Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
TomT, if you are going to say it, say it right:
Can't we all just hit a bong?
Can't we all just hit a bong?
so you thought it was only toyota.......
- Thread starter gary s
- Start date
Help Support Ford SportTrac Forum:
Roger Batts
Well-Known Member
Last edited by a moderator:
TJR,
I also must disagree with you.
I'm sure I am one of the more frequent debaters here and often disagree with some statements made by others.
You said that this is caused by low intellignece? I have two degrees and an IQ of 140
You said that it was caused by low ego? I think it's probably too much ego
You said that it was caused by emotional immaturity? I agree...I'm 63 years old, but I only feel like I'm about 50....:smile0015: Obviously way too immature.
...Rich
I also must disagree with you.
I'm sure I am one of the more frequent debaters here and often disagree with some statements made by others.
You said that this is caused by low intellignece? I have two degrees and an IQ of 140
You said that it was caused by low ego? I think it's probably too much ego
You said that it was caused by emotional immaturity? I agree...I'm 63 years old, but I only feel like I'm about 50....:smile0015: Obviously way too immature.
...Rich
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
Richard L,
I wasn't talking about you. And I wasn't talking about debating in general. Healthy debate is good. I never said that those that debate on here have low intelligence.
I was talking about those on here that engage in unhealthy (often non-debate) debate, characterized as follows:
- starts as, or contains a lot of baiting
- is entered into by people that aren't willing to consider others POV (chest beaters)
- turns into personal attacks
- ends abrubtly when one side starts to actually get to the "meat" of why the other feels the way they do and has the other person SHUTTING DOWN (no ability for growth)
- has people defending a position or opinion that they aren't willing to discuss or can't articulate
IMHO, debates and discussions having qualities like the above are entered into by people that show signs of emotional immaturity and low intelligence.
Yes, it can be big ego, but I stand by "low intelligence", because to me, higher intelligence means more than just having a high IQ. For me, someone displays high intelligence if they can thing objectively, they understand and can articulate WHY they think as they do (and have the opinions that they have), and they can have such conversations without attacking others or feeling attacked when such is not the case.
So, there. You see a postive example in action. You disagreed with my statement. I restated in an unemotional way to let you know that I think you may have misunderstood exactly what I was saying; and then I articulated WHY I feel the sticky point between you and I (high intelligence) is considered by me as it is.
I'm not mad. I don't feel attacked. I don't feel that I am right, and that you are wrong.
TJR
I wasn't talking about you. And I wasn't talking about debating in general. Healthy debate is good. I never said that those that debate on here have low intelligence.
I was talking about those on here that engage in unhealthy (often non-debate) debate, characterized as follows:
- starts as, or contains a lot of baiting
- is entered into by people that aren't willing to consider others POV (chest beaters)
- turns into personal attacks
- ends abrubtly when one side starts to actually get to the "meat" of why the other feels the way they do and has the other person SHUTTING DOWN (no ability for growth)
- has people defending a position or opinion that they aren't willing to discuss or can't articulate
IMHO, debates and discussions having qualities like the above are entered into by people that show signs of emotional immaturity and low intelligence.
Yes, it can be big ego, but I stand by "low intelligence", because to me, higher intelligence means more than just having a high IQ. For me, someone displays high intelligence if they can thing objectively, they understand and can articulate WHY they think as they do (and have the opinions that they have), and they can have such conversations without attacking others or feeling attacked when such is not the case.
So, there. You see a postive example in action. You disagreed with my statement. I restated in an unemotional way to let you know that I think you may have misunderstood exactly what I was saying; and then I articulated WHY I feel the sticky point between you and I (high intelligence) is considered by me as it is.
I'm not mad. I don't feel attacked. I don't feel that I am right, and that you are wrong.
TJR
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2003
- Messages
- 22,366
- Reaction score
- 752
- Location
- Long Island, NY
- What engine do you have?
- V8 engine
- What year is your Sport Trac?
- 2010
- What Generation is your Sport Trac?
- 2n Gen Owner
Hmmmmmmm ???? :smile0016:
:smile0014:
Todd Z
:smile0014:
Todd Z
gary s
Well-Known Member
dont worry, tom is on the case.
he will solve the mystery. :smile0005:
he will solve the mystery. :smile0005:
Last edited by a moderator:
Bud Williams
Well-Known Member
The Chinese don't care about safety, look at all the crap they unload on the US!
Baby cribs that cut off fingers, geez!:smile0008:
Roger Batts
Well-Known Member
I was just verifying that is was Transit Classic and not Connect as I had stated and was corrected earlier.
JerryW Gilliland
Well-Known Member
By the way, Bud, that word is spelled GRAMMAR.
Signed, The REAL Grammar Police. ;-)
[Broken External Image]:
Signed, The REAL Grammar Police. ;-)
[Broken External Image]:
Bud Williams
Well-Known Member
You are absolutley correct, but the grammar was right despite the spelling error.
Good catch, Jerry!:smile0006:
actually was ploy to get the Grammar police to show!:smile0017:
Good catch, Jerry!:smile0006:
actually was ploy to get the Grammar police to show!:smile0017:
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
Bud, not to disappoint you, but the grammar left a little to be desired too.
:smile0001:
I think it would be better said as "...the guy who.." and not "...that guy that...".
Of course, I could be wrong. I don't profess to being the grammar police.
TJR
:smile0001:
I think it would be better said as "...the guy who.." and not "...that guy that...".
Of course, I could be wrong. I don't profess to being the grammar police.
TJR
Bud Williams
Well-Known Member
Maybe that guy will pop back in and set us straight!:smile0007:
I hated english, grammar and all that stuff in school.
of course I was not fond of alot of subjects back then.
I enjoyed lunch though:smile0015:
I hated english, grammar and all that stuff in school.
of course I was not fond of alot of subjects back then.
I enjoyed lunch though:smile0015:
Last edited by a moderator:
