Chumpsky: A different take

[Henry_B]

Not plagiarazing, that I saw, but the 5 #.
The other 4#, to be more exact.

My view is that it is more his ideas than his behaviour (in this 4 first mentioned “sins”.

Henry

[sailor]

It seems like HenryB was incredulously asking for examples of Chumpski plagiarizing.

HenryB, are you really that stupid? Or did I misunderstand you?

[SuaSponte]

*Originally posted by Henry B *
My view is that it is more his ideas than his behaviour (in this 4 first mentioned “sins”.

How can you have a view with your head up your ass?

Kindly tell me which of my points is based upon ideology?

Sua

[Jackmannii]

Henry, your comprehensibility is declining at an alarming rate. Kindly make yourself clear for all those of us who are not Finn-Russo-Siberian chowderheads.

Your comment about people resenting Chumpsky’s ideas and not behavior is a telling reflection on your unwillingness to acknowledge why your posts have drawn such negative reaction - your stubborn, mulish refusal to acknowledge evidence that doesn’t accord with your predjudices.

I realize that with temps falling as low as -71F in Siberia, a certain amount of jumping around and flailing your arms is to be expected. Try to make a little sense at the same time.

[RedFury]

*Originally posted by Henry B *
**Not plagiarazing, that I saw, but the 5 #.
The other 4#, to be more exact.

Not plagiarazing, that I saw, but the 5 #.
The other 4#, to be more exact.

My view is that it is more his ideas than his behaviour (in this 4 first mentioned “sins”.

Henry **

Dude, I’ve tried reading through enough of your dribble to realize its a thankless task. You normally start at Misguided only to end up at Incoherent after taking a long and rambling detour through Nonsense. So, I just wanted to thank for starting straight at Incoherent and saving us the time and effort in your above quoted post.

Anyhow, I realize you’re doing this Chumpsky defense pro-bono, otherwise I’d advise him to seek better council elsewhere. Because yours is pitiful if mostly indecipherable.

[Tuckerfan]

*Originally posted by Jackmannii *
**I realize that with temps falling as low as -71F in Siberia, a certain amount of jumping around and flailing your arms is to be expected. Try to make a little sense at the same time. **

You mean they’ve stopped burning books to keep warm? When did that happen?

[sailor]

Yeah, at first I thought it might be the language but now I’m quite sure HenryB is an idiot. No wonder he’s coming to the defense of his species.

[El_Kabong]

Well, I’m not going to waste a couple of hours wading through a bunch of Chumpsky trainwreck threads again to find three examples of things that nearly everyone here except Henry B knows have occurred. Tell you what, let’s see if we can find examples of Sua’s points in Chumpsky’s posts to a single thread.

So, here we go. All examples from the thread “The Ex-Soviet Union”, in GD:

1. He presents his opinion and the opinion of others as factual evidence:

The standard of living of the vast majority of citizens in the ex-USSR are vastly worse now, more than a decade after capitalist restoration.

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?postid=2815844#post2815844

This was the opening premise of the thread. He did not provide a cite at any point in the thread and several posters showed that this basic assumption was, in fact, false.

2. He accepts as valid no evidence and citations inapposite to his POV. If he doesn’t agree with it, it is not good evidence:

Originally posted by El_Kabong
I take it you reject R.J. Rummel’s estimates of 61 million killed in the Soviet Union during the period 1917-1954 (not including those killed in the war with Germany, btw):

These claims are so absurd one hardly knows where to start. And just because your authority Cecil says it does not make it so.

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?postid=2820228#post2820228

3. When he cannot dispute the argument, he attacks the arguer:

Originally posted by Ulterior
Chumpsky, the figure for Stalin’s death toll ought to include those killed during forced industrialization, for instance, not just those executed. Further, your figures on executions are only those of the “Penal System”–and thus, I’m assuming, don’t include extra-judicial killings, which I imagine account for quite a bit more.

Yes, I realize that various types of liars like to count those killed during the industrialization of Russia as being killed by Stalin. However, there is no reason to take such absurdities seriously.

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?postid=2819195#post2819195

4. He denies historical events when they are contrary to his world view:

Maybe not quite a denial, but Chumpsky comes up with his absurdly low estimate of persons killed by Stalinist policies in part by completely ignoring the forced collectivisation of agriculture:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?postid=2820623#post2820623

5. He plagarizes:

No known instances in the cited thread. RedFury, however, has demonstrated not one but four separate instances of probable plagiarism by Chumpsky in other threads, and I think that’s quite enough.

Henry B participated extensively in the cited thread. I have to wonder why he didn’t notice these things.

[El_Kabong]

Sorry, must correct myself on point 1:

This was the opening premise of the thread. He did not provide a cite at any point in the thread and several posters showed that this basic assumption was, in fact, false.

It turns out he did reference an essay by Michael Parenti, but only after repeated requests for a cite. My bad.

[SuaSponte]

Actually, El_Kabong, you have nothing to apologize for. Chumpsky presented as “evidence” a link to an interview with Vladimir Volkov of the Cheliabinsk Bureau of the Fourth International. He also has a link to the Amazon.com page shilling Parenti’s book. Of course, as a major capitalist corporation, Amazon.com is immediately suspect - I’m shocked Chumpsky even believes that the book exists! Nothing by Parenti is actually provided in the link, so we have no evidence of what if any research supported whatever Parenti opined.

IOW, this fits right into my criticism #1, presenting the opinion of others as factual evidence.

