Esprix, tilting at strawmen again

[The Ryan]

For some time now, Esprix has been following me around, sniping at me and pathetically begging for attention. I guess he's getting what he wants.

In this thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=221449), lissener asked how the SDMB has affected people's thinking on gay issues. I replied that this board is intolerant of views not in line with anything other than a rather left-wing point of view, and that people have responded to my views by such dishonest tactics as misrepresenting my position. And Esprix responds by (what else?) misrepresenting my position, claiming that I believe that bisexuals are pedophiles.

This just reinforces my point about this board: Esprix simply makes up positions for me, and no one else calls him on it. Apparently believing the "right" thing is more important than being honest.

[MrVisible]

If anyone, anywhere, could make out what the hell you think about anything, you'd have a believable point.

As it stands, everything you say is lost in a pea-soup fog of semantical gymnastics and hallucinatory obfuscation. You're the least comprehensible being on the planet, and that includes dolphins and primitive AI routines.

[Desmostylus]

Well, that thread was interesting. :rolleyes:

If you're arguing some position, The Ryan, I can't tell what it is.

Your schtick has been done before, BTW:Humpty Dumpty took the book, and looked at it very carefully. "That seems to be done right---" he began.

"You're holding it upside down!" Alice interrupted.

"To be sure I was!" Humpty Dumpty said gaily, as she turned it round for him. "I thought it looked a little queer. As I was saying, that seems to be done right--though I haven't time to look it over thoroughly just now--and that shows that there are three hundred and sixty-four days when you get un-birthday presents---"

"Certainly," said Alice.

"And only one for birthday presents, you know, There's glory for you!"

"I don't know what you mean by 'glory,' " Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't--till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"

"But 'glory' doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument," Alice objected.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less.

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean different things."

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master--that's all."

Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. "They've a temper, some of them--particularly verbs, they're the proudest--adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs--however, I can manage the whole lot! Impenetrability! That's what I say!"

"Would you tell me, please," said Alice, "what that means ?"

"Now you talk like a reasonable child," said Humpty Dumpty, looking very much pleased. "I meant by "impenetrability' that we've had enough of that subject, and it would be just as well if you'd mention what you meant to do next, as I suppose you don't intend to stop here all the rest of your life."

"That's a great deal to make one word mean," Alice said in a thoughtful tone.

"When I make a word do a lot of work like that," said Humpty Dumpty, "I always pay it extra."

"Oh!" said Alice. She was too much puzzled to make any other remark.

"Ah, you should see 'em come round me of a Saturday night," Humpty Dumpty went on, wagging his head gravely from side to side: "for to get their wages, you know."

(Alice didn't venture to ask what he paid them with; and so you see I can't tell you.) But Lewis Carroll was a bit funnier than you are.

[mrsam]

Esprix seems to have captured your logic perfectly on the second page to me. You pretend to be holding some tenable position by never actually stating your position, merely referring to some mystical important concept you understand which we don't.

If you have something important to say about homosexuality/paedophilia, say it here and now. Tell us your position clearly so we can't misunderstand you. It seems to me that you are the one "pathetically begging for attention".

[SPOOFE]

I replied that this board is intolerant of views not in line with anything other than a rather left-wing point of view

Okay, let's try a little experiment. If I punch someone in the arm do they:

A: Tell me to stop because it hurts.

or

B: Say that it hurts because they want me to stop.

Show your work.

Second question...

If I call someone a bad name, do they...

A: Ask me to stop because they find it offensive.

or

B: Say that it's offensive because they want me to stop.

Again, show your work.

(We really should make The Ryan take this test before every post he makes, and only allow his post to go through if he can answer both questions correctly)

[Who_me?]

That wouldn't be fair.... he'd never be able to post again.



Hmmmm..... maybe you have a point...

[stpauler]

Originally posted by Who_me?
That wouldn't be fair.... he'd never be able to post again.



Hmmmm..... maybe you have a point...

