# Bryan Ekers, you are a thread-pissing dumbfuck **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [March 25, 2006, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bryan-ekers-you-are-a-thread-pissing-dumbfuck/349864 "2006-03-25T17:11:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**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:** [March 26, 2006, 7:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bryan-ekers-you-are-a-thread-pissing-dumbfuck/349864/221 "2006-03-26T07:50:33Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > Do we disagree? If not, then such a list has no purpose. If you do disagree, then all you have to do is produce a single counterexample. I already have, actually - cosmosdan. His recent posting history in [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=363740&page=1&pp=50) and [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=360706) (ad I mean _really_ recent - less than an hour ago, in fact) suggests a strong belief in the spiritual, though whether or not he’s “New Age” enough is something I leave to you. That’s your counterexample, though strictly speaking the onus is on you to prove your claim rather on me to disprove it. > [@](#): > > Simple–arguing about paranormal matters on SDMB is tiresome, unpleasant, and fruitless. And yet people keep doing it. Go figure. ---
**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:** [March 26, 2006, 7:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bryan-ekers-you-are-a-thread-pissing-dumbfuck/349864/222 "2006-03-26T07:57:22Z")
Incidentally, what is PTP (peer to peer?) and how is it affecting GQ? ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2006, 7:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bryan-ekers-you-are-a-thread-pissing-dumbfuck/349864/223 "2006-03-26T07:57:44Z")
> [@Excalibre](#): > > Sure, people make dumb wrong-word mistakes all the time. The point is that it’s not a “typo”, even per the definition of the word that you cited. You claimed over and over that it was; I don’t think typing “you’re” for “your” is a terrible mistake, though in context it was quite amusing. Either way, you don’t seem to hold much of a regard for specific fact. Man, you’re obtuse. I’m saying that, in my opinion, it _is_ a typo, but also saying that there is no definitive, socially recognized science of typology that will say that either I’m right or you’re right. > [@](#): > > Also, I’d like a cite for your claim that “split infinitives” are some sort of topic of academic debate. Are you a college student? Because only young, half-educated people are so confident and unnuanced in their thinking. (I’d say the same about ol’ **Bryan** –no way the dude is over 25).) Of course there is “academic debate” over the split infinitive among English teachers, linguists, whomever. And there is also the social factor that major writers have studiously avoided splitting the infinitive until recently. > [@](#): > > As a linguist, I would imagine that linguistics would be the field that would discuss such issues - but there is no debate in linguistics at all, as the linguistic facts are quite clear: English does not have an infinitive verb form as some languages do, and “to” is a particle that often but not always precedes verbs in the plain form used in infinitival clauses. Nothing is being split whatsoever; further, the very concept of the “split infinitive” comes from a silly misapplication of Latin grammar to English. It’s simply false to claim that there is some sort of “debate” about the topic, at least in the area of linguistics - while there are unsettled discussions in syntax, this certainly does not represent one of them. I agree with you, Sherlock, but there is plenty of normative pressure in writing that has nothing to do with grammatical theory. > [@](#): > > I have pointed out your being repeatedly careless with factual claims; it was not a lot of work at all, as I’ve had basic statistics courses and I understand how the normal curve works. I wouldn’t call my knowledge of statistics thorough - rather, this is a very elementary question. I don’t know what the hell you’re talking about. > [@](#): > > Let’s call it educated snark. Watching your continual disregard for reality is something I find quite amusing, probably because I’m mildly drunk. OK, drunken reality master. > [@](#): > > You started out with the “right-winger” claim. Others earlier in the thread pointed out that I didn’t fit the definition, before you decided that the ranks of your persecuters included more than just “right-wingers”. Dude, can’t you be troubled to cite my post when you make such claims? I never said you were a right-winger. Cite if you can. > [@](#): > > I can’t say for sure that God doesn’t exist; the fact that it’s existence can’t (by definition) fall into the realm of evidence makes the question more or less irrelevant to me, as I don’t think we have tools that can find a meaningful answer. Oh my gawd, you said “it’s” when you should have said “its”–was that a typo… or something more?! > [@](#): > > As to general spiritual beliefs, I’m far more flexible; I’ve had experiences that strike me as supernatural, but I am not certain that they were real in any sense, since it’s well-known that simple brain phenomena can account for “spiritual” experiences. I don’t know if they were real or just an artifact of the chunk of meat inside my skull; therefore I remain open to the question of the supernatural. Yes, you seem the very paragon of openness. > [@](#): > > No. You have been a hypocrite precisely in that you have condemned others as “dicks” for behavior that you yourself manifest _frequently_, and in this very thread no less. I concede the point. This board gets to you. ---
