[quote=AN]eavesdropper, you’re funny. FYI, this thread is about cities ranking in the promiscuous scales. I applaud you for bringing up politics.
[/quote]
AN, I noticed that you deliberately left out my inclusion of my original post and your response to it. For your convenience, I have inserted it below:
[quote=AN][quote=eavesdropper]Excuse me?? Dallas AND Houston BOTH made the list?? Red-state Texas? Super-Christianite Texas? Pro-marriage Texas? Anti-premarital sex Texas? Mega-family-values-Texas has TWO cities in the top ten?
Hah!! And they can’t even blame it on what they consider their liberal aberration, Austin. Dallas and Houston. That’s rich!
I wonder if Gov. Perry’s going to make some more of his incomparable commercials for Texas tourism that feature this recent achievement.[/quote]
Seriously? This from the lady who constantly rail against the American public for being too polarized and not doing their proper research? I’m sure you did your research and just can’t help but be partisan. FYI both Harris County and Dallas County voted for Obama in 2008. Obama actually beat McCain 57.5% to 41.9% in Dallas.[/quote]
Now that the evidence is before you (and, indeed, anyone with the ability to read this), can you please explain the meaning of, “eavesdropper, you’re funny. FYI, this thread is about cities ranking in the promiscuous scales. I applaud you for bringing up politics.” Please show me *exactly* where it is in the above post that I bring up politics, or invite the discussion of same.
[quote=AN][quote=eavesdropper]In the meantime, stop hassling me with your obsessive nitpicking of my posts[/quote]
Hypocrisies, makes me laugh and with you being on your high horse, I just can’t resist.[/quote]
AN, your responses are not the reactions of someone who is amused. They are characteristic of someone who is angry, insecure, and anxious to find opportunities to demonstrate his superiority. Consider the following:
1. You respond to my original post with a disjointed series of sentences that make no sense.
2. In order to respond to your post, I had to make inferences about what you were trying to say. In my last post, I asked you to correct my inference, if it was incorrect, and explain exactly what you meant. You chose to ignore my request.
3. You had responded to my original post with information of a political nature that I inferred to be evidence of why Houston and Dallas had been included on the “most promiscuous” list (“FYI both Harris County and Dallas County voted for Obama in 2008. Obama actually beat McCain 57.5% to 41.9% in Dallas”) I, in turn, responded with information that demonstrated that the voters of Dallas and Houston clearly share their state’s preference for Republican candidates, the 2008 Presidential race results notwithstanding. You chose to completely ignore this information also.
[quote=AN] [quote=eavesdropper]…but because of your inability to “hear” what others are saying, and your lack of preparation prior to entering public discourse.[/quote]
You should look in the mirror sometimes.[/quote]
Instead of resorting to childish retorts like the one above, please respond in a manner equivalent to your age, background, and education. For my part, I can provide legitimate and relevant sources for everything I use as supporting evidence in my posts. And I make every effort to ensure an open dialogue with any and all correspondents, and will ask questions and research the material behind their opinions, if I am not familiar enough to challenge them on it.
AN, your posts appear to be very thinly-veiled expressions of hostility that date back to our previous “debate” on your support of school vouchers. I challenge any reasonable intelligent person to read our entire exchange on that topic, and conclude that I did not give you every opportunity to voice and support your positions. Your posts distorted facets of our discussions to a degree that they, in no way, resembled objective reality. Your responses (August 4) to my confronting you on the issue of your “evidence” was a textbook exhibition of narcissistic defenses, each subsequent post an exercise in cognitive distortion, while you denied, accused, fabricated, alternated between playing the victim and posing as the obviously superior intellect.
I cannot accept that it possible to carry on a true debate or discussion with you. Based on a wide variety of your posts, I don’t believe that you are capable of accepting the possibility that you could be wrong. What’s more, I believe that you are so firmly convinced of the superiority and infallibility of your opinions, that you find it offensive that anyone would require you to provide valid evidence supporting them. My perceptions may be erroneous, but I choose to be guided by them in order to avoid unnecessarily fractious exchanges.
I come to Piggs to exchange ideas and opinions with a widely diverse group of highly intelligent people, from all walks of life. The most appealing thing about this site is its civil tone, in an era in which name-calling, personal insults, threats of violence, and other irrelevant commentary is almost universally practiced on similar websites. I am grateful for the warm welcome I received as a new Pigg, and for the continuing friendship and encouragement from many of its regulars.
Since August 4, I have made it a point to avoid commenting on your posts, rather than exposing our fellow Piggs to senseless pissing matches and vitriolic exchanges. I would appreciate it if you would do likewise. We can simply agree to disagree.
