Xenophon. Liar and Hypocrite

[Scylla]

In this (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=172598) this thread, Xenophon waltzes in and accuses me of lying multiple times without any kind of reasonable provocation or justification.

Fuck him, he's a worthless liar, and a hypocrite.

Instead of simply saying he's wrong he's trying to create this tortured construct to justify his bad behavior.

Xenophon rarely makes positive arguments. Instead he plays meaningless semantic games.

Fuck him. H'es not worth my time.

[ultress]

So why did you start a Pit thread on him then? It would have been better to just drop from the thread and ignore him if he bothers you. He's just one person in 12,000.

[Speaker for the Dead]

For a second I thought you meant the real Xenophon!

[Hamlet]

Just wait'll Gryllus gets home!!!

[Scylla]

Originally posted by ultress
So why did you start a Pit thread on him then? It would have been better to just drop from the thread and ignore him if he bothers you. He's just one person in 12,000.

Because if I just ignored him and went away, he would be getting away with it, and I think that's what he wants.

[xenophon41]

Y'know, odd things can happen when the object of a Pit thread comes and tries to "refute" the Pitting; either an ungodly pileon of the Pittee starts up, or of the Pitter, or some sort of free-for-all ugliness ensues.

I guess decorum requires that I acknowledge the Pitting, and then quietly let the rest of the participants resolve the degree of my crapulence. OK. I'm gratified that I'm not worth your time, though; that bodes well for the brevity of this thread.

[Scylla]

Or you could have the class to acknowledge that your actions were wrong.

You could apologize for making unwarranted accusations.

[Baldwin]

Xenophon, crapulence means eating and drinking too much.

Scylla, now that I've looked at the linked thread, I agree with Xenophon, and feel that you're reacting a bit precipitously. I'm sure if we all sit down together, we can resolve this peacefully.

On the other hand, go screw yourself, ya fucking baby.

[elucidator]

As Eugene V. Debs is my witness, Scylla, no one, but no one, is as quick to fling the word "liar" at another poster, and usually with so little provocation.

Heres how it looks to me: not being able to inflict any real rhetorical damage on the central issue (as stated in the OP) you indulged yourself in a deconstruction of Mr. Hersh's reporting style. Nothing wrong with that, in and of itself. But it buggers the issue, doesn't it? As you frequently do, you took a somewhat "lawyerly" approach, applying spin control that would make Sandy Koufax blush. Again, nothing wrong with that. Rather enjoyed it, myself, its a classic example of your work.

Now comes friend Xeno, and I think this is the "offending" sentence: "...By which I mean you're saying some things which you seem to understand aint exactly so." When I read this, my clear understanding was that he was tweaking you (rather mildly) for just that: spin.

By no stretch of the imagination could that merit the offense you have taken. Honest. No kidding, Operation Candor, straight from the shoulder. One has to wonder if you conduct yourself in real life as you do here. Do you have a fist fight every time you go to a bar? Do you keep a set of dueling pistols in your hope chest?

Xeno engaged you lightly, humorously, and referenced each and every point from your very words. No way did he deserve the vitriol you displayed.

You're what, just short of 40? Companero, if you don't learn to lighten up, you'll never live to see your daughters ask you for money for graduate school. Art History.

Worse, poor Xeno is curled up with his banky sobbing himself to sleep.

[xenophon41]

...crapulence means eating and drinking too much.
I knew I should've gone with "fucktitude".

[RTFirefly]

Oh gimme a break, Scylla.
"The suitability of the tubes for that purpose had been disputed, but this time the argument that Iraq had a nuclear program under way was buttressed by a new and striking fact: the C.I.A. had recently received intelligence showing that, between 1999 and 2001, Iraq had attempted to buy five hundred tons of uranium oxide from Niger, one of the world?s largest producers. The uranium, known as ?yellow cake,? can be used to make fuel for nuclear reactors; if processed differently, it can also be enriched to make weapons. Five tons can produce enough weapon-grade uranium for a bomb."

Hersh has not come out and said that the "yellow cake" from Niger was part of the classified briefing. He does not say that his two sources say so. He simply states that the yellow cake data would have strongly supported the argument that Iraq had a nuclear weapons program.

Hersh has made no argument that the yellow cake from Niger was discussed.
Quite the contrary:

"When the C.I.A. spokesman William Harlow was asked for comment, he denied that Tenet had briefed the senators on Niger."

It appears the Hersh has constructed this part of the piece in such a manner that the yellow cake was a major part of the briefing while in fact he presents no evidence that it was so, and indeed presents evidence to show that it was not.The briefing in question was the September 24 briefing to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

The article goes on to say: On the same day, in London, Tony Blair’s government made public a dossier containing much of the information that the Senate committee was being given in secret—that Iraq had sought to buy “significant quantities of uranium” from an unnamed African country, “despite having no active civil nuclear power programme that could require it.” The allegation attracted immediate attention; a headline in the London Guardian declared, “AFRICAN GANGS OFFER ROUTE TO URANIUM.”It then adds: Two days later, Secretary of State Colin Powell, appearing before a closed hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, also cited Iraq’s attempt to obtain uranium from Niger as evidence of its persistent nuclear ambitions.IOW, Hersh is saying the things you're saying he's not saying.

