# A word from SA regarding the "Insanity" thread **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 21, 2008, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-from-sa-regarding-the-insanity-thread/468853 "2008-10-21T04:00:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2008, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-from-sa-regarding-the-insanity-thread/468853/141 "2008-10-23T04:06:41Z")
**SA** , I’ve spent some more time reading these threads, and I must tell you I’m stumped. You are, as you obviously know, extremely intelligent and articulate. However, you have made no effort–well, certainly no effective effort–to actually educate yourself on the issues you discuss so enthusiastically. You communicate brilliantly, but you process information like a seven-year-old: you make absolutely no effort at analysis: you absorb what you agree with, you reject what you don’t. Period. I’m not saying that if you made more of an effort you’d be a liberal. Not at all. I’m saying that you can’t even explain why you believe what you believe: all you can do is repeat little bits of information that you’ve retained, because you liked the way they sounded. Some weird kind of parroty savant thingy. You don’t process or analyze: you simply sort and memorize. Quite literally, a dittohead. Weird. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2008, 4:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-from-sa-regarding-the-insanity-thread/468853/142 "2008-10-23T04:27:07Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > The fact that you believe that post #109 actually constitutes a substantive and substantial response to the points i was making demonstrates yet again how completely divorced from reality you are. I hope you realize how disingenuous this makes you look…no, wait, you couldn’t or you wouldn’t have said it. You asked me why I often refuse cite demands while occasionally asking them of someone else. I told you. Simple as that. If it’s so divorced from reality, why didn’t you take the time and trouble to point out how? Such is not an attempt you normally have trouble with. > [@mhendo](#): > > I’m not going to make any more arguments, because i honestly have no interest in dealing with you any longer. I simply can’t and won’t engage with someone who eschews all logic and reason, who apparently has no idea what the word “probative” means… Hmmm…let’s see _holds finger to chin, casts eyes upward and to the left, thinks_…oh, yeah…it’s coming back to me. I can almost see it, just like Merriam-Webster says it is…wait a minute…here it comes! Main Entry: pro·ba·tive Pronunciation: \ˈprō-bə-tiv\ Function: adjective Date: 15th century 1 : serving to test or try : exploratory \*\*2 : serving to prove : substantiating \*\* [bolding mine] And you’re an educator, huh? > [@mhendo](#): > > …and who considers any evidence that contradicts his worldview and his personal experience to be obfuscatory. Not at all. But when I say kids in the fifties didn’t have 25% STD rates, and someone else points out that Manhattan had high rates 50 years before, or that STDs existed in the fifties…or any of a number of other things that have absolutely no bearing on what I actually said, then yeah, I’m gonna view that as obfuscatory. > [@mhendo](#): > > I withdraw not in acrimony or animosity, but merely out of exhaustion. And i don’t mean this thread alone. I’ve decided that it is literally as if we are speaking different languages; we have no common understanding of what constitutes evidence and fact and reason and debate, so no purpose is served by further communication on issues where those things are important. I know what you mean, and I agree. I’ve often found myself thinking liberals and conservatives just speak different languages altogether. Conservatives tend not to value the things that are important to liberals, and liberals tend tend not to value the things that are important to conservatives. I often find myself wishing we could each have our own countries. Ciao! ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2008, 4:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-from-sa-regarding-the-insanity-thread/468853/143 "2008-10-23T04:27:35Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Welcome to the SDMB. 😃 > > It is not possible to post something carefully worded and cited enough to avoid being deliberately misunderstood. When they do it, that’s how you tell you’re winning. > > If they could come up with a credible counter-argument, they would. If they can’t, they start slinging poo. > > Regards, > Shodan Right .never you is it? Your silly ideas are refuted over and over and you respond with snide and snotty remarks. