Sean: “Go thru all the comments in that thread, you’ll find no mention of what you claim you said. Plenty of other statements you make which you refused to back up, but not that anyone was forced to hire anyone.”

What do you think the Kazeminy lawsuit was about?

Kazeminy was sued by his business partner because Kazeminy was forcing him to…

I need you to finish that statement.

You keep saying the company was getting money and that Mrs. Coleman was only benefiting indirectly, as any employee would when the company gets money.

But how would Kazeminy forcing a company to accept money result in a lawsuit?

I seriously doubt you will answer this question, but I would love to know the answer.

So says the man who has been in this thread just as long as I have.

Fucking hypocritical piece of shit.

Sean: “Because I’m not what you want to see me as. How can you not recognize snark, even when a comment is labeled that? Where’s your “extremely high empathy” that you can’t see when someone is making a less serious comment? So glad my ego isn’t as easily bruised as yours.Me: “No. Kazeminy forced this company to HIRE Mrs. Coleman. That’s what the suit was about. Perhaps you didn’t know that detail, but we have mentioned it more than once.”

I can recognize snark. I also recognize snark that is being used to make a point. I see the point you are trying to make, and it makes you look stupid.

Sean: “Is ‘liar’ one of those irregular verbs to you? One where you can say “You lie. He/she/it lies. I don’t.”? Go thru all the comments in that thread, you’ll find no mention of what you claim you said. Plenty of other statements you make which you refused to back up, but not that anyone was forced to hire anyone.”

Here’s a little hint for you, there’s more than one source of information. We’ve talked about this scandal repeatedly. On multiple threads.

Sean: “Widdle CSS is stomping his feet.”

And this sums up all you need to know about Sean.

“I have admitted where I’ve been wrong at times, but never becuase some self-titled great debater used the tactic of holding his breath as if that were a conclusive argument.”

So what’s so hard for you to admit you are wrong here?

Jay admitted he was wrong, so you were wrong.

Yet you insist it is a matter of two people saying the same things in different ways.

“From personal experience, I’d disagree. Numerous times you’ve told me what I’m thinking and I’ve pointed out that you were wrong.”

Yes. It appears I overestimated you by a large margin.

You are not a liar, you are functionally illiterate.

You do not have the capability of judging context.

You are not a liar. You are stupid.

It’s how me hide our true feelings of love for each other.

An now, a final word from C…

Because I’m not what you want to see me as. How can you not recognize snark, even when a comment is labeled that? Where’s your “extremely high empathy” that you can’t see when someone is making a less serious comment? So glad my ego isn’t as easily bruised as yours.

“No. Kazeminy forced this company to HIRE Mrs. Coleman. That’s what the suit was about. Perhaps you didn’t know that detail, but we have mentioned it more than once.”

Is “liar” one of those irregular verbs to you? One where you can say “You lie. He/she/it lies. I don’t.”? Go thru all the comments in that thread, you’ll find no mention of what you claim you said. Plenty of other statements you make which you refused to back up, but not that anyone was forced to hire anyone.

“No. I want you to see you are wrong and that the issue is 100% your fault.”

Widdle CSS is stomping his feet. I have admitted where I’ve been wrong at times, but never becuase some self-titled great debater used the tactic of holding his breath as if that were a conclusive argument.

“The only way to learn from your mistakes is to admit them. And learning from your mistakes is important.”

BWAAAA-HA-HA-HA. I get it now. You’re doing some kind of Kauffmann-esque bit.

And I disagree. I have extremely high empathy and can read people very well (most of the time). I can tell when someone it opening to discussing a matter logically, and when their mind it closed to opposing viewpoints.

From personal experience, I’d disagree. Numerous times you’ve told me what I’m thinking and I’ve pointed out that you were wrong. You continued to indicate you know my thoughts and intentions better than I do. I don’t think your empathy skills are as “extremely high” as you think.

How are you not dead yet? How have you lived as long as you have without accidentally killing yourself.

Your originally claim was Jay’s response was appropriate and that I shouldn’t be confused. Further, you claimed I wasn’t genuinely confused, but just stalling.

Hmmm…. You made a claim based on my intent. Something you say I shouldn’t do.

“Snark aside, actually I believe I did suggest that there was a miscommunication going on, that folks were talking past each other. And I got insulted for doing so.”

But that’s not what happened. Jay and I were not talking about the same thing using different words, as in your ramp / hill example. Jay said something that was error and I asked him to explain himself.

(On a side note, he admitted his error, but never explained himself.)

You said I was stalling and that what Jay said made perfect sense. It didn’t make sense, as Jay admitted.

So when you said I was stalling, you were wrong.

“No, you’re still misrepresenting it. Money was being not being funnelled to Mrs C but to the company that employed her. There was no evidence provided that she benefited from this (other, I suppose, than to the extent which any employee could be said to benefit when their employer gets money).”

No. Kazeminy forced this company to HIRE Mrs. Coleman. That’s what the suit was about.