**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:** [March 26, 2006, 8:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bryan-ekers-you-are-a-thread-pissing-dumbfuck/349864/224 "2006-03-26T08:02:21Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > (I’d say the same about ol’ **Bryan** –no way the dude is over 25). I guess I should stop asking you for specifics because when you give them, you’re almost always completely wrong. You may as well stick with vague unprovable statements; that’s where your strength clearly lies. ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2006, 8:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bryan-ekers-you-are-a-thread-pissing-dumbfuck/349864/225 "2006-03-26T08:06:29Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > I already have, actually - cosmosdan. His recent posting history in [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=363740&page=1&pp=50) and [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=360706) (ad I mean _really_ recent - less than an hour ago, in fact) suggests a strong belief in the spiritual, though whether or not he’s “New Age” enough is something I leave to you. That’s your counterexample, though strictly speaking the onus is on you to prove your claim rather on me to disprove it. I have already stated that religious people are still here. I don’t know **cosmodan** well enough to determine whether he is religious (in the case of the SDMB, a Christian or Jew) or a New Ager. The real point being, however, that no one is left who will discuss ghosts, psi, the afterlife, etc. Do we agree on that point? I think my categories of banned/suspended/silenced _a priori_ include every New Ager if the above point is agreed upon. > [@](#): > > And yet people keep doing it. Go figure. But they don’t. The topics of ghosts, psi, and the afterlife are gone from GD. You do have religious people arguing that abortion is wrong, evolution is wrong, and so on, but you do not have the above. ---
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2006, 8:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bryan-ekers-you-are-a-thread-pissing-dumbfuck/349864/226 "2006-03-26T08:07:04Z")
> [@NoClueBoy](#): > > Using forum default page break of 50 posts, I posted on top of page 4 with post # 151. > > Which isn’t as important as a cure for cancer, but it is fun to do. When I was a kid I had a friend who had played the hell out of the Super Mario Brothers for the NES. I mean played **the hell** out of it. He had ways of getting so many lives and bonus points the counters went out of the range of decimal, hexidecimal, and started showing up as ASCII art. It was freaky. After a while he stopped playing to win and started playing to do crazy stuff to the game. Stuff like “break every block on the level”, “beat a level with as few points as possible”, or “set a new record for fastest time through the full game(no warps)”. That guy needed to get out more. Enjoy, Steven ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2006, 8:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bryan-ekers-you-are-a-thread-pissing-dumbfuck/349864/227 "2006-03-26T08:08:29Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > I guess I should stop asking you for specifics because when you give them, you’re almost always completely wrong. You may as well stick with vague unprovable statements; that’s where your strength clearly lies. I’m right, am I not? You’re definitely 25 or younger. ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2006, 8:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bryan-ekers-you-are-a-thread-pissing-dumbfuck/349864/228 "2006-03-26T08:10:25Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > Incidentally, what is PTP (peer to peer?) and how is it affecting GQ? Pay to post. Fewer posters, fewer people to answer questions. I’m ambivalent as to how much it’s really changed. It seems possible. ---
**Author:** ![Excalibre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/898d66/32.png) [@Excalibre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Excalibre)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2006, 8:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bryan-ekers-you-are-a-thread-pissing-dumbfuck/349864/229 "2006-03-26T08:14:10Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > Of course there is “academic debate” over the split infinitive among English teachers, linguists, whomever. And there is also the social factor that major writers have studiously avoided splitting the infinitive until recently. > > I agree with you, Sherlock, but there is plenty of normative pressure in writing that has nothing to do with grammatical theory. The trouble is that I challenge the notion that silly prescriptive grammar rules have any presence _within academia_. You specifically said “academic debate”, and again, I’d like to see evidence. Seriously, I’m curious what in the world you could be talking about. While some very poor English teachers in primary schools have still taught the rule, I wouldn’t consider the fourth grade classroom “academia” in the accepted sense. So