[Ramona_A_Stone]

Originally Posted by albed

when posts consists solely of reposts of another person's opinion, the similiarity of the poster to a brainless parrot is undeniable.

People so eager to lie to pretend they're correct really aren't worth telling the truth to, but somehow I just can't help myself.

I deny the similarity.

A: Brainless parrots are incapable of mimicry. It's conceivable that such a parrot may still make some kind of sound, but it would probably in actuality have more of a resemblance to the inarticulate nervous spasms of, say, your posts than to multi's posted article. Even in the highly unlikely event that a bird, lacking brain function, could manage to reproduce over 500 coherent English words divided into ten organized points and cite the author, it would most assuredly be considered a freakish anomaly quite unlike the usual behavior of such impaired creatures, and only the most weak minded or intentionally deceitful individuals would attempt to argue that it was in any way typical.

B: Even parrots with brains cannot read, register at a forum, or grasp the concept of cutting and pasting text. In fact, most scientists would agree that even fully functioning birds cannot 'grasp the concept,' as we see it in our own terms, of the sounds which they may learn to mimic. Even if making certain sounds is continually rewarded, the 'meaning' ascribed to them by the parrot is quite independent of the literal linguistic meaning. This is evidenced by the fact that one bird may be trained to associate a reward with making the sound "Bushy wants a Dorito" while another may be trained to associate the same reward with making the sound "Go fuck yourself Skippy." With an inability to manipulate or create syntax and meaning with verbal symbols they cannot conceivably be said to form opinions about US presidents in a discernable way, or indeed at all, unless, perhaps, they happen to have some physical interaction with one.

C: Even an exceptional parrot, carefully trained to go through the motions of accessing and navigating the internet and cutting and pasting, and with the ability to log in here under multi's screen name (perhaps, one imagines, by forcibly subduing multi in some way), and even a parrot so exceptional that it could be said to have an opinion about a US president, would still be unable to distinguish whether the information it was moving from place to place was authored by Anne Coulter or Pee Wee Herman, or was part of an advertisement for a toenail fungus remedy. To imagine that it could selectively and consistently reproduce copies of information that bore any resemblance to its own opinon is a fallacious and irrational anthropomorphism.

D: The domain of creating, distributing and redistributing virtual or electronically stored information in this particular format is in fact uniquely human, and as in all systems wherein information is shared, the information which is most reproduced is that which the most users find useful. This utility is determined by individual human tastes, human opinions and human experiences. That, as you admit is the case, multi found the content of this post useful to reproduce here may in fact be taken as incontrovertible evidence, in itself, that multi is either a hominid, perhaps a group of hominids, or, more remotely, a rather sophisticated artificial intelligence program created by a hominid or group of hominids (in which case I would consider Tankgirl as a prime suspect), but most certainly not a parrot in any condition.

In summary, your postulate that there is some similarity between brainless parrots and the user multi is clearly as irrational as suggesting he is a ghost from beyond the grave or some kind of psychic transmission from the planet Nylar, and belies one or more of the typical subtrates of such irrational assumptions: fear, lack of comprehension, hallucination or deceit.

Originally Posted by multi

of course.. anyone not supporting Bush should be classed as sub-human and demoted to the level of a terrorist.

All your base are belong to us.

Originally Posted by Drakonix

If Islam and al-Qaeda are "sub-human" and "terrorists", then why is Nancy Pelosi violating the Logan Act to go chat with them? Why is the Democratic Party trying to appease them?

First of all, Nancy Pelosi did not "go chat with" either "Islam" nor "al-Qaeda" but with Syrian president Assad. This is an individual, not a group. An attempt to "appease" "Islam" or "al-Qaeda" through talks with this man would most surely be futile, however improved relations with Syria could prove to be a valuable leverage against certain terrorist organizations in Iraq. The fact that Bush himself is too incompetent to seek such advantages for his own people, or for the people in the region he is trying to 'free from terrorism,' is just more evidence that he's a flaming pile of dogshit, and your distortion of the issue just shows a similar lack of comprehension.

Also, no one implied Islam is sub-human. Multi was implying that the brainless parrot argument was an attempt to classify his behavior as sub-human, and that your supposition that my "conversion to Islam and going to join al-Qaeda" would follow as an option for my disdain of George Bush was a "demotion to terrorist," indicating on your part, again, either a severely restricted ability to process coherent information, a gross misapprehension of the real world, or some level of frustration which compells you to merely use sarcastic and insulting hyperbole in lieu of engaging in effective discussion or debate.

Originally Posted by Drakonix

Super hyperbolic statements laced with sarcastic comments and insults do not form the basis for an effective discussion or debate.

No, they don't, but they can be quite hilarious.