Camp David anyone?

[matus1976]

Well, given the fact that NOBODY responded to his comment when he posted it in that thread, but people did here (including wong) then it seems it did require its own thread.

People ignored most of his nitpicks, I ignored his thread altogether. The reason why is very simple. Instead of starting a discussion, he posted an incredibly long post, full of nitpicks and repeating himself many times.

So he started a single thread on one point, since so many people seemed unable to read through his entire post (I know, they wouldnt want to miss those survivor re-runs) and everyone just bitches about it being a nitpick. But wong responds "Oh well, I guess I should have researched the background of Camp David. " This sounds an awfully lot like a concession of the point on Wong's part, if it was, shouldnt it be removed from the essay? If it isnt, and Wong leaves it in, he is intentionally leaving something in he knows to be false, bringing into question the crediblity of the entire essay, since his motivation would them seem to be "bash Isreal and its support at all costs, even at the cost of the truth". I am sure once this point is ironed out, Nixon can move onto the next short, simply, easily digestable one sentance claim about Wong's essay to be hashed out that wont make anyone miss the next episode of 'The Osbournes'

Matus

[Vympel]

So he started a single thread on one point, since so many people seemed unable to read through his entire post (I know, they wouldnt want to miss those survivor re-runs) and everyone just bitches about it being a nitpick. But wong responds "Oh well, I guess I should have researched the background of Camp David. " This sounds an awfully lot like a concession of the point on Wong's part, if it was, shouldnt it be removed from the essay?

How long will it take for you to get it? A nitpick is not 'incorrect', it is a minor point with no significant bearing on the argument being made. Mike WAS incorrect, he has been before and he will be again, the point is that it was a pathetic ploy by Nixon to discredit the entire work (after he got his ass handed to him in the original thread) based on a tiny error- and it's worked on you like a charm.

Here's an example of nitpick you may understand:

"Federation photon torpedoes have direct hit maximum theoretical firepower of 31MT"
"Actually, it's 32MT, your argument has just been devastated!!!!"

Do you see the problem yet?

If it isnt, and Wong leaves it in, he is intentionally leaving something in he knows to be false, bringing into question the crediblity of the entire essay, since his motivation would them seem to be "bash Isreal and its support at all costs, even at the cost of the truth". I am sure once this point is ironed out, Nixon can move onto the next short, simply, easily digestable one sentance claim about Wong's essay to be hashed out that wont make anyone miss the next episode of 'The Osbournes'

Matus

Oh do fuck off you pretensious snot- Nixon posts a nitpick about fucking Camp David (yes, this is is his opening, DEVASTATING salvo) and you think it's the start of an episodic, devastating point by point destruction of Mike's argument. Grow a brain. And what makes you think he would leave it in?

[Colonel Olrik]

Though I am sure Wong is a busy guy arguing with fundies and rapid trekkies, I have yet to hear any acknowledgement that he will remove it from his essay.

And having a life.

I did read that entire thread (probably one of the very few people who actually did)

You have the time. Congratulations.

but it did seem that Wong's and everyone of Wong's army of Yes men's stance was "Some of what Isreal did was morally wrong, So ALL of what Isreal does is immorral" Why else would wong keep making emotional appeals to 'shooting kids' while the fact that PLO TARGETS kids and civilians garners little mention.

You're again missing the point of the article. I defy you to find somewhere in it an advocation of palestinian terrorism. It is clear that it is imoral. The point of the article is that there are no justifications for Israel's policy, as well. It was centred on Israel, not the palestinians. Both sides have people commited to terrorism. One with tanks anf F16, other with human bombs. And both sides have people who only what peace.

If you have arguments against nixons statements make them. If you want to call me a coward for letting someone more knowledgeable than me head the argument up, go ahead, but Ill just call you a coward for not posting your own 'Middle east rant' essay, and instead just appealing to Lord Wong's essay.

That's precious. From now on, I'll stop explaining physics to people, because there are many more knowledgeable than me. At the same time, I'll produce my own article about Relativity.

One mans nitpick is another mans disagreement and valid objection.

