Harper's Image Make Over?

[THELIBERAL]

Nice try. Only a lefty would get angry at a father for hanging with his son instead of going to a parade.

I think you read into my post things that were not there!!!

I did not say one word about there being anything wrong with Harper spending time with his son!

I think it is great he is spending time with his son. It would even be greater if he would take his son to the parade if just for an hour to show him there are people that are different than his father. Then let the kid decide in later life if he wants to be a bigot like his father and treat people different because of it. Or he just might not become a bigot and be more accepting of people and not condemn them just because they have different views!!

HELLO!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Stephen Harper's son is 7 years old. Would you start giving your child education about gey sex at age 7?

HELLO???!!!

Another Liberal governement policy is born....I can see it now

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sure would if it helped stop him being a bigot!!!!

[JerrySeinfeld]

Nice try. Only a lefty would get angry at a father for hanging with his son instead of going to a parade.

I think you read into my post things that were not there!!!

I did not say one word about there being anything wrong with Harper spending time with his son!

I think it is great he is spending time with his son. It would even be greater if he would take his son to the parade if just for an hour to show him there are people that are different than his father. Then let the kid decide in later life if he wants to be a bigot like his father and treat people different because of it. Or he just might not become a bigot and be more accepting of people and not condemn them just because they have different views!!

HELLO!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Stephen Harper's son is 7 years old. Would you start giving your child education about gey sex at age 7?

HELLO???!!!

Another Liberal governement policy is born....I can see it now

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sure would if it helped stop him being a bigot!!!!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Harper isn't a bigot.

[THELIBERAL]

RE::Harper isn't a bigot.

Everyone in a free country is intitled to his own opinion!

[The Terrible Sweal]

I would not begrudge Harper spending some time with his son on Saturday ... 

Do you know what a straw man argument is? It is a logical fallacy and you just committed it big time.

The idea is, you build up somebody else's position (usually making it sound really weak) then tear it back down and criticize the very position that you yourself created and ASSUMED was held by your adversary.

None of what you have said about Harper is true, it's only what you SUPPOSE. And being a lefty, your supposition about his intentions is almost certainly biased.

Nice try. Only a lefty would get angry at a father for hanging with his son instead of going to a parade.

HaHAHAAAAHAHAHA!

Look at this piece of idiocy or mendacity. Jerry gives a pedantic (and manque) rant on strawmen, then turns right around and does a blindingly obvious one of his own.

Jerry, did you not NOTICE Netherland's very first sentence, or did you not CARE that your reply was completely misplaced?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sweal, your negativity has surpassed being merely a little bit annoying and moved on to being simply boring and tiresome. Get back to me when you have a point.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Missed that one too? My point is that your technique is sleazy and your content is wrong.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

My point is that only a lefty could find a way to fault a man for spending time with his own son.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But who did that?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Look back, Harper was called "Pathetic" for hanging out with his son. Also in one of the first posts a Layton supporter suggested Harper is a "@%^@$(&*" for hanging out with his son instead of going to a parade.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Maybe, but not in the post you took issue with.

[The Terrible Sweal]

I won't if sweal sits at his computer with a dictionary & a thesaurus and finds these big useless words, hoping that we all find him intelligent?

No word, regardless of it's size or meaning could make you look intelligent sweal!!

Why not stick to words that the whole world uses?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I am agrieved by this epiphany that the erudition of my diction is vexatious to your sensibilities. I deeply regret the (apparently pernicious) super-sufficiency of my rebarbative armamentarium. Please accept my condolences for the insuffiency of your vocabulary.

[JerrySeinfeld]

I won't if sweal sits at his computer with a dictionary & a thesaurus and finds these big useless words, hoping that we all find him intelligent?

No word, regardless of it's size or meaning could make you look intelligent sweal!!

Why not stick to words that the whole world uses?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I am agrieved by this epiphany that the erudition of my diction is vexatious to your sensibilities. I deeply regret the (apparently pernicious) super-sufficiency of my rebarbative armamentarium. Please accept my condolences for the insuffiency of your vocabulary.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Your vocab brings to mind words of advice from my English 101 prof: "With all of those multisyllable words compounded together you look like you're trying too hard. Good writers get their point across clearly, not pretentiously-- think about actors. The best ones are NOT the ones you sit back and say "wow am I every impressd by this actor!!" -- the best actors are the ones you don't even notice they're acting!"

