# Bricker fooled me for too long **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [November 12, 2012, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-fooled-me-for-too-long/640835 "2012-11-12T22:46:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 17
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2012, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-fooled-me-for-too-long/640835/321 "2012-11-16T19:40:53Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > OK, not technically impossible. Although FWIW I personally think Bricker tends to post in a rather measured way. > Sometimes the actual implications of what he’s saying are pretty damning and I think _that’s_ what gets people riled up, but his actual tone is almost always calm and factual. Especially by the standards of this board. Well, yes and no. For instance, in the fairly ridiculously trainwrecky voter ID thread, this was his first contribution: > [@](#): > > Bah. You lost. It’s legal, it has widespread support, and it’s happening. It’s not anti-democracy. It’s an obvious and prudent move, and there’s zero, zip, nada, and also zilch you can do to change this trend. Granted, there’s no profanity there, but it’s also not really a post likely to lead to a respectful and mutually enhancing exchange of viewpoints. It’s entirely possible to be condescending, smug, insulting, weaselly and a lot of other Bad Things while debating without ever descending to snark or outright insults, and Bricker fairly often does those things. Not always, and in fact I’ve had some number of actually quite interesting debates with; but to hold him up as some imperturbable paragon is pretty silly. > [@](#): > > This actually ties in to the distinction I’ve been making earlier. Because if the focus is just on the specific conservative/liberal politician caught in the latest scandal, then you have a point. But a board with a strong slant like this, generally whenever a conservative politician is caught in any sort of misdeed, the case is seized on to make the broader point that “conservatives are a bunch of …”. I’m sure that happens some. And sometimes there’s some validity to it, and sometimes not. Has there been a pattern among the far right in recent years of being anti-scientific? I’d argue there has been. That doesn’t mean I can point at a single case where the Tennessee school board bans teaching evolution (or something) and say “ha! this proves that ever Republican everywhere is stupid and hates science”. But neither can you just say “isolated incident! isolated incident!” forever. Furthermore, if I point out such a thing and say “I believe this is part of a pattern” and you say “but, hey, some liberals don’t respect science either, because they oppose vaccinations” (or whatever), that doesn’t either prove that I’m a hypocrite, or prove that there isn’t a pattern. It’s entirely possible for there to be some Bad Trait which there’s a pattern of on one side, but which still exists on the other side. > [@](#): > > Because the fact is, that despite a lot of high-minded and self-righteous preening from certain quarters here, at the end of the day there are a lot of very smart and honest people on either side of the conservative/liberal divide. True, but I don’t really see the relevance. And note that it’s entirely possible for there to be lots of smart and honest people on what is later clearly shown to be the wrong side of an issue. I’m sure there were lots of smart and honest people arguing for slavery in 1840, and for segregation in the 1950s. > [@](#): > > And here’s where the “hypocrisy” issue becomes relevant. IMO. Because suppose - for example - you have someone - or a group of people - arguing strenuously for or against something like the Senate filibuster. Now that’s a judgment call - majority rule and progress versus protection for the minority and minority viewpoints and compromise (or whatever). You could justifiably take either side of the issue. And here is where it’s useful to point out to people that they or their group held the exact opposite position on this issue when it benefited them. Because this illustrates how arbitrary and self-serving this current judgment is, which tends to depreciate the value of it significantly and deservedly so. The filibuster is a good example, let’s look at it for a bit. So, as a general timeline (and I hope I’m not getting things hopelessly jumbled up here), a few years back (maybe 2005ish?) Bush was the president and the Republicans had a majority in the senate, and the democrats did some amount of filibustering. There was some discussion then of the Republicans exercising the “nuclear option”, and getting rid of the filibuster entirely. There was a lot of whining from the left about how terrible and unfair and awful this would be. Fast foward to Obama’s presidency, with a Democratic president and senate majority, and the Republicans are doing some amount of filibustering, and liberals are whining about how much filibustering the pubs are doing. And in fact there’s now some discussion from Harry Reid about changing the filibuster rules, with a fair bit of liberal support for that idea. So… is that proof of liberal hypocrisy? Well, it’s certainly compatible with a model of the universe in which liberals are hypocrites. But that’s far from