Redundant terminology

[Nicodemus Phaulkon]

EDIT: Nico why do you place so much weight on who has been posting here the longest?

For the very same reasons I try to actually respect my elders. This is a foreign concept to most anyone born after 1975, apparently.

What the particular element of "Arguing on the internet, is like winng the Special Olympics". is so offensive?

Going to take your own tack from the post and deny definitives, eh? I'm sure you think you're quite clever.

Your entire post circulates around the theory that debating/arguing on a forum/internet is a fool's game. You use the term "babbler" to describe those that try. Your entire feeling in the post is that anyone caught up in the "circular pratter with rhetoric" is a complete waste of time.

THEN you make your ill-fated comparison to Special Olympians. The obvious indication is that the Special Olympics are a waste of time, and that anyone winning in them doesn't matter in the least. The parallel you draw is obvious: Arguing online is a waste of time. Participating in the Special Olympics is a waste of time.

Now that you've been called on your idiocy, not once but twice, you're following your own prescribed pattern from your previous post:

Most words in English have multiple defintions. So unless the babbler makes a giant gaff, they can easily duck under the cover of an alternate meaning.

2 I offended Special Olympians by comparing them to to people on the internet.

You did NOT compare them to people on the internet. You compared them unfavorably to people that are, in your opinion, wasting time and energy by arguing on the internet.

The babbler probably doesnt understand what he/she wrote himself so that chances of him understanding your arguement are slim.

1 I spelled winning wrong?
3 Using a cliche is lame?

Nice try. You know what you wrote. I know what you wrote. Warblade knows what you wrote. Anyone with a clue knows what you wrote.

The dodge. If the jungle planter does understand what hes writing, he will shift the thread by making a vague attack on your post.

EDIT: Nico why do you place so much weight on who has been posting here the longest?

Longevity is hardly the issue here. Your apparent joy for crass statements and trolling IS the issue.

Elitist insult response. If the agruement does become untenable(gennerally this requires 2 people agreeing that hes full of scat) the original poster can declare that you are an "idiot" and there is no point in explaning his "obbvious" point again.

This is my forecast: Because you've obviously followed your own little theory to a "T", you'll now start in on the dismissive tone. Seeing as your "gaff" was obvious, you really have no latitude to work with, otherwise.

Nice attempt at trolling, Jerk. I'll call your bluff anyway.

Strike two.