Logic Bible outdated? Forum

[LSAT Blog]

I can't believe my comment about not needing the LG bible turned into this. lol I'm sure theres better things to do than fight on a forum against a person you'll never see. But nevertheless carry on.

Welcome to the Internet

http://xkcd.com/386/

[nStiver]

I never used LGB, and always score -0/-1 on LG. You don't need it I don't need it.

.

Just because it comes naturally to you does not mean that the LGB does not help others. Of course its not a "god send". It is just, in my experience, a great way to learn how to attack the LG section of the LSAT. It worked very well for me. Its popularity is just the result of other people's good experiences with it. Why hate on the LGB? If it helps other people get a good score, what is wrong with that?

[nStiver]

I guess someone feels threatened by those that seem to be in a position of mental superiority over him or her, and perhaps rightfully so, no? I mean honestly, those that have a 3.7+ GPA and a 172+ score are more likely to eventually parlay their performance into better pay, higher social status, and, in general, access to more of life's "perks" than those without such badges. And as much as class hierarchy is veiled in the US by the tenets of equality and individual determination, it nevertheless exists and determines, for many if not all people, the quality of their relative existence. Hence, it would seem that the lower levels of society's strata do indeed have much to envy, and perhaps resent, from those that are, more or less, above them. The more that this resentment is expressed, however, the more the insecurity and spite of those in inferior positions is revealed and fueled. Given that the present state of the US consists of circumstances in plain contrast to historically prevalent affairs in pre-revolutionary occasions, thus precluding great likelihood for successful uprising against the establishment, this will likely result in only one thing: the continued and heightened misery of the lower classes, who devote so much useless energy, often incredibly subtle, at consciously or subconsciously attacking a system that rules them and will continue to rule them for some time. The verdict? SHUT UP.

"Social hierarchy..blah..blah..tenets of equality and individual determination..blah..blah..historically prevalent affairs in pre-revolutionary occasions...blah..blah..blah..i'm a pretentious douche bag...blah..blah..blah..."

Good God, go jump off a cliff.

[marsilni]

Wait.....WTF!? I thought this was about the LR bible?

[dovetail]

I never used LGB, and always score -0/-1 on LG. You don't need it I don't need it.

.

Just because it comes naturally to you does not mean that the LGB does not help others. Of course its not a "god send". It is just, in my experience, a great way to learn how to attack the LG section of the LSAT. It worked very well for me. Its popularity is just the result of other people's good experiences with it. Why hate on the LGB? If it helps other people get a good score, what is wrong with that?

"You don't need it"=It is not required for you=A person can consistently score -0/-1 without ever touching the LGB, and I'm evidence of this possibility. Thus, there's no reason to assume that you must go buy a copy of the LGB if you ever stand a chance at scoring that well.

Saying that the LGB is not required for achieving good scores is not saying there is something wrong with the book, or with people using it. He is simply making the point that it is not the only possible way to do well.

[TruHoosier]

Wait.....WTF!? I thought this was about the LR bible?

I thought it was about the King James version.

[cw2010]

From what I've seen on the Oct 2010 LSAT, completing 40+ previously-released LSATs, and doing many games from other books that weren't crafted by LSAC, I am certain that the LGB is NOT outdated.

LG was VERY tough for me at first. However, I went through the following books/materials:

*Powerscore LGB
*Powerscore LG Workbook
*Powerscore LG Setup Guide (to use with preptests)
*Powerscore ADVANCED Games Course
*Powerscore Games Flashcards

I did games..and then I would do them over again a second and sometimes even a third time!

In order for making these materials work, you need to begin looking at the material abstractly. Rather than looking at an individual game and studying it, begin to form relationships between games, understand the underlying elements that are at play, and then use the material in the LGB to craft your own approach.

Think about HOW a game is being restricted, how these restrictions play into a particular game type, such as grouping, or advanced linear. Also, make up your OWN games.