the only possible explanation. To be precise, my personal view (which I suspect is somewhat similar to that of many liberals, but again I don’t want to claim I can speak for them) is that having the filibuster in place as a way to keep the minority from being totally steamrolled by the majority has a long tradition and should not be put aside lightly. But the way it’s been used has changed radically recently, from a last ditch sort of civil disobedience that can be occasionally pulled out to stop really important things; to an absolutely routine every-possible-vote-on-every-issue-now-requires-60-votes piece of pure obstructionism. Given that, it’s entirely reasonable to reconsider the filibuster and the rules governing it, and in fact it would be irresponsible not to do so. So… am I a hypocrite? Well, there are several possibilities: (a) My analysis is basically accurate, and I’m not a hypocrite (a1) My analysis is basically accurate, and I’m not _much of_ a hypocrite, at least not more than the vast majority of people (b) My analysis is basically accurate, but that’s only a fortunate coincidence, as I’m a rabid partisan hypocrite and would have come to the same conclusion even if there were no evidence for it (c) My analysis is honestly believed by me, but not actually supported by facts, and I’ve non-hypocritically come to a flawed conclusion (d) My analysis is honestly believed by me, but only because my support for my side has caused me to cherrypick what data and evidence I believe, so while I have come to a conclusion that appears non-hypocritical, it’s based on unconscious hypocrisy (e) The whole things is just utter lies and smokescreens which I deliberately came up with because I’m a Hannity-level partisan hack Now, obviously I’d like to think that the truth is (a), or more likely (a1), and you might think it’s somewhere between some of the other possibilities. And that’s a topic we might debate. But here’s where we get back to the main point (finally), which is twofold: (1) If we are entering a debate about the filibuster, and you bring up the fact that my opinion now appears to be different from my opinion in 2005, you can do so by saying, “hey, Max, I respect what you’re saying, but here’s a quote from 2005 which appears to be saying something different… can you explain that discrepancy?”, or you can do that by saying “but look at this quote from 2005! That proves that you’re just a partisan hypocrite! lol!”. Which is more likely to lead to a meaningful debate? (2) There’s an interesting debate to be had right now about the state of the filibuster as it exists at present, and whether we should modify the rules. That’s a debate that might actually be worth having, as (unlike abortion, or gay marriage, or gun rights) it’s not something that has been gone over so many zillion times on the SDMB that nothing new will ever be said. But if that debate starts, and then suddenly it veers off into debating whether or not MaxTheVool specifically, or SDMB liberals in general, are hypocrites; then the odds of interesting ideas being exchanged about the original debate topic drops drastically. > [@](#): > > I don’t see this big distinction between this issue and any other issue. Very very few people are going to change and suddenly accept that they personally are biased hypocrites. But I don’t see many people backing down in any debates here, and I certainly see a lot who should. I don’t think I’m quite as down on things as you are in that context… I’m not sure if I’ve actually REVERSED my opinion on any big hot button issue based on SDMB debate, but I’ve certainly come out of debates with a somewhat different mindset due to the ideas I’ve been exposed to. But that pretty much requires that there be an actual debate, not just yet another who’s-more-of-a-hypocrite fest. > [@](#): > > The question is not how to react to Bricker but whether in actual fact people react differently to Bricker than to comparable liberals. And if you accept that it’s a given that people’s reaction is heavily influenced by their ideological affinities, I don’t see how it’s possible for that to suddenly cease to be true in the case of Bricker. People react differently to Bricker than they do to other people because he’s Bricker, and there’s a history built up there. Part of that is due to his ideology, and part isn’t. A random stranger who comes in and starts a conservative OP will be treated differently than a random stranger who comes in and starts a liberal OP. Not sure what your point is… > [@](#): > > From which it would follow that at least some (possibly unknowable) portion of the antipathy to Bricker in liberal circles of this MB is derived from his ideology versus the putative reasons being put forth. The “some (possibly unknowable)” part of that sentence makes it almost certainly true, but also pretty meaningless. I’ve kind of lost track of what we’re really addressing here, but while it’s almost certainly true that Bricker is more generally disliked than a poster who had a totally identical posting style but who was liberal instead of conservative; it’s also not possible to truthfully make claims like “oh, you people just get mad at Bricker because he’s a conservative”, or anything of that sort. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2012, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-fooled-me-for-too-long/640835/322 "2012-11-16T19:41:10Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Oh, it wasn’t quite as dry and inquisitive as you suggest. Rather it was more akin to “Well, I guess since you guys are okay with stomping puppies to death, I guess it’s okay for me to stomp a kitten to death. Huh? Right? Huh? Prove me wrong, puppy-stompers!” This is sort of demonstrative of what I have been talking about. Any questioning of the liberal ethos causes some posters to go berserk. An attempt to demonstrate both liberal media bias, and liberal hypocrisy, is akin to stomping kittens. Got into the crack a little earlier this weekend, eh? Regards Shodan ---
