# Allright, I'll do it. Liberal... **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [February 5, 2005, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allright-ill-do-it-liberal/288529 "2005-02-05T16:01:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2005, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allright-ill-do-it-liberal/288529/161 "2005-02-06T22:47:27Z")
So… he tried to clarify one innocuous obsolete phrase by using another? That’s just… dumb. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2005, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allright-ill-do-it-liberal/288529/162 "2005-02-06T22:50:29Z")
> [@Starving Artist](#): > > Perhaps much of **Lib’s** problem here is just due to a sort of “generation gap.” 😛 I’m forty-four, and I find Liberal to be an intellectual dullard with a nasty disposition. ---
**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:** [February 6, 2005, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allright-ill-do-it-liberal/288529/163 "2005-02-06T22:51:13Z")
> [@Excalibre](#): > > I think you’re a little bit condescending in the implication that the poster couldn’t possibly understand what the malodorous client had been through. Actually, since it’s MissTake’s job to work with such clients, she probably has a very good idea as to their life situation. Perhaps even better than you and Liberal. Two things: One, where did imply the poster “couldn’t possibly” understand what the client had been through? Two, **MissTake** is not the poster I was addressing; it was **monstro** who I felt was perhaps too young to have understood what Lib was saying about how **MissTake** was likely perceived by her client. > [@Excalibre](#): > > But the essence of the matter is that MissTake did nothing wrong. She didn’t tell her client to leave, or to take a shower; she didn’t say “You smell like ass!” She saved it up, and bitched about it later on a message board, where the odds of the client finding out are minimal. A lot of people do that here. That’s part of what the pit is for, is bitching about one’s minor frustrations. I never said, and I’d really like to know how you come to believe I did, that **MissTake** was wrong in posting her complaint. > [@Excalibre](#): > > Liberal implied that MissTake had insulted someone who had already suffered enough. He did no such thing! (And you claim comprehension is _my_ problem!) He attempted to describe how little the client would have been concerned with his hygiene and the offense he caused the OP, given all the other shit he had to contend with in daily living. > [@Excalibre](#): > > And so Liberal was actually throwing a tantrum because MissTake had the audacity to _think_ something unsympathetic about her client. It’s not good enough, in Liberal’s world, to avoid _saying_ nasty things to other people, you are furthermore enjoined from even _thinking_ them. Of course Liberal’s insult of MissTake seems to contradict that. Well, I’ll have to leave it to Lib to explain what his intentions were when he said what he did. But I didn’t perceive it that way at all, and I didn’t get that impression from his follow-up answer, either. > [@Excalibre](#): > > And not only that, but Liberal chose to give a cryptic response, and to back it up with an insult when no one understood him. That’s simply an irritatingly bad debate tactic. Liberal really acted like a jerk in that thread; I don’t understand why he feels the need to lash out the way he does at people who haven’t done anything to deserve it. Perhaps because this “need to lash out” exists only in your own mind? Lib did not act like a jerk in that thread. The offense that was taken to what he said was exactly what he said it was at the time: a misunderstanding. **monstro** and the OP misunderstood what he meant by his comments. He was attempting exposition of the client’s state of mind; they read personal insult. Who was at fault? I can’t say. If **Lib** was at fault then I am, too, because I understood it the way he appears to have meant it. But I don’t believe it was **Lib’s** intent to annoy **monstro** or insult the OP. > [@Excalibre](#): > > It couldn’t possibly relate to an inability, or unwillingness, to explain yourself? Aren’t you doing the same thing right here? If I think your “debate” in that thread was lacking, it’s because I’m being close-minded? Perhaps you could explain just how I’m lacking in exposition here, 'cause I’m spinning my wheels like mad trying to make you guys see what I’m getting at. How is it that I’m not being clear? > [@Excalibre](#): > > Starving Artist, I explained in my last message exactly what was wrong with your argument from the perspective of forming a logical argument. I won’t do so again. But perhaps you should consider the notion that maybe, just maybe, the problems you have here so very often are the result of your own doings. Sometimes it’s not everyone else who has the problem - it’s you. I was beginning to think that perhaps you had a point…but then you made this post where you demonstrated a complete and utter misunderstanding of my post to **monstro** , even down to and including the fact that you didn’t even know it was her I was talking to. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2005, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allright-ill-do-it-liberal/288529/164 "2005-02-06T22:53:02Z")
