# Believe it or not, Weirddave, we can see what you've already posted **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [May 22, 2005, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believe-it-or-not-weirddave-we-can-see-what-youve-already-posted/304952 "2005-05-22T14:19:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Rilchiam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@Rilchiam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rilchiam)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2005, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believe-it-or-not-weirddave-we-can-see-what-youve-already-posted/304952/21 "2005-05-22T23:58:54Z")
All I know is, I am **so** glad we can’t edit our posts here. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2005, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believe-it-or-not-weirddave-we-can-see-what-youve-already-posted/304952/22 "2005-05-23T01:18:35Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > What’s pathetic about this thread is RT’s admission that this was what he has been waiting for — the opportunity to slam somebody for what he perceives as obliviousness. I did in fact admit I’d been meaning to raise this particular _issue_ for awhile. I can’t say it’s surprising that Weirddave provided the spark that caused me to start this thread, since I regard him as a fairly frequent flyer with respect to this, but he’s hardly the only one. I wasn’t waiting around for an opportunity to nab Weirddave specifically. But I got sufficiently frustrated with his conduct in that particular thread that it seemed that if I didn’t raise the issue then, what exactly was I waiting for? > [@](#): > > If he were calling out both the left and the right for honestly quite equal obliviousness with respect to each other, I’d give him credit for doing what you described: holding people accountable. It isn’t a _partisan_ issue; feigning obliviousness to one’s own assertions earlier on in the same thread is stupid and disingenious, no matter who’s doing it. FWIW, Weirddave claims to belong to neither side. So by his own lights, I wasn’t holding one side but not the other accountable anyway. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2005, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believe-it-or-not-weirddave-we-can-see-what-youve-already-posted/304952/23 "2005-05-23T01:23:45Z")
> [@Rilchiam](#): > > All I know is, I am **so** glad we can’t edit our posts here. I confess I’d like a 2-minute window to edit, for all those times I hit ‘submit’ rather than ‘preview’ only to find I’ve messed up the coding. (Yeah, I know about the buttons, but since I’m used to doing my own vB code, I don’t use 'em that often.) I doubt it would give people more than the rarest of chances to modify their posts to make people’s responses look silly. But that’s a whole 'nother issue really. ---
**Author:** ![Nocturne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/9fc348/32.png) [@Nocturne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nocturne)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2005, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believe-it-or-not-weirddave-we-can-see-what-youve-already-posted/304952/24 "2005-05-23T02:32:13Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > I know what you mean. I was going to vote Democrat again until RT pissed me off. I don’t know if this is a serious reply or not, but I’ll explain: I’ve just seen a lot of nastiness lately, in real life, and on this board, from people who call themselves “Christians.” It really makes me frustrated. That’s all. I’ve seen you be really nice and patient. I know you’re not made of patience, but it just seems like you’ve gone out of your way to be nasty to people. I’m really not trying to be shitty to you, **Liberal** , but it seems to me (and maybe others) that you’re being shitty to other people. I’ve defended people here too, but I try not to overstate the case when I think someone’s being a dick. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2005, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believe-it-or-not-weirddave-we-can-see-what-youve-already-posted/304952/25 "2005-05-23T03:07:57Z")
The term you are looking for, **RT** , is [Lekatting](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=169316). Although Morrising might be as good. ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2005, 6:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believe-it-or-not-weirddave-we-can-see-what-youve-already-posted/304952/26 "2005-05-23T06:23:29Z")