I would really like you to find evidence. Further, the notion that “major writers” in general have avoided split infinitives is _entirely false_. To quote the _American Heritage Book of English Usage_, “some of the most noteworthy splitters include John Donne, Samuel Pepys, Daniel Defoe, Benjamin Franklin, Samuel Johnson, William Wordsworth, Abraham Lincoln, George Eliot, Henry James, and Willa Cather.” The silly little rule wasn’t even invented until quite recently; while likely some few deluded souls have avoided splitting infinitives, your implication that it has in general been avoided in formal writing is simply inaccurate. I have quite a bug up my ass about prescriptive grammar issues; it bothers me to see you cloud the discussion by making claims that some debate exists when it actually doesn’t. I do generally know my shit when it comes to this area; I hope you don’t give me cause to suspect that you don’t. ---
**Author:** ![Rubystreak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Rubystreak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rubystreak)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2006, 8:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bryan-ekers-you-are-a-thread-pissing-dumbfuck/349864/230 "2006-03-26T08:15:18Z")
I don’t know **Aeschine** s except in passing but have no real opinion of him as a poster in general. Maybe the hate-fest on here is totally warranted, I don’t know. Regardless, this thread is starting to turn into some really lame, petty bullying, which kinda bugs me. > [@Excalibre](#): > > The trouble is that “you’re” for “your” is hardly an “error as of spelling” (much less a wrong key press, as per the other definitions) - substituting one word for another is not a spelling error nor particularly comparable, as you yourself agreed, when you decided that “Dumbass” for “Aeschines” couldn’t reasonably be considered a typo. Don’t you feel petty about posting this? Haven’t you ever typed a homophone for another word by accident as a brain fart? Are you really claiming that Aeschines doesn’t know the difference between “your” and “you’re”? The man has been posting an awful lot lately (I know, his own damn fault), and he made a mistake. It happens to the best of us. Arguing at length about whether or not this is a typo is just an excuse to give the guy shit. If you liked him, you wouldn’t think twice about accepting that he had a slip of the fingers. > [@](#): > > Now let’s investigate your implication that all Bush voters have IQs at or below 70. There were more than 50 million of them; indeed, they constituted more than half of the voters. Clearly, it could not be the case that they all have IQs at or below 70. Maybe Aeschines was being hyperbolic? Firing off an off-the-cuff snark as a lame insult and not meaning it to be taken literally? Do you honestly believe that he is claiming that all Bush voters are actually borderline retarded? It was a quip he made. It was an absurd thing to say on his part, but I don’t think anyone can meaningfully contend that he was being serious. Give it a rest. To call this an “error of fact” is disingenous at best. > [@](#): > > This is particularly ironic, as you’ve dismissed all those who disagree with you as being either part of some mysterious cabal of right-wingers (I was particularly surprised to learn I was one of those!) or “skeptics” (a term you use - incomprehensibly - as a pejorative.) I don’t subscribe to **Aeschines’** beliefs, but it is an observable fact that people who believe in supernatural phenomenon get knocked around on these boards. I’m all in favor of science and provable claims, but it does get pretty mean-spirited sometimes under the guise of debunking and fighting ignorance. Does being nasty fight anyone’s ignorance? No, it just alienates people and makes them feel like shit. Compassionate debate fights ignorance, not taunting and derision. It’s a fact that people can be goaded into flaming out by a numerous, needling, condescending attacks made by several people. Blame is diffused because it’s usually a group pf people who are juuuuust on this side of the line. I think that’s what **Aeschines** is saying. If you really want me to dig up threads to back this up, I will try to do it, but I think you know what I mean. > [@](#): > > You, **Aeschines** , are therefore a hypocrite. Unfortunately, Aeschines, you don’t help your case when you write the following two lines in the same post: > [@Aeschines](#): > > You dumbass. I never called you a right-winger. > [@Aeschines](#): > > I have been a hypocrite on these boards many times in that I engage in vitriolic debate with people when I should instead be contributing love and positivity to the world. Don’t open a Pit thread if you want to avoid vitriol, and if you want to avoid a pile-on like this thread has turned into. I’m sticking up for you because some of the shit that’s been said to you in this thread, esp. on this page, is flagrantly petty bullshit. It reminds me of the crap my 12 year old students do when they are being particularly shitty to someone. The unpopular, whiny, annoying kid in the schoolyard gets surrounded by a bunch of kids who don’t like him. They mock everything he says, taking his metaphorical words and arguing about them as if they are literal, pointing out every inconsistency no matter how minor and driving it into the ground, and putting his dick in the dirt. Argue with someone, disagree, hell, cuss him out if you have to, but don’t do the nitpicky, disingenuous crap and call it anything but what it is-- giving someone shit because you don’t like him in the guise of fighting ignorance, proving some larger point about who he is as a person, or meaningful debate. But **Aeschines** , you’re making it too easy for them. You opened a Pit thread, and yeah, the shit is going to fly, most of it at you. Walk away, man, and maybe take a little break from the boards. JMO. ---
