I will say that I respect the hell out of Bricker. He has always been courteous to me, despite my enormous ignorance.
But I have winced many times since the election whenever he wrote the phrase “you liberals” and seemed to lump all of in together and paint us all the same shade of blue.
(BTW, can we PLEEEASE get rid of this RED/BLUE shit???)
Ahem…it’s Hawking.
Schmuck! 
I can’t tell you how refreshing it is to see personal insults return to the realm of typos instead of politics. Aah, the board is getting back to normal! 
Good god, no. That would be a thankless job if ever there was one. Soon as some punk-ass conservative nutball gets deservedly bitch-slapped for being an idiot and an asshole, all the wingnuts start whining at you for not lecturing the bitch-slapper.
Oooh, I love it when you talk tough… anonymously… over the internet…
You’re so cool.
Yeah, probably 'cause of all those times he’s been dragged to the Pit for being such a weasel-think dickhead. You think?
Actually, you are misrepresenting your response, and mine as well. There was an intervening post, from you. You accused me of playing tricks, and made an effort to pretend that I had said something I had not, and that you had not said something you had.
And your later statement, that you were talking about resolution 1441 all along, is a simple lie. You mentioned that resolution in the same post where you stated categorically that Iraq was never found in material breach of the inspections.
And, of course, you accusing me of abusing my opponents is a classic case of the pot and the kettle. You began the thread by accusing me of behaving like an idiot.
My final post in the thread was in reaction to your continued dishonesty. For me, the debate was over.
As I said, I didn’t expect any of this to do any good. You made several unambiguously false statements, withdrew one and ignored the refutation of the rest, and then made renewed accusations in a following post. In the same way, I have cited instances where WMDs and evidence of programs to develop them have been found in Iraq. Which evidence you disregard, repeatedly, in favor of the same sort of sweeping statements that you have been refuted on in the past.
You made categorical statements (“There were no WMDs found in Iraq!” “Zagadka never blamed 9/11 on American flag-waving!” “Iraq was never found in material breach of the inspection regime!”) . Those statements were shown to be false. You then apologized, thought about it for a while, and then began accusing me of tricks and rhetorical sleights and so forth. Just as you are doing in this thread.
:shrugs:
Have a nice Thanksgiving.
Regards,
Shodan
Quack quack quack.
Man, that’s rich! You can’t make shit like this up! You accusing Big Svin of rhetorical dishonesty. Like the oldest whore on the block, a constellation of running sores and a compendium of STDs, idly scratches at the crabs on her industrial-strength snatch and says “That Svin is such a little slut!”
Made my day, Shoddy!
This seems the appropriate time in the appropriate thread to mention that I very much dislike the twisting of user names for derogatory purposes. Nicknames (Dio, Lib) and abbreviations (TYM, ETF) are one thing, but it bugs the hell out of me when people play with names to make them an insult. It takes me back to schoolyard days in an unpleasant way.
He said… anonymously… over the internet…
Here’s a perfect example of the obnoxious behaviour in Great Debates. From this thread. The question was asked whether anything bad happened because the Communists won in Vietnam.
I replied that 500,000 boat people dying was a bad thing. Which prompted this response from elucidator:
Note the snotty tone, the implication that I don’t even think about what I type, and for good measure, the accusation that I’m just parroting the Freepers.
Then for good measure, dropzone pipes up with a demand that I give my age, with the implication that if he discovers that I was old enough to volunteer for Vietnam but didn’t, my opinion is not valid.
Note that this has nothing whatsoever to do with the boat people. There follows a little side conversation about whether or not I should be allowed to have an opinion on this topic.
Then Pantom joins the party, with a curious message in which he A) discovers that my estimate is certainly within the range of published estimates, but then B) accuses me of throwing around ‘wildly unsupported figures’. Along with a demand that I prove the number.
So… I do a little googling, find a cite with a table of estimates from various sources that have a median value of 405,000 dead to 708,000 dead. The response? The table is too hard to read, and anyway, who can really know? It’s all so mysterious! Let’s not ever speak of this again.
