Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #401  
Old 06-27-2018, 11:20 PM
Sunny Daze's Avatar
Sunny Daze is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Bay Area Urban Sprawl
Posts: 13,350
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
If you don't understand what you have written, you are not alone.

Regards,
Shodan
That was ridiculously lazy.
  #402  
Old 06-28-2018, 02:06 AM
elucidator is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,448
But brief!
  #403  
Old 06-28-2018, 05:27 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
In a thread about what would make one either flee from or act violently against authority in the US, we have this gem from HD:
He needn't worry about it. The mods have made a collective decision that the death-threat rule is not to be enforced for posts that state the intent of killing cops who might come to take their guns. Apparently it's okay if it's only hypothetical.
  #404  
Old 06-28-2018, 07:53 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,811
HD tells us what would make him stop supporting Trump:

https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...6&postcount=12

Not included in the list -- collusion with a foreign government against political opponents; sexual assault/rape/harassment; financial crimes; racism/bigotry/white supremacism... the only things he lists are a non-conservative SCOTUS nominee, raising taxes, or opposing gun rights.

It shouldn't be a mystery to anyone why so many of us think HD is a morally bankrupt person, at least by his posts.
  #405  
Old 06-28-2018, 09:24 AM
Fotheringay-Phipps is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 12,042
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
You even lie about words right in front of your lying face.

Are you trying to get a job in the Trump administration? I know the rumor is that SHS is on her way out, but they lie almost as much as you do, so I wouldn't count on it. Even trumpistas would be like, "Holy shit, that guy is a liar!" You'd give away the game. The trump administration is pretty blatant about their lies, but you are even stupider than they are, trying to lie about words that are typed on a message board for anyone at all to see. If they were as stupid and blatant about lying as you are, they would have given away the game too early, and we'd be under a sane president, rather than the liar that you defend and support.
You seem rather frustrated and angry here. I don't know why, but whatever. I suppose the polite thing would be to express some sympathy, but actually I'm amused.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnT View Post
The funniest thing about this post... well, there are a lot of things funny about this... is that your absolute insistence on doubling down on a losing position.

See, here's the thing: You actually had an argument to make, you just made the wrong one. And you made the wrong argument not on the merits, not on standard S&W or Chicago Rules or whatever style guides you studied ( :snerk: ), but on an absolute belief that you were right in the first place, that I was wrong, and that was that. You had to be correct. I had to be wrong. Your personality is such that you cannot handle otherwise, and this condition is so engraved into your persona that you couldn't find a better solution.

So, let's just dispense with the above nonsense by not even rebutting it. A simple citation... which I provided above... will show you the error of your ways. In short: Pronouns don't work the way you insisted they work.

Were you not suffering from this personality deficit, you could have stepped back and (a) reviewed noun/pronoun rules, or (b), find another part of your sentence which could have been used to refute my statement.

Huh. Could such a thing be possible?

Yes. All you had to do... and I was actually expecting this... was merely argue that the clause prior to your pronoun obviously referred to a statement prior to this paragraph. It would have been so easy... so correct... to mention this.

You know, this clause: "As I said above..."

But you couldn't. You literally could not. You just had to dig in, insist on your being right on pronoun usage, and, again, on showing your personality disorder to the Board.

And I made the argument hoping that you would double-down on it. that you wouldn't point out the obvious. It was a bit of a risk, but what the hell, right?

And you fell for it. Hook, line, and sinker.

Now, pointing out that clause would not have meant you used the pronoun correctly. You still fucked that up. But you could have argued that the clause referred the reader to a point you made earlier and that the sentence was merely clumsily written, mea culpa, my bad, sorry guys and gals I'll do better next time.

However, as you are congenitally unable to admit being incorrect in any capacity, you could not see this. Would not.

And this is why we mock you, FP. It's not because of your opinions... people here don't mock Bricker (many may not like him, or his opinions, but we don't make fun of him)... we mock you because

... we mock you because you insist on never being wrong
... we mock you because you are constantly wrong
... we mock you because you cannot compliment without insulting
... we mock you because you refuse to learn
... we mock you because you refuse to listen
... we mock you because you refuse to debate honestly

This entire thread is a microcosm of your personality disorder. You literally turned a thread about HD into a thread about you. Not the first time, not the 50th time, and likely not for the last time. You say something in good faith, somebody rebuts in good faith, then you lose your marbles. You double down. You insult the respondent. You insult the reader. You insult non-participants. You insult and disdain to the point where one wonders "Why the fuck does he even bother to come here?"

And it's hilarious watching you do this. "You wrote what you wanted to write!", you once whined. Cracked my ass up, that did, as nothing you penned in the decade you've been here more perfectly sums up the FP experience for us. Yes, FP, we write what we want to write. Got a problem with that?

So, now I'm sitting here LOLing because I suckered you into a bad argument, and I know your response is going to be more insults, more doubling down, more of the same old crap. And I'll ignore it... probably... and we'll watch you make an ass out of yourself forevermore.

Ciao.