The advanced games course is VERY good. I took this course a few weeks before the Oct 2010 LSAT and it helped me to tie up all the loose connections. With mainly just the Powerscore materials, I went from getting less than half the questions right to missing maybe 1 or 2, sometimes none. By the time Oct 2010 LSAT rolled around, I could explain some of the “toughest” games purely from memory! The morning before the LSAT, I literally went through about 10 games in my head while sitting through the directions. This really helped to help feel more confident before the test.

[MysticalWheel]

Bejebuz

I'm almost starting to feel sorry for this guy. I don't think he is an intentional troll. All he has done is claim to be superior over most others in various vague ways including basic logical reasoning, argumentation, social science theories, and psychiatry/psychology while demonstrating in each of his posts his lack of basic understanding and skills with those very things. His defense has mainly been writing out vague sentences with semi sophisticated references and vocabulary that contradict his claims. I don't see why somebody would set out to troll like that.

Maybe I read it wrong but it appears that a large proportion of the posts from others do get into analyzing his reasoning, explaining the lack of it in his statements as well as asking him for explanation. Then he sticks to the position that what he says 'is because I say it is' about whatever. Along with that he summarily concludes and gives his reasoning an A+ rock solid grade and again says he provided sufficient proof and good reasoning for his conclusions and doesn't need to provide any more.

My main theory is that he is probably a pretty young guy still in UG (possibly still a Junior) that is from a well off family that while growing up has enjoyed a high standard of living provided to him by his parents and still is, got a nice car paid for by parents while in HS, etc. Basically an arrogant spoiled brat that has been handed lots of things and therefore has a feeling of entitlement/superiority.

Only other option I can think of is that he is a really lame troll. I'm still on the fence though cuz if he is participating on this LSAT board to get help to improve his reasoning skills and increase his LSAT score he probably would not be reasoning like he is and also defending it so strongly.

As GC expressed so eloquently in one of his many memorable roles, the above comments are the “acme of foolishness.” It seems like the default recourse upon encountering argumentative opposition is to spew cliché insults and cheap redirections, possibly due to an inability for substantive counters. But since it is rather entertaining to break down these self-proclaimed “troll-hunters,” let’s take a closer look at the commentary and see if we can not deconstruct the idiocy into its core elements.

Firstly, where have I claimed to be mentally superior to anyone, much less to “most others,” and even less to the specific areas of “logical reasoning, argumentation, social science theories, etc…”? If you read my original statements, I include a key word that is critical in understanding my intended meaning. This word is “seem.” I wonder if you disregard the text as easily upon reading LSAT stimuli; if so, it would certainly be of no surprise if you fall well below the standard demarcation of 172.

Secondly, my argument is quite clear and contains no internal contradiction. As I stated in a previous message, if you do not wish to confront the writing, then perhaps it is best to simply quiet yourself, since doing otherwise merely builds a character of absurdity and ineptitude.

Thirdly, I have provided ample defense for all that have questioned my original statements. I have also replied directly, and refuted, one your own objections. In reply, you provide the above nonsense, where instead of a direct retort, you resort to name calling and mischaracterization, most likely for two reasons: 1.) To convince yourself that you have adequately rebutted a position that is supposedly in opposition to your own; 2.) To save face after having your original counterargument neutralized. This really is an inappropriate method of communication, if one is intent on being serious regarding the matter at hand. I sincerely hope that you do not go off on a harangue of this sort if and when you act in the professional capacity of an attorney.

Fourthly, your attempt at grouping me into one of your preconceived categories, namely the clichéd “spoiled brat” category, is not only incorrect, but it entirely fails to respond to my rebuttal to your original counterargument. Insults aside, I once again hope you do not seriously consider your words to have any worth beyond the preface of a smut novel.

If you can bring yourself to participate in civil conversation, then perhaps you will stop making a fool of yourself by throwing out tired and trite insults that only serve to bolster your own fragile ego. In doing so, you are actually serving my original point, that is, that those who expend spiteful energy to attack a perceived threat that they have no chance of overcoming are merely prolonging and enlarging their own misery.

