Licking Our Wounds

[ScabbyDouglas]

Well, it has to be said, we are all feeling just a little chastened, CJ, Neil, myself, probably Andy too.

After a tongue-lashing like that from a master of the keyboard, driven by a soaring intellect and caustic wit, I think we should count ourselves lucky that we still have all our faculties. Mind you, I'm feeling much more humble now, and aware of my limitations than I was before.

How could I have thought myself equal to the task of engaging in argument and discussion with a lively, open-minded 24-year old young man? Me, this old, embittered, stupid, biased, asinine, pseudo-intellectual. What insights can I possibly have to bring to a discussion about the way the world actually is? How dare I?

In many ways, while I regret the cessation of my enlightenment at the hands of a superior being, I am ever so slightly relieved. At least I won't constantly be comparing my feeble verbal sallies against the polished gems of expression and clarity that are deployed so elegantly and effortlessly against me.

Still, my loss is South Africa's gain. I bet they're just sorry that they have to wait for a whole month for the the Illuminator to arrive there. A whole month. They'll be desperate, for sure.

It's late now and I must go. Some of us have to work for a living, and can't swan about reading Colin Wilson books all day long.

[Fear_nam_Beanntan]

That had better not be sarcasm I detect there.

[ScabbyDouglas]

Why Mr Beantin, that sounded just a tad like irony on your part. I'm shocked.

[Thales404]

You lost the debate to Tom. It's not the end of the world. Don't be bitter. But I have to say one more thing. You basically said that Tom has bad manners. But Tom, in reply, said that you are guilty of "subtle" approachs: mockery, sarcasm. And this is what you are doing now, aren't you? You are contradicting yourself, I think. You even denied that you contribute to the gang style of conduct on Scotland.com. Will all due respect, you are either lying or are on crack. Pick on someone your own age, one at a time. None of this 'jumping in' crap. I get amused when you and your buddies talk to each other during the threads and make your remarks like Tom isn't even there. That's how children behave. Now I mean this in all seriousness. I don't want to offend you guys, but my opinion is that Scotland is a mean forum and I hope it won't be mean to me. I came here doing the right thing, which is to defend someone i believe had to be defended. Tom even tried to end this whole facade days ago when he said 'i believe in the paranormal and CreepingJesus does not, let's leave it at that.' But then you got in his face again and sparked it up again. so how can you call the man unreasonable when you're the one who aggravated the situation? just wondering.

thanks for your time.

[Edited by Thales404 on 2nd November 2003 at 18:30]

[ScabbyDouglas]

Thales.

There are only two people who have had any sight of the many and varied conversations beween Tom and... well, the World, who have expressed the notion that Tom "won". You're one, and Mr Beantin was the other. And I can't be sure, but even Mr Beantin sounded ironic at the time.

If by "lost", you mean "Tom had the last word and then ran away"?, then yes, I suppose you are right.

However I suppose a "man's got to do what a man's got to do", and so you have strapped on your six-gun, and moseyed on out into the street, to defend the poor wee mite, against all us big bad men. Well, as they say over here: Hell mend you. (which isn't a curse, by the way - it means, approximately - you'll learn the hard way.)

Or you could just stick your nose elsewhere, and mind your own business.

Your choice.


Pal.

[HollyElise]

I find it rather curious that someone with all of NINE posts on this board would be so bold as to accuse anyone else of "jumping in."

[Thales404]

Tom had arguments, CreepingJesus had rhetoric. Its very simple, really. I say that Tom won because his points of view were based on evidence, the other people's points of view looked like attitude and were argumentative. I make no accusations here. I just tell you my observations: Tom versus five men. Isn't that what happens at playgrounds, with bullies? I am told to mind my own business. Well, why don't four of those men mind their own business in regards to Tom? Shaw debated against Chesterton: 1 on 1. Russel and Coppelstone: 1 on 1.

Why the hostility? I'm trying to be fair to a youth who is bullied by adults. Is this how Scotland.com treats its members? No wonder he took off. Vacations and school are more important than forums. If you can't play by the rules then don't play. Grown men acting like children: i hope the rest of Scotland isn't like that!