# A reply to Gaudere and Shodan, since I have been banished(?) from the orig. thread **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [January 3, 2005, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-reply-to-gaudere-and-shodan-since-i-have-been-banished-from-the-orig-thread/282867 "2005-01-03T18:46:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![annaplurabelle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/919ad9/32.png) [@annaplurabelle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/annaplurabelle)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2005, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-reply-to-gaudere-and-shodan-since-i-have-been-banished-from-the-orig-thread/282867/1 "2005-01-03T18:46:00Z")
This is not a formal pitting of Gaudere, Shodan or anyone else in particular. If it’s a pitting at all, it’s a pitting of certain debating tactics, and a question about “fair” warnings in GD. From this thread in GD: [What should the Dem position on Islamic terrorism be?](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=294152) As per Gaudere’s dictate that I not reply in the original thread, and “take it to the Pit” in future, here is what I was about to post in reply to Shodan, and in my own defence: > [@Shodan](#): > > Until and unless you can actually show that Bricker made such an admisson, you have made an unproven assertion. You have chosen, apparently, not to back it up. Instead you resort to attempting to argue that you should be allowed to spew out accusations, and leave others to disprove them. > > Aldebaran was recently banned for, among other things, making > assertions that were clearly false, and refusing to back them up. ElvisL1ves has made the same sort of accusation against Bricker that you did. He has chosen (apparently) to depart the thread rather than defend his slander. Is this the sort of company you want to keep? > > You have made an accusation. Defend it, or withdraw it and apologize. > This is Great Debates, where the big boys play. If you can’t hold up > your end, then get out. I didn’t choose to not back it up; I asked what would make it worthwhile for me to do so. And now you have provided a worthwhile reason. I wasn’t interested in the simple challenge or wagering for money. I knew from past experience that it would lead to either even more diversionary posts, or the poster(s) simply disappearing once the defence was provided. Unfortunately, the company I would keep - should I actually be guilty of making assertions, refusing to back them up, and then departing the thread - would include _you_. Now, if you require me to back that up, I’ll ask again: What’s in it for me? If I can show examples of you doing this in the past, will you take your own advice and _get out_? Will you apologise? In any case, should you try it in future, I now have a handy pro forma reply - your own post here. I invite others to use it as well. It’ll save time that used to be spent rebutting your assertions with facts and logic. Thanks, _Big Boy_. Now, my own defence: > [@Bricker](#): > > I’m using it NOT with approval, but with an eye towards reminding the reader that this is the view the Left has of them. This is what prompted my reply that Bricker had “admitted his intention was to demonise the opposition”. This, combined with previous posts, where he mischaracterised, employed ridicule, and even resorted to what I consider to be a personal insult. Note I did not say he used the exact words “I admit my intention was to demonise my opponents.” That’s why I invoked _res ips_. IMO, it speaks for itself. Bricker also admitted that: > [@](#): > > The party’s politicans are unlikely to use such a description, I grant. But the leftist blogs, the leftist pundits, the ones that try to shape the party’s direction have certainly used it. And who cares? I’m not reaching them by posting here. I’m reaching the posters HERE who have used this phrase with approval, **or have thought it without saying it**. My bolding. Is he claiming to be a mind reader now? Demonising unexpressed thoughts? How much more broadbrush can you get? Frankly, the word itself doesn’t mean much to me personally. I’m not sure I’d care if it were applied to me, as one of the US electorate. If you recall from past threads, I’m not big on PC. But I wanted to make a broader point, and challenge the right-wing meme, ie: The Left, and only the Left, holds people in contempt. _That_ is demonisation of the opponent. I am on “the Left” and I don’t hold that view. Certainly some do, but when I asked Bricker if he was willing to defend the viewpoints of everyone who claimed to be on the Right, he replied: > [@](#): > > Not at all; I’ll pick and choose what I wish to defend or repudiate. He gets to pick and choose, but those on the Left are responsible for every utterance of every declared Leftist? (and perhaps even their thoughts, as divined by Bricker the mind reader)… To get back to the OP (finally!): What should