[Gemini]

Bejebuz

I'm almost starting to feel sorry for this guy. I don't think he is an intentional troll. All he has done is claim to be superior over most others in various vague ways including basic logical reasoning, argumentation, social science theories, and psychiatry/psychology while demonstrating in each of his posts his lack of basic understanding and skills with those very things. His defense has mainly been writing out vague sentences with semi sophisticated references and vocabulary that contradict his claims. I don't see why somebody would set out to troll like that.

Maybe I read it wrong but it appears that a large proportion of the posts from others do get into analyzing his reasoning, explaining the lack of it in his statements as well as asking him for explanation. Then he sticks to the position that what he says 'is because I say it is' about whatever. Along with that he summarily concludes and gives his reasoning an A+ rock solid grade and again says he provided sufficient proof and good reasoning for his conclusions and doesn't need to provide any more.

My main theory is that he is probably a pretty young guy still in UG (possibly still a Junior) that is from a well off family that while growing up has enjoyed a high standard of living provided to him by his parents and still is, got a nice car paid for by parents while in HS, etc. Basically an arrogant spoiled brat that has been handed lots of things and therefore has a feeling of entitlement/superiority.

Only other option I can think of is that he is a really lame troll. I'm still on the fence though cuz if he is participating on this LSAT board to get help to improve his reasoning skills and increase his LSAT score he probably would not be reasoning like he is and also defending it so strongly.

As GC expressed so eloquently in one of his many memorable roles, the above comments are the “acme of foolishness.” It seems like the default recourse upon encountering argumentative opposition is to spew cliché insults and cheap redirections, possibly due to an inability for substantive counters. But since it is rather entertaining to deconstruct these self-proclaimed “troll-hunters,” let’s take a closer look at the commentary and see if we can not deconstruct the idiocy into its core elements.

Firstly, where have I claimed to be mentally superior to anyone, much less to “most others,” and even less to the specific areas of “logical reasoning, argumentation, social science theories, etc…”? If you read my original statements, I include a key word that is critical in understanding my intended meaning. This word is “seem.” I wonder if you disregard the text as easily upon reading LSAT stimuli; if so, it would certainly be of no surprise if you fall well below the standard demarcation of 172.

Secondly, my argument is quite clear and contains no internal contradiction. As I stated in a previous message, if you do not wish to confront the writing, then perhaps it is best to simply quiet yourself, since doing otherwise merely builds a character of absurdity and ineptitude.

Thirdly, I have provided ample defense for all that have questioned my original statements. I have also replied directly, and refuted, one your own objections. In reply, you provide the above nonsense, where instead of a direct retort, you resort to name calling and mischaracterization, most likely for two reasons: 1.) To convince yourself that you have adequately rebutted a position that is supposedly in opposition to your own; 2.) To save face after having your original counterargument neutralized. This really is an inappropriate method of communication, if one is intent on being serious regarding the matter at hand. I sincerely hope that you do not go off on a harangue of this sort if and when you act in the professional capacity of an attorney.

Fourthly, your attempt at grouping me into one of your preconceived categories, namely the clichéd “spoiled brat” category, is not only incorrect, but it entirely fails to respond to my rebuttal to your original counterargument. Insults aside, I once again hope you do not seriously consider your words to have any worth beyond the preface of a smut novel.

If you can bring yourself to participate in civil conversation, then perhaps you will stop making a fool of yourself by throwing out tired and trite insults that only serve to bolster your own fragile ego. In doing so, you are actually serving my original point, that is, that those who expend spiteful energy to attack a perceived threat that they have no chance of overcoming are merely prolonging and enlarging their own misery.

Wow you sure think a lot of yourself, don't you?

You're like that person that's the only one applauding in the audience, at all the wrong moments.

