish highlighted in blue. What’s also likely is that the reason others don’t jump in to defend those who don’t agree with you, or Lars, is because they don’t want to get caught up in the tarbaby of your delusions.
I’d also venture that the premise of your original post was a troll intended to pick a fight. What some random and unidentified dipshit said on social media about Texas being the only independent republic is mostly irrelevant. Anybody who knows anything about history would likely say it might be somewhat true but shaded with a certain amount of nuance and context. Which amounts to water off a duck.
Point being the only one creating a straw man argument is you.
If we’re going to have a poll on this stuff, here are the questions I’d like to see answered:
Has thebesig always been a pompous and fatuous asshole? YES [ ] NO [ ]
Is thebesig more crazy than a pet raccoon? YES [ ] NO [ ]
Has thebesig always been a pompous and fatuous asshole? YES [X ] NO [ ]
Is thebesig more crazy than a pet raccoon? YES [ X] NO [
I have some real questions to ask you:
Were you wrong about your claims of “being done” with me? YES [ ] NO [ ]
Was I right about your coming back to reply to something I said? YES [ ] NO [ ]
Were the other States “just land” before becoming states? YES [ ] NO [ ]
Was Texas the only state that was a nation-state before becoming a state? YES [ ] NO [ ]
Copy and paste these questions to your reply, along with the YES/NO responses. Put an “X” in the box that represents your reply. Spare me any additional argument that you’d want to make with regards to this.
Listen master bater, I’m still not reading your responses.
Are you the one deleting comments?
If you’re not going to read my responses, why are you even asking me a question? This is indicative of somebody who has control issues. You are making demands on this thread instead of simply playing along and being observant. You’re the same guy that refuses to answer questions you know would destroy your argument and your purpose for continuing to argue.
AS TO question #1: Yes, always.
AS TO question #2:
AYE. But raccoons are clever, something the Lars clone lacks.
Perry, I wish you could have seen his drivel regarding the SCOTUS Barnette decision, posted on Facebook. It was absolutely breathtaking in its ignorance. But, he’s done “extensive research” so…he’s right and everyone else is wrong.
You make a salient point about the tip jar. One I had already given some thought to.
This idiot (the_besig) has his own blog. Hopefully he will go there to continue his “sadistic pleasure” of “crushing the opposition”. The only thing his blog lacks is readers. I wonder why….
GDContractor: AS TO question #1: Yes, always. AS TO question #2: AYE.
False on all accounts. These question are invalid, and assumes emotion based opinion as “fact”. However, those with narcissism, anger, and control issues would see these question as “making sense” and would answer “yes” to them.
GDContractor: But raccoons are clever, something the Lars clone lacks.
Says the guy that, if he were to slightly get dumber than what he is now, would start photosynthesizing.
GDContractor: Perry, I wish you could have seen his drivel regarding the SCOTUS Barnette decision, posted on Facebook. It was absolutely breathtaking in its ignorance.
Wrong, the ignorance was on your side, and it was willful/willing ignorance. You cherry picked statements from the SCOTUS decision. However, when I found your cherry-picked statements in the full decision, further reading lead to a statement, not far from where you cherry picked your quotes, that supported my argument and destroyed your argument.
GDContractor: But, he’s done “extensive research” so…he’s right and everyone else is wrong.
In this specific example, you showed desperation and cherry-picked statements that appeared to support your argument. By themselves, they didn’t support your statement. I jumped to the actual decision and saw how your selective reading was glaringly obvious. I did the reading that you didn’t want to do and found statements that supported my argument and not yours.
GDContractor: You make a salient point about the tip jar. One I had already given some thought to.
So have Commissar and Dennis Chevalier:
“A blog with healthy discourse and useful information INCREASES in popularity over time. Your rabid protectiveness of your echo chamber is causing the blog to become irrelevant.” – Commissar
“They saw what you did to those two (yes David and Linda are real people I work with and are friends with.) and expressed fear of retaliation by (TAH) ” – Dennis Chevalier
Perry Gaskill, Commissar, Dennis Chevalier, you, and others that point to “treatment of people that causes them to go elsewhere” made those points in the face of being destroyed in argument.
Nobody is driving you guys off the board. What’s happening is that those that are getting destroyed in the argument are getting angry that they can’t get their way. You guys want to comment, but seriously lack confidence in your argument that you know that you risk a blistering fact check scrutiny. When faced with such scrutiny, you want the opposition to “let off” and to “let your BS stand”.
The opposition, getting destroyed, has two options. The first is to stay and fight, and consistently be subjected to a blistering fact check scrutiny. The second is to decide not to be subjected to that blistering fact check scrutiny by taking a common-sense course of action.
If people are dumb enough to say certain things that would get them to be pulverized in debate, then they need to be man, or woman, enough to take what’s coming. Talking about a mass departure, in the face of getting destroyed in argument, is a refusal to acknowledge personal responsibility.
GDContractor as Blobfish: This idiot
All you have is calling me an “idiot”. You, on the other hand, act and argue like an idiot.
GDContractor: (the_besig) has his own blog. Hopefully he will go there to continue his “sadistic pleasure” of “crushing the opposition”.
Why would I continue this argument over there when you guys are replying over here? If you were to reply to me over there, then yes, I’d be continuing the argument over there. However, you guys are responding to me here; hence, my counter rebuttals taking place here.
If you weren’t on then verge of photosynthesizing, you’d know that.
GDContractor: The only thing his blog lacks is readers.
False. People do read my blog. The most popular blog posts are the ones on the guy that you remind me of, Dennis Chevalier, and on the post that I have about military correspondence.
In fact, I know that your counterpart also checks my blog, as he imitated one of my profile descriptions on one of his own Facebook pages… changed to reflect what he does.
GDContractor: I wonder why….
Blobfish, stick with me, FOCUS! [Snaps fingers in front of GDC.]
If your head wasn’t floating due to its emptiness, you’d know the difference between people responding to a blog post, and people reading a blog post, then say that nobody responds to my blog posts.
I’m not pushing that blog out in an attempt to gain an audience. That doesn’t stop some of my blog posts from showing up on internet searches, or people from reading some of the blog posts.
Isn’t it ironic that the only response that’s been given in the affirmative in this thread is that you’re an asshole?
Given that the opposition has colossally failed in this argument, to include being unable to answer simple, straightforward, yes/no questions directly related to the debate… In addition to my constantly hammering the opposition and holding their feet to the fire with regards to yes/no questions, it would be natural for the opposition to consider me an asshole.