(Oh, you still get -1 point for noun-pronoun agreement. Had you made the correct argument, I would've given you half a point back - still wrong, but not as wrong as I made it out to be.
Enormous amount of jive here, but nothing of any real substance. Just empty insistence that "you're wrong you're wrong you're wrong" accompanying by the typical spewed froth.

It would appear based on your own cite earlier that you're also unfamiliar with the concept of noun-pronoun agreement. Not surprising, based on your track record.

One thing I will comment on is your complaints about "insults". I like these types of complaints. I myself would prefer a frank and cordial exchange of ideas, and never (or at least extremely rarely) begin insulting people. But I get insulted a lot, and when that happens I don't complain about it, but either ignore it, or on occasion mix it up too. And the ironic thing is that many times the people who begin with the insults are the ones who end up whining about how they're being insulted. As is the case here, with you. Works for me.
  #406  
Old 06-28-2018, 09:52 AM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 85,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
HD tells us what would make him stop supporting Trump:

https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...6&postcount=12

Not included in the list -- collusion with a foreign government against political opponents; sexual assault/rape/harassment; financial crimes; racism/bigotry/white supremacism... the only things he lists are a non-conservative SCOTUS nominee, raising taxes, or opposing gun rights.

It shouldn't be a mystery to anyone why so many of us think HD is a morally bankrupt person, at least by his posts.
Come on, andy. With all the reasons to dis on the guy, you're dis'ing him for things he didn't say? And if you look at that post, he explicitly said the things he supported was a partial list. I think we can assume that that it's also a partial list of things that would cause him to withdraw support.
  #407  
Old 06-28-2018, 10:18 AM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,590
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotheringay-Phipps View Post
You seem rather frustrated and angry here. I don't know why, but whatever. I suppose the polite thing would be to express some sympathy, but actually I'm amused
No, really just amused that you seem to be trying to compete with trump in gas lighting.
Though I could have some sympathy for your continued failure at reading other people's minds, along with your insistence that you have that capability.

If you are not just a troll, and the implications that has for your character and capability, then you are just a really stupid person who cannot stop being amused by his own lying. Pathetic either way.
  #408  
Old 06-28-2018, 10:30 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,811
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
Come on, andy. With all the reasons to dis on the guy, you're dis'ing him for things he didn't say? And if you look at that post, he explicitly said the things he supported was a partial list. I think we can assume that that it's also a partial list of things that would cause him to withdraw support.
If I'm wrong, he has all the freedom in the world to correct me. But based on this post and other things he's said in threads about non-white immigrants, sexual assault and harassment, the OK City bomber, and more, then I think my assessment is entirely reasonable.
  #409  
Old 06-28-2018, 10:34 AM
Fotheringay-Phipps is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 12,042
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
No, really just amused that you seem to be trying to compete with trump in gas lighting.
Though I could have some sympathy for your continued failure at reading other people's minds, along with your insistence that you have that capability.

If you are not just a troll, and the implications that has for your character and capability, then you are just a really stupid person who cannot stop being amused by his own lying. Pathetic either way.
Well I think my interpretation is correct, but you claim you're just amused and I'm certainly amused in which case it works out for everyone. Everything is for the best in the best of all possible worlds ...
  #410  
Old 06-28-2018, 11:12 AM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,590
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotheringay-Phipps View Post
Well I think my interpretation is correct, but you claim you're just amused and I'm certainly amused in which case it works out for everyone. Everything is for the best in the best of all possible worlds ...
Heh, okay.

You enjoy lying, I enjoy calling out liars. No frustration or anger, just the unencumbered pure joy of pointing out the intentional falsehoods that liars like yourself are stupid enough to try to perpetuate.

Fun game for all to enjoy.
  #411  
Old 06-28-2018, 11:22 AM
Fotheringay-Phipps is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 12,042
OK, whatever.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
If I'm wrong, he has all the freedom in the world to correct me.
I don't think it's fair to impute things to people and insist that they have the freedom to correct you. There's no limit to what you can impute to people, and especially given the board makeup, if a guy like HD had to deny everything that people were imputing to him he would constantly be on the defensive and would have no time for anything else.

As for the substance, I agree with JM that HD clearly left things out. But even more than that, I think HD was thinking in terms of reasons for his current support for Trump that might be withdrawn and cause him to lose support. He wasn't discussing things that might override his support, and his list didn't include anything along those lines.
  #412  
Old 06-28-2018, 11:33 AM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,556
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunny Daze View Post
That was ridiculously lazy.
One needs to consider one's audience, and tailor the effort to the circumstance.

Regards,
Shodan
  #413  
Old 06-28-2018, 12:14 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,811
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotheringay-Phipps View Post
I don't think it's fair to impute things to people and insist that they have the freedom to correct you. There's no limit to what you can impute to people, and especially given the board makeup, if a guy like HD had to deny everything that people were imputing to him he would constantly be on the defensive and would have no time for anything else.
I think there's plenty of good reasons for the things I'm criticizing HD for. You might disagree. I don't say things unless I think I have good reason to do so, and I think I do here -- most notably, the things he's said about non-white immigrants, the OK City bomber, sexual assault and harassment, and more, in addition to the things he left out here (which are, quite notably, most of the chief reasons so many liberals are so strongly critical of Trump).

