Are you saying he deliberately obfuscates the salient features of rather voluminous discourse in order to proselytize the compulsory cohabitation of those beings of the canine and feline persuasion?
Whoa dude! 
OK, I had my fun, I’m gonna run and hide now.
Ostensibly.
Thank you, I’m sure. But just for the record, you should know that, as I’ve said above, I often do not agree with certain of Lib’s beliefs or the stands he takes. Unlike certain others, however, I have no problem with allowing him to have them without it having any impact on me or how I feel about him.
True, but not everyone has the time and inclination to describe endlessly the thinking behind every comment they post. Sometimes someone just wants to respond to something someone says without having to write a book explaining why they feel that way.
I would point out this is only your estimation of his motives, and in no way does it mean this is what he’s actually doing. In my estimation, he’s either sorting out his own thoughts on the matter or trying to engage others in a spirited discussion regarding whatever it was he posted.
Of course, I could be wrong, too. The difference between us is that I am aware of it.
Well, I’ll have to stay out of this one because I’m not familiar with what took place. Based on our own interactions, I do know that you have a tendency to declare yourself to be the victor after the fact, or to have had the definitive last word on a subject, when such has not been the case. (Remember your having allegedly set me straight on my “blaming” hippies for today’s social decline, long after the discussion had taken place and when I wasn’t around to contest it?)
But, as you said, this thread is about Lib, so unless you have other comments to make about me, I’ll back off and return to the subject at hand.
This is what I posted about your own dishonesty. I know you don’t like Dewey; I don’t care much about how your feelings towards him.
Here’s the actual post in which I summed it up.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5787487&postcount=176
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5804168&postcount=125
Certainly you haven’t admitted to trolling - I didn’t mean to imply that you had. However, you’ve admitted to behaviors that, when other posters engage in them, are called trolling. I’m not saying that acting as the devil’s advocate is an invalid debate tactic. However, you have acknowledged that you argue points of view that aren’t your own just so they get some air. I suppose that one would have to apply some critical thinking (and read through the arrogant implication that Lib is just bravely standing up for the little guy) to decide what each instance is - is Liberal truly just arguing an unpopular but valid point of view? Or is he trying to stir shit up? Stirring shit up is, as has been illustrated quite well by earlier posters, the inevitable result of your hijacks. Perhaps you don’t look at the past results of your actions - the shit that gets stirred up in your hijacks - but, well, I’m not the only one to complain about it in this thread.
You stop discussions in their tracks by arguing things you don’t agree with. I think that’s stirring shit up. Whether it’s a worthwhile exchange for a debate in progress to be shut down in order that you may take it over and play devil’s advocate is, I guess, the central question here. I think you can guess what I think about it.
FWIW, I saw Lib utilizing formal logic, in which I have not been trained, in pursuit of such things as the Ontological Proof. I made the erroneous assumption that he had formal training in it. I now learn that he is self-taught.
In the interests of a Pit thread in which the Pittee is being castigated for nitpicking, may I observe that that erroneous assumption was only mentioned as part of a parenthetical remark regarding the unusualness of Lib’s worldview and directed at him, so that this rather arcane excursion into my error qualifies as a Grade A nitpick on its own?
Lib, I think when people, including myself, say you like to stir up shit, they are thinking of instances like this.
Your first post in the thread wasn’t that big of a deal. A little open to interpretation, but I don’t think you were trying to be confusing.
But in your response to Elysian, who is innocently seeking clarification, you further–and I think deliberately–make things worse by saying:
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.
Of course, later you explain the metaphor and why you aren’t condemning the OP. Great. But you could have done this from the get-go, when Elysian had nicely asked for an explanation towards the beginning of the thread. You did not have to let the thing drag on in that fashion. It makes you look like an inconsiderate attention whore, whether that was your intention or not.
And that’s just the thing. I like being challenged in my thought processes. I like when posters have a witty flare to their commentary. Keeps me on my toes. But when I come across your posts, I feel as if you are trying too hard to sound profound and deep–like some guru on a misty mountain top speaking to the ill-bred illiterates around him. If you’re always being “misread” or “misunderstood” or if people are always wrongly jumping on your shit, then eventually you have to start assessing whether the communication problem is yours. It’s gotten to the point where I skip over your posts because I know I’m just bound to “misread” whatever point your presenting. How is that fun, man? Ain’t this board supposed to be fun?
Martin Luther King Sr. often instructed his son to “say it plain”. It’s great advice for everyone, especially someone who regularly participates in intellectual discourse. Saying it plain doesn’t mean you have to forego the ten-dollar words (because MLK Jr. never did), but it does mean doing something so your point is always clear the FIRST TIME.
You dig?
Well, I’m not familiar with the word “animus” having that definition, and my dictionary agrees with me - but obviously the little computer dictionary I’m using is incomplete, and apparently my own vocabulary is as well.
Sorry, Starving Artist. And sorry that I decided to nitpick your word choice even when I understood what you meant. That’s a shitty thing to do; I’ll try my best not to do it again.
Especially when I’m wrong about it.
I didn’t mean to “declare myself the victor” and, if indeed I did, I apologize. I just gave up because it was clear that you weren’t willing to question the assumptions that underlay your viewpoint - that society has somehow gotten worse, that the 1950s sitcom depiction of civility is accurate, and so forth. And you never seemed to come up with a chain of logic to explain why long hair - and yes, you did cite that as one of your reasons - led to the imagined decline in civility.
I tend to give up when I realize that the person I’m arguing with is unwilling to examine their own positions and come up with a real argument. That doesn’t mean I “won”, it just means I got bored with the same ol’ go-round. I certainly consider my own view rather more justified in light of your inability to defend yours. But that doesn’t mean I “won”. Someone more capable may have been able to defend your point of view quite well.
monstro, this is most interesting. I remember that thread and I remember thinking that Liberal had gone rather easy on her, given her rather high-handed reproach of his comment, especially in light of her misinterpretation of it.