I haven’t read anything you’ve written since the first paragraph of your original post. I just see you’ve posted in the comments and stoke the fire again. Perry hit on a valid point of all this. Two actually, but they both lead to the same thing. Your credibility has taken a serious hit over the last couple of days. Every time someone comments you come right back and show your ass again.
Nobody cares about your original post. It was a silly thread to begin with.
Hey, I’ll even be magnanimous and say you’re the master bater, I mean debater. You’re proving a point, I just don’t think it’s the one you think you are.
Animal: I haven’t read anything you’ve written since the first paragraph of your original post.
First, if this were true, you have just invalidated your previous replies. A reading of your original replies here shows that you read not just my original post, but also some responses to those who argue against me. Additionally, I could tell by your last series of replies that you did indeed read my replies.
Like the others before you, faced with simple straightforward questions that required only a yes or a no, you conveniently claim that you did not read any of my replies.
This gives you the excuse, or implied excuse, to keep posting. Otherwise, if you were to answer the questions per the parameters set, you know that you would effectively destroy not just your argument, but the purpose for you posting here. Your narcissism, and desire for control, would not allow that.
Second, I am generating these replies using Dragon NaturallySpeaking speech to text software.
Animal: I just see you’ve posted in the comments and stoke the fire again.
No, I posted in the comments to respond to those that responded to me. This is a fact that you apparently are refusing to acknowledge. As usual, you are blaming the effect while ignoring the cause.
The arguments here indicate that what you want to happen is for me not to provide counter rebuttals. Guess what? I have every intention of providing counter rebuttals, ad infinitum.
Animal: Perry hit on a valid point of all this. Two actually, but they both lead to the same thing.
False. Perry provided multiple invalid points, all strawman arguments. Nowhere, in his reply, did he address the main themes of the blog post. He also showed frustration over the questions that I asked that nobody among the opposition wants to answer.
Despite his tap dancing, it is obvious that he knows the implication of answering those questions per the parameters set. Those questions are the crux of the argument. Any other topic outside of that is nothing but a strawman.
Animal as Baghdad Bob: Your credibility has taken a serious hit over the last couple of days.
This statement is precisely like the statement that Baghdad Bob made claiming one victory over another when it was clearly evident that they were being defeated.
No, my credibility has not taken a serious hit over the past two days. Given that the opposition’s refusal to answer my yes/no questions, per the parameters that I set, it’s not my credibility that took a hit.
Every time the opposition refuses to answer my yes/no questions, per the parameters that I set, they lose their credibility. Likewise, every time I take their argument apart, they lose their credibility.
Those questions are the crux of this debate. The opposition’s insistence on remaining in the debate, while refusing to answer those questions, speaks volumes about the erosion of their credibility.
It also speaks volumes to the fact that the opposition has little to no confidence in their own arguments.
Animal: Every time someone comments you come right back and show your ass again.
Here, let me explain cause and effect to you.
Let “X” be your argument, as well as that of the opposition.
Let “Y” be my response to you as well as my response to the opposition.
A simple observation of what is occurring on this thread, as well as the one linked to here, is this: “if X, then Y.”
Let me rephrase this. “X” is the action, and “Y” is the consequence or reward. Your side takes action, and I responded in kind.
You guys are consistently complaining about the fact that “Y” is consistently being advanced while ignoring the fact that “X” was previously advanced.
The solution in this case is simple. If the opposition doesn’t want me to hammer them, then they need to quit giving me something to dismantle.
It’s a simple concept.
You, as well as those arguing against me here, insist that I refrain from providing the consequence to your action. This is indicative of someone with control issues. Narcissism drives your side’s refusal to acknowledge this “cause and effect” relationship.
If you want me to stop doing what I enjoy doing, all you have to do is remove the “X”. Hence, if not “X”, then not “Y”. The opposition here controls themselves; they do not control what I do.
I have every intention of providing you guys a counter rebuttal… ad infinitum.
Animal: Nobody cares about your original post.
If nobody cared about my original post, nobody would have responded. Additionally, nobody would have even tried to argue against it. They’d simply abandon my thread. Your just being dismissive of this post simply because neither you, nor those on your side of the argument, are able to effectively argue against it.
Animal: It was a silly thread to begin with.
You’re dismissing as silly something that you cannot argue against. You also dismissing as silly something that you cannot control. It bothers you that those that you support, and you, have no initiative or control on this thread. It bothers you that this thread is not going in the direction that you wanted it to go to. It’s like a kid describing something as “stupid” in reaction to not getting his way.
Animal: Hey, I’ll even be magnanimous and say you’re the master bater, I mean debater.
What’s with your obsession with activities related to masturbating? Does your father know that you are monkeying around on the computer instead of doing your homework and getting ready for the next day’s summer school class?
Animal: You’re proving a point, I just don’t think it’s the one you think you are.
Denying reality does not get rid of that reality. The fact that you guys refused to answer my yes/no questions, per the parameters that I said, speaks volumes to the fact that I am effectively debating against your side of the argument.
Were you wrong about your claims of “being done” with me? YES [ ] NO [ ]
Was I right about your coming back to reply to something I said? YES [ ] NO [ ]
Were the other States “just land” before becoming states? YES [ ] NO [ ]
Was Texas the only state that was a nation-state before becoming a state? YES [ ] NO [ ]
You have no idea how much it warms my heart to be able to type one line after seeing you’ve commented without reading a word of it and know that you spent all that time responding. Priceless.
Animal. Is he wearing you down? 🤣
You: Shuffles cards… [pulls “I’m making you type long” card out]… Makes idiotic self-consolation prize comment.
Correction, you can’t engage in the original debate, you are proving your inability to engage in the topic that the debate shifts you, and now you’re at reduced capacity. However, given your control and narcissism issues, you want to spin this as if you are engaging in a methodical debate tactic. You aren’t.
No, it does not take me “all that time” to respond. Again, I’m using Dragon NaturallySpeaking to dictate my responses. It does not take me long to voice my rebuttals.
Additionally, if you’re not reading my posts, you wouldn’t even be stating exactly what, in the post, you’re disagreeing with. You claim that you’re not reading my posts, but your actions indicate that you are.
Perry Gaskill says: So from the choice of graphic we’re all supposed to assume thebesig considers himself the most interesting man in the world?
False. “The Most Interesting Man” has become a meme… One that takes the original script and changes it to reflect a talked about topic, or issue. What I used above is a perfect example… The erroneous description replaces “beer”, and the actual event replaces his choice of beer.
It is a way to use humor at the expense of the referenced person/people while getting a reality across.
