Friday, May 10, 2013

Wikipedia:The Last Word

I was curious about this debating style utilised by Greg, and Tennessean, who after they have shown me that their comments aren't worth my time, believe that they have somehow "won" the argument if I don't bother response.

Not that they have gotten--I'M NOT PAYING ATTENTION TO THEM!

Reasons for getting the last word

Getting the last word means that you win the debate. It also shows your moral superiority, and willingness to stand your ground. This should convince your opponent that you are correct, and will certainly impress your fellow Wikipedians.

It is particularly important to get the last word where you are in some doubts as to the merits of your case. The last word will serve as a clinching argument that will make up for any deficiencies in your logic. Achieving the last word now also brings the advantage that you may subsequently point to your success in this debate as the clinching argument in future debates. However, if you did not win the last discussion, we still recommend claiming incessantly that you did.
The Consensus seems to be that it's generally important to the one who is in the wrong to get the last word: That's the only way the can perceive victory.

I'm happy that you believe that you have somehow "won" when in fact you have only firmed up my opinion that reading blog opinions is a waste of my time.

I've said before that personally, I find blog comments to be like my dog and her pee mail. She stops and smells and adds her excrement to the pile. For those of you too dumb to get my meaning, blog comments to me are like taking my dog for a walk and watching her with excrement.

I've also said I don't care if you read my stuff, unlike some of you attention starved and in need of seriously being disabused of your self-opinions.

Short form, I don't really care what you say.  Not to mention, I don't really read blog comments that often.

So--Demanding my attention, or even a response is not really a good use of your time.

But, nevermind--you got in the last word.

I'm glad you feel you show how "won" the argument since I couldn't give a toss.


  1. At the risk of Laci thinking I'm trying to get the last word, I have to say that it's hilarious to see all these posts about how irrational we are and how he, the paragon of intelligence and rationality, gives less thought to our comments than he does to his dog's bowel and bladder movements.

  2. I have to say, Laci, you are showing quite a bit of cowardice of late. You are spending more time talking about how you don't have time for this than you would to come up with logical counterpoints (if you had them) or answers to pertinent questions (if you had them). You talk about "last word" being a trait of the defeated, but what is perpetually saying "I don't have time for stupid questions" if not the war cry of the defeated? If you really didn't have the time, you wouldn't have time to keep saying that. Taking a stance that this blog commenting stuff is beneath you is quite rich. How many hundreds of thousands of words over how many years (or decades) have you been doing this?

    The question I have posed to you is certainly valid. The fundamentals of your position is that the second amendment right must be tied to milita service, and you cite Miller for you basis. So I ask why the Court never looked at whether Miller served in the Milita. Pretty pertinent, don't you think? But what's a lawyer to do? It's not like you would ever say "ah- the prosecution totally nailed me with that one! My client is totally guilty, Your Honor".

    1. "When the law is on your side, emphasize the law. When the fact's are on your side, emphasize the facts. When neither the law nor the facts are on your side, yell loudly and bang the podium."--Some variation of this has been said by countless law professors. It seems to reflect Laci's MO.

    2. I'm gl;ad you admit that "When the law is on your side, emphasize the law". That's what I do.

      OTH, you just try to bullshit the fuck out of people.

      I'm glad that you are too clever and admit that I am correct in my opinion of the law.

      Cos' "When neither the law nor the facts are on your side, yell loudly and bang the podium" is you.

  3. Indeed, Laci. That's been my experience, too. They always have to leave one more comment than you. And if the clearly lose an argument, or all the points have been made, they'll extend the argument, even if it means sidelining to a completely different topic, or even being pedantic about some use of a word or some detail -- anything to get the last word in -- until you finally tire of it and move on, like a rational person would. Only then will they perceive victory.

    It's one of the reasons I stopped allowing comments at New Trajectory blog. Their grandstanding, recitation of meaningless NRA slogans, and endless last-wording was a waste of my time, and it drove away those who actually did want to debate an issue.

  4. Well, well, well, Laci and the fellow from Oregon are in agreement. Allowing debate only prevents a one-sided exposition from succeeding.

    Laci, I hadn't seen that Wikipedia article before you posted it here, and it certainly has nothing to do with how I take part in a debate. I prefer to work with facts, logic, and values. You insist that you have the only correct interpretation and fly into a rage if anyone doesn't immediately bow before you. It leaves me wondering how often you're cited for contempt of court. You refuse to address the points that we raise.