Quote:
As for the substance, I agree with JM that HD clearly left things out. But even more than that, I think HD was thinking in terms of reasons for his current support for Trump that might be withdrawn and cause him to lose support. He wasn't discussing things that might override his support, and his list didn't include anything along those lines.
At best I think this (and many of his other posts) show that he's tolerant or indifferent to bigotry/racism/white supremacism, sexual assault and harassment, and the like, as long as they're accompanied by lower taxes, gun rights, and his preferred SCOTUS nominee.

But you'll notice that I'm saying "I think" and "I feel" and the like. These are quite obviously opinions. And they're just based on his posts. Maybe the true person behind the posts is entirely different, but all I can go on is his posts.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 06-28-2018 at 12:17 PM.
  #414  
Old 06-28-2018, 04:19 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 11,320
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotheringay-Phipps View Post
Enormous amount of jive here, but nothing of any real substance. Just empty insistence that "you're wrong you're wrong you're wrong" accompanying by the typical spewed froth.

It would appear based on your own cite earlier that you're also unfamiliar with the concept of noun-pronoun agreement. Not surprising, based on your track record.
Well, isn't that a familiar refrain! Where have I heard that before? Ah, I believe it was when you made an ass of yourself trying to defend your lying deceptions on health care, eventually declaring that you would only debate posters you respect posters who agree with you. I believe you'll find those are pretty scarce.

But this prompts me to make a quick comment about this noun-pronoun business in relation to your brilliant linguistic construction where you wrote "JohnT's point had been ..." followed by "... it was a shaky point".

In the world that I inhabit, the pronoun "it" would unambiguously be understood in this context by any native English speaker to refer to the most proximate antecedant, the noun phrase "JohnT's point". The fact that "point" is repeated in the second sentence only strengthens its association with the nearest candidate antecedant "JohnT's point". Only the poorest, most incoherent writer could possibly think "it" refers back to anything other than "JohnT's point", and only an idiot would blame the reader, as you did, for making the obvious interpretation.

And it's really adorable the way you complain to JohnT that "You left off the first two sentences of the paragraph when you quoted it." Only a delusional illiterate would imagine that including two sentences from a prior paragraph could possibly change the implicit understanding of noun-pronoun agreement several sentences later in a completely different paragraph, the understanding that I just described above.

And only a shameless hypocrite would whine about someone leaving out those irrelevant sentences, when that hypocrite had just recently quoted one of my posts with the entire conclusion left out in a deliberate, deceitful attempt to completely reverse the meaning.

As for your incoherent grammatical analysis in #383, I challenge you to find any dictionary that classifies "it's" as a noun.

You might want to reflect on the fact that almost every time you post, you reveal ever more of your dishonesty and ignorance. Most folks would consider that a good reason to post as little as possible, but to each his own, I guess.
  #415  
Old 06-28-2018, 04:34 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,590
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
One needs to consider one's audience, and tailor the effort to the circumstance.
True, but you were too lazy for that.
  #416  
Old 06-28-2018, 04:38 PM
elucidator is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,448
Depends, don't it? I kinda like my audience, don't really think he does.
  #417  
Old 06-28-2018, 04:45 PM
Fotheringay-Phipps is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 12,042
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
In the world that I inhabit, the pronoun "it" would unambiguously be understood in this context by any native English speaker to refer to the most proximate antecedant, the noun phrase "JohnT's point". The fact that "point" is repeated in the second sentence only strengthens its association with the nearest candidate antecedant "JohnT's point". Only the poorest, most incoherent writer could possibly think "it" refers back to anything other than "JohnT's point", and only an idiot would blame the reader, as you did, for making the obvious interpretation.
No, only an idiot would think otherwise, if they were following the context - which was an explanation of why the point was shaky - plus the fact that "as I said" was obviously refering to something which I had previously said.

I don't doubt that your claim about "the world [you] inhabit" may be true. But that says more about the world you inhabit than about the normal world.

Quote:
And it's really adorable the way you complain to JohnT that "You left off the first two sentences of the paragraph when you quoted it." Only a delusional illiterate would imagine that including two sentences from a prior paragraph could possibly change the implicit understanding of noun-pronoun agreement several sentences later in a completely different paragraph, the understanding that I just described above.
Look your lack of integrity is evident regardless, but there's no need to highlight it. It's a trivial matter to see that the "first two sentences of the paragraph" were not from a prior paragraph but were in the very same paragraph. To not just lie about this but to make this lie in bold font as if to emphasize your dishonesty is something else, even for your standards.