[Scylla]

RTF:

I disagree. Hersh strongly implies that the issue of the yellow cake was discussed at the meeting. He does not explicitly state it though. That's how I parse it.

Since we disagree I guess that makes me disingenuous and dishonest in your eyes as well.

I hope you'll understand if I'm not as interested in the specific matter up for debate as I am in the issue as to whether Xenophon was justified in calling me dishonest several times as his opening salvo into the debate.

Is it your opinion that he was justified?

[Scylla]

elucidator:

By no stretch of the imagination could that merit the offense you have taken. Honest. No kidding, Operation Candor, straight from the shoulder. One has to wonder if you conduct yourself in real life as you do here. Do you have a fist fight every time you go to a bar? Do you keep a set of dueling pistols in your hope chest?

Well, since we're being and honest and all that, I seem to recall that you were the one who literally challenged me to a duel over something similar not too long ago, so umm... Pot, Kettle, Black and all that.

You certainly don't like being called dishonest, and you certainly get pretty worked up about it whenever it happens. In this case there was no provocation or call for it whatsoever. I came to that thread literally at your invitation. I stressed that I wanted to avoid the usual bickering did I not? I came bearing the olive branch, and Xenophon attacked my honesty multiple times in his initial post. I even tried to back away and leave it alone, but he continued baiting me.

Why should I not, according to your own practiced criteria be pissed?

[elucidator]

Yeah, I do remember that! Do you remember that the first person to say "liar" was you? Do you remember that first person to say "liar" is always you? Do you know how many times you have seized somebody by the lapels and screamed "liar" in his face till the viens stand out in your neck? Countless. Literally countless.

You got a Jeckyl-Hyde thing going, buddy. You can be relatively entertaining, if relentlessly self-revelatory. But if anybody trods upon your oh-so-delicate dignity you lose it. All of it. You're as prickly as methadrine addicted porcupine.

Get over yourself. Life is too short to live like that.

[Jackmannii]

"Viens"?

[SkipMagic]

Originally posted by Jackmannii
"Viens"?

Like "veins" but the blood flows backward. Quite painful I hear.

[Sublight]

Yeah, 'viens'. It's French for 'get over here'.

My wife's got a pair of those, but they stand out from her chest, not her neck.

[Enderw24]

So you accuse someone of lying because they called you a liar.
You don't like when someone calls you a liar but you can use that insult on another AND cal that person a hypocrite.
This lying hypocrite who isn't worth your time is actually worth a great deal of your time.

There's a word that would describe all of these behaviors but... ironically, I cannot think of it right now.

[Brutus]

Too many people here watch The Daily Show to let that one slip by, Enderw24. Please report to a processing facility immediately.

[Enderw24]

Damn you and your infernal television watching ways!

[RTFirefly]

Originally posted by Scylla
I disagree. Hersh strongly implies that the issue of the yellow cake was discussed at the meeting. He does not explicitly state it though. That's how I parse it. :smack: Why do I even bother bolding stuff for you? You still walk right past it.

Since we disagree I guess that makes me disingenuous and dishonest in your eyes as well. I have to agree with elucidator on this one. But let me just focus on your debate persona for a moment.

You are very passionate about your political views, even when they're not supported by the evidence. The problem is, when confronted with facts or arguments that refute your position, you tend to turn up the emotional volume in response.

I hope you'll understand if I'm not as interested in the specific matter up for debate as I am in the issue as to whether Xenophon was justified in calling me dishonest several times as his opening salvo into the debate. I think elucidator spoke for me there as well.

And you have to remember that it's the original 'specific issue up for debate' back in the original thread that determines whether the things said in that thread that caused you to start this one, had any legitimacy. Looking at it, xeno seems to be on solid ground, and you're making arguments that stand on air. And then calling a poster a liar and a jerk when he calls you on it.

And maybe I'm not clear on the rules, but aren't we supposed to avoid calling people names in GD?

[slortar]

Just for the record, my spider plant is named Xenophon. I was wondering why you pitted my plant before I read the OP. Come to think of it, it's been looking awfully smug lately--it must be using my computer to annoy Scylla while I'm at work...

[Abe Babe]

In that case, slortar tell your plant to be ready for a harsh potting.

[stofsky]

Originally posted by Abe Babe
In that case, slortar tell your plant to be ready for a harsh potting.

You nearly made me soil my pants with that one! :D

[Scylla]

Rtf:

That's nice, but you've failed to answer my question.