    I'll ask you again. If you don't want to participate in a rational discussion, why do you come around?

    1. No, Greg, it's you to a T.

      You can deny it all you want, but it is you.

      In fact, when I say blog comments were like dogs leaving their shit on a tree--it's a reference to people like Orlin, Tennessean, and you.

      You just love the smell of your shit, Greg.

      Or don't seem to get it makes the rest of us want to puke.

      In fact, people are so tired of reading your dumb statements that you have driven them from this blog.

      So, read the definition of a "piss artist" and try to see how well it fits you.

      Before you give a comment where you try denying your ignorance: only to reinforce that opinion.

    2. I've tried to have a rational discussion with you, and I'll I get in response is rage and cursing. When you're ready to participate in civil debate, let me know.

    3. Laci's right. It's you to a T, Greg.

      Feel free to stop participating. I, for one, won't miss your comments.

    4. Oregonian, whenever you want to do a rational discussion of the points that each side has, I'll be here. The truth of the matter is that I doubt either one of you is capable of such a conversation that you can't control.

      Prove me wrong. Let's go through the arguments that each side offers and address them one at a time. We can do it here or at my blog or at anyone else's where all comments will be posted and both sides will have an equal opportunity.

      That invitation goes to Mikeb, the fellow from Oregon, Laci, Dog Gone, Jadegold, and anyone else who wants to do this.

  5. Count me in too. I agree with Laci and Baldr. In addition to getting the last word at whatever cost to reasonableness, you guys also do the "baffle 'em with bullshit" and "wear 'em down with tedium" pretty well, and let's not forget the interminable repetition.

    One thing is for sure, any criticism of Laci for not responding to arguments is nonsense. He's provided some of the lengthiest and most lawyerly comments this blog has ever known. If he's getting tired of repeating himself, who can blame him?

    1. Good grief, Mike. Sometimes I wonder how you guys type this stuff and believe it. Baffle with Bullshit and Wear down with Tedium? What other description could be given to Laci's "Ignorance is GREG" post? If we write something a little bit long, you say that we're trying to wear you down and drown you out, but if Laci does it, it's a wonderful, brilliant argument.

      You call it lengthy, lawyerly commentary. However, several of us pointed out holes in his logic. Rather than address our points and say why we're wrong, or why we're misinterpreting things, he began writing a deluge of short posts and comments insulting our intelligence, calling our comments gibberish, etc.

      As for Laci's supposed weariness with repeating himself, it's transparent bullshit. Every week or two he comes back here to write the same arguments. He doesn't copy and paste like everyone's favorite Troll, he says it a new way each time. What he doesn't do, is cover any new ground. If he doesn't like repeating the same arguments, why does he do this?

      Meanwhile, our responses and questions to him ask him to flesh things out--to cover ground he skips over. He never does this, but insults us for asking him to, and yells "Asked and answered!"

      However, I've never seen these questions answered here. For example, he goes on and on about how the Constitution provides for amendments and political process, not for revolution. Laci says that I'm a drug addled idiot who can't write in plain English and can't understand his arguments, but I've shown that I understand this argument, and I've granted him that it is correct in so far as it goes.

      I've then asked him if, outside of the realm of what is legal or not, it is moral to resist against a tyrannical government, leaving the details up to him so that he can say if it is ever moral and can give an opinion of where the line lies--e.g. If you can hide Jews from the Nazis, or shoot at the Nazis, or if he is of the opinion that, morally, one must always obey the government, regardless of how degenerate it becomes.

      This is when he insults me, tells me that I clearly can't grasp the Supremacy clause of the Constitution, and that I apparently cannot understand the legal argument that I have already agreed with him on.

      This is not sage, lawyerly behavior. This is the rantings of someone who allows himself to become unhinged when dealing with others on the internet. Any disagreement with him is unworthy of answer, because he is a Lawyer and his words should awe lesser men into shutting up and agreeing with him.

      And, before you try to turn this back on me and say that I have the same attitude, I have referred to my being a lawyer at various times only with the intention of saying that I have some additional training in the law. I've admitted when something was outside my area of expertise, and I freely admit that I'm capable of getting things wrong. I have seen no such admissions from Laci--instead, I see him telling all non-lawyers that they need to shut up on the law because he is the expert and they're incapable of understanding it--a position common for lawyers to take, but one that is total BULLSHIT.

