- - - - - - - -
>> A retort commensurate with your intellect but I take it as a refusal or inability to explain the perfection of being poor. Hey, you could patent that it is perfect to be poor phrase.
@plakata: Is this your spiel? Reject valid, poignant and potentially meaningful debate points by demeaning the intelligence of your adversary?  Makes you extremely weak in the credibility category.
@CantStandTex: No. Let the starting point be factually correct or plausible. Only when those are present can debate be meaningful,Take the thread on the Supreme Court decision concerning The Slants" application for a copyright. The original poster not only insisted that it was for a patent but also completely misconstrued the "apex of the issue" (I quote for the sakes of accuracy). That poster took what is dicta which is extremely persuasive but not precedent and ignored the real issue in the case which was whether the disparagement allowed restricting Mr. Tam's right to free speech. I initially pointed out the error of the "patent" statement. That was fruitless, as was any effort at pointing out the flaws in the interpretation of the majority and concurring decisions. That only resulted in my intellect being challenged.Anther example was the hysterical thread about Mr. Obama supposedly sealing the Susan Rice unmasking documents by putting them under lock and key at his library. Not only not factual, impossible. There is no Obama library, the Presidental Records Act doesn't work that way.What bothers me is I know there is much more intelligence than is being used, usually because facts are not considered without seeking a result.I abandoned hopes of being found credible by most on this medium almost since I joined. The prevalent behavior is to modify facts to suit the desired conclusion. I don't function that way and question how those that do use their intelligence Â
4951