[Scylla]

Originally posted by elucidator
Yeah, I do remember that! Do you remember that the first person to say "liar" was you? Yes, I do. Do you remember that first person to say "liar" is always you?

That is a lie, and an obvious one.

Do you know how many times you have seized somebody by the lapels and screamed "liar" in his face till the viens stand out in your neck? Countless. Literally countless.

Another lie from you. I've never done such a thing.

You got a Jeckyl-Hyde thing going, buddy. You can be relatively entertaining, if relentlessly self-revelatory.

And you can be Porcine obtuse and trapezoidal. What the fuck does that have to do with anything?

Get over yourself. Life is too short to live like that. [/B]

Thanks. I'll be sure and take your Tinkerbell advice to heart, and change my life.

[Scylla]

Rtf:

Why do I even bother bolding stuff for you? You still walk right past it.

I see it RTF. I saw it the first time I read the article. That is not saying directly that the anonymous sources are stating that the yellow cake from Niger was discussed. It comes close to saying it, and it implies it strongly, but it doesn't say it.

Find me the line in the article where Hersh says anonymous sources told him that the yellow cake from Niger was discussed in the meeting. I don't see that line. You have not shown it to me.

[elucidator]

Originally posted by Scylla
That is a lie, and an obvious one.

Nope. Check it out. Not shitting you on this, pancho.

Another lie from you. I've never done such a thing.

You're kidding, right? Honest? You don't know? Wow.

Go to the archives. Check it out. You're in for a shock.

Thanks. I'll be sure and take your Tinkerbell advice to heart, and change my life.

Now you're calling me a fairy? Not that there's anything wrong with that......

Believe it or not, the advice was offered with complete sincerity. Your loss, amigo.

[Scylla]

Elucidator:

Nope. Check it out. Not shitting you on this, pancho.

Of course this is a lie. I'll warranty it against any some of money you care to defend it with.

The statement in question is as follows:

Do you remember that first person to say "liar" is always you?

That is a bold statement. How much money would you like to defend it with?

You will need to place the money into escrow, than I will do the same. After that I will show an example of a thread where I was not the first person to say "liar," and collect the full sum. My minimum is $500.

Do you accept?

[elucidator]

Anybody ever tell you that you remind them of Yosimete Sam?

Howzabout this? Threads over past year, everytime I'm the first to use the word "liar" in reference to another poster I give you $10, every time its you, you give me $5?

There's this bottle of single malt I've got my eye on.......

[Scylla]

I'm not asking you to produce an alternate statement which you will defend.

I'm asking you to defend the statement you had already made and then reaffirmed as being correct.

Are you willing to stand behind your statement or not?

[elucidator]

(yawn......) Goodnight, Scylla.

[Scylla]

Besides, as you should know, the number of times someone makes the accusation is completely immaterial. It's whether or not it's justified that matters.

Which brings us back to Xenophon. While general talk about me is very interesting and always to be encouraged the question at hand isn't what good advice can I give Scylla, or how often does Scylla say a particular word.

The question at hand is whether Xeno was justified in calling me dishonest in his opening post of the aforementioned thread.

I maintain that he was being a shithead.

Forgetting about me for a moment. How do you feel? Do you think it was proper and justified, as an opening overture?

[Scylla]

Originally posted by elucidator
(yawn......) Goodnight, Scylla.

I take it you concede the point.

[The Ace of Swords]

Xenophon: Take no issue, Scylla bawls like a baby about some political opponent or the other about every six months.

He had to demagogue somebody, you see, otherwise he'd have wasted all his SDMB credit garnered from the Blimp thread.

[elucidator]

Heavens, I completely forgot about poor Xenophon! Here he is, brutally pitted by Scylla, only to have that echoed and underlined by Scylla. Then he is remorselessly piled on by Scylla, Scylla, and Scylla. He is fortunate not to be further pilloried and abused by angry crowds of Scylla, carrying torches and pitchforks, and subjected to mob violence.

I shall make amends at once to poor Xeno, so pitilessly thrashed by Scylla and all his friends.

[Reverend Lovejoy] I am here to comfort you. There, there. There, there.[/RL]

[Sofa King]

You three kids should get a room.

[hawthorne]

It may have occurred to you Scylla that you were goaded into taking a tricky position by elucidator. Which was exactly what you said you wouldn't do.Scylla
The question at hand is whether Xeno was justified in calling me dishonest in his opening post of the aforementioned thread.Well it's impolite. And I suppose you might not have read the article as well as you suppose. Xeno perhaps might have rhetorically allowed for your being confused. But you do misrepresent the article:Scylla
The implication being sold here, and I think "sold" is a fair word is that this clearly false and erroneous piece of information is the keystone of the intelligence that went into the decision to make war on Iraq.It's just not so. I dunno why you posted it, and I don't why you're pawing the ground about it, but it's not so.

[elucidator]

Ewwwwwwww!

