Looks like he apologized for including you at post #10.
Well, he does claim to have proof of something that later turns out to be rubbish. He does insult people for not simply accepting his word of the fact. He does throw temper tantrums when the board doesn’t give him a collective rusty trombone for gracing us with his fictitious claims of evidence. And when this all backfires on him, he does go running off screaming insults all the way, never popping back to admit he was wrong.
So yes, yes he does lie. Looks like you don’t know him as well as you thought.
Hell, kids, it was there on my porch that the man first made the claim that he knew about it. He was standing on my side steps and was speaking with Polycarp with me nearby.
A) He is not female
B) He’s not jewish (I’m sure we would have discussed it at some point)
C) I believe that he did believe it when he said it. If anything it’s likely he was misled by the same evidence that the rest of them were.
D) He is in a position (as a military intel type) to know things the public does not. Just as I (as a journalist type) have been.
While I might question the wisdom of making an argument based upon evidence one can’t share he’s hardly the only person to do so. And if that’s unwise it doesn’t make him dishonest.
I’m glad to call he and his wife my friends.
And if you or Lucretia are reading this, buddy, we’ll be in Orlando in September, looks like. Email me and we’ll get together.
I’m curious how you even know of the debate on Bluesman’s claims or that in your POV he has “come back”, since judging by your signup date of January 2004, you weren’t even around for last year’s heated debates…
[/QUOTE]
I too am curious as to how this fucking waste of skin was so privy to things that happened years before he joined the boards. I think we’re dealing with a sock her.
Sevastopol, go sodomize yourself with a rusty chainsaw. You haven’t earned the right to throw insults at honorable people who defend your right to be a cum stained piece of excrememnt with their lives.
Mods, can you check to see which returning low life loser this is and ban him back to neverland where he belongs?
I really don’t feel like writing this given my inauguration (yesterday) into the MAD community. I don’t know Bluesman or Lucretia, though I hope to meet them at some point. I am posting because I am made queasy by the referencing of personal friendships to defend things said on the board.
I find two things to be fairly clear. First, the OP is being an over reaching ass and has no place insulting someone’s personal integrity based on one long ago thread. Second, he should feel free to pit whomever he wants based on their contribution to the board. If you care to defend them you should offer more than a personal relationship as evidence. Though I am sure the following by gobear and **Ginger of the North ** are heartfelt, I also find this kind of defense troubling.
Where do these statements leave the many people who have never met a fellow doper? We can only judge what we read on the boards and go by the claims posters have made in the past. Bluesman made some claims that were at best incorrect. If he is to be defended I would hope he could step in and do it himself, or others could defend him with more than references to his personal character.
The problem is that many, if not most, posters have no character references. If we start down this road you can start to develop a double standard where indiscretions are forgiven for those who have met other dopers in person, but not forgiven for those who have no contact with dopers outside the boards.
Were I Bluesman I would fully expect to be pitted for making authoritative claims that were, in retrospect, dead wrong. He set himself up for it by claiming special knowledge. He can step in and defend himself, or he can let the thread wither and die. If one wants to defend him it is best done with more than character references. Lord knows there are a million reasons why he was wrong that don’t make him a liar.
(I’ve cross posted this from the other thread where I inadvertantly put it originally).
(kam makes doubly sure that she gets the RIGHT thread this time!!)
Interesting to see this issue come up again, and some of the same apologists for Bluesman jumping up to protect his honour in the absence of any evidence that might support the veracity of his claims.
It’s all very well to defend the man, but for gawdsakes, you have to acknowledge that his pompous spouting back then was complete and utter bullshit.
As expected.
I’ve posted in each of these threads, I’m not going to stop.
Bluesman, wheres the beef?
Well, I was here on the board, but I hadn’t read that thread until today. Seems possible to me that s/he also simply read the thread recently.
I’m curious how you even know of the debate on Bluesman’s claims or that in your POV he has “come back”, since judging by your signup date of January 2004, you weren’t even around for last year’s heated debates…
[/QUOTE]
Okay, I don’t have any interest in this particular thread, but I really don’t know why people say this. I don’t post much, but I read every day, and I started reading at least one year before I signed up (I only signed up then because I wanted to search). Judging by the number of people that recommend lurking for awhile before posting, I can’t be the only person that has done this. Did you folks all just sign up and start posting as soon as you found the board? I know that a lot of people register after a couple of weeks of lurking, and that longer lurk times might be less common, but why not just give people the benefit of the doubt?
These are excellent points. Also, I hope most people realize that even people who stretch the truth actually still tend to meet other people. When a person lies, angels don’t decend from heaven to slay all their acquaintances. I’m sure every person who lied on this board can get a character reference by simply attending a real life meeting with other dopers, and being friendly.
I am still giving Bluesman the benefit of the doubt, but I think it needs to be said that character references mean little. EVERYBODY has stretched the truth once in the while, even people with excellent references.