Are you talking about The Ryan or "The Ryan"?
There IS a distinction.:D

[Ilsa_Lund]

So, Esprix is cooking meat on Friday?:confused:

[Lord Ashtar]

Originally posted by The Ryan
In this thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=221449), lissener asked how the SDMB has affected people's thinking on gay issues. I replied that this board is intolerant of views not in line with anything other than a rather left-wing point of view, and that people have responded to my views by such dishonest tactics as misrepresenting my position.

Are you sure that's what you said?

Originally posted by The Ryan in his linked thread
I have found the SDMB to be rather inhospitable to any viewpoint not in line with the "gay rights" position.

I'm quite sure there's a bit of a difference between the "gay rights" and "left-wing" points of view. There may be some overlapping, but that's to be expected.

And by the way, you're the one who brought up pedophilia in the other thread, not Esprix.

Kind of hard to get on your side when you make such an ass of yourself.

[Cheesesteak]

I assume you are commenting about this statement by EsprixBut we all already know your thought process:

Children can be either gender
Pedophiles are attracted to children of either gender
Attraction to either gender means they are bisexual

By that argument, all bisexuals are pedophiles.The final statement of that quote does not logically follow. The statement "pedophiles are bisexual" does not suggest "bisexuals are pedophiles" in the slightest. Most serial killers are white males, but that doesn't make most white males serial killers.

I do not know if you have personally made that connection in the past, and Esprix is just restating your previous posts, or if he has just misunderstood you and assumed that last statement. Your posts are often difficult to read so it wouldn't surprise me if you were just misunderstood despite an honest effort to get your drift.

It also wouldn't surprise me if Esprix was just a bit sensitive to any sort of connection to pedophilia. Too often in the past homosexuality was equated with pedophilia, so one can appreciate his feelings on this.

[Hamlet]

The Ryan,

In using a term like pedophilia, which has a concrete, clinical definition, it might be helpful to look at that definition. Here (http://www.geocities.com/morrison94/Sexual.htm#Pedo) is one from the DSM-IV, which outlines the clinical definition of pedophilia. There are indeed subsets of pedophilia, which allow the clinician to add whether the pedophile is sexually attracted to males, females, or both. Now, those should not be confused with homosexuality. The fact that a male pedophile has a sexual attraction to males does not make him homosexual, it makes him a pedophile with an attraction to males.

Now, I hate to argue semantics with you, but I'm hoping you can understand better now what Esprix may have been trying to say. That a pedophile is a pedophile, a homosexual is a homosexual.

With that in mind, can you understand why there seems to be a problem with your communication in this area?

[minty green]

What a perfect description of The Ryan.

[IzzyR]

The Ryan,

I can sympathize with you about Esprix. However, it is also true that your posting style tends to be very terse and precise, and this frequently makes it hard for people to figure out what you mean.

In general, I have found that most Pit threads of this sort are nothing more than popularity contests, in which people's opinions about the posters involved counts more than a judgment of the particular situation at hand. (You may notice this in some of the posts to this thread).

[MrVisible]

Originally posted by IzzyR
The Ryan,

I can sympathize with you about Esprix. However, it is also true that your posting style tends to be very terse and precise, and this frequently makes it hard for people to figure out what you mean.
Only in a The Ryan thread could the words 'terse' and 'precise' be used as synonyms for 'babblative' and 'insanely vague'.

In general, I have found that most Pit threads of this sort are nothing more than popularity contests, in which people's opinions about the posters involved counts more than a judgment of the particular situation at hand. (You may notice this in some of the posts to this thread).
You may also find that posters here become more popular as they post rational, coherent arguments, instead of bizarre screeds on how we need to interpret their previous unintelligible posts.

[Esprix]

Pitted by The Ryan. Will wonders never cease?

To all who comprehend English and have posted in here as such, thank you. A special thank you to Hamlet for a rather tidy summation. (And IzzyR, I don't know what your gripe is, but whatever.)

But I cannot let this gross misrepresentation of my position and personage go unchallenged:

For some time now, Esprix has been following me around, sniping at me and pathetically begging for attention.