One man's nitpick is yet another proof of the man's unwillingness to aknowledge the central question of the debate.

[matus1976]

You can call me a moron if it makes you feel better about yourself, I dont really care. I would hardly consider it a minor error, but it is an error, and is still present in Wong's essay. It was cited as evidence to the bias against arabs / muslims, and it was completely off base and unfounded, and Wongs only response was 'I should have researched it more' (paraphrasing). Though I am sure Wong is a busy guy arguing with fundies and rapid trekkies, I have yet to hear any acknowledgement that he will remove it from his essay.

Oh wow now he's turned into an indignant defender of truth and justice. Would you like him to bow down on his knees and profusely apologize, would that make you happy? Some people ....

No, I said if it is wrong, and Wong admits as much, it should be removed from the essay. Do you disagree?

Btw, how many errors must one find before the credibility of the entire article is brought into question? 1? 1%? 10%? 50%? Just curious.

Learn to fucking argue. If you cannot see the problem with using one error to dismiss an entire argument, instead of dealing with each point on its own merits, you are truly intellecutally handicapped.

I see the problem, and I do know how to argue despite your appeals to name calling and pofanity. The first major point is that this was quite a rediclous mistake to make, and would have not been made with a mere 15 seconds of research. If Wong is making such a strong case that the support for isreal is wrong and is biased, then he should research the factual basis of his evidence, should he not? I do not believe that this error 'proves' all of Wong's claims wrong, nor did I say as much. But it brings into suspect the entire essay since it was such an egregious error. One does not need to prove each and every individual point of Wong's essay wrong to suspect with reasonable certainty that it may be anymore than one needs to investigate, solve, and explain every instance of a UFO claims to at one point go 'well, the vast majority of these are not extra terrestrial visitors, so its reasonable to assume that they will continue not to be' This is, also, the basis of Inductive logic, which you appear to be ignorant of. That is, I dont need to drop a rock an infinite number of times to reasonably assume that the next time I drop it, it will fall. I do not contend that we are at this point with Wong's essay, I see only 1 data point so far that wong has apparently conceeded to Nixon. I ask you, how many data points will we need before we can bring into suspect all of wong's essay? You assert that each and every individual claim needs to be debated and resolved for any general suspicious be brought about the essay. This may only be from a sample of 1, but it is such an extreme error to make and one that could have easily been researched and avoided that it does indeed make me suspicious of essay. But I do only say 'suspicious'

Im all for Nixon bringing about the next individual point to counter so all the ritalin addicts here can digest it, and the more samples we have the more accurate our estimate of the validity of Wong's claims will be.

Matus

[Colonel Olrik]

So he started a single thread on one point, since so many people seemed unable to read through his entire post (I know, they wouldnt want to miss those survivor re-runs)

I don't see survivor. Never. I do work. It wouldn't take that much time to read his post, actually. It would take a lot more time to make a proper rebutal.

and everyone just bitches about it being a nitpick.

Did you notice that the phrase was in parentsis? That it could have not been there at all and it would make no difference? When you take your opponents weakest point, and then use it to claim victory, it's nitpicking. Not to mention stupid.

But wong responds "Oh well, I guess I should have researched the background of Camp David. " This sounds an awfully lot like a concession of the point on Wong's part, if it was, shouldnt it be removed from the essay?

Do you actually want to force your timing into him? He doesn't have to go running everytime someone finds a minor error in his site.

bringing into question the crediblity of the entire essay

Ridiculous. One minor point conceeded and the entire mountain of evidence crumbles? You're disconnected from reality.

I am sure once this point is ironed out, Nixon can move onto the next short, simply, easily digestable one sentance claim about Wong's essay to be hashed out that wont make anyone miss the next episode of 'The Osbournes'

I also do not see 'The Osbournes'. I like the way you use subtle insults on others, and then cry when simply called idiot.

[Vympel]

No, I said if it is wrong, and Wong admits as much, it should be removed from the essay. Do you disagree?

He already fucking has! God ....

I see the problem, and I do know how to argue despite your appeals to name calling and pofanity. The first major point is that this was quite a rediclous mistake to make, and would have not been made with a mere 15 seconds of research.