Those who know me face-to-face would see your descriptions of me as patently false. Your side of the argument does that in response to my consistently destroying your arguments. You guys erroneously assume that you are giving an accurate description, when in fact your egos are protecting you from reality and your desire for control causes you to pull straws.
Perry Gaskill says: It also seems to me a fundamental mission of a weblog is to attract and retain readers such those who might donate to the tip jar. It’s not to run them off with abrasive and tedious comment gibberish highlighted in blue.
First, what someone else said when they found themselves in a similar situation:
“This blog went from approximately 76,000 ranked in the world to ranked under 430,000 in just a few years… Your rabid protectiveness of your echo chamber is causing the blog to become irrelevant.” – Commissar as Cthulhu
Yes, Commissar made the same argument in the face of getting hammered.
Second, if you and others arguing against me were concerned about “people being ran off”, you guys will not be doing your part of this interaction. Your side of the argument refuses to acknowledge that it takes two sides to keep an argument going.
You are lamenting the fact that I keep coming back and hammering the opposition. Yet, ignore the fact I am responding to something that someone, on your side of the argument, said.
Let me simplify this for you.
Let “X” be your argument, as well as that of the opposition.
Let “Y” be my response to you as well as my response to the opposition.
A simple observation of what is occurring on this thread, as well as the one linked to here, is this: “if X, then Y.”
Let me rephrase this. “X” is the action, and “Y” is the consequence or reward. Your side takes action, and I responded in kind.
You guys are consistently complaining about the fact that “Y” is consistently being advanced while ignoring the fact that “X” was advanced.
The solution, in this case, is simple. If the opposition doesn’t want me to hammer them, then they need to quit giving me something to dismantle.
You, as well as those arguing against me here, insist that I refrain from providing the consequence to your action. This is indicative of someone with control issues. Narcissism drives your side’s refusal to acknowledge this “cause and effect” relationship.
If you want me to stop doing what I enjoy doing, all you have to do is remove the “X”. Hence, if not “X”, then not “Y”. The opposition here controls themselves, they do not control what I do.
Third, by implying that my actions are “driving people away”, while refusing to acknowledge what I just explained with my second point, you are essentially saying that the opposition’s participation here is predicated on their being able to say whatever they want without having to suffer the consequences of their statements.
This is a theme that I find existing among leftist groups, like Antifa, the Free Stuff Army, Black Lives Matter, etc.
Fourth, you complain about my “tediousness” and “abrasiveness”. Yet, you say nothing regarding this blatantly being displayed by those that I’m arguing against. This clearly shows that you’re biased in favor of the opposition.
I addressed the part about “tediousness” in my third point above. As for the “abrasiveness” that you’re complaining about. As I argued above, I’m going to “return the favor” with regards to how others interact with me. I’m going to treat them the way the treat me. If you’re not going to address their abrasiveness, you have no leg to complain about regarding this coming from me.
Fifth. What you dismiss as “gibberish” is a factual argument. The opposition clearly isn’t going to change their position. They clearly are triggered by opposition, especially continued opposition.
I know, for a fact based on 15+ years of debating like this, that the opposition will get offended by an opposing view regardless of how nice it’s presented. That has been the case here, that has been the case elsewhere.
The mere fact that their being disagreed with is going to trigger them. No matter what. That’s a fact.
Perry Gaskill says: What’s also likely is that the reason others don’t jump in to defend those who don’t agree with you, or Lars, is because they don’t want to get caught up in the tarbaby of your delusions.
False. I have a good idea of why people refuse to jump in. But first, a couple of quotes by others who said something driving towards something similar to what you were getting accross:
“A blog with healthy discourse and useful information INCREASES in popularity over time. Your rabid protectiveness of your echo chamber is causing the blog to become irrelevant.” – Commissar
“They saw what you did to those two (yes David and Linda are real people I work with and are friends with.) and expressed fear of retaliation by (TAH) ” – Dennis Chevalier
Your statement, as well as that of Commissar and of Dennis Chevalier, advanced a very similar concept in the face of being overwhelmingly hammered. Both of them had an argument to advance, but felt that they could not pursue the arguments further than what they were able to do.
The reason?
Pushback. But, not just any pushback, pushback that destroyed their arguments. Herein lies the reason to why others do not jump in to argue against me.
Although I don’t agree with much of what Commissar said, I could tell that he advanced a better argument than some among the opposition did. If I could tell if someone on the other side of the argument is hammering someone that I agree with, then certainly those among the opposition seeing their allies getting destroyed in argument would know that they would suffer the same fate if they attempted to roll out an argument that they don’t have total confidence in.
There’s nothing “delusional” about something that could be seen and observed.
Perry Gaskill says: I’d also venture that the premise of your original post was a troll intended to pick a fight.
Your assumption is seriously in error. Why? I know exactly what my thought process was from the time I first saw that meme, to the time that I generated the above blog post. Meaning, I know what goes on in my mind, and on why I do things. You don’t.
It wasn’t to start a fight, but to provide information.
Not going forward with a post unless I am able to defend it is not me picking a fight. It is just me being prepared in case there is an argument. And, if one occurs, that I can crush the opposition.
Perry Gaskill says: What some random and unidentified dipshit said on social media about Texas being the only independent republic is mostly irrelevant.
False, it is extremely relevant. When somebody posts a meme on their wall, and they get likes. And then, a search on the Internet for similar memes provides results, to include recommendations being provided before the search string is completed, that is an indication that this is not an isolated event.
Perry Gaskill says: Anybody who knows anything about history would likely say it might be somewhat true but shaded with a certain amount of nuance and context. Which amounts to water off a duck.
First, people interested in history are not in the majority. They are in the minority. It gets worse with the younger generations. Antifa is a good illustration of this, where people utilize fascist tactics in what they believe is a fight against fascism… Based on their understanding of history. Do you honestly think that folks like this would think of this in terms of “certain amount of nuance and context”? Most wouldn’t. The lack of knowledge with regards to history is phenomenal.
Second, whether those who would know otherwise would look at that and not take issue with it is not relevant. The first point provides the reality that ties into the original blog post.
Perry Gaskill says: Point being the only one creating a straw man argument is you.
False, you’re the one advancing the strawman. The fact that you’d make that assumption clearly shows that you don’t understand what a straw man argument is. So I’m going to simplify that concept.
Let “A” be the argument that I advanced.
Then, “B” is the counter-point that you made in your argument.
You proceeded to argue against “B”.
You conclude that “B” is wrong, as if it were “A”.
You avoided the questions that I asked the others, which is the crux of the argument. This alone shows that you intended to advance a straw man argument.