Quote:
And only a shameless hypocrite would whine about someone leaving out those irrelevant sentences, when that hypocrite had just recently quoted one of my posts with the entire conclusion left out in a deliberate, deceitful attempt to completely reverse the meaning.
Sorry, but it didn't reverse the meaning. The part I omitted was you saying why you found the part I quoted less significant than your general feeling that private healthcare sucks!!!. Personally I was interested in the factual issue that I had raised and not your general feeling on private healthcare or any other issue, and on that factual matter you conceded.

Quote:
As for your incoherent grammatical analysis in #383, I challenge you to find any dictionary that classifies "it's" as a noun.
You're seizing on a typo which did not have any impact on the point, which was that the meaning was clear. Whether it was a noun or a pronoun is irrelevant to that.

In sum, this is just more of wolfpup being wolfpup, with all that entails. Glad I'm not you, but I think you deserve yourself.
  #418  
Old 06-28-2018, 06:32 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 11,320
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotheringay-Phipps View Post
Look your lack of integrity is evident regardless, but there's no need to highlight it. It's a trivial matter to see that the "first two sentences of the paragraph" were not from a prior paragraph but were in the very same paragraph. To not just lie about this but to make this lie in bold font as if to emphasize your dishonesty is something else, even for your standards.
Sorry, my mistake. I looked at this post, saw the two sentences in a separate preceding paragraph, and assumed from a quick glance that those were the sentences in question. But why was that paragraph there? Well, as we're about to see, because that's a necessary part of your argument, too, so my mistake doesn't change the fact that your entire argument is bullshit.

The problem, you see, is that your reference to "it's" as a noun was not a "typo" but symptomatic of your fundamental lack of understanding of language. Those first two sentences in that paragraph would not in the best of circumstances have corrected the obvious implication to any native English speaker that "... it was a shaky point" referenced anything other than the proximate "JohnT's point". What made it infinitely worse was that each of those sentences was itself infested with an ambiguous pronoun phrase, both which you somehow think a reader would believe are the antecedents for "it" in "... it was a shaky point".

The trouble of course is that a pronoun as antecedent doesn't resolve the referent pronoun, so one really does have to go way back to the preceding paragraph to figure out what the fuck you're talking about. And what does one find? One finds two sentences, one of which talks about something that JohnT said, and another that talks about something that HD said. So even this tortuous analysis still technically leaves ambiguity as to what the fuck the "it's" is referring to. Meanwhile a plain reading without this tortuous analysis yields the obvious -- and unintended -- interpretation of the final downstream "it" as referencing the closely preceding "JohnT's point" that everyone except you can plainly see. IOW, you don't write English very well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotheringay-Phipps View Post
Sorry, but it didn't reverse the meaning.
Sure, pal, whatever you say. You claimed that under Canadian health care it was "tough to get service". In an attempt to have a rational conversation, which is always a mistake with you, I wanted to point out that certain elective procedures have prioritized wait queues in order to maximize resource utilization, so expensive equipment and staff doesn't sit idle, but that it's not in an way shape or form "tough to get service", as illustrated by my immediate access to the procedure I needed. And it wasn't even urgent, I was just happy to get it done right away so I could go home.

To summarize: You said "it's tough to get service". I said (paraphrasing) "sure there may be a wait in some cases, but it's NOT tough to get service". You quoted "sure there may be a wait in some cases", lopped off the rest, and declared victory. This is pretty standard m.o. for you. Honest debate is not your strong suit, to put it mildly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotheringay-Phipps View Post
You're seizing on a typo which did not have any impact on the point, which was that the meaning was clear. Whether it was a noun or a pronoun is irrelevant to that.
It's relevant insofar as you don't know what you're talking about. An antecedent pronoun doesn't resolve the referent pronoun like a noun does.
  #419  
Old 06-29-2018, 09:59 AM
Fotheringay-Phipps is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 12,042
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
Sorry, my mistake. I looked at this post, saw the two sentences in a separate preceding paragraph, and assumed from a quick glance that those were the sentences in question.
If a guy writes "As I said, you left off the first two sentences (not to mention the prior paragraph)", it's quite a feat to assume that the "first two sentences" were themselves "the prior paragraph". (Do you understand what "not to mention" means?) At an absolute minimum it indicates that you were hardly paying attention to what you were reading, which makes your claims about how clearly it was written worthless (even if they weren't otherwise so).

Quote:
But why was that paragraph there?
It provided context for the paragraph which followed. Understood that you're not big on context, but for many people it's helpful in understanding things.

Quote:
The problem, you see, is that your reference to "it's" as a noun was not a "typo" but symptomatic of your fundamental lack of understanding of language.
Actually what happened was that I copied those bullet points from JohnT's post and changed what I thought was relevant. The distinction between a noun and pronoun was not relevant to understanding the meaning of the sentence, so I didn't focus on it and overlooked it. Typo.

Quote:
Those first two sentences in that paragraph would not in the best of circumstances have corrected the obvious implication to any native English speaker that "... it was a shaky point" referenced anything other than the proximate "JohnT's point". What made it infinitely worse was that each of those sentences was itself infested with an ambiguous pronoun phrase, both which you somehow think a reader would believe are the antecedents for "it" in "... it was a shaky point".