Yes, let's all research it, because it's central to Mike's argument, obviously .... you don't know how to argue.

If Wong is making such a strong case that the support for isreal is wrong and is biased, then he should research the factual basis of his evidence, should he not? I do not believe that this error 'proves' all of Wong's claims wrong, nor did I say as much. But it brings into suspect the entire essay since it was such an egregious error.

See, you don't know how to argue. It does not affect the argument of the essay at all. By your ridiculous standard, every error in every article ever written calls the entire article into question. You're going to go far in life ....

One does not need to prove each and every individual point of Wong's essay wrong to suspect with reasonable certainty that it may be anymore than one needs to investigate, solve, and explain every instance of a UFO claims to at one point go 'well, the vast majority of these are not extra terrestrial visitors, so its reasonable to assume that they will continue not to be' This is, also, the basis of Inductive logic, which you appear to be ignorant of. That is, I dont need to drop a rock an infinite number of times to reasonably assume that the next time I drop it, it will fall. I do not contend that we are at this point with Wong's essay,

What a dumb fuck ....... please justify your ridiculous false analogy right now, considering that the origins of the name Camp David are entirely irrelevant to the argument Mike is making. What part of the definition of nitpick do you refuse to understand?

I see only 1 data point so far that wong has apparently conceeded to Nixon. I ask you, how many data points will we need before we can bring into suspect all of wong's essay? You assert that each and every individual claim needs to be debated and resolved for any general suspicious be brought about the essay. This may only be from a sample of 1, but it is such an extreme error to make and one that could have easily been researched and avoided that it does indeed make me suspicious of essay. But I do only say 'suspicious'

No, I suggest that Nixon should try and rebut the argument being made from the article, rather than FUCKING NITPICKING ancillary POINTS!!!! Dumb ... fucking .... retard.

Im all for Nixon bringing about the next individual point to counter so all the ritalin addicts here can digest it, and the more samples we have the more accurate our estimate of the validity of Wong's claims will be.

Matus

Of course, since you don't actually have a mind of your own and seem to be Nixon's cheerleader, and didn't respond when I questioned you earlier on the following:

Really, I must have missed that part ... good that you've finally decided to propose your bullshit views. Please explain what surrounding Arab nations have to do with the oppression of Palestinians in the Occupied Territories. Dumbass.

Oh look, another dumbfuck perpetrating the idiotic strawman that we say that Palestine is morally flawless. It ain't. The article says that. Have you read it? I doubt it, because if you have, you obviously can't read very well. Additionally, please explain the morality behind shooting a child who throws a rock, and what the fuck that has to do with the terrorists on the other side doing the same?

You're a cowardly little shit, aren't you?

[Moff Jerjerrod]

For someone who claims that Matus is simply insulting you, let us look at your first post on this thread:

Talk about picking the gnatshit out of pepper.....

this is Nixon's incredible argument ... all bow down before the knee-jerk Israel apologist ...

Nowhere here do you dispute what Nixon is saying. He correctly points out that Camp David was named for David Eisenhower in 1954. You do not disprove or contest his contention, as Nixon clearly did with many of Darth Wong's points in his previous thread. Instead, you simply insult him by calling him "a knee-jerk Israel apologist."

But then, for some reason, you get all whiney when Matus calls you on this and refers to you as a "knee-jerk Palestinian apologist" and asks that you please attempt to contribute intelligently to the discussion. You are the one that brought incivility into the debate, in addition to adding nothing to it.

Darth Wong's argument is diminished, regardless of whether or not the remainder of his piece is valid, by including language best left to some wortheless Christopher Hitchens polemic. And Darth Wong himself has acknowledged on this thread that he should've researched Camp David's background. Yet you blindly resort to name-calling without even acknowledging this point.

This thread is "Camp David", not "Darth Wong's Israel bashing", therefore my argument is specifically tailored to addressing this issue. So, before going on to the validity of the rest of his discussion, do you join with Matus and I in our call that Darth Wong should remove that inflammatory rhetoric from his piece?

[Sir Sirius]

Three fucking pages on the origin's of the name of Camp David, This is insane.

