War Room Lounge v61: Fun Fact: 'Race Bannon' describes two different individuals in Orbit Trump

[EGarrett]

Well, let's see the goods, then.



You don't know what a "strawman" is, apparently. That's not a strawman. I'm saying that your definition is so expansive that it is meaningless. That's a true statement (and even if I were wrong, it's not a strawman).

Really? Let's google "strawman argument."

A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent.

You tried to reply to a definition that was not what I offered (corrupting as dishonesty alone). The definition I offered DOES in fact have meaning and significance and applies to a specific category.

You said "then everyone is corrupt," but the definition says specifically that it's people in power. So no, not everyone is corrupt. Do you understand that?

 

[Jack V Savage]

Wow, you took your daughter swimming for 2 years? Since you also ran away from every discussion where you tried to debate me 2 years ago?

That didn't happen, though. What I suspect is that you were responding to me while I ignored you. I asked you to provide evidence for some of your wild claims (like the bizarre "ad hominem" story). You attempted to provide evidence of one of your claims, but it turned out that you were lying.

Anyway, if you want to try to do a better job making your point than you were able to in that two-year-old discussion that you're apparently obsessed with, I'm listening. Good luck.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Really? Let's google "strawman argument."

A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting anargument that was not presented by that opponent.

So you see my point, yes?

You tried to reply to a definition that was not what I offered. The definition I offered DOES in fact have meaning and significance and applies to a specific category.

No, the definition you did provide is so expansive that it is essentially meaningless.

If all you're going to do is this kind of hyperaggressive, uninformed nitpickery while not making any substantive points (you think Clinton is corrupt. OK. Why?), people will soon tire of engaging you.

 

[Limbo Pete]

Two years and five lounge thread pages in the making

The unseen hand of Forum Fate guiding us all to hilarity

 

[EGarrett]

@Lead we need a poll which plats status precisely needs revocation, there is a multitude of opinions

He said no. Your dumb War Room vendettas are not going there.

 

[Limbo Pete]

In case I actually am back on ignore, someone ask EGarrett if he'll fite me irl. I know a movie theater parking lot in Mississauga that would be perfect.

 

[EGarrett]

So you see my point, yes?

Argument:

a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong.

The reason I said Hillary is corrupt is that I could demonstrate that her behavior fit that defintion of corruption. You tried to argue that my definition was meaningless, but you didn't respond to my actual definition, since my definition did NOT apply to anyone that was dishonest as you claimed.

Strawman.

No, the definition you did provide is so expansive that it is essentially meaningless.

Really? I just explained to you that it applies to dishonesty by people in power, not everyone. And that is significant because a dishonest person isn't fit to hold power.

That is meaning and you mischaracterized it. It's okay, you won't be talking around this. I'm very, very good at spotting BS.

If all you're going to do is this kind of hyperaggressive, uninformed nitpickery while not making any substantive points (you think Clinton is corrupt. OK. Why?), people will soon tire of engaging you.

Dig that escape route, Jack.

 

[EGarrett]

That didn't happen, though. What I suspect is that you were responding to me while I ignored you.

Nope, you were replying to other people in the thread and you replied to me in other cases after running away from some threads, so you definitely did not have me on ignore. If you claim that you just "chose not to answer." I know you chose not to because you can't argue this.

I asked you to provide evidence for some of your wild claims (like the bizarre "ad hominem" story). You attempted to provide evidence of one of your claims, but it turned out that you were lying.

^^^^ Notice that Jack just continues to assert that he wins but he can't establish anything? Jack can't argue a point. He tried to claim that the definition of "corruption" was bad because it applied to anyone, but it doesn't, it only applies to people in power, and he won't even acknowledge his own failure there.

Anyway, if you want to try to do a better job making your point than you were able to in that two-year-old discussion that you're apparently obsessed with, I'm listening. Good luck.

I'm not "obsessed with it." I just have a better memory than you do. I'm sure if you needed to look up something that old it might require "obsession," I just know these things off the top of my head. Sorry to break it to you, but that's the honest truth.

Oh, and regarding the other threads, I just brought up the Clinton one because it came up first on google as an example. Since you're clearly not able to defend your own last post, trying to go to other things would just be you trying to distract, so that's a no.

 

[Jack V Savage]

The reason I said Hillary is corrupt is that I could demonstrate that her behavior fit that defintion of corruption. You tried to argue that my definition was meaningless, but you didn't respond to my actual definition, since my definition did NOT apply to anyone that was dishonest as you claimed.

You're wrong on multiple levels, actually. You didn't demonstrate that her behavior fit the definition of the word, and you tried to get around that fact by offering an alternate definition that was so expansive that it was meaningless.

Dig that escape route, Jack.

You can cut it off by, like, making good posts. Good luck.

 

[Limbo Pete]

Argument:

a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong.

The reason I said Hillary is corrupt is that I could demonstrate that her behavior fit that defintion of corruption. You tried to argue that my definition was meaningless, but you didn't respond to my actual definition, since my definition did NOT apply to anyone that was dishonest as you claimed.

Strawman.


Really? I just explained to you that it applies to dishonesty by people in power, not everyone. And that is significant because a dishonest person isn't fit to hold power.

That is meaning and you mischaracterized it. It's okay, you won't be talking around this. I'm very, very good at spotting BS.


Dig that escape route, Jack.

Now this right here is some goddamn rambling nonsense lol

 

[Limbo Pete]

You can cut it off by, like, making good posts. Good luck.