And once again, your argument had nothing to do with what was being discussed at the time. And... you're just annoying. LOL.
I wonder if you're one of those rare people who send in recommendations from people who write "Don't accept this person." Sure seems like a possibility.

[MysticalWheel]

Do you guys think MysticalWheel woke up in the middle of the night last night, sprung out of bed and thought "OH yeah! I was trolling that thread!"? Then he fired up his computer and responded to about four days' worth of posts.

I am defending my position against nonsense. So far, the only "trolls" that I can see are the self-serving agitators who persist in attacking my original statements through name calling and other irrelevant, disparaging declarations. Instead of trying to get an ego boost by insulting me, why don't you instead visit a chat room for junior high students and see if you can't outwit them?

[Gemini]

Do you guys think MysticalWheel woke up in the middle of the night last night, sprung out of bed and thought "OH yeah! I was trolling that thread!"? Then he fired up his computer and responded to about four days' worth of posts.

I am defending my position against nonsense. So far, the only "trolls" that I can see are the self-serving agitators who persist in attacking my original statements through name calling and other irrelevant, disparaging declarations. Instead of trying to get an ego boost by insulting me, why don't you instead visit a chat room for junior high students and see if you can't outwit them?

Your original statements are ignorant. No matter how many fancy words you string into a sentence, you just end up sounding wrong (whether that means douchey or illogical is up to the individual reader).

[MysticalWheel]

As GC expressed so eloquently in one of his many memorable roles, the above comments are the “acme of foolishness.” It seems like the default recourse upon encountering argumentative opposition is to spew cliché insults and cheap redirections, possibly due to an inability for substantive counters. But since it is rather entertaining to deconstruct these self-proclaimed “troll-hunters,” let’s take a closer look at the commentary and see if we can not deconstruct the idiocy into its core elements.

Firstly, where have I claimed to be mentally superior to anyone, much less to “most others,” and even less to the specific areas of “logical reasoning, argumentation, social science theories, etc…”? If you read my original statements, I include a key word that is critical in understanding my intended meaning. This word is “seem.” I wonder if you disregard the text as easily upon reading LSAT stimuli; if so, it would certainly be of no surprise if you fall well below the standard demarcation of 172.

Secondly, my argument is quite clear and contains no internal contradiction. As I stated in a previous message, if you do not wish to confront the writing, then perhaps it is best to simply quiet yourself, since doing otherwise merely builds a character of absurdity and ineptitude.

Thirdly, I have provided ample defense for all that have questioned my original statements. I have also replied directly, and refuted, one your own objections. In reply, you provide the above nonsense, where instead of a direct retort, you resort to name calling and mischaracterization, most likely for two reasons: 1.) To convince yourself that you have adequately rebutted a position that is supposedly in opposition to your own; 2.) To save face after having your original counterargument neutralized. This really is an inappropriate method of communication, if one is intent on being serious regarding the matter at hand. I sincerely hope that you do not go off on a harangue of this sort if and when you act in the professional capacity of an attorney.

Fourthly, your attempt at grouping me into one of your preconceived categories, namely the clichéd “spoiled brat” category, is not only incorrect, but it entirely fails to respond to my rebuttal to your original counterargument. Insults aside, I once again hope you do not seriously consider your words to have any worth beyond the preface of a smut novel.

If you can bring yourself to participate in civil conversation, then perhaps you will stop making a fool of yourself by throwing out tired and trite insults that only serve to bolster your own fragile ego. In doing so, you are actually serving my original point, that is, that those who expend spiteful energy to attack a perceived threat that they have no chance of overcoming are merely prolonging and enlarging their own misery.

Wow you sure think a lot of yourself, don't you?

You're like that person that's the only one applauding in the audience, at all the wrong moments.

And once again, your argument had nothing to do with what was being discussed at the time. And... you're just annoying. LOL.