The Ryan, if you do not retract this bold-faced lie immediately I will call out the National Guard, stamp my foot - repeatedly - and notify Cecil himself. Your dishonesty and strawman tactics are reprehensible. A duel, sir! A duel is called for!

Esprix

[Lord Ashtar]

Somehow, I get the impression that Esprix doesn't take The Ryan seriously.

[Cervaise]

Hey, look, The Ryan is blaming somebody else for his own incomprehensible bullshit.

"Six bells and all's well."

--flips over hourglass--

Somebody ping me if I don't notice the next time it happens.

[SPOOFE]

A duel, sir! A duel is called for!
Pistols on the commons at dawn! I'll be 'Sprix's cheerleader!

[Esprix]

Cervaise, I believe you can set up e-alerts with the new software upgrade. (Then again, do you really need all that mail in your inbox?)

Esprix

[vanilla]

Esprix does not "tilt" at straw "men".
(he's a top;)

[NoClueBoy]

Oh my gawd, Vanilla!


That was funny!


:)

[vanilla]

thank you
thank you
(my birthdya is tomorrow dont forget)

I always try to look for a straight line.
It just seemed funny.
Esprix is a great guy.
So is NoClueBoy(um, are you straight NCB?)

[NoClueBoy]

>a straight line<

More humor!

Yes, I'm straight. My Dad is gay.

[vanilla]

thats not funny.

My son's father was gay
so There!!

[RedFury]

I maybe going out on a limb here, but I'd say that this pitting hasn't exactly worked-out as well as the OP must have had in mind when he wrote it.

Sometimes I even manage to astonish myslef with my amazing powers of observation -- can a Psychic Hot Line be far behind?

[RedFury]

I maybe going out on a limb here, but I'd say that this pitting hasn't exactly worked-out as well as the OP must have had in mind when he wrote it.

Sometimes I even manage to astonish myslef with my amazing powers of observation -- can a Psychic Hot Line be far behind? Never mind. I already know the answer to that one

:p

[NoClueBoy]

Hmmm... That brings up a question:

Is "Straight" an offensive term to homosexuals?




never thought about it til now and I don't want to tax the Dope server by searching for a previous thread (it's acting all goofy for me right now) . Anyone remember one?

[Esprix]

Posting on the SDMB rarely works out the way The Ryan thinks it will.

Esprix

[Guinastasia]

The Ryan THINKS?

[AntaresJB]

Originally posted by NoClueBoy
Hmmm... That brings up a question:

Is "Straight" an offensive term to homosexuals?


never thought about it til now and I don't want to tax the Dope server by searching for a previous thread (it's acting all goofy for me right now) . Anyone remember one?

My best friend has a rather flamboyantly gay friend and whenever he's in the car and she's giving me directions somewhere, we never go "straight," it's always "Go gaily forward at the next light." :D

[Denis]

The Ryan is still spewing drivel about homosexuality and pedophilia?

I participated in a thread with him and others around the time of the priest/child abuse scandals. Getting him to concede a point, any point, no matter how well it was cited (with cross references and everything!) was like stuffing a pig through a knothole.

So, The Ryan, what "strawmen" do Esprix go after? So far as I've read of his posting, none. Do tell. Please. At length. With cites. And links.




Esprix and The Ryan, I could loan you my foils (you'd have to remove the safety tips and sharpen them) if you'd rather duel with swords.

[The Ryan]

This is silly, even for you guys. Most of these responses can be summed up in a single sentence. (“Your schtick has been done before, BTW” is especially ironic, considering the originality of these responses).
We have:

Mr.Visible, implying that since people have trouble understanding me, it’s okay to make up whatever they want as my position.
Desmostylus, who has nothing of his own to contribute, and so wastes space with copyrighted material which has nothing to do with the OP.
SPOOFE, apparently trying to refute the claim that I am the least comprehensible being, posts what appears to be an attempt at Socratic argument, but in fact is simply a non sequitor and/or attempt to hijack the thread.
Hamlet, echoing the post of Guinastasia in the original thread, responds to the statement that I have been falsely accused of equating homosexuality/bisexuality with pedophilia by discussing a completely different issue. I suspect that, like her, he will not respond to the questions I asked: ”Are you saying that because I am missing some important subtlety, it is appropriate to misrepresent my position? Or are you saying that as a consequence of the subtlety which I am missing, I am in fact saying that "gay" and "pedophile" are synonyms?”
And then Mr.Visible again, who apparently thinks that “[Ryan believes]Attraction to either gender means they are bisexual. By that argument, all bisexuals are pedophiles” is a “rational, coherent argument”, and that pitting someone for making up positions is somehow telling them how to interpret a post.

