For those not familiar with the jargon, “skeer” is Southern for “scare.”

J.

So it wasn’t even an accurate quote from a garnd wizard of the KKK. So Peo envoked the name of a grand wizard of the KKK without any reason whatsoever.

Wow. That makes this thread even more pathetic.

Forrest is often erroneously quoted as saying his strategy was to “git thar fustest with the mostest,” but this quote first appeared in print in a New York Times story in 1917, written to provide colorful comments in reaction to European interest in Civil War generals. Bruce Catton writes, “Do not, under any circumstances whatever, quote Forrest as saying ‘fustest’ and ‘mostest.’ He did not say it that way, and nobody who knows anything about him imagines that he did.”

Try again, Goebbels.

No, but quoting a grand wizard of the KKK gives the appearance of racism, which would turn away blacks from the party.

“Since I don’t believe it is evidence of any such thing”

That’s right, we don’t have any proof that your Strawman is correct, but we don’t have to provide evidence for that.

The point of Oliver’s comment, as far as I am concerned, is that the use of that aphorism is evidence that the Republican Party is racist.

Since I don’t believe it is evidence of any such thing, and no one has introduced one scintilla of evidence to the effect that it is, the subject is, as far as I am concerned, closed.

What the hell are you talking about? This is a non sequitor to my last post.

“It seems that way, I suppose, but you haven’t come up with one yet.”

Yes I have. The Patton quote. It doesn’t say the same thing, but it works just as well given the context of the speech.

The Underwear Gnome: “Yes, you did. And you still have them wrong.”

I don’t think I have them wrong now. However, the details about a conversation you had about presidential underwear matter very little to me. The fact remains that’s far more off topic than trying to come up with a suitable quote Ted Poe could have used instead of quoting a grand wizard of the KKK. In fact, that would be significantly on topic.

You were having a disagreement with someone and the topic of boxer or briefs came up. I may have gotten the details wrong, but quite frankly, when the subject turned to underwear, I tuned it out.

“you decided that my assertion was an argument, despite the fact that no one disagreed with me.”

Technically, everytime you make a claim with evidence, you are making an argument, (as per definition #1 above.)

Until 1:00 AM, there was a suggestion that I was arguing with, or disagreeing with, someone.

Then, at 3:21 AM, faced with the horrifying prospect that you are wr-, wr-, wr-, you decided that my assertion was an argument, despite the fact that no one disagreed with me.

Vizzini has drunk the poison and fallen over.

Okay, fine, your argument was over the definition of briefs and boxers, but you were still putting for an argument that boxers are more manly that briefs.

There are three definitions of argument that relate to this discussion:

1.) a fact or assertion offered as evidence that something is true

2.) a discussion in which reasons are advanced for and against some proposition or proposal

3.) a contentious speech act; a dispute where there is strong disagreement

Technically speaking #2 requites #1, at least two in fact cause you need a claim and a counter claim.

#3 is the definition that causes problems because it has a negative connotation. (I used to get into this debate with Adam Baldwin all of the time. Pain in the ass.)

The only argument going on here is whether you are a simple minded buffoon (one possibility) or an escaped psychopath who has commandeered a cybercafe (possibility number two) {that’s the one I favor}.

Yes you were. You two were arguing whether or not it was more mature for men to wear boxers of briefs. We can see what you wrote, we can read English, there is no debate here.