And then the kids abandon the party.
This goes on every day around this place.
Note that when elucidator gave his first snotty little missive, HE didn’t actually have a clue what the real number might be. None. He was not refuting me from a position of knowledge - he just thought he’d take a free shot.
So the whole thread devolved into a massive waste of time.
How dare he!
You’re always careful to paraphrase.
Well, now, Sam, once again you’re being a bit economical with the facts.
Rufus asked a perfectly legitimate question regarding our investment of lives and treasure into Viet Nam. You come along, in highest dudgeon, and start throwing around heavyweight numbers like they were incontrovertible facts, solid as the rock of Gibralter, straight stuff. And little ol’ me says “Half a million drowned boat people? That’s one hell of a number”. And it is. Of course, since you have so much high dudgeon crammed into that post, you didn’t have room to reveal your sources. Turns out, upon examination, that your source is the Memory Palace of Sam. Period.
Then you Google. Then you go searching for back-up, and find it, well, less than really definitive. Which you admit, to your credit, but after the fact! After you have agonized over the besmirching of your blameless character, then you go looking to back it up.
Who’s kidding who here? You gonna bring in the statistical artillery, you gotta have it, you can’t go looking for it ex post no factos. You don’t want to be sneered at, don’t insult my intelligence by trying to pull a fast one. If my tone of voice had simply dripped with respect and admiration, your lame bullshit would stll be lame bullshit.
You ain’t got The Shit, don’t pretend you do. This ain’t poker, bluffing isn’t supposed to be part of the game.
Now then we come to your perfectly laughable claim:
My last post on the subject is #46. You bailed out at #44. 'Nuff sed.
Well, now, to be scrupulously fair, Sam denies such, and he should be taken at this word. I oftimes confuse him with The Nameless One, who does post drivel from the Freepers and even has insisted that their mind-rot be accepted as an authoritative cite. Sam says he hasn’t, and doesn’t, and it oughta be good enough for us.
However, he never did get around to telling us where he got his numbers in the first instance. Unless he’s suggesting the he is, himself, a cite in which case I think he ought to learn to set the bong down about one bump sooner.
Fair enough. Let’s just replace “Freeper site” with “Swiftie site.”
You do realize that there are other sources of information than the Internet, right? The only reason I googled was because I needed a cite, and a book on my shelf at home doesn’t exactly work, does it?
See, I actually read real books. Lots of them. I’m staring at an entire wall of them right now. I also have knowledge. I’ve actually, you know, studied. So I am quite capable of dredging up a ballpark number from my memory. Or does every single word that’s ever uttered around here now have to come with it’s own Google result set? Of course, one should be required to back up his numbers IF ASKED. Which Pantom did, and which I responded to.
You, on the other hand, just dive bombed the thread to take a cheap shot. And I note that YOU didn’t Google anything to see if my number was wrong before deciding to take that shot, did you? And unlike me, it appears that you didn’t actually have any prior knowledge to base anything on.
And for the record, I have never, ever posted a thing from Free Republic on this board, for good reason: I don’t read Free Republic. I have only hit that site when following a link from somewhere, and I’ve never stayed. I’ll bet I haven’t hit that site more than five or ten times in the past two years. The place sucks. I don’t know if the content is any good, because the user interface blows chunks and I can’t be bothered.
And gee, it’s awful nice of you to defend me from Diogenes’ totally baseless claim that I post from the freepers. Especially since you made the same claim in that other thread. At least Dio picked the right forum to throw a cheap shot.
Seems about right.
(You know, Dio, when you think about how open-minded, friendly and fair we are, its odd than so few of these ungrateful assholes love us…)
That’s just peachy keen Sam. Now, all you have to do, when quoting a statistic in order to lend credibility to your argument, simply add the phrase “I read this in a book, somewhere” and I’m sure it will receive precisely as much credence as it is due.
There now. All better?
Does that apply to just me, or does everyone now have to provide a description of where they acquired every piece of knowledge they utter? Do all our posts now have to come with footnotes to avoid your abuse?
Just trying to get the rules straight here.