REEFER MADNESS!!!!!!

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

You ignored my request for a simple example, so why shouldn't I reciprocate?

Yeah, I did.  The link LMNO provided was more than adequate to describe what he was talking about, and unrehearsed questions are not the only definition given.  So either you decided to derail LMNO for no reason whatsoever, or you're an idiot.  Which is it?

Or it's ridiculous to compare a reporter's interview with a debate on a message board.

Especially THIS message board.

So I'll just put you down as "pointlessly malicious", then.

Fits with your normal behavior.

I'll let you get back to raising the journalistic integrity of the Internet then.

Carry on good sir.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

You ignored my request for a simple example, so why shouldn't I reciprocate?

Yeah, I did.  The link LMNO provided was more than adequate to describe what he was talking about, and unrehearsed questions are not the only definition given.  So either you decided to derail LMNO for no reason whatsoever, or you're an idiot.  Which is it?

Or it's ridiculous to compare a reporter's interview with a debate on a message board.

Especially THIS message board.

So I'll just put you down as "pointlessly malicious", then.

Fits with your normal behavior.

I'll let you get back to raising the journalistic integrity of the Internet then.

Carry on good sir.

And I'll let you get back to pointlessly derailing the arguments of people who have done you no harm, fucking up good/funny threads with passive-aggressive, unfunny insults over ancient grudges, and generally being a nasty little fucknozzle.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

You ignored my request for a simple example, so why shouldn't I reciprocate?

Yeah, I did.  The link LMNO provided was more than adequate to describe what he was talking about, and unrehearsed questions are not the only definition given.  So either you decided to derail LMNO for no reason whatsoever, or you're an idiot.  Which is it?

Or it's ridiculous to compare a reporter's interview with a debate on a message board.

Especially THIS message board.

So I'll just put you down as "pointlessly malicious", then.

Fits with your normal behavior.

I'll let you get back to raising the journalistic integrity of the Internet then.

Carry on good sir.

And I'll let you get back to pointlessly derailing the arguments of people who have done you no harm, fucking up good/funny threads with passive-aggressive, unfunny insults over ancient grudges, and generally being a nasty little fucknozzle.

I'm pretty sure you're seeing shit that's not there, but I'm confident your butthurt is very real.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I'm pretty sure you're seeing shit that's not there, but I'm confident your butthurt is very real.

1.  You aren't very good at this sort of thing (you're too blatant), and

2.  Butthurt?  No, Net, I save that for people whose opinions matter.  Yours doesn't.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I cannot for the  life of me understand why LMNO clarifying to RWHN that his question wasn't intended as a trap is even something anyone else is questioning. WTF.

[Eater of Clowns]

I cannot for the  life of me understand why LMNO clarifying to RWHN that his question wasn't intended as a trap is even something anyone else is questioning. WTF.

Yeah, not quite getting that either.  His terminology wasn't exactly obscure.   

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

I cannot for the  life of me understand why LMNO clarifying to RWHN that his question wasn't intended as a trap is even something anyone else is questioning. WTF.

LMNO's comment implied that other people were trying to "trap" RWHN, which seems like an absurd spin on the way debates occur on the internet and especially this message board.

It's a completely different medium with completely different expectations.

[Eater of Clowns]

I cannot for the  life of me understand why LMNO clarifying to RWHN that his question wasn't intended as a trap is even something anyone else is questioning. WTF.

LMNO's comment implied that other people were trying to "trap" RWHN, which seems like an absurd spin on the way debates occur on the internet and especially this message board.

It's a completely different medium with completely different expectations.

Begs the question, Net.  If you're the only one that felt it implied that, then maybe the error lies in your inference than his implication.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

I cannot for the  life of me understand why LMNO clarifying to RWHN that his question wasn't intended as a trap is even something anyone else is questioning. WTF.

LMNO's comment implied that other people were trying to "trap" RWHN, which seems like an absurd spin on the way debates occur on the internet and especially this message board.

It's a completely different medium with completely different expectations.

Begs the question, Net.  If you're the only one that felt it implied that, then maybe the error lies in your inference than his implication.

Nope. He came right out and said that, subsequently.

Right here:

If you put yourself in his shoes, that could sound suspiciously like some guy trying to corner him, or someone who was about to use specious arguments and figures that don't apply to the case at hand, trying to prove his ideas invalid; which has happened in this thread a few times.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I cannot for the  life of me understand why LMNO clarifying to RWHN that his question wasn't intended as a trap is even something anyone else is questioning. WTF.

LMNO's comment implied that other people were trying to "trap" RWHN, which seems like an absurd spin on the way debates occur on the internet and especially this message board.

It's a completely different medium with completely different expectations.

Begs the question, Net.  If you're the only one that felt it implied that, then maybe the error lies in your inference than his implication.

Nope. He came right out and said that, subsequently.

Right here:

If you put yourself in his shoes, that could sound suspiciously like some guy trying to corner him, or someone who was about to use specious arguments and figures that don't apply to the case at hand, trying to prove his ideas invalid; which has happened in this thread a few times.

