*DAMN R6 Forum

bondo.

Intelligent as in what standards (games, bashing, flame wars, stupidity?)

intelligent, as in not flame. i mean intelligent in general and very intellectual. i cant spell.

At the risk of starting a flame war, Bronto, you need to look up what intelligent means if you are saying Bondo.  

Around here, I would say Ace.  He always looks up what he doesn't know, before making a dumbass out of himself in posts.  Assassin would be a close second (he did say something about pre-season college football today).

The pre-season college football was relating to my school, UCLA...but I guess all collegiate DI teams don't play that many games.

Bucc, Deadeye, Ace, Cossack, are the first few I can think of. I have had intelligent convos with others, they just haven't come to my mind yet so sorry for leaving you out if you belong in that category.

 Without a doubt, overall it'd have to be Grifter. Since he's no longer with us, I'd have to go with Bondo.

i like the way typhy always uses the correct punctuations and what not. i bet hes the biggest slob in real life.

bucc, lol i can't believe that you are insulting Bondo's intelligence? HMMMM maybe political affiliations had something to do with the people you named, since if you combine them and add yourself into the mix, then we pretty much have the politically conservative side of the frequent posters covered.

as far as best person to have an intelligent conversation with, I would have to put myself first and foremost out of pure egoism? then after that, I most value the intelligence of bondo, cookie, and ace.

but seriously, I'm pretty fuckin smart, so y'all betta recognize

(my intentional use of ebonics and incorrect grammar is in no way an endorsement of my intelligence or knowledge in the use of the English language)

not only is he smart, but also extremely sexy. i think im a good person to talk to because i would talk about anything and expand on the subject, but i also like to ruin the conversation with things i find funny. like if we were talking about the elderly, i would tell you about how i threw a bouncy ball at this old lady in the king kullen parking lot.

I think the best people to have intelligent conversations are people like my friend.  We disagree on most things, but unlike some people, he is able to stick with arguing the topic like I do, not striking out at the credibility of others due to fear that your argument isn't strong enough.

I also like conversing with my wubbers (you know who you are).  (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~damnr6/yabbse/YaBBImages/banana.gif)

So I look up stuff and then I still make a dumbass out of myself? Great, back to the fucking drawing board...

Hmm, off the top of my head I would give it to Bucc, although wrath would give him a serious run for his money if he were able to speak more than two words at a time.

Me on the rare occasions that i've had more than my usual 2.5 hours of sleep
Hw suxxorz

A serious conversation? Ace Bucc and ejo pwn... (yes... ejo)

Ben

It may seem narrow minded of me but often talking on importent matter with Conservatives erupts into small time bickering thus an agreeing conversation still on something importent would be best with me and the winners are Tasty and Bondo

me, duh.



 (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~damnr6/yabbse/YaBBImages/so.gif)
actually, i'd give the call to either bucc or deadeye. when you talk with them online they actualy have a sense of humor and the fact that they make my job as a moderator so much easier on this forum, except when dumbasses(you know who you are) decide to try and counter their points with half thought out posts.

sin and ace come in as  close 2nd and third, mainly because i dont talk to them much

best person would be ace, assasin, or bondo

I'd like to add that SK's sig is a pretty good list of people to have intelligent conversations with...if you can find them ;)

 Since I havn't really gotten into an argument with Bucc yet, I don't really know how he acts. Judging from what I've seen him say, he behaves in the forums much the same as Grifter, in which case he would be an exelent person to have a disagreement with. I wouldn't go with Ace or Sin at all. The instant that they disagree with you, or you make a mistake in somthing that you say, they will start to insult you. I really hate that shit. My thoughts are that the best people to have disagreements with are the ones that leave crap like that out. Sin and Ace both reseach what they say, and make exelent posts, without the insults,  they'd be right up there at the top.

There goes someone else calling me a conservative.  Just because I don't argue a single side, liberal or conservative, doesn't mean I'm one or the other.  Like I've posted, I'm actually a liberal.  Gun control laws are actually a conservative stance, but they have been taken on by the "Liberal" activists.  I'm against abortion and the death penalty (first is considered conservative, second is considered liberal).  I don't feel that I have to fit into a political mold.

I make my mind up based upon the facts, not what's popular, not from emotions.