[Darth Wong]

Nowhere here do you dispute what Nixon is saying. He correctly points out that Camp David was named for David Eisenhower in 1954. You do not disprove or contest his contention, as Nixon clearly did with many of Darth Wong's points in his previous thread.

Are you referring to the mountainous strawman Nixon constructed out of his assumption that I believe Palestinians and all Arab nations are morally flawless?

You're still missing the point: you cannot refute an argument by attempting to attack the credibility of its author, ie- find an error (a trivial one at that) and generalize. That is an example of the "ad hominem fallacy", made all the more obvious that he thought this nitpick should consume an entire thread all on its own.

If you are too ignorant to recognize why that's wrong, you should be willing to go look it up rather than blustering.

[matus1976]

You're still missing the point: you cannot refute an argument by attempting to attack the credibility of its author, ie- find an error (a trivial one at that) and generalize.

Mr Wong, if you concede that it is an error, will the line then be removed?

"(nice tweak of the nose to the Arabs; naming the camp after a Biblical character who massacred huge numbers of Arab women and children)."

Matus

[matus1976]

No, I said if it is wrong, and Wong admits as much, it should be removed from the essay. Do you disagree?

He already fucking has! God ..../

It is still there. I have asked him if it will be removed. He need not remove it right away, but acknowledging that it will be removed only takes a few seconds.
You dont know how to argue either.
No, only errors which are completely factually off base, ignorant, (as in, resulting from a lack of knowledge) and obviously come from a pre-concieved bias.

By your rediculous standard, one must solve every murder before claiming that all murders have a murderer. Or one must disprove all cases of UFO's with non ET invoking explanations before assuming that all are without ETs. Or one must investigate every TM practitioner in full before assuming that none can actually levitate. And you tell ME I dont know how to argue?

Had wong's factual error been "Camp Jacob, which was named after...." that would have been considered a 'nit pick' by me, but his error was claiming that the camp was specifically named after a biblical characther who slaughtered arabs instead of a former presidents son, considering part of the article was the bias against arabs / muslims by israel and pro-isreal supporters was a theme of his essay, I would hardly consider this a 'nit pick' as it blatently fails as a piece of evidence supporting this important theme in his essay. But I have made the best case I can that this is an important error, and not a nitpick, so with this we shall have to disagree. It is noted that you consider it only a 'nit pick' and Nixon, Mof Jerrod and I consider it an important error. I do not believe the 'nit pick' or 'not nitpick' question deserves any further comment.

Fine, lets see how well your convictions stand up. I will start a new thread.

Matus

[Darth Wong]

It is still there. I have asked him if it will be removed. He need not remove it right away, but acknowledging that it will be removed only takes a few seconds.

I was going to say "when I next update my site", but now I'm feeling inclined to leave it in, just because you're being an asshole about it.

[Moff Jerjerrod]

You're still missing the point: you cannot refute an argument by attempting to attack the credibility of its author, ie- find an error (a trivial one at that) and generalize. That is an example of the "ad hominem fallacy", made all the more obvious that he thought this nitpick should consume an entire thread all on its own.

You are ignoring my point here. Whether or not Nixon's criticism of your Camp David line deserved its own thread is a separate issue. His criticism of your choice to include it in your essay is valid, as you yourself have acknowledged your unfamiliarity with Camp David's history. It does not invalidate the rest of your essay, nor have I ever said it did. But given that it is such an egregious and insulting error, it diminishes from the overall quality of your essay and detracts from your arguments unnecessarily.

Suggesting that President Eisenhower somehow could see the future, knew that Israel and Egypt would be involved in peace negotiations in the US at Jimmy Carter's request, and decided to give a "fuck you" to the arabs by naming the locale after a biblical figure is just idiotic. It's more than a nitpick, it's insulting to Americans, who you seem to be suggesting have such a deep hatred of arabs and love for the Israelis that they would resort to the tactic that you accuse them of.

But getting back to my point, whether or not you agree with Nixon's interpretations, and his entire argument was not just that Israel is not as bad as the Palestinians, he did question your conclusions, rather than just referring to you in a one paragraph reply as "a poophead", "asshole", or something like Vympel did to him in this thread.