**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:** [November 16, 2012, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-fooled-me-for-too-long/640835/323 "2012-11-16T19:48:03Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > As noted previously, a comment on someone’s motivation is identical to a comment on how that person would act in circumstances which were identical absent that motivation. (Or other circumstances where that motivation was present.) There is no difference. The problem is that the imaginary adventures you and other posters go on aren’t the same as “absent that motivation”; they’re “with another set of motivations.” Someone who objects to something that’s slanted rightward wouldn’t necessarily be okay with it when it’s slanted leftward. Someone that joins in condemnation of someone who’s accused of pedophilia wouldn’t necessarily join in condemnation of someone who’s accused of Jewishness. Someone that defends a Democrat who does something wouldn’t necessarily condemn the same actions from a Republican. The exact equivalence you set up is absurd. > [@](#): > > This all seems rather obvious to me, and it’s hard to imagine that I should even have to point this out. But that’s how it goes these days. There are all types of people out there … That much I can agree with. It seems obvious to you, of course, but you’re just wrong on it. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2012, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-fooled-me-for-too-long/640835/324 "2012-11-16T19:59:41Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > The problem is that the imaginary adventures you and other posters go on aren’t the same as “absent that motivation”; they’re “with another set of motivations.” It’s the same motivation - “Democrats good; Republicans bad.” > [@](#): > > Someone who objects to something that’s slanted rightward wouldn’t necessarily be okay with it when it’s slanted leftward. Someone that joins in condemnation of someone who’s accused of pedophilia wouldn’t necessarily join in condemnation of someone who’s accused of Jewishness. Someone that defends a Democrat who does something wouldn’t necessarily condemn the same actions from a Republican. Necessarily? No. But it sure works out that way a lot. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2012, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-fooled-me-for-too-long/640835/325 "2012-11-16T20:14:20Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > You took a wrong turn, mister. You wanna back out to main and take the Great Debates exit. > > Edit: Ninjaed. I see what you’re saying, and I just can’t sympathize with it. The pit is the forum in which it’s ALLOWED to be rude and swear and so forth. That doesn’t mean that polite and interesting threads of conversation can’t spring up, and it doesn’t mean that it doesn’t diminish the SDMB as a whole when they get derailed by pittiness. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2012, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-fooled-me-for-too-long/640835/326 "2012-11-16T20:18:37Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > This is sort of demonstrative of what I have been talking about. Any questioning of the liberal ethos causes some posters to go berserk. An attempt to demonstrate both liberal media bias, and liberal hypocrisy, is akin to stomping kittens. > > Got into the crack a little earlier this weekend, eh? > > Regards > Shodan I’m sure, now that you’ve accused him of smoking crack, **Bryan** will be much more likely to see the wisdom of your position. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2012, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-fooled-me-for-too-long/640835/327 "2012-11-16T20:23:53Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I’m sure, now that you’ve accused him of smoking crack, **Bryan** will be much more likely to see the wisdom of your position. Bryan: _Well, I guess it’s possible all the crack I’m smoking is affecting my judgement._ ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2012, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-fooled-me-for-too-long/640835/328 "2012-11-16T20:34:12Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I’m sure, now that you’ve accused him of smoking crack, **Bryan** will be much more likely to see the wisdom of your position. Actually he just texted me, said he has seen the light and is now moving to Texas to help with the secession (despite being Canadian). ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2012, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-fooled-me-for-too-long/640835/329 "2012-11-16T20:37:42Z")
Good Lord, stop him! A Canadian can deal with Minnesota, they are rather similar, maybe even Iowa if he can accommodate the sharp drop-off in IQ. But Texas? Like throwing a hamster into a snake pit! ---
