# "Cite" and "link" are not synonyms **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [March 27, 2002, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cite-and-link-are-not-synonyms/100315 "2002-03-27T03:40:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Denis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5e9695/32.png) [@Denis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Denis)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2002, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cite-and-link-are-not-synonyms/100315/61 "2002-03-31T02:29:52Z")
> [@](#): > > _originally posted by TheRyan_ > A debate takes at least two people. Unless you’re encoraging me to break the rule about sock puppets, there’s no way I can start a debate. > [@](#): > > _originally posted by SPOOFE_ > This is the most idiotic reasoning I’ve ever seen. Using your hair-brained Bizzaro-land version of “logic”, the entirety of Great Debates should be impossible. Yet it has existed - quite well - for a couple years now. > > Either 20,000 other Dopers are wrong, Ryan, or you are. I wonder which it is… From what I’ve read of **TheRyan’s** posts, he doesn’t just chop logic - he drops it in a blender set to “liquify.” He is also the **Supreme Arbiter of What is a Cite** , as well as **Lexicographer Extrodanaire**. “Avast, ye scrofulous swine!” spews he, “I do not accept your measly ‘cite’ because it contains facts! Yeah verily! It contains facts that gainsay mine own lofty **Opinion**! Bow down and **accept** my views on what a righteous cite is! Nay! I will eschew the ‘professional opinions’ of so-called ‘experts’ in a given field if they contradict my **Holy [Dictionary.com](http://Dictionary.com)**! AAAAhahahahaha! So it is written! So it **is**!” Disclaimer: For the humor impaired, the above is a satirical take on TheRyan’s “debating” style, as illistrated by him in the above referenced thread, among others. Do not try this at home, or in front of a live audience: it could get you a black eye or at the very least, some weird looks. Carry on. ---
**Author:** ![waterj2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/858c86/32.png) [@waterj2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/waterj2)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2002, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cite-and-link-are-not-synonyms/100315/62 "2002-03-31T02:41:51Z")
> [@](#): > > I haven’t provided a cite that fulfills my requirements for proving someone wrong. You simply asked for a cite. Any cite at all. So I gave you one. Now you’e complaining that it doesn’t prove anyone wrong. Well, YOU DIDN’T ASK FOR SUCH A CITE. I always figured that when a cite was asked for, it was to be understood that it would be a cite that backs up the askee’s claims, not just for a cite of any random fact that might happen to be of interest. Then again, you do seem to have a habit of purposely misinterpreting other people’s words. That, of course, is merely an un-citeable personal impression I have. > [@](#): > > You did not **all** do that, and I never claimed that no one was doing it. Learn to read, asshole. Reread **Shayna** ’s comment, quoted below for your convenience, taking special note of what exactly the word “all” is modifying. Relevant section is bolded. > [@](#): > > I think what you guys keep missing is that WE DID DO **ALL THAT** , and our dear, beloved The Ryan is LYING TO YOU about it. And I don’t see what complaint you would have if you were complaining that some people were inadequate in their explication of what their cites said exactly, if **Shayna** had already posted it clearly. Were you expecting everyone to rephrase her post for your convenience? Does everyone need to repeat what has already been sufficiently explained? Incidentally, shortly after **Shayna** and **iampunha** (in [this post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&postid=1932709#post193206)) post relevant and well documented support from the DSM-IV and the UC Davis School of Psychology, carefully explaining their positions and quoting liberally, you post (in a post two below **iampunha** ’s): > [@](#): > > No data has been presented that opposed my view. and > [@](#): > > Did your teacher allow you to get away with “Well, this book has some stuff in it that supports my thesis, but I’m not going to tell you what it is”? So, obviously, after those two posts, you still seemed to think that no one had provided such cites. Now you seem to be claiming not only that you never said that, but that you actually found **Shayna** ’s post to be an adequate example of citation. (Yes, I now that you never explicitly said that about her post, but when she used her post as an example, you made sure to note that you never said that _all_ cites in the thread were inadequate, so I surmise that you were inferring that you agreed that her post was an acceptable citation.) ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2002, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cite-and-link-are-not-synonyms/100315/63 "2002-03-31T03:08:31Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by The Ryan \* > \*\*And Scylla, I’m curious what thread you’re talking about. \*\* The time travel one in GD among others. ---
