The worst thing about lucifershammer

What do you think it is?

1) His self-righteousness.
2) His smugness.
3) His equivocation.
4) His neurotic sidekick Ivanhoe.
5) His belief that his brand of Catholicism is empirically and objectively correct.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
What do you think it is?

1) His self-righteousness.
2) His smugness.
3) His equivocation.
4) His neurotic sidekick Ivanhoe.
5) His belief that his brand of Catholicism is empirically and objectively correct.

You missed out:

6) His lack of logic.

But of your 5, I would have to say 2.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
What do you think it is?

1) His self-righteousness.
2) His smugness.
3) His equivocation.
4) His neurotic sidekick Ivanhoe.
5) His belief that his brand of Catholicism is empirically and objectively correct.

Apparently, the fact that he thinks debating issues is more important than smearing people.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Apparently, the fact that he thinks debating issues is more important than smearing people.

A perfect example of 2.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
What do you think it is?

1) His self-righteousness.
2) His smugness.
3) His equivocation.
4) His neurotic sidekick Ivanhoe.
5) His belief that his brand of Catholicism is empirically and objectively correct.

Funnily enough, with the exception of #5, I would have described you the same way. Strange that we so frequently we hate that which is ourselves.

Originally posted by Hand of Hecate
Funnily enough, with the exception of #5, I would have described you the same way. Strange that we so frequently we hate that which is ourselves.

Cite some examples of equivocation on my part.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Cite some examples of equivocation on my part.

Your opinions about the strictness of Catholicism.

Originally posted by Palynka
Your opinions about the strictness of Catholicism.

Show me where I use one term to toggle between referring to two different concepts in order to hold my argument together.

Originally posted by Hand of Hecate
Funnily enough, with the exception of #5, I would have described you the same way. Strange that we so frequently we hate that which is ourselves.

Ivanhoe is Doctor Scribbles' neurotic sidekick?

Otherwise, I'd say "spot on".

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Show me where I use one term to toggle between referring to two different concepts in order to hold my argument together.

I don't think this thread requires evidence, or else your first post is bunk.

Besides, we're all stating the obvious here.

Originally posted by Nordlys
Ivanhoe is Doctor Scribbles' neurotic sidekick?

Otherwise, I'd say "spot on".

Royalchicken played that role for some time.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Cite some examples of equivocation on my part.

You continue to flip flop on whether or not you'd have sexual relations with Brittney Spears.

Otherwise, you are a self-righteous, smug, Ivanhoe obsessed, meglomaniac, know it all, pompous blow hard with delusions of grandeur. These are some of the traits I admire most in you.

Originally posted by Palynka
Royalchicken played that role for some time.

Yes, Scribbles is completely obsessed with Ivanhoe's blithering. The man just can't let it go and pursues Ivanhoe with single minded determination. Hence, while 'sidekick' might be a misnomer, they are still joined at the hip.

Originally posted by Hand of Hecate
You continue to flip flop on whether or not you'd have sexual relations with Brittney Spears.

I've never before commented on that.

For the record, let me be perfectly clear: I would have given her the bone before she cut off her hair, no doubt about it.

Originally posted by howardgee
A perfect example of 2.

Actually, the closest on the list is (1).

smug: marked by excessive complacency or self-satisfaction; "a smug glow of self-congratulation"
(wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn)

EDIT: THIS post is closer to (2).