[The Ryan]

Now for the more complicated posts:
Mrsam
Esprix seems to have captured your logic perfectly on the second page to me.
So can you explain to me how my logic leads to the conclusion that all bisexuals are pedophiles?

You pretend to be holding some tenable position by never actually stating your position, merely referring to some mystical important concept you understand which we don't.
I really don’t see where you’re getting this, other than your imagination. What references to a “mystical concept” do you see? When have I pretended to have a position without stating one?

Tell us your position clearly so we can't misunderstand you.
You want me to review all of my views on homosexuality, bisexuality, and pedophilia and explain them so clearly that it is completely safe from the prodigious ability of posters to misunderstand? Isn’t it more reasonable for Esprix to actually support his statements?

Lord Ashtar I'm quite sure there's a bit of a difference between the "gay rights" and "left-wing" points of view. There may be some overlapping, but that's to be expected.
When I used the term “gay rights”, lissener insinuated that I was homophobic. So I tried to find a term less susceptible to misinterpretation. And I’m sure that this will be spun as more “nitpicking”, but I did not say that “gay rights” is the same as left-wing, I said that the so-called “gay rights” to which I was referring were left-wing. You seem to be thinking in a manner similar to Esprix: he thinks that me saying that there are pedophiles which are homosexual means that I think “pedophile” and “homosexual” are the same thing. You think that because I say that some so-called “gay rights” are left-wing, I think “gay rights” and “left-wing” are the same thing.

And by the way, you're the one who brought up pedophilia in the other thread, not Esprix.
:confused:
And….?
Is there some rule that it’s okay to misrepresent someone’s position, as long as it’s on an issue that person brought up?

Denis
I participated in a thread with him and others around the time of the priest/child abuse scandals. Getting him to concede a point, any point, no matter how well it was cited (with cross references and everything!) was like stuffing a pig through a knothole.
Okay, can you present ONE EXAMPLE of someone in that thread:
Quoting something I said with which they disagree
Presenting a cite
And explaining how that cite shows that I am wrong?

So, The Ryan, what "strawmen" do Esprix go after? So far as I've read of his posting, none. Do tell. Please. At length. With cites. And links.
Are you being sarcastic?

[Desmostylus]

Originally posted by The Ryan
Most of these responses can be summed up in a single sentence. So where's the single sentence, and what is it, you fucking idiot?

[Desmostylus]

Actually, I think I answered my own question.

"So where's the single sentence, and what is it, you fucking idiot?", is probably the single sentence that summarises the responses.

[The Ryan]

Originally posted by RedFury
I maybe going out on a limb here, but I'd say that this pitting hasn't exactly worked-out as well as the OP must have had in mind when he wrote it.
Yes, it still amazes me how people will disagree with me no matter how ridiculous the other side is.

If you (you in the general sense) really think I'm in the wrong, then I think you should come right out and say so. So everyone who thinks I'm wrong, I want you say "I don't see anything illogical about this quote:
But we all already know your thought process:

Children can be either gender
Pedophiles are attracted to children of either gender
Attraction to either gender means they are bisexual

By that argument, all bisexuals are pedophiles."

How can anyone possibly say that with a straight face?

[The Ryan]

Originally posted by Desmostylus
So where's the single sentence, and what is it, you fucking idiot?
I meant that for most posts, there's a single sentence that summarizes that post, not that there's a single sentence that summarizes most posts. I suppose you consider your inability to understand such a simple concept to be my fault?

