Make a quotable quote here.

[Brian37]

So much so that my irony meter is flying of the charts with a response from someone who claims that I am tlaking to myself. That would make you nothing, and I know that you don't think you are nothing, and I don't think you are either.

If I were talking to myself why would I be getting any views on my posts or threads at all? Obviously it merely ammounts to sometimes you like what I say but most of the time you dont. Ok, just put it that way instead of attempting to marginalize me. I am not a clone of you so do not expect me to be.

I'm not trying to marginalize you, Brian. Nor am I relabeling mere dislike as some bogus intellectual labeling. Seriously, some times, far too often, you go so far off track there is no point in responding. If you don't trust me, ask other people if it's true. Check it out, man. You're missing something you need to pay attention to.

Now don't get me wrong, I don't think you'll ever be up to my level, but some of the things you've said have astounded me with their insight. If you think that, in some bizarre, we're all equal, bullshit sense that you will ever be my intellectual equal, I suggest you get over it. Ain't happening. Am I arrogant for thinking so? Probably not. That doesn't mean that we can't meet "as equals" on the field of battle; yet for whatever reason, you seem to need to apportion blame unequally to others than yourself. I know this is the Dunning-Kruger effect, and it is probably pointless to try to reach out to you. But I can't stop myself.

Bro', you ain't seeing it straight. Come have a few beers with us and we'll work it out. Okay?

"off the track" you think I do not get that when people say that about me?

This isn't my first thread or first website. With me it depends. I have read threads where a subtopic comment has bothered me and don't let that separate subject go. So yes, I can and do go off the track.

But with the specific of all superstitions and god claims, I cut throught the elaborate claptrap and cut to the chase. My tactic is simple, I DO NOT DANCE. Wading in the mental masturbation of a skunk in a tux may be fun and the plad of their bad logic may look pretty, but the beginning of bad logic always starts with a naked assertion.

Ochams Razor is pretty damned conssitant with the reality of nature. Things go from simplicity to complexity, not the other way arround. So when you have the choice of a starting point being simple and not convoluted when asserting a starting point, the one with the least superflous baggages is your most likely answer.

So when you say I jump all over the place, It may seem like carpet bombing, but the intent of it is to get the focus on the starting point. Now if you want to argue that that tactic isn't always appropreate, that would be a more honest assesment. But what you are doing here is simply arguing for your personal taste in how you deal with debate.

So again, to understand me and my tactic in debate, it is simple. I HATE THE DANCE. I hate that people will put the cart before the horse, so I simply use very short paragraphs to demonstrate that reality does not need to be explained in giant walls of personal pet crap. You may not deconvert them with that on the spot, but the doubt is planted and can and does foirce them to deal with the formula that puts the naked assertion in as their starting point.

I have been at this for 10 years making 10 to 30 posts almost every day so I have seen lots and my experience has always lead me to the knowledge that if the starting point sucks, anything after the = symbol is crap based on the naked assertion before the = symbol.

Again all this amounts to is you merely not liking my tactic. And again, fine and that is too be expected because we are not clones of each other.