Excalibre When you said something about me misspelling your name in that thread, I did not realize that you were referring to something from 2004. I looked through the thread we were in at the time, saw nothing of the sort, and asked, “What the…?”. I see now that I used the spelling of King Arthur’s sword on a couple of occasions last year. I apologize for that. ---
**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:** [February 6, 2005, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allright-ill-do-it-liberal/288529/165 "2005-02-06T22:53:28Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > I think you meant “e.g.”. Perhaps a typing error, due to old age for example. > > 😉 Perhaps. 😛 I was of the impression the “e.g.” meant “therefore,” whereas “i.e.” meant “that is.” Is I wrong? 😉 ---
**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:** [February 6, 2005, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allright-ill-do-it-liberal/288529/166 "2005-02-06T22:54:37Z")
> [@Muffin](#): > > I’m forty-four, and I find Liberal to be an intellectual dullard with a nasty disposition. That’s why I said “much,” rather than “all.” 😉 ---
**Author:** ![tnetennba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7993a0/32.png) [@tnetennba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tnetennba)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2005, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allright-ill-do-it-liberal/288529/167 "2005-02-06T22:58:53Z")
Liberal – the same arguments had been made many times, but you ignored them. I don’t even remember if Darwin actually presented a “deductive syllogism,” but he did use a lot of sciency-sounding terminlogy that steamrolled you. You struck me not as a scientist having a high-level discussion with other scientists, but some drunk muscleman at a bar picking fights with everyone, but getting all meek when the bouncer shows up. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2005, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allright-ill-do-it-liberal/288529/168 "2005-02-06T22:59:51Z")
> [@Dewey Cheatem Undhow](#): > > I’ve kept this little set of links for whenever a libertarianism argument creeps up on the SDMB; it’s easier than re-arguing the same ground over and over. _They’re watching_ I always wondered who _they_ were. [They] is Dewey. 😃 Anyway, thanks for assembling and posting the list. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2005, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allright-ill-do-it-liberal/288529/169 "2005-02-06T23:00:16Z")
> [@Monstro](#): > > Most posters in that thread think you are being rather insulting in your remark. Who wants to be a gnat on a camel’s ass? Rather than using straightforward language, you pull out a strange metaphor and just leave it hanging in the air. How is this simplifying things? Were we all supposed to go, “Ah! I see now! She’s a gnat and that’s why the guy stinks!” I think you’re intelligent enough to know we would not do this, and that’s why I think your actions are 100% deliberate and assholish. That would make sense indeed, and I would agree, were it not for the fact that the reference is not obscure or strange at all. It is, in fact, a quite famous reference made by Jesus during His ripping admonition to the Pharisees. He said to them, “You strain gnats and swallow camels,” — meaning, of course, that they pick over the minutiae of the law, while ignoring the greater precepts like mercy, forgiveness, and charity. Saying that the guy with such extremely low self-esteem views her as a gnat on a camel’s ass means simply that he — from his perspective — is worried about other things so much that her concerns are hardly even perceptible to him. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2005, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allright-ill-do-it-liberal/288529/170 "2005-02-06T23:02:21Z")
> [@Starving Artist](#): > > That’s why I said “much,” rather than “all.” 😉 Perhaps I’m just young at heart. ---
**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:** [February 6, 2005, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allright-ill-do-it-liberal/288529/171 "2005-02-06T23:03:11Z")
Well, life beckons…so I must adjourn. Thanks for an interesting afternoon, all. And keep on keepin’ on, **Lib**. You’re one of the most interesting posters here. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2005, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allright-ill-do-it-liberal/288529/172 "2005-02-06T23:15:47Z")