[Denis]

Actually, The Ryan, I can present many examples from that thread: Quoting something you said with which they disagree
Presenting a cite
And explaining how that cite shows that you are wrong.


The problem is: It would be a waste of time and hamster energy. As others in this thread (and many others) have noted, you quibble and fuck around with the meaning of things to the point where the original meaning is lost in the interminable parsing. It's a complete loss to anyone but a lurker who may think, "Well, now I see how not to defend my position. Thank you, The Ryan, for showing me how not to debate a point!"


As far as you asking if I'm being sarcastic, I have a question for you: Do you honestly think Esprix is not being sarcastic in many of his posts? Do you seriously not understand that he uses hyperbole and sarcasm (quite well, IMO) to make many of his points? Are you really that fucking dense?

[Desmostylus]

Originally posted by The Ryan
I meant that for most posts, there's a single sentence that summarizes that post, not that there's a single sentence that summarizes most posts. I suppose you consider your inability to understand such a simple concept to be my fault? There's glory for you!

[SPOOFE]

SPOOFE, apparently trying to refute the claim that I am the least comprehensible being, posts what appears to be an attempt at Socratic argument, but in fact is simply a non sequitor and/or attempt to hijack the thread.
So you admit to having the intelligence of a shitlog?

[SPOOFE]

Yes, it still amazes me how people will disagree with me no matter how ridiculous the other side is.
Summarize what you think the "other side" is, and provide cites for that conclusion. Y'see, buttfuck, the problem is that you have the mental acuity of a gnat, and as such, you've deluded your peabrain into thinking that you've actually got a point - other than the one atop your head - to make in this here deal.

'Nother question: Do you actually ever read beyond the first three words of someone else's posts, and then just make up whatever the rest might be? 'Cuz you yet to demonstrate any sort of reading comprehension in this threa... er... message board.

[Tusculan]

I don't know what you mean by "glory".

[MrVisible]

You know, I think it'd be more entertaining if The Ryan were to skip his initial post in future threads, and move immediately on to being all defensive about people misinterpreting him.

Since it's where every single freaking thread he sticks his nose into ends up anyway, it'll save time and effort if it just starts there. That way, instead of derailing interesting threads with his incomprehensible drivel, he'll become more of a vaguely amusing side show.

"I pre-emptively resent each and every one of you for misrepresenting what I'm trying to say in this post! If only you would have had the foresight to understand what I was about to say, you might have realized that I was completely and totally right about everything. Instead, you totally misunderstood what I'm saying, and the point I'm trying to make is that if you'd simply admit that I was about to be totally correct on this issue, you wouldn't have had to pretend that you didn't anticipate understanding what I was in the process of thinking about saying."

[Desmostylus]

Originally posted by Tusculan
I don't know what you mean by "glory".I didn't say "glory", I said glory, and of course you wouldn't know what I meant until I told you.

I meant that:Originally posted by The Ryan
Desmostylus, who has nothing of his own to contribute, and so wastes space with copyrighted material which has nothing to do with the OP. is patently false, in every way. Including the copyright claim. ;)

[Tusculan]

But, but, didn't you mean "a nice knock-down argument"?
;)

[Desmostylus]

Impenetrability! That's what I say.

[mrsam]

The Ryan:

Seems to me you're indulging in absurdist logic.

My table has 4 legs.
A cow also has 4 legs.
Therefore my table is a cow.

Some paedophiles like children of both genders.
Bisexuals like adults of both genders.
Therefore some paedophiles are bisexual.


Even still, what the hell is your point? You made some bizarre comment about paedophilia and bisexuals, I want to know why. Not only are you factually incorrect, but I can't see what purpose saying that could possibly have. What are you trying to prove? I have neither the time nor the inclination to weave my way through your bullshit, so could you tell me what the hell the point was with bisexuals and paedophiles?

[Cheesesteak]

Originally posted by mrsam
The Ryan:

Seems to me you're indulging in absurdist logic.

My table has 4 legs.
A cow also has 4 legs.
Therefore my table is a cow.