**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:** [March 26, 2006, 8:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bryan-ekers-you-are-a-thread-pissing-dumbfuck/349864/231 "2006-03-26T08:17:00Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > I don’t know **cosmodan** well enough to determine whether he is religious (in the case of the SDMB, a Christian or Jew) or a New Ager. Then I suggest you read (or at least skim) his last 50 or so posts. It’ll take at most 10 minutes. > [@](#): > > The real point being, however, that no one is left who will discuss ghosts, psi, the afterlife, etc. Do we agree on that point? No. If you won’t do even basic minimal research into cosmosdan, are you suggesting I should do complex laborious research into every GD poster to make sure there is no-one left who will discuss ghosts, psi of the afterlife? Such threads do come up on occasion (more on this presently), so I’d say your claim is clearly false. > [@](#): > > The topics of ghosts, psi, and the afterlife are gone from GD. Did you bother to click on either of the two threads I just linked? One is very specifically about the concept of souls, which certainly touches on the notion of ghosts _and_ the afterlife, while the other has a specific question about Hell in its OP, which is definitely afterlife-related. Are they too “religious” for you? Is that mutually exlusive to being “New Age”? Can you define “New Age”? Now you’re just being lazy. ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2006, 8:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bryan-ekers-you-are-a-thread-pissing-dumbfuck/349864/232 "2006-03-26T08:22:36Z")
> [@Excalibre](#): > > The trouble is that I challenge the notion that silly prescriptive grammar rules have any presence _within academia_. You specifically said “academic debate”, and again, I’d like to see evidence. > **[Split infinitive](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split_infinitive)** > > In the English language, a split infinitive or cleft infinitive is a grammatical construction in which a word or phrase is placed between the particle to and the infinitive that comprise a to-infinitive. In traditional English grammar, the bare infinitive (e.g., go) is extended by the particle to in order to produce the to-infinitive phrase (sometimes termed a full infinitive), to go. > A split infinitive occurs when one or more items, as an adverb or adverbial phrase, separates the particle and ... We have another dumb debate here. I don’t disagree with you on split infinitives. I was merely saying that there had been debate going on about them, which there had. Among academics, which there had. Split a hair if you must. > [@](#): > > Further, the notion that “major writers” in general have avoided split infinitives is _entirely false_. Not entirely, Mr. Nuance. Wikipedia says that Shakespeare only used the construction once. See the article–it notes when the construction was generally avoided and when it wasn’t. > [@](#): > > I do generally know my shit when it comes to this area; I hope you don’t give me cause to suspect that you don’t. Yes, I’m mammothly impressed by your knowledge. ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2006, 8:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bryan-ekers-you-are-a-thread-pissing-dumbfuck/349864/233 "2006-03-26T08:25:30Z")
> [@Rubystreak](#): > > But **Aeschines** , you’re making it too easy for them. You opened a Pit thread, and yeah, the shit is going to fly, most of it at you. Walk away, man, and maybe take a little break from the boards. JMO. Yeah, no joke. ---
**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:** [March 26, 2006, 8:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bryan-ekers-you-are-a-thread-pissing-dumbfuck/349864/234 "2006-03-26T08:30:32Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > I’m right, am I not? You’re definitely 25 or younger. I’m 37. I have clear memories of the Reagan assassination attempt. I also hold a bachelor’s degree from a major accredited university, so I’m not half-educated, either. Lest you think I just made up that number to prove you wrong, I’ll link to [another past post of mine](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=4777348#post4777348) (though not a particularly funny one) from April 2004 in which I describe my contemporaries as Canadian men born 1967-1971 (i.e. within two years of me). That entire thread is borderline relevant to this one, actually. In it, I challenged someone who was determined to advance his ideas even if he could not or would not define them in any comprehensible way. I was skeptical and tried to get specifics from him. He wasn’t a New Ager, though; he was just a hardcore racist. ---
**Author:** ![Excalibre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/898d66/32.png) [@Excalibre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Excalibre)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2006, 8:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bryan-ekers-you-are-a-thread-pissing-dumbfuck/349864/235 "2006-03-26T08:31:00Z")
> [@Rubystreak](#): > > Don’t you feel petty about posting this? Haven’t you ever typed a homophone for another word by accident as a brain fart? Are you really claiming that Aeschines doesn’t know the difference between “your” and “you’re”? The man has been posting an awful lot lately (I know, his own damn fault), and he made a mistake. It happens to the best of us. Arguing at length about whether or not this is a typo is just an excuse to give the guy shit. If you liked him, you wouldn’t think twice about accepting that he had a slip of the fingers. Indeed I have. In fact, as **Aeschines** so astutely noticed, I did in this very thread. The other day, I mistyped “right” for “write”, and some other poster helpfully pointed it out. A few days prior, **Johanna** corrected me (I think for the second time! I am truly a lost cause sometimes . . . ) on typing “caché” for “cachet”. I don’t think it’s a problem; it’s not the sort of thing that I think reflects badly on a person; I certainly mix up homophones on occasion when typing fast. The trouble is that instead of simply laughing at the silly irony in his misuse of a word in the particular context of calling others stupid, **Aeschines** started some silly little argument about it being a “typo”, which it really isn’t. If he hadn’t tried to engage in pedantry rather than simply saying, “Oops, that was dumb”, I wouldn’t be castigating him. My problem is when he starts getting pedantic, _and gets his pedantry wrong._ > [@](#): > > Maybe Aeschines was being hyperbolic? Firing off an off-the-cuff snark as a lame insult and not meaning it to be taken literally? Do you honestly believe that he is claiming that all Bush voters are actually borderline retarded? It was a quip he made. It was an absurd thing to say on his part, but I don’t think anyone can meaningfully contend that he was being serious. Give it a rest. To call this an “error of fact” is disingenous at best. Personally, I’m quite irritated by his continued attempts in this thread to defray criticism by calling others “stupid” on the basis of their beliefs. This is the Pit; he has the right to call every Bush voter a retard and everyone who disagrees with him stupid, as he in essense did. And I have the right to point out that it’s inaccurate. I didn’t call him out on the absurdity of calling your opponents “stupid” as a debate tactic; others have tried arguing against him fairly in this thread, and they have made no headway. Thus, I’m pointing out his every error as an alternative way of pointing out how fucking moronic an argument it is to call people “stupid” and then dismiss them just because they have the temerity to disagree with him. > [@](#): > > I don’t subscribe to **Aeschines’** beliefs, but it is an observable fact that people who believe in supernatural phenomenon get knocked around on these boards. I’m all in favor of science and provable claims, but it does get pretty mean-spirited sometimes under the guise of debunking and fighting ignorance. Does being nasty fight anyone’s ignorance? No, it just alienates people and makes them feel like shit. Compassionate debate fights ignorance, not taunting and derision. I disagree with your New Age pity party. Further, if you read the thread, you will see that **Aeschines** has been roundly insulting to everyone present; I think in that circumstance, he deserves the response. If you insult everyone around you, I don’t think you have much business crying when they don’t like you. Being nasty doesn’t fight ignorance, as you say. **Aeschines** is consistently nasty; he was nasty throughout this thread. I think he’s getting what he asked for. > [@](#): > > Don’t open a Pit thread if you want to avoid vitriol, and if you want to avoid a pile-on like this thread has turned into. Exactly the point I’m making. Others have made it directly; I’m using indirect means to (hopefully) accomplish the same ends. When **Aeschines** is an asshole, as he has been in this thread, I’m not going to treat him nicely. To do otherwise would likely be taken as encouragement. > [@](#): > > Argue with someone, disagree, hell, cuss him out if you have to, but don’t do the nitpicky, disingenuous crap and call it anything but what it is-- giving someone shit because you don’t like him in the guise of fighting ignorance, proving some larger point about who he is as a person, or meaningful debate. I am giving him shit for very specific reasons. I don’t think he should suggest that others are retarded simply because they don’t share his beliefs; you may attempt to sway him to the other side through logical argument, but I suspect you’ll fail. I, meanwhile, am taking the indirect approach of undermining what he says; I am picking apart his statements because he shouldn’t have made them in the first place. I find it objectionable to insult others simply because you disagree with them, so I will undermine his attempts to do so. It is one of his primary debate tactics; that means that he has given me substantial room to do it. But don’t try to assign me motives; I have been picking apart his words for very specific reasons. While I think he deserves every bit of crap flung at him in this thread, given the amount he himself has flung, that is not actually my purpose in posting here. ---