the Dem strategy be? Seems the right-wing strategy is to demonise, by tossing out non-fact-based memes as if they were accepted truisms. Should Dems do the same thing? Not my ideal, but I think my delayed response strategy has pointed out that they don’t like it very much when the tables are turned. **NOTE FOR THE PIT** : Now that this has been consigned to the Pit, I’d like to add: Was I guilty of “stirring up shit for the sake of stirring up shit”? Was my allegation really that “offensive”? Was it “clearly false”? Is there a time limit as to replies for “backing up” assertions, before you are warned or banished? AFAIK, this is a second warning in this thread. I thought the first one was somewhat unfair (I used a sexual _metaphor_, that has been used before with no complaints), but I accepted it. Am I now officially “twice-warned”? Is this fair? ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2005, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-reply-to-gaudere-and-shodan-since-i-have-been-banished-from-the-orig-thread/282867/2 "2005-01-03T19:06:10Z")
> [@annaplurabelle](#): > > AFAIK, this is a second warning in this thread. I thought the first one was somewhat unfair (I used a sexual _metaphor_, that has been used before with no complaints), but I accepted it. Am I now officially “twice-warned”? Is this fair? I can’t speak to your main point right now, but as to the first warning you got, it seems like it might have been in violation of the rules in Great Debates. If you check this sticky thread: > **[No direct personal insults or "flaming" in great debates](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=220232)** > > Moderator’s Note: Direct personal insults of other posters and “flaming” are not permitted in Great Debates (or, indeed, in any SDMB forum outside of The BBQ Pit). The general rule is to attack the other poster’s arguments, rather than the other... > [@](#): > > Do not say or imply that your fellow posters achieve sexual gratification or soil themselves in glee/distress due to recent news reports, politcal icongraphy, contemplation of ideological positions, etc. In fact, if you’re going to discuss someone’s bowels or genitalia at all, it better be DIRECTLY relevant to the debate at hand. I’m not a mod, of course, but it seems to me that the warning you got the first time was fair, as it seems to have been a direct violation of the quoted rule. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2005, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-reply-to-gaudere-and-shodan-since-i-have-been-banished-from-the-orig-thread/282867/3 "2005-01-03T19:34:01Z")
The wise course is to debate the issue, and not the motivation (or presumed motivation) of the person with whom you are debating. There are a number of people who frequent GD and who seem \*\*always \*\*to make \*\*every \*\*debate personal. I would hope that the OP doesn’t intend to be among that group. ---
**Author:** ![annaplurabelle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/919ad9/32.png) [@annaplurabelle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/annaplurabelle)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2005, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-reply-to-gaudere-and-shodan-since-i-have-been-banished-from-the-orig-thread/282867/4 "2005-01-03T19:51:04Z")
> [@Captain Amazing](#): > > I can’t speak to your main point right now, but as to the first warning you got, it seems like it might have been in violation of the rules in Great Debates. If you check this sticky thread: > [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=220232](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=220232) > > I’m not a mod, of course, but it seems to me that the warning you got the first time was fair, as it seems to have been a direct violation of the quoted rule. I think you’re right. Okay, my fault for not reading the updates (I didn’t know about the putz smiley either - luckily I hate it and never use it). But as I said, I accepted that one. The second one seems murkier. Is it implying that I’m a troll??? I also wonder why I was singled out the second time, when there were clearly 2 others breaking the rule about junior modding, right above Gaudere’s post to me. ---
