you want me to point out how him playing along doesnt make your argument good faith?

Sure

Can we get back to the original argument?

it started off not good faith. Him deciding to be charitable does not make it good faith retroactively

Then I'll just pretend to go along with your argument and that won't matter either.

Hard reset please

I also tried to move past the stupid analogy

and explain my reasoning

Any rule you make will be applied to you. If that isn't acceptable, choose your tactics more carefully.

I dont see much point in a hard reset when the trajectory of the discussion is "Let's be passive aggressive and strawman, then say the conversation is ridiculous"

Then its time to be the bigger men/women

You strawmanned me, beemann.

and I would love to hear something about the bulk of what I said

I didn't

You made a character attack.

nope, I attacked behaviour

First foul was yours.

and what's more, ad hom is not merely an attack on character

But attacking a person instead of the argument is an ad hom

right, and I criticized your behaviour

@oprahsminge What was your original point, please?

if you cant distinguish between the two, thats your failing, not mine

Sure... beemann, you know what you did. I'm not convinced. If you have anything to contribute to a discussion then have a discussion. I'm not interested in your sidewise insults.

@Farscryer @Beemann @TheDogOfSinope Tell you guys what! Alright lets stop. I'm going to go at this point. Stop this bs. This isn't a debate. Bee while I appreciate the help here, it's clear we're off any important discussion. The Dog, you win. Have fun. Hope it helps. I'm not taking part in this.

@oprahsminge Fair enough. Have a good day, man

@oprahsminge Have a nice day.

@TheDogOfSinope Okay, what was your original point. I'm still interested.

I had that long post above

I'd restate it but that might be considered spamming. 😃

So, to paraphrase, "Play the game or else concede losing, regardless of the high minded ideals behind your unwillingness to play." About correct?

Well, that was an element, but a bigger part of it is that the DNC does what they do because they feel invulnerable in those tactics. They don't see negative consequences because they don't get punished for bad behavior.

What is more, I had a big bit in there about coordinated and strategic thinking. Where instead of everyone fighting individually against the latest thing people are helping allies out and some people at least are seeing the grand picture so they can make longer term moves.

they don't respect the RNC because the RNC generally plays defensively, doesn't punish the DNC, doesn't think strategically, and doesn't coordinate well.

There was a reason that post was long. I said many things.

All of this I can agree with. However, a counterpoint: The RNC doesn't fight back because of a combination of bipartisan moralism (from an era in which there was more a blending between parties) and lack of understanding of their own potential growing base on the internet.

I stated in that long post that the Republicans are out of touch with the way their opposition plays the game.

But they are learning. The younger folks entering into the Party are teaching them.

The DNC is involved in a lot of dirty tricks. That whole bird dogging thing at campaign rallies during the primaries and election is a perfect example.

Recall back to when SOPA/PIPA was a big issue, and Google of all companies had to explain how the internet and memes worked to a bemused Senate.

We will see, Farscryer... this problem is about 90 years old. That is roughly how long the RNC has been out of touch on this issue. The argument by some in the RNC has been made every generation... and yet here we are.

They were out of touch at least since FDR.

Yes, in an era of unprecedented potential for change by virtue of the internet and social media as a by product.