The trouble of course is that a pronoun as antecedent doesn't resolve the referent pronoun, so one really does have to go way back to the preceding paragraph to figure out what the fuck you're talking about. And what does one find? One finds two sentences, one of which talks about something that JohnT said, and another that talks about something that HD said. So even this tortuous analysis still technically leaves ambiguity as to what the fuck the "it's" is referring to. Meanwhile a plain reading without this tortuous analysis yields the obvious -- and unintended -- interpretation of the final downstream "it" as referencing the closely preceding "JohnT's point" that everyone except you can plainly see. IOW, you don't write English very well.
If you were an idiot who couldn't understand what you were reading - a description which seems to fit JohnT quite well - you might have trouble with it. A normal person who understood the context would have no trouble. Unlike yourself, apparently, I have a day job and don't have all day to work at this, and as long as the meaning is clear I'm not going to worry about making sure even the silliest idiot can understand what I write.

Though FWIW, in my assessment you - despite your manifest deficiencies - are probably more intelligent than JohnT (for what that's worth) and probably can read and understand that sentence just fine, and are purely motivated by antipathy in this discussion.

I notice you didn't even address that it's really difficult to understand that sentence as referring to JohnT's point if you were paying attention to the context, or even the words of that sentence itself. Again, understood that you're not big on context and all. But I think you're just looking to score points here.

Quote:
To summarize: You said "it's tough to get service". I said (paraphrasing) "sure there may be a wait in some cases, but it's NOT tough to get service". You quoted "sure there may be a wait in some cases", lopped off the rest, and declared victory.
That's not what happened and you're misrepresenting what you wrote. You said that "It's true that one typically has to wait for most purely elective procedures, from considerations of efficient resource utilization (it's called queuing theory). But when my cardiologist came into my room to tell me that the doctors had decided that in my case a particular form of PCI would be a viable alternative to bypass surgery, I asked when this could be done. His answer, "they'll take you down in about two hours. You'll be home tomorrow." Yeah, it was "tough getting service"." (emphasis added)

You were contrasting "most purely elective procedures" for which "one typically has to wait" with more important procedures such as you got from your cardiologist. This was relevant to you under your delusion that the discussion is about the greatness of the Canadian system versus the horrible private insurance system. But that's not a conversation that I'm actually having, and I'm simply discussion whether costs are held down via rationing services, and from a purely cost perspective it makes no difference whether it's purely elective procedures or important ones.

One of the many problems in discussing things with you is that you're completely fixated on this issue of how much better the Canadian system is than the American one, and you insist on interpreting everything as being a statement about this comparison, even if that's not at all what it's about. Far from the only problem, but one of them.

Quote:
It's relevant insofar as you don't know what you're talking about. An antecedent pronoun doesn't resolve the referent pronoun like a noun does.
A bunch of technical terms which don't have any actual import. I said at the outset that you were a "pseudo-intellectual poseurs" given to "a lot of technical lingo and name dropping". Check.
  #420  
Old 06-29-2018, 11:23 AM
elucidator is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,448
"Pit mooch", noun, a Doper who distracts and diverts a Pit thread to make themselves the focus thereof.
  #421  
Old 06-29-2018, 12:56 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 11,320
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotheringay-Phipps View Post
That's not what happened and you're misrepresenting what you wrote. You said that "It's true that one typically has to wait for most purely elective procedures, from considerations of efficient resource utilization (it's called queuing theory). But when my cardiologist came into my room to tell me that the doctors had decided that in my case a particular form of PCI would be a viable alternative to bypass surgery, I asked when this could be done. His answer, "they'll take you down in about two hours. You'll be home tomorrow." Yeah, it was "tough getting service"." (emphasis added)

You were contrasting "most purely elective procedures" for which "one typically has to wait" with more important procedures such as you got from your cardiologist. This was relevant to you under your delusion that the discussion is about the greatness of the Canadian system versus the horrible private insurance system. But that's not a conversation that I'm actually having, and I'm simply discussion whether costs are held down via rationing services, and from a purely cost perspective it makes no difference whether it's purely elective procedures or important ones..
Your efforts to explain yourself are commendable, but totally fall flat. No matter how charitably one tries to interpret the statement "Canada is great in financial terms, but tough in terms of getting service", it's so egregiously wrong (and the wrongness so obvious to anyone familiar with health care in Canada or anywhere else in the first world) that it reads just like something out of the Republican playbook, the typical scare-mongering lie written for them by AHIP. It helps drive the scare-mongering if the word "rationing" is thrown in there, pretty much mandatory for every good Republican putting the fear of God into liberal naifs advocating for universal health care, and sure enough, there it is!

Except it's a flat-out lie. If the best quality medical services are available on a timely basis to all, triaged by urgency, and in-hospital services delivered immediately (as mine was, even though non-critical) then the description "tough in terms of getting service" is a blatant lie. If non-critical elective services may have a wait queue in the interest of optimum resource use, this is at worst a mild inconvenience, and to describe this as being deprived of service is, again, a blatant lie. And then declaring victory in Internet argumentation is just you being you.