[Sofa King]

What, man? I thought you were a free-thinker, elucidator.

[elucidator]

Sure, thinking is free, but that kind of action will cost you. Big time.

[wring]

elucidator - you erred. Try not to say things like "You always..." with any of the following: a small child, an immature person, a politician, a stubborn adult.

because, you see, they'll be able to step over the grand canyon of times you're correct and point out the one (or two or couple) exceptions to a generallity and flounce off with "there, that was a lie".

as for the case in the OP: I think it's standard behavior in GD threads to call into question some one's interpretation of a cite, to suggest that they're being selective in their presenation, and not infrequently 'disingenuous' comes into play. If these types of statements constitute an accusation of being a 'liar', we're gonna need a bigger pit.

No one likes to have some one suggest that their interpretation is selective, flawed etc. But dropping the "l" word out is different and much more inflamatory.

(and, frankly, Scylla, if the true answer to your/elucidator's quibble is that 'yes, generally, I am the first person to use the word 'liar', then I would hope that at a quieter moment you take a look at that, and this exchange in particular. Yes, I'm sure that his actual statement is wrong as set out, for I'm certain that there's at least one time that you weren't the first. However, another way to respond to that would have been "yes, I'm often the first to use the word, but not absolutely every time, so that statement isn't correct". I understand that it's a lot more to type than "Liar", but in this case "liar" isn't entirely accurate either. A more accurate term would be "Hyperbole". )

[elucidator]

I ain't that subtle, Hawthorne, plus I got better shit to do than scheme up ways to hassle Scylla. But he pitted Xeno, in my opinion unjustly, and I'm perfectly happy to rag his ass for it. Nothing complicated.

[elucidator]

Ring, ring, ring, wring. No more calls, we have a winner.

Just so. That was quite my take on it as well. Xeno tweaked him mildly, even appropriately, on the amount of spin control he was using. (I'm not claiming any virginity with regards to spin, I'm just as easy as the next slut.) No biggie, no hurt, no foul. But friend Scylla is way touchy about his dignity, and expects humble respect for his opinion, if not genuflection. I'd probbly take Xeno's side in this even if I didn't like him. But I do, so I'm damn sure gonna.

And, of course, you're right, the term "always" was ill advised. Even Homer nods. Still betcha my 2 to 1 offer would net me tasty bit of boodle. Lead pipe cinch, that one.

[RTFirefly]

Originally posted by Scylla
That is not saying directly that the anonymous sources are stating that the yellow cake from Niger was discussed. It comes close to saying it, and it implies it strongly, but it doesn't say it. And so what? He specifically says that Iraq's attempts to buy significant quantities of uranium from an African country were mentioned at that hearing.

So he doesn't friggin' spell it out and say 'yellow cake' and 'Niger'. BFD. The latter seems to be only because he was citing Blair's revealing essentially the same info on the same day, only Blair wasn't publicly stating which country. And 'yellow cake' is apparently shorthand for uranium oxide, and you're right, Hersh just says uranium. Golly. Gee whillikers.

[Haywood]

I have read all the posts and I have to agree, Scylla is wrong. Xenophon merely had the audacity not to agree with Scylla.

[Scylla]

Originally posted by RTFirefly
And so what? He specifically says that Iraq's attempts to buy significant quantities of uranium from an African country were mentioned at that hearing

Can you quote me the line, cuz i don't see it? [/B][/QUOTE]

[Scylla]

Originally posted by elucidator
Still betcha my 2 to 1 offer would net me tasty bit of boodle. Lead pipe cinch, that one.

I'm sure it's at least two to one, probably more.

[Scylla]

Originally posted by Haywood
I have read all the posts and I have to agree, Scylla is wrong. Xenophon merely had the audacity not to agree with Scylla.

I may indeed be wrong. I doubt it, but it's a possibility, but I can promise you that is not "merely" because xenophon had the audacity not to agree with me.

Seeing as it's my motivations that are in question, you really have no other choice but to accept my assertion that my ire is based on Xeno's unwarranted charge of dishonesty.

I can prove it. You've disagreed with me. You've had that audacity and I haven't pitted you. In fact probably several thousand other people have disagreed with me without resorting to jerkish accusations, and I have not pitted them.

Further, RTF has never to my memory actually agreed with me on anything, yet I have never pitted him. This is because he has not made false and unwarranted accusations.

Xeno on the other hand has decided that I was being deliberately disingenuous because he felt I did not use the plural where he thought I should.

Because of this, and more importantly because he did not acknowledge and apologize for his unwarranted accusation, he is a bag of shit.

***

Now some of Xeno's liberal-minded debating buddies can pretend otherwise but we all know that it's the behavior of an asshole to assume dishonesty without cause.

Xeno's cause was no other than that he thought my analysis was wrong. Hence, he's an asshole.

