That's too bad, because agreement is just the best! That's why that wasn't what I did. I said he was overrated and boring. Not overrated because he was boring. Your mistake is understandable though, seeing as how the word "and" and the three word phrase "because he was" look so similar at a quick glance. "you personally" is redundant. Unless you are using it as a rhetorical mechanism to emphasize the idea that my opinion of his style is just an eccentricity of taste and not a position that a reasonable person like you could hold. But you probably don't put enough thought behind what you type to use cheap rhetorical tricks, do you? fixed Which is why I didn't scoff at him. Aww. You're trying to strawman me. That is just adorable.
Yeah, I'm starting to get that feeling. Oh, I apologize for my assumption of hostility on your part. Thank you for the compliment.
Fantastic. Now are you going to answer my question or continue to argue nothing but semantics? Yawn. See above. As is your act. All I ask is a very simple answer to a very simple question. I'm not trying to have a spat with you, which is obviously what you're aiming for with your unnecessarily condescending tone. You seem like an intelligent enough guy to provide back up to your point. That much is evident by your impeccable grammar. Unfortunately we're not in grammar school, we're on a boxing forum. Try to stay on topic. I wouldn't want to flunk you.:good
I predict a pointlessly drawn out, completely irrelevant, and of course grammatically correct post on PhillyShell's behalf in the near future.
Alright, two things. First, the meaning of the word "semantics" is "the meaning, or an interpretation of meaning of a word or sentence". So to clearly have a discussion, adequately understanding the semantics of the argument is necessary. It's not some triviality that can be dismissed at your whim. Second, either you purposefully misrepresented what I said or you misunderstood it, and that does matter. You were arguing against a position that I didn't hold (Joe Louis is overrated because he is boring). I pointed that out. Yeah, I can definitely understand how having what you say dismantled would make you yawn. What act would that be? Actually, no, that's not what you did. That's what it would have made sense to do, but you apparently have far more creativity than to simply follow the convention of "making sense". I like how the next thing you say undermines this. So, to clarify: you don't want to have a spat with me, and the best way to achieve that goal is to accuse me of wanting to have a spat with you immediately after you say that? It is unfortunate that you find what I say condescending. I'm sure that with some introspection you will be able to overcome this. Thanks? I don't think that my grammar is actually impeccable, and I'm not sure how adherence to grammatical convention equates to intelligence. My reasoning is impeccable though. What was that you were saying earlier, about condescension? I can't remember too well, it was all such a blur of hypocrisy. I have. I have also been thorough and pointed out when you make incorrect assumptions and use cheap rhetorical tricks. That combined with sarcasm and not agreeing with you seems to be upsetting to you. Yeah, I'd hate that.
What do you think, red? A reply where he avoids what I say and again strawmans my position? Or do you think that he will move on to personal insults?
So you completely collapse when your ignorance and rhetorical gimmicks are pointed out? It'd be sad if you weren't so lazily anti-intellectual.
Congratulations on ruining an otherwise interesting thread. But I do have to thank you for reminding me of one of my favorite movie scenes: [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQezXbiroiE[/ame] You would be the ****stick with the pony tail who got owned. Let's see how many times you can use the term "strawman" in one thread. Cute. FYI, "strawman" was in 'Wizard of Oz". "Straw man" is the term you're clumsily trying to reference ad nauseum.