Thursday, August 16, 2007

Holy. Freakin'. God.


I waited six weeks for this? Really, are you prepared to take your intellectual lead on matters military from someone who thinks they're called "contentious objectors?"
Posted by at

5 comments:

Rev.Paperboy said...

I knew that RT was going into a battle of wits with an unarmed man, but this is beating up on a blind, deaf, quadrapalegic. Ye gods.

5:57 AM
M@ said...

He had me at "Webster's dictionary defines 'moral support' as..."

Yeah, congratulations, you passed grade 3 essay-writing, Richard. Let us know when you catch up with the grown-ups, willya?

Oh, and repeating the dictionary definition at the end: wow. Such emotional impact.

(Why does he take his definition for "moral support" from a source that's different from that for the definition of "demoralize"? I mean, if you're going to use a dictionary as the cornerstone of your argument, you should probably limit yourself to just one...

9:19 AM
Lindsay Stewart said...

I've deconstructed some of Richard's arguments in the comments over there. His response has been pretty much...did not, is too, you're dumb and so there.

11:29 AM
Adam C said...

You did a good job, PSA. I had nothing of substance to add to your comments (so I didn't).

11:43 AM
Niles said...

But..but...contentious objector is so *accurate*. It just doesn't mean what he thinks it means. Which pretty much sums up his entire argument.

It's just the same old "fall in and shut up" in new packaging. PSA beating him with a shoe in the comments didn't even dent the exterior carapace. And he has the blithe gall to go ad hominem on her mental stability in a forum set up to allegedly be 'civil'.

I'm so looking forward to the civic election.

11:54 AM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)