As for Bondo's intelligence, or lack thereof, it's pretty obvious.  He doesn't read the arguments against his very well, he ignores strong points that disagree with him if he can't refute them.  He is, in essence, the ultra liberal version of Rush Limbough, right here on our forums.  

I mean, he's trying to explain why facts don't matter in logic and what is and isn't logic to someone that has a degree in philosophy (which logic is a big part of).  That is really amusing, but a bit pathetic.

The reason I pick people like Ace, Assassin, Cossack (forgot to mention him in the first one) and even Brain are because they often will look at facts and change their minds.  They admitt when they make mistakes and go forward, not try to cover them up with more BS, like some here.  This isn't to say that they make mistakes often, because they don't.  But these types of actioins are good signs of intelligence.

You see, if you had looked up intelligence, like I said, you'd notice it's not having a strong opinion, or having a wealth of knowledge.  It's really the ability to learn.  The ability to aquire and apply knowledge.  Since Bondo wants no part in learning things that disagree with his opinions, I can't consider him intelligent.  And before he says that lovely 2nd grade "so do you", I've changed my mind on things like gun controll, because I looked hard at the facts.  Not just the ones that support my position.

It's odd, I've been listed as very intellegent by a large number of people here.  Maybe it isn't as cut and dry as you think Bucc.  Maybe instead you should just shut up about it and accept that I am in fact very intelligent.  I just don't have the same views or methods as you do.  I don't argue in the same way, but unlike you I don't view my style of arguing as the only proper way to do so.

you are intelligant in some things, but not in sports because we all know USLA is better than CU =)

University of Spanish Language Administrators?  I didn't realize they had a team...or a university for that matter.

 (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~damnr6/yabbse/YaBBImages/offtopic.gif) this is turning into a pissing contest about who's what and who's smarter. lets try to keep on track, mmmmmk :) and goddamnit, before you go off calling yourself intelligent learn how to spell the word.

onward!
i think Mr Lothario provides extremely enriching conversation, you should all talk to him about philosophy and comics  ;D but yeah, i think that it's ironic that the only people i have found intelligent mentioned in this thread are buccaneer and grifter. Buccaneer seems to make logical points (however i'm not sure of his consistency) and grifter, i just admired his obvious skill for debate. I didn't always agree; but hell, he made it all sound good.

and finally...back to my previous statement about not finding the previously mentioned persons intelligent: in most of the cases I think it's due to the fact I either haven't talked much with that person or just haven't seen any demonstrations of brilliance lately. However there are some exceptions to this, because a few that go unnamed have shown me nothing but ignorance up to this point. This makes me wonder, to what standards are we holding these people?

How many do you claim is "Large"?  and by kids Bondo.  Many of these kids just don't know how to recognize your bullshit yet is all.  Some do.  But some are still fooled.


Nobody has to have the same views as me to be intelligent.  But, you've never really shown intelligence to me Bondo.  So, why should I shut up about it?  


You are right, you don't argue in the same way.  But you claim that your way is logical.  Since I'm using logic, and I've had the training in it, and you aren't using the same method, that would mean that you are not using logic, since you use a different way. (see, that was a logical argument.  It has a name and everything.  Isn't logic wonderful).  

Bondo, since you don't read the actuall facts that DON'T support your issue, since you don't actually acknowledge any facts that completely disagree with your opinion, since you seem unable to learn and apply that knowledge in a reasonable way.  This is why I find you unintelligent.  

To be intelligent, you have to question yourself and your own views too.  Intelligent people never think that they are always right.  They check and recheck all the time.  They don't form opinions without observations, but upon their observations.

TO GET BACK ON TOPIC: I would say Typhy

And the best person to have an intelligent conversation in my opinion is.................
Loth.

(the key word in this thread is INTELLIGENT, not just a good convo)

I haven't had many conversations with Loth.  But the ones I have, yes, he would qualify.  He's a good, well thought out person it seems.

First off cookie, spelling has nothing to do with intelligence...secondly, I spelled it right more than half the time ;).

Bucc, the thing you don't seem to understand is logic IS what I use, but just because you learned a different version (somehow logic having to do directly with fact, which makes no sense to me since if you start turning logic into meaning factual, you lose what logic was meant for in the first place).  The way I learned logic (which is not incorrect) is about the process of statements and is not tied to fact.