If you are too ignorant to recognize why that's wrong, you should be willing to go look it up rather than blustering.

Given your Camp David faux pas, I would respectfully suggest you should hold back on your suggestions to have others "look things up", especially when you're not addressing my point to begin with.

[matus1976]

It is still there. I have asked him if it will be removed. He need not remove it right away, but acknowledging that it will be removed only takes a few seconds.

I was going to say "when I next update my site", but now I'm feeling inclined to leave it in, just because you're being an asshole about it.

I was certianly not attempting to be an asshole about, but instead was just trying to determine if you would be removing it. This comment was in response to Vympel who said 'He Already did' (which could have been interpreted as 'he already did remove it' which is why I said 'its still there') Note to you I said

"Mr Wong, if you concede that it is an error, will the line then be removed? "

While it is easy to admit I may have been an asshole to Vympel, I was not to you.

Matus

[Stormbringer]

It is still there. I have asked him if it will be removed. He need not remove it right away, but acknowledging that it will be removed only takes a few seconds.

I was going to say "when I next update my site", but now I'm feeling inclined to leave it in, just because you're being an asshole about it.

I;d jsut change it. It's a nitpick but always looks good to have the facts right.

[Sir Sirius]

Maybe this:
"(nice tweak of the nose to the Arabs; naming the camp after a Biblical character who massacred huge numbers of Arab women and children)."
Should be canged to something like this:
"(nice tweak of the nose to the Arabs; holding the negotiations in a camp bearing the same name as a Biblical character who massacred huge numbers of Arab women and children)."
The changed portion is in bold.

It is, I belief, historically accurate and it still conveys the same point as the original version.

[Andrew J.]

Nixon: And this matters...how?

[HemlockGrey]

It doesn't. Nixon is trying to justify Israeli atrocities by claiming that Camp David was named for Eisenhower.

Yes. I'm confused too.

[Vympel]

It is still there. I have asked him if it will be removed. He need not remove it right away, but acknowledging that it will be removed only takes a few seconds.

Idiot. He has already admitted it was incorrect.

You dont know how to argue either.

Wow, a you too argument!

By your rediculous standard, one must solve every murder before claiming that all murders have a murderer. Or one must disprove all cases of UFO's with non ET invoking explanations before assuming that all are without ETs. Or one must investigate every TM practitioner in full before assuming that none can actually levitate. And you tell ME I dont know how to argue?

Still perpetrating this ridiculous strawman? I see you're a lying little shit who thought he could snip this without anyone noticing:

No, I suggest that Nixon should try and rebut the argument being made from the article, rather than FUCKING NITPICKING ancillary POINTS!!!! Dumb ... fucking .... retard.

Dishonest little fuck....

Had wong's factual error been "Camp Jacob, which was named after...." that would have been considered a 'nit pick' by me, but his error was claiming that the camp was specifically named after a biblical characther who slaughtered arabs instead of a former presidents son, considering part of the article was the bias against arabs / muslims by israel and pro-isreal supporters was a theme of his essay, I would hardly consider this a 'nit pick' as it blatently fails as a piece of evidence supporting this important theme in his essay. But I have made the best case I can that this is an important error, and not a nitpick, so with this we shall have to disagree. It is noted that you consider it only a 'nit pick' and Nixon, Mof Jerrod and I consider it an important error. I do not believe the 'nit pick' or 'not nitpick' question deserves any further comment.

Yes, without the origins of the name of Camp David, Mike's essay cannot stand up ....

Fine, lets see how well your convictions stand up. I will start a new thread.

Matus

And you're still a coward. You couldn't respond to my criticism of your position, so you decide to deflect it by starting a new thread where you can attempt to control the flow of the debate. Pathetic.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

It is still there. I have asked him if it will be removed. He need not remove it right away, but acknowledging that it will be removed only takes a few seconds.

I was going to say "when I next update my site", but now I'm feeling inclined to leave it in, just because you're being an asshole about it.

