I was going to post something like this earlier, but decided not to bother.
@Sam_Stone can retaliate exactly in kind. What more could he possibly want?
To be fair, he really can’t.
He is being “attacked” with facts and logic, and he is unable to use those weapons in his responses.
At a guess: To be able to say whatever he wants with no rebuttals or arguments, and to be able to give us cites that he has not read and that do not say what he thinks they say, and have everyone agree with him.
From:
My response:
Sam, I discussed partnering with you as a cohost to participate in the FOTR podcast via multiple PM’s. You literally were offered a platform in which you had greater control over content, presentation, and yes, feedback than here at the SDMB to present your ideas, free of attack/response/other by everyone excepting your cohost.
Your cohost would have been a professional who knows how to work with people, talk about shit, and is not interested in going through all the work and expense of starting a podcast just to embarrass you, Sam. Or even make it a painful experience. Why would I want that? I want it to work! I want money! Patreon subscribers! Merch! Not pain. Not to have you quit!
And so I tried negotiating with you, Sam, trying to find a format which would make you comfortable… and you declined.
And you know why you declined, I still have the PM’s, so don’t come to me about tedious attacks - I offered you a debate platform free of such.
Hell, if the thing had actually succeeded, you could be earning some real bucks by now. And you declined this opportunity for the very same reason quoted here.
You have imprisoned your own self, my friend.
And, frankly, to come to me, of all people, to say “no one has ever offered me a platform in which I can express my ideas in the manner in which I want” takes unmitigated gall. It is possibly the most insulting thing you have said in your two decades on the Boards.
I used to have a soapbox for people to borrow but they all seem to prefer hanging from crosses
Oh, you just say that because you are hiding behind the impenetrable cloak of anonymity.
< yes, it’s sarcasm >
Oh, who was that going to be? 
Taking that shit to the Pit, k9! Pistols at dawn! You can meet me here.
My viewpoint, on a topic that is in a pit thread called ‘freakouts of the right’. My assumption was that no matter what I said on that podcast, it would result in a storm of hate in the pit every time.
I wasn’t worried about your behaviour on a podcast. I was dreading having to deal with the fallout here.
For very reasonable reasons. I feared I would be the ‘token conservative’ whose prime job would be to defend what you think is indefensible, and therefore would just get me mocked, attacked, etc. Maybe not by you on the show, but certainly in the Pit later. The whole point to my existence on the show would have been to constantly defend what you had already determined to be a ‘freak out’. I even suggested that I might do it if it were more balanced. Say, if you brought a ‘freakout on the right’ and I brought a ‘freakout on the left’, and we then debated them. But you didn’t want that. You wanted a show to bash the right, and you wanted me to be a foil. Because given what you have said to me in the pit over time, I assumed that’s how it would go. Because if you actually believe the things you’ve said, it’s hard to see why you would want me as a co-host.
I explained my reasoning to you, then and now. One other thing I said was that I might be a poor,choice because I actually agreed about some,of the freakouts and wouldn’t defend them, while others seemed to be just attacks on the right over legitimate differences, and calling them ‘freakouts’ was poisoning the well,of debate.
When did I say that? I have never asked anyone to ‘offer me a platform’ of any sort. I have never accused you of denying me one. I’m fully capable of expressing my ideas without help.
And there are plenty of platforms where I can go and express my ideas all day long and get back nothing but attaboys. I have actually walked away from platforms like that where I had a large supportive audience, while staying on the Straight Dope even with all its hostility, because I want actual debate, not an endless series of circle jerks. If I was a hardcore progressive, I’d probably be over on one of those sites getting hated on rather than being here getting back pats.
Tell you what: I’ll still give it a shot if you want. PM me. I’ve got nothing to lose but time, and I’m semi retired. I still think a better format would be ‘political freakouts’, without targeting one side or the other in the title. Because there will come a day when there’s a topical freakout on the left that’s worth debating, or even defending. Or a political freakout that’s truly non-partisan, like the UFO craze or the AI freakout. Why limit yourself?
And Sam is caught yet again in a blatant lie.
@Sam_Stone how do you explain this? You claim…
Yet you clearly said that you were referring to a specific case where employees were insulting their employer in public.
You are not being bullied by people who disagree with your viewpoint. You are a serial liar on these boards and people are fed up with it. You not only have trouble with facts, you have trouble with honesty. So yeah, people on a forum devoted to fighting ignorance are going to shred you after your pattern of dishonesty.
This is a bad place for you. You should consider an online venue where fact-checking isn’t the standard, where people don’t pay attention to you, in general where people aren’t as bright. There are plenty of subreddits where I’m sure you’ll get away with it. You won’t here.
I was speaking in general. I do that a lot.
You can’t seriously believe that I don’t know the Onion is satire. My thinking was actually, “That’s not great satire, because satire should be ridiculous and the actions mentioned are actually firing offenses in lots of companies.” So I wrote a bit off the cuff about how no one can be expected to insult the CEO of a company while being identified as an employee and expect to to go u punished.
What you are calling a ‘lie’ is your interpretation of what I was thinking vs what I said I was thinking. I don’t give a shit if you believe me or not, since I know what I meant. But if you are going to go around calling someone a liar as opposed to iust being wrong, you’d better have the goods.
Or better yet, stop calling people liars so easily. It’s a really obnoxious thing to do.
Also, this is all just incredibly trivial I made a not-controversial post that was factually accurate, and it turned into another tedious pit bashing because…reasons, I guess. The whole kerfuffle is just stupid.
Stop lying, Sam.
No, the thought is that you didn’t even bother to look, but just reacted to the headline.
What, specifically, did you mean by “in this case”, if you are now claiming to have been speaking in generalities?
Just admit that you made a mistake, you’ll feel better.
No, you said “in this case”. You were caught. As I said, your lying doesn’t work here.
When there is evidence of your lying, you can’t get away with just saying “no I didn’t”. I mean, it didn’t work for your countrymen in this video either.
Yes, I’m sure it’s obnoxious to be caught in a lie and have others prove it. The simple solution is to stop lying.
Y’all simply can’t see the 20000ft view. There’s clearly an unrecognized genius at play here unappreciated by you hoi polloi
Umm, exactly which post are you claiming this about?
Out of curiosity, was that your thinking before or after reading the article?
From the article, specifically, what actions were mentioned that were firing offenses in lots of companies?
Tell me you didn’t read the article without telling me you didn’t read the article…
What a giant fucking liar.
No, I did not read the article. It was satire. It didn’t need rebuttal.
You know, this isn’t that hard. And it’s an incredibly nit-picky point anyway, which jusn’t change a thing.
Finally, some truth…
And yet you tried to rebut the absurdly wrong version of it that was in your head, anyway.
And just ended up making a butt of yourself.
Not lying? Yes, it isn’t. Yet somehow, here you are…
No, it isn’t “nit-picky” to point out that you lie, or that you don’t read cites. I mean, the latter’s obviously well-known to anyone who’s ever debated you here (I got quite a chuckle out of those self-owning Starlink cites you helpfully found for me, for instance), but your confirmation really is the * chef’s kiss * of self-owns.
You’re right, though, it “jusn’t” change much - you’re already known as a liar and terrible cite reader. I mean, what’s the thread title, again?
This whole part of the thread should be stickied, it’s going to prove that useful, to refer anyone who’s thinking of debating you in the future to.