Perry Gaskill says: If we’re going to have a poll on this stuff, here are the questions I’d like to see answered:
Your poll/questions are pure garbage. I will demonstrate that by addressing each one.
Perry Gaskill says: Has thebesig always been a pompous and fatuous asshole? YES [ ] NO [ ]
This question is invalid.
First, it takes two erroneous assumptions that you have and makes the assumption that they are “true” when the facts indicate otherwise.
Second, you proceed to ask a question assuming as “fact” something that is clearly false, and only “fact” because someone’s emotion/feeling “says” or “thinks” so.
Your question is equivalent to somebody asking you if you have stopped abusing animals… Yes or No… This question ignores whether you have abused them or not, and is designed to force the respondent to chose only from two erroneous options.
This is exactly what your question does.
My questions are simple, not got you, yes/no, questions that only has one right answer… Based on fact.
Perry Gaskill says: Is thebesig more crazy than a pet raccoon? YES [ ] NO [ ]
This question is also invalid. Like the first question, it erroneously assumes a false conclusion as “true”, then provides options that force the respondent to choose the erroneous assumption.
The cold hard reality is that these are not based on fact. They’re based on emotional assumptions. Neither of these questions would pass muster in a graduate-level, or doctoral level research class. Likewise, a researcher wanting to do research, involving questioning people, would have their research shot down by an ethics review committee for phrasing questions the way you phrased them here.
It’s obvious that you saw my questions, and refused to answer them. Doing so, per the parameters that I set, would have destroyed the oppositions, and your, arguments. But, you refused to do so, conveniently ignoring them instead.
So, since you have joined the opposition, and you have seen my questions, I’m going to keep asking you these questions for as long as you keep ignoring them:
Were the other States “just land” before becoming states? YES [ ] NO [ ]
Was Texas the only state that was a nation-state before becoming a state? YES [ ] NO [ ]
Copy and paste these questions to your reply, along with the YES/NO responses. Put an “X” in the box that represents your reply. Spare me any additional argument that you’d want to make with regards to this.
Wow. That was breathtaking in its stupidity!
Keep talking!
False. That was a fact-based, reasoned, logical argument. You did nothing to effectively counter anything said in the post that you applied to. Instead, you resorted to the mentality of a child on the playground who had not gotten his way, or who had lost a game in place of actually presenting a debate.
I know your age, based on one of your Facebook comments. You’re way too old to be acting like a juvenile.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DpZcM6_WkAAEDRX.jpg
Only 2 paragraph reply? You disappoint me. At least throw in some blue font next time.
The length of my reply is dependent on the length of the post that I am replying to. It is also dependent on the points that you guys make.
Isn’t it ironic that every one paragraph that we post gets a 17 paragraph reply, by the moron that is supposedly “wearing us down”.
Isn’t it ironic that the only little bitch that stomps her feet because we won’t put a check mark in a box is the same little bitch that accuses everyone else of narcicism, anger, and control issues. 🤔
Hey douche-sig, how many people visited your blog today?
Ironic doesn’t even begin to explain it.
It is truly sad when someone prefers negative attention to no attention at all. Very, very sad.
What are those rules again about editing stuff? I find it pretty much impossible to believe that the originator of this place would permit someone who removes comments he doesn’t like to continue to hold the ability to do so.
Meanwhile, this display of whatever it should properly be called will not result in more respect for the provocateur. Running off long time members and reducing the discussion of even the most benign topics to ego driven tirades is not good for TAH.
Also, my apologies to all for my contribution to feeding the troll. Sometimes you just gotta. (Yeah, it was fun. If the fool had more sense he would see that he was had by multiple commenters. Not possible in his delusional world.)
OWB: Ironic doesn’t even begin to explain it.
No, not ironic. The people that I’ve debated here have been no different from those that I’ve debated against in the past. More on this as I dismantle the rest of your drivel.
OWB: It is truly sad when someone prefers negative attention to no attention at all. Very, very sad.
Again, I take sadistic pleasure in destroying the opposition like what I’m doing here. There’s a purpose behind everything that I say in response. The reactions that I get expose the oppositions psychological profile. I use that information to “adjust fire” and continue to get them to react a certain way.
I get a kick out of this. Negative attention? Nope. Entertaining? Yup.
OWB: What are those rules again about editing stuff?
What the admin/editor sees is needed. I’ve seen posts, deleted by the others, that had left me scratching my head as to why they were deleted. However, I trust the decision made by the one that deleted those other posts.
I rarely delete posts compared to what others have deleted.
OWB: I find it pretty much impossible to believe that the originator of this place would permit someone who removes comments he doesn’t like to continue to hold the ability to do so.
I only deleted three comments, three that didn’t have anything to do with the debate. Given the fact that someone complained in a way that got admin involvement, I’ve stepped up the policing that occurs on this thread.
OWB: Meanwhile, this display of whatever it should properly be called will not result in more respect for the provocateur.
Based on both your actions, and statements, as well as that of the opposition, it’s clear that what you’re really arguing is that I wouldn’t get respect unless I stopped hammering you guys. You want to argue, but don’t want a counter argument.
Again, nobody is telling you, or anybody else, to read anything on this thread. However, if you and the others can’t resist the urge to read what’s posted here, then nobody is telling you guys to reply. However, if you guys can’t resist the urge to reply, then you have no place to complain when the counter rebuttal hits.
OWB: Running off long time members and reducing the discussion of even the most benign topics
You’re still here, and so are the others that I’ve debated against are still here. If I ran you guys off, you guys wouldn’t be posting on this site. However, you guys are still here. This is an indication that you guys don’t care about “those others being ran off the board”.
Those mention this point are doing so for the same reasons these two mentioned a similar concept:
“A blog with healthy discourse and useful information INCREASES in popularity over time. Your rabid protectiveness of your echo chamber is causing the blog to become irrelevant.” – Commissar
“They saw what you did to those two (yes David and Linda are real people I work with and are friends with.) and expressed fear of retaliation by (TAH) ” – Dennis Chevalier
Both Commissar, and Dennis Chevalier, were getting their hind ends handed to them when they mentioned these statements.
You, like them, had your argument thoroughly destroyed. In response, you act like a martyr and try to tie this in with “driving people off the board”.
Your actions make that one comment invalid.
OWB: to ego driven tirades is not good for TAH.
The ego isn’t on my side of the argument, it’s on yours. Ego is what makes people complain about others replying, while ignoring the fact that they, and those on their side of the argument, keep the argument going.
Ego is what prevents you from answering the questions that I ask per the parameters that I set. Ego is what drives you to complain about my actions while ignoring your own contributing actions.