Some paedophiles like children of both genders.
Bisexuals like adults of both genders.
Therefore some paedophiles are bisexual.

I can't see how your first grouping relates to the second. If you restate your second, replacing 'children' and 'adults' with 'persons', then it makes complete sense. Not that it is particularly instructive, nor does it say a thing about bisexuals in general, but I don't see where the logic is at fault.

- Most pedophiles have penises
- People who have penises are called 'men'
- Therefore most pedophiles are men

- Some pedophiles like both genders
- People who like both genders are called 'bisexual'
- Therefore some pedophiles are bisexual

Aside from forming a tenuous connection to an ugly group of people, I don't see what the big deal is.

[Desmostylus]

Some people from New York are homocidal axe-wielding maniacs.

Cheesesteak is from New York. Draw your own conclusions. And note, the first thing a real homocidal axe-wielding maniac would do would be to deny that they're a homocidal axe-wielding maniac.

So come on, Cheesesteak, are you or are you not a homocidal axe-wielding maniac? ;)

[Cheesesteak]

Originally posted by me
- Most pedophiles have penises
- People who have penises are called 'men'
- Therefore most pedophiles are men
I'm a man, I am also not a pedophile. This is not exactly difficult to say. Pedophiles are a very small subset of the group 'men', just as they are likely small subsets of the groups 'straight', 'gay', and 'bisexual'.

I may not like the fact that many unsavory people have some descriptors in common with me, but they do. Those common traits don't make me like them. Those common traits don't make all bisexuals pedophiles either.

If The Ryan (or anybody) tried to make that claim, he would be wrong. Of course, he's been spending this entire thread (and most of the other one) saying he never meant to make that claim.

[Biggirl]

Originally posted by Cheesesteak
.

If The Ryan (or anybody) tried to make that claim, he would be wrong. Of course, he's been spending this entire thread (and most of the other one) saying he never meant to make that claim.

That's the problem. The Ryan spends almost every thread he participates in explaining what he didn't say while never, ever actually saying anything.

[Ravenman]

Originally posted by The Ryan
If you (you in the general sense) really think I'm in the wrong, then I think you should come right out and say so. So everyone who thinks I'm wrong, I want you say "I don't see anything illogical about this quote: That quote certainly does not follow any logic.

But as someone with no dog in this fight, and who just read the other thread after reading the OP, The Ryan, I have no idea what your position is. The others in that thread might not be the most polite debaters in the world -- some do seem to be more interested in proving you wrong than in matching wits -- I can at least understand their positions.

My two cents: perhaps it would be more helpful to spend less time posting about what the terms "gay rights" or "pedophilia" mean to you and more time making well-reasoned, on-topic arguments.

[Esprix]

{hee hee!} This is fun!

And The Ryan, I am still waiting for you to retract your scurrilous statement in your OP about me stalking you. You are a petty liar, sir! Off with you!

Esprix

[Morbo]

Let's all just copy and paste this as a reply to every post of his until he goes away:

"The fact that I am The Ryan does not necessarily mean that I am always The Ryan in every thread; merely that I am The Ryan in threads in which a post by The Ryan has been posted to every thread in which I post. It's not my fault that my logic, logic which is solid gold not necessarily in every post, but certainly in every post in which solid gold has been logically applied by The Ryan to that post, is my fault."

[stpauler]

Originally posted by Dooku
Let's all just copy and paste this as a reply to every post of his until he goes away:

"The fact that I am The Ryan does not necessarily mean that I am always The Ryan in every thread; merely that I am The Ryan in threads in which a post by The Ryan has been posted to every thread in which I post. It's not my fault that my "logic" , "logic" which is solid gold not necessarily in every post, but certainly in every post in which solid gold has been logically applied by The Ryan to that post, is my fault."

I added some of his trademark quotation marks because logic and "logic" mean different things. You should know the difference because The Ryan does.