[Scylla]

For those who think I am wrong, let me ask a question:

In this thread:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?postid=3207030#post3207030


Jshore says:


Here is another link to a press release by Zell Miller, the most conservative Dem in the Senate at least on tax issues who, joined by 3 Republicans, are forming a caucus specifically dedicated to eliminating the capital gains tax, the Zero Capital Gains Tax Caucus.

Here's his link:

http://miller.senate.gov/press/2002/03-07-02%20Zero%20Cap%20Gains.htm

Looking at it you will see that jshore has misrepresented this cite. Zell Miller is joined by 2 Republicans and a Democrat, not 3 Republicans as he states.

Should I have accused him of being dishonest, of posting knowingly false information? Would you all defend me if I did?

[Kimstu]

Scylla: Now some of Xeno's liberal-minded debating buddies [...]

Checking in! :)

[...] we all know that it's the behavior of an asshole to assume dishonesty without cause.

Xeno's cause was no other than that he thought my analysis was wrong. Hence, he's an asshole.

Um, the way it looked to me was, he thought you were wrong and he thought you were deliberately spinning.

Even if he jumped to the conclusion that you were deliberately spinning when you weren't, how does that make him a "liar" or "hypocrite" instead of just "wrong" (or perhaps "behaving like an asshole")? Are you suggesting that his suggestion that you're suggesting something you know to be false is something he knows to be false? (Ouch, my brain! :)) Wouldn't that be "assuming dishonesty without cause" on your part? Wouldn't that make you an "asshole" according to your own criterion?

Looking at it you will see that jshore has misrepresented this cite. Zell Miller is joined by 2 Republicans and a Democrat, not 3 Republicans as he states.

Should I have accused him of being dishonest, of posting knowingly false information? Would you all defend me if I did?

Well, any time a poster gets something wrong, somebody is apt to assume that they were being misleading instead of just mistaken. It's always more charitable to assume the opposite, of course, but it's a very common assumption. How other people react to that assumption is likely to depend on whether the misinformant has a rep for being misleading.

Frankly, I think that opening a Pit thread to toss around terms like "worthless liar", "hypocrite", "shithead", "bag of shit" and "asshole" comes across as a lot nastier. Even if xeno wasn't justified in his remarks, it wouldn't necessarily make him a "liar", "hypocrite", "shithead", "bag of shit", or "asshole" rather than just "wrong". Why not just tell him you think he was wrong, and leave it at that?

I mean, you've been wringing out this thread for three days now, and there hasn't appeared even one poster who agrees with your savage denunciations of xeno's behavior. That makes you either a lone defender of Truth and Justice against the forces of Malicious Dishonesty and Deplorable Apathy, or else, well....wrong, not to mention a teensy bit overwrought.

[elucidator]

Boy, I bet ol' Xeno never knew how popular he was until now. He is kind of an asshole, you know.

(Jealous? Of course not. Don't be silly.)

[ElvisL1ves]

Oh, all right. elucidator, you're an asshole too.

Happy now?

[RTFirefly]

Originally posted by Scylla
Can you quote me the line, cuz i don't see it? You're shitting me, right?

I bolded it.

You seemingly ignored it.

I asked why I bothered bolding it.

You said you saw it the first time you read the article.

Then we went back and forth about its meaning.

And now you say you don't see it?

Damn. I give up. Bye.

[wring]

Originally posted by Scylla
.Now some of Xeno's liberal-minded debating buddies can pretend otherwise but we all know that it's the behavior of an asshole to assume dishonesty without cause.
.

ya know, I like you.

we've debated, you've admitted error (at least once ).

but here, you're loosing me. by your criteria, you seem to be painting me with that same 'pretending' otherwise brush.

bullshit.

you're over reacting in a major way (MHO).

[xenophon41]

Well, wring just highlighted something that’s been bothering me. I said I’d quietly stay out of this thread, but I’ve got all these people defending me and I feel bad that they seem to be getting splattered by the poop Scylla’s been lobbing my way. Perhaps I should come clean and admit to those who may be mystified at the severity of his reaction to me, that there is some cause for that severity, just not particularly the thread linked in the OP.

Prior to the thread which the OP is so indignant about, my last dealings with him were in this thread (”http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=157388”), in response to his charming and intelligent treatment of David Simmons. That thread, more so I think than the one linked in the OP here, is the prime reason for the present bile, as it involved a deconstruction of Scylla’s remarks in a more critical manner than he had bargained for. –I fully admit by the way that I was far less gentle in that thread than in the one which ostensibly generated this one. But far less abusive to Scylla than he was to David Simmons.

But the real progenitors of the current relationship between Scylla and me, are the thread in which he admitted he is sometimes intentionally dishonest in debates (”http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=96214&perpage=50&pagenumber=1”) (warning; that’s a very long and convoluted thread, but quite informative), and the thread examining rhetoric (”http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=97717&perpage=50&pagenumber=1”) which was a subsequent attempt -mostly on my part- at assessing the level of acceptance of such an approach. It was this pair of threads which clearly outlined the natural antipathy between us, one borne not only of contrasting styles but of a fundamental difference in moral outlook.

