Here's a question for you: Why is there no value in argumentation with someone who will not accept your idea?  Doesn't that just mean the other person has considered your perspective earlier, and rejected it?  Moreover, does that make their argument less true whether it's written by them or by, say, Wornstrum?

And for the record, I do raise a couple other character issues unaddressed.  Specifically:
1: The answering of some, yet not all, arguments within posts, which is actively a choice not to argue against some issues, clearly indicating a willingness to dismiss arguments.  That's a unique problem because, unlike the scenario of entirely missing a post (what happened with the tax post, and which is a legitimate explanation), addressing a small portion of claims in a post you're replying to anyway is an active choice to ignore arguments.  That's one of the more serious charges I present in my prior post.

2: How do you explain the Greece thread, then?  You VERY clearly dismissed posts of mine simply because I refused to address the issue from the perspective you wanted.  So either I'm part of the classification of people who will disregard anything of value, at which point you probably shouldn't give a crap about trying to defend yourself anyway, or there's an inconsistency here.

3: There's also the inflation thread, another instance in which I was observing your willingness to respond.  That thread's been sitting around with my replies, waiting for a response for about the same time as the corporate tax thread as well.

Xeno that's bullcrap.

You cannot defend your posts. PERIOD!

You have no room to stand on, you then ignore, lie, or otherwise evade.

You either are a troll as Kemp accuses, or are trying to avoid arguments you cannot win for fear it might force you to see the world differently.

Come wear my glasses and see it my way.

I am not partisan, I am correct!

Why is noone pointing at Flint in all of this aswell? He is the biggest evader and ignorant poster on this forum by far.. Guess its a matter of comeradery.

Regardless, can we make a decent 2012 election prediction/debate thread

> Simon wrote:

> Clearly, Zarf doesn't believe in second chances.

He believes in infinite chances.

I won't deny this.  Admittedly, it's difficult for me to draw the line on when to actually initiate protests such as the above.  At the very least, I like exercising a judicial approach: Ensure I have enough evidence to make the case that someone is violating a code of conduct, then present the case with the understanding that I represent only one side of the story, and thus the other side should at least have a chance to respond.  From there, I have to recognize that even with my case laid out, it's possible that I could misinterpret a situation, perhaps due to bias on my own part.  Yes, in the process, I probably give someone much more leniency than should be given, but the short answer is that I'd rather screw myself over and be absolutely sure I'm justified than jump the gun and be attacked for misrepresenting somebody.

http://www.nytimes.com/1990/05/31/nyregion/suspected-new-york-mob-leaders-are-indicted-in-contract-rigging.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

every window in NYC public housing.  ALL OF THEM

Jesus christ zarf.... How long has xeno been pissing you off for?