**Nocturne** , I don’t know **Lib** so I’m not speaking about him. But I have met some very sincere Christians over the internet who have difficulty maintaining a traditional loving and peaceful relationship with others because of mood disorders. The ones I’ve known always regret their viciousness and they have difficulties with forgiving themselves. It’s horrible to be filled with such aggression when everything that is of greatest value to you teaches love. Sorry, for the sermon. Just remember that there is much we don’t know about each other here. (I used to have terrible problems with rage myself.) I have nothing against **Weirddave** , but **RTFirefly’s** comments were reasonable and well-illustrated. No, he doesn’t have to list contradictions from every political point of view. The fact that the statements were political in nature wasn’t the issue. I had this same problem with someone else recently myself and he just kind of went beserk with insults and spun himself into an incoherent mess before evaporating. It was a strange experience and a waste of time. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2005, 8:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believe-it-or-not-weirddave-we-can-see-what-youve-already-posted/304952/27 "2005-05-23T08:18:40Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > I did in fact admit I’d been meaning to raise this particular _issue_ for awhile. I can’t say it’s surprising that Weirddave provided the spark that caused me to start this thread, since I regard him as a fairly frequent flyer with respect to this, but he’s hardly the only one. I wasn’t waiting around for an opportunity to nab Weirddave specifically. But I got sufficiently frustrated with his conduct in that particular thread that it seemed that if I didn’t raise the issue then, what exactly was I waiting for? > > It isn’t a _partisan_ issue; feigning obliviousness to one’s own assertions earlier on in the same thread is stupid and disingenious, no matter who’s doing it. > > FWIW, Weirddave claims to belong to neither side. So by his own lights, I wasn’t holding one side but not the other accountable anyway. I must say that, especially given the rather blunt way in which I criticized you, your response to me was thoughtful, measured, and sensible. I appreciate the explanation, RT, and I’m sorry for interpreting you in the worst possible way. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2005, 1:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believe-it-or-not-weirddave-we-can-see-what-youve-already-posted/304952/28 "2005-05-23T13:36:56Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > I must say that, especially given the rather blunt way in which I criticized you, your response to me was thoughtful, measured, and sensible. I appreciate the explanation, RT, and I’m sorry for interpreting you in the worst possible way. No prob, **Lib**. ---
**Author:** ![Weirddave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Weirddave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weirddave)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2005, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believe-it-or-not-weirddave-we-can-see-what-youve-already-posted/304952/29 "2005-05-23T14:25:12Z")
Was there a deadline for the “lame pitting of the year” award that you were trying to make or something RTF? What I find amazing about this thread is not that you no longer care about issues, right and wrong or integrity, for you everything is viewed through a partisan political lens, you’ve as much as admitted that all that is important to you is opposing the Republicans on anything and everything, no matter what the issue. It’s not that you think selective nitpicking is actually constructive debate, you haven’t been able to make that distinction in years. No, what I find amazing is that you start a thread titled “we can see what you’ve already posted” about a thread that, if anyone bothers to read it, clearly shows that you’re practicing the worst kind of selective quoting here. Reading “what I’ve already posted” in that thread disproves your entire point. Somehow the irony of this flies completely over your head. In order: > [@](#): > > With respect to (1): In post 56, rjung responded: “Cite for the “traditionally,” please. It’s certainly not unprecedented for the Senate Judiciary Committee to block judicial nominees so they can’t get a chance for a full vote by the Senate – the Republicans squelched over sixty of Bill Clinton’s nominees that way.” > > Dave’s rejoinder: “So tell me rjung, is the issue here keeping nominees in committee? Because if it is, than you have just made an on topic point. It’s not? Well than what the fuck are you bringing it up for?” This one I have to scratch my head at, because it’s completely true. Filibustering to prevent a floor vote and killing a nomination in committee are two different things. In any event, what you chose to leave completely out of this thread is what I had to say about both: > [@me](#): > > Using procedural loopholes to prevent an honest vote, weather it’s by Democrats or Republicans, in committee or on the floor, is