Anger is the path to the Dark Side. Don't let your emotions blind you. If you don't remove it because of Matus, then you've let HIM control YOUR actions, and an action that is wrong and dishonest (intentionally retaining an inaccurate piece of data could be considered dishonest,) and you don't want that, do you?

Besides, it really is a little bigger than a "nit." For one thing, it really isn't that hard to find out the truth, it turns out...

http://home.rose.net/~dingdong/CDHistory/

For another thing, come to think of it, it doesn't really matter why the heck it is called Camp David. The camp used to be called Shangri-La, and is merely a quiet vacation spot for Presidents (or so it seems.)

But let's say we don't know that.

The name most likely came BEFORE the Arabs. I really doubt (even without any data) that they built a Camp and called it Camp David JUST to tweak the Arabs' nose. Have a little benefit of the doubt, and I would guess they just want to host everyone in a vacation resort rather than the formality of the White House. In fact, I couldn't even consider the possibility that Camp David was deliberately chosen just to tweak the Arabs' noses until you suggested it.

And what could they do? It is already called Camp David, rightly or wrongly. The Arabs are coming. The Israelis are coming. They want to host them (or so it seems) in a relatively informal resort. What could they do? If they suddenly renamed it something else, well, now maybe the Israelis would be unhappy, and let's not forget the practicality and sentimentality involved in a name.

[Darth Wong]

Anger is the path to the Dark Side.

Perhaps you didn't notice that I'm a Sith Lord.

Don't let your emotions blind you. If you don't remove it because of Matus, then you've let HIM control YOUR actions, and an action that is wrong and dishonest (intentionally retaining an inaccurate piece of data could be considered dishonest,) and you don't want that, do you?

So? If someone's going to dismiss an entire set of points because of a trivia error, that says more about him than it does about the points. I'm starting to think it may serve as a litmus test for idiots.

[matus1976]

It is still there. I have asked him if it will be removed. He need not remove it right away, but acknowledging that it will be removed only takes a few seconds.

Idiot. He has already admitted it was incorrect.

No, actually he didnt, he said "Oh well, I guess I should have researched the background of Camp David" He did not say 'Nixon, you are correct, it was an incorrect statement to make'

You dont know how to argue either.

Wow, a you too argument!

Exemplyfying how pointless it is to resort to such vague meaningless statements as 'you dont know how to argue' in the first place.

By your rediculous standard, one must solve every murder before claiming that all murders have a murderer. Or one must disprove all cases of UFO's with non ET invoking explanations before assuming that all are without ETs. Or one must investigate every TM practitioner in full before assuming that none can actually levitate. And you tell ME I dont know how to argue?

Still perpetrating this ridiculous strawman?

Since you have yet to respond to it, yes, and it is not a strawman, as a strawman is a vague charachterization of an argument set up only to be targeted instead of the true argument.

I see you're a lying little shit who thought he could snip this without anyone noticing:

No, I suggest that Nixon should try and rebut the argument being made from the article, rather than FUCKING NITPICKING ancillary POINTS!!!! Dumb ... fucking .... retard.

Oh, is that what I did, I guess your right, I am a 'lying little shit' and I was trying to pull a fast one over on ya, boy, your too quick for me. Or maybe I didnt feel it worth responding to this statement, considering I do not agree with its premise. I do not feel Nixon was 'nitpicking ancillary points' but if that is your opinion than so be it, more power to you. Besides, why are you telling me what you want nixon to do? I am not Nixon.

Dishonest little fuck....

Had wong's factual error been "Camp Jacob, which was named after...." that would have been considered a 'nit pick' by me, but his error was claiming that the camp was specifically named after a biblical characther who slaughtered arabs instead of a former presidents son, considering part of the article was the bias against arabs / muslims by israel and pro-isreal supporters was a theme of his essay, I would hardly consider this a 'nit pick' as it blatently fails as a piece of evidence supporting this important theme in his essay. But I have made the best case I can that this is an important error, and not a nitpick, so with this we shall have to disagree. It is noted that you consider it only a 'nit pick' and Nixon, Mof Jerrod and I consider it an important error. I do not believe the 'nit pick' or 'not nitpick' question deserves any further comment.