Perhaps you didn’t know that detail, but we have mentioned it more than once.

“Going to drop both of these now. You can keep bringing up the ’100,000′ and ‘Coleman’ issues if you want as if they are the final word on… something.”

No. I want you to see you are wrong and that the issue is 100% your fault. The only way to learn from your mistakes is to admit them. And learning from your mistakes is important.

For instance, you have difficulty with context. I should not call you a liar when you misquote me because of this. I will try not to do so in the future.

(By the way, that’s 100% proof that I’m an asshole. If you don’t get why, I’ll explain fully so you can quote it in the future.)

“Putting your sarcasm aside for a moment, on the contrary I’ve admitted to it at times. I’ve noted in several posts where I may not have made my points clearly or have contributed to an unfortunate tone.”

I’ve admitted mistakes as well.

“So what’s your point?”

Hypocrisy.

“As noted before, I just think you’re overly quick to see someone as unwilling to do the same.”

And I disagree. I have extremely high empathy and can read people very well (most of the time). I can tell when someone it opening to discussing a matter logically, and when their mind it closed to opposing viewpoints. Sometime I make a Hanlon error, but those are rare.

You mean all this time you keep dragging this ancient one up complaining that I didn’t admit you were right, and your complaint is actually that I didn’t agree you were confused? Snark aside, actually I believe I did suggest that there was a miscommunication going on, that folks were talking past each other. And I got insulted for doing so.

“…you claimed that was a misrepresentation because the Norm Coleman donor was allegedly funnelling money to Norm Coleman’s wife and not Norm Coleman himself.”

No, you’re still misrepresenting it. Money was being not being funnelled to Mrs C but to the company that employed her. There was no evidence provided that she benefited from this (other, I suppose, than to the extent which any employee could be said to benefit when their employer gets money).

Going to drop both of these now. You can keep bringing up the “100,000″ and “Coleman” issues if you want as if they are the final word on… something.

“Gee Sean. You have never done that.”

Putting your sarcasm aside for a moment, on the contrary I’ve admitted to it at times. I’ve noted in several posts where I may not have made my points clearly or have contributed to an unfortunate tone. So what’s your point?

“I will debate in an intellectually vigorous fashion with anyone, as well as they are willing to do the same. As soon as they show they are not, I see no reason to waste the effort on them.”

As noted before, I just think you’re overly quick to see someone as unwilling to do the same. That you jump to hurling insults rather than work to understand another’s view or clarify your own.

Hair-splitting hinterlands?

Like when Jay Caruso said, ‘That’s what the per 100,000 is for.’ and I said ‘Huh?’ You thought that was hair-splitting. Jay admitted he made a mistake, but in that thread, you never admitted my confusion was warranted.

Or how about that time Oliver said Norm Coleman in a headline and you claimed that was a misrepresentation because the Norm Coleman donor was allegedly funnelling money to Norm Coleman’s wife and not Norm Coleman himself. Is that not splitting hairs?

Words have definitions. It is splitting hairs to say, “You said, ‘cautiously optimistic’ when you should have said, ‘optimistically cautious.”

It is not splitting hairs to say, “Use the rules of grammar to make sure everyone understands what you say. What you are saying is different than what you mean.”

“I’ve seen you take others to task for doing things which you yourself have done.”

Gee Sean. You have never done that. In fact, you didn’t just do that in the very post I’m replying to.

I’ve seen you throw insults. I’ve seen you split-hairs. I’ve seen you bring me up in threads I hadn’t even posted to. Ditto on your victimhood, and grudges.

“Which is all a bit of a shame since we’ve had a number of exchanges that have started off reasonably well before being drawn off into the “you’re a liar, fuck ‘tard’ weeds.”

I will debate in an intellectually vigorous fashion with anyone, as well as they are willing to do the same. As soon as they show they are not, I see no reason to waste the effort on them.

In short, I only call people fucking ‘tards when they start acting like fucking ‘tards.

Fact is, I don’t hate you. I find you frustrating, hypocritical, irritating and rancorous, but I don’t hate you.

I believe far too often you jump to insults and drag topics off into hair-splitting hinterlands rather than address the points others try to make. I’ve seen you take others to task for doing things which you yourself have done. I believe (because you’ve said so yourself) that you enjoy hurling insults and that you enjoy it more than working to understand another’s view or clarifying your own. I believe you’re you see slights where none were intended, are far too quick to take offense and view yourself as a victim, and hold manufactured grudges far too long.

Which is all a bit of a shame since we’ve had a number of exchanges that have started off reasonably well before being drawn off into the “you’re a liar, fuck ‘tard” weeds.

- Sean

Just striving to be more like you, C.

CSS: And I know why you hate me. You told me I would get better results debating people without the insults or swearing and I completely blew you off. I treated your advice like it was worthless, therefore, you think I treated you like you were worthless.

The next thing I need to learn, of course, is how to repeatedly claim I know what someone else is thinking better than they do.