BAD GOVERNMENT. So what is your point here? > [@](#): > > Or (2): in the same post, rjung adds: “Does Bill Frist filibustering against Clinton nominee Richard Paez count?” > > Dave: “That as an attempt to filibuster, I don’t believe it actually worked.” Republicans tries to get a filibuster going against Richard Paez. They failed. Why you think this should count as an actual filibuster is beyond me. Again, what is your point here? So far, RTF, you seem to be 0 for 2 in things that you think are me posting one thing and then denying what I’ve said. Frankly, I don’t even see how those first two examples were supposed to be indicative of that, but they were what you posted, claiming that these instances proved I had changed my story. _shrug_ Let’s continue. > [@](#): > > Or (3): In post 97, TYM said: “You stated that the right to an up-or-down vote is in the Constitution. I said prove it. You weasled.” > > Dave, post 99: “Except that nowhere did I say the Constitution demands an up-and-down vote.” And I didn’t. Christ, RT, this is getting more and more confusing. Do you have an example of my saying “The Constitution demands an up-and-down floor vote on judicial nominees”? You don’t. I don’t understand what you are trying to prove here, especially since **what I actually posted** isn’t close to what you are implying. > [@me](#): > > Except that nowhere did I say the Constitution demands an up-and-down vote. What I said, which you intentionally omitted because it blows your point out of the water (Here for those of you playing along at home), was: > > > [@weirddave](#): > > > > **Traditionally** , judicial nominees come from the President and are subject to an up-or-down vote on the floor of the Senate. > > That’s entirely different from saying that the Constitution demands an up-and-down vote. Instead of being honest and admitting that, you had to play the partisan idiot game, distorting what your opponent says to make a point, because you don’t have one otherwise. Fortunately, in a text medium like this one, what people actually say is preserved, exposing you as the bald faced liar that you are. Skitter away to mommy, hypocrite, let her salve your wounds and tell you that it’s ok to lie, ther, there, everbody really does like you, you’re mommy’s little tiger!. The adults here are tired of your games. > [@](#): > > And later, there was this: > > Dave, post 108: “Show me one place in this thread where I started the insults. I have responded to insults thrown my way, I have not initiated them with anyone.” > > As I pointed out there - Dave, post 58: “Rjung, I know this is like asking a cow to breath water, but I’ll try again anyway. Just once try thinking with your brain and not jerking with your knee.” And again you completely omit my response to that: > [@me](#): > > And by the way, you are right in what you pointed out, I did tear into rjung without him tearing into me in this thread. Rjung and I have a long history of clawing at each other. I was wrong in my blanket statement. HOWEVER… both you and This Years Model started in on the insults directed at me without me saying boo to either of you in this thread. Again, you use your penchant for splitting hairs into microscopic fragments to avoid discussing any real issues. Why is that I wonder? So…you make a point “You did this!”. I look at it and my response is “You know, you’re right, I DID do that”. Again, I am failing to see any evidence of what you accused me of in the OP: > [@](#): > > “No, I didn’t say X” when it’s right there in black and white, about fifteen posts previous, or simply implying in rebuttal that they’d said something else entirely. > [@](#): > > Or, for that matter, Dave, post 75: “RT you fucking moron” In the original thread, I was too lazy to go back and see what I’d already said about Dave. Having looked, I’d have a hard time characterizing any of it as an insult. But maybe Dave’s thin-skinned about such things, and considers my characterization of him as being on the same side as us liberals, but just against us on everything from the war to Social Security to judicial filibusters, as an insult; I dunno. My God, that’s what this is all about, isn’t it. _I hurt your widdle feelings!_ Your insults to me are mild, but mine in return are mean. Suck it up, buttercup. When you start flinging shit, sometimes you get hit in the face with a turd in response. > [@](#): > > Anyhow, I’ve been intending for awhile to Pit people who seem to be oblivious to the fact that their previous words in a discussion are a matter of record. Thanks, Dave, for providing the opportunity. Except I did no such thing. It’s all there, all people have to do is look at _ **what I actually posted** _. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2005, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believe-it-or-not-weirddave-we-can-see-what-youve-already-posted/304952/30 "2005-05-23T14:50:48Z")