Scylla is not only a sometimes impressively skilled rhetoricist, he's also a dedicated sophist. The point, for him, of any debate is to staunchly promote and vehemently defend a particular position, and by his own admission, when in his judgement an opponent is unworthy of his respect, he feels justified in employing any dirty trick he finds effective. He calls this “taking out the garbage.” Although Scylla is quite inventive, the tricks he favors lean heavily on the intentional misrepresentation of others’ viewpoints. Which is the point at which I now generally object, since IME the point of debate, outside of the classroom and particularly on this board, is to test ideas against fair challenges.

When I object, I do so by quoting each instance of misrepresentation and then refuting it. Sometimes, I've accompanied the refutation with expressions of mock surprise that such a perceptive poster would make such glaring errors of fact. Since effective spotlighting of his tricks seems to be something which Scylla finds particularly annoying, it sometimes prompts an impassioned defense of his own true blue nature and accusations that his opponent is a “liar” or "hypocrite."

originally posted by Scylla:

…it's the behavior of an asshole to assume dishonesty without cause.
Which leads us to my Pitting here. I’ve been struggling over the past few days to avoid feeling gratified by this vitriol. I believe it’s a sign that I’ve been successfully countering the sophistry. Unfortunately, it’s also a measure that my tone has become overbearingly judgemental… (Although Scylla projects firm confidence in his utter righteousness, he doesn’t seem to bear judgement well.)

So I’ve promised at least one poster and a board administrator that I’ll try and stick to spotlighting the inaccuracies in Scylla’s misportrayals, and leave the character judgements to others. I apologize to the SDMB staff –and to Scylla- for my judgemental tone.

But I don’t and won’t apologize for approaching his arguments with the presumption he’s not being entirely straightforward; he’s already announced to me that he feels no compunction against self-serving artifice in his arguments. This, I feel, gives me cause to “assume dishonesty” on his part. But I’ve said as much before, in the last thread I linked to above:

Scylla, I think it's clear that one views one's own actions through the lens of one's sensibilities… …The thing that has colored my perception of your arguments for the past week has been your unabashed statement that your posts are sometimes deliberately mendacious for effect.

Really, I'm taking you at your word that you believe you merely return mendacity in kind, but IMO you perceive alot of dishonesty that isn't very apparent to the rest of the world...

Turnabout may indeed be fair play for the most part, but for the IPU's sake, Scylla, if you're constantly turning around the same dirty tricks as people you think are jerks, how can we tell the difference?

[Scylla]

I have trouble reconciling this:

So I’ve promised at least one poster and a board administrator that I’ll try and stick to spotlighting the inaccuracies in Scylla’s misportrayals, and leave the character judgements to others

With these:



Scylla is not only a sometimes impressively skilled rhetoricist, he's also a dedicated sophist. The point, for him, of any debate is to staunchly promote and vehemently defend a particular position...[quote]

[quote]Although Scylla is quite inventive, the tricks he favors lean heavily on the intentional misrepresentation of others’ viewpoints.


(Although Scylla projects firm confidence in his utter righteousness, he doesn’t seem to bear judgement well.)

It appears it didn't take you long to break your promise.

I object to your mischaracterizations, and in light of the fact that your apology is rife with further assaults upon me of exactly the type for which it appears you are apologizing I find it difficult to take it very seriously.

I'll think on it and respond when time permits.

[Spiritus Mundi]

scylla
You jumped the gun on this one. Xeno's comments did not merit this PITting.

xeno
You tar with far too broad a brush to read dishonesty into every pithy one-liner that scylla posts. There's nothing wrong with humorour scorn as a debating tactic.

THe above are IMO, of course, apply whatever value you wish.

[xenophon41]

I'll think on it and respond when time permits.While you're thinking, consider that I can support each of the opinions you've objected to above with cites from your own words. Consider also that were I to characterize you as, say for example

...a narcissistic lying prick so enamored of your own worldview that your inability to accept other viewpoints borders on sociopathy...

this would be in response to your unflattering comments aimed at me, in a Pit thread which you started for the express purpose of impugning my character.

Hardly the playground in which I promised Gaudere I'd keep my gloves on.



On preview: Spiritus, I do apply a high value to your opinion. Note that I do not read dishonesty into Scylla's posts; I merely look for it.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Heh. More than once I've gotten in a tiff with something Scylla has posted, and he alone amongst everyone I've debated calls me a liar. It pissed me off at first, because I value my honesty* -- but given the ease with which he throws the insult around, I guess I shouldn't take it too seriously.

