# Bing Bong, The Bitch is NOT Dead **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 4, 2006, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bing-bong-the-bitch-is-not-dead/351265 "2006-04-04T15:30:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![Homebrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Homebrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Homebrew)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2006, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bing-bong-the-bitch-is-not-dead/351265/201 "2006-04-05T20:52:10Z")
> [@UncleBeer](#): > > Leaving aside the rest of your argument as it’s merely repetitive of things I’ve already rebutted,… Your rebuttal failed to convince anyone but yourself. ---
**Author:** ![UncleBeer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/977dab/32.png) [@UncleBeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleBeer)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2006, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bing-bong-the-bitch-is-not-dead/351265/202 "2006-04-05T21:00:28Z")
That’s fine. I didn’t particularly expect to convice anybody. You can hold any opinion you want, I guess. I just don’t believe the opinion held by a lot of people in this thread has been arrived at by a dispassionate and objective review of the facts. ---
**Author:** ![whole\_bean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/96bed5/32.png) [@whole\_bean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whole_bean)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2006, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bing-bong-the-bitch-is-not-dead/351265/203 "2006-04-05T21:08:15Z")
> [@UncleBeer](#): > > Leaving aside the rest of your argument as it’s merely repetitive of things I’ve already rebutted, the section of your post I’m quoting is not factual. One of the links in the OP goes to a newstory published on the same day the OP was posted. As I noted before, the subject of the OP is eminently topical. Not only was it in the current news, the subject of the story has continued to - and still does - make an issue of the incident. For instance, her page at the [house.gov](http://house.gov) website has that portion of the Constitution quoted earlier in this thread prominently displayed. It wasn’t there until very recently. And she’s also made a statement to the press today. the story recounts week old events (the “Slapping”) and minor developments. They’ve been talking about charges since last Friday. Furthermore, you have in no way rebutted the blatant connection between thread titles. Any attempt you’ve made to do so has been flacid at best, but keep repeating that and you might just convince yourself. ---
**Author:** ![whole\_bean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/96bed5/32.png) [@whole\_bean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whole_bean)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2006, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bing-bong-the-bitch-is-not-dead/351265/204 "2006-04-05T21:12:08Z")
> [@UncleBeer](#): > > That’s fine. I didn’t particularly expect to convice anybody. You can hold any opinion you want, I guess. I just don’t believe the opinion held by a lot of people in this thread has been arrived at by a dispassionate and objective review of the facts. Dude, be honest with yourself. Is this statement (taken from my earlier post) incorrect: “This title [of this thread] has no other reference than to and doesn’t even make sense without the previous Delay thread.”? ---
**Author:** ![UncleBeer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/977dab/32.png) [@UncleBeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleBeer)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2006, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bing-bong-the-bitch-is-not-dead/351265/205 "2006-04-05T21:16:35Z")
As long as we’re all gonna be pedants about words and definitions in this here thread, lemme offer this: _rebut_: verb, intransitive - To present opposing evidence or arguments. So yeah, a rebuttal is exactly what I offered. You, of course have found it wanting. But much like your opinion on the OP, a refusal to accept alternative explanations does not mean they do not exist. > [@](#): > > the story recounts week old events (the “Slapping”) and minor developments. They’ve been talking about charges since last Friday. So? It’s a current news topic. And therefore fair game. If you’re gonna go back to the “insignificant issue” argument Diogenes tried to lay on us, skip it. I ain’t interested. I **rebutted** that, too. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2006, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bing-bong-the-bitch-is-not-dead/351265/206 "2006-04-05T21:18:33Z")