> [@Weirddave](#): > > Except I did no such thing. It’s all there, all people have to do is look at _ **what I actually posted** _. You posted: > [@Weirddave](#): > > All the Democrats are fighting for is a tool to prevent the Senate as a whole from voting on the nominees, as the Constitution says they are supposed to do. After repeated attempts to get you to answer this question: > [@This Year's Model](#): > > Care to point out to me exactly where the constitution specifies the procedure the Senate must follow in approving or rejecting nominees? you changed your statement to: > [@Weirddave](#): > > For over 200 years, with one exception (which I condemned in my very first post to this thread), judicial nominees coming out of committee have been subject to an up-and-down vote on the floor. Not the same thing, yolk-for-brains, not even remotely. At that point, I paraphrased your first quoted statement as: > [@This Year's Model](#): > > You stated that the right to an up-or-down vote is in the Constitution. You cannot deny that that is what you meant by your first statement, so instead you decided that by getting all huffy about the paraphrase, you could distract attention from the fact that you are wrong, wrong, wrong. Sorry your distraction didn’t work. ---
**Author:** ![BMalion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e274bd/32.png) [@BMalion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BMalion)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2005, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believe-it-or-not-weirddave-we-can-see-what-youve-already-posted/304952/31 "2005-05-23T15:44:32Z")
> [@Nocturne](#): > > I don’t know if this is a serious reply or not, but I’ll explain: > > I’ve just seen a lot of nastiness lately, in real life, and on this board, from people who call themselves “Christians.” It really makes me frustrated. That’s all. I agree, it mystifies me. It’s like a guy who identifies himself as a member of one political party yet votes for the other guys every single ballot. ☹ ---
**Author:** ![Weirddave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Weirddave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weirddave)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2005, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believe-it-or-not-weirddave-we-can-see-what-youve-already-posted/304952/32 "2005-05-23T18:04:18Z")
> [@This Year's Model](#): > > You posted: > > After repeated attempts to get you to answer this question: > > you changed your statement to: > > Not the same thing, yolk-for-brains, not even remotely. At that point, I paraphrased your first quoted statement as: > > You cannot deny that that is what you meant by your first statement, so instead you decided that by getting all huffy about the paraphrase, you could distract attention from the fact that you are wrong, wrong, wrong. Sorry your distraction didn’t work. Except I’m not wrong, asshole. The wording of the Constitution is crystal clear, have you even read the document in question? > [@U.S. Constitutuin](#): > > He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; **and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate** , shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments. If a nominee is blocked in committe, or filibustered to prevent a vote, how exactly is the President to get “The advice and consent of the Senate”? Notice, it says THE SENATE as a whole, not certain Senators on a committee, not just Democrats or just Republicans, not even “Senators who agree with This Year’s Model”. The Senate. The whole thing. Now that the actual text you are arguing about has been presented, wanna tell me how any of my posts are “wrong, wrong, wrong”? ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2005, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believe-it-or-not-weirddave-we-can-see-what-youve-already-posted/304952/33 "2005-05-23T18:08:34Z")
> [@Weirddave](#): > > Notice, it says THE SENATE as a whole No it doesn’t. I says The Senate. In another section, it says that the Senate gets to set its own rules. If the Senate wants to set up a rule saying that the President gets advice from the Senator whose name would appear first after the nominee’s name in an alphabetical list, then that rule would be perfectly constitutional. If the Senate wants to set up a rule that whichever senator wins the daily donut-eating-contest gets to offer the Senate’s advice and consent for that day, that rule would be constitutional. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2005, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believe-it-or-not-weirddave-we-can-see-what-youve-already-posted/304952/34 "2005-05-23T18:36:54Z")
Jeeze, then Ted Kennedy would be the Senate’s permanent spokesman. ---