Also, I understood what he meant by both of his comments.
You are young, if I remember correctly. I think much of the disconnect between Liberal and certain of the other posters here is simply due to having different perspectives and different foundations of understanding based somewhat on age.
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.
Perhaps much of Lib’s problem here is just due to a sort of “generation gap.” 
That’s perilously close to some sort of appeal to authority, there. I think you’d find that many of us here are older than the norm for MB posting.
It’s one of the reasons I like this place so much.
You’re having a lot of fun with these backhanded compliments of yours today, aren’t you? Well, you’ll have to try harder with me, bub, although I will admit you had me going for a while.
The fact that you either refuse, or are unable, to see the point of view of another even after it’s explained to you is not a negative reflection on the other person. You claim to be open to adequate expostion if only it were made, but in reality all it takes for you to dismiss the arguments of another is for that person to fail to come to your point of view.
This is a common problem here. People believe what they do – particularly in regard to issues they feel passionately about – because of very deep-seated and complex reasons. I almost never expect that I’m going to persuade an opponent here that my point of view is correct. I’m just stating what I believe and why and I’m generally content to let people make of it what they will.
But almost invariably, someone here will accuse me of being stubborn, close-minded, recalcitrant, etc. simply because I “refuse” to come to their point of view. I explain and I explain but they just don’t get it, because “getting it” isn’t what they’re interested in in the first place. They want to convince me they are right, and if they can’t, they claim I’m either incapable of understanding the issue or inadequate in my explanation of my own point of view.
You are one such person.
Sorry, make that offensive person’s life, etc.
Or he’s just prone to intermittent but increasingly frequent assholery. The whole “he’s not really mean, you just don’t understand him” bit is preposterous. Lissener tried the same crap; conjuring profound and noble reasons why his behaviour should not only be tolerated but embraced, and failing to do so enthusastically was a sign of the failing of others and a lack of understanding of what was best for us.
I like a good sarcastic jab. I don’t pretend that it’s good medicine for the target. If someone says I’m being cryptic, I’ve no problem explaining myself clearly, rather that heaping on extra bullshit.
If there is a generation gap between Liberal and the rest of us, it’s because we’re adults (well, most of us) and he’s still a child, with a child’s sense of reason and a child’s tantrums.
That may be true, but Lib’s the only poster I can think of who routinely confuses me. He’s older than me, yes, but so are most of the posters who I’ve come to respect over the years. Age should make someone a better communicator, not worse.
My confusion had absolutely nothing to do with his point, by the way. Once I got what he was saying, I agreed with him. I don’t think you have to be a certain age to understand how being at rock bottom can make everything, including your own hygiene, seem insignificant. It’s not such a difficult concept to grasp, and it didn’t take that much to present it. How is it a positive contribution to turn something simple into something that’s dark and hard to digest? How was the thread not significantly derailed by his “gnat on a camel’s ass” remark?
I think your general fondness for Lib may make it easier to overlook the faults people keep bringing up. I’d probably feel the same way if one of my board favorites was being pitted. And yes, I have gotten into it with him before, so perhaps I’m a little biased. But I’m not the only one who thinks Lib posts in an intentionally tricky matter. Lib’s critics, like his fans, span all ages, political ideologies, and religious backgrounds.
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.
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.
Liberal implied that MissTake had insulted someone who had already suffered enough. And if she had done so, it would be fair enough to call her names. But she hadn’t. 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.
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.
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?
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.
There are at least dozens of reasons why people post the things they do. A cookie-cutter explanation that fits them all isn’t possible. My guess that perhaps some of Lib’s problem may be due to a difference in age only applies to the instances where that is the case. I’m sure he posts for many different reasons and from different moods and motivations, just like we all do. What I’m saying is that sometimes perhaps what is percieved as assholism on his part is due simply to a misunderstanding caused by the differing perspectives of age.
I’ll just point out that I like Lib. He’s very interesting and knowledgeable and not afraid to express opinions that generally seem to be at odds with the prevailing consensus. Why most of us here seem to prefer cookie cutter posters to a well meaning maverick never ceases to amaze me. Rock on Lib !
Sometimes that might be the case. I’ve been on the receiving end of hostility myself when something I’ve said was misinterpreted, and I’ve occasionally acted the asshole when I misinterpreted the remarks of someone else. In Lib’s case, these are not random bumps in the chaos of conversation. It simply happens too frequently and too one-sidedly.
Oh Liberal, you do read my posts. How gratifying, even if you only reply to comment on someone else. Take my posts from the first page to heart. Your friends do you no favours by stroking your ego thinking they offer constructive criticism. You are actually not that much brighter than the average doper regular. You are well read, I’ll give you that, but it doesn’t seem to have congealed into anything reliable. When we are on an even basis information-wise (not uncommon outside of philosophy/christianity) I do not in the least feel overwhelmed by anything other than the volume you can produce.
I don’t mind you being “mean” once in a while and everyone does occasional hijacks. Just watch out for getting completely bogged down in the shit.
This is kind of what I’m getting at, monstro. His “well of fuck-offs” remark as well and his “gnat on a camel’s ass” remark are where the misunderstandings lie. I didn’t mean to imply that you were failing to understand the plight of the man in the OP.
To those not familiar with the above terms (i.e., perhaps due to youth), they apparently can sound offensive; to those of us who are already familiar with them, they aren’t. I doubt that Lib had any idea either of those two remarks would cause hard feelings. I wouldn’t have.
I think you meant “e.g.”. Perhaps a typing error, due to old age for example.
