Fascinating! I would, no doubt, be even more impressed if I had any idea what an “unconvoluting construction” might be! A Moebius cube?
*Milum, as long as we’re on the subject of “unconvoluting constructions,” what’s your point?
convoluting construction n. (semantics)
- A joining of ideas so illogical that further examinanation can only increase incomprehension.
- A Moebius cube.
pedantry pickency n. ( formal debate)
- a technique of redirection by the use of a pedant point when one is not prepared to address the major point in question.
- A Cecilian dodge.
Milum, I think you’ve made a pretty decent case that some posters have lost patience with december in this thread and have lapsed into discourteous conduct. But it does not follow that such posts, however mildly indecorous, are illogical or convoluted. That is itself an illogical proposition. If you think that these posters have argued illogically why don’t you demonstrate that? Otherwise, I gather that your point is that they should remember the rules of GD, a reminder that I’m sure these posters will heed without protest.
I would add though that a few of the posts you mention aren’t, IMO, discourteous. That’s especially true of Dr. Goo Fee’s remark which is a quotation from HUAC, entirely pertinent to the subject this thread. The quotation may cast december’s conduct in an ironic light but that is hardly inappropriate for this forum as I see it.
I’m still trying to figure out who Avalion is… though his words sound oddly familiar. 
And, if you read the post “Avalion” was referring to (quoted as part of the response), you’ll find that december was indeed twisting the meaning of the word “arrogant” to his own ends. If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, and smells like pond water, I see nothing wrong with calling it what it is.
Milum, it’s funny that you pick on these posts and posters, calling them pedantic, when your own post in an exercise in pedantry itself. You take tiny parts of people’s posts and quote them out of context, ignoring much of the substance of what has been dicussed. What you’ve apparently missed is that the other posters here and I have tried for 5 pages now to show how december’s initial question, in the OP, is biased and false on the face of it. He has obfuscated, misdirected, or ignored the substance of our arguments, accusing of of “hijacking” a topic that he himself cannot seem to address honestly.
As Mandelstam says, certainly some posters have lost patience. Can you blame them? december’s behavior, rarely exemplary, has in this thread been rather shameful, as he continually dodges substantive, reasonable responses. To my mind, it is his behavior that has brought this thread to below the standard for GD. Most of the other posters, with a couple exceptions, have shown remarkable restraint in dealing with him.
Perhaps you’d like to re-read the whole thread, Milum, and then respond to it, rather than just sniping at other posters?
Milum, as long as we’re on the subject of “unconvoluting constructions,” what’s your point? ~ Eva Luna
Well Eva, my 'unconvoluted construction" is that Mr. December’s understanding of the make up of world events was not being debated with a sincere interest in uncovering the reality of his take on events, but rather that the thread was fast becoming a feeding frenzy of like minded folk, and so needed re-focusing without the light-hearted dismissive remarks.
In no way do I suggest that Mr. December needed help in dealing with these “distracting asides”. I think he handled most of these rude personal comments very well. But something in my make up makes me want to get a stick when I see a pack of fun-loving dogs attacking a flea bitten cur. Not, of course, that Mr. December is a flea-bitten cur. Besides, I believe that Mr. December can easily handle a mob of fun-loving dogs.
He obviously doesn’t have one.:rolleyes:
I’m glad we agree.
Enjoy,
Steven
**Avalonian ** Perhaps you’d like to re-read the whole thread, Milum, and then respond to it, rather than just sniping at other posters?
( Dismissing poor Milo as a snipper.)
blowero He obviously doesn’t have one.
(Empirically declaring that Milo has no point.)
Mtgman
*I’m glad we agree. * [wink]
( Using wit to counter chiding words that, in effect have said, “December! Go sit in the corner!”)
Gee Whiz gang, I don’t have the patience or skill to become a new kicking dummy for the collective dogmas of your young minds. But I will happily respond with cafeful measure to ** Maldelstam**'s polite and reasonable question…
** But it does not follow that such posts, however mildly indecorous, are illogical or convoluted. That is itself an illogical proposition. If you think that these posters have argued illogically why don’t you demonstrate that? **
And I soon will.
I was spared!!! I was spared!!!
Since my name was left off the original House Ankle-Nipping Activities Commitee list:
“So you’re saying that you all want catnip…” :rolleyes:
Ummmm, maybe that’s because many of us had spent the first 4 pages or so of the thread attempting to use logic, and it wasn’t getting much of anywhere, so we were foolishly trying to determine whether there was any further purpose in using logic?
Perhaps the whole exercise was a waste of electrons, perhaps not, but I don’t think it had anything to do with anyone’s disinteret in discovering the OP’s take on world events. We understand it, but many of us iasagree with it for the most part, so we were trying to figure whether there was any point in continuing to discuss an important issue with someone who seems completely disinterested in keeping his mind open to alternative viewponts. Besides, arguing is tiring, so I, for one, thought it might be amusing to lighten the atmosphere for a moment. YMMV.
You’ve been pitted, Milum.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=178605
I thought some reading this thread would appreciate this Tom Tomorrow cartoon
Cute cartoon, albeit nasty. Meanwhile, the Wall St. Journal is also feeling nasty. They also see possible mental illness, but in their view the paranoids are certain war opponents.
Frankly, I wish both sides would cool it. We no longer need to fight about whether to go to war with Iraq. The war is over.
Thanks for the best laugh I’ve had in ages.
That’s funny stuff.
That’s right! And now that Iraq has been liberated, a peace-loving, pro-Western democracy is… <ahem>…
I mean, the fact that the war is effectively a fait accompli does not remove the need for accountability by the Administration, nor the need to prevent further specious US military action. “Eternal vigilance” and all that.
december, you must not have read any of the war threads if it didn’t get through to you that the war is just the start of the process under discussion. It is certainly not over, and won’t be for years or generation. Even the war itself isn’t over.
You seem to be assuming that future military action by the US is more likely to be harmful for the world than good for it. Is that a fair reading of your POV?
ISTM that someone with confidence in America’s morality would assume that future US military action would be done prudently and in the interest of a better world.
You might or might not be right in your assumption, jr8. However, that POV seems to consider America more likely to be a danger than a solution. Or, more crudely, it considers America closer to a “bad guy” than a “good guy.” That’s an example of what the OP referred to as “anti-Americanism.”