Raise the Hammer

All right Brandon, for the moment let’s assume that I am an ass, since you say it with so much conviction; and that I am also just “...interested in looking smarter than everyone...”.

Since you ask me to figure this out all on my own, first I have to find the questions you’ve asked – so lets go back and try to find them.

I hope you think this is a fair approach?

Excerpts from: http://www.raisethehammer.org comment: 69337 thru 69611 By Brandon & otr.

1. Unlike yourself, who is an expert on both city building and healthy public discourse?

2. As far as healthy public discourse, anyone is welcome to post an article here. In fact, your replies are often verbose enough to in fact be a brand new posting.

3. This demonstrates complete cluelessness as to the nature of politcs in the world. Watch Fox News for an hour and you'll see examples of this

4. Oh, the irony.

5. Perhaps you're enough of an expert to know that they are in fact right in this case? After all, it'll never work in Hamilton, right?

6. Once again, the irony...

7. You've missed the point. If even Lloyd Ferguson, whose ward interests are not directly served at all, can see the light on LRT then anything is possible.

8. I'm impressed at the brevity of your response but not at your lack of engagement. More importantly, where do you see anger? There was definitely sarcasm, but I'm actually trying to engage you to find out specifics on details upon which you wax loquacious but don't seem to provide much depth.

9. So, my challenge to you is to respond to those points where I've questioned you without delving into another orgy of thesaural self-gratification.

10. I'm not sure what you want rephrased or why you want it rephrased when it's stated right there.

11. Let me try and simplify it for you though: What policies supported here are economically untenable and mind-dumbing?

12. Do you seriously believe that the questioning of the policies of the mayor are unique to this group? That no other politician suffers such "abuse"? More importantly, what specific examples of this do you have?

13. What makes the views on LRT untenable?

14. And please keep in mind that I'm one of the uninitiated readers who was needlessly swayed to mob frenzy, so let's try and keep it simple for me, eh?

15. I see a lot of words, but not a lot of content.

16. Regarding the design foresight of this website, switch to a flat view and the problem is solved. The real problem is in the medium as websites don't handle this well, you need a news reader to give the proper context. Ryan has made great efforts to get around this, but just because a car doesn't float doesn't mean it's a bad car or that it was a lack of foresight that made it so.

17. If there is a global slowdown, then building a better public transit system only makes sense.

18. How is this a poorly designed LRT system? How would you improve it if it is so poorly designed? Do you think the poorness of the design is due to bad design or is it due to bad compromises?

19. Regardless of whether or not we should abuse our politicians you didn't suggest that we shouldn't. You simply bemoaned the fact that not even a third world politician would ever suffer such abuse, which is just plain wrong.

20. I give up.

21. Spare me the condescension. I have yet to get angry with you or to even insult you, I'm just trying to get some specifics out of you. Are you so thin-skinned that you take any questioning of your position as anger?

22. I've asked some very specific questions and you've provided a tremendous amount of words with no real answers,

23. You asked me to restate the questions so I did, even though they were right there waiting for your response.

24. I'm not the one failing to clarify my position.

25. It's staring to look like Mahesh and mystoneycreek want to run raisethehammer.org again. This condition seems to raise it's head every 6 months or so. It will pass eventually, however tedious the present may be.

26. Mahesh you are hilarious. You accuse people of being angry but it's your comments that drip with angry sarcasm and holier-than-thou pomposity.

27. You ask people to be clear but it's your comments that are a giant muddle of long winded sentences that no one can make any sense of. You ask people to "engage meaningfully" and when someone tries to, you just play silly games.

28. Thanks, I thought it was just me.

29. My apologies for the "misquote", yet when you engage in hyperbole people look for the meaning behind what you're trying to say.

30. It also doesn't change the fact that you have yet to answer any of the specific questions that I have given you.

31. maybe you're just in love with your own prose.

32. the end result is that you come across as someone who loves to pontificate and wants to be seen as a font of unquestionable wisdom, yet you're short on details.

33. I'll rehash the specific questions that you've dodged so far:

34. What policies supported here are economically untenable and mind-dumbing?

35. What makes the views on LRT untenable?

36. And now this:

37. I'm glad you can forgive me as I'm a simple soul, it's very kind of you from your perch of wisdom to be that generous.

38. Now please explain to me how an excellent public transit system harms the economic future of our city?

39. I await the dispensation of your wisdom with bated breath.

40. Or was that too angry?

41. ...you're truly an ass, you know that?

42. What started this whole process was me trying to engage you and get some clarification on your comments.

43. Now, with your latest round of crap, I'm done. You can't honestly complain about no one engaging you when you've avoided every effort to do so.

44. You can take your condescension, your little debating rules and your verbosity and have fun making yourself feel superior to everyone around you.

45. I'll be ignoring you from here on out.

46. your only responses have been to take on a holier than though approach (which you carry on here I might add) as if I'm not worthy of answers.

47. As far as "quickly reducing myself to namecalling", it wasn't quickly, it was after several attempts to get more information from you and your only response was to either tell me to restate or to comment that I don't read well.

48. Based on that, I stand by my assessment that you're an ass.

49. And no, I'm not going to go back and rewrite them for you. You'll have to figure out to do that on your own. Ball's in your court.

Well… I can now clearly see, how difficult a task I had asked of you in rephrasing your original query.

For when even I cannot find your core question/s in the above partial extract – how could I have ever expected you to find them in your voluminous body of comments.

So, Brandon, I concede – my apologies, you were right, I am an ass, indeed.

While, I do find that point nos: 11. What policies supported here are economically untenable and mind-dumbing? 13. What makes the views on LRT untenable? are very well phrased by you, -- unfortunately, I am unable to answer both these - because in No:11, you don't clarify as to 'what policies' and 'supported where' or by whom?... the city's? the LRT lobbyists? or your? And in No: 13, I simply cannot figure out as to whose views you are referring to as 'untenable'? the city's? the LRT lobbyists? your? or mine?

I hope you are able to clarify this soon, so: "you can begin to "engage me and get some clarification on my comments".

Comment edited by Mahesh_P_Butani on 2011-09-14 18:11:34