AFTER you started in on this. 

Can you read forward in time or something? 

[Phox]

I cannot for the  life of me understand why LMNO clarifying to RWHN that his question wasn't intended as a trap is even something anyone else is questioning. WTF.

LMNO's comment implied that other people were trying to "trap" RWHN, which seems like an absurd spin on the way debates occur on the internet and especially this message board.

It's a completely different medium with completely different expectations.

Begs the question, Net.  If you're the only one that felt it implied that, then maybe the error lies in your inference than his implication.

Begs the question, Net.

Begs the question.

OH MY SWEET MERCIFUL ZOMBIE CHRIST FIGURE! D... DID YOU... DID YOU USE THAT TERM CORRECTLY!? YOU ARE A GOD AMONG MEN, EOC! 

^ not sarcastic. possibly hyperbolic.

[East Coast Hustle]

I cannot for the  life of me understand why LMNO clarifying to RWHN that his question wasn't intended as a trap is even something anyone else is questioning. WTF.

LMNO's comment implied that other people were trying to "trap" RWHN, which seems like an absurd spin on the way debates occur on the internet and especially this message board.

It's a completely different medium with completely different expectations.

Begs the question, Net.  If you're the only one that felt it implied that, then maybe the error lies in your inference than his implication.

Nope. He came right out and said that, subsequently.

Right here:

If you put yourself in his shoes, that could sound suspiciously like some guy trying to corner him, or someone who was about to use specious arguments and figures that don't apply to the case at hand, trying to prove his ideas invalid; which has happened in this thread a few times.

AFTER you started in on this. 

Can you read forward in time or something? 

Actually, I assumed the same thing as Net when I read LMNO's post. And I'm pretty sure Net was pointing out that, subsequently, LMNO said that he thought that had happened several times ITT, thus confirming the assumption.

On a somewhat unrelated tangent, I'm not sure why you're always so quick to be so nasty to the guy. I mean, I've hung out with him a few times and he seems like a solid dude. If he's got some hidden dark side that's worthy of that sort of rhetoric he hides it extremely well.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

On a somewhat unrelated tangent, I'm not sure why you're always so quick to be so nasty to the guy. I mean, I've hung out with him a few times and he seems like a solid dude. If he's got some hidden dark side that's worthy of that sort of rhetoric he hides it extremely well.

Might have something to do with his constant sniping since the whole flyers thing, the most recent one being a "womp" he spammed all over creation.  Particularly nasty trick, there.  Womp in a mean-spirited way, post it all over the place (Coyote's thread, for example), and then if you say shit, well, you obviously have no sense of humor, right?

Hell, I'd have probably laughed at the womp if it was an isolated incident.

Might also have to do with some of his views.

Basically, there's two kind of people who hate me...Those who I wish didn't, and those who I WANT to hate me, because if they didn't, I'd have to re-examine the way I live my life.  Net falls into the second category.

[Eater of Clowns]

I cannot for the  life of me understand why LMNO clarifying to RWHN that his question wasn't intended as a trap is even something anyone else is questioning. WTF.

LMNO's comment implied that other people were trying to "trap" RWHN, which seems like an absurd spin on the way debates occur on the internet and especially this message board.

It's a completely different medium with completely different expectations.

Begs the question, Net.  If you're the only one that felt it implied that, then maybe the error lies in your inference than his implication.

Nope. He came right out and said that, subsequently.

Right here:

If you put yourself in his shoes, that could sound suspiciously like some guy trying to corner him, or someone who was about to use specious arguments and figures that don't apply to the case at hand, trying to prove his ideas invalid; which has happened in this thread a few times.

That's fair.  I'm still incredulous as to how you can claim the tactic LMNO is talking about can't exist on the internet, though.

I cannot for the  life of me understand why LMNO clarifying to RWHN that his question wasn't intended as a trap is even something anyone else is questioning. WTF.

LMNO's comment implied that other people were trying to "trap" RWHN, which seems like an absurd spin on the way debates occur on the internet and especially this message board.

It's a completely different medium with completely different expectations.

Begs the question, Net.  If you're the only one that felt it implied that, then maybe the error lies in your inference than his implication.

Begs the question, Net.

Begs the question.

OH MY SWEET MERCIFUL ZOMBIE CHRIST FIGURE! D... DID YOU... DID YOU USE THAT TERM CORRECTLY!? YOU ARE A GOD AMONG MEN, EOC! 

^ not sarcastic. possibly hyperbolic.

There's a wrong way to use it?  What the hell does that even look like?  Not disputing the god among men comment, though.

[Phox]

There's a wrong way to use it?  What the hell does that even look like?  Not disputing the god among men comment, though.

Yes, yes there is.

Begging the question is a logical fallacy in which the speaker assumes the initial point is true without any backing or evidence.

However, common usage of the term is used synonymously with "to raise the question", which is incorrect.

You used it correctly. 

Note: It would be wise to let continue to worship you as an Internet god.