But once again in what is it the fifth thread now, I stay on topic only to have Bucc insult me for no reason and make me defend myself.  Bucc, you are losing much credibility.  You can no longer challenge any of my statements and be trusted because you do so just because I made the statements.

bondo. let me make this plan and simple

ALL logical arguments must have something at it's core, right? well, if  remember from my speach class correctly, you can either have a hard fact, or a presumption, which is loosely based on fact...either way facts are an integral part o flogical debate(you can use statics, but those are never reliable and are often very biased)

no logic, no core, no argument
that simple bondo

and as usual, bucc, deadeye, if i used the wrong termonology, feel free to correct me

I'll work backwards on this one, it will make more sense that way.


Bondo, where, exactly, did you learn logic?  Where and what did you study?  What classes?  What books, by whom?  I really want to learn about this alternative form of logic that they didn't teach me in college.


And, tell me oh wise one, what exactly was logic meant for in the first place?


You got me there.  I do not understand that you use logic.  

Logic is a discipline.  It is a formal way to prove or disprove arguments (be they debates, math problems, scientific theories, whatever).  You start at the premise (what you are trying to prove true of false).  You then have many, many different trees of arguments.  All of which are basically if/then or true/false (I am really breaking this down, these arguments are actually a little more complicated).  Eventually these "facts" bring us to the premise being proven true of false.  You see, logic without facts is like a motor without fuel.  Logic needs facts to prove or disprove the premise, which is it's function.  A motor need fuel to do it's work.    

Bucc, I apologize for labelling you as "conservative"? obviously you find political labels offensive, and obviously I don't know all your stances on everything, I only know what I have read in the forums for the past couple months, which is the amount of time that I have been reading/posting here. From what I had seen (anti-gun control, pro-capitalism, pro-war on Iraq, etc.) I drew the conclusion that you generally leaned to the more conservative side of the political spectrum. Although I will take your word for it that you are not "conservative", it is true that you succeeded in providing only one example of an issue where you concur with the liberal side. Your example of gun control actually being conservative doesn't really count, because there you are drawing a line between the political definition of conservative and the dictionary definition of conservative. And your claiming to be liberal is pretty far-fetched, considering the sides that you not only argued, but argued strongly and passionately for in previous discussions.

Also?
In case I missed something, this usually is how people make up their minds, liberal or conservative? the difference comes from how they interpret those facts, where they get their facts from, and which facts they choose to believe.


As examples, you used people that you thought were intelligent and explained their intelligence as their ability to look at facts and change their minds based on those facts. However, you must take into consideration people such as myself that already have a strong background of evidence to work from in some cases. If we are discussing gun control, foreign policy, capitalism, or other subjects that I have already examined the facts in and made up my mind about, then obviously I am not going to change my mind based on things presented in the DAMN r6 forums. No one is presenting information or arguments on these sorts of political topics that I haven't already seen; the difference between me and assasin or cossack is that my mind is already made up. I already went through the stage of questioning beliefs and sorting fact from fiction. I now have formed strong opinions that I am here in the forums to defend. This is the case with me, and likely the case with Bondo and others that don't agree with you all of the time. I'm not saying Bondo is always right when he posts? many people, including him often let the discussions stray away from topic and more into the emotion realm. I'm not saying that this phenomenon makes for a good argument, but in an informal setting such as internet forums and when discussing with a very diverse group of people in terms of age and expertise, this is bound to happen.


I find this to be pretty insulting, since I supported Bondo on this. I hardly consider myself to be a "kid". I am a college student that is almost 19, and I took college classes in the summers in high school before I enrolled full time this year. I am a political science-anthropology double major. So I think that I have enough credentials not to be referred to as a kid.
Basically this quote boils down to two incorrect generalizations:
1.that everyone that respects Bondo's opinions is a "kid"
2. that everything Bondo says is bullshit, and if you don't recognize it as such, than you are a fool.


Bucc, I just don't think its fair for you to present opinions dissenting yours in this manner. You are an intelligent person. You just seem to have presented this topic in a very two-dimensional way.

Now now Typhy...the only cases I think I have pointed out your errors was by qupting them and trying to figure out what you said. Much like when you said you were older than everyone in *DAMN. You never qualified that statement and I brought up the point that you were wrong.