> [@cricetus](#): > > Liberal – the same arguments had been made many times, but you ignored them. I don’t even remember if Darwin actually presented a “deductive syllogism,” but he did use a lot of sciency-sounding terminlogy that steamrolled you. You struck me not as a scientist having a high-level discussion with other scientists, but some drunk muscleman at a bar picking fights with everyone, but getting all meek when the bouncer shows up. He did indeed offer a deductive syllogism, mainly, I think, because I asked him to. I wanted to see how he would derive the point he was making from a set of premises. His major premise was true. His minor premise was true. His conclusion followed from them as a valid modus ponens. I had no choice but to admit my error. That’s what logic is _for_, my opinion — to give clarity to an argument and make it open to inspection for validity, soundness, or fallacy. Upon seeing his deduction, I immediately changed my mind. How I might have struck you is part of what I’ve promised to work on from the advice and criticism given in this thread. Naturally, it will take time to work through the list I made. Nevertheless, because you were hurt by my behavior, even if unintentional, I would like to offer you my sincere apology, and ask whether you and I might start with a clean slate. I will remember your name, and make every effort to be as civil and coherent as I possibly can. Incidentally, my interest in that thread was not in the science per se, but in the philosophy of the science. Falsification is a philosophical principle. It cannot be scientific because it is not itself falsifiable; that is, you cannot test scientifically whether falsifiability is true. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2005, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allright-ill-do-it-liberal/288529/173 "2005-02-06T23:17:09Z")
> [@Starving Artist](#): > > Well, life beckons…so I must adjourn. Thanks for an interesting afternoon, all. > > And keep on keepin’ on, **Lib**. You’re one of the most interesting posters here. Good night, Artist. I’m breaking off for now as well. ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2005, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allright-ill-do-it-liberal/288529/174 "2005-02-06T23:27:42Z")
> [@Starving Artist](#): > > Two things: One, where did imply the poster “couldn’t possibly” understand what the client had been through? Two, **MissTake** is not the poster I was addressing; it was **monstro** who I felt was perhaps too young to have understood what Lib was saying about how **MissTake** was likely perceived by her client. I know sometimes I don’t act too bright. But I still don’t understand what was too profound in that thread that an almost-30-year-old person with a Ph.D couldn’t grasp it. Was “gnat on a camel’s ass” a form of expression back in the 1950s or something? Was it Jack Kerouac or Lucille Ball who came up with “wells of fuck-yous”? It’s all well and good to say he was using “grown up” language. But an intelligent person knows who his audience is. If he wants to be understood, he needs to speak like everyone else. It’s not about being “cookie cutter”. It’s about being a level-headed participant of a public forum. > [@](#): > > He did no such thing! (And you claim comprehension is _my_ problem!) He attempted to describe how little the client would have been concerned with his hygiene and the offense he caused the OP, given all the other shit he had to contend with in daily living. It took pestering him for him to do this, though. > [@](#): > > Well, I’ll have to leave it to Lib to explain what his intentions were when he said what he did. But I didn’t perceive it that way at all, and I didn’t get that impression from his follow-up answer, either. Good for you! You passed the test! But don’t you see why it would make the rest of us feel frustrated when we continually fail? Is it our fault for being so dumb? Or is it **Lib’s** fault for making the test too hard? > [@](#): > > Perhaps because this “need to lash out” exists only in your own mind? Lib did not act like a jerk in that thread. The offense that was taken to what he said was exactly what he said it was at the time: a misunderstanding. **monstro** and the OP misunderstood what he meant by his comments. He was attempting exposition of the client’s state of mind; they read personal insult. And I argue that any intelligent person could have anticipated the offense that would have been felt by **Lib’s** comments. Using my own logic, either **Lib** intentionally pissed people off or he showed he isn’t that intelligent. The latter can be forgiven. But the former is despicable behavior. > [@](#): > > Who was at fault? I can’t say. If **Lib** was at fault then I am, too, because I understood it the way he appears to have meant it. But I don’t believe it was **Lib’s** intent to annoy **monstro** or insult the OP. Maybe if it only happened once in awhile, I would believe you. > [@](#): > > Perhaps you could explain just how I’m lacking in exposition here, 'cause I’m spinning my wheels like mad trying to make you guys see what I’m getting at. How is it that I’m not being clear? It just seems like you are bending over backwards to come up with explanations that aren’t very convincing. You seem to be placing the blame for all the communication problems on the listener, but not on the communicator–who is supposed to be this massive fount of wisdom and elucidation. I understand what you are saying. It just doesn’t wash with me. ---
