Yeah, when the idiots shriek, the reasonable person’s voice is lost.
I’m sorry. As before, responding to your post, which is a good one, will take a bit of time. I should have said that up front.
And me. sniffle
There’s only one me. There are two people here that are providing good, honest debate fodder, and several others producing trash.
Ignoring the trash produces a declaration of victory from the trashman.
It also allows you the conceit that the arguments that oppose you are trash. It also allows you to address only the weakest arguments and pretend that you are giving an honest debate. It also allows you to pretend that the House of Representatives and the guys who give the Academy Awards are equally important. Stuff like that.
But most important of all, it allows you to pretend that your “But, Michael Moore/Liberal Hypocrisy!” ploy is an honest and straightforward debating point. Which wouldn’t be so bad if I weren’t sure that you know better.
I think you’re being a bit harsh. I’ve never been in a situation where I was in the massive minority arguing a position that I believed in vs. dozens of people who were disagreeing with varying levels of politeness and reason, but it can’t be easy to maintain one’s composure in such a situation. I mean, what’s more satisfying, responding to people who make flimsy and rude arguments, or responding to people who make polite and substantive arguments? And basically Bricker is just posting on the SDMB to have fun, as are we all.
Which is not to say that your points are without validity, nor that I don’t also find it frustrating when I don’t get responses instantly…
That is EXACTLY so, actually. That is exactly what every investigation determined.
Well…
Well…
Seriously, can you blame me for responding to this?
It takes ten seconds. In term sof bang for the buck, it’s an easy decision.
Granted, not too many people regard Diogenes’ as the boards’ most skilled rhetor, but for the casual reader, it’s an easy win to rebut this kind of claim. There’s no need to resort to weighing opinion and analysis. I say O’Keefe didn’t fabricate every instance of inappropriate behavior, Diogenes says he did, and ACORN’s own report uses the precise language at issue.
It’s a tiny point, but offers the chance for decisive rebuttal, plus the added fun of watching Diogenes contort his position instead of conceding the tiny point. What’s not to love?
Yes. And if I had said that O’Keefe didn’t fabricate intentional, illegal conduct, then that report would not support me. but I chose my words carefully, having already read ACORN’s report and knowing that it conceded only “inappropriate” and “unprofessional.” So that’s exactly what I said: “inappropriate.” Look:
Hey, man, job security.
I’m going to have to guess that you grant me one of the two, because the contrary conclusion will have me running off to cry disconsolately in a corner.
Or something. 
Well what? There was no wrongdoing by ACORN, period. What part of your quote says there was? Subjectively “inappropriate” advice from some low level-staffers volunteers does not equate to activity by ACORN itself, and does no rise to illegality or wrong doing even by those individuals.
ACORN did absolutely nothing wrong, and O’Keefe fabricated every single implication of it himself.
Upon review, I see you’re hanging your hat on the pedantry of the word “inappropriate.” I still reject that too, not only because I disagree that anything those staffers said WAS inappropriate, but also because they were not reprenting any institutional policy and took no action.
ACORN qua ACORN didn’t do shit.
So even if ACORN’s own report says ACORN itself suffered from longstanding management weaknesses, like a lack of training, a lack of procedures, and a lack of on-site supervision, that’s not “inappropriate,” huh?
Nope. That’s normal.
Is it “wrongdoing”? Because that’s the charge you’re pretending you didn’t make in the same sentence as “inappropriate.”
**Bricker, **why wouldn’t you let this one go? Save yourself some dignity to fight another day.
You failed to equate O’Keefe with Moore.
You failed to equate O’Keefe’s tactics with Moore’s
You failed to equate O’Keefe’s results (desired or otherwise) with Moore’s
You failed to equate O’Keefe’s goal of journalism with Moore’s goal of entertainment
You failed to equate the left’s treatment of O’Keefe with the right’s treatment of Moore
You failed to equate a motion by House Republicans with the Academy awards.
It was just sad and we all wish you’d stop, you don’t have to concede, just stop. You are undoing years of integrity. It’s like watching Michael Jordan play baseball. The guy was the greatest basketball player ever, and all I can remember his him striking out in a minor league team.
Even if we played along and said Moore was the worst person ever, Bowling for Columbine was 8 years ago. At the very least it should be a lesson in what not to do. Even Moore took it as a lesson in what not to do. When he tried again with *Fahrenheit 9/11 * (in 2004) he had to provide an entire website devoted to his sources for each and every statement through out the movie (most of which was shit). By the time he made Sicko, nobody cared. It came and went. I only watched it because Americans kept asking me about what Moore said about Canadian health care, and left feeling he set back the UHC movement. And when he popped out Capitalism: A Love Story it got zero attention. I’m not even sure it made the theatres.
So to bring up Moore really just shows that O’Keefe, a student of journalism, should have known better. And Republicans should have bathed in salt after watching those videos. If Moore is so bad, there is no excuse for emulating him.
So ACORN’s employees did inappropriate things, but not ACORN.
And ACORN itself suffered from longstanding management weaknesses, a lack of training, a lack of procedures, and a lack of on-site supervision, but none of that is inappropriate?
And, as everybody knows, failure to apply a rigorous system of supervision and training is precisely the same as culpability. Are you quite sure you want to attach yourself to this standard? And are you also quite sure that you want to raise “inappropriate” to the level you imply, suggest, and insinuate?