The issue in question:
Davin’s standard denial tactic: I used no strong or foul language, nor did I use any insults.

I took this to mean that I flame folks here on CE all the time and that when cornered deny "I used no strong or foul language, nor did I use any insults." as a tactic

If you want to claim that every time I deny anything in a post, that I am using some sort of grand strategy, then you must be nuts.

If you think you can impugn folks (me in specific) for not being a generic-agreement-generator in their repsonses to issues, then you are as full of stuffing as my Ma's famous 30 pound thanksgiving turkey.

What do you want me to do- reply to ever posy with a "yes, I agree"- so the only permissible, honest and genuine posts in your view are statements and affirmations, and never negations? Are you channeling Stewart Smalley? Are you actually serious?

Gee, the CE board would be really fun!

Thread:

• I think Red is a pretty color, Davin L
• I agree, TomB
• I agree, FrankC
• I agree, RobVG

Great notion of discourse, Rob! (See, I'm being affirmative!)

Now, to the rest of your post:

"As I pointed out, you frequently open a post with a statement of denial. You declared Tom’s statement to be untrue. This is the equivalent of a sucker punch. It momentarily stuns the opponent who has just been told that black is white and it stands out to the reader like a hooker in church. "

Or, it could just be that I claim that his statement is untrue! Notice, I did provide reasons why it was untrue. I did site examples for why I think that. You actually think that this is not a perfectly valid (in the rhetorical sense) response? Or that one is actually not allowed to question the statements placed here, and that to do so is a 'sucker punch'? Exactly how would I go about disagreing with someone, then, in your universe?

"I’d like to know how “poor Hamid Karzai” is going to spend these billions in a “20 mile radius”. Golf courses and swimming pools?
"

I see, so your not actually denying that Afghanistan is a mess outrside a 20 mile radius from Kabul? And notice that that 4.4 billion is NOT money donated by the US under this administration- which WAS the topic at hand(*1) (Notice I was contesting that Bush rebuilt afghanistan). And notice that you ALSO don't point out how much more or how much less Afghanistan recieved in foreign aid during the pre-9/11 era.

So lets see, that makes that a red herring sliding down a slippery slope into a bucket of false inference.

"Be careful not to use the denial tactic again if you choose to respond. That would take the fun out of it. "

Oh, you can kiss my rhetorical ass if you want to spread your net that wide. Thats not what your original accusation was about my 'standard tactic'. And yes- that WAS strong language and if you got a problem with it, go over to flame and we'll have a grand ol party (NPI). If you think that there is anything wrong with either
1. Contesting the veracity or facticity of a statement or claim made in a discussion or
2. opening a response with a rejection of a claim
then you have an absurd idea about how discourse should work in any case, and we are going to get nowhere fast.

*1 Toms statement (emphasis mine): Never happening again? Bush destroyed the Taliban, completely tore down Afghanistan and rebuilt it, and shredded most of al Qaeda.