**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:** [November 16, 2012, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-fooled-me-for-too-long/640835/330 "2012-11-16T21:04:20Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > It’s the same motivation - “Democrats good; Republicans bad.” Those are not the same motivation. Those are two different motivations, which may or may not be paired. For example, in you, do you agree that you are motivated by the exact opposite of both motives? Do you agree that Der Trihs is motivated by “Democrats bad; Republicans even worse”? > [@](#): > > Necessarily? No. But it sure works out that way a lot. …in your imagination. You’re one of the worst offenders of this sort of imaginary thinking. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2012, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-fooled-me-for-too-long/640835/331 "2012-11-16T21:09:15Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Those are not the same motivation. Those are two different motivations, which may or may not be paired. Actually, you’re right. It is much more common that the motivation is simply “Republicans bad”. > [@](#): > > …in your imagination. You’re one of the worst offenders of this sort of imaginary thinking. Nah, you’re just in denial. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2012, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-fooled-me-for-too-long/640835/332 "2012-11-16T21:22:11Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > No, I mean “fairly” - that is, applying a consistent standard. Suppose this were a message board dedicated to jazz music, and you were a fan of Kentucky-style-jazz (if there is such a thing), but most of the board was more in favor of New-Orleans-style-jazz. Threads you started would probably get less favorable responses in general then threads that other posters in the majority started. Unequal, sure. But… “unfair”? > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > It’s not at all hypocritical for someone to post on a message board differently in one thread than in another. > > It is if they apply one standard to politicians on their side, and a different standard to those on the other. But there’s lots of posts in thread that aren’t passing judgment or applying standards at all. Again, in the “two similar scandals” hypothetical, you might well find me in the bad-guy-on-the-right scandal thread posting various questions and bits of speculation and links to other things and so forth, without making similar posts in the bad-guy-on-the-left scandal thread. Is simply choosing to participate in that thread more, or possibly differently, than the other one in and of itself hypocrisy? Note that I’m not going into the BGOTR thread and saying “this scandal is absolute proof that this guy is unfit to be in congress, he should be recalled immediately” and then going into the BGOTL thread and saying “hey, this is really a very minor offense, maybe worthy of censure at the most” or anything like that. > [@](#): > > You agree that there are plenty of conservative complaints, and that some of them are justified. You also observe that there are hardly any liberal complaints, justified or otherwise. Therefore, there are likely to be more justified conservative complaints than justified liberal ones. This is especially so, since there are relatively few conservatives actively posting on the SDMB, at least in GD or the Pit. I agree, but have lost track of what your larger point is. Also note that a complaint can be “justified”, in the sense of technically accurate, but still fairly useless and even counterproductive. For instance, if you went and started a pit thread right now about how conservatives and liberals are treated unequally on the SDMB, you could probably phrase it in such a way that it contained no falsehoods but made many implications of conspiracy or moral failings or underhandedness on the part of the liberal majority, which would lead to defensive recriminations and blah blah blah meltdown. > [@](#): > > Read thru [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=321995&highlight=standard), and watch the standards change. A 4-page thread from 7 years ago in which Bricker is making a fake point to critique points being made in a 5-page thread from 7-years ago? You know, I’m not overflowing with enthusiasm to wade through that… Given that my request was > [@](#): > > "I would need a precise example of “claim to be applying an impartial standard”. I assume there’s some bit of that thread where some liberal is making some claim about SDMB liberals as a whole and how awesome and evenhanded we are. Can you isolate it? ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2012, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-fooled-me-for-too-long/640835/333 "2012-11-16T23:03:59Z")
> [@RaftPeople](#): > > Actually he just texted me, said he has seen the light and is now moving to Texas to help with the secession (despite being Canadian). No extra Canadian help is needed; **Sam Stone** is already on the scene. ---
