Tuesday, March 16, 2010

Tebow Tuesday.

Just wanted to remind everyone of all the POTENTIAL PEOPLE that they denied existence by reading this post and wasting valuable pro-creation time.

Yes, there still people on the right who continue to unashamedly make the "potential people" argument, regardless of how untenable and ridiculous it might be.

...Any estimates of how many POTENTIAL PEOPLE that Stanek herself has denied existence to via the time she's spent blogging?


20 comments:

Patrick Ross said...

Hmmmmm. Let's see... searching for "potential people" in Jill Stanek's post... hmm. "Phrase not found".

Seems like someone's erecting a strawman.

Now, if you only had a brain...

LOL

Audrey II said...

"Hmmmmm. Let's see... searching for "potential people" in Jill Stanek's post... hmm. "Phrase not found"."

As I said fairly clearly above, it's the argument that I'm referring to. Here's some great reading-comprehension-failure accompaniment music!

LOL us out, Kid Kash Kat!

Balbulican said...

Wow. That was intense.

Patrick Ross said...

Reading comprehension. Riiiiiiiiiight.

If you say so, Audrey.

(By the way, watch out. Strawmen are a foot!)

Audrey II said...

Yes it was, Balb. Serious commentary calls for a serious soundtrack.

If anyone decides to dance, please do try not to trip over the 12 inch tall casualties that are desperately whispering "Jill Stanek wrote the phrase "potential people"" while bleeding out. Their mortal woundings were veeeeeeeeery intense.

ROFL! LOL! LMAO!

Patrick Ross said...

LOL

Well, OK then, Audrey.

You know, if your response to having your hypocrisy pointed out to you is going to be mockery, you might want to improve at it significantly.

Sheesh.

Audrey II said...

There's nothing to mock here, Patrick. I completely agree with you. I am a hypocrite, and your impeccable logic has proven it. The absence of the phrase "Potential People" in Stanek's post is undeniable proof that she didn't reference or advance the "Potential People" argument of the Tebow ad.

If I wanted to mock you, I might post screenshots of my above post showing the absence of the phrase "strawman", which would also be undeniable proof that I didn't make a strawman argument. I'd crow about your hypocrisy and I'd then repeat variations on the "You've been spanked"/"I win" theme for as long as it would take for others to stop responding. ... If I wanted to mock.

I don't.

Clearly, I am a hypocrite and you've won.

This defeat/victory calls for some celebratory musak! All hail the intellectual prowess of Tha Mindbender!

ROFL! LOL! ROTFLMAO!

Patrick Ross said...

The hilarious thing, Audrey, is that you are a hypocrite, and that your admission has been noted, but was unnecessary.

I'm just amused that you could transmute a blogpost recounting someone else's joke into something that you would represent as a cogent argument by the author.

Don't bother telling me the logic of this is lost on you -- I already know.

(By the way, will you be looking for an excuse to fictionalize an older argument that you lost now? I can be more than gracious and throw an opportunity out for you -- God knows you took the bait last time.)

Audrey II said...

I think that Stanek agrees with the "Potential People" argument of the Tebow ad, and I think that the post I linked to illustrates that.

You're certainly welcome to opine that Stanek's post doesn't illustrate what I do, and I wish you best of luck with convincing others that the absence of that phrase proves that this is the case. Afterall, your screams of "hypocrite" and "strawman" might end up as egg on your face if Stanek actually does agree with the ad and the argument it makes.

We now return ETP readers (and the one Edmonton surfer that's arrived here repeatedly via an "Assholery" link) to the regularly scheduled insistence that octagons are really triangles / Canadians get to vote for their P.M., the adolescent "I won"/"you lost" bluster, and the endless last-post-whoring efforts.

Patrick Ross said...

LOL

Wow, Audrey. Just wow.

You can't honestly have expected anyone to read that and draw the same conclusions that you did.

Is there some other imaginary column there you're expecting people to somehow be reading? Becase I hate to be the one to have to tell you this, but writing about the PR genius of the Tebow ad (which, by the way, really made a lot of people like yourself look like complete jackasses) does not a "potential people" argument make.

And with that, I'm finished with you. You and Sparkles the Wonder Chimp may now commence with the commiseration stage. I'll throw some chum in the water in a couple of days so you can make a weak attempt at face-saving.

(By the way, Audrey, I recommend that you familiarize yourself with the work of Samuel Bottomley. He has some things to say about the Prime Ministerial selection process that you would probably find intriguing.)

Sparky said...

"And with that, I'm finished with you"
Oh Patrick, don't lie to yourself--you were finished a long, long time ago--You've just been in denial. I think it's when you adamantly and loudly tied your anchor to 'triangles' without one mea culpa when you were shown to be wrong...
Yeah, that soap box you've used to yap about others being dishonest hacks was knocked out from under you that particular day and you ahve yet to re-establish it.
And you whining about how ridicule has taken over the blogosphere, creating a toxic environment in which to converse?? Yeah, that ship pretty much sailed a long time ago as well...
And so you're left with petty insults... Well good on ya, Patty--at least you got something. Consistency is maintained in the universe.
Wonder chimp indeed.