There’s something important you need to know. In this thread I was talking about the difference between facts and opinions. Then I talked about the difference between assumptions and mistakes. You then got the terms assumptions and opinions mixed up.

I don’t think you are an idiot because you disagree with me. I think you are an idiot because you act like an idiot.

If you agreed with me, I would still think you were an idiot.

Now please, smarten up, or shut up.

Signed,

C.S.Strowbridge

Sean: “And yet, here I am. Clearly you are a (gasp!) liar.”

I overestimated your maturity, that doesn’t make me a liar.

Then again, I believe you don’t know the definition of the word liar. Or context. Or facts. Or opinion. Or assumption. Or a lot of words.

(On a side note, while you didn’t exactly run away, you didn’t address my point either.)

SDM: “Shorter CSS: Those who disagree with me are idiots or insane.”

CSS: “Yet you think you are smart enough to debate me.”

Sean: “QED”

Wrong again, Sean. I don’t think all people who disagree with me are idiots or insane.

But I do think you are an idiot or have some pathological hatred for me.

Remember the “Per 100,000″ debate? Jay Caruso admitted he made a mistake. You never did. That entire thread, you never admitted you made a mistake.

You are either an idiot for not recognizing you made a mistake, or so deranged you refuse to admit it. If there is a third option, tell me.

And I know why you hate me. You told me I would get better results debating people without the insults or swearing and I completely blew you off. I treated your advice like it was worthless, therefore, you think I treated you like you were worthless.

And yet, here I am. Clearly you are a (gasp!) liar.

SDM: Shorter CSS: Those who disagree with me are idiots or insane.

CSS: Yet you think you are smart enough to debate me.

QED

Shorter Sean D. Martin: “I have no way to defend my position without lies, so I will insult CSS one last time and run away.”

You can’t even differential between facts, opinions, and assumptions. Yet you think you are smart enough to debate me.

God, you are pathetic.

Got it.

Wrong.

How could you make this mistake? I just fucking said it wasn’t an assumption.

ARE YOU ILLITERATE.

Do I need to use smaller words?

Seriously, how did you make that mistake? Did you not read what I wrote before replying?

I was making a statement of fact, and I’ve already admitted I was wrong. (I forget SQ was here.)

I am not making an assumption, because I have evidence with regards to the rest.

I could be wrong on that point as well, but that doesn’t make it an assumption or an opinion.

“But when someone else does it, they are a liar because they ‘would be making a statement of fact. If you said, ‘I think…’ then you would be saying an opinion.”

Oh my god. Now you are mixing up ‘opinions’ and ‘assumption.’

Facts = Something you can back up.
Opinions = A personal preference.
Assumption = Something taken as fact without evidence.

Facts can be backed up with evidence, opinions can’t not. When it comes to debates like this, opinions are meaningless. Facts are not. Assumptions are dangerous.

Treating one as the other is bad. Doing so intentionally is a lie.

‘Intent’ is not a nebulous concept. It is rather easy to figure out. In fact, if you can’t figure out intent, you have what psychologists call sociopathy. The inability to judge the emotions and intentions of others is the key to sociopathy. (This is a statement of fact based on class(es) I took through university, not an opinion or an assumption.)

For instance, if someone says an event took place on the 12th when it took place on the 21st, that is most likely a mistake. There is a small chance that it is a convenient lie, so judge it on an individual by individual basis.

If someone takes what you said in the past, and misquotes you, and attacks you for it, it could go either way. Again, just on an individual basis.

If someone takes what you said, cuts and pastes it into another post, but changes the context to attack you, it is almost certainly intentional. The chance of making an error in that instance, one that can be used to attack you, is just too slim.

If someone says an opinion, but states it as a fact, while using it to defend their position, then it is almost certainly intentional. The only other rational explanation is deep mental problems. Either the inability to tell the difference between opinion and fact or the functional illiteracy. Either case is so extremely unlikely, especially since we can discount illiteracy here, and I don’t think it needs to be taken into serious consideration.

“I know ‘it may seem anal, but it is very important to make that distinction.’”

So try getting it right.

Good lord.

Is that too much to ask?

I could be wrong, but that’s different than making an assumption.

Ah, I get it now. When you make a flat out statement (“We are a bunch of guys talking about what happens to women when they get pregnant, something we will never face firsthand.”) you’re making an assumption and everyone should recognize this. But when someone else does it, they are a liar because they “would be making a statement of fact. If you said, “I think…” then you would be saying an opinion. Qualifiers are important in making those distinctions. … Opinions and facts are different. Expressing the former as the latter is a lie.”

I know “it may seem anal, but it is very important to make that distinction.”

No. But I’m quite sure everyone else I’ve responded to here has admitted to being a guy.

I could be wrong, but that’s different than making an assumption.

There I go again! I’m using language in a precise way.

The horror.

Actually yes. That’s why I try not to have an opinion about things I know nothing about. When I can get pregnant and have to make that decision, then I’ll form an opinion.

I tend to think if the question was regarding the legality or morality of vasectomies, we’d have a wholly different set of discussions.