It’s obvious that Bluesman is at least an arrogant blowhard. He made false claims and then insulted anyone who didn’t believe him. I’d like to see the little bitch step up and explain himself or at admit he was full of shit all along. I would also like to offe up a hearty “fuck you” to any and all who would suggest that Bluesman or anyone else has “protected” me from anything. That’s a steaming pile of shit and I have nothing to thank him for. I’m sorry Bush sent a bunch of people over there to die for no reason, but it has nothing to do with protecting the US from anything. We are the aggressors there not the defenders. One more thing (and I say this as someone who has served in the military) I’m getting really tired of this “uniform” card-- this idea that anyone who’s in the miltary automatically has -perfect virtue and should be immune from any criticism. Fuck that.
Since Bluesman has posted a total of four times since Christmas I’m completely at a loss as to the purpose of this pitting
Now that time has proven his claims to be wrong, it seems reasonable to me. I don’t see posting frequency having much to do with it.
And if the OP were attacking merely the content of Bluesman’s posts, then I wouldn’t have said anything because so far, Bluesman’s claims have proven wrong. But the OP went much further–
So he has called Bluesman “dishonest,” and “cowardly.” That’s not criticism of substance, that’s character assassination, and it must be refuted. How can the OP with any certainty say that Bluesman was being deliberately deceitful in his posts and not merely mistaken? What knowledge does he have of Bluesman motivations or conduct? That’s the sort of thing that cannot be combated by cites or by logic, but by personal character references. The DC/MD/PA Dopers know because we have spent time with him and his family, and we know what sort of person he is.
Further, Spooje wrote,
Again, is there another way to refute this except by saying that I know him and he’s not a 60-year-old woman?
I’m in no way defending the substance of his claims–they were clearly wrong–but if anyone on this board claims to know for certain that Bluesman purposely lied or that he was being deliberately deceptive, I will say that unless that person is a telepath, he can have no such knowledge of Bluesman’s motivations.
Ye gods, I can’t believe I’m entering this fray, but there are a few things that deserve to be said/repeated.
I have met Bluesman and, while this doesn’t make him above question or confrontation, it does allow me to confirm that he is none of the things listed above.
I can’t speak to whether or not the man was deceived, but suggesting that the man is without honor is ridiculous and pissy. If you want your argument with him to have a leg to stand on, attack his positions, attack the fact that he used evidence that you didn’t have access to as cites, do what you will on that front, but the character assassignation is out of line and, frankly, ticks me off.
As others have pointed out, Bluesman has posted three times in 2004. He’s hardly cluttering up the boards and, imho, isn’t worth the pitting. I understand that several people were bothered by his using classified/unavailable information to substantiate his claims; fair enough. Maybe it’s worth sending him a private and reasonable e-mail about the issue, since he’s more likely to notice that. But I can’t imagine suggesting that less than one post a month is having “the audacity to return.”
This statement, gobear, makes me shimmer and shine at just having met you. You are good people and have impressed the pants off me.
Thanks, Moi, for the kind words. I’m blushing.
And, FTR, Fruitbat does raise some valid points, and it’s important that we don’t let personalities trump the facts in evaluating a claim. IMO, however, that’s not what’s going on here.
Fuck, Bluesman – and the rest of the apologist who made the hell that is Iraq today possible.
His arrogance, in particular, reminds me of the very reason I can’t stand the current Administration and the very reason the US is currently one of the most despised nations in the world. Arrogance based on nothing but lies and deceit I hasten add.
Yes, it really is that simple.
So here’s a hearty FUCK YOU, you arrogant prick. Just in case you missed the first one…
And Iraq was a paradise before the US invasion? Please, comments like that are as uninformed as any DoD press release.
True, the Powell speech in the UN and pretty much everything Bush has said are lies, but to be fair, everyone in both parties in the US and most governments in the world believed Saddam was hiding an arsenal.
I have no problem with the US invading Iraq to get rid of a dictator. The problem is that the Bush regime A) used lies as a pretext and alienated our allies; B)is treating the Iraqis like a conquered people instead of liberated citizens; C)has run Iraq with gross incompetence.
If the US had turned the lights and water on in the first month and had created a jobs program for the Iraqis, if the US had not imported a puppet government of Iraqi exiles with no credibility and had instead found local leaders, if the US had managed to coopt the major Iraqi mullahs into accepting a consulting role in a secular state, we would not be having the rebellion we’re having now.
In any event, you want to debate Iraq, go to GD. We’re talking about the difference between refutating the substance of a post and attacking the poster’s character. Stay tuned and you may learn something.
I would still like to hear bluesman explain his certainty and special knowledge of the existence of the WMD. He was quite insistent on that point, even strident. And he did not like people questioning his assertions.
I am hopeful that other people who also acted as he did will find themselves answerable to the US citizenry’s thirst for enlightenment on this issue.
I am currently finding exerpts from Bob Woodward’s new book Plan of Attack quite enlightening.