PDA

View Full Version : A difference of opinion and a bad track record aren't nearly the same animal.


Mr. Moto
10-11-2007, 10:50 AM
Pardon me for doubting you, but your track record on unsupported factual assertions is pretty poor.

From this thread. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=439700)

Now, this all stems from a thread some time back when I made some assertions about privacy act policy and its relation to military public relations. RTFirefly didn't find my cites sufficient, which is his right, but now feels he needs to question my credibility in many threads.

Now, I am always happy to provide a citation to anything I assert, and will generally do so as I post something that I feel needs to be backed up. In any case, I will always try to do so whenever asked. I feel I am somewhat conscientious in this regard.

So credibility in this case means, for RT either a personal dislike of me, a profound political disagreement, or likely a combination of the two. And while that might be a fair opinion to hold, I don't see why he needs to question it constantly when a simple request for a citation would suffice.

If anyone else has had a bad experience with me when I made a counterfactual or poorly cited argument and didn't correct that error, let me know.

RTFirefly
10-11-2007, 11:35 AM
From this thread. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=439700)

Now, this all stems from a thread some time back when I made some assertions about privacy act policy and its relation to military public relations. RTFirefly didn't find my cites sufficient, which is his right, but now feels he needs to question my credibility in many threads. If only it stemmed from a single thread.

Now, I am always happy to provide a citation to anything I assert, and will generally do so as I post something that I feel needs to be backed up. In any case, I will always try to do so whenever asked. I feel I am somewhat conscientious in this regard. The problem is that you make a factual assertion without a cite, then I have to ask you to provide one, then you provide one, then it often doesn't back up your original statement (though you usually don't qualify it), then I point that out, and then finally you retract of qualify your assertion.

My problem with you is that I have to routinely go through this process with you. No, I can't trust your claims without a cite.

In the thread you linked to, we're already up to the second-to-last 'then' in that sequence.

So credibility in this case means, for RT either a personal dislike of me, a profound political disagreement, or likely a combination of the two. And while that might be a fair opinion to hold, I don't see why he needs to question it constantly when a simple request for a citation would suffice. I don't see why you need to make factual assertions about matters that are not common knowledge without a cite in the first place.

You could quit whining about whether I like you and whether it makes a difference, if you'd just do that to begin with.

If anyone else has had a bad experience with me when I made a counterfactual or poorly cited argument and didn't correct that error, let me know.Again, the problem isn't that you don't eventually admit it. It's that you all too often put shit out as facts, and then we have to go through this multistep ritual every time before you finally admit that your shit ain't facts.

RTFirefly
10-11-2007, 11:42 AM
BTW, Mr. Moto's complaint, AFAICT, stems from an assertion he made at post 62 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=9063392&postcount=62) of the linked thread.

Funny thing, Mr. M, but that was the second time you'd made unsupported assertions in that thread, the first being at post 17. When I pressed you on it, you just said you didn't need to back it up - you'd made your point.

I'm sure I can find a bunch of older examples too. But that's twice in the very thread you cite.

Mr. Moto
10-11-2007, 11:51 AM
The problem is that you make a factual assertion without a cite, then I have to ask you to provide one, then you provide one, then it often doesn't back up your original statement (though you usually don't qualify it), then I point that out, and then finally you retract of qualify your assertion.

Cite?

RTFirefly
10-11-2007, 11:55 AM
Cite?Dude, I've already provided one example.

I'll get you more, for your enjoyment. But this thread was your idea, so kindly don't expect me to have all our relevant past encounters at my fingertips. If I'd started this thread, I'd have done some digging in advance. You couldn't even be bothered to link to the only older thread you refer to.

RTFirefly
10-11-2007, 12:59 PM
If anyone else has had a bad experience with me when I made a counterfactual or poorly cited argument and didn't correct that error, let me know. OK. Let's look at this thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=407218) for a couple of for-instances.

At post 162, you claimed: You folks have to understand that the activists in both parties are seen as deeply strange by the majority of Americans. At post 168, I asked you how you knew that. Your 'support' of that, @169, was:
Remember, please, that the candidate most popular in the online Democratic community, Howard Dean, lost the Iowa caucus in 2004. In fact, he lost it badly, and never regained momentum in that race. And there is pretty strong evidence that he lost because voters there were turned off to a large degree by the behavior of his volunteers in that state, and by the anger he displayed that made him so popular with the online community in the first place.

The netroots don't behave like normal voters, and choosing a candidate that appeals to them will repel others. IOW, total conjecture dressed up as fact.

So I had to start the step-by-step process: at post 171, I demolished most of those assertions, but asked for a cite on the "evidence that he lost because voters there were turned off to a large degree by the behavior of his volunteers in that state" part.

Never did get a response to that, or a retraction of either that statement or the original "deeply strange" assertion.

John Mace
10-11-2007, 01:08 PM
You two guys need to get a room...

RTFirefly
10-11-2007, 01:26 PM
You two guys need to get a room...This apparently is that room, I'd just been thinking!

Plynck
10-11-2007, 02:26 PM
This apparently is that room, I'd just been thinking!No, this is Abuse. You want room 12A, just along the corridor.

John Mace
10-11-2007, 02:48 PM
Or the room containing the Dept of Silly Walks. I'd check there, too.