**Author:** ![White\_Lightning](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f04885/32.png) [@White\_Lightning](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/White_Lightning)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2002, 6:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cite-and-link-are-not-synonyms/100315/64 "2002-03-31T06:55:07Z")
Regarding this quote (from [this post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&postid=1945611#post1945611)): > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by **The Ryan** _ > I never, not once ever said that male-male molestation is always committed by homosexuals. If you can find a quote from me saying that, I swear that I will change my signature to read “I am an idiot” and include a link to that thread, and do my best to remember to include my sig in every post of mine in the next month. We have [this](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&postid=1928681#post1928681): > [@](#): > > Do you disagree with my claim that molestation of someone of the same sex as you is homosexual conduct? Referring to [this](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&postid=1925849#post1925849) (emphasis mine): > [@](#): > > She’s [Coulter] saying that liberals claim that homosexual conduct is not correlated with homosexuality. Notice how SM [**Spiritus Mundi**] made a big deal out of her not explicitly stating her belief that male molesters of males are homosexual. SM is implying that they aren’t homosexual. _Now, this is clearly homosexual conduct_, so SM is implying that homosexual conduct is not correlated with homosexuality. **The Ryan** is arguing that male-male molestation is inarguably homosexual _conduct_. It seems at first that he is sneakily trying to distinguish between conduct and sexual orientation (i.e. homosexual conduct doesn’t necessarily equal homosexuality), which might (_might_, but I doubt it) get him out of losing this bet. But here’s the kicker (found again [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&postid=1928681#post1928681)), where he shows his belief that conduct and orientation are identical: > [@](#): > > How does one define orientation, if not in terms of behavior? And further support of this theory (that **The Ryan** believes conduct and orientation to be identical) is to be found [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&postid=1930902#post1930902), debating **Esprix** ’ and **Polycarp** ’s arguments that male-male child molestation is not necessarily homosexuality and that ‘normal homosexuality’ is consensual where child molestation is not: > [@](#): > > [A] person who, having no external forces favoring one choice over another, regularly chooses to engage in homosexual conduct is, in my mind, a homosexual. And vice versa. > … > I believe that people that engage in consensual relationships with people of the same sex and people who engage in nonconsensual relationships with people of the same sex belong to the same category And one more, from [this post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&postid=1930986#post1930986), where he characterizes the following as a ‘fact,’ > [@](#): > > presumably most molestations are in line with the perpetrators “adult” orientation So. **The Ryan** ’s syllogism: claim #1: male-male molestation is ‘clearly homosexual conduct.’ claim #2: orientation is defined by conduct. Conclusion: male-male molesation is homosexuality. Or, in other words, “male-male molestation is always committed by homosexuals.” I fully expect to see some attempts to weasel out of this, possibly including, but not limited to: [li] Attacks on the logic in this post[sup]1[/sup];[/li][li] Arguments based on his use of the word ‘always’ (I would contend that the logic in the syllogism is so airtight that male-male molestation is _necessarily_ committed by homosexuals, since only homosexuals engage in homosexual behavior, so that logically excludes heterosexuals from engaging in homosexual behavior, which logically excludes heterosexuals from male-male molestation, ergo, only homosexuals can commit male-male molestations, and therefore, male-male molestation is only and always committed by homosexuals. Whew.);[/li][li] Other semantic nitpicks (possibly along the lines of arguing that I was unable to find a quote where **The Ryan** actually says the very words ‘male-male molestation is always committed by homosexuals’);[/li][li] Requests for cites (I tried my hardest to cite everything[sup]2[/sup] _to specific posts_ to make it easier to find the quoted sections. A little scrolling might be involved, since most of **The Ryan** ’s posts are long, but there’s no way to get any closer than this);[/li][li] Presentation of quotes of some of his later statements that muddy the issue (without addressing the argument I make here); and[/li][li] Completely ignoring this post.[/li]So, **The Ryan** , hoping to see that new sig in your next post.[sup]3[/sup] * * * [sup]1[/sup] I know that [li] doesn’t make bullets any more. But I still like it. Maybe one day it’ll work again.