# Bill H, you're not nearly as smart as you think you are **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [January 4, 2005, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-h-youre-not-nearly-as-smart-as-you-think-you-are/282958 "2005-01-04T02:51:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Bill\_H](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a5b964/32.png) [@Bill\_H](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bill_H)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2005, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-h-youre-not-nearly-as-smart-as-you-think-you-are/282958/81 "2005-01-06T01:27:14Z")
**CanvasShoes** wrote > [@](#): > > The fact that you said it was a “tiny part of your point” was what I was arguing against. It is NOT a tiny part of the point. It is a huge part of “the point”, it embodies the entire attitude of this man toward his wife in one neat little package (literally and pun intended). How the hell do you know what MY point is unless I tell you? When did you get to decide what My point is? > [@](#): > > Are you now saying that you retract that it is, or should be, a tiny part of your point? No, you crackhead (IIRC; saying that phrase makes it ok, doesn’t it?) I did NOT retract it NOW. I retracted it long ago. But then if you were literate or not an idiot, you would know that. > [@](#): > > If I missed where you retracted that the blowjob incident was a “tiny part of your point”, I apologize. Then I do too. Now, please go re-read my stuff, and you’ll likely find it. ---
**Author:** ![CanvasShoes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/74df32/32.png) [@CanvasShoes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CanvasShoes)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2005, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-h-youre-not-nearly-as-smart-as-you-think-you-are/282958/82 "2005-01-06T01:52:53Z")
> [@Bill H.](#): > > **CanvasShoes** , that was a whole lot of nothing for a response. You make highly inflammatory accusations, and when called on it, you have nothing. > > IIRC you’re a frigging idiot. Cite please? Where I made “highly imflammatory accusations”. ---
**Author:** ![CanvasShoes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/74df32/32.png) [@CanvasShoes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CanvasShoes)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2005, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-h-youre-not-nearly-as-smart-as-you-think-you-are/282958/83 "2005-01-06T02:02:40Z")
> [@Bill H.](#): > > How the hell do you know what MY point is unless I tell you? When did you get to decide what My point is? I didn’t. I had originally, prior to seeing you reiterate your retraction above, gotten it (please note PAST TENSE) from your own words. > [@](#): > > No, you crackhead (IIRC; saying that phrase makes it ok, doesn’t it?) I did NOT retract it NOW. I retracted it long ago. But then if you were literate or not an idiot, you would know that. Asked and answered several times already. As I said, I didn’t see where you’d retracted that it was a tiny part of the point. > [@](#): > > Then I do too. Now, please go re-read my stuff, and you’ll likely find it. Wouldn’t if have been better if you’d simply read this and realized as I STATED, that I’d not seen where you retracted this statement, rather than to continue with the ridiculous kindergarten-y name-calling? Again, I didn’t say anything about your person, your intelligence, or anything else about your worth. I specifically and strictly disagreed with your tone and tactless way of responding to **dragongirl** and others previously in SIMILAR situations. ---
**Author:** ![CrazyCatLady](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/dfb087/32.png) [@CrazyCatLady](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CrazyCatLady)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2005, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-h-youre-not-nearly-as-smart-as-you-think-you-are/282958/84 "2005-01-06T04:16:34Z")
Boy, somebody just gets assier and assier, don’t he? ---
**Author:** ![Bill\_H](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a5b964/32.png) [@Bill\_H](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bill_H)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2005, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-h-youre-not-nearly-as-smart-as-you-think-you-are/282958/85 "2005-01-06T19:26:21Z")
**CanvasShoes** wrote > [@](#): > > Again, I didn’t say anything about your person, your intelligence, or anything else about your worth. I specifically and strictly disagreed with your tone and tactless way of responding to dragongirl and others previously in SIMILAR situations. Yes you did. Which is why I regretably stooped to your level of name calling. > [@](#): > > Cite please? Where I made “highly imflammatory accusations”. Without any cite you said of me that I have a history of “showing a complete lack of empathy or understanding of the perils being a woman sometimes brings.” Where I come from that’s inflammatory. When I asked for a cite, you came back and said I was among "our infamous radidly foaming at the mouth anti-“feminazi” posters ". I also consider that highly inflammatory. However, the worst thing you did was try to defend your usage of IIRC. As if it’s ok to accuse people of things, as long as you qualify it with that phrase. Once you were challenged to back up your accusation and you had no proof of it, you refused to apologize or retract it, claiming that “IIRC” means you didn’t really say it. Imagine this conversation amongst your neighbors: Neighbor A: I think I saw **CanvasShoes** operating a crack den out of her garage. Other Neighbors: A crack den, you say? **CanvasShoes** : That’s a lie, and you happen to have video tapes of my house 24x7. Prove it. Neighbor A: Well, I don’t have any proof. But there’s no need for me to apologize. After all, I did say “I **think** I saw it.” Also, I think I saw her selling crack there too. I mean really, **CanvasShoes**. You don’t see a problem with this action? ---
**Author:** ![CanvasShoes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/74df32/32.png) [@CanvasShoes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CanvasShoes)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2005, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-h-youre-not-nearly-as-smart-as-you-think-you-are/282958/86 "2005-01-06T22:45:19Z")
> [@Bill H.](#): > > Yes you did. Which is why I regretably stooped to your level of name calling. Really? Again, do please provide a cite where I made “imflammatory accusations”. Again, I