Jump to content

Nonsense "arguments" from Ed


Recommended Posts

Ad hominum posts have no place on this or any other forum, and the following comments in this thread do nothing other than attack the poster:

 

"I'd say you're not only not interested, but likely not capable."

 

"I knew it. Ed is incapable of carrying on an argument, even after being tediously guided right to what he needs to do to make one."

 

"Ed, why does the ACLU deserve a Prevaricator's Knot? You have yet to offer a coherent reason."

 

"This one is about your inability to offer even a shred of an argument to support your views. "

 

"You just toss words and phrases around, without even attempting to put forward a concept."

 

 

 

OGE, with all due respect and as a former moderator, you have no business taking sides in the argument, as you did below:

 

"Ed, the F word tactic is not on point and can only lead away from the original argument that the ACLU is being dishonest"

 

None of the quotes from Merlyn above have anything to do with the original argument either, and as I said at the opening of the post, are only ad hominum attacks.

 

Quite frankly, this like grandstanding more than an argument. OGE, you should have trusted your first instinct, and deleted the thread as a personal attack.

 

To be clear, that's just my opinion as a former moderator, and not a reflection of who I happen to agree with in the "discussion" at hand.(This message has been edited by eolesen)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have already answered your question, Merlyn.

 

I can argue just as well as you. I just don't resort to name calling & belittling. That's about as juvenile as it gets!

 

And you statement about the number of posts it took, in your opinion, to get an answer was a total mis-truth, but did I call you a liar? Nope. Sorry, I won't stoop to your level.

 

Do you have any references where the ACLU tried to get Menorah's removed? I would like to read them.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ed writes:

I have already answered your question, Merlyn.

 

I must have missed your answer, Ed. Instead of taking the time to type that you've already answered, why not just re-type your actual answer? That way I won't have to "guess" at what you mean.

 

So Ed, what did you mean when you said "Same reason" earlier?

 

I'll return the favor in advance by telling you an ACLU menorah case that I've told you before: Allegheny v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 (1989)

See? Instead of just telling you that I already told you, I *told* you again, so you now have that information.

 

So could you tell me what you meant by "Same reason" earlier? If you explained already, I missed it, so please repost your explanation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...