And there's more. The reality is that the opposite of the above -- having virtually no wait because multimillion-dollar equipment and the staff to run it are just sitting idle -- imposes huge costs on the system, and those costs themselves are an impediment to access. The difference of course is that this form of rationing is not medically prioritized, but determined by one's station in life and the size of one's bank account, and for many, this form of rationing doesn't just impose a non-critical wait, but a permanent bar to access, even if the need is critical. If I seem "passionate" about it, it's that the whole system is fundamentally immoral, and, as you have so vividly demonstrated, can only be supported by lying about it, the kinds of lies that you've been feeding us a steady stream of, starting with the shameless lie that under this broken and immoral system dominated by gatekeeping exclusionary bureaucracy, "people can choose whatever medical care they want without approval from bureaucrats".

So there's a discussion about costs to had, sure, but that's not what this most recent lie of yours was about. You made comparisons with the NHS. I made comparisons with Canada. You retorted "I know many many people who have lived in both Canada and the US, including many with dual citizenship who spend time in both countries" and then claimed that they allegedly told you that it was tough to get medical service in Canada.

You've tried to conflate useless and counterproductive "utilization" with access to efficacious medical care, when the two things are virtually opposites. You've tried to claim that the most bureaucratic health care coverage system in the world has no bureaucracy when the opposite is true. You've tried to claim that it's "tough" to get health care in Canada when the opposite is true. You are a lying liar who lies. I don't care about your motivation. I care that you're wrong, and spreading lies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotheringay-Phipps View Post
If you were an idiot who couldn't understand what you were reading - a description which seems to fit JohnT quite well - you might have trouble with it. A normal person who understood the context would have no trouble. Unlike yourself, apparently, I have a day job and don't have all day to work at this, and as long as the meaning is clear I'm not going to worry about making sure even the silliest idiot can understand what I write.
As for your inability to write comprehensible English without putting in such terrific effort that -- according to you -- it would interfere with your day job, we see the same lying phenomenon about that, too. There's nothing complicated about how a native English speaker instinctively relates pronouns to their antecedents in everyday speech and writing. That you continue to claim you were writing clearly here is all that needs to be said about your fundamental dishonesty.

Last edited by wolfpup; 06-29-2018 at 12:58 PM.
  #422  
Old 06-29-2018, 01:00 PM
Vinyl Turnip is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 20,529
Could you two please get couples' counseling, and leave us out of it?
  #423  
Old 06-29-2018, 01:00 PM
Fotheringay-Phipps is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 12,042
OK, you're just repeating yourself over and over again, and what you say was all bunk the first time you wrote it, as has been shown.

My prior comments still apply.
  #424  
Old 06-29-2018, 01:03 PM
elucidator is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,448
Why don't they just stab and make up?
  #425  
Old 06-29-2018, 03:09 PM
Sunny Daze's Avatar
Sunny Daze is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Bay Area Urban Sprawl
Posts: 13,350
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
Why don't they just stab and make up?
Thank you.

I know I shouldn't click and open, but I do.
  #426  
Old 06-29-2018, 03:13 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,590
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotheringay-Phipps View Post
OK, you're just repeating yourself over and over again, and what you say was all bunk the first time you wrote it, as has been shown.

My prior comments still apply.
I have to admit, I'm not sure which makes you more pathetic.

That you actually think that you have won this argument, or that you think that anyone else thinks that you have.

Either way, it is almost surprising the lies that you will tell others and even yourself to avoid having to admit that you were wrong.
  #427  
Old 06-29-2018, 03:16 PM
Fotheringay-Phipps is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 12,042
I see you just can't hold yourself back.

What I said about you also stands, of course.
  #428  
Old 06-29-2018, 04:14 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,590
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotheringay-Phipps View Post
I see you just can't hold yourself back.

What I said about you also stands, of course.
Keep digging, it's funny.
  #429  
Old 06-29-2018, 04:24 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 28,217
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotheringay-Phipps View Post
OK, you're just repeating yourself over and over again, and what you say was all bunk the first time you wrote it, as has been shown.
Has NOT been shown, you mean.
  #430  
Old 06-29-2018, 04:25 PM
Fotheringay-Phipps is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 12,042
Oh? Guess it must have been another one of those typos ...
  #431  
Old 06-29-2018, 04:27 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,505
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
Why don't they just stab and make up?
Hey! Grammar Nazis also need to vent!

Still, we need to concentrate on the other Nazis of today.
  #432  
Old 07-02-2018, 08:01 PM
snfaulkner's Avatar
snfaulkner is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: 123 Fake Street
Posts: 8,526
Ditka essentially admits to hanging out with terrorists here. The Turner Diary kind, no doubt.
  #433  
Old 07-03-2018, 10:24 PM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,756
Ugh. I can't believe I defended that guy (maybe on page one of this? Somewhere, I'm sure). He's in the Roe Supreme Court thread white knighting that idiot Silver Lining, and being pretty fucking condescending while apparently, impossibly, missing the obvious point.