    2. And if we're getting to "baffling 'em with bullshit"--we have Tennessean, whose long winded comments seem to imply that he believes quantity equals quality.

      Try and figure out what the fuck you are trying to say, Tennessean, and say it.

      Otherwise, you sound like a methhead.

    3. Simple question Laci - is there anything a government could do that you would say it is morally acceptable to violently oppose?

    4. Tennessean just provided a strong counterargument to your position, Laci, but you address none of his points. You merely curse and insult and prove yourself to be everything I've called you in the past.

      Two questions:

      1. How do you respond to opposing counsel or to a judge who disagrees with you? You may whine about how the situation is different, but in my experience, someone who flies into rages so often the way you do isn't capable of controlling himself in one special situation.

      2. Will you ever answer the question about whether revolution is ever justified morally? Obviously, the law doesn't legitimize an uprising, but do you agree or disagree that there are times when the law has become perverse and must be changed, even if violence is required to do so?

  6. I appreciate Greg, T, and the rest of good guys attempts to use reason, logic, and facts to debate mutts like Pooch, but it may be a waste of their considerable brain power. I mean, how do you debate someone who thinks lightning and a lightning bug are the same thing, or that a rolling stone and a Rolling Stone are synonymous.

    Anywho, I was able to dig up some transcripts of Pooch questioning witnesses at trials. This, I hope will give you a better idea of what you dealing with when debating a feral dog like Pooch that hasn't a lick of common sense.

    orlin sellers

    Q: What is your date of birth?
    A: July 15th.
    Q: What year?
    A: Every year.

    Q: What was the first thing your husband said to you when
    he woke that morning?
    A: He said, "Where am I, Cathy?"
    Q: And why did that upset you?
    A: My name is Susan.

    Q: And where was the location of the accident?
    A: Approximately milepost 499.
    Q: And where is milepost 499?
    A: Probably between milepost 498 and 500.

    Q: Now doctor, isn't it true that when a person
    dies in his sleep, he doesn't know about it
    until the next morning?

    Q: The youngest son, the twenty-year old, how old is he?

    Q: Were you present when your picture was taken?

    Q: Was it you or your younger brother who was killed
    in the war?

    Q: Did he kill you?

    Q: How far apart were the vehicles at the time of the collision?

    Q: You were there until the time you left, is that true?

    Q: How many times have you committed suicide?

    Q: So the date of conception (of the baby) was August 8th?
    A: Yes.
    Q: And what were you doing at that time?

    Q: She had three children, right?
    A: Yes.
    Q: How many were boys?
    A: None.
    Q: Were there any girls?

    Q: You say the stairs went down to the basement?
    A: Yes.
    Q: And these stairs, did they go up also?

    Q: How was your first marriage terminated?
    A: By death.
    Q: And by whose death was it terminated?

    Q: Can you describe the individual?
    A: He was about medium height and had a beard.
    Q: Was this a male, or a female?

    Q: Is your appearance here this morning pursuant
    to a deposition notice which I sent to your attorney?
    A: No, this is how I dress when I go to work.

    Q: Doctor, how many autopsies have you performed
    on dead people?
    A: All my autopsies are performed on dead people.

    Q: All your responses must be oral, OK?
    What school did you go to?
    A: Oral.

    Q: Doctor, before you performed the autopsy,
    did you check for a pulse?
    A: No.
    Q: Did you check for blood pressure?
    A: No.
    Q: Did you check for breathing?
    A: No.
    Q: So, then it is possible that the patient was alive
    when you began the autopsy?
    A: No.
    Q: How can you be so sure, Doctor?
    A: Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar.

    Q: Do you recall the time that you examined the body?
    A: The autopsy started around 8:30 p.m.
    Q: And Mr. Dennington was dead at the time?
    A: No, he was sitting on the table wondering why I
    was doing an autopsy.

    1. Orlin,

      As funny as some of those are, I can understand the reasoning behind most of them. You wind up asking some silly questions like this when you're trying to make sure certain facts are recorded in the official record, and you have to have the witness state those facts rather than simply speaking them into the record yourself.

      Insanity also ensues from witnesses misunderstanding you, which was apparent in a couple of these such as Date of Birth, Appearance, and Responses must be Oral.

      Finally, there are the ones that involve pointing things out that the Jury may miss, like in the Cathy/Susan one. Jurors aren't always the brightest bulbs--the joke is that they're the 12 people who weren't smart enough to come up with a good excuse.