Does your insecurity know no bounds? My argument responded directly to a comment posted before mine. Take a look at the history of the thread before you make an inane statement like that. Furthermore, what kind of response is "Wow, you sure think a lot of yourself, don't you?" to someone who is legitimately defending her/his position? If you're really that threatened, I highly suggest professional help.

[Ginj]

Meh. I think you all suck. HA.


<----winner

[Gemini]

As GC expressed so eloquently in one of his many memorable roles, the above comments are the “acme of foolishness.” It seems like the default recourse upon encountering argumentative opposition is to spew cliché insults and cheap redirections, possibly due to an inability for substantive counters. But since it is rather entertaining to deconstruct these self-proclaimed “troll-hunters,” let’s take a closer look at the commentary and see if we can not deconstruct the idiocy into its core elements.

Firstly, where have I claimed to be mentally superior to anyone, much less to “most others,” and even less to the specific areas of “logical reasoning, argumentation, social science theories, etc…”? If you read my original statements, I include a key word that is critical in understanding my intended meaning. This word is “seem.” I wonder if you disregard the text as easily upon reading LSAT stimuli; if so, it would certainly be of no surprise if you fall well below the standard demarcation of 172.

Secondly, my argument is quite clear and contains no internal contradiction. As I stated in a previous message, if you do not wish to confront the writing, then perhaps it is best to simply quiet yourself, since doing otherwise merely builds a character of absurdity and ineptitude.

Thirdly, I have provided ample defense for all that have questioned my original statements. I have also replied directly, and refuted, one your own objections. In reply, you provide the above nonsense, where instead of a direct retort, you resort to name calling and mischaracterization, most likely for two reasons: 1.) To convince yourself that you have adequately rebutted a position that is supposedly in opposition to your own; 2.) To save face after having your original counterargument neutralized. This really is an inappropriate method of communication, if one is intent on being serious regarding the matter at hand. I sincerely hope that you do not go off on a harangue of this sort if and when you act in the professional capacity of an attorney.

Fourthly, your attempt at grouping me into one of your preconceived categories, namely the clichéd “spoiled brat” category, is not only incorrect, but it entirely fails to respond to my rebuttal to your original counterargument. Insults aside, I once again hope you do not seriously consider your words to have any worth beyond the preface of a smut novel.

If you can bring yourself to participate in civil conversation, then perhaps you will stop making a fool of yourself by throwing out tired and trite insults that only serve to bolster your own fragile ego. In doing so, you are actually serving my original point, that is, that those who expend spiteful energy to attack a perceived threat that they have no chance of overcoming are merely prolonging and enlarging their own misery.

Wow you sure think a lot of yourself, don't you?

You're like that person that's the only one applauding in the audience, at all the wrong moments.

And once again, your argument had nothing to do with what was being discussed at the time. And... you're just annoying. LOL.

Does your insecurity know no bounds? My argument responded directly to a comment posted before mine. Take a look at the history of the thread before you make an inane statement like that. Furthermore, what kind of response is "Wow, you sure think a lot of yourself, don't you?" to someone who is legitimately defending her/his position? If you're really that threatened, I highly suggest professional help.

Are we seriously back to this again? Just because I don't like you, doesn't mean I'm insecure. How many times must I say this? I thought you would know the difference between sufficient and necessary. And what exactly would I feel theatened by? Absolutely nothing.

[MysticalWheel]

my statements do not at all imply any preclusion of overcoming the general resultants of the existing class hierarchy.

Wonderful. What, then, is your argument? You have conceded that a rigid class hierarchy does not exist, and that the lower classes can rise into the upper echelons of society and reform the system. What remains of your argument?

