I was one of those who inadvertently took your name in vain. My apologies.
I just popped over to the Wikipedia to read up on this lady. She is one odd woman.
No, I just said I’d never heard the term used in reference to minors. I didn’t say it couldn’t be true.
Not that that has anything to do with anything.
Emphasis mine.
Can you read? Later in that same post you just quoted:
It would have been a cheap trick if I’d ascribed to malice what could indeed be excused by ignorance.
However, if one used ‘uppity’ to describe a black or a woman, while fully cognizant of that term’s past usage, I would regard that as unmistakably racist or sexist, regardless of how else ‘uppity’ might have been used somewhere, sometime.
There seems to have been some disagreement on that point. (And don’t drag any of the muck in that thread back here to this nice clean thread when you come back.)
No it’s not. If someone implies something heavily but doesn’t come out and say it, the same process that leads me to condemn it if they say it explicitly will lead me to condemn it. That is, I believe that I understand the meaning they are trying to convey through their words, and I think that meaning is bullshit.
My own biases don’t come into play. On a board I moderate, someone yesterday referred to “the volks at Fox News”: while I think that Fox News is full of stupid conservatives (note that’s not redundant), I came down very severely on the person for the implication that Fox News is populated by Nazis, even though it was implicit, not explicit, in his comment.
It looks like a duck and it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck. I feel justified in calling it a mallard without conducting a DNA test.
Daniel
Well that’s the crux of the whole thing, ain’t it? You believe that the wording of the title of the thread is strongly indicative of a disingenuous attempt by Shodan to demonstrate an equivalence between the sins of McKinney and DeLay where none exists. Right? That’s what you mean when you say “implies something heavily?”
I, on the other hand, don’t think that is *necessarily true, and have supplied an alternative explanation. That is what I maintain; setting aside “explicitly” for the moment, I can’t see that anything is “implied heavily” in the thread title. So, I disagree with your initial assumption.
Let’s see, then, where that takes us.
If we use your interpretation, we’re led to an inevitable outcome. The assumption, once made, dictates the results. My contention is that the initial assumption made by you and others, isn’t necessarily the correct one. There’s scant evidence to support it. So, given the dearth of evidence, it follows that the initial assumption is based on something else - in this case that something else is quite obviously political bias.
This is exactly the argument I had with RTFirefly in a recent thread here in the Pit. In this instance, the reasons your observations lead you to think it’s a duck are faulty. Your observations come to you thru the filter of bias. Much like the brain tries to fit data presented to it into patterns it already recognizes. Here, you see a post from Shodan, who you recognize to be partisan and always ready to rumble in the mud, with a title mimicking the title of a thread about a well-known Republican and his woes. “Ah-hah!” the brain says, “I know this pattern; here’s another duck.” Then your brain rationalizes (and in some cases, even manufactures out of whole cloth) the evidence to fit the duck pattern distorting some of the raw material that is distinctly un-ducklike.
FWIW, I deliberated avoided reference to any other politician in the OP. Nor have I pointed to anything McKinney has done to justify going easier on anyone else. I Pitted her yesterday because the discussion about a warrant for her arrest came up in the news yesterday, and obviously none of the Usual Suspects are going to mention it.
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.
Isn’t that the pattern? Pit a Republican, and you get five pages of agreement. Pit a Democrat, even one who deserves it, and you get five pages of tu quoques, abuse, and desperate attempts to do something - anything - to drag the thread back to the only subject some of you clowns can think about - “Bush bad. Bush bad.”
I am not being ironic in the least to say that this constitutes the sum and extent of some of y’alls political philosophy. And anything that doesn’t contribute to that causes you to sense a disturbance in the Force and jump into the thread to stop it, or hijack it, or somehow or other make it go away.
Not everyone, obviously. But enough of you to be amusing. In a semi-sadistic, Jerry Springer, “daddy, why did that man poop in his pants?” kind of way.
Regards,
Shodan
That’s a new definition of ‘subordinate’ that I have up until now been unfamiliar with.
There’s a difference between ‘no man (or woman) is above the law,’ a principle I’m happy to join you in upholding for members of both parties, or none at all - and ‘some are less equal than others’ which is what ‘uppity’ folk challenged, back in the day.
Ah, a believer in a meritocracy. But now that you’ve defined ‘merit’ as intelligence and integrity, who will be the judge of who is meritorious and who isn’t? And where do we put all the believers in young-earth creationism who want intelligent design taught in the schools, with the sheep or with the goats? The goats, I assume: they fail your standard on both counts.
Shorter tomndebb: ‘when come back, don’t bring mud pie.’ 
Then clearly explain why you chose a thread title that mimicked so closely an active Pit thread instead of chosing an original title.
“Heavily” being the operative word. I don’t see the implication even being a “light” one.
Biases always come into play, especially on a message board where we don’t have the other communicative cues we get in face to face discussions. You can’t possible know what **Shodan **had in mind. And given that he has explicitly said he did not post this as a tu quoque, you are calling him a liar. Nothing wrong with that in the Pit, but I see no reason to make that the primary assumption.
BTW, your example is not a good comparison. Unless the person made a typo (possible), there is no other conclusion that can be drawn about “volks”. You can’t possible expect us to believe that your version of this thread title is just as cut and dry.
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.
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.
I think your either being disingenuous or obtuse. The "Ding Dong the Witch is Dead " thread was started the morning of Republican representative Delay’s anticipated announcement that he would no longer seek reelection, due in no small part to his current problems with Abrahmoff and the Texas indictment. The thread title borrowed from the musical The Wizard of Oz, which is currently viewed by most as apolitical.
Less than ten hours later you start a thread about a week old issue concerning a a Democratic representative (which is ok in and of itself – her conduct is definitely pit worthy though your reaction to the news is pretty slow) which you title “Bing Bong the Witch is NOT Dead.” This title has no other reference than to and doesn’t even make sense without the previous Delay thread.
This leaves me to come to one of two conclusions: either, you did mean this thread to be a response to the other, in which case it most certainly is a tu qoque (i.e. you’re now being disingenuous); or you did not intend this thread to be a response to that thread, but you did a terribly poor job in making your intentions known (you’re obtuse).
which is it?
I already did that. If you consider it invalid, you’re certainly welcome ot your opinion. But that doesn’t mean there isn’t a possible alternative explanation.
And what’s with the hostility, dude? Somebody piss in your boot? You need a hug?
Speaking as someone who has not been on the boards for a few days, it sure does look like most of the responses here are colored (heh) by other issues rather than being reactions to this.
:: Not to nitpick, but it’s mostly for the good people of Decatur, Georgia who have to deal with this. I just happen to live in a sliver of Atlanta under her reign of crapulence. Most Atlantans get John Lewis for a representative. ::
You said you consider the similarity in thread titles “pretty thin” evidence of Shodan’s intention to start this thread in response to the Delay thread. I think most reasonable folks are appalled by that sort of assault on their intelligence. The connection between the two threads is undeniable save for the willfully obtuse – and the willfully obtuse tend to raise frustrations to the point that some form of hostility is inevitable.
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 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.
“If nobody in this House files an ethics charge, I am,” 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.