What a tool he is, and what a tool I am for defending him.
  #434  
Old 07-03-2018, 11:57 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 42,224
Hurricane is so anxious to gloat at liberals over conservative wins that he links to a story about how McCain is gonna resign on July 4. HD doesn't, of course, seek any confirmation of this story from the Santa Monica Observer, so other folks dig around--and finally Lord Feldon finds confirmation.

Confirmation that Hurricane is a dumbass.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Feldon View Post
I was still wondering why this little paper in California would (still) be the only place with this news, so I looked at some of the reporter's other big scoops. With stories like "Montana Rancher Shoots, Kills Rare Mexican Chupacabra, DNA Tests Confirm" and "Remains of an Ancient Civilization Discovered on Mars by NASA's Planet Surveyor" under his belt, it's no wonder that he was given this big news too.
  #435  
Old 07-04-2018, 12:47 AM
elucidator is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,448
The McCain thing was dumb but I didn't sense any real partisan venom in it.
  #436  
Old 07-04-2018, 01:06 AM
Wolf333 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,215
The best evidence that HurricaneDitka is a piece of shit is that Fotheringay-Phipps and Shodan have raced to his rescue.
  #437  
Old 07-04-2018, 01:49 AM
snfaulkner's Avatar
snfaulkner is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: 123 Fake Street
Posts: 8,526
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolf333 View Post
The best evidence that HurricaneDitka is a piece of shit is that Fotheringay-Phipps and Shodan have raced to his rescue.
Well that, and his whole the OK City bombing wasn't "entirely unreasonable" bullshit.
  #438  
Old 07-04-2018, 02:35 AM
kaylasdad99 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 32,798
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
If you don't understand what you have written, you are not alone.

Regards,
Shodan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunny Daze View Post
That was ridiculously lazy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
One needs to consider one's audience, and tailor the effort to the circumstance.

Regards,
Shodan
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
True, but you were too lazy for that.
k9bfriender seems to be onto something, Shodan; I say this because it seems like what you said was entirely a non sequitur to what I posted.

Here it is again:

Quote:
Originally Posted by kaylasdad99 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii
HD is back, and he thinks non-white immigrants are inferior and undesirable (or at least the ones from poor countries). What a shock!
Quote:
Originally poster by Fotheringay-Phipps
HD did not say what you claim he said.
What exactly did iiandyiiii claim he (HD) said?
Sorry, but I have no idea how to parse your comment in such a way that it can be considered even tangentially responsive to my post. I'll be happy to take responsibility for misunderstanding you, if only you'll break it down for me.
  #439  
Old 07-04-2018, 02:43 AM
kaylasdad99 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 32,798
Quote:
Originally Posted by RitterSport View Post
Ugh. I can't believe I defended that guy (maybe on page one of this? Somewhere, I'm sure). He's in the Roe Supreme Court thread white knighting that idiot Silver Lining, and being pretty fucking condescending while apparently, impossibly, missing the obvious point.

What a tool he is, and what a tool I am for defending him.
Don't sweat it, man; ego te absolvo, and all that rot. Your penance is to go over to the table in the corner, pour yourself a glass of chardonnay, and help yourself to the brie.
  #440  
Old 07-04-2018, 07:03 AM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,756
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaylasdad99 View Post
Don't sweat it, man; ego te absolvo, and all that rot. Your penance is to go over to the table in the corner, pour yourself a glass of chardonnay, and help yourself to the brie.
Sounds good, but can I opt for a beer instead? Or, is the chardonnay part of the penance?
  #441  
Old 07-04-2018, 10:40 AM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,556
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaylasdad99 View Post
Sorry, but I have no idea how to parse your comment in such a way that it can be considered even tangentially responsive to my post. I'll be happy to take responsibility for misunderstanding you, if only you'll break it down for me.
Sure, I'll break it down for you - you are being deliberately stupid.

It's OK that you are - it's now even clearer that I gave you and your sort no more effort than you deserve.

Have a Happy Fourth, you stupid troll.

Regards,
Shodan
  #442  
Old 07-10-2018, 06:03 PM
Ann Hedonia's Avatar
Ann Hedonia is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,785

Here we go again


I don’t know if you witnessed this little exchange in this Great Debates thread......Ditka was dishing out his oh so measured concern trolling about how the mean violent nasty liberals hate the Good and decent real America that is embodied in the personages of Donald Trump and Sarah Huckabee Sanders and how anyone that doesn’t agree with him is mentally......yadda yadda yadda, you know the words. It’s his whole freaking shtick.

