SSS, one quick question...

The forum for general posting. Come join the madness. :)
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
peacock2121
Posts: 18451
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:58 am

#26 Post by peacock2121 » Fri Sep 19, 2008 11:34 am

Jeemie wrote:
peacock2121 wrote:
Jeemie wrote:I'll answer...with a question (I know- bad form).

Why do you think anyone's trying to change anyone's vote?
He didn't say he thought that.

He just asked a question - you added the rest.
That's why I said it was bad form to answer a question with a question.

But it was a logical question to ask...because in asking SSS that...is it really too hard to assume he might have been thinking that was a motivation for SSS's posts?
What might have been logical to ask is:

"Do you think he is trying to change people's minds about who to vote for."

They "why" in your question assumed something that you didn't know was true.
Top
User avatar
Jeemie
Posts: 7303
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 5:35 pm
Location: City of Champions Once More (Well, in spirit)!!!!

#27 Post by Jeemie » Fri Sep 19, 2008 12:44 pm

peacock2121 wrote:
Jeemie wrote:
peacock2121 wrote: He didn't say he thought that.

He just asked a question - you added the rest.
That's why I said it was bad form to answer a question with a question.

But it was a logical question to ask...because in asking SSS that...is it really too hard to assume he might have been thinking that was a motivation for SSS's posts?
What might have been logical to ask is:

"Do you think he is trying to change people's minds about who to vote for."

They "why" in your question assumed something that you didn't know was true.
In the name of efficiency, it was a reasonable assumption to make.

I would have found out with the answer to my question whether my assumption was correct or not.
1979 City of Champions 2009
Top
User avatar
Rexer25
It's all his fault. That'll be $10.
Posts: 2899
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:57 am
Location: Just this side of nowhere

#28 Post by Rexer25 » Fri Sep 19, 2008 12:56 pm

Jeemie wrote:I'll answer...with a question (I know- bad form).

Why do you think anyone's trying to change anyone's vote?
If they aren't, I don't understand the purpose in the posts. I'm pretty sure they intend for them to be read, but I'm skipping right through them. I guess I am already tired of the campaign, and when it invades my refuge, as it does every 4 years, I just get more weary.
Enough already. It's my fault! Get over it!

That'll be $10, please.
Top
User avatar
Jeemie
Posts: 7303
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 5:35 pm
Location: City of Champions Once More (Well, in spirit)!!!!

#29 Post by Jeemie » Fri Sep 19, 2008 1:01 pm

Rexer25 wrote:
Jeemie wrote:I'll answer...with a question (I know- bad form).

Why do you think anyone's trying to change anyone's vote?
If they aren't, I don't understand the purpose in the posts. I'm pretty sure they intend for them to be read, but I'm skipping right through them. I guess I am already tired of the campaign, and when it invades my refuge, as it does every 4 years, I just get more weary.
For me, it's to vent...as I said. I suspect that's true of most people.

Plus there are certain people who just like to argue (again, I'm one of those).

And while I feel for you as far as having "the refuge" invaded, the only thing that can really be done is not click on political posts.
1979 City of Champions 2009
Top
User avatar
Sir_Galahad
Posts: 1516
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 7:47 pm
Location: In The Heartland

Re: SSS, one quick question...

#30 Post by Sir_Galahad » Fri Sep 19, 2008 1:10 pm

Rexer25 wrote:Do you think you are going to change anyone's vote in this election?

A short answer will suffice.
One can always hope that by shining the light in your eyes often enough, they will finally open.

If you get a free few minutes, you might want to have a read of David Freddoso's book "The Case against Barack Obama."
Last edited by Sir_Galahad on Fri Sep 19, 2008 1:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing" - Edmund Burke

Perhaps the Hokey Pokey IS what it's all about...
Top
User avatar
Rexer25
It's all his fault. That'll be $10.
Posts: 2899
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:57 am
Location: Just this side of nowhere

#31 Post by Rexer25 » Fri Sep 19, 2008 1:10 pm

Jeemie wrote:
Rexer25 wrote:
Jeemie wrote:I'll answer...with a question (I know- bad form).

Why do you think anyone's trying to change anyone's vote?
If they aren't, I don't understand the purpose in the posts. I'm pretty sure they intend for them to be read, but I'm skipping right through them. I guess I am already tired of the campaign, and when it invades my refuge, as it does every 4 years, I just get more weary.
For me, it's to vent...as I said. I suspect that's true of most people.

Plus there are certain people who just like to argue (again, I'm one of those).

And while I feel for you as far as having "the refuge" invaded, the only thing that can really be done is not click on political posts.
I have vented here on occasion as well, but I try not to be inflammatory. Judging by the language people use, I don't think some of the political posters care, or actual take delight in doing so.

I don't mind an argument, I just wish people could keep civility in mind when they are "discussing" people and events.
Enough already. It's my fault! Get over it!

