Oh good lord! Would you calm the f*sck down already? Christ, you act like someone took a shiit in the middle of your bed. <br><br>Yes, Skul copy-n-pasted-n-didn't-give-credit. Bad move and he shouldn't have done it. <br><br>But you. What the hell?<br><br>OHMYGOD!! OHMYGOD!! OHMYGOD!! SOUND THE ALARM! THE WORLD IS ON FIRE!! DEATH! DESTRUCTION! DOOM-GLOOM!<br><br>Give it a rest, you Jackass. <br><br>* * * * * * * * * * * * * *<br>I [censored] bigger than you.<br>

I accept that political debate on this forum in most cases has content appropriated from news items and commentary that passes through one's own filter. I've pointed out many times where posts of outrage (at the Liberal Media, Democrats, etc.) on this forum are in fact the daily outrage from Newsmax, Powerline or Drudge. I can listen to Rush in the morning and later read here the same outrage verbatim. It's pretty easy to spot when the exact language is used in those arguments. <br><br>But that's the forum. And in the spirit of this thread, I Don't Care. The point of the forum is to provoke some kind of meaningful and worthwhile discussion. Skul's post did exactly that. <br><br>When I see 'Letters to the Editor' do this same thing, that pisses me off because there is no discussion. When I see the same reference source being lifted with different signatures to each, then I become suspicious. How many other newspapers is this this happening to? <br><br><br><br>

Listen, you get the blindfold . . . PolyPol can bring the smokes . . . I'll scout out a nice brick wall . . . Someone can notify the firing squad.<br><br>There, everyone feel better now?<br><br><br><br>* * * * * * * * * * * * * *<br>I [censored] bigger than you.<br>

hmph! i wouldn't have responded in the first place had i known it was just a copy-and-paste. damn!<br><br>and here i thought that jimmy crack line was clever for a thought that just popped into a message boarder's post. not for a pro who gets paid to deliver clever commentary. <br><br>--<br>Straw-man rhetorical techniques are the practice of refuting weaker arguments than one's opponents offer. 2 "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is 2 create a position easily refuted, then attribute that position to your opponent.

Kiss and make up?<br><br>Awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww <br><br><br><br><br><br>Nope.<br><br>

You don't actually read what I've written, or you're just expecting me to have said something different? <br><br>

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p> I accept that political debate on this forum in most cases has content appropriated from news items and commentary that passes through one's own filter. I've pointed out many times where posts of outrage (at the Liberal Media, Democrats, etc.) on this forum are in fact the daily outrage from Newsmax, Powerline or Drudge. I can listen to Rush in the morning and later read here the same outrage verbatim. It's pretty easy to spot when the exact language is used in those arguments. <br><br>But that's the forum. And in the spirit of this thread, I Don't Care. The point of the forum is to provoke some kind of meaningful and worthwhile discussion. Skul's post did exactly that. <br><br>When I see 'Letters to the Editor' do this same thing, that pisses me off because there is no discussion. When I see the same reference source being lifted with different signatures to each, then I become suspicious. How many other newspapers is this this happening to? <p><hr></blockquote><p>I accept the political debate here in this forum as you do but I do it to a point. one can listen to Rush on the radio and hear the same arguments espoused here in this forum a day later. That's OK. And I say "that's OK" not as some friggin' forum police but just as trying to explain what happens. one can listen to an energetic speaker and because they are so persuasive their words become your own. That is how we communicate. <br><br>But when someone verbatim steals someone else's thoughts and work, then someone should call them on it as you did. I have often complained on boards here and there of a copy paste with no acknowledgment of the author. But virtually all of those are delineated by a paragraph or a line or something which says, "these words are not mine". That kind of non credit is irritating but this is different. Skulugary posted this as his own missive as he has done numerous times. When many people posted to his thread he did not mention the mistake. "Uh, I got these brainy statements from elsewhere".<br><br>Not a peep. He posted again. Real short not to give away his brain size. That makes him a steaming piling of donkey shiit<br><br>

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>one can listen to Rush on the radio and hear the same arguments espoused here in this forum a day later.<p><hr></blockquote><p>When?<br><br>Where?<br><br>By who?<br><br>* * * * * * * * * * * * * *<br>I [censored] bigger than you.<br>

Usually any argument that uses the phrase "seething liberal" will do. <br><br><br><br>

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>When?<br><br>Where?<br><br>By who?<p><hr></blockquote><p> <br>Shiit MattMac112 I dunno. Hard to look up because what you quote I am describing someone who listens then writes his own thoughts. That is hard to track. I can easily take a sentence off of Rush's website and see if it is appearing here but what you ask is impossible. But that's OK.<br><br>People can listen to Rush and formulate their life structure. They can then come here and espouse it. That is perfectly fine and dandy. I have no qualms about it. Don't make my complaint into that. It is not. I might accuse you of creating a "straw man". HAHAHAHAHHA<br><br>