Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Author Topic: Lingo Sat. Night Classics  (Read 11022 times)

Robert Hutchinson

  • Member
  • Posts: 2333
Lingo Sat. Night Classics
« Reply #15 on: March 22, 2005, 01:07:25 AM »
[quote name=\'dzinkin\' date=\'Mar 21 2005, 08:27 PM\'](Hence his love of the GSN board, where — were I so inclined — I could convince numerous individuals to believe that Pat O'Brien hosts The Price is Right, Bill O'Reilly runs GSN, and Bob Barker and Chuck Woolery are the same person.)
[/quote]

I still say Barker has to retire from Wheel sometime.
Visit my CB radio at www.twitter.com/ertchin

CaseyAbell

  • Guest
Lingo Sat. Night Classics
« Reply #16 on: March 22, 2005, 09:38:39 AM »
I don't know what the bowling-buddy metaphor is supposed to be, and I don't care. But I don't expect anybody to believe anything I say unless I provide some supporting evidence. In this thread, for instance, I provided facts about the shows in the Lingo marathon (along with a link to an excellent Lingo episode guide) which another poster requested.

In this thread my critics have provided no facts, strange metaphors and personal attacks. I'll let others decide who's contributing more here.
« Last Edit: March 22, 2005, 09:39:21 AM by CaseyAbell »

melman1

  • Member
  • Posts: 409
Lingo Sat. Night Classics
« Reply #17 on: March 22, 2005, 11:34:49 AM »
[quote name=\'CaseyAbell\' date=\'Mar 22 2005, 07:38 AM\']In this thread my critics have provided no facts, strange metaphors and personal attacks. I'll let others decide who's contributing more here.
[/quote]
Hey, now there's a tactic I remember from GSN's boards.  Any words of advice or disagreement are by definition a "personal attack" by "my critics".  Boo-hoo-hoo.

The point has been made to you, Casey.  The "as I said on xxx board" remarks are unnecessary here.  Unless you're providing a link as an alternative to copy-and-paste (which you didn't do), or unless the "xxx board" discussion has something of value to offer (if it did, you didn't say that either).

The folks here who read GSN's boards already knew that you posted there, and those of us that don't read GSN's boards don't care a bit.

I'm not going to argue it further.
melman1, "some sort of God on this message board" - PYLdude, 7/9/06.

dzinkin

  • Guest
Lingo Sat. Night Classics
« Reply #18 on: March 22, 2005, 12:42:01 PM »
[quote name=\'CaseyAbell\' date=\'Mar 22 2005, 09:38 AM\']I don't know what the bowling-buddy metaphor is supposed to be, and I don't care. But I don't expect anybody to believe anything I say unless I provide some supporting evidence.
[snapback]79033[/snapback]
[/quote]
Please demonstrate your supporting evidence of the claim that saying "I also posted this on some other board" is proper netiquette.  My claim to the contrary is based on many years of using the Internet and a variety of discussion groups -- online experience which I daresay is a great deal more extensive than yours.

Of course, in the past you've claimed to know more about the behind-the-scenes machinations at Hollywood Squares and Pyramid than did the people who actually worked on the shows, so this arrogance is hardly surprising.

Quote
In this thread my critics have provided no facts, strange metaphors and personal attacks.
Saying that you run with the "bowling buddy crowd" was uncalled for, and I corrected melman on it.  It's true that your repeated intentional distortions of what other people say -- just so you can have an argument to shoot down -- are neither strange metaphors nor personal attacks.  However, neither is calling you on your repeated intentional distortions; of course, calling you on them is stating a fact.  (Can I read your mind as to intent?  No, but said distortions happen way too often on your part to be accidental.)

I personally don't care if, when making a comment here, you want to point out other boards where you made the same comment.  But hiding behind a cowpie explanation like "netiquette" will get you nowhere.

Quote
I'll let others decide who's contributing more here.
It certainly isn't the extremely arrogant individual who's clearly intelligent enough to make a cogent argument, yet -- for some bizarre reason known only to himself -- decides to invent straw-man arguments to attack instead.
« Last Edit: March 22, 2005, 02:40:54 PM by dzinkin »

DrJWJustice

  • Member
  • Posts: 489
Lingo Sat. Night Classics
« Reply #19 on: March 22, 2005, 12:51:29 PM »
[quote name=\'dzinkin\' date=\'Mar 22 2005, 12:42 PM\']It certainly isn't the extremely arrogant individual who's clearly intelligent enough to make a cogent argument, yet -- for some bizarre reason known only to himself -- decides to invent straw-man arguments to attack instead.
[snapback]79059[/snapback]
[/quote]

Sounds like the introduction of the next category of stupidity at the Scarecrow Awards, Zink.  And the winner of the day's most arrogant-and-factually-unfounded post is:  CaseyAbell!