As we say down South, I glory in New Guy’s spunk.
Most antis I rip up jsut get made or, more often, leave in a huff.
Not New Guy.
And he catches me in the same thing you other commenters catch me at, cofusing one commenter with another.
Since he’s new here, he doesn’t know I do that yet.
No excuses, New Guy, when I do that I’m just plain wrong.
My readers stick with me because they think I have a lot to say.
So here is 1) Dennis’s reply to New Guy, 2) New Guy’s comment and 3) my windup:
Dennis:
What is interesting, is that the questions the anti’s have about what we say, are vague. Having followed the thread, it is intersting to note that anti’s say, and I’m paraphrasing here “I don’t understand”. What they fail to ask for is, is clarification on the parts they don’t understand.
If you are posed a question or a position which you are trying to respond to, and you do not understand part of it. You question the writer on the section that you didn’t understand. This is the standard response when someone genuinely doesn’t understand.
If they don’t understand any of it, then either they are too intellectually challenged to make a coherent argument, or they are trying to avoid the question being posed.
Comment by Dennis —
Spunky New Guy:
Since the mods haven’t let my response to you through yet, let me tell you what I will say.
I never assumed that you didn’t go to college. You might well have been a professor of
economics. You still don’t understand economic rationality. I have disagreed with
professional intellectuals on all sorts of subjects when I know I’m right. I am not afraid
of your credentials.
Also, the fact that you were a professional writer doesn’t mean you know how to write
properly. The world is full of writers who are witty and clever, but do not understand logic
and thus cannot articulate their positions well enough to pass the scrutiny of people who DO
understand logic. If your standard of argumentative writing is that arguments should be
clearly stated with easy to understand trains of reasoning then the writers I refer to are
poor writers, no matter how much money they make at their trade. Since we were having an
argument, argumentative standards are the only proper standards to apply to the quality of
our writing. So the fact that you have made a large amount of money at writing does not tell
me that you are a good argumentative writer. It might just tell me that you are witty and
clever, but don’t understand logic. This seems quite likely.
I did not write the comment about defining antis.
MY WINDUP:
First, SILENCE IS CONSENT.
Newguy, you antis constantly complain, probably often correctly about the heavy had of Stormfront moderators. So do the eregular Stormfronters.
But Mommy Professor, like so many priests, lacksa a sense of humor.
It is a bit funny to hear people on a side that absolutely bans all debate on race, that uses riots here and PRISON in Europe, complain about censorship in the area provided for you on Stormfront.
When I SAY this, antis belatedly say they don’t like all that censorship.
But they NEVER use the antis thread to protest that censorship unless we throw it in their faces.
Don’t blame us for assuming you approve of the criminal suppression on your side:
SILENCE IS CONSENT and you are SILENT about it.
I have already apologized for misquoting you.
Regular readers will get a laugh out of your telling me you are not afraid of me. I give them hell for any apology for their opinions. The last thing I do is ask themt o be afraid of my credentials.
The problem is that antis keep ASKING for credentials. Was it you who said I had skimmed through Atlas Shrugged — I have read it several times — and then said I didn’t know what economic rationality was?
“Skimmed through” is a heavy accusation. It implised strongly that since I am not on your side, I don’t read much.
No, you didn’t accuse me of not going to college. You just said I had trouble reading.
Reciting my credentials is very, very boring for me. But every word you said demanded that I do so.
Then you accuse me of bragging or defiantly say you are not afraid of me.
I am doing neither. You accused me of being an ignoramus so I had to go through all that credentials crap to answer you.
#1 by Antonio Fini on 05/03/2006 - 2:49 pm
I have my doubts about arguing with antis. But on second thought what makes someone an active anti anyway? If you think racists are Satan why come to Stormfront and argue with them?
I think these people are crying out for help, as liberals used to say about black street criminals. They know something is wrong with the world, and the information their teachers gave them doesn’t jibe with external reality. So they come to SF, daring someone to prove Karl Marx made a mistake. I guess it’s our duty to help them.
#2 by Peter on 05/03/2006 - 5:06 pm
This guy writes does not write logically.
He simply makes assumptions, sweeping generalizations and insults without support.
He criticizes your writing without reading any of it. He says you are stupid, but can’t say why.
What every lover of whites says, he declares, contradicts what he falsely says 98% of the population thinks. This is an illogical support for an argument and bad writing.
The idea that something is acceptable “because everybody else believes so” is what people in cults think, it is how people in totalitarian societies think.
Actually, poll after poll confirms that 80-95% of inhabitants of the USA are against the alien Invasion. This includes aliens who have been here for a while, too. This means that the vast majority of Americans are in support of the pro-white principles on Stormfront.
If he hangs out here long enough, he just may learn some basic thinking school and perhaps even how to write a little.
#3 by Peter on 05/03/2006 - 6:47 pm
I went to Stormfront and read the comments. You were too nice. They were simply distracting you by refusing to discuss the issues. You wasted your time by defending yourself against the insults. Instead, you should have demanded that they argue the issues, not Bob’s credentials, nor Bob’s writing techniques, nor whatever smoke they were distracting you with.
#4 by Mark on 05/03/2006 - 8:29 pm
Bob why didn’t you just openly laugh at him — like you’ve taught us to do — and stick to the mantra? Did you fall into the same trap the respectible conservatives do when debating race?
#5 by Dennis on 05/04/2006 - 8:17 am
Laughing is good, when done personally. But just sticking to the mantra doesn’t prove much. You need to engage with anti’s in a way which forces the anti to contradict themselves, or make a fool of themselves. Considering that their PC ideas are foolish to begin with, it is just a matter of time before they screw up.
You are not debating to change the anti’s mind. You are debating with an anti to de-throne him and allow other to see how their line of thinking is flawed.
When someone seem them falter and fail again and again, hopefully they upon witnessing will think a little harder about their own ideas.