OWB: Also, my apologies to all for my contribution to feeding the troll.
You don’t mean those apologies. You’re just saying that for self, serving, purposes.
OWB: Sometimes you just gotta.
In your case, you were driven by narcissism to remain in an argument where you’ve consistently been dismantled and proven wrong.
OWB: (Yeah, it was fun. If the fool had more sense he would see that he was had by multiple commenters.
Wrong. This isn’t what’s going on at all. No, you weren’t having fun. Your responses indicated anger and frustration. I’ve lost count of how many times the opposition ran that explanation to cover up for the fact that they got destroyed in debate.
Like you, they demonstrated anger, and control issues, with their replies, then turned around and try to make it that they were “making me do this all along.” Like you, they pulled this card in frustration over the fact that I kept hammering them.
Claiming that you guys “had” me instead is your control, and narcissism, pushing through. You guys never did.
Again, I take sadistic pleasure in doing this. There’s a purpose behind every word, sentence, and paragraph that I use in debate. There’s a purpose behind what I say as well. Not only am I gunning to destroy the opposition’s argument, I do so in a way to get the opposition to react a certain way.
In the case of everybody that I’ve dismantled here, who replied, my tactics worked like a charm. You guys reacted, and argued, exactly as I expected you guys to argue.
I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve broken into laughter when I mentally go back over what I said… Anticipating how the opposition would react.
OWB: Not possible in his delusional world.)
The only person that’s delusional, between the two of us, is you. You’ve pulled the same tactics and ploys others have pulled in an attempt to get me to stop hammering them. It’s like you guys are passing the same playbook around.
Delusion also occurs when you don’t expect a counter rebuttal, then complain about the fact that you get a counter rebuttal… Expecting said counter rebuttal to stop.
Were the other States “just land” before becoming states? YES [ ] NO [ ]
Was Texas the only state that was a nation-state before becoming a state? YES [ ] NO [ ]
Copy and paste these questions to your reply, along with the YES/NO responses. Put an “X” in the box that represents your reply. Spare me any additional argument that you’d want to make with regards to this.
It’s hilarious that he apparently believes, (incorrectly, of course) that we are debating his original premise. Most of us have ZERO interest in his original premise (as well as ALL of his “arguments” in defense of that premise). We are all addressing his behavior and treatment of others, which he claims (again, incorrectly) is due only to our refusal to debate him in a way that he deems appropriate. In actual fact, he has been a douchebag from his original article to his last post. He refuses to understand and accept that WE DON’T CARE about his article or his debate. The ONLY reason any of us continue to post on this thread is that we just want him to stop being an asshole. And he thinks we’re the ones with anger issues. What a joke he is.
Eden: It’s hilarious that he apparently believes, (incorrectly, of course) that we are debating his original premise.
False. Your initial post complained about one of the criteria that I use to engage in debate. Both criteria ensure that if the opposition tries to argue, they’d be dismantled. That’s what you had an issue with when you jumped on here. A reading of the entire thread would show that people did try to argue against the premise of the original post.
I’m basing this argument on what anybody could read above.
Eden: Most of us have ZERO interest in his original premise (as well as ALL of his “arguments” in defense of that premise).
False. If you guy shad zero interest in my argument, you guys wouldn’t have posted here at all. If you guys had zero interest in the balance of my arguments on this thread, you guys wouldn’t have responded at all. Period.
You guys couldn’t take on the original argument, or the follow on arguments in defense of the original argument. So, you guys made up for that by advancing strawmen.
Eden: We are all addressing his behavior and treatment of others,
Wrong. Some complained about the way I hammered the opposition, others tried to engage in the debate.
Second, you complained about my treatment of others, but ignored the fact that I’m going to treat others the way they treat me. Any attempt to get sympathy for the former, without recognition of the later, would be “dead on arrival”.
Eden: which he claims (again, incorrectly) is due only to our refusal to debate him in a way that he deems appropriate.
False.
I stated two main things above. One, that I’m going to treat people the way they treat me. Two, that the opposition refuses to engage in debate without advancing strawmen arguments. There are other main things that I argued.
Eden: In actual fact, he has been a douchebag from his original article to his last post.
Herein lies the flaw that invalidates your entire argument, and stated purpose, on this thread. No, this isn’t about how I treat others, you don’t care about that despite what you claimed.
The reality is that you disagreed with the original blog post. You found yourself in position to where you couldn’t effectively debate against it. However, being that you have control issues, you found another way to bellyache. The result is the codswallop that you call your replies.
Eden: He refuses to understand and accept that WE DON’T CARE about his article or his debate.
If you guys didn’t care about the above blog post, or the debate that followed, then you guys wouldn’t be posting here. You guys would’ve abandoned this thread a long time ago.
However, your actions argue otherwise. Your initial complaint involved one of the criteria that’s needed before I get engaged in debate. You erroneously assumed that I was mistreating people based on that debate requirement.
It’s not “mistreating people” or being an “asshole” to them when I decide that the only time I’d get into debate is if I know that the opposition would lose. You’re not the first one to bellyache about that requirement.
Eden: The ONLY reason any of us continue to post on this thread is that we just want him to stop being an asshole.
In other words, you want me to stop hammering you guys. Not happening. You’re calling me an asshole because I keep dismantling your threads. A side of you wanted to “hammer me” for the original post that I made. When you discovered that wasn’t going to be the case, you acted like I was mistreating others… “picking a fight” as you put it.
However, if you want this “to stop”, then you need to read the following very carefully:
Let “X” be your responses/oppositions responses.
Let “Y” be my counter-responses.
What’s occurring, above, is this: “If X, then Y:
You, and the rest of the opposition seem to have no problems advancing “X”, yet complain when “Y” results. You’re demanding that the others step in and “put a stop to this”, yet refuse to do what you have control over.
You don’t have control over what I do. I intend to keep hammering you. You do; however, have control over what you do… You have control over “X”.
Instead of demanding that someone stops “Y”, you, as a veteran/grown adult, should see the connection, then own up to your actions. Remove “X”, and “Y” doesn’t happen. No need to call on others, or on me, to stop “Y” in this equation.
Ignore me, and the argument stops. It’s that simple. You lament how I “treat other veterans/long time posters”, yet refuse to take action that shows that you know that you can’t control what I do, but you can control what you do. Want this to stop? Do something on your end.
Eden: And he thinks we’re the ones with anger issues.
