In other words, SlowJoe is trying to say "Me too, me too!"

While Squeeky sees things from a Beavis and Butthead perspective, SlowJoe aspires to that viewpoint.

Oh, well played, Ivan! Well played. I feel "touché" is too soft an acknowledgement of how devastatingly you zeroed in on the weaknesses in our remarks - which were obviously sincere and not at all facetious. Your earnest deconstruction of my comment, so obviously what was called for in this situation, would have made Derrida proud - nay, envious!

I know you mean well, Lawson, but I don’t see the difference between a few of you razzing Paul for page after page (which, as you say, he basically buys into), and a few of us teasing IvanJim. And while I don’t disagree that the vitriol level’s pretty high, it’s no more so than a few other threads have reached. (Remember the David Porta days? Heck, remember Bill Hood and Winterman?)

Tsk tsk, Ivan. Sloppy.

You won’t mind backing up your statement here, then:

Ever since !! ...?

Evidence? Examples?

Don't worry Squeeky, I'd never accuse you of being sincere.

It does amuse me, however, to see you complain about the temerity of someone actually responding to what you've written instead of divining your intent and responding to that. You do realize that it makes you look like a dilettente, don't you?

For a start check all your posts in this thread addressing my posts. (That was easy)

If you're still unconvinced look up your own profile and check on any posts where you were responding to me.

If you want to be even more specific I'll need a cash advance in order to compensate me for actually seeking out your old drek. (No checks! I wouldn't trust them to clear.)

Yet in this very response you “divine” the intent of my comment, instead of responding to it literally. Look, I just suggest you respond less earnestly to some of the more flippant remarks people make, that way you might not look like such a pompous jerk. I'm just thinking of ya.

I haven’t sniped in this thread; you have just been the subject of some justified criticism, and the butt of a few people’s jokes. But that’s beside the point. You said “ever since then”. Your whole justification for referring to an old argument when responding to me here was because I had supposedly sniped at you ever since. It was your way of trying to show you weren’t just still sore about it.

Are you going to back up what you said? Can you provide one example of my “sniping” at you since then but before this thread? Just one…?

I think you don't quite understand what's earnest and what's not (I tend to think of you as earnest impaired), but regardless of that your suggestion makes no sense.

I didn't respond to flippant remarks that people made, I responded to posts from SlowJoe, Hillary and you. To call you folks people is a bit of a reach.

As I already said, show me the cash and I'll put the time into research. Otherwise it's laid out and easy to find and I'm sure once you locate them you'll even quibble over the definition of sniping in order to try and cover yourself. As I've pointed out more than once, you don't really argue with much integrity.

Oh heck, just for fun and because it took three seconds I'll accede to your request and give you one;
Actually, it's not "may me" or "may be".

He should write: "is obviously".

---

Stepping into an argument between two other posters with no content other than to insult one of the two folks arguing, and without any clarification as to why you'd be doing so, should certainly be defined by any reasonable person as sniping.

Due to the qualifier I expect that you'd disagree.

You've well established yourself as a quibbler and I don't expect you to change at this late date.

http://www.comicon.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=recent_user_posts;u=00002909

Wow, that's a lot of bullshit and wasted time!