> [@UncleBeer](#): > > That’s fine. I didn’t particularly expect to convice anybody. You can hold any opinion you want, I guess. I just don’t believe the opinion held by a lot of people in this thread has been arrived at by a dispassionate and objective review of the facts. Taken as a single incident, you’d be right. But in your own words: > [@UncleBeer](#): > > And that’s what makes this particular incident significant; that it is part of a larger pattern. Just like with your speeding ticket, I agree one isolated instance is probably insignificant. But collect five of 'em in a dozen years, both the BMV and your insurance company are gonna have something to say about it. Anyone else, this probably wouldn’t have been an issue. But **Shodan** has a reputation for pulling disingenous stuff like this, and people called him on it. Which, of course, is exactly what he wanted: > [@Shodan](#): > > I did, however, expect the thread to fill up almost instantly with those same Usual Suspects engaging in exactly what they accuse everyone else of doing, nor have I been disappointed. The thread has nothing to do with Cynthia McKinney. It’s all about **Shodan** trying to play “gotcha” with the board’s liberals. Why, I don’t know, but he’s about as transparent as the sheet of paper in the bottom of a pizza box. ---
**Author:** ![TVeblen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/4bbf92/32.png) [@TVeblen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVeblen)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2006, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bing-bong-the-bitch-is-not-dead/351265/207 "2006-04-05T21:19:13Z")
For future reference in this trainwreck–and elsewhere, for that matter– **askeptic** DID NOT use the phrase “Uppity Bitch”. It was mistakenly attributed to him. The quote has been corrected when it’s popped up but please be aware that a misattribution lurks in wait for the unwary. Veb ---
**Author:** ![UncleBeer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/977dab/32.png) [@UncleBeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleBeer)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2006, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bing-bong-the-bitch-is-not-dead/351265/208 "2006-04-05T21:19:18Z")
> [@whole bean](#): > > Dude, be honest with yourself. Is this statement (taken from my earlier post) incorrect: “This title [of this thread] has no other reference than to and doesn’t even make sense without the previous Delay thread.”? I don’t know if your statement is correct. What’s more, given the scant evidence to go on when the OP was virginal, nobody but Shodan does. That’s my whole argument. ---
**Author:** ![UncleBeer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/977dab/32.png) [@UncleBeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleBeer)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2006, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bing-bong-the-bitch-is-not-dead/351265/209 "2006-04-05T21:24:42Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Anyone else, this probably wouldn’t have been an issue. Sorry man, I ain’t swallowing _that_. If anybody from the strident right had posted this topic, _regardless_ of the thread title, the same thundering complaints about it being an attempt to play gotcha, or draw attention away from DeLay, or that it’s a _tu quoque_ would have been made. Ain’t bald speculation fun? We can shave anything and call it a fact. ---
**Author:** ![whole\_bean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/96bed5/32.png) [@whole\_bean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whole_bean)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2006, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bing-bong-the-bitch-is-not-dead/351265/210 "2006-04-05T21:27:47Z")
> [@UncleBeer](#): > > I don’t know if your statement is correct. What’s more, given the scant evidence to go on when the OP was virginal, nobody but Shodan does. That’s my whole argument. What does the title of this thread reference then? Is there some alternate verison of The Wizard of Oz in which the song is “Bing, Bong the Witch is Dead”?? Is there somewhere else this “Bing Bong the Witch is [not] Dead” reference might have come from?? Do you even believe yourself? Scant evidence of a connection between the two threads indeed, Christ man, where have you been? ---
**Author:** ![UncleBeer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/977dab/32.png) [@UncleBeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleBeer)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2006, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bing-bong-the-bitch-is-not-dead/351265/211 "2006-04-05T21:34:30Z")
> [@whole bean](#): > > What does the title of this thread reference then? Is there some alternate verison of The Wizard of Oz in which the song is “Bing, Bong the Witch is Dead”?? Is there somewhere else this “Bing Bong the Witch is [not] Dead” reference might have come from?? Do you even believe yourself? > > Scant evidence of a connection between the two threads indeed, Christ man, where have you been? Why do you keep asking me to rehash questions I’ve already answered? ---