That'll be $10, please.
Top
User avatar
peacock2121
Posts: 18451
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:58 am

#32 Post by peacock2121 » Fri Sep 19, 2008 1:32 pm

Jeemie wrote:
peacock2121 wrote:
Jeemie wrote: That's why I said it was bad form to answer a question with a question.

But it was a logical question to ask...because in asking SSS that...is it really too hard to assume he might have been thinking that was a motivation for SSS's posts?
What might have been logical to ask is:

"Do you think he is trying to change people's minds about who to vote for."

They "why" in your question assumed something that you didn't know was true.
In the name of efficiency, it was a reasonable assumption to make.

I would have found out with the answer to my question whether my assumption was correct or not.
It's accusatory and agrumentative.

If that is the result you want, good, if it's not, asking a straight question will result in a free flowing conversation - not an argument.
Top
User avatar
Jeemie
Posts: 7303
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 5:35 pm
Location: City of Champions Once More (Well, in spirit)!!!!

#33 Post by Jeemie » Fri Sep 19, 2008 1:38 pm

peacock2121 wrote:
Jeemie wrote:
peacock2121 wrote: What might have been logical to ask is:

"Do you think he is trying to change people's minds about who to vote for."

They "why" in your question assumed something that you didn't know was true.
In the name of efficiency, it was a reasonable assumption to make.

I would have found out with the answer to my question whether my assumption was correct or not.
It's accusatory and agrumentative.

If that is the result you want, good, if it's not, asking a straight question will result in a free flowing conversation - not an argument.
What was accusatory or argumentative about it? Is this suddenly an inflammatory topic?

At any rate, your post might have carried more weight had you made it before Rexer replied to me.
1979 City of Champions 2009
Top
User avatar
KillerTomato
Posts: 2067
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 2:41 pm

#34 Post by KillerTomato » Fri Sep 19, 2008 2:04 pm

silverscreenselect wrote:
KillerTomato wrote:Stepping briefly out of the Lounge, just to ask a question:

In answers of no more than 3 words each, SSS, would you still be suddenly pushing for the Republican ticket if the Democratic ticket looked like:

Pres: Barack Obama; Veep: Hillary Clinton?
Pres: Hillary Clinton; Veep: Barack Obama?
Yes and no respectively; I think it's the President that matters, but my feeling is that neither of those was going to happen. Obama and the Clintons hate each other despite all the lovey doveyness in public right now.

An Obama/Clinton ticket would be faring much better right now than Obama/Biden.

I can't say I disagree that having Sen. Clinton on the ticket might have given the Democrats a Palin-esque bounce, but I'm not sure it would have been good for the Party or for the Nation.

Although had he chosen Sen. Clinton, then it's doubtful Sen. McCain would have chosen Gov. Palin, and perhaps he would have done something truly maverick-y and chosen Ridge or even Leiberman, which would mean he hadn't caved in to the right-wing theocratic base of the Republican Party. I liked the Sen. McCain of 8 years ago, I don't like what he's become in the last 2 weeks.

As for Sen. Clinton, I was never a huge fan of hers, even when she was First Lady. I think it's likely that she's smarter, more politically savvy, and an all-around better candidate than her husband, and 16 years ago, if she'd been Governor of Arkansas, I think she'd have felt better about voting for her than for her husband (although I was happy as a pig in you-know-what that we tossed out King George I).

My biggest problem with Sen. Clinton thisyear was that I am frankly tired of "legacy" presidencies and absolutely see the need for someone OTHER than a Bush or Clinton in the White House. Maybe Sen. Obama isn't the best choice, but in my very humble opinion, the best thing he has going for himself is that he's NOT named Bush or Clinton. It's been 20 years since we could say that.

And with that, I'll head back to the Lounge.
There is something wrong in a government where they who do the most have the least. There is something wrong when honesty wears a rag, and rascality a robe; when the loving, the tender, eat a crust while the infamous sit at banquets.
-- Robert G. Ingersoll
Top
User avatar
danielh41
Posts: 1219
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 10:36 am
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Contact:
Contact danielh41

#35 Post by danielh41 » Fri Sep 19, 2008 2:48 pm

Rexer25 wrote:
Jeemie wrote:I'll answer...with a question (I know- bad form).

Why do you think anyone's trying to change anyone's vote?
If they aren't, I don't understand the purpose in the posts. I'm pretty sure they intend for them to be read, but I'm skipping right through them. I guess I am already tired of the campaign, and when it invades my refuge, as it does every 4 years, I just get more weary.
Speaking for myself, I simply feel the need to present an opposing viewpoint to Bob Juch's and others' posts about how great and wonderful Obama is and how bad McCain and Palin are. My Pro-Life posts were more to counter SSS's "Meaning of Pro Choice" thread than anything else (even though SSS and I are voting for the same candidate this election). People talked about pro-choice as if it was good to be pro-choice when some of us don't feel that way. So I wrote my post and opened myself up to a lot of criticism. But I still stand firm by my convictions.
Top
Post Reply

Return to “WWTBAM Bored Posts”