If you think that having fun is anger, then you’re more confused than what I assumed. Yes, you guys are the ones with anger issues. Look at your reply. You claim that you don’t care about this thread, but here you are. You claim that you don’t care about arguing the main topic, but here you are arguing. You demand that I stop being an “asshole” while ignoring the fact that I’ve shown a consistent pattern.
I have every intention of dismantling your arguments, as I’m having a blast doing this. If I didn’t, I wouldn’t have been doing this for almost 16 years.
Eden: What a joke he is.
If I were a joke, you guys wouldn’t bother replying to me. No, I’m not the joke. What is a joke is your argument, your attempts to rationalize your inability to argue your position, your attempts to rationalize your strawman argument, and your phony virtue signaling with your “the way I treat others” complaints.
But, now that you’re back, some questions to answer:
Were the other States “just land” before becoming states? YES [ ] NO [ ]
Was Texas the only state that was a nation-state before becoming a state? YES [ ] NO [ ]
Copy and paste these questions to your reply, along with the YES/NO responses. Put an “X” in the box that represents your reply. Spare me any additional argument that you’d want to make with regards to this.
GDContractor as Blobfish: Isn’t it ironic that every one paragraph that we post gets a 17 paragraph reply,
No, not ironic. As I pointed out above, I don’t get involved with these kinds of debates unless I have extensive researched/studied/firsthand experience in the topic of the debate as opposed to the opposition having little to no knowledge.
Result?
The opposition demonstrates lack of knowledge in their response, I hammer them with a fact-based, logical, reasoned argument that leverages the first requirement.
It’s like how somebody, having no clue about military experience, talking smack about military experience. Then, a veteran goes into detail about how the phony’s explanation was not valid.
Additionally, I use speech to text software to generate my replies. I’m able to “put more thoughts onto paper” quicker this way.
GDContractor the Dennis Chevalier clone: by the moron
Yes, just like a child on the playground, who had just lost an argument, calling the winner “stupid”. And you wonder why I keep comparing you to Blobfish. He liked to say “moron” as well:
“These fools are truly morons!” – Cheese Eater
“…so they cannot go on to contaminate the rest of the world with their moronic buffoonery.” – Blobfish
GDContractor: that is supposedly “wearing us down”.
Actually, you guys are doing the work needed to wear yourselves down. Result? Not a single one of you is arguing the main topic of the thread. What had happened here happened in the other threads that I had debated in over the past few years.
The argument shifted, courtesy of the opposition, away from the original topic and towards my tactics. This is typical of those who are agitating over the fact that they lost the argument, and who subsequently are not getting their way.
The opposition does not have as much “juice” in this fight as they did a few days ago.
GDContractor using Chevy’s tactic: Isn’t it ironic that the only little bitch that stomps her feet because we won’t put a check mark in a box is the same little bitch that accuses everyone else of narcicism, anger, and control issues.
The only bitch stomping that’s occurring is the one that you’re doing, as well as those on the other side of the debate.
A reason that nobody here wants to answer my yes/no questions, per the parameters that I set, is that the opposition knows that doing so would end the argument. It is that fact that drives my consistently reminding them that they failed to answer those questions.
This is a tactic that I have used over the past 15+ years. Every single time the opposition comes up with an excuse to not answer those questions, that serves as an impact indicator. The very fact that you guys refuse to do so is a clear indication that the opposition has narcissism, anger, and control issues…
After all, if you guys did answer those questions per the parameters that I said, two things would occur.
1. You guys would prove my argument correct, and your argument wrong. This would lead to the next point…
2. With 1 accomplished, there would be no more reason for you guys to continue the debate.
Your narcissism would refuse to accept that. Those straightforward questions aggravate narcissism and activate anger issues. The control issues causes you guys to come up with a “compromise” that allows you to continue the argument.
This serves as a justification for you guys to ignore my questions, or refuse to answer them per the parameters that I set.
Again, there is a purpose behind everything that I say in my responses. No, I’m not “stomping my feet” or “having a hissy fit”. I am; however, doing a lot of laughing. Your actions are proving that you guys do have narcissism, control, and anger issues.
GDContractor: Hey douche-sig,
Try not to post here in the immediate aftermath of getting whacked by the stupid fairy. Wait for the impact to wear off first.
GDContractor: how many people visited your blog today?
That’s a redundant question, given what I’ve explained earlier. Now go back to trying to figure out how to set your laser printer to stun.
Keep talking! You’re wearing me down!
First, the longest one post reply that I have generated, consistently, was over 75 Microsoft Word pages long. What I have done here is nothing. I saved my posts for this thread. Prior to these batches of replies, I had 71 Microsoft Word pages of saved debates from this thread.
Like many others before you, you’re making the assumption that getting me to generate my replies would “tire me out”. Not happening. This is therapeutic.
Second, at this point, the opposition has clearly abandoned not just the original argument, but the follow-on argument that they shifted to. It takes even less time to respond to your replies, as you can see by these series of replies.
This isn’t your blog. I don’t remember a time when comments have been deleted except for racism, personal information or some other equally heinous reason.
If you want to play God on who posts what you need to go back to your personal blog.
Unlike you, I have access to the junk and trash folders. Many comments get deleted that don’t fit the criteria that you imply is the sole criteria for deleting posts. Many of them are neutral comments that I wouldn’t have deleted. However, I supported the decision of the one who did that deleting.
No, I’m not playing God, just doing what we’ve been allowed to do via communication that you guys aren’t privity to.
Every post you make I’m going to make sure I let everyone know you delete posts that you don’t agree with.
You’ve shown your colors.
If I delete posts that I do not agree with, how do you explain the continued existence above of posts that I do not agree with? Again, given the nature of the complaint directed to this thread, certain posts that would otherwise have remained on the thread had to be deleted. In this case, just three posts.
No, I did not show my true colors. However, you and others have shown yours. For example, you’ve complained about my continued participation here, while ignoring that of the opposition. I’m replying to the opposition. Hence, if the opposition doesn’t respond, my rebuttals don’t arrive.
The “color” that was exposed was on your end. You’ve shown your bias, as well as your control issues.
Yeah right. “Um, what dick?” violated what exactly?
And I don’t think you had a clue AS TO “who it was intended for”.
GDContractor says: Yeah right. “Um, what dick?” violated what exactly?
The person that initially made that remark was talking about a dick sizing contest. This is metaphoric describing how others are seeing the argument. The opinion addressed the debate. The one who responded shifted the focus from the debate and made it about the one who asked that.
GD Chevaliar: And I don’t think you had a clue AS TO “who it was intended for”.
False, and based on that statement, I can say, with absolute certainty, that you are wrong.