[I Miss Trudeau]

Your vocab brings to mind words of advice from my English 101 prof:  "With all of those multisyllable words compounded together you look like you're trying too hard.  Good writers get their point across clearly, not pretentiously-- think about actors.  The best ones are NOT the ones you sit back and say "wow am I every impressd by this actor!!" -- the best actors are the ones you don't even notice they're acting!"

Unfortunatly, you didn't have the pleasure of taking Philosophy 101, in which (my prof, at least) said "Attack the substance and content of the text, not the style of the author." Or perhaps you're simply incapable of doing so.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Your vocab brings to mind words of advice from my English 101 prof:  "With all of those multisyllable words compounded together you look like you're trying too hard.  Good writers get their point across clearly, not pretentiously-- think about actors.  The best ones are NOT the ones you sit back and say "wow am I every impressd by this actor!!" -- the best actors are the ones you don't even notice they're acting!"

Unfortunatly, you didn't have the pleasure of taking Philosophy 101, in which (my prof, at least) said "Attack the substance and content of the text, not the style of the author." Or perhaps you're simply incapable of doing so.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually it was philosphy 125 and it was a practical logic course. The fallacy to which you are referring is called "ad hominem". It's not a perfect fit for the definition but close.

You missed the context: another post criticized Sweal's use of vocab, not me.

Sweal came back and accused that poster of being unintelligent.

I simply posted my remarks to demonstrate that some in academia don't consider the use of multisyllabic words to be a measure of intelligence.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Your vocab brings to mind words of advice from my English 101 prof:  "With all of those multisyllable words compounded together you look like you're trying too hard.  Good writers get their point across clearly, not pretentiously-- think about actors.  The best ones are NOT the ones you sit back and say "wow am I every impressd by this actor!!" -- the best actors are the ones you don't even notice they're acting!"

Unfortunatly, you didn't have the pleasure of taking Philosophy 101, in which (my prof, at least) said "Attack the substance and content of the text, not the style of the author." Or perhaps you're simply incapable of doing so.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"you am incapaple of doing so" sounds oddly close to an attack on the author (me) so be careful to heed your own advice.

Actually it was philosphy 125 and it was a practical logic course. The fallacy to which you are referring is called "ad hominem". It's not a perfect fit for the definition but close.

You missed the context: another post criticized Sweal's use of vocab, not me.

Sweal came back and accused that poster of being unintelligent.

I simply posted my remarks to demonstrate that some in academia don't consider the use of multisyllabic words to be a measure of intelligence.

[Leader Circle]

Your vocab brings to mind words of advice from my English 101 prof:  "With all of those multisyllable words compounded together you look like you're trying too hard.  Good writers get their point across clearly, not pretentiously-- think about actors.  The best ones are NOT the ones you sit back and say "wow am I every impressd by this actor!!" -- the best actors are the ones you don't even notice they're acting!"

Unfortunatly, you didn't have the pleasure of taking Philosophy 101, in which (my prof, at least) said "Attack the substance and content of the text, not the style of the author." Or perhaps you're simply incapable of doing so.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"you am incapaple of doing so" sounds oddly close to an attack on the author (me) so be careful to heed your own advice.

Actually it was philosphy 125 and it was a practical logic course. The fallacy to which you are referring is called "ad hominem". It's not a perfect fit for the definition but close.

You missed the context: another post criticized Sweal's use of vocab, not me.

Sweal came back and accused that poster of being unintelligent.

I simply posted my remarks to demonstrate that some in academia don't consider the use of multisyllabic words to be a measure of intelligence.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks Jerry,

It is good to have a scholar like yourself on our side. I do not spend my time inside a dictionary, but I can understand the words well enough to know, the point would have made it across with smaller, shorter words. That was my main point to Sweal. I never implied I didn't get it Sweally!

We could even do this discussion in French, Spanish or German if you run out of big words in English!

[I Miss Trudeau]

Actually it was philosphy 125 and it was a practical logic course.  The fallacy to which you are referring is called "ad hominem".  It's not a perfect fit for the definition but close.

Best break open that logic text and have another look.

You missed the context:  another post criticized Sweal's use of vocab, not me.

So you wouldn't consider this to be criticism?:

Your vocab brings to mind words of advice from my English 101 prof: "With all of those multisyllable words compounded together you look like you're trying too hard. Good writers get their point across clearly, not pretentiously-- think about actors. The best ones are NOT the ones you sit back and say "wow am I every impressd by this actor!!" -- the best actors are the ones you don't even notice they're acting!"

