The Glade 4.0

This is actually pretty easy to prove ...

How many of you file state sales tax adjustments for your online purchases?

_________________

I never use the Internet for anything.

isn't it?

I simply advised caution about the statistic since seeminly only 2 people have read the book and have not weighed in on if we're talking mode or mean. A suggestion that the statistic is read with a grain of salt and that it "Sounds" sensationalistic hardly qualifies as weighing in on the veracity of the claim. If anything it suggests further research into the claim, perhaps reading the book on my own.

A person who wished to be taken seriously would actually examine the source before making any sort of criticism.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Since the only source we're talking about is the title itself (what my statement is about) I have indeed read the title. I'm not even stating that a sensationalist title is necessarily a bad thing--it sells books after all.

Really? You think those of us talking about the source are only talking about the title? How the **** can you possibly have an opinion one way or the other about the title without reading the content of the book which the title describes?

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Same way everyone else in this thread can. He does not need to read the book to say "that sounds sensationalistic" and express doubt about it. If folks don't feel like discussing his doubts and summarizing the book in response (like DFK did), they don't have to. He knows were he can go to find his answers if need be.

Leave it to you to defend espousing opinions from a position of ignorance.

/golfclap

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

I don't pay state taxes

I don't see you blasting anyone else for offering their opinion when they have not read the book either. So this all comes out like a childish sniping not based on anything but your own dislike of me. Leave it to you to be unable to see past personal prejudices.

Oh And for the record, one of the skills they teach about reading critically is to first examine the title, jacket notes etc and create initial impressions. Don't close your mind, but the author (or publisher) wanted to create an initial impression with these things. Part of reading critically is you form questions in advance. You don't discount the possiblity that your initial impressions can be flawed or mistaken, but there as long as you don't close your mind, there is nothing wrong with asking questions in advance.

Leave it to you to be a prick /golfclap

Normal people talk about stuff like this all the time, Rynar. Hey, did you see that movie? No, what's it about. Blah blah blah. Oh, I don't think I'd like that.

The suggestion that everyone must do research before they can participate in a conversation is laughable. All you need to do is be clear about what you're basing your side of the discussion on (having read the book, or heard about it, or whatever). Which he did. You have some kind of weird uptightness when it comes to conversation that doesn't seem to allow you to lighten up and just have a conversation.

You never stop, do you? You are the only person here to say they haven't read the source being discussed, and then offer an opinion on it. This has nothing to do with my personal feelings about you, it has to do with nothing more than what you and you alone have contributed to this thread.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

I have a very low tolerance for intellectual dishonesty, and refuse to attribute any level of acceptance or merit to expressed opinions derived from willful ignorance.

If that is a character flaw, then I am gladly and thankfully flawed.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

There's nothing dishonest about saying "here's my opinion, and here's what I base it on".



That's fine. I have a very low tolerance for pretentious, arrogant individuals who place ridiculous requirements on others that must be fulfilled before they will debase themselves by engaging in a conversation.

Making declarative statements about about whether something is sensational or not in order to fit your preconceived notions with complete disregard for fact is intellectually dishonest.



You are right. Its totally unreasonable to expect people to know, minimally in a cursory manner, what the hell they are talking about before engaging in an argument or debate in which they wish to present their opinions on the subject matter. I am oh-so-sorry.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

I'm still trying to figure out what you think I'm doing that I need to stop.

What's actually quite funny is your own level of hypocracy.

You need to stop playing the victim at every opportunity, and own up to your own actions and faults. And I would love to know what my hypocrisy is.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

I said it [the claim] SOUNDS "a little sensationalist" actually. Not that the book itself was sensational. But you know. if you read quickly I can see how you might get confused and befuddled by and somehow warp in your mind that implied the whole book was sensationalist claptrap.





Can I make this my sig? Every time we find out you're spouting off without any expertise, can we present you with a SHUT-THE-HELL-UP card and you'll be silent? Cuz I really want to do that. Otherwise just sign off on the fact that you're a hypocritical blowhard and we can all be happy.

Lol I'm no victim. I'm just pointing out that you're sniping at me because you don't like me and portraying you for what you are (a child who can't get past his own grudges).

Ara/Riov:

I'll say it again: If you don't know of which you speak, don't expect to be taken seriously.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

I so wish I had the time to find all the threads and cite them where you and rynar do exactly that...

It's difficult to backtrack and act the innocent revisionist when the message board preserves everything you say.



With this statement you have dismissed the books claims as unlikely, and in doing so have discredited the work and the author, and presented your reasoning for doing so, without ever reading the book... or even a poorly written review of the book. You are either being intellectually dishonest, or a complete moron. Choose.



Can you read? Did you notice the qualifier "minimally in a cursory manner"? What do you suppose you bring to a debate when you argue from a position of complete willful ignorance and dishonesty?

I can assure you that I have some degree of expertise in everything I post about on these boards, and that I certainly never offered debate on a subject I didn't have understanding of.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Be honest, it's not a matter of time, it's a matter of you pretending these threads exist.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

Not if you disclose what you are basing them on. Not at all.



It is unreasonable to expect someone to have read a book before being allowed to discuss it, but you don't need to be sorry about your mistake. You need to be sorry about your pretentious holier-than-thou attitude.

I agree with this, of course.

If I spout an opinion, and cite years of research that led me to it, I expect to be taken much more seriously than if I based my opinion off the title of a book. That said, it is not intellectually dishonest to state an opinion based off anything, provided you disclose the basis for it.

Riov was pretty clear that he did not expect his opinion to carry too much weight.