As for me breaking out the insults when people disagree with me, that is partially true. I only start calling people ignorant or a dumbfuck (much like I have against Rapid when he accused me of BS) when people want to try and debate with me and they bring assumptions and ideas to the table and not facts. If I am bringing the facts, like I do probably 99% of the time, I don't want it rebuked by some kid (or maybe an adult) who thinks he knows what the hell he is talking about without supporting his stance on the issue at hand.

Bondo: I think SK was referring to UCLA, and if that was the case, we are the number 1 sports school in the nation witht he most NCAA titles won.

Ace: I don't know where to put this, but I have to admit that USC might beat us in football this year because we have lost our top two QB's to injuries (broken ankle and separated shoulder) and our place kicker is just sucking.

Everyone else: Typing errors don't mean anything when it comes to intelligence unless most of your post is a giant typo. I for one like to type fast and sometimes switch letters around and what not, and since there is no spell-check on yabb, I don't pick it up in time. I also don't like to modify posts to correct spelling errors because post modifications to me look like someone kept changing their mind.

Well... I guess that means cook divorces me :(..

Anyway, I take back my votes to say Bondo and Bucc are two of the intelligent people on gr to have a conversation with mainly because their actions on this thread and the party affiliation thread. Spamming insults at eachother (on defense of offence) is not a sign of intelligence in the least... Intelligence is how to avoid the fight, not how to compete in one. (In my mind)

Frankly, my votes are now Ace, Ejo, and Loth.

I believe anyone can be intelligent in action or word, but most choose to be insane in an effort to get away from their world of rules and standards (No clue where that came from)... We are all smart people, just we show it in different ways.

Ben

Accepted.


Tasty, I think you have me confused with someone else.  I've never come down on the pro-war with Iraq side either.  I don't know where pro-capitalism came from?  I do know that I get blamed for saying things I haven't, but that's usually by Bondo.  I'm an environmentalist, amongst other things.  I don't like what big business has done to the country.  But I also believe in this country.  I do belive that democracy is the best way to go (people often confuse capitalsim and democracy, so that may be where you got it).  I wish we would move to a true democracy, not a republic, but that's not important in this conversation.  

I also argue that I don't fit under the "conservative" lable of gun control.  I am all for some actual controls.  The problem I have is people want to knee jerk, blame all the problems on guns and get rid of them all.  I'm the one that brought up the electronic safty locks for guns, and I'm all for them.  I want the government to make laws enforcing the gun manufacturers to make all guns that way, just like with seatbelts and cars.  I'm all for making guns SAFER.  But I'm also for what works.  Gun bans don't seem to.  Laws that just effect the non-criminals are usually just stupid.


Actually Tasty, if that was the case, we wouldn't have parties, and we wouldn't have the option that is on every ballot, which says "vote party ticket" in which case, you check one box and all your votes go either republican or democrat.  So, I think you missed something.  Also, many people do vote emotionally, and speak emotionally.  Emotional arguments are some of the most dangerous, because they cloud the issue (think mob mentality, that's where I'm going).


Ah, now here's where I have to argue with you Tasty.  I bet you didn't catch that part where I wrote that I felt that same way about gun control and bans when I was your age.  And that I learned different.

You have stated the problem pretty clearly right there.  You said that you have seen everything, that I can't show you more.  What makes you think that?  Being many years older then you, I may have learned something that you didn't.  I didn't spend all those years in a cave.  What difference does it make if I present them here, or somewhere else?

It's not that you have to agree with me to be logical, you don't.  I don't know all the answers either.  But that's a big difference in what you just said and the way that Bondo acts.  I know that I don't have all the answers.  You think you do (at least from that last quote).  

If your mind is made up, and you are not even going to look at what the other person is presenting, you are not logical, you are a dumbass.  I say that to anyone.  If you can't consider the other side, you are a zelot, not logical.  There is a difference.  

And that "stage" of questioning should never go away.  It should always be there.

another person i forgot is bucc, he is a very thorough speeker and has respect from lots of others.

-SK

1. I did imply that, and it may have been incorrect.  The ones that had commented are.  Oh, and compared to me, you are still a bit of a kid.  That's not meant to be offenseive, just an indication of age difference.

2. I've not said that everything Bondo says is bullshit.  Just that his points on LOGIC are.  Since I have more then one degree, one of which did cover logic, I think I would know.  Bondo hangs on to his arguments that there is more then one type, I've asked where he studied, what he studied, I've asked again.  He has no answer.  You see, that's why I call it bullshit.  If he said he studied such ans such, I'd talk to him about it and where in the hell he got his opinion of what is and isn't logic is.  But he doesn't.  He just says that his way is valid.