**Author:** ![tnetennba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7993a0/32.png) [@tnetennba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tnetennba)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2005, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allright-ill-do-it-liberal/288529/175 "2005-02-06T23:28:49Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > He did indeed offer a deductive syllogism, mainly, I think, because I asked him to. I wanted to see how he would derive the point he was making from a set of premises. His major premise was true. His minor premise was true. His conclusion followed from them as a valid modus ponens. I had no choice but to admit my error. That’s what logic is _for_, my opinion — to give clarity to an argument and make it open to inspection for validity, soundness, or fallacy. Upon seeing his deduction, I immediately changed my mind. > > How I might have struck you is part of what I’ve promised to work on from the advice and criticism given in this thread. Naturally, it will take time to work through the list I made. Nevertheless, because you were hurt by my behavior, even if unintentional, I would like to offer you my sincere apology, and ask whether you and I might start with a clean slate. I will remember your name, and make every effort to be as civil and coherent as I possibly can. > > Incidentally, my interest in that thread was not in the science per se, but in the philosophy of the science. Falsification is a philosophical principle. It cannot be scientific because it is not itself falsifiable; that is, you cannot test scientifically whether falsifiability is true. I’m sore because I felt I made a pretty good case, with cites, and was ignored. However, I do like you and appreciate your post. ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2005, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allright-ill-do-it-liberal/288529/176 "2005-02-06T23:31:40Z")
And now I look like a loud-mouth ass. ---
**Author:** ![Excalibre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/898d66/32.png) [@Excalibre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Excalibre)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2005, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allright-ill-do-it-liberal/288529/177 "2005-02-06T23:34:48Z")
Starving Artist: Sorry dude, I no longer have any clue what you’re talking about, or why you think I misinterpreted what you said. You wrote a post to Monstro. I quoted it. I used it as a jumping off point to describe exactly what was so unpleasant about Liberal’s behavior during that thread. I said you were being condescending when you said this: > [@Starving Artist](#): > > In other words, I’m old enough to understand something of what the effensive person’s life was like and what Lib meant be his description of how he likely viewed the OP. I also understood exactly what Lib meant with his follow-up. To me, it didn’t seem out of line at all. It was succinct, and like I said before, it was more polite a response than I would expected given the tone of the question he was responding to. When you said “offensive person”, you meant MissTake’s pungent client, correct? Your discussion of “generation gaps” and so forth implied that us young’uns don’t understand what it’s like to be down on our luck. If you don’t see why it’s patronizing to say, “Oh, you just don’t get it. You’re too young,” then I can’t help you. If, on the other hand, your claim is that Lib, at his most cryptic, will start to make sense when I get older, then I have to be skeptical. You seem to have misinterpreted several things I said in that post, and I may well have been unclear, but I can’t follow anything else you said. I quoted a post you wrote to monstro in order to make a statement about Liberal (the pittee, remember?) > [@Starving Artist](#): > > > [@Excalibre](#): > > > > But the essence of the matter is that MissTake did nothing wrong. She didn’t tell her client to leave, or to take a shower; she didn’t say “You smell like ass!” She saved it up, and bitched about it later on a message board, where the odds of the client finding out are minimal. A lot of people do that here. That’s part of what the pit is for, is bitching about one’s minor frustrations. > > I never said, and I’d really like to know how you come to believe I did, that MissTake