Those that have a 3.7+ GPA and a 172+ score are more likely to eventually parlay their performance into better pay, higher social status, and, in general, access to more of life's "perks" than those without such badges. And as much as class hierarchy is veiled in the US by the tenets of equality and individual determination, it nevertheless exists and determines, for many if not all people, the quality of their relative existence. Hence, it would seem that the lower levels of society's strata do indeed have much to envy, and perhaps resent, from those that are, more or less, above them. The more that this resentment is expressed, however, the more the insecurity and spite of those in inferior positions is revealed and fueled. Given that the present state of the US consists of circumstances in plain contrast to historically prevalent affairs in pre-revolutionary occasions, thus precluding great likelihood for successful uprising against the establishment, this will likely result in only one thing: the continued and heightened misery of the lower classes, who devote so much useless energy, often incredibly subtle, at consciously or subconsciously attacking a system that rules them and will continue to rule them for some time.

I'll go ahead and point out the obvious conclusion of MW's argument:

The verdict? SHUT UP.

He was never arguing about whether or not a hierarchy exists. He was never arguing about social mobility.

He was arguing this: since the expression of resentment by people who perceive others as displaying superior intelligence is counterproductive (which is to say, it causes only continued and heightened misery for the complainers), they should just quit expressing this resentment.

If you are going to attempt to argue against his reasoning, here are some options:

Show that he relies on an improper assumption that "if an action is likely to cause only a negative result for the person doing the action, then it should be stopped."

OR

Show that this expression of resentment has another unconsidered effect besides the one likely negative outcome of continued/heightened misery.

OR

Show that this expression of resentment is not likely to result in the aforementioned continued/heightened misery.

Or... you could sit back and realize that, even though it is entirely possible to show flaws in MW's argument, it was a really funny way to tell people to Shut Up.

This is, by far, the most reasoned response to my original statements I have yet seen.

[TruHoosier]

Do you guys think MysticalWheel woke up in the middle of the night last night, sprung out of bed and thought "OH yeah! I was trolling that thread!"? Then he fired up his computer and responded to about four days' worth of posts.

I am defending my position against nonsense. So far, the only "trolls" that I can see are the self-serving agitators who persist in attacking my original statements through name calling and other irrelevant, disparaging declarations. Instead of trying to get an ego boost by insulting me, why don't you instead visit a chat room for junior high students and see if you can't outwit them?

I can't go to junior-high chat rooms anymore. This guy keeps showing up at my doorstep:

[Patriot1208]

Anyone else think it's odd that "MW" is not only a party in this argument, but he seems to think he is the judge and jury as well?

[Gemini]

Whatever, I'm just kind of over it.

I don't enjoy feeling like an ass by insulting someone. I regret this entire thing.

My entire point is that MW could be the smartest person ever, or his statements could be 100% logical... it doesn't matter. It's the tone the most people have an issue with (as well as a compulsion to use fancy words in every single time). If you act like this in real life, I doubt you have any real friends. And I'm not saying that to be mean.

[MysticalWheel]

Do you guys think MysticalWheel woke up in the middle of the night last night, sprung out of bed and thought "OH yeah! I was trolling that thread!"? Then he fired up his computer and responded to about four days' worth of posts.

I am defending my position against nonsense. So far, the only "trolls" that I can see are the self-serving agitators who persist in attacking my original statements through name calling and other irrelevant, disparaging declarations. Instead of trying to get an ego boost by insulting me, why don't you instead visit a chat room for junior high students and see if you can't outwit them?

Your original statements are ignorant. No matter how many fancy words you string into a sentence, you just end up sounding wrong (whether that means douchey or illogical is up to the individual reader).

I disagree with you regarding my original statements. You seem to think that I intently sought "fancy" words in said statements, when in fact I was merely expressing myself normally. I believe my original argument does have significant value; moreover, I find you, and the rest of the rat pack on here that is simply throwing out random insults, to be insecure because it is quite characteristic of an insecure person to resort to ad hominem over and over and over again when they do not wish, or cannot, confront the writing. This does not necessarily mean you are insecure, but I have a strong suspicion of it being so. You may be right that this is instead caused by your belief that I am spouting "douchery," but I simply don't buy it. I made a basic claim in my original statements, and although I may have added some superfluous support, it was nevertheless a well-constructed response to a previous comment.