**Author:** ![annaplurabelle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/919ad9/32.png) [@annaplurabelle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/annaplurabelle)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2005, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-reply-to-gaudere-and-shodan-since-i-have-been-banished-from-the-orig-thread/282867/5 "2005-01-03T20:11:06Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > The wise course is to debate the issue, and not the motivation (or presumed motivation) of the person with whom you are debating. There are a number of people who frequent GD and who seem \*\*always \*\*to make \*\*every \*\*debate personal. I would hope that the OP doesn’t intend to be among that group. Did you read the thread? It was poisoned on page 1 by a poster who questioned the character/motivation of the OP, and later on questioned the “patriotism” of those who either disagreed with his views, or failed to condemn those who disagreed. Tell me how that is not to be taken personally, if you are on the receiving end of it. Also, if the motivation of a poster (or posters) is to derail the thread/attack the character of political opposition, why can’t it be pointed out? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2005, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-reply-to-gaudere-and-shodan-since-i-have-been-banished-from-the-orig-thread/282867/6 "2005-01-03T20:22:55Z")
> [@annaplurabelle](#): > > From this thread in GD: > [What should the Dem position on Islamic terrorism be?](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=294152) > > As per Gaudere’s dictate that I not reply in the original thread, and “take it to the Pit” in future, here is what I was about to post in reply to Shodan, and in my own defence: > > I didn’t choose to not back it up; I asked what would make it worthwhile for me to do so. And now you have posted at least twice, neither time backing up your accusation. “What would make it worthwhile to” you would be simple honesty. If you feel you need to be bribed in some way to participate in civilized discussion, perhaps Great Debates is not the forum for you. > [@annaplurabelle](#): > > And now you have provided a worthwhile reason. > > I wasn’t interested in the simple challenge or wagering for money. I knew from past experience that it would lead to either even more diversionary posts, or the poster(s) simply disappearing once the defence was provided. > > Unfortunately, the company I would keep - should I actually be guilty of making assertions, refusing to back them up, and then departing the thread - would include _you_. Now, if you require me to back that up, I’ll ask again: What’s in it for me? If I can show examples of you doing this in the past, will you take your own advice and _get out_? Will you apologise? > > In any case, should you try it in future, I now have a handy pro forma reply - your own post here. I invite others to use it as well. It’ll save time that used to be spent rebutting your assertions with facts and logic. Thanks, _Big Boy_. If you are saying, as you appear to be, that you will respond to every request for a cite with _tu quoques_, save your breath and spare the hamsters. What’s in it for you, you ask again? I repeat, you are expected to back up your assertions, especially in the form of accusations against other posters, with something more than “I know you are, but what am I?” You have made a specific accusation, and produced jack shit to show that it is true. _:shrugs_ You want to look as big a moron as **ElvisL1ves**? Your problem. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2005, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-reply-to-gaudere-and-shodan-since-i-have-been-banished-from-the-orig-thread/282867/7 "2005-01-03T20:30:24Z")
“The little dog barks, but the caravan rolls on.” - Arab proverb ---
**Author:** ![zut](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zut/32/2875_2.png) [@zut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zut)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2005, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-reply-to-gaudere-and-shodan-since-i-have-been-banished-from-the-orig-thread/282867/8 "2005-01-03T20:37:40Z")
Should have taken **Bricker** ’s “sheeple” bet, **annaplurabelle**. [First use](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=22475&highlight=sheeple) of “sheeple” on the SDMB was a quote from some stupid right wing anti-Clinton screed. The [second](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=8368&highlight=sheeple) and [third](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=9517&highlight=sheeple) were from a member who I don’t recall, but is involved on the pro-gun side of a debate, so I assume he tends right-wing. The [fourth](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=22860&highlight=sheeple) references “religious sheeple,” so I assume that poster tends left. Although, truth be told, I cringe whenever I see _anyone_ using the word “sheeple,” because, for me, it’s irreversably linked to those fucking idiots at Storm\*Front. I spend a horrifying afternoon lurking on their message board, and have never seen the word used so much. If only the sheeple in the US would rise up against the Jewish conspiracy! Would put the Negro back in his place! Would grind the Ay-rab to dust! To top it off, check out [the first time “sheeple” was used on Usenet](http://groups-beta.google.com/group/soc.culture.african.american/browse_thread/thread/5f2776d53eb7984/1a4bde98d7c9f507?q=sheeple&_done=%2Fgroups%3Fq%3Dsheeple%26start%3D0%26scoring%3Dd%26num%3D10%26hl%3Den%26ie%3DUTF-8%26lr%3D%26as_qdr%3D%26as_drrb%3Db%26as_mind%3D1%26as_minm%3D1%26as_miny%3D1981%26as_maxd%3D3%26as_maxm%3D1%26as_maxy%3D1992%26safe%3Doff%26filter%3D0%26&_doneTitle=Back+to+Search&&d#1a4bde98d7c9f507) > [@](#): > > As thousands of Third Worlders pour into this country, both legally and > illegally, White Americans sit idly by and watch the destruction of their > nation. America is quickly becoming a Third World slum and and the cowardly White > “sheeple” do little, if anything, to stop the mudslide. We, as White people, > must look at non-White immigrants as an immigrating army if we are to survive > as a race. So all of you: quit fucking using the word. “Ironically” or not. You look like an idiot. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2005, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-reply-to-gaudere-and-shodan-since-i-have-been-banished-from-the-orig-thread/282867/9 "2005-01-03T20:53:09Z")
> [@annaplurabelle](#): > > Did you read the thread? It was poisoned on page 1 by a poster who questioned the character/motivation of the OP, and later on questioned the “patriotism” of those who either disagreed with his views, or failed to condemn those who disagreed. You have real problems sticking to the truth, don’t you? Please cite the reference to “patriotism” anywhere in the first four pages of the thread. The only even remotely related statement was various Dopers pointing to this: > [@](#): > > I do support Iraqi insurgents killing US troops. You, on the other hand, had apparently no problem with it. As far as your garbage about questioning peoples’ motivation, read the OP. There you will find gems such as: > [@](#): > > the mindless gucks who re-elected Bush as president and a long passage accusing Republican leaders of > [@](#): > > “We know we can’t defeat terrorism. We are not even going to try. Terrorism is good for us, it makes Americans unthinkingly support us out of fear. 9/11 worked for us politically, so will any other such attack – the terrorists can’t really do America much harm, even if they succeed in, say, nuking a major American city or spreading a neurotoxin or biowarfare agent it won’t affect America’s ability to make money and/or war too much. It’ll just cement us that much more firmly in power. So let’s invade a couple of Islamic countries to get the towelheads REALLY pissed off…” I notice you had no objection to **Evil Captor** ’s use of racist terms for Muslims. Instead, you resorted to sexual insults, false accusations against **Bricker** , what amounts to out-and-out trolling, and your above-announced intention to respond when called on your bullshit with tu quoques and whining in the Pit. > [@annaplurabelle](#): > > NOTE FOR THE PIT: > > Now that this has been consigned to the Pit, I’d like to add: Was I guilty of “stirring up shit for the sake of stirring up shit”? Was my allegation really that “offensive”? Was it “clearly false”? Is there a time limit as to replies for “backing up” assertions, before you are warned or banished? > > AFAIK, this is a second warning in this thread. I thought the first one was somewhat unfair (I used a sexual metaphor, that has been used before with no complaints), but I accepted it. Am I now officially “twice-warned”? Is this fair? Yes, yes, yes, don’t know, don’t know, and yes - respectively. IMO. ---
**Author:** ![Giraffe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giraffe/32/129_2.png) [@Giraffe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giraffe)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2005, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-reply-to-gaudere-and-shodan-since-i-have-been-banished-from-the-orig-thread/282867/10 "2005-01-03T21:22:52Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > If you feel you need to be bribed in some way to participate in civilized discussion, perhaps Great Debates is not the forum for you. This is true. Posting in Great Debates is not about getting incentives from other posters to do so. The personal satisfaction that comes from repeating the same talking point over and over again should be incentive enough. Honestly, I’m impressed that anyone can seriously use the phrase “civilized discussion” in the same sentence as “Great Debates”. What a joke. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2005, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-reply-to-gaudere-and-shodan-since-i-have-been-banished-from-the-orig-thread/282867/11 "2005-01-03T21:23:04Z")
> [@annaplurabelle](#): > > Did you read the thread? It was poisoned on page 1 by a poster who questioned the character/motivation of the OP, and later on questioned the “patriotism” of those who either disagreed with his views, or failed to condemn those who disagreed. Tell me how that is not to be taken personally, if you are on the receiving end of it. > > Also, if the motivation of a poster (or posters) is to derail the thread/attack the character of political opposition, why can’t it be pointed out? I not only read, but actively participated in that thread. If you want to know what poisoned it, just read the OP-- no further poisoning was required. But you are missing the whole point. Yes, there are lots of people who get personal in GD, and who end misrepresenting what other posters have said. Do you or do you not want to be part of that crowd? It’s really that simple. If someone takes offense at the way you have paraphrased his posts, why WOULDN’T you simply retract your paraphrase and ask for further clarification of the actual post? ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2005, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-reply-to-gaudere-and-shodan-since-i-have-been-banished-from-the-orig-thread/282867/12 "2005-01-03T22:16:39Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Y > As far as your garbage about questioning peoples’ motivation, read the OP. There you will find gems such as: In that thread, I defined “gucks” as people who get all their news from TV and other broadcast media such as hate radio, mostly in the form of soundbites, and form their opinions from such. I suppose such creatures are not COMPLETELY mindless, but let’s face it, there’s not a lot going on there. I’m comfortable with the term. > [@](#): > > Sure, I used it – while paraphrasing the thoughts of the cynical bastards who are in charge of the Republican Party. These are the people who legitimized torture at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo. I don’t think they conceive of Arabs as fully human. Or ordinary Americans, for that matter. Your attacks on annaplurabelle strike me as making a mountain out of a molehill for partisan advantage. She violated, in a minor sort of way, the rules. She has agreed not to do so again. Whaddya lookin’ for here, blood? ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2005, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-reply-to-gaudere-and-shodan-since-i-have-been-banished-from-the-orig-thread/282867/13 "2005-01-03T22:28:33Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > I not only read, but actively participated in that thread. If you want to know what poisoned it, just read the OP-- no further poisoning was required. Oh, flapdoodle. And worse, since this is the pit. Fact is, the OP was a fairly straightfoward description of my analysis of the issues surrounding the situation wrt to terrorism and the Democratic response to it. I admit I called people who vote based on broadcast media soundbite gucks – that’s my honest opinion of them, whaddya want me to call 'em, Worthy Opinionated Gentlemen? And I admit I ascribed a great deal of cynicism to the Pubbie leadership … once again, my honest opinion of them. I do not believe that the folks who were planning to invade Iraq BEFORE Bush took office and then used the events of 9/11 as a pretext to do so are the souls of honesty and fairness. At some point, you have to call a guck a guck, and a cynical slimeball a cynical slimeball. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2005, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-reply-to-gaudere-and-shodan-since-i-have-been-banished-from-the-orig-thread/282867/14 "2005-01-03T23:06:09Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > In that thread, I defined “gucks” as people who get all their news from TV and other broadcast media such as hate radio, mostly in the form of soundbites, and form their opinions from such. I suppose such creatures are not COMPLETELY mindless, but let’s face it, there’s not a lot going on there. I’m comfortable with the term. I assumed you had simply misspelled “gook”. > [@Evil Captor](#): > > At some point, you have to call a guck a guck, and a cynical slimeball a cynical slimeball. OK, you’re a cynical slimeball. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2005, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-reply-to-gaudere-and-shodan-since-i-have-been-banished-from-the-orig-thread/282867/15 "2005-01-03T23:15:34Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > Oh, flapdoodle. And worse, since this is the pit. Fact is, the OP was a fairly straightfoward description of my analysis of the issues surrounding the situation wrt to terrorism and the Democratic response to it. I admit I called people who vote based on broadcast media soundbite gucks – that’s my honest opinion of them, whaddya want me to call 'em… I wasn’t even thinking of the “guck” comment, but of this gem (as I noted in the original thread), my bolding: > [@from the OP](#): > > here’s my analysis of what the conservative leaderships’ real response to terrorism was: > > “We know we can’t defeat terrorism. We are not even going to try. **Terrorism is good for us** , it makes Americans unthinkingly support us out of fear. 9/11 worked for us politically, so will any other such attack – the terrorists can’t really do America much harm, even if they succeed in, say, nuking a major American city or spreading a neurotoxin or biowarfare agent it won’t affect