WHEN BUZ QUITS THE THREAD

Quoting Crashfrog, in post No, 91 of the thread, WHAT IS A LIBERAL, AND WHAT IS A CONSERVATIVE. This after Schraf accuses me of being oft a looser cut and running: For each of us here in town there comes a time to quit the thread and move on. There are a number of factors which determine when each of us do so.
1. Often, arguments of counterparts become so superfluous that the time and work involved in response is not deemed to be productive, and in fact detrimental to the overall good of the board.2. Participants who have the most time on their hands, imo are more likely to hang on for the last word, regardless of how substantial the argument is.3. Buz happens to be very busy as a businessman, church activities and other stuff that buz simply doesn't have time to go for the last word for the sake of claiming victory.4. Some posters, such as my accusers, Frog and Schraf seem to have this silly idea that the last poster/posters of a given thread may lay claim as victors in the debate.5. Some posters have their minds so set that no argument, regardless of evidence will silence them. I know, we all think that of our conterparts at times, but go to the archives and check out the quality of some of the last posters who have debated me, buz and decide for yourselves whether I've cut and ran because of substantial refutation by my counterparts of my postions.6. Some posters post long messages and expect their counterparts to address each and every of their points, regardless of import and significance. When their counterparts ignore some of the material deemed more superfluous, they are accused of cutting and running.7. Creos, especially Biblical fundamentalists such as I are far and few. Thus I often find myself in threads where I am debating a pack of counterparts, each expecting what they consider to be their share of my response. Being limited to time for forum input, I simply must pick and choose what I consider to be the more substantial arguments for response. Please keep this in mind with hot threads where this is the case. Whatever, I know has also found him/herself in this situation. The minority is, imo, thus subject to the charge of quiting threads more so than the majority opinion.6. The bottom line is that there comes a time for each and everyone of us to quit each and every thread we have ever participated in. Imo, it is very meanspirited of Frog and Scharf, to single me out with this generalized unsubstantianted and undocumented accusation of being one accustomed to cut and run from my counterparts in these forum debates. Each of us should consider the above factors before accusing our counterparts as quiters. This consideration, imo, will be for the good of us all.

Buz, I don't give a fuck about the last word or any of that horseshit.There are two things I give a fuck about that you do:1) Abandon threads without so much as a "thanks for the debate, but I'm out", so that we have no idea if you plan to come back and keep posting, or not. It's fine for you to leave threads whenever you like but if you do it without some kind of notice, it looks like you're running away, or just busy. Then we spend days bumping threads and reminding you of replies, all for nothing.If you want out of a thread, just fuckin' say so. What you do looks like cowardice.2) Abandon threads after failing to substantiate a statement; and then, in another thread, offer that same statement again with apparently no recollection that it was refuted. That's aggrivating, counterproductive to thread coherency (because we fuckin' have to prove you wrong all over again), and quite against the forum guidelines.I'm sorry that it chaps your ass to have this pointed out, but none of this is anyone's fault but your own.

Buz, if it makes you feel better, you're the only fundy here whose throat I do not want to grab.

---

The Laminator
We are the bog. Resistance is voltage over current. For goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November!

Yah, frog man, as if this is the consideration you give the forums before your last posts. Get real man! None of us have a clue as to what will be our last post as we post. That all depends, in most cases on the responses we get after posting each given post. Get real again, Frog. Firstly, failure to substantiate is relative to your own bias and repetitive offering of similar statements happens regularly in this town and becomes necessary in many cases.Cool you heels and think about it.

Well thanks, Darth, but what's so awfully terrible about my coombodies that makes you want to choke them?

I'm sorry but I can't imagine under what situation repetition would turn error into truth.

The terms, truth and error are also sometimes relative terms, relative to one's ideology aren't they, CF?

If I was being very pedantic, I might say:I have written this sentence more than five times.
I have written this sentence more than five times.
I have written this sentence more than five times.
I have written this sentence more than five times.
I have written this sentence more than five times.and:
I have written this sentence more than five times.Lucky for you I'm not pedantic.PE

I like that! How about this: Don't make me say it again!--Percy

I agree with this, but crash has a point. You know when you are in a hot debate and if you suddenly discover you won't be able to get back, it might be a good idea to say you won't be back for a bit.It's not always possible, it happened to me, but I must admit I find it hard to believe that every time you have left a debate with me, it was because you had no idea you wouldn't be able to answer. This goes double because you only disappear (run out of time) when the chips are down. Crash's point still stands and it stands very strongly, even if the above statement is true.When you are in a debate and the last post is a reply addressing some points you have just made, then there is a reasonable expectation that you will not disappear at that point, only to reappear in another thread raising the point that was under dispute.If the dispute was "not real" then you could easily go to that last reply and say "that wasn't real", or something like that, or point to where you are picking up the debate on that topic.When such disappearances/reappearances become common, then that seems to be something more than just not having real replies worthy of address.On the other hand, Crash would be wrong if he said that schraf does not do this, and is somehow better than you for it. IMO she does not do this as much as you do, but she certainly does the drop/run/reappear.But here is the rub, when I confronted her with the fact that she had somewhat of a habit of doing this on certain topics, she ADMITTED that was true.I think it would be a little more honest if you'd just admit that sometimes you do duck out when the chips are down, try your best to correct that habit, and if you just "gotta go" at least let people know that you see responsibilities cutting into your time.And just so you understand I am not trying to come off like I have no problems. I have a few which I am still FAILING to get under complete control. As a guy with my own problems I am honestly saying, what crash described looks like a problem you are having and it is something you could work on.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This is interesting to me and I understand what you are saying. I have decided a while ago not to engage in circular discussions and will, more often than not, simply walk away from redundancy and text I decide contributes nothing to the understanding of a point or points. There are people here (and in other places) who have elevated 'banal' to astonishing dimensions. They 'talk' for the sake of talking - (the Bible admonishes to 'walk away from those who perplex the spirit') - and perplexed I often am. Those who are always right must be allowed to stay that way. No apologies from me, and definitely no thank you's.
Don't be discouraged, Buz, for discouragement is the devil's most oft used tool.

It's not going his way?

Perhaps we should give this a name. How about the Fred Williams Syndrome?--PercyPS - There's probably a name we could give for other styles, too. For instance, I might be the "Annoying Yappy Dog Nipping at Pants Cuffs" Syndrome, since I not only rarely abandon threads, I chase after those that do. I should post a permanent link on the reply page to that website with all the graphics of debater types.

Uh, no, by defintion, they are not. Error is that which is not true. That which is true is truth.Please don't mistake my position on the knowledgability of truth with a position on the truth itself.

The next person to threaten to kill or otherwise harm a Theist of any flavor on this forum is going to get kicked right in the nuts. Seriously.

---

Wanna feel God? Step onto the wrestling mat and you'd be crazy to deny the uplifting spirit. http://www.BadPreacher.5u.com (incomplete, but look anyway!)