Remember, Ned, than when anyway tells you "ned, seriously, fuck you", they mean love and bunnies.

ONCE again, another bullshit "hahahahaah I'm so funny" comment by Ned, instead of actually explaining or arguing any sort of point here. Assuming one portion of my argument that isn't accurate, reposting it over and over again....oh yr so clever.

Fucker.

That's fundamentalism. What he wasn't displaying was that his knowledge conformed to yours.

I got yr point smartass. And my follow up was "so what was it that you disagreed with."

I ALWAYS assume that, DB. And when somebody calls me a 'fucker,' it is only out of the spirit of agape as the Greeks spoke of.

I told ned to fuck himself in response to a cavalcade of personal insults he'd already heaped on me in this thread. Wise ass remarks, etc etc etc

Nope.

Or, perhaps I'm asking for him to clarify what it is he doesn't agree with? Which would have been a relevant thing to discuss back when I first mentioned the book waaaaaay back in the thread. But it was much easier to take the easier way out and personally insult me for another 400 posts.

Sounds like you dodged J0hn's point -- then whined and bitched and hyperbolized about how you got insulted... again.

I told ned to fuck himself in response to a cavalcade of personal insults he'd already heaped on me in this thread. Wise ass remarks, etc etc etc

Have we SERIOUSLY come to the kindergarten era "You started it first" argument, now?

You're dodging the issue! The subject isn't Blues People at all! It's that you took issue with being called a fundamentalist, and, q.e.d., the relevants quotes regarding your fundamentalist attitude have been shown! I am sorry if you took my last post to be smart-assy, I didn't mean it that way.

The hypocrisy of people calling ME out for acting like a child after what went on for the majority of this thread is baffling.

The fact that J0hn still refuses to answer this:
You're dodging the issue! The subject isn't Blues People at all! It's that you took issue with being called a fundamentalist, and, q.e.d., the relevants quotes regarding your fundamentalist attitude have been shown! I am sorry if you took my last post to be smart-assy, I didn't mean it that way.

So your purpose in this thread is to get me into some sort of logical trap? See, I thought it was the actual issue we were discussing, which WOULD be Blues People.

well ok perhaps nothing is "absolutely" relevant but you get my point

J0hn, "biases inherent in my approach to discourse"? So what are you saying, I'm not arguing correctly? Excuse me. In the meantime, lets avoid the point of what I'd been saying by attacking the way in which I argue, even though clearly this point is irrelevant to my argument as a whole.

BECAUSE NED HAS NOT READ THE BOOK AND IS NOT OBLIGATED TO READ THAT BOOK NOR ANY FUCKING BOOK THAT YOU'VE READ BECAUSE ARGUING ON THE PREMISE OF A BOOK THAT ONLY YOU'VE PROBABLY READ MAKES YOU LOOK LIKE A FUCKING SNOB AND A VERY FRAGILE DEFENSIVE SNOB AT THAT

If he doesn't want to read it, I'm not trying to fucking make him!

Using a previously written book as the basis of an argument makes me into a "snob"?! What the fuck is wrong with you?

AS A FUCKING RECOMMENDATION.

*scratches head, looks upthread*

Seriously Ned, read Blues People.
To quote big lebowski.

"You're out of yr element donnie."

Bam.

-- ddrake (ddrak...), November 17th, 2003. (later)

Maybe there's a Dr. D. and Mr. Drake situation here.

Yes, we will lock threads for you because you can't control yourself posting on them.

Because the person you're arguing with has the unfair advantage of not having the knowledge contained within the book, and therefore not only makes the continuation of said argument silly and invalid but gives you gloating points for being more "literate". Don't pretend otherwise, fucker x 401. (Sorry, had to one up Ned there)

not that you're "not arguing correctly" - Baraka himself would point out that the ways in which one frames one's arguments speak as loudly as and possibly louder than the arguments themselves

but y'all don't hear me though -B.I.G.

Hey, you're right! And what a clear and sweet recommendation it was! Like saying the word 'fucker,' it is done out of love.

this is NOT a semantic issue and to pretend it is is ungallant

Because the person you're arguing with has the unfair advantage of not having the knowledge contained within the book, and therefore not only makes the continuation of said argument silly and invalid but gives you gloating points for being more "literate". Don't pretend otherwise, fucker x 401. (Sorry, had to one up Ned there)

What the fuck!? That's why I RECOMMENDED HE READ IT, because he DIDN'T have the knowledge contained within. HOW THE FUCK DOES THAT MAKE ME A SNOB!?

Actually Ned, "Read it motherfuckers" was the first recommendation

That was definitely before any animosity had developed in the thread, and "motherfuckers" was not used in the same way I've been using profanity for the last couple posts.
Nice try taking it out of context though.

Jesus H., the Mormons make their case better. Scratch that, the LaRouchians.

It did NOT, however, make me want to fuck his mother.

Then clearly he has failed in his grand mission.

As I said.

That was definitely before any animosity had developed in the thread, and "motherfuckers" was not used in the same way I've been using profanity for the last couple posts.
Nice try taking it out of context though.

HO HHO HO HO OH O

"There's this really good book I've read called Blues People by Leroi Jones. It makes some great points on this argument that I think can apply today and to this argument -- if you haven't read it, give it a try. I really like it because [reasons x, y, z]."

Had you just said that or something like it, I don't think much of this thread would exist in the first place. Why does being 'provocative' make your point stronger?

the first thing i thought of when i saw the original question(s) was the 9 minute version of 'a day like no other' by Company Flow featuring assorted japanese MCs, its got lots of different sections, i've always thought of it as a sort of prog track. erm, thats all.

Because you dropped your cards and claimed yourself winner of the argument the easy way... It's pointless to continue.. here, go to Amazon and check out Pedro V. Pajitnov's Debate and Demeanor. So you can school yourself, because it looks like you need it.