Then this exchange ensued.

https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...&postcount=229

https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...&postcount=237

Or, if you prefer, it’s at the end of this thread

https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...=856954&page=5

Is this guy the fucking snowflake to end all snowflakes, or what ??? I think he really has totally bought into the whole #secondcivilwar thing. He sounds seriously scared, especially for someone that can bluster like this. Oh course, he is the kind of guy that’s scared to go to the movies unarmed.

https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...60&postcount=8

Dude, if you’re reading this you can holster your firearm, disarm the booby traps, unbolt the root cellar and fetch your wife and kid, because we’re NOT coming for you. Or your guns. Or your gold or MRE’s. Not in a million years. We can’t be freaking bothered.

Although I do wish someone would break your “report” button. You’re like the annoying bully everyone hates that talks smack to everyone then tattles when someone gives it back because his widdle tender snowflake feelings get hurt.

http://www.costume-works.com/coach-ditka-baby.html

PS I have photoshop.

(I tried to post the link to just the photo, but the URL was like 50 lines long. And I couldn’t be bothered to tinyurl it. But it’s easy enough to just grab the image.)
  #443  
Old 07-10-2018, 06:22 PM
Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 56,425
The guy is a new parent, and reacted strongly to you talking about his kid.

I see that your intent was to use his child as a proxy for all children with parents who believe the child can do no wrong, and analogize that to uncritical acceptance of the Trump government or America as a whole.

But in my view, that would have been better served by saying, "Hey, parents: if you want to treat your kid like you treat the country, then: . . . " and gone from there. You would have retained the rhetorical device but avoided the personalization inference.

Just a thought.
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.
  #444  
Old 07-10-2018, 06:29 PM
Ann Hedonia's Avatar
Ann Hedonia is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,785
Whomp Whomp

The “new parent” card doesn’t work with me and conservatives anymore.

Last edited by Ann Hedonia; 07-10-2018 at 06:31 PM.
  #445  
Old 07-10-2018, 06:52 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,811
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ann Hedonia View Post
Is this guy the fucking snowflake to end all snowflakes, or what ??? I think he really has totally bought into the whole #secondcivilwar thing. He sounds seriously scared, especially for someone that can bluster like this. Oh course, he is the kind of guy that’s scared to go to the movies unarmed.

https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...60&postcount=8
Based on posts like this one, his praise for the OK City bomber, and his praise for the Bundys and other militia types, I think he longs for the chance to shoot people. And noting his fondness of Trump and the aforementioned extremists who also just so happened to be white supremacists, I suspect he longs for a reason to shoot black and brown people. In my experience, most folks who long to shoot people are cowards IRL and spend their fantasy and bluster online. So in that sense, perhaps the Dope is a good place for him to vent all this disgusting crap, and maybe he's not so odious in real life. For his family's sake, I hope that's the case.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 07-10-2018 at 06:53 PM.
  #446  
Old 07-10-2018, 06:53 PM
D'Anconia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,783
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ann Hedonia View Post
Whomp Whomp

The “new parent” card doesn’t work with me and conservatives anymore.
What the hell is your problem?
  #447  
Old 07-10-2018, 06:54 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,811
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
What the hell is your problem?
LOL
  #448  
Old 07-10-2018, 07:08 PM
elucidator is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,448
May this child be blessed with high intelligence and commensurate verbal skills.
  #449  
Old 07-10-2018, 07:28 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 11,320
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Based on posts like this one, his praise for the OK City bomber, and his praise for the Bundys and other militia types, I think he longs for the chance to shoot people. And noting his fondness of Trump and the aforementioned extremists who also just so happened to be white supremacists, I suspect he longs for a reason to shoot black and brown people. In my experience, most folks who long to shoot people are cowards IRL and spend their fantasy and bluster online. So in that sense, perhaps the Dope is a good place for him to vent all this disgusting crap, and maybe he's not so odious in real life. For his family's sake, I hope that's the case.
I've long known that HurricaneDitka is a sanctimonious hypocrite, demanding civil discourse while -- very politely -- inhumanely denigrating minorities and three-quarters of the countries in the world as beneath contempt. The perfect, ignorant, bigoted Trumpista, really. What I don't know is whether his various bigoted rantings are just empty bluster or whether he's actually dangerous IRL.

On the infrequent occasions when I bother to read HurricaneDitka's posts, I read them in the voice of Dr. Evil, which is perfect because he's far too stupid to be a Bond villain, but is a pretty good parody of one. I can picture him petting a white cat as he sits by his computer, pounding away on his keyboard insisting on polite discourse because you WILL NOT use bad words in the presence of Fluffy just because you don't like HD's declarations about how useless immigrants from shithole countries are.
  #450  
Old 07-10-2018, 07:30 PM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 85,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ann Hedonia View Post
Is this guy the fucking snowflake to end all snowflakes, or what ??? I think he really has totally bought into the whole #secondcivilwar thing. He sounds seriously scared, especially for someone that can bluster like this. Oh course, he is the kind of guy that’s scared to go to the movies unarmed.

https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...60&postcount=8
Someone starts a thread asking what an American civil war will look like, HD posts that he doesn't think there will be a civil war, and from that you conclude that he "has totally bought into the whole #secondcivilwar thing"? Honestly, I think the guy is a whacky right-winger, but you aren't making any sense.
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:50 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017