[Patriot1208]

My entire point is that MW could be the smartest person ever, or his statements could be 100% logical... it doesn't matter. It's the tone the most people have an issue with (as well as a compulsion to use fancy words in every single time). If you act like this in real life, I doubt you have any real friends. And I'm not saying that to be mean.

TITCR.... it'll also hurt him in his job search.

[MysticalWheel]

My entire point is that MW could be the smartest person ever, or his statements could be 100% logical... it doesn't matter. It's the tone the most people have an issue with (as well as a compulsion to use fancy words in every single time). If you act like this in real life, I doubt you have any real friends. And I'm not saying that to be mean.

TITCR.... it'll also hurt him in his job search.

So you're assuming I'm a "him"? And for the record, I do not speak the way I write, nor is my audible tone even remotely pretentious.

MW

[TruHoosier]

My entire point is that MW could be the smartest person ever, or his statements could be 100% logical... it doesn't matter. It's the tone the most people have an issue with (as well as a compulsion to use fancy words in every single time). If you act like this in real life, I doubt you have any real friends. And I'm not saying that to be mean.

TITCR.... it'll also hurt him in his job search.

You are 100 percent right about that. People's personalities shine through their writing.

I'm sure this guy is extremely smart, but he is going to do some serious damage to his chances in any job or school situation where he has to represent himself in writen form. And the thing is, he'll never become wise to this and address his shortcomings because he clearly thinks that his shit doesn't stink.

Like I alluded to earlier, it's kind of a shame how the smartest people can be the most inherently flawed.

[MysticalWheel]

My entire point is that MW could be the smartest person ever, or his statements could be 100% logical... it doesn't matter. It's the tone the most people have an issue with (as well as a compulsion to use fancy words in every single time). If you act like this in real life, I doubt you have any real friends. And I'm not saying that to be mean.

TITCR.... it'll also hurt him in his job search.

You are 100 percent right about that. People's personalities shine through their writing.

I'm sure this guy is extremely smart, but he is going to do some serious damage to his chances in any job or school situation where he has to represent himself in writen form. And the thing is, he'll never become wise to this and address his shortcomings because he clearly thinks that his shit doesn't stink.

Like I alluded to earlier, it's kind of a shame how the smartest people can be the most inherently flawed.

As much as I appreciate the positive elements of your above comment, I don't understand why someone who simply persists in arguing a position should be considered exceptionally smart. I would certainly call myself intelligent, but I highly doubt that I am significantly more or less intelligent than most of the people who have participated on this thread. And that goes to the heart of my original statements as well: the way things seem often plays the determining role in the course of events, as opposed to the way things really are.

[Gemini]

I don't understand why someone who simply persists in arguing a position should be considered exceptionally smart. I would certainly call myself intelligent, but I highly doubt that I am significantly more or less intelligent than most of the people who have participated on this thread.

Sigh. You just don't get it. It's NOT what you are arguing, it's HOW you are arguing it.

[MysticalWheel]

I don't understand why someone who simply persists in arguing a position should be considered exceptionally smart. I would certainly call myself intelligent, but I highly doubt that I am significantly more or less intelligent than most of the people who have participated on this thread.

Sigh. You just don't get it. It's NOT what you are arguing, it's HOW you are arguing it.

Oh, I get it. I get that it's perfectly reasonable to call someone a "douche," "fucktard," "idiot," and then some, just because their tone seems dry or pretentious. Maybe if my original statements were actually read for what they are, that is, an intentional contrast between the very serious bulk and the flippant conclusion of "Shut up", mostly for the purpose of comedy, then this entire charade would not have occurred. But even with that aside, there are plenty more instances of your "douchery" that occur on multiple posts, in multiple threads, on these boards. Because I do not usually see the same ferocity of response that accompanied my original statements, even before I posted any follow-up, I must conclude that the argument "it's not what, but HOW you are arguing" is evanescent. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go to a shoe sale, and then work on apps.