**Author:** ![Rubystreak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Rubystreak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rubystreak)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2006, 8:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bryan-ekers-you-are-a-thread-pissing-dumbfuck/349864/236 "2006-03-26T08:44:30Z")
> [@Excalibre](#): > > Also, I’d like a cite for your claim that “split infinitives” are some sort of topic of academic debate. As a linguist, I would imagine that linguistics would be the field that would discuss such issues - but there is no debate in linguistics at all… See, this is exactly what I meant in my previous post about being a petty dick and giving somebody shit just for the sake of it. [To say](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split_infinitive) [there is](http://www.askoxford.com/asktheexperts/faq/aboutgrammar/splitinfinitives) [no debate](http://www.cjr.org/tools/lc/splitinfin.asp) anywhere about split infinitives is just incorrect, considering how in damn near every article I read online, the debate is mentioned, and I know secondary educators are of two minds on it. The debate is _not_ over whether split infinitves are bad grammar per se, but if they are stylistically poor. The argument has been made on both sides over the course of centuries; whether it’s a specious debate or not is a matter of opinion, but it is a debate. Personally, I think clarity is the goal of language, and if you have to split an infinitive to get your meaning across most economically, do it. However, that’s irrelevant, because Aeschines never said it was a grammatical issue, just that it’s been a topic of debate. It has been. Can’t you find something meaningful to skewer **Aeschines** with? Other people are staying on topic and giving it to him hard. Your inability to do so and your continued hair-splitting about minor linguistic points (an area of specialty for you and thus a secure high ground from which to make pointless attacks, but certainly irrelevant to the topic of this thread) that you’re not interested in debate, just in beating the guy up in an argument. Why not give it a rest and let **Bryan Ekers** kick the crap out of him on pertinent topics rather than showing off your linguistic talents so you can be all superior? ---
**Author:** ![Excalibre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/898d66/32.png) [@Excalibre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Excalibre)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2006, 8:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bryan-ekers-you-are-a-thread-pissing-dumbfuck/349864/237 "2006-03-26T08:57:42Z")
> [@Rubystreak](#): > > See, this is exactly what I meant in my previous post about being a petty dick and giving somebody shit just for the sake of it. [To say](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split_infinitive) [there is](http://www.askoxford.com/asktheexperts/faq/aboutgrammar/splitinfinitives) [no debate](http://www.cjr.org/tools/lc/splitinfin.asp) anywhere about split infinitives is just incorrect, considering how in damn near every article I read online, the debate is mentioned, and I know secondary educators are of two minds on it. I made no claim that there is no debate anywhere on the subject. I claimed that I have seen no _academic_ debate. If there is debate within academic discussion of education on whether it should be taught, that is peripherally relevant (though it still doesn’t really count as debate on whether or not it’s correct _per se_.) > [@](#): > > The debate is _not_ over whether split infinitves are bad grammar per se, but if they are stylistically poor. I challenged the suggestion that this was an academic debate. Stylistics is an area of study within linguistics, though again linguistics is descriptive, and would only attempt to discern how people use language, not how they _should_ use it. Are other areas of academic debate directly concerned with writing style? I’m honestly uncertain; if debate on the merit of certain style rules exists within academic study of education, I’d be fascinated to learn about it. > [@](#): > > Can’t you find something meaningful to skewer **Aeschines** with? I certainly could. I see no evidence that it would be useful. > [@](#): > > Other people are staying on topic and giving it to him hard. Your inability to do so and your continued hair-splitting about minor linguistic points (an area of specialty for you and thus a secure high ground from which to make pointless attacks, but certainly irrelevant to the topic of this thread) that you’re not interested in debate, just in beating the guy up in an argument. Why not give it a rest and let **Bryan Ekers** kick the crap out of him on pertinent topics rather than showing off your linguistic talents so you can be all superior? You’re right. I’m having fun with the guy at his own expense. I’ve already explained to you exactly why I’m doing so; I hope that by subverting his attempts at insults to others, I might cause him to consider whether insults are an effective communicative technique. I’ve already explained this to you; further, while perhaps it’s mean to nitpick, he frankly deserves the hell out of it given the way he has conducted himself in this thread. **Aeschines** does indeed show a broad and casual disregard for facts; he makes statements for which he can find no factual backing, and does it frequently - at least judging by this thread. I could argue them fairly, but that would implicitly suggest that they were fair or reasonable points of argument, which they are not. Which is why I’m choosing my technique of subverting them on factual grounds. ---