was wrong in posting her complaint. I never said that you said that MissTake told her client to take a shower. I don’t know where you’re even getting that notion. I quoted your post, but I was not writing a letter to you; it was an open message board, and in case you didn’t notice, I was describing Liberal’s behavior. Liberal stated that MissTake had added to the smelly client’s “well of fuck off” (or something like that.) To add to someone’s “well of fuck off”, you’d have to be saying “fuck off”. He implied strongly that MissTake had somehow insulted her client. She hadn’t. That’s what my post was about. If Liberal didn’t intend any insult to the OP of that thread, the “well of fuck off” certainly implied it. Beyond that, you seem to have misinterpreted the thrust of my post so badly I can’t make out what you’re getting at. > [@Starving Artist](#): > > I was beginning to think that perhaps you had a point…but then you made this post where you demonstrated a complete and utter misunderstanding of my post to monstro, even down to and including the fact that you didn’t even know it was her I was talking to. Why in the world do you think I didn’t know who you were talking to? I quoted your post. You addressed mostro by name in that post. I must have been very unclear in the post in question, because you seem to have misinterpreted every part of it. I was discussing Liberal’s conduct in the linked thread. When I mentioned MissTake, I was describing Liberal’s behavior towards MissTake. She was the OP of the thread about the smelly client. I don’t see the point in continuing this discussion, since we both seem to be piling misinterpretation on top of misinterpretation. At any rate, you badly misinterpreted my post. It’s not worth trying to figure out who said what to whom about who said what to whom about who said what to whom. > [@Liberal](#): > > Excalibre > > When you said something about me misspelling your name in that thread, I did not realize that you were referring to something from 2004. I looked through the thread we were in at the time, saw nothing of the sort, and asked, “What the…?”. I see now that I used the spelling of King Arthur’s sword on a couple of occasions last year. I apologize for that. You brought me up in a thread about the word “fundy”, misspelling my name. I happened to read the thread, I asked you to spell it properly, and you continued to misspell it. I asked you again to spell it right. You posted another thread (your quickly-closed discussion of what constitutes a hijack) and you misspelled it there. Your misspellings continued in spite of two requests to stop, so if you mean to claim it was inadvertent, I don’t believe you. Just a few days ago, in another thread, we were arguing, and I pointed out (dredging an example out of 2004, as you noted - probably the last time I had any particular contact with you here on the boards) your (purposeful) misspelling of my name. You claimed you hadn’t done so, so I wrote the post that linked to the threads containing your insults. You fled. It wasn’t until I liniked to _that_ post (linking to the two threads containing your insults) in this thread that you responded. You won’t admit to being wrong until you’re cornered, and you flee (and lie) to avoid doing so. Even know you haven’t acknowledged that it was on purpose. You know, I wouldn’t have thought any less of you if you had admitted that you’d misspelled my name as a childish insult. But you’ll do anything to avoid admitting a mistake, won’t you? > [@Liberal](#): > > That would make sense indeed, and I would agree, were it not for the fact that the reference is not obscure or strange at all. It is, in fact, a quite famous reference made by Jesus during His ripping admonition to the Pharisees. He said to them, “You strain gnats and swallow camels,” — meaning, of course, that they pick over the minutiae of the law, while ignoring the greater precepts like mercy, forgiveness, and charity. Saying that the guy with such extremely low self-esteem views her as a gnat on a camel’s ass means simply that he — from his perspective — is worried about other things so much that her concerns are hardly even perceptible to him. Foreign to me. Perhaps it’s because I’m not a member of your religion, and haven’t therefore studied your particular Holy Book. Meanwhile, I’d just like to point out the irony of Liberal disclaiming the picking over of minutiae. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2005, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allright-ill-do-it-liberal/288529/178 "2005-02-07T00:04:33Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > I’ve seen Dewey’s list before, and I believe it is a fraud. It is a self-serving compilation of melt-downs and loose-ends from years ago when he deliberately bombarded me with more absurdly hypothetical questions than I could possibly address, and then sat back and watched me try to type four-hundred words a minute to stay caught up. That is a patent falsehood, as a brief perusal of the threads in the list will prove to the reader. The only threads in the list that could conceivably fit the description you proffer are the “Brief Foray…” and “Sucks Cycle” threads (and, of course, I dispute your description of even those threads – my questions were, as always, substantive in nature, save perhaps for a little frivolity at the beginning involving public nudity). The rest are normal debates on the relative merits of libertarianism. Indeed, in the May 2004 thread [Libertarianism: Sell Me](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=4907129) (which is itself listed in the link list, and which came well after the meltdown threads), after I posted the latest version of the list (and solicited for any additions I had overlooked) you specifically asked me to locate a thread for you: > [@Lib](#): > > Dewey, a favor please… I had posted a short story in MPSIMS called “Sarah’s Gold”, and used to have it referenced as my profile’s web page, but lost the reference due to the changeover to paid registrations. I can’t find it now. Would you see if you could try? Thanks. I then added that thread to the library, posting a link in the same form as the previously-posted link list. Rather than objecting to its inclusion of the list, you thanked me for finding it. Then you asked about my search-fu. Now, I suppose I never explicitly said I was adding it to the list, and you never explicitly asked for its inclusion, but I think it was pretty clearly understood by all involved that it would be included. So why is was the list not afraud then, but suddenly is now? > [@Liberal](#): > > He represents it as some sort of compendium on libertarian shortcomings. This, too, is a falsehood. Indeed, I defy you to find an instance of me ever representing the list as anything other than a compilation of libertarianism discussions on this board, put together so readers can have some background on the topic. > [@Liberal](#): > > The sheer pleasure that he takes in copying and pasting the list in multiple threads over a long period of time ought to be enough of a clue that his motivation is nothing more than petty spite. I set up the list because it’s efficient, not because it’s fun. I have similar lists related to discussions on the nature of rights and constitutional law, topics with which you have had minimal, if any, participation, and I’ve posted them in later threads on those topics. Is that list for “petty spite,” too? > [@Liberal](#): > > I abandoned discussion with him for no reason other than I found him to be insincere, disingenuous, dishonest, and worth not one more minute of my time or effort. I no longer read his posts. I continue to think it’s because I ask questions that demonstrate the flaws in your chosen philosophy, nd because you can’t handle answering difficult questions. I would very much like to be proven wrong on that front. ---
**Author:** ![EddyTeddyFreddy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eddyteddyfreddy/32/18796_2.png) [@EddyTeddyFreddy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EddyTeddyFreddy)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2005, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allright-ill-do-it-liberal/288529/179 "2005-02-07T02:33:48Z")
Take this as opinions coming from one who has [pitted](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=271683) **Lib** (and **Desmo** , package deal) and also praised him: Valid criticisms: 1. Too quick to take personal offense and sling back vitriol. 2. Too apt to indulge a weakness for snarky drivebys. 3. Too fond of obfuscatory language – a fault made all the more grating because **Lib** is quite capable of clear, direct expression when he puts his mind to it. 4. Too ready to assign opponents to some political pigeonhole and dismiss them as partisan robots. 5. Too eager to recast, redirect, hijack debates into discussions of the Libertarian philosophy, no matter how tangential its application to the topic at hand. Those are the major things that bug me. They’re all amendable with the application of due deliberation before posting. ---
**Author:** ![Biffy\_the\_Elephant\_Shrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e47c2d/32.png) [@Biffy\_the\_Elephant\_Shrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biffy_the_Elephant_Shrew)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2005, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allright-ill-do-it-liberal/288529/180 "2005-02-07T02:47:38Z")
> [@Starving Artist](#): > > I was of the impression the “e.g.” meant “therefore,” whereas “i.e.” meant “that is.” > > Is I wrong? 😉 “e.g.” (_exempli gratia_) means “for example,” not “therefore.” You’re right about “i.e.” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allright-ill-do-it-liberal/288529.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allright-ill-do-it-liberal/288529.md?page=10)