Jesus, take the wheel

 

[Fawlty]

Now this right here is some goddamn ramblint nonsense lol

Pedantophilia is a major problem among these elites.

 

[Jack V Savage]

^^^^ Notice that Jack just continues to assert that he wins but he can't establish anything? Jack can't argue a point. He tried to claim that the definition of "corruption" was bad because it applied to anyone, but it doesn't, it only applies to people in power, and he won't even acknowledge his own failure there.

This is a simple factual matter. You described what happened in a thread. You posted the link to the thread. It didn't line up with your description. Game over.

I'm not "obsessed with it." I just have a better memory than you do. I'm sure if you needed to look up something that old it might require "obsession," I just know these things off the top of my head. Sorry to break it to you, but that's the honest truth.

I think you're obsessed with it. Possible that you actually think that you "won" (whatever that means, in this context) and given your admiration for me, that was a big moment in your life. But I'd think that seeing that, being generous to your character here, you were mistaken about how it went was a little painful. Try harder going forward.

 

[EGarrett]

This is a simple factual matter. You described what happened in a thread. You posted the link to the thread. It didn't line up with your description. Game over.

^^^^^ Notice that Jack just continues to assert that he won and there's no argument but he can't actually reply. This is actually the same behavior as the other spammers who were reduced to posting meme pictures. You're not any better than they are.

I think you're obsessed with it.

So why were you all still talking about me when I'd left the forum last year? Who is obsessed?

(have you noticed yet that none of your points work?)

Possible that you actually think that you "won" (whatever that means, in this context) and given your admiration for me, that was a big moment in your life.

No, it was funny to me that you thought you were clever and I could just bully you like you're a child with simple terms and concepts until you ran away. But since you were still talking about it literally years later, it clearly was a traumatic moment in your life and I live in your head.

But I'd think that seeing that, being generous to your character here, you were mistaken about how it went was a little painful. Try harder going forward.

So let's recap here.

Jack tried to act like he was going to continue from the old thread, I asked him very simply to acknowledge that his claim (that the definition of corruption applied to everyone so was meaningless) was wrong since the definition specifically says dishonesty by people in power and Jack has run away from that point completely. That is the actual key point, no trolling, no posturing or flaming, and Jack has not acknowledged or discussed it at all despite me asking him multiple times, and instead he has tried to talk around it, posture himself as important, and run away.

Can you really not even make it through one point with me? No wonder you were so traumatized that you were still talking about it years later.

 

[Limbo Pete]

 

[EGarrett]

You're wrong on multiple levels, actually. You didn't demonstrate that her behavior fit the definition of the word, and you tried to get around that fact by offering an alternate definition that was so expansive that it was meaningless.

You can cut it off by, like, making good posts. Good luck.

You said "everyone is corrupt, then, and the charge has no meaning or significance."

The definition applies only to people in power, so no, not "everyone is corrupt." You simply incorrectly portrayed what I said.

No trolling, no posturing, no ad hominems, no BS. Do you acknowledge that?

 

[waiguoren]

@Gandhi
@BarryDillon

Have you watched anything with Lucas Leite and coyote half guard? I got a series with Lachlan but it’s pretty broad and I think I’ve taken what I can from it at this point. Wondering who I should move to next.

Is "Coyote half" what he's now calling the half guard game he's been doing for 75 years? Gotta make those marketing bucks. That game will give your opponent grandpa knees. I remember when he tried to sweep DJ Jackson 15 times with it and failed every time. I bet Jackson still feels that match in his knees.

 

[Lead]

@Jack V Savage
@Egarret

I see this happen a lot and it drives me crazy to a degree. You are so deep in some specific recollection of an interaction (or lack thereof) and both have mentioned you would be pleased to actually engage in a debate about something political. This is my call for a voluntary reset of whatever that thread was. Come to an agreement on what the political themed debate was begin discussing it instead of continually referencing it. If the past 20 posts has really been about the statement "Hillary is corrupt", 90% of it has not been about that.

 

[Lead]

@EGarrett ^

 

[EGarrett]

@Jack V Savage
@Egarret

I see this happen a lot and it drives me crazy to a degree. You are so deep in some specific recollection of an interaction (or lack thereof) and both have mentioned you would be pleased to actually engage in a debate about something political. This is my call for a voluntary reset of whatever that thread was. Come to an agreement on what the political themed debate was begin discussing it instead of continually referencing it. If the past 20 posts has really been about the statement "Hillary is corrupt", 90% of it has not been about that.

These guys were literally still tagging me and flaming me like a week ago when I left the forum last year.

I'd love to have actual normal discussion but the way the War Room is moderated, you guys let people flame each other until it turns into endless vendettas between posters. (also Jack won't answer the real point)

 

[Lead]

Is "Coyote half" what he's now calling the half guard game he's been doing for 75 years? Gotta make those marketing bucks. That game will give your opponent grandpa knees. I remember when he tried to sweep DJ Jackson 15 times with it and failed every time. I bet Jackson still feels that match in his knees.

Yea, it seems a bit rough but most of my game is pressure and if I could apply that on a leg and hold it throughout the sweep and after completing it, I'm going to get really good positioning. I'm just starting to get to the point where when I go for a sweep, I'm thinking out how to get the best position upon completion and still have good control of them. There's a ton of sloppy go to sweeps I would do that maybe got me to a neutral position or on top, but I didn't keep good control from it.