[Morbo]

You forgot to add them to the word "logically". :D

Now that you mention it, random words could have quotes around them too, like "necessarily" and "solid gold" :

>>The fact that I am The Ryan does not "necessarily" mean that I am always The Ryan in every thread; merely that I am The Ryan in threads in which a post by The Ryan has been posted to every thread in which I post. It's not my fault that my "logic," "logic" which is "solid gold" not "necessarily" in every post, but certainly in every post in which "solid gold" has been "logically" applied by The Ryan to that post, is my fault.<<

[Esprix]

Ah, but then again, perhaps we're not always talking about The Ryan at all...

The fact that I am The Ryan does not "necessarily" mean that I am always "The Ryan" in every thread; merely that I am "The Ryan" in threads in which a post by The Ryan has been posted to every thread in which I post. It's not my fault that my "logic," "logic" which is "solid gold" not "necessarily" in every post, but certainly in every post in which "solid gold" has been "logically" applied by "The Ryan" to that post, is my fault.

Yeah, that makes more sense now.

Esprix

[Morbo]

:D

[The Ryan]

Denis, if you are too concerned about time and hamster energy to actually support your claims, how about not posting at all? That would save even more time and hamster energy. You’re just weaseling.

“Do you honestly think Esprix is not being sarcastic in many of his posts?” No, I’m pretty sure that his responses to this thread have been sarcastic, which is why I haven’t taken them seriously. But if you’re using “sarcasm” as a catch-all escape hatch, that’s quite weasely, and suggest that Esprix is just being a troll. Come think of it, maybe you have a point.

SPOOFE: I take it the rule is that if I post a circuitous post instead of actually stating what my point is, I’m an idiot, and if you post a circuitous post instead of actually stating what my point is, I’m an idiot? “Summarize what you think the "other side" is, and provide cites for that conclusion. “ The other side is, among other things, the quote that I followed with the question “How can anyone say that with a straight face?”, and the quote is the cite. Now, do or do you not find that quote illogical?

“'Nother question: Do“ that makes no sense. Could you speak in complete sentences?
:p

mrsam “You made some bizarre comment about paedophilia and bisexuals, I want to know why.“ If you wish me to explain some comment of mine, you really ought to state what it is and where it was. As I have already explained, I am not going to provide a refresher course in every single statement I have ever said.

Ravenman “But as someone with no dog in this fight, and who just read the other thread after reading the OP, The Ryan, I have no idea what your position is.“
My position is that the SDMB has quite a few people who become quite abusive whenever anyone disagrees with them on a gay issue. An example is Esprix’s ridiculous “logic”.

Esprix “And The Ryan, I am still waiting for you to retract your scurrilous statement in your OP about me stalking you.“ I think I’m starting to understand this game. Now I’m supposed to say something like “No, you aren’t really opposed to people calling you a stalker; you’re just complaining to be contrary”, right?

[vanilla]

Ryan, tilting at Esprix.

Actually, I've enver caught any of your posts, Ryan, but what are you really trying to say here?

I just read Arrogance by (I forget he wrote Bias)

where he thinks male pedophiles are gay and the media just don't want to admit it.

But, is that your point?
I'm just not getting your point, here, could you be clearer?

And what does it have to do with Esprix?
thank you

[Esprix]

Ooh! Now I'm a stalker and a troll!

You, sir, are a cad! A low-life ruffian! I am affronted! Affronted, I say!

Esprix

[vanilla]

guess that makes you a stroller .

Affronted?
Now your a front?
I thought you were a top?

;)

[Guinastasia]

You know, I would think if Esprix WAS going to stalk someone on the SDMB, it would definitely NOT be The Ryan.

[The Ryan]

Originally posted by vanilla
Actually, I've enver caught any of your posts, Ryan, but what are you really trying to say here?
I really don't understand what's so hard to understand about "Esprix misrepresented my position".
Esprix has implied that I've said that bisexuality and pedophilia are the same.
I've never said that.
Esprix refused to clarify his statement, provide any support, or retract his statements.
What, exactly, is unclear about that?

[Coldfire]

Fucking hell.

I read through this whole thread, and through The Ryan's posts (or are they "posts"? ;)) in the other thread.

I think it's time for our monthly "The Ryan" staff "discussion".