If you have read my posts, then you've seen my credentials too Tasty, they've been posted.  You'll know what I'm talking about.  And trust me when I say that being an undergrad, you still have a lot to learn.  That's not a bad thing.  I still have a lot to learn, and I have multiple masters.


Tasty, if you read this, and my posts to Jeb, you'll see that I don't just slam on people that disagree with me.  Bondo, and to a lesser degree Zaitsev, are exceptions.  Because they aren't discussing things, they are on soap boxes.  To discuss them, they have to look at the other side.  Not just look at, but address even.  They both failed to do that.  So, it's not two-dimensional.  It's multi-dimensional, Bondo just happens to be at the end of the spectrum.

*Clears throat*

Anonymous:   hmmm so much bs between bucc and tasty
Myself: And Bondo
Anonymous: i just skip their posts
Myself: Yah..

And now I must ask...
Eh?

Ben

Bucc I will agree with the first part of your post where you say that maybe I have confused some of your views??this is possible, I don't know all of your views or they may have been muddled in my mind with all of the different people who posted on gun control/iraq. im only going on what ive observed, or at least what i thought i observed.

i never said anything about people voting or behaving emotionally, because obviously people do, maybe even a majority of people. And I don't really believe in political parties either? I definetely don't vote party lines, and the only reason I ever advocate for a party is because unfortunately our democracy is built around them, and to work without them at this point would be impossible. So what I'm getting at is that whether people are actually voting emotionally or not, they still think that they examined facts to come to their conclusion??they were probably just more generalized and emotionally spun facts.

As for your argument after that (which I'm not going to quote for length purposes), I think that you have just misunderstood me. I am not saying that I am unwilling to change my beliefs, or that I have ever stopped looking at further evidence, facts, or opinions. I'm just saying that so far, in the discussions I've had in the forums, no one has brought up any "epiphany-worthy" information. I said that I have positions and that I am willing to argue them. I never said that those positions are completely inflexible or that I am impersuadable. The fact that you assume this from my stating that I have strongly-held opinions makes you just as much of a "dumbass" (as you would say) as I must apparently be.

[size=10]cookiE![/size]

Ben, it's not BS between me and Tasty, it's actually a decent conversation.

Tasty,

I can understand getting confused, as long as you either accept that I'm not, or go back and find where I was pro war, etc.

You also mentioned a key statement in your last post.  Your point changed somewhat, and it's important.  You just said So what I'm getting at is that whether people are actually voting emotionally or not, they still think that they examined facts to come to their conclusion? ".  That's the whole difference.  They think they did, doesn't mean that they did.  That was my point.  Too many people accept an emotional argument as a logical one.  That's why they show pictures of things like dead babies on posters against things.  Once it gets that emotional, too many people stop thinking logically.

Last, I may have misunderstood you, but here's the qute why:
Quote from: SEALs tasty on Today at  04:03:26pm  

However, you must take into consideration people such as myself that already have a strong background of evidence to work from in some cases. If we are discussing gun control, foreign policy, capitalism, or other subjects that I have already examined the facts in and made up my mind about, then obviously I am not going to change my mind based on things presented in the DAMN r6 forums. No one is presenting information or arguments on these sorts of political topics that I haven't already seen;

Notice the "I am not going to change my mind based on things presented in the DAMN r6 forums.".  You should now understand why it seemed to me that you would not listen.  I was trying to say that the FORUM that you discuss your beliefs in shouldn't matter.  You should always question them.

So, I would respond that reading that quote, no, I'm not a dumbass, since I didn't assume it from you saying you had strongly-held opinions.  I made that deduction from your words, which pretty much said you wouldn't change your mind.

Alright Buccy, I'll give you that one you sexy angel of a man... Still... The you/Bondo thing? Eh?

Ben

 Well Sin, on somthing like that, I think that it would be pretty easy for you to have figured out what I meant. And in that case, I had nothing against what you said, it was in earlier cases such as "I did say 8th fucktard" when I acidently misread your post and had commented that it was in the 8th, and not the 9th. Somthing you could've calmly pointed out, without acting like that.

Speaking of Lothario, where IS that HPB booter?

Ben, you know how Hudini had a passion for exposing fake psychics?  Let's just say I have the same sort of passion, just with a different type of fraud.