**Author:** ![Rubystreak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Rubystreak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rubystreak)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2006, 9:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bryan-ekers-you-are-a-thread-pissing-dumbfuck/349864/238 "2006-03-26T09:10:55Z")
> [@Excalibre](#): > > The trouble is that instead of simply laughing at the silly irony in his misuse of a word in the particular context of calling others stupid, **Aeschines** started some silly little argument about it being a “typo” No, he didn’t start the argument. He called it a typo and got jumped on by people looking for any reason to give him shit. > [@](#): > > Personally, I’m quite irritated by his continued attempts in this thread to defray criticism by calling others “stupid” on the basis of their beliefs. This is the Pit; he has the right to call every Bush voter a retard and everyone who disagrees with him stupid, as he in essense did. And I have the right to point out that it’s inaccurate. Do you really think he believes that all Bush voters have low IQ? Or is he trying to make the point that he thinks they are foolish? It’s not good rhetoric, but neither is you taking him literally when clearly he’s not being literal. > [@](#): > > others have tried arguing against him fairly in this thread, and they have made no headway. Not true at all. He did back off from his attack on **Bryan Ekers** when Bryan was logical with him. > [@](#): > > I disagree with your New Age pity party. Oh please. It’s not a New Age pity party. I’m not a New Ager and I think all that stuff is crap. That does not change the fact that people gang up on people who have beliefs in the supernatural on this board, and not always in a compassionate or productive way. It’s not fighting ignorance and it does lead to flame-outs. Don’t mistake this for endorsement of their beliefs, just as support for the idea that the SDMB does not offer a climate friendly to discussions of the supernatural. Such topics are discouraged by the scorn and mockery heaped upon them. I’m glad I don’t want to talk about it much or I might feel as frustrated as **Aeschines** does. > [@](#): > > Further, if you read the thread I read the fucking thread. I just disagree with you. > [@](#): > > you will see that **Aeschines** has been roundly insulting to everyone present; I think in that circumstance, he deserves the response. If you insult everyone around you, I don’t think you have much business crying when they don’t like you. Huh? He pitted **Bryan Ekers** , and when **Bryan** responded, he backed away from it, or tried to, to no avail. He should have stopped posting then, but he didn’t, and it got stupid in here. He was roundly insulted by lots and lots of people who were not **Bryan Ekers** and he responded to them in kind. Not very weffectively, mind you, but he most definitely got piled on from Page 1 of this thread. To say he was insulting and to ignore just how much he was insulted is disingenuous. When you insult someone and he insults you back, you have no business crying either. Did he come into a thread you opened and start giving you shit? Nope, other way around. The shit has gone back and forth here, not just from **Aeschines** to other people randomly. > [@](#): > > Being nasty doesn’t fight ignorance, as you say. **Aeschines** is consistently nasty; he was nasty throughout this thread. I think he’s getting what he asked for. Everyone has been nasty in this thread and everyone is nasty in the Pit. Is he initiating nastiness elsewhere? Llike I said, I’m not familiar with his work. Cite? > [@](#): > > Exactly the point I’m making. Others have made it directly; I’m using indirect means to (hopefully) accomplish the same ends. When **Aeschines** is an asshole, as he has been in this thread, I’m not going to treat him nicely. To do otherwise would likely be taken as encouragement. No, you’re not trying to teach **Aeschines** anything, if that’s what you’re claiming. You’re nitpicking the hell out of him and you’re not going to accomplish any ends except to get more insults out of him by giving him shit about irrelevant topics. It’s a feedback loop that will always justify being mean to him, if that’s what you want. > [@](#): > > I am giving him shit for very specific reasons. I don’t think he should suggest that others are retarded simply because they don’t share his beliefs; Can you simply not admit he was being hyperbolic or metaphorical? Why must you insist that there’s a real point to be made on this topic? He doesn’t really think Bush supporters are retarded. He was making a lame quip. Accept it and move on. > [@](#): > > I, meanwhile, am taking the indirect approach of undermining what he says; I am picking apart his statements because he shouldn’t have made them in the first place. You are picking apart tangential arguments and figurative comments that really need no picking because they are not meant to be taken literally or are not really pertinent in any way. What is looks like is that you have a hard on for him and are just giving him shit because you don’t like him. > [@](#): > > I