**Author:** ![whole\_bean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/96bed5/32.png) [@whole\_bean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whole_bean)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2006, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bing-bong-the-bitch-is-not-dead/351265/212 "2006-04-05T21:43:50Z")
> [@UncleBeer](#): > > Why do you keep asking me to rehash questions I’ve already answered? You never answered a question about the source of the lyric “Bing, Bong the Witch is Dead” to my knowledge. If so, I appologize. But you’re saying there is scant evidence of a connection between the two threads. I’ve shown you the biggest peice of evidence there is and asked for, as you put it, an alternate explanation. You clearly cannot deliver such, so you say you’ve answered a question that you haven’t. Unless I am wonrg, you have yet to identify a possible source for the lyric “Bing Bong the Witch is Dead” as approrpriated for the title of this thread. Fucking admit he was referencing the Delay thread, please, and salvage whatever intelectual honesty you might claim. ---
**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:** [April 5, 2006, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bing-bong-the-bitch-is-not-dead/351265/213 "2006-04-05T21:53:41Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Anyone else, this probably wouldn’t have been an issue. But **Shodan** has a reputation for pulling disingenous stuff like this, and people called him on it. Which, of course, is exactly what he wanted: > The thread has nothing to do with Cynthia McKinney. It’s all about **Shodan** trying to play “gotcha” with the board’s liberals. Why, I don’t know, but he’s about as transparent as the sheet of paper in the bottom of a pizza box. Precisely right. I am amazed that folks take him at face value when he implies he wasn’t setting up an equivalence–note that he could come right out and say, explicitly, that the thread title was not intended to hint at an equivalence. If he said that explicitly, I might believe him; but when he just implies that he didn’t intend such an equivalence, I think he’s playing “Gotcha” in a contemptible fashion. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2006, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bing-bong-the-bitch-is-not-dead/351265/214 "2006-04-05T22:12:55Z")
> [@UncleBeer](#): > > Sorry man, I ain’t swallowing _that_. If anybody from the strident right had posted this topic, _regardless_ of the thread title, the same thundering complaints about it being an attempt to play gotcha, or draw attention away from DeLay, or that it’s a _tu quoque_ would have been made. You mean like [this one](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=366056)? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2006, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bing-bong-the-bitch-is-not-dead/351265/215 "2006-04-05T22:33:07Z")
> [@Hentor the Barbarian](#): > > Empirical, at the time and place of your own choosing. Guess what - that’s not being empirical, that’s being a fucking hypocrite. But I’ve seen that from you before on the matter of what standard to employ in the evaluation of a claim. Wow, I have no idea what you’re talking about. I don’t think I used the word “empirical” in this entire thread. If I did, you’ll have to point it out to me. And if that last sentence means you’re still hung up on that time, weeks ago, when I asked you to prove something that we both knew was unprovable, then you are denser than I thought. That post had a fucking smiling at the end, WHICH MEANS IT WAS A JOKE!!! Do you know what a joke is? > [@](#): > > Jesus, you and **UncleBeer** can shove your “Gee, I just don’t see it” bullshit. Any reasonable person would compare the two thread titles and conclude that they were related. Weave, please, some explanation for how **Shodan** just happened to come up with a nearly identical thread title other than an intention to link the two. No, any reasonable person would compare the two thread titles and conclude the the titles were related. So fucking what? One thread is about a Congressman throwing in the towel, and the other is about a Congresswoman hitting a policeman. If there had already been a Pit thread about McKinney’s incident, you might have a poitn. But there wasn’t one. IIRC, \*\*Shodan \*\*has often opened Pit threads aimed at Democrats. This was another one, and McKinney’s actions deserved a pitting. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2006, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bing-bong-the-bitch-is-not-dead/351265/216 "2006-04-05T22:35:43Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > McKinney supporters on the Straight Dope, roll call! > > (not signing my name for fear of misinterpretation) [shrug] She’s a Dem, so supporting her is my default position. And during her first or second term she proposed legislation to elect Georgia’s H of R delegation by a multimember form of proportional representation. Didn’t go anywhere, but I’ve got a soft spot for any American politician who’s even willing to raise the issue. The Wikipedia article tells me some things I didn’t know or had forgotten – she was one of very few Congresscritters to speak out against the Gulf War in ‘91, so that’s a plus. I don’t buy any conspiracy theories about the Bush Admin actually **staging** the 9-11 attacks, but the idea that they might have had prior knowledge and cynically sat on it is a meme that should not be allowed to die. Might even be true. The means by which she was ousted in 2002 (Pubs being whipped up to vote against her in the Dem primary) was egregious even by the standards of today’s politics. She voted for H.R. 571, calling for **immediate** withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq (Murtha’s version only calls for withdrawal “at the earliest possible date”). Best of all, she’s a co-sponsor of Conyers’ H.R. 635, for looking into possible grounds to impeach W. So yeah, it’s good to have her in there, **politically** speaking, and as far as I’m concerned she can bitch-slap all the Capitol cops she wants. ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2006, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bing-bong-the-bitch-is-not-dead/351265/217 "2006-04-05T22:49:07Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > Oh come on. She didn’t have a prayer of hurting him. She didn’t compromise security since she was merely going to a place that she had every right to be. Stupid yes. Harmful to the republic, no. You conveniently neglected to mention “criminal.” Is assault and/or battery still a criminal matter, or is it waived for certain special people? And please, having “every right to be there” does not enter into this for a minute. There are many places I have every right to be, but if I don’t identify myself or fail to halt when challeneged, I can be lawfully be arrested or even shot. Hence, I make damned sure to identify myself when required. They’re called laws, Rep. McKinney makes them, she should be held responsible for violating them. ---
**Author:** ![OttoDaFe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ottodafe/32/356_2.png) [@OttoDaFe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OttoDaFe)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2006, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bing-bong-the-bitch-is-not-dead/351265/218 "2006-04-05T23:28:02Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > [“If nobody in this House files an ethics charge, I am,”](http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?print=yes&id=13784) DeLay said in response to a question about McKinney. > > I’m not sure what this proves since DeLay, of all people, **knows** the House ethics panel is brain dead and on life support. Perhaps Frist will step in to save the day. (Emphasis [underline] added.) Not so! After months of inactivity, the House ethics panel has swung into action to address the issue that’s on everybody’s mind nowadays: In 2002 (I believe) Rep Jim McDermott (D-Baghdad) released a cell phone conversation between Newt Gingrich and John Boehner to the press. He did not tape the call—it was provided to him by “an anti-Gingrich Florida couple”—but neither did he turn the couple over to the FCC or FBI for breaking the law against clandestine taping. ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2006, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bing-bong-the-bitch-is-not-dead/351265/219 "2006-04-05T23:31:05Z")
This story wasn’t even on my radar until today. Even with my allegedly “congenital lefty” status, I must say, this McKinny has acted like a complete nitwit, and I hope they throw the book at her. Seriously, I hope she ends up in jail. Nobody should be hitting cops doing their job. Period. Think it was some kind of racial profiling? Cry me a river. You DO NOT hit a cop. Anyone stupid enough to try deserves everything they get and more. But she’s nowhere near as rotten and DeLay. Sorry. ---
**Author:** ![AFAIKnow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a6a055/32.png) [@AFAIKnow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AFAIKnow)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2006, 5:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bing-bong-the-bitch-is-not-dead/351265/220 "2006-04-06T05:57:02Z")
> [@Loopydude](#): > > This story wasn’t even on my radar until today. > > Even with my allegedly “congenital lefty” status, I must say, this McKinny has acted like a complete nitwit, and I hope they throw the book at her. Didn’t you get the memo? This is a non-story about a kind of eccentric democrat and bringing any attention to it is flagrantly trying to take attention away from DeLay. Be vewy careful or you will lose some respect from your esteemed partisan peers here. Oh, and “independents” like DtC… LMAO. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bing-bong-the-bitch-is-not-dead/351265.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bing-bong-the-bitch-is-not-dead/351265.md?page=12)