Need you guys to clear something up for me...

[AustinChief]

OK I need to know if I'm going nuts or if someone is just painfully stupid.. so please interpret the following exchange and vote on the meaning...

Person A: "That's the third time you've accused me of getting my research from the media.

This will be the third time I'll reiterate that my arguments largely mirror those of various police groups.

I fail to understand why that is difficult for you to grasp.

Rhetorical device, I guess."

Person B: "Not your research, your opinions. I could care less where you claim to get your bogus "research." I find it impossible to believe you "thought up" your opinions on your own. Why? because no one who actually THINKS could possibly come to the insanely stupid conclusions you have spewed so far in this thread."

Person A: "I have no idea what this means. Not only do police groups largely not conduct research, their entire existence is for backing policy proposals. So you're wrong in about every way you can be wrong.

You do know that, right? That police groups regularly, routinely, comprehensively offer policy proposals?

That means they've developed opinions. Largely on their own experience and the backs of existing research that other people performed.

The research I've pointed to all thread is based on the same research that police groups rely on, and my proposals to policy are almost identical to what they've been pushing for decades.

Separate thy head from thy ass."

Person B: "You are too ****ing stupid to even have a discussion with. I am getting tired of having to dumb down every ****ing post so that you can follow along."

OK, now was Person B trying to say:

that police groups aren't offering opinions, they're conducting research

that Person A gets his opinions from the media

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by cdcox

Reading a third time, it is clear that you were saying that Direckshun got his opinions from the media. But the logic by which you reached that conclusion is faulty. You have to understand that reasonable people are going to come to different opinions on certain matters, no matter how strongly you disagree with that opinion.

This thread is not about the message itself it's about Direkshun's inability to follow what to me seems like a simple idea.

There actually wasn't really any "logic" to my conclusion about his reliance on the media, it is simply an attack that bears little to no weight in the overall context of what was being discussed. I'm not at all concerned with anyone's opinions on that aspect of things. THE ONLY part that I am concerned with is how he could read what I wrote and somehow jump to the conclusion that he did. It shows an almost disability-level problem with his reading comprehension skills.

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by cdcox

Person B is not meaningfully engaging in conversation or debate. He or she offers pejorative attacks in place of discourse. That person is not worthy of engaging in adult conversation.

At his point in the conversation, you are correct I had given up almost all hope of a meaningful discourse and was instead just verbally abusing him.

This snippet is simply to illustrate how frustrating it is to attempt to have an exchange where one party either has no ability to follow along or simply doesn't try.

Mostly, I'd like to see what the convoluted thought process was that led him to think I said what he claims I said.

[GloryDayz]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Halle-****ing-lujah.

We have arrived at our destination. You may now move freely throughout the cabin.

Fly more...that's what they say when you're at altitude and the air is calm enough. When you're at your destination, they just tell you to get the **** off the plane...

As for guns, like our assholes, we all have one. For now I'll keep mine to myself.