I know exactly what my thought process was when reading that. Yes, I had a clue as to what it meant. The language, tone, manner, and the email adjacent to the post (visible to us but not to the public) indicated that the one who made that was a female and was referencing themselves.
Had this thread not been reported, that and another two posts would’ve remained. I would’ve treated those responses the way I’ve been treating the other responses… To include descriptions of the posters apparent psychological profile. Their issue with control was such that they made it about them and not about what was being responded to or about the debate.
Your narcissism, anger issues, and desire for control will naturally want to disagree with that, you’ll still be wrong. You refuse to acknowledge these descriptions of you, as would be expected when you’re blinded by ego.
So, I’ll place your statements side by side with that of another person that I’ve identified as having narcissistic, control issues, and anger issues:
“scroll up, genius” – GDContractor to thebesig
“You have things all figured out now don’t you genius,” — Thomas Reister to thebesig
“You’re a fucking asshole.” — GDContractor to thebesig
“ASSWHOLE” — Thomas Reister to thebesig
And, let’s not forget:
“Well guess what asshole.” — Dennis Chevalier to Scotty
In fact, Thomas Reister called all of us, collectively, an “ASSWHOLE” for the same reason you, and others, called me an asshole… The one/ones being called an asshole destroyed the argument of the one calling them an asshole. Ditto with Dennis Chevalier. Let that sink in.
I see the same apparent psychological profile in you, based on similar statement and actions, that I saw in both Dennis and Thomas. The three of you rejected cold hard fact in favor of what your emotions, desire for control, and narcissism favored.
This is unacceptable. You can post whatever the admin allows you to post here, but you DON’T get to delete other people’s comments to make it appear that someone else is writing something different from what he/she actually wrote. That’s not debate; it’s dishonesty.
Like I’ve said from the beginning. This clown is nothing without the edit button.
You cannot take me on in the debate, you show an inability to effectively defend your position. Instead of acknowledging that fact, you make something up about the opposition and claim that as an “actual attribute” for the opposition.
And just as you were the previous times, you missed the mark. Take your ability to lie, to make assumptions, and to advance strawmen and you’d be left silent and drooling while presenting a stupefied stare.
I waiting for him to correct “privity”….
BANG! GOT ONE! 😆 😀
That was deliberate. What I previously said:
“There’s a purpose behind every word, sentence, paragraph, etc., that I use. I will say things in combination with my argument based on the psychological makeup that the opposition is exposing.
“The opposition reacts exactly the way I expect them to react… Every… Single… Time…” — thebesig
When I stated “every word”, I meant it. I will use the wrong word, a misspelled word, or do something else contrary to what I would normally do in formal writing.
People desperately trying to regain control, where their subconscious has told them that they’ve lost, will point out a spelling or word usage error as a sign of desperation. It’s a way of trying to gain control in an area they know they’ve lost control.
In your case, it only took you 4 days to show that desperation. It usually takes the opposition longer to reach the kind of desperation they need to get to in order to start pointing words out. It gives them a false sense of point scoring when in fact they just showed a sign that they subconsciously know that they’ve lost.
I do not “allow” or “disallow” what people can post here.
For the record, anyone of you can post an article here. Pick a topic and write one, I enjoy reading most of them.
I will not stop you from tending to your article that you posted.
I do not support deleting comments as a general rule, but I have deleted some over the years.
I am fairly sure that neither Jonn nor I deleted any comment just because it was critical of our world view.
If I had the slightest clue why people find it necessary to keep this thread alive some of it might make sense.
I just wish more of you would submit articles now and then.
Just try not to piss off the entire community in the process … (hint to some)
Subtlety! Why didn’t I think of that!
I’ve explained to the opposition, in simple terms, how they could get this to end. They know what to do to get this to stop but refuse to do so… Then they complain when they get push back.
I’ve explained my intentions to them above. As grown adults, they should understand “cause and effect” with regards to their actions. If they choose to continue to argue, the argument continues. The opposition drifted from the original argument to another argument, and then to ad homonyms and false accusations.
Throughout this time, they exercised the mentality of a mob. Now more so than earlier, as seen by the later replies… Going as far as attempting to engage in character assassination instead of having the integrity to address a debate that they’re unable to argue against… or to bow out.
What you’re seeing is the action that one would expect to get from a spoiled brat pulling a tantrum… In response to not getting his/her way.
If you’ve been contacted to come to this thread, it’s because of someone… Or a combination of people… Is attempting to leverage you to conclude this in a way that’s favorable to them. They prefer that to them putting on their adult britches and removing the “cause” that results in the “effect” that they’re complaining about.
I’ll be sending an additional explanation via email.
Only three posts were deleted, none of them directly countered my arguments. In fact, they didn’t even counter a debate. The posts that advanced the opposition’s argument remained up and were matched with a counter-rebuttal.
Eden: This is unacceptable.
You consider anything, that you cannot control, as “unacceptable”. Given that your argument, as well as that of the opposition, is based purely on emotion, you do not have a leg to stand on dictating what is acceptable and what isn’t.
Eden: You can post whatever the admin allows you to post here,
Congratulations Captain Obvious, that’s a given.
Eden: but you DON’T get to delete other people’s comments to make it appear that someone else is writing something different from what he/she actually wrote.
False. What you’re implying is that I deleted a comment within a post. This didn’t happen. I only deleted three posts, which obviously took the entire comment within the post out of the equation. I didn’t jump into anybody else’s posts.
It’s obvious that you were driven by emotion and anger with this reply. If a post is deleted, then there would be no appearance of someone saying something different from what they actually wrote.
Eden: That’s not debate; it’s dishonesty.
First, you accused me of deleting something within a post, rather than delete an entire post. I didn’t do the former, I did the later to posts that weren’t engaging in debate. That’s not dishonesty.
What is dishonest is your implication that I did such, followed by your describing my action as something that isn’t.
If you want to see dishonesty, look at your arguments about regarding the cause and effect, focusing on the cause but not on the effect. Claiming that there is “no justification” for how I handle the opposition isn’t just dishonesty… It reflects a lack of integrity… Especially if it’s glaringly obvious that the opposition is every bit as out of line as you erroneously claim I am.
Second, despite being against everybody else, I stood my ground and forced the opposition into a situation to where they refused to come face-to-face with the fact that they are wrong. I have yet to have somebody answer my yes/no questions per the parameters that I set.
Third, you, and the rest of the opposition, advanced strawman arguments. Then, went from there to bellyache about circumstances related to the debate. That is not debate. That’s dishonesty and deception… Both driven by a desire to regain control in a situation you’ve lost control in.