Is it my turn to "bring" the "cookies" this time 'round?

[Hamlet]

Originally posted by The Ryan
Hamlet, echoing the post of Guinastasia in the original thread, responds to the statement that I have been falsely accused of equating homosexuality/bisexuality with pedophilia by discussing a completely different issue. I suspect that, like her, he will not respond to the questions I asked: ”Are you saying that because I am missing some important subtlety, it is appropriate to misrepresent my position? Or are you saying that as a consequence of the subtlety which I am missing, I am in fact saying that "gay" and "pedophile" are synonyms?”Actually, I attempted to aid in the discussion by trying to bridge the gap between what I believed was a misunderstanding between you and Esprix about the terms you were throwing around. Sorry for trying to aid in the discussion. And I will answer your question that it is not appropriate for Esprix to knowingly misrepresent your position, however, I don't think he did. His interpretation, based on what appeared to be your mistaken assumption that there are such things as homosexual pedophiles, was one that could have been made, and rather than attempt to form a cogent, well-reasoned explanation, you preferred to go straight to defensive, incoherent ranting. It is, of course, your perogative, but, as you can surely tell, it doesn't make you many friends. Or admirers. Or even acquaintences who can tolerate you.

[Lord Ashtar]

Originally posted by Coldfire
I read through this whole thread, and through The Ryan's posts (or are they "posts"? ;)) in the other thread.

I think it's time for our monthly "The Ryan" staff "discussion".

Is it my turn to "bring" the "cookies" this time 'round?

Damn, Coldfire, that cracked me up!

[Coldfire]

Yeah. We're going to discuss his posting "privileges", which are not the same as his "posting" privileges, if you know what I mean.

[GingerOfTheNorth]

Originally posted by Guinastasia
You know, I would think if Esprix WAS going to stalk someone on the SDMB, it would definitely NOT be The Ryan.
It would be me. I know this because he follows me around, screaming "OOOOOOOooOOOkies!".

[RedFury]

I think I've been "misrepresented."

Not that I said anything, but I am being "preemptive."

[Lord Ashtar]

Actually, what I meant to say was,

Damn, Coldfire, that "cracked" me "up"!

[Denis]

The Ryan "called" my post "weaseling."

:D

[vanilla]

Originally posted by The Ryan
I really don't "understand "what's so hard to understand about "Esprix misrepresented my position".
Esprix has "implied "that I've said that bisexuality and pedophilia are the same.
I've never "said "that.
Esprix refused to "clarify" his statement, "provide" any support, or "retract" his "statements".
"What", exactly, "is "unclear "about" that?


hee hee" hee"

(dont hurt me, mods)

[RedFury]

Originally posted by vanilla
hee hee" hee"

(dont hurt me, mods)

I take it you mean "hurt" you? See, you need to "clarify" your "statement" as not to be "unclear."

[vanilla]

Originally posted by RedFury
I take it you mean "hurt" you? See, you need to "clarify" your "statement" as not to be "unclear."

"What" "I" really wanted to "know" was why "everyone" is "using" "quotations".

Is this "something" the "Ryan" does "often"?

[Esprix]

Originally posted by GingerOfTheNorth

It would be me. I know this because he follows me around, screaming "OOOOOOOooOOOkies!".

That is a scurrilous... er, truth? :D

Esprix

[Lord Ashtar]

No, Esprix, it's "truth".

[vanilla]

Is "this" thread "over"?

[Scylla]

My pit thread is longer than Esprix's.

Neener neener neener.

[vanilla]

yes, only your pit thread is longer...;)

[Ludovic]

When come back bring "fresh" pie.

[Esprix]

Scylla, comparing size is a sure way to lose against me (except, perhaps, in post count, but I'm gaining with the help of Viagra... er, I mean, more posts!).

;)

Esprix

[Lynn Bodoni]

Originally posted by Coldfire
Yeah. We're going to discuss his posting "privileges", which are not the same as his "posting" privileges, if you know what I mean. Since we have discussed this, and have made a decision, and acted upon it...I'm closing this thread.

Lynn