Sua

[SuaSponte]

If you want a clearer example of #4, in one thread (I cannot recall which one right now), Chumpsky denied that there was a secret codicil to the Nazi-Soviet Pact splitting up Poland, and that the Soviets invaded Poland in alliance with Germany.

Sua

[Henry_B]

I am sorry for not being clear.

Yes, I was not very clear with my #5. But someone understood anyhow that I meant all the 5 #:

Chumpsky commits the following sins against the rules of debate:

1. He presents his opinion and the opinion of others as factual evidence;

2. He accepts as valid no evidence and citations inapposite to his POV. If he doesn’t agree with it, it is not good evidence.

3. When he cannot dispute the argument, he attacks the arguer.

4. He denies historical events when they are contrary to his world view.

5. He plagarizes.

Then:
To take only a part of the OP, is convinient, if You want to prove something…, well I do not know what.

Then:
Even the part of the OP is right;
I explain it in the mentioned thread very carefully: 3 long posts on page 2.

So please go there and explain what is unclair to You. I will explain and give all the datas I can find.

Just an example here:
In the thread is very many statistical numbers. It looks like the Russians would have gone forward all the time. Earning more and more money. That is not the truth for the most Russians.

The truth is that the population got their appartements. That is what they got.
Everything else was robbed or stolen etc. by some 2 % of the top layer. Every factory, powerstation, everything.

So when The CIA Fact Book gives numbers they can be true, but there is counted the average, not how much e.g. the poorest 80% of the people has gone up or down.

But, as I write, after that Jeltsin left, everything is going gradually to the better direction.

I also explain somewhere about the Stalin killings, but the American counting, that Chumsky is referring to, seem to be correct. They speak about executions, not that there would not have been e.g. 20 million more that died because of Stalin.

So, if You have questions, on matters You seem to know very little about, please go to the original cite:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?postid=2815844#post2815844

I will answer all Your questions there. I can’t begin to past some 30.000 words here.

And I will find the thread where I tell how Stalin and his gangsters acted to get so much labourers, without trials to the gulags. How they died because they could not fulfill the quotas => as a result they got less food => as a result they died. In millions. My guess 20 - 30 million.

I will put also that link in the original thread, and some others as well if You like.

As I said: I answer there.

I just ask You not to make Yourself more foolish than You really are.
Just read and learn.
Because if someone knows about Stalinism on this board, it is me.
Prove me wrong and I will not be jealous about Your knowledge.

Henry

[El_Kabong]

Sorry, Henry, but I stand by what I said and I decline your invitation to continue debating this topic. You have misunderstood my point, just as you have repeatedly misunderstood the point of this thread. You are welcome to call me a fool or any other name you wish, but I would be a fool indeed to waste any more time debating points which everyone here except yourself seems to have no problem understanding.

[sailor]

>> 3. When he cannot dispute the argument, he attacks the arguer

I can’t remember what thread it was in GD where Chumpski was calling everybody liars left and right. When I said I had been to Cuba he called me a liar. Because, of course, anyone who had really been to Cuba would see a workers paradise. Same with anyone else who did not agree with him. They were liars. He is absolutely obnoxious and beneath contempt.

[SuaSponte]

What kind of egoist are you, Henry? This argument is about Chumpsky’s violations of the five rules of debate I set forth. The fact that you may have presented the facts, etc. in that thread and otherwise obeyed the Five Rules has

**absolutely

no

FUCKING

BEARING**

on whether Chumpsky did.

So you followed the rules of debate. Good for you.

But your conduct doesn’t make up for Chumpsky’s misconduct. Unless you are Chumpsky’s sock, Chumpsky still didn’t obey them.

And the thought of you as Chumpsky’s sock puppet is too frightening to contemplate.

Sua

[Jackmannii]

I’d like an “unclair” with chocolate frosting, please.

[Bosda_Di_Chi_of_Tricor]

A diiferent “take” on Chumpsky ?

Here’s a take for Chumpsky !!!

TAKE THIS Chumpsky!

Chumpsky >OW!!!

AND ONE OF THESE Chumpsky !

Chumpsky >OW!!!

AND SOME OF THIS Chumpsky!

Chumpsky >OW!!!

IN THE LABONZA, Chumpsky!

Chumpsky >OW!!!

AND A FEW FOR THE MILLIONS STALIN MURDERED, Chumpsky!

Chumpsky >OW!!!Chumpsky >OW!!!Chumpsky >OW!!!

Chumpsky >OW!!! Chumpsky >OW!!! Chumpsky >OW!!! Chumpsky >OW!!! OOOOOWWWWWW!!!

Screw our resident Red Menace! I just got done reading a recent (post-Soviet) account of WW2 in the USSR. It included a good account of Gulag labor, & how it effected war production.:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

[Tuckerfan]

*Originally posted by SuaSponte *
**Actually, El_Kabong, you have nothing to apologize for. Chumpsky presented as “evidence” a link to an interview with Vladimir Volkov of the Cheliabinsk Bureau of the Fourth International. He also has a link to the Amazon.com page shilling Parenti’s book. Of course, as a major capitalist corporation, Amazon.com is immediately suspect - I’m shocked Chumpsky even believes that the book exists! Nothing by Parenti is actually provided in the link, so we have no evidence of what if any research supported whatever Parenti opined.

IOW, this fits right into my criticism #1, presenting the opinion of others as factual evidence.

Sua **

Having read some of Parenti’s work, I can tell you that you won’t find any research in it to support Parenti’s opinions.