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2008, 4:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-from-sa-regarding-the-insanity-thread/468853/144 "2008-10-23T04:55:06Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > **SA** , I’ve spent some more time reading these threads, and I must tell you I’m stumped. You are, as you obviously know, extremely intelligent and articulate. However, you have made no effort–well, certainly no effective effort–to actually educate yourself on the issues you discuss so enthusiastically. You communicate brilliantly, but you process information like a seven-year-old: you make absolutely no effort at analysis: you absorb what you agree with, you reject what you don’t. Period. > > I’m not saying that if you made more of an effort you’d be a liberal. Not at all. I’m saying that you can’t even explain why you believe what you believe: all you can do is repeat little bits of information that you’ve retained, because you liked the way they sounded. Some weird kind of parroty savant thingy. You don’t process or analyze: you simply sort and memorize. Quite literally, a dittohead. > > Weird. First of all, I’ve never been a dittohead, although I did listen to/watch Rush sporadically for a couple of years before the Chelsea Clinton gag put me off him. But I’ve been told by my family and a few acquaintances - partly because people have always seemed to think I had an announcer’s voice but mainly because of my politics and way of expressing them - that I should have a radio show of my own…that I could blow Rush out of the water! (And as it happens, my sister and grown neice (both Dem/lib) told me the same thing just tonight.) 😃 So perhaps I’m more of a dittohead-maker than follower. You, of course, can make of that what you will. The reason I don’t take greater pains to explain myself is quite simple: IT WOULD DO NO GOOD WHATSOEVER!!! Hell, I have a hard enough time just trying to keep the conversation focussed on what I’ve actually said as it is, much less trying to deal with the all the ca-ca that would invariably result from my explaining myself in greater detail. There’s also the fact that virtually no one here cares a whit why I think the things I do, they just want ammo for mischaracterization, obfuscation, and faux-hilarity. So I’ve taken the position that I’ll just flatly state the things I think and let people make of them what they will. My thinking in that regard is that if they are open-minded and willing to take a look at the things I say, it could cause them to investigate and come to their own conclusions free of board interference. (And needless to say, it is my belief that if they do take a good, hard look at what I’ve said without board interference, they may well come to the same conclusion I have :D) On the other hand, if I get into all that here, a massive shitstorm would erupt that would result in nothing but endless verbiage and convince no one of anything. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2008, 5:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-from-sa-regarding-the-insanity-thread/468853/145 "2008-10-23T05:01:13Z")
I’m beginning to feel pity for this guy. It is all a bit sad. ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2008, 5:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-from-sa-regarding-the-insanity-thread/468853/146 "2008-10-23T05:02:47Z")
Dude. That’s just not how it works. You claim that everything you believe is so obviously true that anyone with common sense would believe the same things, but then you refuse to back them up. SA, everyone reading this thread knows that your last post says nothing more than you won’t back up your assertions because you’re a coward. You won’t back them up because you can’t. I know you’re a coward, you know you’re a coward. I’d have a lot more respect for you–I daresay most of us would–if you’d just admit it. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2008, 5:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-from-sa-regarding-the-insanity-thread/468853/147 "2008-10-23T05:06:59Z")
> [@Hector the Librarian](#): > > I’m beginning to feel pity for this guy. It is all a bit sad. Utter horseshit! On both counts! Your animus toward me is longstanding and real. This silly post of yours is nothing more than a wimpy, transparent effort to minimize me because you lack substantive rebuttal. And on preview, not even a nice try, **lissener**. In light of your recent posts I would have expected more out of you than schoolboy taunts. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2008, 5:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-from-sa-regarding-the-insanity-thread/468853/148 "2008-10-23T05:17:53Z")
And now I’m off _ducks roundhouse from **Hector** _ to read my new book, _Don’t Mind If I Do_, by George Hamilton - a guy awash in glamour, fun, women and self-made wealth. You know, the everyday acoutrement of capitalism and life in a free society. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2008, 5:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-from-sa-regarding-the-insanity-thread/468853/149 "2008-10-23T05:20:22Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > And on preview, not even a nice try, **lissener**. In light of your recent posts I would have expected more out of you than schoolboy taunts. Again, not a schoolboy taunt: an honest attempt to cut to the meat of the matter. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2008, 5:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-from-sa-regarding-the-insanity-thread/468853/150 "2008-10-23T05:32:01Z")