I think his attack on elucidator in this thread is a perfect example. Anyone who understands how to put a sentence together** understands such concepts as hyperbole, and understands that elucidator, in claiming that Scylla always starts the choruses of Liar Liar Pants of Fire, means that Scylla is almost always the first to sing the tune. When Scylla begins to lose an argument, however, he often seizes on a scrap of obvious hyperbole or a metaphor or a throwaway snarky comment, blows it way out of proportion by interpreting it literally or as the crux of his opponent's argument, and derails the conversation into chestbutting Contests of Honor or similar nonsense.

He writes incredibly funny shit; I loved the blimp story. But when we stray from discussing intimidating-but-ultimately-harmless gasbags to discussing Scylla as a political animal, I've stopped paying him much mind.

Daniel

* In order to avoid a potential hijack, I'll clarify: I value my honesty, but I value my not being in a position where I might have to shoot innocent people even more.
** In order to avoid the same thing happening to me, I'll clarify: some people, e.g., people with Aspberger's Syndrome, can put a sentence together but cannot understand hyperbole.

[Scylla]

Originally posted by Spiritus Mundi
scylla
You jumped the gun on this one. Xeno's comments did not merit this PITting.



In a vaccum, yes. This is the straw that broke the camel's back, though.

[Scylla]

Originally posted by xenophon41
While you're thinking, consider that I can support each of the opinions you've objected to above with cites from your own words.

I don't think any of us are perfect, and I have freely admitted that I've engaged in purely rhetorical devices to further my viewpoint. Sometimes these have been frivolous or humorous, other times I think the circumstances required them, and still other times I've regretted some tactic I've used.

So what? Attend to your own character failings. I assure you, you have them


...a narcissistic lying prick so enamored of your own worldview that your inability to accept other viewpoints borders on sociopathy...

What if you were[i/] to call me that? It seems like you just did.


this would be in response to your unflattering comments aimed at [i]me, in a Pit thread which you started for the express purpose of impugning my character. Hardly the playground in which I promised Gaudere I'd keep my gloves on.

I don't care why you broke your promise. That you did in the very same post in which you identified it really says all that needs to be said.

I'll repeat. Attend to your own moral fiber and integrity and leave me to mine. If you fail to do so I'm going to call you out on it and attack you're character (in the appropriate forum,) every single time you do it.

I would much rather debate the debate than debate personalities. You seem to have a fixation about not approving of my personality.

Your judgements and editorialisms about my personality are lies. You don't know me and you're not qualified to judge me, and make assertions about who I am, and I consider it hypocritical because you're not above the occasional bit of sophistry or rhetorical device yourself.

So, I've thought a little bit further, and I'm sorry but I don't think much of an apology couched before and after with the very same kind of attack you are apologizing before.

But I'll make it simple for you. I will make no attempts to play your game and defend myself from your accusations and moral editorializing. When you do it, I will simply attack you back. Each and every time.

[Scylla]

RTF:

bolded it.

You seemingly ignored it.

I asked why I bothered bolding it.

You said you saw it the first time you read the article.

Then we went back and forth about its meaning.

And now you say you don't see it?

I figured there must have been something else because it doesn't say what you say it say. It strongly implies it.

Damn. I give up. Bye.

Adios.


Wring:

but here, you're loosing me. by your criteria, you seem to be painting me with that same 'pretending' otherwise brush.

A mistake. I didn't mean to do that, and I apologize.

[xenophon41]

So what? Attend to your own character failings. I assure you, you have them
I sure do. One example would be coming back into this thread to slap you some more instead of letting it die quietly through lack of anyone's agreement with the OP. This establishes that I'm not a great role model for humility or peacemaking. I try and do better, but I've never abided bullies or slanderers.

And I know it's not my place to point out your faults when I have so many of my own. But if I don't shovel your bullshit out the door, somebody else'll just have to do it. And I have a shovel.

What if you were to call me that? It seems like you just did.
Why yes, it does seem that way. By your rulebook, that makes it an honest mistake. However, I will admit that I meant to be insulting when I penned the remark. And the remark isn't even accurate! (What fun!) It's not any inability on your part to accept other viewpoints which borders on sociopathy.

I don't care why you broke your promise. That you did in the very same post in which you identified it really says all that needs to be said.
Oh, what twaddle! I promised to highlight my disagreements with your arguments and leave the assessment of your dubious honor to others, in Great Debates. When you start a Pit thread to examine my honesty, don't expect the subject of yours to be off limits.

I'll keep my promise. Which means I'll continue to highlight inaccuracies in your representations when I see 'em, and let you blink your baby blues earnestly while you repeat them. And then I'll point them out again, and again, until you have to choose between looking really stupid (which we all know you are not), looking really inattentive, or looking disingenuous. But that'll be your choice.

You seem to have a fixation about not approving of my personality.
It's not a fixation. If your personality ever changes, I'm sure I'll enjoy the improvement.

