Trump Ethics

[Mountain Man]

In this particular case you have replied 3 minutes after I wrote the post you are replying to which means that you have either responded without reading the article or read and commented on the article in 3 minutes. No wonder there is no substance in it. If you reflect you may get the full effect. But it takes time.

Do you feel that the paragraph you quoted accurately reflects the tone and (lack of) substance of the entire editorial?

If yes, then my response is wholly justified.

[Sparko]

I've noticed it. Does it have significance?

You were accusing him of being juvenile. I think that is his modus operandi as evidenced by his avatar of a school jock giving a noogie.

[Sparko]

Where did Charles do that? He noted it was an "interesting observation." When I followed the link, it was immediately clear that it was an opinion piece (also marked as such at the top). It dovetails with my own conclusions after observing Trump for over two years now. While there is a chance that may be confirmation bias, I think Mr. Trump's behavior speaks for itself pretty well.

as you say, examples are not evidence. He was using an opinion piece as an argument against Trump in a debate thread. That usually doesn't hold much water. I was just informing on the weakness of his argument.

[carpedm9587]

as you say, examples are not evidence. He was using an opinion piece as an argument against Trump in a debate thread. That usually doesn't hold much water. I was just informing on the weakness of his argument.

Ahhh... I missed the fact that this was part of a larger argument. I saw your response, traced it back to his post, and followed his link. I did not go back further to trace the prior discussion. But I'm not sure this article is "an example." It's an opinion piece that cites a fair amount of evidence for its positions. I happen to agree with the observations made.

That being said - I have no idea what the rest of the argument was, so I probably spoke out of turn.

[carpedm9587]

You were accusing him of being juvenile. I think that is his modus operandi as evidenced by his avatar of a school jock giving a noogie.

Ahhh...good point. Perhaps his behavior is just a reflection of his youth. In any event, his modus operandi is not likely to change at this point, so I'll leave him to his "libtards." Like Trump, I don't think he grasps that his selection of language says more about him than the person he's leveling it at.

[Sparko]

Ahhh... I missed the fact that this was part of a larger argument. I saw your response, traced it back to his post, and followed his link. I did not go back further to trace the prior discussion. But I'm not sure this article is "an example." It's an opinion piece that cites a fair amount of evidence for its positions. I happen to agree with the observations made.

That being said - I have no idea what the rest of the argument was, so I probably spoke out of turn.

He was using an opinion piece to back up YOUR argument.

[Sparko]

Ahhh...good point. Perhaps his behavior is just a reflection of his youth. In any event, his modus operandi is not likely to change at this point, so I'll leave him to his "libtards." Like Trump, I don't think he grasps that his selection of language says more about him than the person he's leveling it at.

You know how I think JimL and Tassman are just liberal trolls who just spout the party line and makes comments just to stir things up? Demi is the conservative equivalent. Pay him no attention.

[Charles]

Generally it is not a good idea to present an opinion piece as "news" or any sort of "truth" - it is an opinion piece, a single point of view from someone. Generally opinion pieces are also hit/attack pieces.

Generally it is a good idea to consider the observations and discuss or refute them if you find them wrong instead of seemingly refuting it solely based on the fact that it is an opinion piece which no one refuses it is.

[Charles]

Do you feel that the paragraph you quoted accurately reflects the tone and (lack of) substance of the entire editorial?

If yes, then my response is wholly justified.

Yet another post with no substance. Please answer the point which was: "In this particular case you have replied 3 minutes after I wrote the post you are replying to which means that you have either responded without reading the article or read and commented on the article in 3 minutes. No wonder there is no substance in it."

Let's see an answer and not a change of subject.

[carpedm9587]

He was using an opinion piece to back up YOUR argument.

LOL... now THAT's irony.

[carpedm9587]

You know how I think JimL and Tassman are just liberal trolls who just spout the party line and makes comments just to stir things up? Demi is the conservative equivalent. Pay him no attention.

I'm sure that there are people here who have the same opinion of me. So...glass houses and all that...

[Cow Poke]

I'm sure that there are people here who have the same opinion of me. So...glass houses and all that...

This is about me, isn't it?

[Mountain Man]

Yet another post with no substance.

I asked a very simple question.

Do you feel that the paragraph you quoted accurately reflects the tone and (lack of) substance of the entire editorial?

Feel free to answer with a simple "yes" or "no".

Once you've answered my question then maybe it will dawn on you that I did answer yours.

[carpedm9587]

This is about me, isn't it?

Actually I wasn't thinking of you specifically - but now that you mention it, you have questioned if the "real me" is coming out recently. So perhaps you do have this view? I don't know.

[Charles]

I asked a very simple question.

Do you feel that the paragraph you quoted accurately reflects the tone and (lack of) substance of the entire editorial?

Feel free to answer with a simple "yes" or "no".

Once you've answered my question then maybe it will dawn on you that I did answer yours.

You are leaving many important parts out of the quote of my post, so here I will repeat it in full:

"Yet another post with no substance. Please answer the point which was: "In this particular case you have replied 3 minutes after I wrote the post you are replying to which means that you have either responded without reading the article or read and commented on the article in 3 minutes. No wonder there is no substance in it."

Let's see an answer and not a change of subject."

Once again: Let's see an answer and not a change of subject.