I think you’ve confused “pity party” with “pitting assholes for stalking him and inviting them to pit him.” Easy mistake, I know.
And I was far from the first or last poster to scold people. Sure looks like LHOD was scolding y’all back then, too.
Sculpted. That’s some fancy shit right there.
There’s also:
[ul]
[li]Find something a liberal has done or said.[/li][li]Extrapolate that to all liberals.[/li][li]Find something other liberals have done or said which conflicts with what the first liberal said or did.[/li][li]Insinuate that this proves liberal hypocrisy.[/li][li]When called out on this, change the subject.[/li][/ul]
The basic Bricker Axiom is: If at least one liberal has demonstrated a view on something, this is sufficient to prove that this view can be assumed to be representative of all liberals even if the majority have demonstrated a different view. However, if the majority of conservatives demonstrate a view but at least one conservative has demonstrated a different view, this is sufficient to prove that the majority view cannot be assumed to be representative of all conservatives.
It’s evident to me that the reason he expends so much effort claiming to show “liberal hypocrisy” is that he’s trying so desperately to deflect from his own. Were I inclined to adopt his methods I should now be claiming that all conservatives are likewise hypocritical.
Oh fun, trip down memory lane! I forgot that you’d be creeping on me for over a decade. You’d stopped, but looks like you’re back. Same routine as before, huh, where you come into threads about something else and post a bunch of shit about how you can’t quit me?
Because goody, everybody loves that schtick.
BigT, I don’t think I’ve engaged with you hardly at all. I’ll ask only once; I’d prefer you not compare what you do to how I post.
Corollary accepted. 
You’ve nicely expanded on my last bullet point there.
That’s telling him, LHoD. Talk about a human-shaped piece of shit.
You two are more alike than you are different…or is this some kind of rivalry over who is the most annoying scold on the SDMB?
You’re right - it’s creepy when somebody complains about a post from a decade back.
Regards,
Shodan
Chimera:
Total Posts: 19,828
Posts Per Day: 3.71
DamuriAjashi:
Total Posts: 18,204
Posts Per Day: 4.62
I post 0.9 posts per day more than you.
The problem isn’t the quantity of my posts. If all my posts were echo chamber liberal posts, it would fly under the radar even if I was saying stupid and outrageous things. My posts bother the snowflake ready for Hillary crowd because they fuck with the echo chamber
Of all the criticisms of Bricker I’ve seen, here and elsewhere, this is probably the only one which is legit IMHO. And even here, he’s not entirely at fault. Because many times (though not always) it’s the other guys who confuse the matter.
Fact is that many many times, liberals attacking the latest conservative/Republican outrage, in addition to claims about the lack of any sort of morality etc. etc., also throw in an assertion that the actions were illegal. Now it’s obvious to the casual reader that these people have no clue what is or isn’t legal and are operating on some general notion that anything outrageous enough has to be illegal and/or have seen on some left wing blog or similar where another LW partisan with dubious credentials has made this claim. Most people gloss over the “illegal” part of the claim and focus on the outrageous aspects of it. But Bricker doesn’t. He starts questioning what specific aspects are illegal, and under which law, and possibly starts whipping out case law etc., and this frustrates the heck out of the original claimant and his allies, who think whether it’s legal or not is of minor import (if they even noticed the “illegal” claim being made to begin with). But the claim has been made and is fair game.
It’s essentially a situation where a debater is arguing with a ranter, and I don’t know if you can say the fault is completely on one side.
Meh. John Mace Strikes me as a principled libertarian who realizes he is in hostile fucking territory.
I think you’re a quality poster overall. But there is one aspect of your posting style that you may want to reconsider.
Many times, you come into (or re-enter) a long thread and then go through pages and pages of posts, commenting as you go, instead of reading through to the end and deciding what you want to comment on. So you end up with like 7-8 posts in a row all from you, and referring to posts from others that are distributed over multiple pages of the thread. Many times the discussion has long since moved on since those posts, and/or the specific issues you’re raising have already been discussed long before you raise them.
Something to think about, possibly.
Well, on a related note, let’s not forget his willful ignorance of how people use the word ‘Unconstitutional’. Most people say ‘unconstitutional’ to describe something that, in their view of the Constitution, is wrong and incompatible with the American way of life. In this sense, something unconstitutional can only become constitutional if the Constitution is amended.
Bricker, on the other hand, subscribes* to the view that ‘Unconstitutional’ means whatever a majority of the Supreme Court says it does - so something can be constitutional one day, and unconstitutional days, months, or years later. (Plessy v. Ferguson, Brown v. Board of Education.)
*Except when he doesn’t, usually when it was a decision handed down by a liberal court.
So he purposefully ignores the way people actually use the word to impose his own definition, with the purpose of pissing them off for his own amusement. (And is a total fucking hypocrite besides, but…)
I think this is a valid criticism. I try to do it when I start to engage in a new thread but I frequently neglect to do this when re-engaging in a thread after I have been away from the board for a few days.
In my defense, I would say that when I engage in this sort of posting pattern while taking a liberal stance, no one seems to mind very much. Heck, if I am criticizing a conservative post, other posters frequently take the opportunity to drag the conservative post through the mud again.
I think the majority of the criticism I get are for the non-liberal nature of some of my posts. I catch a lot of flak when I criticize Hillary, support the second amendment, or make no allowances for rioting and looting. I also catch flak for saying that admissions at competitive colleges are baised against Asians and saying that Israel behaves badly sometimes.
This leads me to believe that much of what’s bothering people is not the pattern of my posting but the content. but you’re right, I should try harder, no one really cares about a post responding to a post from two days ago.
Dude. Literacy Council. They’re looking for clients to help.
Yes, I read about them.
Regards,
Shodan
Ah, the “my posts are brilliant and you only disagree with them because you’re all sheeple” argument. That one always wins the internet.
No you didn’t. You read about the Little Engine that Could and got confused.
Shut up, Big Tard!
Here we go. He thinks he’s got a new way to get under my skin (last time he inexplicably thought calling me a girl would work), so he’ll use this schtick for awhile. Enjoy it, folks!