America’s ability to make money and/or war too much. It’ll just cement us that much more firmly in power. So let’s invade a couple of Islamic countries to get the towelheads REALLY pissed off, set up some kind of half-assed agency that’ll do very little to prevent terrorist attacks but give us a great tool for attacking political enemies and hope for the best. Or worst, depending on your point of view. We might end up in charge of the whole Middle East if we play our cards right. One invasion might lead to another.” You claim that “conservatives” think Islamic terrorism is good for their poltical cause. That “conservatives” are more concerned with maintaining power than protecting the country from attack. In fact, your OP can easily be construed as saying that “conservatives” would prefer there to be more terror attacks than for there to be fewer or none. You honestly don’t see that as starting a debate by vilifying your opposition? ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2005, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-reply-to-gaudere-and-shodan-since-i-have-been-banished-from-the-orig-thread/282867/16 "2005-01-03T23:31:16Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > OK, you’re a cynical slimeball. Ok, that was a good 'un. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2005, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-reply-to-gaudere-and-shodan-since-i-have-been-banished-from-the-orig-thread/282867/17 "2005-01-03T23:41:44Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > I wasn’t even thinking of the “guck” comment, but of this gem (as I noted in the original thread), my bolding: > > You claim that “conservatives” think Islamic terrorism is good for their poltical cause. That “conservatives” are more concerned with maintaining power than protecting the country from attack. In fact, your OP can easily be construed as saying that “conservatives” would prefer there to be more terror attacks than for there to be fewer or none. You honestly don’t see that as starting a debate by vilifying your opposition? I said conservative **leadership**. This would be people like Karl Rove, Richard Perle, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz. When I said “leadership” I thought it was understood that I did not mean every last conservative was included. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2005, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-reply-to-gaudere-and-shodan-since-i-have-been-banished-from-the-orig-thread/282867/18 "2005-01-04T00:32:39Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > I said conservative **leadership**. This would be people like Karl Rove, Richard Perle, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz. When I said “leadership” I thought it was understood that I did not mean every last conservative was included. My bad for not including “leadership” above, but it makes little difference. Can you give us a complete list of the leadership who thinks as you claim they do? Can you then tell us how it ADDS to quality of the debate to start things off thusly? And, though I’m even hesitant to ask, can you tell us how you came to your certainty about this line of thought among said conservative leaders? ---
**Author:** ![Reeder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Reeder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reeder)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2005, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-reply-to-gaudere-and-shodan-since-i-have-been-banished-from-the-orig-thread/282867/19 "2005-01-04T00:42:32Z")
Don’t cross **Gaudere** Trust me on this. ---
**Author:** ![manhattan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/manhattan/32/7_2.png) [@manhattan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/manhattan)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2005, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-reply-to-gaudere-and-shodan-since-i-have-been-banished-from-the-orig-thread/282867/20 "2005-01-04T00:44:26Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > I said conservative **leadership**. This would be people like Karl Rove, Richard Perle, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz. When I said “leadership” I thought it was understood that I did not mean every last conservative was included. Right. All the other conservatives are “gucks.” After all “(the Democrats are) going to have the votes of the thoughtful and intelligent,” right? At the same time you are actively waging a rhetorical campaign to undercut the coming of democracy in Iraq. It’s not enough for you to have opposed going to war – now that we’ve done so, you actively want us, and the Iraqi people, to lose. You are a vile, disgusting creature and I wish I believed in a hell so I could tell you to go there. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-reply-to-gaudere-and-shodan-since-i-have-been-banished-from-the-orig-thread/282867.md?page=2)