Conserative Morality wrote:Totally Not OEP wrote:Again, not at all and I think everyone that reads the article in question can tell that. He quotes where the myth originated and then immediately begins citing data that dispels it.
You keep insisting that postwar fiction is 'data', but in this context, it's really not. I'd say nice try, but really, your parroting is getting a little grating at this point, tbqh.As I said, it's woefully obvious you don't understand how citations work or academic review is carried out.
Oh, yes, citing fiction makes it data, I forgot. Quality Lost Causer discourse again!That you've yet to ask for book chapters or provide any sources of your own really shows how pathetically weak your position is.
That would imply I'm taking your WN piss seriously. This very conversation has been had before in the RWDT, with far better debate opponents, and the actual information has already been laid out. I'm just here to mock your weak position, not repeat myself endlessly like some half-wit.
Also, why would I ask for book chapters about citations in an article discussing fiction if I want to discuss, you know, reality? That thing Lost Causers have a tenuous relationship with; familiar with it at all?
Emphasis mine. CM made it very clear he only came into this debate for the purpose of engaging in mockery.
And now he's literally engaged in an argument over whether or not he successfully mocked OEP:
Is this sort of blatant trolling and bad-faith posting allowed?