Wow. . .Bucc, Tasty, Bondo, et al.  After reading through that morass of horse shit I don't even know where to start.  Originally I was going to complain that while you all took the time to list several people whose opinions you valued, you also took time to pan a bunch of others.  See, I was feeling left out that no one had even taken the time to read what I write, in order to put it down.

Now I think I'll simply cast my own vote.  However, it's doubtful anyone will notice it, seeing as my words fail to intellectually engage you.

However, at times I have seen insightful commentary from Bucc, Bondo, and Tasty in particular.  That seems to be limited at the moment.  

Without further ado then, I've found the most consistently well-reasoned forum poster to be preciousroy.  Alas, he is no longer with us here.  I also miss blackhand and wrath.  There's a certain janitor mystique, don't you think?

Anyway, I've been impressed by some of Alaric's, Lothario's, and Cossack's posts.

Now, please resume your infighting.

Loudnotes, something that you, Ben and Tasty seem to have missed.  You can have infighting and back-biting and mud-slinging, and still be intelligent.  Ace has a very good style of intelligent mud slinging for example (I think he must be a Dennis Miller fan).  

Just because you are sick of seeing it, doesn't make it intelligent, or not intelligent.  It just makes you sick of seeing it.  

Yes, your individual arguments are well-calculated, even brilliant.  Often approaching their goal of entertaining sport.  However, what is unintelligent about them as a whole is that you continue them to excess to the detriment of the rest of the community.  Yes, we're tired of seeing it, and that's what we don't find intelligent.  

And damnit, now you've gone and dragged me into it!

Yeah, that is the trouble, I want to have the forums be good-natured and such, but I more than anyone am constantly being insulted, quite tough it is.  And unlike some people like Rom who got it from everybody, I only get it from limited number while having many others who enjoy my posting which is why I even bother.

LOL Bucc, here we go again. I thought that we had an intelligent discussion (obviously an intense one). But yet the insults continue? I don't see how I missed something? we both had one day of intense posting trying to refute the others' posts. So how did I miss the point of "intelligent" infighting? It seems that was exactly what went on.

in general buc and deadeye are pretty smart,
but if i'm looking for help with unix or linux Ace and Loth are a good bet
then for ameture "1337 h4xXx0ring" its ejo
i have seen bigpat put some people in their place when they try to talk about cars
bondo is fairly intelegent about video games, however he can be a shade closed minded when confronted with facts(like saying that GTA:VC will suck).

there should be a topic on easiest to make fun of, like dest (stupid mazda whore), ace (he sucks at linux), and ejo (all around noob) oh and bondo (for being a horid MOH player) and two more people who shall remain nameless.

Maybe you should ask Dest how bad I am at MoH after I owned his "I can't aim today" and "I'm moving sluggish today" ass ;).  Not that you ever beat me either Jeb.

For the record, I never said GTA:VC would suck, I just said it wouldn't be amazing or game of the year or any of that other praise that gets handed to it despite it being just more GTA3 with some improvements that fix the reason GTA3 wasn't the best game of last year...

Want to know a game that is damned fun?  Frequency...not as good as DDR with mat but still a creative spin on the music genre (one of my favorites).

Or he could ask me about the time I owned you 6 ways to Sunday. :P

My team won that game Ace...but I'd expect you to think more of yourself then your team.  Either way, I still was my team's leading scorer.  I'd rather be the best player on the best team than be the best player overall and on the losing team.

Tasty, what went between you and I was, yes.  But you had missed that point, which started it (accusing me of two-dimensional thinking or something).

We did have an intelligent conversation, and that post wasn't meant as in insult.  You were just an example of someone that seemed to think it wasn't, before you and I got into it.

ok, i would like to recast my vote for loud.
why you ask?
because he knows when to back out, and besides, trying to post with in 4 posts of bucc is almost pointless(if you happen to agree with him). he covers everything so well that you cant say anything with out playing parrot

Too bad Loudnotes isn't around more.  He's fun to debate with.

I don't get it... Was this a vote of who argues best or of who is best to have an intelligent conversation... Two different things in my opinion... You can talk to someone completely nutty one day, but when they get into a serious arguement, they can turn up completely... persuasive

Ben

I'll admit I had to think about that one for a moment. . .

But it's actually proof in itself that some people do read my posts!