With Merkel's Foes in Disarray, Germany Defies the Trump Trend

[Dill]

(05-01-2017, 04:28 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I addressed your points at the same time I, correctly, accused you of plagiarism.  So, once again, this is a sad attempt to make a point.  One need only scroll up to see which one of us is correct in this regard.
Once again, I address all the "points" you made.  Where is your response?  One need only scroll up to see which one of us is correct in this regard.
Once again, I address all the "points" you made.  Where is your response?  One need only scroll up to see which one of us is correct in this regard.
Once again, I address all the "points" you made.  Where is your response?  One need only scroll up to see which one of us is correct in this regard.
Once again, I address all the "points" you made.  Where is your response?  One need only scroll up to see which one of us is correct in this regard.
Once again, I address all the "points" you made.  Where is your response?  One need only scroll up to see which one of us is correct in this regard.
Once again, I address all the "points" you made.  Where is your response?  One need only scroll up to see which one of us is correct in this regard.

I see "Scroll up" is the new form of "I already addressed that."  If there was any substance in your previous posts, it has thinned out even more in this one.  Jeezus, why would you put this in a thread right next to a post where you claim Dino and Fred dodge points?

OK, so I am going to "scroll up."

1. Yes, I see you accused me of plagiarism. You still don't get that bald assertions aren't proof. Nothing "correct" about the claim anywhere but in your head. Adding words like "blatantly" don't constitute proof. "Scrolling up" won't change anything. Your anxious, inarticulable impression remains the ground of this attack on my character.

2. You are known for "responding to every point" with quips and bald assertions and ad hominem. I see that when I "scroll up"--talk of "three-headed sock puppets" and claims others are "boring" and what you imagine you are "known for."  And you again address the flawed methodology question from the Venezuela thread by claiming there were really two disagreements, perhaps forgetting you challenged the methodology in each and I challenged your challenge in each case. Gun ownership stats aren't just compiled from phone surveys, and surveys are controlled for deceitful response. Your answer to that is--surprise surprise--you have already addressed the issue. The per capita argument is unclear. First my data sucks, then you claim you don't contest national statistics. But my data still sucks, right? And you already addressed that issue. Fred's posts #86 and 89 ended the sample-size deflection.

2. When I scroll up I also see that your post #146  misses my point from post #144. "Why then do we get such disparate results from their faithful, again, not only now, but centuries ago?" you ask? Because in the diaspora Jews had to value tolerance I answer. Minority status does this to all the Abrahmic religions. After yourself raising the issue of history ("centuries") your response is the Bill Maheresque "that was 2,000 years ago." Doesn't matter if it was 10,000 years ago if this is how Jews, Christians and Muslims adapt to minority status. To disprove the point you need to argue that minority status does not have the claimed effect and did not in my examples.  I respond to your misunderstanding in post #153. But when I scroll up, I see no response to that counterargument at all from you. Not even a quip or an insult.

3. When I scroll up, I do see lengthy, well argued posts in my name (115,117,119,144,153) demonstrating some breadth of knowledge and resources regarding current debates over Islam--all in critique of religious/ethnic stereotyping. In your name I see unsubstantiated accusations and flailing quips and ad hominem in defense of religious/ethnic stereotypes. THAT is what you are "known for." I saw one objection based upon a misreading or misunderstanding.  I did not respond to that objection by claiming "I already addressed it" followed by some comments on your manifest inability to follow an argument. I specified where the misunderstanding was, recapped my argument and addressed it again. Getting it right is not "boring."

So Deja vu.  You once again you throw out a challenge, get a substantive response, go into denial mode punctuated by flailing quips and ad hominem and bald assertions. When called on the bald assertions, you continue to claim "I already addressed that"--or excuse me, now the tactic is "scroll up," even as you claim it is laughably untrue that you do what you do as you are doing it.  

I have put up substantive arguments, which I can restate, clarify and extend from any angle on the spot, drawing examples from across wide historical and geographic range. Your very claim I plagiarized is an unintended validation of substance.  But for every pound of substantive argument offered I'm met with a penny's worth of quip and accusation. 

  Scroll up indeed!!