As usual, you are pulling straws, and pulling a tantrum, for not getting your way.
Were the other States “just land” before becoming states? YES [ ] NO [ ]
Was Texas the only state that was a nation-state before becoming a state? YES [ ] NO [ ]
Copy and paste these questions to your reply, along with the YES/NO responses. Put an “X” in the box that represents your reply. Spare me any additional argument that you’d want to make with regards to this.
And hey, douche_sig. It’s obvious that you spend all day crafting your 1000 word replies, blue font and all; then, you post them ALL at 9pm CDT. Pretty fucking pathetic. 🤣
False. It took me less than an hour to generate all of those replies.
Again, I’m using speech to text to generate these replies. There are other activities that I engage in during the day. This includes other “writing” that I do. I worked on each batch of replies piecemeal throughout the day.
Fact: with the last batch, posted on July 8, 2019, 75% of the batch was generated during a part of the first half of the day. It did not take long to do so. As the day progressed, I addressed additional responses that were posted later in the day. Again, these did not take long to generate.
The last batch of replies totaled 17 Microsoft Word pages. I’m sorry, it does not take me a whole day to generate 17 pages. It doesn’t take long to generate when using speech to text software.
Today’s batch of posts was generated quicker than the last batch of posts. I generated my responses earlier in the day, then put them aside. I just now came back to re-read and post them.
A point that you’re missing with this is the fact that I could read your posts and go about my day. I read some responses last night, then logged out. Understand that even if I don’t get back with you tonight, tomorrow, the next day, the next week, the next month, etc., I will get back with you and the opposition. That’s almost as guaranteed as death and taxes.
Hint, much of the time that I’m reading your replies, and generating my posts, I have a smile on my face. Posting these batches only in one part of the day is deliberate.
Hmm. From my position here in the peanut gallery, I would say this has dragged on long enough.
I enjoy doing this. If the opposition wants this to end, I’ve explained to them what they needed to do to end this debate.
Keep talking dipshit! You’re wearing me down!
Says the guy who debated as if he ran the 100 meter dash inside a 50 meter building. 🙄
Only in your sarcasm do you come close to the truth. You’ve gone from trying to mount a debate, to repeating yourself like a broken record. Add the debate that we had previously and you’d see how much you’ve drifted from full-on debate to just repeating yourself. The reality is that my actions were a catalyst that got you to wear yourself down.
Hey dipshit. I have never tried to debate you here. Just pointing out, as others have, you’re a complete asshole. You’re also a God damned liar who deletes comments. Looking forward to your 17 paragraph nonsensical reply. Pretty blue narcissistic font would be a bonus!
GDChevaliar: Hey dipshit.
Says the braindead shitbird who’s now reduced to repeating his arguments.
GDChevaliar: I have never tried to debate you here.
False. Your replies above were an attempt to debate. If debate wasn’t what you had in mind, then you’ve proven to me that you’re the very thing that you accuse me of being here. However, if you read my post with the intention of understanding what you were reading, you’d realize that I was referencing the debate that we had on Facebook… What you referenced above.
I took it for granted that you’d figure that out, but that one brain celled operation of yours appears to be working overtime to take you over and causing you to post as if a retarded ghost possesses you.
Tell that one brain celled operation that it better do its job or you’d drink some alcohol. 🙄
GDChevaliar: Just pointing out, as others have, you’re a complete asshole. [REPEAT POINT]
“ASSWHOLE” — Thomas Reister to thebesig
“Well guess what asshole.” — Dennis Chevalier to Scotty
Again:
Thomas Reister called all of us, collectively, an “ASSWHOLE” for the same reason you, and others, called me an asshole… The one/ones being called an asshole destroyed the argument of the one calling them an asshole. Ditto with Dennis Chevalier. Let that sink in.
GDChevaliar: You’re also a God damned liar [REPEAT POINT]
False. Everything that I stated here, as well as in previous arguments, are either facts or a reasoned logical argument based on the fact.
You insist that I’m a “liar”, quotation marks used strongly, but fail to provide evidence or even an argument, that I’m doing such.
The reality is that you’re the one that’s lying, not me. Your next point is a perfect example.
GDChevaliar: who deletes comments. [REPEAT POINT]
You accused me, above, of deleting Facebook comments. As I mentioned above, I know for a fact that I didn’t delete the comments that you claimed that I deleted. When I post a counter-rebuttal, I’m adamant about keeping that counter rebuttal up. Deleting a counter-rebuttal would leave the rebuttal unchallenged, which is something that I have absolutely no intention of doing.
I haven’t been to that thread since I provided the counter-rebuttal that you wisely decided not to argue against. Need I go back to it to see how much of a liar you are? I have my responses to that argument saved on MS Word. I could simply do a cross-check to find what I already know.
The other two that you brought up here, involving “editing posts on Facebook” and deleting comments here, were thoroughly explained above. Re, Facebook post posting before I finished my reply, etc. I stand by the justifications for doing the post deletions here. I didn’t lie about that.
GDChevaliar: Looking forward to your 17 paragraph nonsensical reply.
First, my replying to you is a given. I have the link to this thread saved on MS word, along with my replies to you guys. I’m checking the above link every morning to see any new replies that require debunking.
As I explained above, the oppositions’ rebuttals to me are going to be matched by my counter rebuttals.
Second, the only person that’s spewing nonsense is you. You throw baseless labels and accusations around without providing a valid argument to defend those accusations. Then you go off in an anger issue rant instead of advancing a logical argument.
This is typical of people who have anger and control issues.
Third, the length of my response to you is going to depend on factors like, say, how wrong you are. The more erroneous your argument, the larger my response. Likewise, the more points you advance, the more counterpoints you’re going to get. There are other factors involved as well.
GDChevaliar: Pretty blue narcissistic font would be a bonus!
I’ve debated against you and both Dennis Chevalier and Commissar. I could say, with absolute certainty, that like them, you are narcissistic and have anger and control issues. I see you guys as possessing a very similar psychological profile.
As you can see, I called you “GDChevaliar” as you lie as Chevalier does. You’re also very much like the Cheese Slayer. In fact, reading your rants against me is like reading his rants against us on his “evidence” blog.
I look forward to dismantling your next reply. I don’t do this to change your mind. Likewise, I always come out of these arguments with one of two things happening. One, I have the exact same argument that I had before the argument or… Two, I’m further entrenched in my position than prior to the argument.
Do keep tap dancing. You’re doing exactly what I expect you to do, given the words that I use in my responses.
This has taken quite the turn. Spent little reading this. Crazy stuff, my two favorite posters GDC and Besig…wow!
183rd