jellowrestling wrote:Castle Doctrine wrote:GFB wrote:Lack of succinctness..worthy of ignoring.
You are so engaging I couldn't possibly ignore you. But, I will try to keep it simple for you and in smaller chunks.
I've been to several places in Asia. Totally unimpressed. Full of Asians. I did like the China Fleet Club in Hong Kong.
If your goal is to impress GFB with your worldliness, you're going to have to try a lot harder than that. And "simple" isn't the issue: concise and coherent is what he's looking for.
This has been a public service of a non-attorney spokesperson.
Actually, he had been attempting to impress me with his...I just wanted him to know I wasn't impressed...considering what I did for 24 years why would I be? Why would I care one way or the other what an inarticulate Internet troll like GfB thought of me or if that creature was impressed with me? However, I did really like the China Fleet Club in Hong Kong...that is the RNs O Club in Hong Kong. I have fond memories of twenty-five cent Heinekens. It was the only time I have ever been in a traditional English Gentlemen's Club (no dancers). Very posh, very civilized, very proper...cheap quality beer.
No, GfB wants simple. Actually, he just wants agreement. Complex agreement wouldn't bother him at all. The whole "I don't read long posts" gag is just a way to excuse not knowing what he is talking about...or an admission he is ADD (or whatever). The problem here is that you guys that all agree can be very, very brief in agreement. For example:
"All Liberals are serial liars."
Saying "Yep, Iron on target." is easy. It is really just brief and superficial rather than actually concise.
Saying "No they aren't. Here let me explain why you are wrong." requires considerably more thinking and composition. No matter how "concise" your rebuttal may be it is NOT going to be the brief statement of agreement that GfB wants. As far as coherence goes, I believe my posts are all coherent and well composed. The claim that they aren't is just another typical ad hominem attack ignoring the substance of the point. It may be that coherence doesn't mean what you think it means. You know, there is no requirement for an argument to agree with you in order for it to be coherent. If GfB is having trouble understanding my statements I would say the problem is more with him than me. I won't dumb down my statements for the comfort of Conservatives.
It was thoughtful of you to speak for GfB...but you are way off target and out of your depth here. Still, I respect the effort.