stuck to specifically, and exactly what I disliked about your posts to **dragongirl**. None of which were “imflammatory” meaning against your intelligence, worth, or character, but merely your tactless answering of her posts. Hardly “imflammatory accusations”. My goodness, if your skin is THAT thin. What are you doing in the pit? What I said was not some character assasination, or accusation of law-breaking or other moral wrong-doing. From what I’ve seen, with just the posts to **dragongirl** ALONE (forget the other posts), you don’t do a very tactful or empathetic job in supposedly supporting a woman. > [@](#): > > Without any cite you said of me that I have a history of “showing a complete lack of empathy or understanding of the perils being a woman sometimes brings.” Where I come from that’s inflammatory. Which you DID show in the posts to **dragongirl**. And if telling someone that their words are not empathetic toward women is an “imflammatory accusation” I fear for your geographical area should some real crime happen. Your belief that it is, is very silly and misguided. > [@](#): > > When I asked for a cite, you came back and said I was among "our infamous radidly foaming at the mouth anti-“feminazi” posters ". I also consider that highly inflammatory. Um No, I didn’t. I said that that was where I thought I’d recalled seeing your similar posts. I specifically did NOT say that those were your threads. YOU are not the “infamous rabidly foaming at the mouth anti-feminazi”. As **CCL** said, it’s not all about you. And you placed all your little links in there as “proof” of your being empathetic toward women. When you posted them, they were useful to you, then, mysteriously, when I replied to each one point by point, they suddenly became nonsense. That was kind of funny. In both a ha-ha funny way, and a peculiar funny way. > [@](#): > > However, the worst thing you did was try to defend your usage of IIRC. As if it’s ok to accuse people of things, as long as you qualify it with that phrase. Once you were challenged to back up your accusation and you had no proof of it, you refused to apologize or retract it, claiming that “IIRC” means you didn’t really say it. You DID do exactly as I say in the **dragongirl** post at the very least. When I saw your posts to **dragongirl** , the tone looked familiar. So the IIRC was about your possible PREVIOUS posts that were similar. But your posts to **dragongirl** were as I say. And they continued to be that way throughout that thread. You never really did see, at least you didn’t come back and say so, how important the impact of emotional abuse to a person’s life. And yeah, yeah. You did come back and make some 'I feel sorry for her" type comments. But you never showed in that thread (at the very least) that you truly UNDERSTOOD, let alone empathized with, the enormity of emotional abuse. And the more you talk here, the more I’m sure that you are indeed the poster of whom I’m thinking. I’m sure everyone but you has figured out who “the poster who shall remain unnamed lest it appear like candyman” is, but it’s not YOU. I said you posted IN those threads, NOT that they were your threads. Nor even that you yourself were “rabidly foaming at the mouth” etc. Hmm. and weren’t you accusing me of not being able to read? > [@](#): > > Imagine this conversation amongst your neighbors: > > Neighbor A: I think I saw **CanvasShoes** operating a crack den out of her garage. > Other Neighbors: A crack den, you say? > **CanvasShoes** : That’s a lie, and you happen to have video tapes of my house 24x7. Prove it. > Neighbor A: Well, I don’t have any proof. But there’s no need for me to apologize. After all, I did say “I **think** I saw it.” Also, I think I saw her selling crack there too. > > I mean really, **CanvasShoes**. You don’t see a problem with this action? No, honestly I’d consider it hilarious. Particularly since all it would take to prove it would be crime lab testing of my hair, nails and apartment. Then, even funnier, they’d have to prove I had a garage, which I don’t. Lastly, accusing someone of a crime is NOT related to giving them a hard time about their tactlessness on a mere message board. Good grief. That is hardly, in fact that is not even remotely, having someone lob an “inflammatory accusation” at you. Now, does someone have a valium for poor Bill? 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Bill\_H](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a5b964/32.png) [@Bill\_H](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bill_H)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2005, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-h-youre-not-nearly-as-smart-as-you-think-you-are/282958/87 "2005-01-07T00:02:46Z")
There you go again. A whole lot of words, but no substance, no cite and no retraction. ---
**Author:** ![CanvasShoes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/74df32/32.png) [@CanvasShoes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CanvasShoes)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2005, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-h-youre-not-nearly-as-smart-as-you-think-you-are/282958/88 "2005-01-07T00:36:38Z")
> [@Bill H.](#): > > There you go again. A whole lot of words, but no substance, no cite and no retraction. Lalalala I can’t HEEEARRR youuuu!!! 😃 You’re still very amusing though. I went from being an illiterate crackhead, to using “a whole lot of words”. Even though those words are in direct reply to your own, they are now mysteriously nonsense to you. No retraction because you did do what I said you did, as I stated within the **dragongirl** thread, which is already linked to in this thread. And I believe that you are indeed the poster I thought I had remembered posting in a similar way in other threads. I’m not 100% postive, who is? But why should I retract something I still believe to be true? Or are you still insisting upon a cite for my memory? Is that clear and concise enough for you? Are you getting what I’m saying now? If you want to consider me spanking you for your lack of empathy within your posting style a heinous “infammatory accusation”. Knock yourself out. If you like, I’ll continue discussing it point by point with you, it’s pretty interesting. But since you’re not reading my posts, which DO address your own points, point BY point. There doesn’t seem to be much need to continue on my end. I would, just because it’s fascinating to me to watch you but I’m sure others are probably a bit bored by the repitition by now. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-h-youre-not-nearly-as-smart-as-you-think-you-are/282958.md?page=4)