**Author:** ![askeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/eb9ed0/32.png) [@askeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/askeptic)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2005, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believe-it-or-not-weirddave-we-can-see-what-youve-already-posted/304952/35 "2005-05-23T18:46:22Z")
Sounds to me like Wierddave thinks the senate is required by the constitution to consent to whoever the hell the pres nominates. In fact wierdo the Pres may only appoint those whom the senate consents to. If the senate cannot express their consent either due to filibuster or a negative vote the the nominee may not be appointed. Clearly wierddave fails to recognize that article II is directed to the EXECUTIVE power not the LEGISLATIVE power of the government. Therefore art.II is not a valid basis for deriving what the legislative power is. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2005, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believe-it-or-not-weirddave-we-can-see-what-youve-already-posted/304952/36 "2005-05-23T18:54:54Z")
Maybe **Weirddave** simply wants the Senate to stop being a separate branch of the government and go back to the task of mindlessly rubber-stamping whatever the Executive wants. For the sake of expediency, no doubt. ---
**Author:** ![Excalibre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/898d66/32.png) [@Excalibre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Excalibre)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2005, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believe-it-or-not-weirddave-we-can-see-what-youve-already-posted/304952/37 "2005-05-23T19:42:47Z")
> [@Weirddave](#): > > If a nominee is blocked in committe, or filibustered to prevent a vote, how exactly is the President to get “The advice and consent of the Senate”? Notice, it says THE SENATE as a whole, not certain Senators on a committee, not just Democrats or just Republicans, not even “Senators who agree with This Year’s Model”. The Senate. The whole thing. Now that the actual text you are arguing about has been presented, wanna tell me how any of my posts are “wrong, wrong, wrong”? So you agree then that the much more common event of holding it up in committee is equally unconstitutional? At least it takes 40 senators to filibuster. It takes a lot less than that to block something in committee. ---
**Author:** ![DoctorJ](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doctorj/32/2904_2.png) [@DoctorJ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DoctorJ)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2005, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believe-it-or-not-weirddave-we-can-see-what-youve-already-posted/304952/38 "2005-05-23T21:42:35Z")
**Weirddave** , I’m really, truly trying to understand your argument, which seems to be coming from two directions. First, you said: > [@](#): > > “All the Democrats are fighting for is a tool to prevent the Senate as a whole from voting on the nominees, as the Constitution says they are supposed to do.” When questioned about that, you said: > [@](#): > > “Except that nowhere did I say the Constitution demands an up-and-down vote.” When asked about the apparent contradiction here, you said: > [@](#): > > If a nominee is blocked in committe, or filibustered to prevent a vote, how exactly is the President to get “The advice and consent of the Senate”? Notice, it says THE SENATE as a whole, not certain Senators on a committee, not just Democrats or just Republicans, not even “Senators who agree with This Year’s Model”. The Senate. The whole thing. Now that the actual text you are arguing about has been presented, wanna tell me how any of my posts are “wrong, wrong, wrong”? So if I understand, you believe that the Constitution requires that the Senate as a whole has to give its consent, but you don’t believe that the Constitution requires an up-or-down vote. Maybe this will help me: can you give an example of a way in which the Senate “as a whole” could give its consent without an “up-or-down vote”? (I disagree that the passage in question does require the Senate as a whole to act–it only has to act in accordance with its own rules. But before I make that argument, I’d like to understand exactly what you’re saying.) ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2005, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believe-it-or-not-weirddave-we-can-see-what-youve-already-posted/304952/39 "2005-05-23T22:23:36Z")
> [@Weirddave](#): > > Except I’m not wrong, asshole. The wording of the Constitution is crystal clear, have you even read the document in question? Wow. Talk about making up bullshit to cover one’s ass. As I understand it, you think that no nominee is entitled to be voted out of committee, but if he is, then the Constitution guarantees him an up-or-down vote? Is that accurate? What kind of fucked up Constitution are you reading that talks about Senate committee procedure and up-or-down votes? On a related note, Bill Frist himself cannot find a right for nominees to receive an up-or-down vote anywhere in the Constitution. > [@Congressional Record](#): > > Mr. Byrd: … here is my guide, the Constitution of the United States. What does it say? Does it say that each nominee shall have an up-or-down vote? Does it say that? I ask the Senator from Tennessee, I ask any Senator to respond to that question. Does this Constitution accord to each nominee an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor? > > [snip of procedural wrangling] > > Mr. Frist: To the question, does the Constitution say that every nominee of the President deserves an up-or-down vote, the answer is, no, the language is not there. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2005, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believe-it-or-not-weirddave-we-can-see-what-youve-already-posted/304952/40 "2005-05-24T00:23:12Z")
> [@Weirddave](#): > > Was there a deadline for the “lame pitting of the year” award that you were trying to make or something RTF? Well, you can see what people think. > [@](#): > > What I find amazing about this thread is not that you no longer care about issues, right and wrong or integrity, for you everything is viewed through a partisan political lens, you’ve as much as admitted that all that is important to you is opposing the Republicans on anything and everything, no matter what the issue. Does the word _arguendo_ mean anything to you? :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > No, what I find amazing is that you start a thread titled “we can see what you’ve already posted” about a thread that, if anyone bothers to read it, clearly shows that you’re practicing the worst kind of selective quoting here. Reading “what I’ve already posted” in that thread disproves your entire point. Somehow the irony of this flies completely over your head. It’s flying over _everyone_’s head, Dave. Maybe that should tell you something. At any rate, others have hit most of the key details, so I’ll just clean up a couple of odds and ends: > [@](#): > > Republicans tries to get a filibuster going against Richard Paez. They failed. Why you think this should count as an actual filibuster is beyond me. [Merriam-Webster](http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=filibuster&x=9&y=13) says a filibuster is “the use of extreme dilatory tactics in an _attempt_ to delay or prevent action especially in a legislative assembly.” IOW, the attempt to delay by such tactics is what constitutes a filibuster. Weren’t you a history major? > [@Weirddave](#): > > > [@RT](#): > > > > Dave, post 108: “Show me one place in this thread where I started the insults. I have responded to insults thrown my way, I have not initiated them with anyone.” > > > > As I pointed out there - Dave, post 58: “Rjung, I know this is like asking a cow to breath water, but I’ll try again anyway. Just once try thinking with your brain and not jerking with your knee.” > > And again you completely omit my response to that: > > > [@Weirddave](#): > > > > And by the way, you are right in what you pointed out, I did tear into rjung without him tearing into me in this thread. Rjung and I have a long history of clawing at each other. I was wrong in my blanket statement. HOWEVER… both you and This Years Model started in on the insults directed at me without me saying boo to either of you in this thread. Wrong, friend: > [@RT](#): > > Or, for that matter, Dave, post 75: “RT you fucking moron” In the original thread, I was too lazy to go back and see what I’d already said about Dave. Having looked, I’d have a hard time characterizing any of it as an insult. But maybe Dave’s thin-skinned about such things, and considers my characterization of him as being on the same side as us liberals, but just against us on everything from the war to Social Security to judicial filibusters, as an insult; I dunno. > [@](#): > > My God, that’s what this is all about, isn’t it. _I hurt your widdle feelings!_ Your insults to me are mild, but mine in return are mean. Suck it up, buttercup. When you start flinging shit, sometimes you get hit in the face with a turd in response. Nah, an insult only bothers me from someone I respect. But I’m curious: you say I insulted you first. Can you quote, please? I mean, just for laughs and general high hilarity. > [@Weirddave](#): > > It’s all there, all people have to do is look at _ **what I actually posted** _. Amen to that. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believe-it-or-not-weirddave-we-can-see-what-youve-already-posted/304952.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believe-it-or-not-weirddave-we-can-see-what-youve-already-posted/304952.md?page=3)