Patrick Ross said...

LOL

Sparkles, have you ever thought about not doing exactly what I just finished telling everyone you would do?

Also, update your material. Your shtick is old. Like Jerry Seinfeld, but without the funny.

Audrey II said...

"You can't honestly have expected anyone to read that and draw the same conclusions that you did."

I linked to her posts precisely because I think that others will read them and agree with me that Stanek finds the argument the ad makes compelling. I'm happy to give Stanek the benefit of the doubt that she wouldn't be repeatedly praising the airing of an argument that she disagrees with simply because she sees "P.R. value" in doing so. I thought it was only fair not to assume that Stanek was engaging in that kind of deceptive, machiavellian, intellectually dishonest, manipulative propaganda. I'm guessing she'd be thrilled by your argument to the contrary.

"Becase I hate to be the one to have to tell you this, but writing about the PR genius of the Tebow ad (which, by the way, really made a lot of people like yourself look like complete jackasses) does not a "potential people" argument make"

I think the ad itself did make the "potential people" argument, and it had the additional value of drawing out of the woodwork both those with the intellectual vacuity to find it compelling / brilliant and those with the moral bankruptcy to recognize it as a poor argument yet (in full knowledge of its intellectual shortcomings) praise it as having propaganda value .

Out of the frying pan, into the fire.

What were you saying about brains again?

LOL ROFL LMFAO ROTFLMAO HAHA OMG OML ROFLCOPTER LOLOLOL WTF

Patrick Ross said...

LOL

Audrey, you already lost this argument. Give it up.

I'm done with you, and now I'm spanking your sidekick.

Audrey II said...

...And now Mark Gormley's made another intense music video.

He's done with his critics, and now he's spanking the charts.

Patrick Ross said...

Audrey, you aren't a credible critic.

If anything, you're a poster girl for remedial education.

(You know, I personally would have thought that someone who spends enough time reading philosophy to think they can prove anything with a Venn diagram would know how to argue by now.)

Audrey II said...

Considering your assessment of Kirk Cameron's argumentative skill during his infamous "crocoduck" presentation, to say nothing for your own well-earned debate skill reputation on the net, I think I'd actually have to worry if you felt differently about me.

I'm guessing that Ms. Stanek will appreciate further additions to the she's-not-dumb-enough-to-agree-with-the-Tebow-ad's-argument-she's-just-a-propagandist-who-is-praising-its-rhetorical-PR-value defense.

If at any point you decide you'd actually like to address the argument the Tebow ad makes, please do let us know. In the mean time, keep spanking away!

Patrick Ross said...

Now which reputation would that be, Audrey?

Is that the one where you scramble around after a loss looking for something to try and save face and actually make yourself look even more stupid?

Or the one in which I beat you every time?

I don't blame you for being confused about that.

As it regards Kirk Cameron, I've made my opinions on that perfectly clear -- I'm a critic of Mr Cameron. I think it's actually quite pathetic that Sapient and O'Connor managed to lose that debate, crock-o-duck and all.

If you can't figure out that losing a debate to Kirk Cameron -- and the helpless flailing of Sapient and O'Connor in that debate was truly wondrous to behold -- demonstrates how worthless the RRS really is, then that's your problem.

I mean, unless you really want to try to make them your new online BFFs. I personally dislike Richard Dawkins, but I'd be reluctant to snuggle up to anyone who defamed him because they couldn't take a little criticism.

Then again, it seems that you must be in the market for some new sidekicks -- your old one's all worn out from being crushed too often.

Either that, or your old sidekick's in the market for a new you -- for pretty much the same reason.

Balbulican said...

We're just waiting for the judge's decision now. That was an outstanding performance by Desgroseillers and Stern, but was it enough to knock...wait a minute. Someone just fell onto, no, someone just climbed over the boards onto the ice. Some guy. He's, ah, he's trying to stand up. Security is trying to grab him, but he, whoops, no, he's down. I can't tell what he's doing. He's screaming something, just a second. Yes, he's screaming "I won, I won." You can hear the crowd booing. They're dragging him off the - oh, God, he just kicked one of the cops. He's dancing around on the ice, they're trying to - what's that? I think he's yelling "You lost, you lost", or something. Two of the cops just grabbed his, ouch, that's gotta hurt. They're dragging him, he's still screaming. Alloal, elloelle, something, I cant' make it out. I have no idea who he is. Haven't seen a mullet like that for a long time, though. All right, well, sorry about that. Back to our coverage...

Sparky said...

Patrick is infactuated with spanking...
Umm... ewwww...
And the day he really spanks anyone will be the day when reality thinks trianles are octagons...
One small piece of advice (again), Patty--stop punching above your weight.

Post a Comment