Your judgements and editorialisms about my personality are lies. You don't know me and you're not qualified to judge me, and make assertions about who I am, and I consider it hypocritical because you're not above the occasional bit of sophistry or rhetorical device yourself.
Please give some examples of my sophistry. Really, I'm interested. I may be unaware of some stuff I've done that I shouldn't have, it would be good to have it thrown in my face. I'll certainly admit to having made some pretty damn weak arguments, and to having used "rhetorical devices" (hardly avoidable when engaging in rhetoric). Show me especially where I've mischaracterized someone else's argument and failed to acknowledge it when inaccuracies were pointed out to me.

Good luck.

But I'll make it simple for you. I will make no attempts to play your game and defend myself from your accusations and moral editorializing. When you do it, I will simply attack you back. Each and every time.
I'll note that the accusation which prompted this thread was the horrifyingly insulting assertion that in my opinion you were aware your portrayal of Hersh's article was inaccurate. Hardly a fundamental leap on my part, when you've made such a point to widely portray your own cleverness on this message board. I figured the glaring mistakes in your deconstruction had to be intentional. But like I said, from now on I'll stick to assuming such idiocies are genuine on your part. That should make you happy, which is of course a great concern of mine.

Because I shudder at the thought of another attack as effective for you as this one has been.

[Scylla]

I try and do better, but I've never abided bullies or slanderers.

I was neither being bullying, nor slandering you nor anybody in that other thread, yet you attacked me personally for no other question than that you dislike me, and think little of my character.

That makes you the bully. That makes you the slanderer.

And I know it's not my place to point out your faults when I have so many of my own. But if I don't shovel your bullshit out the door, somebody else'll just have to do it. And I have a shovel.

Yep. You got me good. Everybody's on your side. It ain't a popularity contest though. You were wrong. We both know it, and I won't make the mistake of being disapointed and angry when I don't recieve good faith from you in debates in the future. I won't think well enough of you to expect it, anymore.

However, I will admit that I meant to be insulting when I penned the remark.

Well fuck you, too.

Please give some examples of my sophistry. Really, I'm interested.

I'm not. I know what you are, and it's not that interesting.


Because I shudder at the thought of another attack as effective for you as this one has been.

I do better next time, you lying hypocritical sack of shit.

[Scylla]

I apologize to the SDMB staff ?and to Scylla- for my judgemental tone.

Here's some advice:

If you offer an apology don't insult the person at the same time.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

Ah, more shenanigans from Scylla. I love reading his stuff - especially when he gets to calling out the liars and flailing about madly in defense of some hopeless, helpless, flaccid line of argument. He reminds me greatly of the Fonz. Not in any cool way, such as jackets or motorcycles or the ability to fix the jukebox by pounding on the wall. No, it's for the way that he cannot say, "I was wrong." I imagine if he tried, it would be "I was wrooooo... I was rrr..rrr.rrr..."

Just watch out though, or he'll pull out some reference to a noble or heroic act of an ancestor of his, which by some odd transitive property gives him license to regard you with contempt. For example, Xenophon, my third uncle dove on a hand grenade in the Ardennes. His last words were "Never suffer a liar!" Therefore, I spit upon you.

[Scylla]

Originally posted by Hentor the Barbarian
He reminds me greatly of the Fonz. Not in any cool way, such as jackets or motorcycles or the ability to fix the jukebox by pounding on the wall. No, it's for the way that he cannot say, "I was wrong." I imagine if he tried, it would be "I was wrooooo... I was rrr..rrr.rrr..."

...And yet it's not three posts ago in this very thread that I acknowledged and apologized to Wring for a mistake I made.

How do you wish to respond for that?
[/B][/QUOTE]

[Dr_Paprika]

Man, talk about a storm in a teacup. Was this really worth getting your knickers all twisted for?

(Just wanted to use my mom's old British expressions. Do carry on.)

[elucidator]

It is kinda morbid, isn't it? Kinda like bear-baiting, or something.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

Originally posted by Scylla
...And yet it's not three posts ago in this very thread that I acknowledged and apologized to Wring for a mistake I made.

How do you wish to respond for that?
[/B][/QUOTE] ;) I was wrooo... I'm sss... sssooo ... I admit that I made a misss... a misss....

I was wrong. You have shown a capability, at least on one occasion, to write an expression of error. However, you didn't exactly say you were "wrong." Liar!

[hawthorne]

part of Scylla's first post in the GD thread
How about we try this one differently? I happen to feel that in this time of war, matters concerning the war should be debated from the standpoint of fighting ignorance rather than the I-take-one-side-you-take-the-other partisan politicking bullshit that seems to be our norm.

Additionally, I don't really have the time for a nine page train wreck.I didn't think you had the material for a nine page train wreck. I forgot how ductile a slight can be in your hands. Sheesh.

[Apos]

---Ah, more shenanigans from Scylla.---

Shenanigans!!! I call Shenanigans!

Anyways, I think Shodan is one hell of a bloke and you should all lay off him!