Was it just a waste of bandwidth, then?

I simply posted my remarks to demonstrate that some in academia don't consider the use of multisyllabic words to be a measure of intelligence.

And virtually everyone in academia agrees that the ability to invoke the latin names for informal fallacies is not a measure of intelligence. Especially when you get them wrong.

[I Miss Trudeau]

"you am incapaple of doing so" sounds oddly close to an attack on the author (me) so be careful to heed your own advice.

Fair enough. Let me modify, then, by changing it to "you seem unwilling to do so."

[Shakeyhands]

I won't if sweal sits at his computer with a dictionary & a thesaurus and finds these big useless words, hoping that we all find him intelligent?

No word, regardless of it's size or meaning could make you look intelligent sweal!!

Why not stick to words that the whole world uses?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I am agrieved by this epiphany that the erudition of my diction is vexatious to your sensibilities. I deeply regret the (apparently pernicious) super-sufficiency of my rebarbative armamentarium. Please accept my condolences for the insuffiency of your vocabulary.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

wots thet use speakin aboot Sweeel?

[Guest eureka]

There is only one useless word in the English language and that word was rendered obsolute or redundant just 25 or so years ago.

The word is Conservative. Oddly, though, when not capitalised, it still retains a function.

[August1991]

I won't if sweal sits at his computer with a dictionary & a thesaurus and finds these big useless words, hoping that we all find him intelligent?

No word, regardless of it's size or meaning could make you look intelligent sweal!!

Why not stick to words that the whole world uses?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I am agrieved by this epiphany that the erudition of my diction is vexatious to your sensibilities. I deeply regret the (apparently pernicious) super-sufficiency of my rebarbative armamentarium. Please accept my condolences for the insuffiency of your vocabulary.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Translation: I feel sorry that you feel bad about what I said.

Also, Sweal, if you are going to use "big words", spell them correctly - otherwise you look completely foolish. "Aggrieved" takes two g's.

[I Miss Trudeau]

Whew boy. Vocabulary and spelling police in the same thread. Lookout!

[Argus]

Your vocab brings to mind words of advice from my English 101 prof:  "With all of those multisyllable words compounded together you look like you're trying too hard.  Good writers get their point across clearly, not pretentiously-- think about actors.  The best ones are NOT the ones you sit back and say "wow am I every impressd by this actor!!" -- the best actors are the ones you don't even notice they're acting!"

Unfortunatly, you didn't have the pleasure of taking Philosophy 101, in which (my prof, at least) said "Attack the substance and content of the text, not the style of the author." Or perhaps you're simply incapable of doing so.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The substance of the argument.... uhmmm

HaHAHAAAAHAHAHA!

Look at this piece of idiocy or mendacity. Jerry gives a pedantic (and manque) rant on strawmen, then turns right around and does a blindingly obvious one of his own.

Was that the uh, "substance" you wanted him to attack?

[Argus]

There is only one useless word in the English language and that word was rendered obsolute or redundant just 25 or so years ago.

The word is Conservative. Oddly, though, when not capitalised, it still retains a function.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's not a useless word. It's used to describe those who rule the world and always will.

[kimmy]

It looks like some of you need a "time out." Go to your rooms and think about what you've done. This thread should be closed.

Actually, no further discussion in this thread was necessary after my previous awesome message, which was the alpha and omega of debate on the subject. Case closed.

-kimmy

[TheHonorableJordanDent]

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/2005/...1104524-cp.html

Harper took his nine-year-old son Ben to the amusement park on the island following the opening ceremony. The two then had plans to spend the rest of the afternoon at the Hockey Hall of Fame.

The Conservative leader will remain in the Toronto area Sunday but said he will be spending time with his son rather than attend Toronto's world-renowned gay pride parade - where the prospect of a national law legalizing same-sex marriage is sure to figure in the celebrations.

Asked if he was surprised Harper wouldn't make the parade, Layton was tight-lipped.

"We each make our choices," he said.

HINT: I can think of what Jack should have said! HERE YOU FILL IN THE BLANK!

Layton:: " Yes but he's a "" #*#*$ "" and I'm not!!!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Meh, I'm not a Harper fan, but who really expects him to show up at a Gay pride parade? That'd be like The Grand Dragon of the KKK showing up at a Martin Luther King speech. Don't take that as an insult i'm just saying he's vehmently against Homosexuality so why should he support it?