Yes, without the origins of the name of Camp David, Mike's essay cannot stand up ....

Now this is a strawman, funny you criticize me claiming I am making strawman arguments, when mine were not, when you make one yourself in that same post!

I never said that 'without the origins of the name of Camp David, Mike's essay cannot stand up' I said the fact that he made such an egregious error on such a point brings his argument into suspect. I did not say everything he says must now be wrong, I mean I am much more skeptical of his arguments and his data now that I see such a careless error was made.

He and you can claim all you want that this is a 'nitpick' and more power to you, it seems only that Wong and his army of Yes men are only the ones who think it is merely a 'nitpick' while everyone who does not blindly follow everything master wong says does not believe it to be a nitpick. Seems well have to agree to disagree on this point, unless you want to start a debate on "what is a 'nitpick' "

Fine, lets see how well your convictions stand up. I will start a new thread.

Matus

And you're still a coward. You couldn't respond to my criticism of your position, so you decide to deflect it by starting a new thread where you can attempt to control the flow of the debate. Pathetic.

Is that what I did? Well, jeez, again clever Vympel you caught me! You are so clever, what are you doing wasting your time here? Shouldnt you be working on that Grand Unified Field theory of yours? Or perhaps receiving your Noble Prize in economics?

So I am coward for letting nixon take over the argument, and I am coward for starting a debate for myself? Hmm, seems youll call me a coward no matter what I do. Well, if it gives you a warm fuzzy you can call me a coward all you want.

If you want to debate, debate, if you want to just call me names, then dont put up a pretense of wanting to debate, its a waste of my time. If we are going to debate the moral validity of Israel's actions then we must define what we consider morally valid. If you believe your position is morally valid, then I dont see what you are so afraid of?

Matus

[matus1976]

I'm starting to think it may serve as a litmus test for idiots.

Then we will be forced to conclude that your ultimate goal is not an accurate description of an objective reality but instead the perpetuation of your own idealogy at the expense of and in the face of reality. If you so callously include something you know to be factually in error in your essay than your entire intellectual credibility is suspect, despite my disagreements with your position, at least you have remained intellectually honest.

Intentionally including a factual error in an argument reverts you to a mystic of the mind, you are no better than a fortune teller or a psychic surgeon preying on the ignorance of others to promulgate your propoganda and your subjective reality. You become an individual who believes it ok to mold reality about their own preconcieved idealogies, who cares not for the truth, reason, or logic, but instead is no better than a solipsist.

Regards,

Matus

[Vympel]

No, actually he didnt, he said "Oh well, I guess I should have researched the background of Camp David" He did not say 'Nixon, you are correct, it was an incorrect statement to make'

What an asshole- would you like that signed and in writing and in the exact form that you require? Anyone who can read knows that Mike was admitting he was incorrect.

Exemplyfying how pointless it is to resort to such vague meaningless statements as 'you dont know how to argue' in the first place.

Actually it has meaning because it is quite obvious that you do not know how to argue at all.

Since you have yet to respond to it, yes, and it is not a strawman, as a strawman is a vague charachterization of an argument set up only to be targeted instead of the true argument.

Amazing, I am obliged to respond to a strawman now, especially considering that my true position is right there in front of you:

No, I suggest that Nixon should try and rebut the argument being made from the article, rather than FUCKING NITPICKING ancillary POINTS!!!! Dumb ... fucking .... retard.

There it is.

Oh, is that what I did, I guess your right, I am a 'lying little shit' and I was trying to pull a fast one over on ya, boy, your too quick for me. Or maybe I didnt feel it worth responding to this statement, considering I do not agree with its premise. I do not feel Nixon was 'nitpicking ancillary points' but if that is your opinion than so be it, more power to you. Besides, why are you telling me what you want nixon to do? I am not Nixon.

As is plain for all to see, you have obviously failed the litmus test, and are an idiot. You've continue to use one error that does not affect the main point of the article whatsoever to call the credibility of the author into question, thereby hoping to dismiss the entire article. This is an ad hominem fallacy. Look it up.

I can't wait to see you recieve your Village Idiot Title.