find it objectionable to insult others simply because you disagree with them, so I will undermine his attempts to do so. And your nitpicking isn’t simply because you disagree with him? Would you really go off on someone about misuse of the word “typo” or the fact of debate on the split infinitive if you didn’t dislike him? Have you never insulted someone just because he disagreed with you? Look not to the mote in his eye, is all I’m saying. > [@](#): > > While I think he deserves every bit of crap flung at him in this thread, given the amount he himself has flung, that is not actually my purpose in posting here. What is your purpose? To improve his character or rhetorical style by nitpicking? Do you really think that’s effective? Or are you just enjoying giving him shit because you don’t like him and justifying it with pedantry? Because that’s what it looks like. It looks like petty argumentativeness for the purpose of demoralizing someone. If you mean otherwise, it’s not coming across AT ALL. ---
**Author:** ![Rubystreak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Rubystreak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rubystreak)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2006, 9:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bryan-ekers-you-are-a-thread-pissing-dumbfuck/349864/239 "2006-03-26T09:30:07Z")
> [@Excalibre](#): > > I made no claim that there is no debate anywhere on the subject. I claimed that I have seen no _academic_ debate. You said, and I quote: > [@Excalibre](#): > > …there is no debate in linguistics at all…It’s simply false to claim that there is some sort of “debate” about the topic, at least in the area of linguistics - while there are unsettled discussions in syntax, this certainly does not represent one of them. Did you read the cites I included? There is debate among academics. Maybe not among those who study liguistics, but then again, **Aeschines** never said anything about linguistics. Straw man. > [@](#): > > If there is debate within academic discussion of education on whether it should be taught, that is peripherally relevant (though it still doesn’t really count as debate on whether or not it’s correct _per se_.) But he didn’t SAY it should or shouldn’t be taught or whether the debate was about its correctness. He merely said it was a topic of debate, which it is. You’re changing the terms of the argument to serve your rhetorical point, which is bad faith debating. > [@](#): > > Are other areas of academic debate directly concerned with writing style? I’m honestly uncertain; if debate on the merit of certain style rules exists within academic study of education, I’d be fascinated to learn about it. My god. Yes, yes, style is debated. _The Columbia Guide_, published in 1993, recommends avoiding the split infinitive. A lot of secondary ed teachers (who maybe you’ll argue aren’t academics, but I say we are) have a reflexive cringe when they hear a split infinitive, and teach students to avoid it when possible, which is probably what led to the contention in the first place. It’s more of a “should” debate than a correctness debate, which again is irrelevant because **Aeschines** never specified anything other than the fact that it was debated. End of story. > [@](#): > > You’re right. I’m having fun with the guy at his own expense. I’ve already explained to you exactly why I’m doing so; I hope that by subverting his attempts at insults to others, I might cause him to consider whether insults are an effective communicative technique. I guess I don’t buy this. I don’t think you’re trying to teach him or prompt him to consider anything. I think you’re just having fun, the way a cat has fun with a mouse. > [@](#): > > Which is why I’m choosing my technique of subverting them on factual grounds. Or nitpicking based on debatable facts, which make you the pot calling the kettle black. Your nonsensical calling out of him about the split infinitives is a very tenuous point to give someone shit about, as is your hair-splitting about the use of the word “typo.” Bottom line, your claim of high-minded reasons for giving **Aeschines** this much shit is not flying. It’s not bourne out by your actions. Stick to the topic, maybe? Or realize you’re being mean for mean’s sake and let it go. ---
**Author:** ![bubastis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/d07c76/32.png) [@bubastis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bubastis)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2006, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bryan-ekers-you-are-a-thread-pissing-dumbfuck/349864/240 "2006-03-26T13:52:54Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > Maybe phrasing OPs makes me nervous - after all, they have to be perfect. …Bubastis spews coffee all over computer… Y’know, I’ve never really had a problem with Ekers… That I can remember. I do remember being slapped down for starting too many threads. Here, a guy is being pitted for not starting enough… Aeschines, I get your point that he just zips into a thread, makes a smart-ass remark, then buggers off… i dont see that as a pitable offence though. maybe you need to lighten up. Or maybe you need to fuck away off. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bryan-ekers-you-are-a-thread-pissing-dumbfuck/349864.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bryan-ekers-you-are-a-thread-pissing-dumbfuck/349864.md?page=13)