So tell us, just so we know: is ten pages of Pit narcissism better than Viagra? ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2008, 5:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-from-sa-regarding-the-insanity-thread/468853/151 "2008-10-23T05:35:48Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > Again, not a schoolboy taunt: an honest attempt to cut to the meat of the matter. Again, SA, seriously. There are certain things that I’m a coward about. I try to confront myself about these issues when I become aware of them. But reading all your posts in these two threads have led me to the honest conclusion that you’re afraid of what might happen to your worldview if you actually examine. I honestly believe that, not a namecalling thing at all. In all honesty. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2008, 5:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-from-sa-regarding-the-insanity-thread/468853/152 "2008-10-23T05:49:50Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > And on preview, not even a nice try, **lissener**. In light of your recent posts I would have expected more out of you than schoolboy taunts. **lissener** and I may not be the best of friends, to put it mildly, but on this, he’s 100% on the money. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Svinlesha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/22d042/32.png) [@Mr.Svinlesha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Svinlesha)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2008, 6:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-from-sa-regarding-the-insanity-thread/468853/153 "2008-10-23T06:00:19Z")
> [@](#): > > \*From Wiki: > > "Kennedy enacted policies providing political, economic, and military support for the unstable French-installed South Vietnamese government, which included sending 16,000 military advisors and U.S. Special Forces to the area. Kennedy also agreed to the use of free-fire zones, napalm, defoliants and jet planes. U.S. involvement in the area continually escalated until regular U.S. forces were directly fighting the Vietnam War in the next administration. The Kennedy Administration increased military support, but the South Vietnamese military was unable to make headway against the pro-independence Viet-Minh and Viet Cong forces. By July 1963, Kennedy faced a crisis in Vietnam… > > After Kennedy’s assassination, new President Lyndon B. Johnson immediately reversed his predecessor’s order to withdraw 1,000 military personnel by the end of 1963 with his own NSAM #273 on November 26, 1963."\* A cite! A cite from the man who says all evidence is anecdotal and meaningless! Well argued, **SA**! You see – now, that wasn’t that hard, was it? ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2008, 6:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-from-sa-regarding-the-insanity-thread/468853/154 "2008-10-23T06:02:11Z")
> [@](#): > > **Starving Artist** : The crux of the problem, and the catalyst for it, was the way the nation’s youth - the babyboom generation, a huge number of people - adopted wildly radical ways of dressing and behaving and found themselves at odds with the rest of society. The Vietnam war then provided them with a rallying point from which to rebel and coalesce into a cohesive movement in mindless opposition to the status quo. Our “wildly radical” ways of dressing harmed no one. As with every generation, some of us “behaved” and some of us didn’t and we can argue forever about which was which. Thank God we found ourselves at odds with the rest of society. I never would have understood how much that I contributed to my own lack of freedom by accepting the gender roles assigned to me. And thank God for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I can’t imagine a return to the Jim Crow South. We had many rallying points. But it wasn’t just the Boomers that protested the war in Vietnam. Our protests were justified. And we protested against the liberal President in office as loudly as we did the Republican. I do recall that in the 1950s the word _peace_ was not a dirty word that had to be defended. That is one attitude that deserves revival. “Mindless opposition,” SA? Does that include the vets who joined the protests? You may call me mindless if you choose to. Just be aware that I’m not blind to what you are saying. It does apply to me too, you know. I will PM you later. Be well. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2008, 6:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-from-sa-regarding-the-insanity-thread/468853/155 "2008-10-23T06:05:26Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > I don’t have time to delve back into **tomndebb’s** post right now, but I will say the following: > > Away from here I am a reasonable and polite person as well (which is not to say that I’m not reasonable here but I can see how there’s room for disagreement). Perhaps, as per the PDF I linked earlier, you _believe_ you are a reasonable and polite person, and few bother to call you on your bigoted bullshit? I find that equally likely. An unexamined life, SA. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2008, 6:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-from-sa-regarding-the-insanity-thread/468853/156 "2008-10-23T06:09:08Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > Again, SA, seriously. There are certain things that I’m a coward about. I try to confront myself about these issues when I become aware of them. But reading all your posts in these two threads have led me to the honest conclusion that you’re afraid of what might happen to your worldview if you actually examine. I honestly believe that, not a namecalling thing at all. In all honesty. Okay, (just returned from getting a book-reading snack and yes, made the mistake of checking in) I believe you. I’ll withdraw my accusation that you were trying to taunt me into answering. Still, all I can do is tell you that you’re wrong. My beliefs, as I’ve said, are based on many years of life experience and observation. I am not unsure of them in the slightest. The fact that you seem to think I am is hard to understand given my posting history around here. So before I go, let me ask you who you would say is more secure in their beliefs? A guy who, when met with accusations of convictional cowardice says ‘fine, think what you want’…or a guy who acquiesces and tries to convince you he’s not a coward? **luci** …I didn’t start it, chum. And what is this Viagra of which you speak? **Svin** …I’ve said all along I have no problem with probative cites. **Zoe** …generalizations are not only common around here but pretty much necessary to grease the wheels of conversation. Please don’t take personally what I mean in a general sense. There are always exceptions, plus like I said, if all liberals were like you the country would be much better off. I don’t see the kind of anti-conservative rhetoric coming out of you that leads posters such as me to say things in the way we do. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Svinlesha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/22d042/32.png) [@Mr.Svinlesha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Svinlesha)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2008, 6:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-from-sa-regarding-the-insanity-thread/468853/157 "2008-10-23T06:19:40Z")
However, also from Wikipedia: > [@](#): > > \*With the fall of Dien Bien Phu in 1954 to the Vietminh, French control of Vietnam collapsed and Bảo Đại needed foreign help to sustain his State of Vietnam. Realising Diem’s popularity among American policymakers, he chose Diem’s youngest brother Ngo Dinh Luyen, who was studying in Europe at the time, to be part of his delegation at the 1954 Geneva Conference to determine the future of Indochina. Luyen represented Bảo Đại in his dealings with the Americans, who understood this to be an expression of interest in Diem. \*\*With the backing of the Eisenhower administration, Bảo Đại named Diệm as the Prime Minister. The appointment was widely condemned by French officials, who felt that Diem was incompetent, with the Prime Minister Mendes-France declaring Diem to be a “fanatic”. \*\*The Geneva accords resulted in Vietnam being partitioned temporarily at the 17th parallel, pending elections in 1956 to reunify the country. The Vietminh controlled the north, while the French backed State of Vietnam controlled the south with Diem as the Prime Minister. French Indochina was to be dissolved at the start of 1955. Diem’s South Vietnamese delegation chose not to sign the accords, refusing to have half the country under communist rule, but the agreement went into effect regardless… > > Diem’s position at the time was weak; Bảo Đại disliked Diem and appointed him mainly to political imperatives. **The French saw him as hostile and hoped that his rule would collapse.** At the time, the French Expeditionary Corps was the most powerful military force in the south; Diem’s Vietnamese National Army was essentially organised and trained by the French. Its officers were installed by the French and the chief of staff General Nguyen Van Hinh was a French citizen; Hinh loathed Diem and frequently disobeyed him.\* So it appears **tomndebb** was right after all. But don’t take it too hard. That frikkin mutherfucker is _always_ right about _everything_. It’s amazing. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2008, 6:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-from-sa-regarding-the-insanity-thread/468853/158 "2008-10-23T06:21:26Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > My beliefs, as I’ve said, are based on many years of life experience and observation. But can you honestly understand why that doesn’t cut it? If you weren’t further educated than your own experience and education, for example, what would your observational skills tell you about the relationship between the sun and the earth? Or about the shape of the earth? Do you see how making an observation is the first step in understanding a thing; not the \*final \*step? That’s quite literally how “confirmation bias” works–observation is completely capable of supporting an inaccuracy. You insist on reinventing every single wheel you’ll ever need; understanding the world based only on YOUR OWN observation and experience. Do you honestly think you are capable of observing and experiencing everything that it’s possible to know? Do you honestly believe you’re the first human being on the planet who is capable of being 100% right, all the time, on every single conclusion you draw from your own observations and experiences? Seriously, SA. Educate yourself. You’re too smart not to. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2008, 6:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-from-sa-regarding-the-insanity-thread/468853/159 "2008-10-23T06:53:14Z")