I never said that 'without the origins of the name of Camp David, Mike's essay cannot stand up' I said the fact that he made such an egregious error on such a point brings his argument into suspect. I did not say everything he says must now be wrong, I mean I am much more skeptical of his arguments and his data now that I see such a careless error was made.

Which is the same FUCKING THING, therefore, it's not a strawman. Again, you are attempting to dismiss the entire article based on one minor error, without attempting to challenge the main thrust of the article, because you're too fucking stupid to do so.

He and you can claim all you want that this is a 'nitpick' and more power to you, it seems only that Wong and his army of Yes men are only the ones who think it is merely a 'nitpick' while everyone who does not blindly follow everything master wong says does not believe it to be a nitpick. Seems well have to agree to disagree on this point, unless you want to start a debate on "what is a 'nitpick' "

Cry like the indignant little shit you are- the only people who think it's actually a powerful criticism are you, Jerjerrod (possibly) and the original idiot, Nixon. The denizens of this forum have very different views, and Mike has debated many of us on many different topics- your self-righteous whining will do you no good.

Is that what I did? Well, jeez, again clever Vympel you caught me! You are so clever, what are you doing wasting your time here? Shouldnt you be working on that Grand Unified Field theory of yours? Or perhaps receiving your Noble Prize in economics?

So I am coward for letting nixon take over the argument, and I am coward for starting a debate for myself? Hmm, seems youll call me a coward no matter what I do. Well, if it gives you a warm fuzzy you can call me a coward all you want.

If you want to debate, debate, if you want to just call me names, then dont put up a pretense of wanting to debate, its a waste of my time. If we are going to debate the moral validity of Israel's actions then we must define what we consider morally valid. If you believe your position is morally valid, then I dont see what you are so afraid of?

Given the lack of a defense and a profuse amount of whining and pathetic insults, Concession Accepted, bitch.

[Darth Wong]

I'm starting to think it may serve as a litmus test for idiots.

Then we will be forced to conclude that your ultimate goal is not an accurate description of an objective reality but instead the perpetuation of your own idealogy at the expense of and in the face of reality.

A minor nitpick error which has no real effect on the central points of the argument is evidence of a wholesale attempt to distort reality? Interesting how you denied committing this fallacy before, yet you commit it wholeheartedly now. Thanks for confirming that you are, in fact, an idiot.

If you so callously include something you know to be factually in error in your essay than your entire intellectual credibility is suspect, despite my disagreements with your position, at least you have remained intellectually honest.

It is minor. The fact that you are making a mountain out of a molehill is not giving me particular impetus to put out a fix, particularly when it has no real bearing on the overall conclusions or arguments of the page. And the fact that you are attempting to claim that my "entire intellectual credibility is suspect" based on this nitpick is a perfect example of the red-herring nitpick fallacy which you claim to be innocent of.

It turns out that I was completely correct. This nitpick turned out to be an excellent litmus test, having caught one idiot red-handed already.

Intentionally including a factual error in an argument reverts you to a mystic of the mind

So now you think I "intentionally included" it in the first place? Moving up in the world, eh? Starting with nitpicks, moving on to ad-hominem attacks.

you are no better than a fortune teller or a psychic surgeon preying on the ignorance of others to promulgate your propoganda and your subjective reality.

Ah, so my failure to remove an insignificant error means that everything I say is crap, eh? As I said before, thanks for demonstrating that I was 100% correct about your methods.

You become an individual who believes it ok to mold reality about their own preconcieved idealogies, who cares not for the truth, reason, or logic, but instead is no better than a solipsist.

Ah, yet more attempts to cast guilt by association. Do you have any more shopworn rhetorical tricks to pull out of your ass? I am now "molding reality" because I don't bother to update my page, even though I have already publicly acknowledged that it's an error? Thanks for making yourself look like a complete idiot. It's a real time-saver.

I'd say that's a big Concession Accepted. He has been claiming for many pages now that he would not use a minor nitpick as an excuse to dismiss everything that someone says. But he has just done precisely that: claiming that my ENTIRE METHOD has been reduced to pseudoscience and mysticism by this insignificant nitpick.