Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame
Fair enough, I'm just asking why this was needed. If that's the case, so be it.
They sure took a lot of cab rides though.
|
No no, Ozy. This is not the way to respond.
I learned a handy trick from the Federal Politics thread for dealing with things that *seem* fishy, but someone has a common sense explanation for it.
First? Double down. Never surrender. Something like “according to ____, but do you BELIEVE them?” or “I could do that for (insert random number you made up) so why can’t the government!?”
If that fails, abdicate responsibility completely without EVER conceding a point (as you did with “fair enough”… huge mistake). Something like “well, we can’t trust them, and it’s their fault we can’t trust them, so it’s their fault I think that and it’s their fault I won’t stop thinking it despite having evidence to the contrary, cause see, it’s about THEM.”
If you want to put a little stink on it, like calling timun a UCP apologist “rushing” to the defence of the UCP because he heard the “alarm bells” like a good little “lemming”… that’s fine, some say it’s not, but I say it adds character.