> [@Mr.Svinlesha](#): > > However, also from Wikipedia: > > So it appears **tomndebb** was right after all. > > But don’t take it too hard. That frikkin mutherfucker is _always_ right about _everything_. It’s amazing. > > 🙂 Not necessarily. (Damn it, I wish you guys would let me get outta here. :D) From your cite, it appears to me that the French controlled South Vietnam at the time, a Vietnamese under that control appointed Diem (with Ike’s approval, which is quite different than saying the U.S. installed him, as **tomndebb** said) - and thus Diem came to power as part of French-controlled South Vietnam, even though the French themselves disapproved of him. So it’s not unreasonable to state that the French installed him as they were the governing power at the time and presumably could have put in someone else if they wanted to badly enough. Still, this is a minor point that **tomndebb** only brought up in an effort to harm my credibility on the other points I raised. > [@lissener](#): > > If you weren’t further educated than your own experience and education, for example, what would your observational skills tell you about the relationship between the sun and the earth? Or about the shape of the earth? Do you not understand that my own experience _includes_ the education that tells me about the relationship between the sun and the earth? The education that comes from school, from reading magazines and newspapers, from watching broadcast and cable television, from talking to and absorbing information from people from different locations and social strata over the last fifty years? That’s my whole point really. I rely on the education that this experience has given me. You guys are the ones behaving as if I don’t see something I don’t believe it…or that the only things I do believe are what I have seen firsthand…and that is just silly. > [@lissener](#): > > Do you honestly think you are capable of observing and experiencing everything that it’s possible to know? Do you honestly believe you’re the first human being on the planet who is capable of being 100% right, all the time, on every single conclusion you draw from your own observations and experiences? Of course not. But remember when I said I may not know everything, but what I do know, I know? It may seem to you that I think I know everything, but actually I only post on subjects I’m familiar with. (You wouldn’t happen to have any useful advice on the best way to handle power management for my laptop, would you? ;)) ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Svinlesha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/22d042/32.png) [@Mr.Svinlesha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Svinlesha)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2008, 7:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-from-sa-regarding-the-insanity-thread/468853/160 "2008-10-23T07:12:08Z")
So, this is the test: faced with a facts that completely contradict his original assertion, will **SA** : 1. Humbly admit that he was wrong; 2. Ignore the facts and continue to cling to his own beliefs; or 3. Find some excuse for wriggling out of his previous assertion? Inquiring minds want to know! And the answer is: > [@](#): > > \*Not necessarily. (Damn it, I wish you guys would let me get outta here. ) > > From your cite, it appears to me that the French controlled South Vietnam at the time, a Vietnamese under that control appointed Diem (with Ike’s approval, which is quite different than saying the U.S. installed him, as tomndebb said) - and thus Diem came to power as part of French-controlled South Vietnam, even though the French themselves disapproved of him. So it’s not unreasonable to state that the French installed him as they were the governing power at the time and presumably could have put in someone else if they wanted to badly enough. > > Still, this is a minor point that tomndebb only brought up in an effort to harm my credibility on the other points I raised.\* Its amazing! A 2-3 combo: both denying the evidence at hand, and moving the goalposts! The dreaded double-whammy! No wonder we have no respect for conservatives such as yourself around here. You give conservatism a bad name. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-from-sa-regarding-the-insanity-thread/468853.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-from-sa-regarding-the-insanity-thread/468853.md?page=9)