One of the side effects of Sam’s behavior in political threads, is I no longer trust him in non-political threads. His habit of not reading (at best) or out-right lying about (at worst) the contents of his cites gives me no confidence in his answers on literally any other subject. I don’t know a ton about astrophotography. I don’t know that anything in that post you just quoted is necessarily incorrect, but based on his posting history, I’m absolutely not going to trust anything in it. At best, I’d use it as a guide to search for a source that appears more trustworthy, which at this point would be almost any source at all. But mostly, I just discount anything with his name attached out-of-hand, because he’s just so untrustworthy.
Was unaware of the return. I don’t have the expectation people will always agree with me.
WTF? Seriously?!
It’s not about holding a different opinion. It’s about outright lying. It’s about bad faith arguments backed by sources Sam has not bothered to properly read.
There are all sorts of posters across the political spectrum. The ones who don’t flat out lie and actually bother to do the minimum amount of checking of their sources are accepted.
Again, it’s not about a difference of opinions. It’s a difference of values. Most of us appreciate facts and a good faith attempt at backing one’s position. Sam clearly has neither of those. In fact, has a looooong track record of showing his utter disregard for both facts and good faith.
How can you ever trust a proven liar?
Sam may know a lot about “whatever” isn’t helpful to me because he can’t be trusted to tell the truth.
I didn’t miss him and I knew he’d be back.
After all that has been posted about him, after all the links to his deceptions and outright lies, you can’t be that stupid. But I’ve got an open mind, so you are welcome to convince me that you actually are.
Not really. He’s stuck in 1970s it’s-always-stagflation thinking and trickle-down bullshit. And, if you try to engage on economics, he’ll post a multi-paragraph, uncited rant, covering twenty different econ topics sprinkled with swipes at liberals. He’s impossible to engage with on econ topics.
This is about a post from before the most recent mini-flounce. A similar point could have been made using actual numbers, but instead the citation was conveniently misread to overstate the phenomenon. Linking to my own post.
Even I can’t believe he’s pulled the repeatedly-debunked “But Hunter’s laptop…!” thing again. He’s gone to that well so often he’s just bringing up buckets of dust now.
Oh, I don’t deny that dishonesty is on full display in Sam’s political posts. I’m just sometimes surprised at the degree of rancor he elicits. But then, knowing how extreme and totally unhinged his political views are, I haven’t had a political discussion with Sam in a long time, possibly not ever, so I don’t experience the same frustrations as some of the other posters here. And he’s a decent enough poster when the subject isn’t politics or something controversial.
Uh, are you forgetting how wrong he is regarding climate change issues? Politics does distort a lot of what he should be paying attention when looking at science that runs counter to his politics.
Yes, his views are distorted by his political extremism. I think he’s come around on the science, and is now arguing against mitigation policies. Suggest anything to mitigate climate change or promote clean energy, and Sam will tell you why it won’t work or would mean the end of civilization as we know it.
In fact, based on previous mentions here, as a public service I’ll even start a list of topics to avoid in discussions with Sam, making it a better, happier world for all, including Sam: Others can add to it as they see fit.
Things to never discuss with Sam:
- Politics of any kind, domestic or foreign
- Economics
- Climate change mitigation, clean energy, or fossil fuels
- Electric cars
- Elon Musk
- College admission policies
Avoid those and you can probably have informative, productive, and congenial discussions with Sam.
Alright but apart from politics, economics, climats change, electric cars, elon musk and college admissions, when has Sam ever been a shitty poster!
Mud, not dust. You can’t smear dust.
I like it
“If you avoid mentioning or thinking about his penchant for kicking puppies, he’s actually a reasonable fellow since his puppy-kicking is irrelevant to anything else he does”
That’s some …interesting reasoning right there
“Aside from being shot in the head, how was the play Mr. President?”
Well, regarding economics, other posters showed how his politics do distort or makes him ignore evidence that shows how shallow he is when economic data are not coming in favor of his conservative views.
Like when I was just a bit wrong about the dates of when the Diablo Canyon nuclear plan was closing and how much energy from renewables was supposed to come online before that, only to be shown by a different poster how grossly wrong was Sam about not only the information but also about being ignorant about the “insignificant” already published item that the nuclear plant was not closing because of the delays in the deployment of renewables as I did notice.
He’s certainly making a fool of himself in anything Biden related, be it Hunter or be it Joe. He will believe and happily pass on any negative rumor, no matter the lack of evidence, about any Democrat but he will pick the tiniest nits about any criticism of any Republican. He’s just a dickweed and not worthy of all the attention he gets.
I have a business degree. There are many views of economics. The conservative economic views I have seen espoused by Sam Stone are, frankly, mainstream and reasonably cogent. You don’t have to agree with them, and I agree provided links are often weak. But one should attack the ball and not the player unless the other makes the first move. If Sam indulged in personal attacks I have not really seen it, but there are many threads I do not read.
As for politics, again Sam’s views are fairly popular in Western Canada. I don’t fully agree with a lot of them, I do with some, and the cut-and-paste links don’t convince me or seem well chosen. Most people on this board are more Democrat, but this board is the only place I see contrarian views, as I do not seek these out. Sometimes these are more about fearmongering or obfuscation than honest attempts at debate. Still, since they are widely shared one is perhaps better to be aware of them. I would prefer to see argument than browbeating and diplomacy rather than dogma. Perhaps Sam could use less dogma, this dogma won’t hunt.
There’s a massive difference between a well argued point that is unpopular with your audience and a point that isn’t well argued, is cited poorly or actively dishonestly and can’t be defended against counterarguments. Sam’s issue is the latter, not the former.
It sometimes is. That may be why I have little interest in Hunter Biden or those threads, who hardly seems like an awesome dude, but has some parallels with pre-political George W. Still one should play the ball, not the player, without due cause.