**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:** [November 17, 2012, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-fooled-me-for-too-long/640835/334 "2012-11-17T01:32:20Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Nah, you’re just in denial. Whatever, dude. I’ll just point out to the audience at home that three times you’ve been asked in this thread if you consider yourself fair (once after you asked me the exact same question and I answered it), and three times you’ve denied to give the question an answer. I figure that’s as close to an answer as we’re likely to get from you. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2012, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-fooled-me-for-too-long/640835/335 "2012-11-17T15:30:02Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > Given that my request was > > > [@](#): > > > > "I would need a precise example of “claim to be applying an impartial standard”. > > I assume there’s some bit of that thread where some liberal is making some claim about SDMB liberals as a whole and how awesome and evenhanded we are. Can you isolate it? You wanted an example of how liberals on the SDMB claimed that their standards were impartial. An impartial example is one (in this context) that applies both to the Left and the Right. None of the liberals in the thread could come up with an impartial standard. Applying exactly the same standard to the Right produced what the liberals claimed was evidence of bias; applying the standard unchanged to the Left they denied produced any such evidence. You asked for an example and were given one. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2012, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-fooled-me-for-too-long/640835/336 "2012-11-17T18:15:17Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > You wanted an example of how liberals on the SDMB claimed that their standards were impartial. An impartial example is one (in this context) that applies both to the Left and the Right. None of the liberals in the thread could come up with an impartial standard. Applying exactly the same standard to the Right produced what the liberals claimed was evidence of bias; applying the standard unchanged to the Left they denied produced any such evidence. > > You asked for an example and were given one. As far as I can tell you’ve provided yet another example of a thread in which there was an argument about bias and hypocrisy and double standards, etc. I have no doubt such threads exist. I have no doubt there are threads of that sort in which liberals come out on the losing side, to the extent that there is a losing side. What I was asking about was where it is that liberals have been making grandiose claims about how we’re these brilliant and objective rational actors who are completely free of bias, etc… in other words, the thing you keep accusing us of frequently doing and saying. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2012, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-fooled-me-for-too-long/640835/337 "2012-11-17T18:39:38Z")
Your request was > [@](#): > > "I would need a precise example of “claim to be applying an impartial standard”. You were given exactly what you asked for. Now you are asking for something else. Look, there are only so many ways for you to say “yeah, you might be getting unfair treatment but I don’t care because it isn’t me”. I get it - you think conservatives should just suck it up. That’s not going to happen. You know how you don’t care if some of the treatment conservatives receive is unfair? I don’t care if you don’t like having me point that out. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2012, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-fooled-me-for-too-long/640835/338 "2012-11-17T18:45:35Z")
I think someone should point out to **Shodan** that this thread isn’t about him, since he never actually fooled anyone. I would, but the hamsters don’t let him see my posts, because he is so open-minded and fair, it would give him a sad. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2012, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-fooled-me-for-too-long/640835/339 "2012-11-17T20:22:37Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > I think someone should point out to **Shodan** that this thread isn’t about him, since he never actually fooled anyone. I would, but the hamsters don’t let him see my posts, because he is so open-minded and fair, it would give him a sad. Sadly, his protective mullet shields against all information attacks, except for the slow creep of FOX News. Hrm… Shodan is sort of a slow creep. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2012, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-fooled-me-for-too-long/640835/340 "2012-11-18T04:31:49Z")
Well, once the crack fumes lifted, I realized Shodan was trying to make a serious claim, which makes him either imperceptive or a liar, or some combination. In any case, I have full confidence that nothing he can say will cause anyone to go berserk. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-fooled-me-for-too-long/640835.md?page=16) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-fooled-me-for-too-long/640835.md?page=18)