"What a load of crap" is clearly directed at your statement and not at you. The word "what" is a stand-in for the premise "[duck duck's] facts... are only reinforced when it results in replies of emotional outbursts rather than logic." Merc is indicating that he disagrees with that statement.

If his statement were directed at you, it would read something like: "tw is a load of crap when he says..."

However, tw, when you say "As usual, TheMercenary has nothing to say other than insulting emotions."

That is directed specifically at Merc, and not at his argument, which is that your argument "is a load of crap".

ad hominem count in thread:

duck_duck: 0
the mercenary: 0
undertoad: 1 (assumed: "duck_duck is seriously trolling")
tw: 1

As I stated, your assertion is a load of crap. Nothing supports such assertion. Regardless of what responses I have made in response to what another posts to me. You can't handle the truth.

Tw is right about one part, everyone here seems backs up their opinion with "I said so".

Ad Hominems are very high here too.

I'm out of order, YOU'RE out of order, THIS WHOLE DAMN THREAD IS OUT OF ORDER!

Oh, wait :::switches back to Linear Mode:::

:D
Good catch ;)

http://static.firedoglake.com/2006/0...fewgoodmen.jpg

God, I can smell his breath from that photo. ... Minty!

Yea, pretty intense scene. One crazy dude.

BTW, have you seen The Shooter yet?

Three-trick pony: he also dislikes top management of about any description. Seems he cut himself on some once when he was little.

And that's still the case. Tw's personality is in any case designed to attract personal attacks and mopery with intent to creep.

duck_duck: 0
the mercenary: 0
undertoad: 1 (assumed)
tw: 1
ug: 2

Bitches

UT- that is a complete piece of shit you just splayed from your mouth.

If that was my complete post, it did exactly what TheMercenary posted. Post was obviously intended only to insult you. Only the wording is different from "What a load of crap."

Major difference if TheMercenary had posted "What a load of crap because ...." (with "..." being a logical explanation). He did not do that explaining because his only point was insult. Meanwhile, don't forget the context here. It's Duck_Duck vs. TheMercenary - nothing more.

Did I say UT forgot to include the second sentence; therefore distorting the point - failed to notice a major difference. Preceding that paragraph were example after example of what TheMercenary did in a 24 hour period as he still does today. IOW opinion was backed by examples and facts. There was no insult because that post was clearly a statement of fact - with numerous examples.

Previous post contrasts and compares two posters: TheMercenary and Duck_Duck.

He did not post "What a load of crap because ..." . He posted the equivalent of "a complete piece of shit you just splayed from your mouth" by using different words. piercehawkeye45 defines it as: "I said so", but TheMercenary included words intended to insult.

The original point again. Who posted with intent to insult? Duck_Duck or TheMercenary?

Glatt asks, "Where did duck-duck post an opinion in this thread?" For stating an opinion, so many reactionary replies? Why? Only TheMercenary posted "What a load of crap." which is to insult. TheMercenary's post is acceptable but Duck_Duck's post is insulting?

Two posters are compared and contrasted. Duck_Duck or TheMercenary. Duck_Duck did not insult anyone. TheMercenary's post is clearly only for insult. TheMercenary’s post has no logical purpose but ‘words intended for insult’. If his intent was not to insult, then he would have posted "because" followed by ‘reasons why’. He did not. His intent was to post insult. Also posted is his history of posting insult. Who did Duck_Duck insult? No one.

That's not what you posted. Your history also demonstrates your intent. You did not post "What a load of crap because .... ". You posted only "What a load of crap" - the target of crap oviously being a poster. Obviously because that is your history as demonstrated by quotes.

Very first line from every post in a 24 hour period is your problem. Your begin with intent to attack the poster - not provide facts. You have changed recently in some posts. When you post "What a load of crap" and nothing more, then your intent is obviously to insult. Posted with the agenda of "Because I said so".

But again, this is a discussion that contrasts TheMercenary with Duck_Duck. Duck_Duck insulted who? No one.

Bla, bla, bla...

Incorrect. Believe what you want. I was responding to your statement, get over it, and stop reading so much into it.

Cherry picking... I could post a laundry list of insults you have dished out on here to many. You conviently left off all of the comments to me that warranted my response. Typical Double Standard style.

Incorrect. Believe what you want. I was responding to your statement, get over it, and stop reading so much into it.

Incorect again. This is not about me and Duck_Duck. This is about you...

Not quite, tw.

Even when the statement is rewritten, as you have done, "that is a complete piece of shit you just splayed from your mouth",... it still addresses the argument and not the poster.

Now, if one were to say "YOU are a complete piece of shit for saying that," that would address the poster, and not the argument.

That's not logical.

You are saying "Mercenaries' post was insulting. As proof, I have 25 other insults that he posted."

If I ask you for proof that the sun will come up tomorrow, you may be tempted to indicate that the sun has come up for millions of consecutive days. That's statement of fact - but not proof. The history of the sun has no bearing on what happens tomorrow morning.

A rewriting of Merc's original statement would be "I colorfully and vehemently disagree." It does not address the facts of the argument -- it doesn't refute it -- but it does address it in a way that gives the reader a tidbit of additional information.