[/li][sup]2[/sup] I cited all quotes to links to specific posts. I can’t help it if nobody wants to click on the links to verify that they all go to the posts that contain the quote that I present. I double-checked and verified them all. There’s really nothing else I can do. I would provide a link to this post itself, in case anyone asks for a cite proving that I proved my point, but I can’t figure out any way to do that right now. [sup]3[/sup] I believe I have made a pretty solid case here to prove that **The Ryan** made the argument that male-male molestation is always committed by homosexuals. I haven’t posted to this thread (or the other one) until now, and I don’t plan on posting again, unless someone attacks a specific claim that I have made here. I only make one claim (that **The Ryan** did in fact make the argument that male-male molestation is always committed by homosexuals), and as I said I believe this claim to be solidly presented in this post, so hopefully I’m done here. I didn’t want to roil the waters, just wanted to be helpful, since no one had addressed this issue as of yet, and I wanted to see that sig. ---
**Author:** ![Spiritus\_Mundi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c68b51/32.png) [@Spiritus\_Mundi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiritus_Mundi)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2002, 7:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cite-and-link-are-not-synonyms/100315/65 "2002-03-31T07:45:30Z")
> [@](#): > > _From the **PLF** _ > So could you do magnalene[sic] a favor and give her an exact quote of the statement of mine which you disproved, and an explanation of how you disproved it? You know, so she doesn’t have to read through the thread and all. Here’s one: > [@](#): > > **SM** : “Homosexual conduct” . . . carries a straightforward reading of “the conduct of homosexuals” which is both inaccurate and inflammatory. > > **PLF** : If I mean conduct that is done by homosexuals, I will use the term “conduct of homosexuals”. I will not allow my vocabulary to be dictated by other people’s insistence on reading my statements in a manner completely at odds with their meaning. > > **SM** : You miss the point. The inflamatory interpretation is not at odds with the meaning of the words. > > **PLF** : Yes it is. “Homosexual conduct” means conduct that is homosexual. It does not mean conduct by homosexuals, and the latter interpretation is at odds with its meaning. > > **SM** : So, police conduct would mean conduct that is police, not conduct by police? > > **PLF** : That doesn’t make any sense. “Police” isn’t an adjective. > > **SM** : Homosexual can be used as adjective or noun. > > **PLF** : So your analogy between the two words does not work. > > **SM** : No, so the just as “police conduct” means conduct by police, with police being a noun functioning in an adjectival role, the phrase “homosexual conduct” can mean conduct by homosexuals, with the noun homosexual functioning in an adjectival role. It is not incorrect for someone to parse the phrase in that way. It is not even an unusual grammatical form. Many people who are not pathetic lying fuckwits are capable of understanding this point. Your statement that the inflammatory reading was “at odds with the meaning” of the phrase has been disproven by a demonstration that the reading in question conforms to common grammatical structures. Here’s another. > [@](#): > > **PLF** : If you had simply politely said something **to the effect of** “I find ‘conduct’ to have bad connotations; could you use ‘act’ instead?” I would have said “okay”. (bolding mine) > > **SM** : My first response to you on this subject: “Homosexual conduct” is a phrase which cannot be expected to clearly communicate the realities of the context. It carries a straightforward reading of “the conduct of homosexuals” which is both inaccurate and inflammatory. > > **PLF** : How is it proven false. You did not politely ask me to use a different word, and did not make it clear that your own feelings were the main issue. > > **SM** : _(earlier in the same post quoted above)_ it supports that descriptor “homosexual act” for an instance of male-male molestation Your statement that you would have said “okay” if somoen had expressed concerns about the phrase “homosexual conduct” and suggested an alternative terminology is proven false by direct demonstration. Of course, even after having this pointed out, you insist upon both using the phrase and trying to weasel out of your clear statement. The first brands you a liar. The second is simply pathetic. By the way, a bit later you posted: \*And a connotation of “connotation” is that it is the feelings that people in general have about the word, not what one person in particular feels about it. \* This, of course, directly contradicts your attempt to weasel out of “bad connotations” by pretending it meant "[my own] feelings were the main issue. Like I said, pathetic. Here’s a quicky. > [@](#): > > **PLF** : If all you wanted me to do is to change my word choice, I could have dealt with that. But that’s not what you want. You want me to apologize for daring to use the “wrong” words. > > **SM** : Find a single instance in which I have asked you to apologize. No? That’s because you are a liar. > > **PLF** : Yes, I’m making inferences. No, I’m not going to try to explain what they’re based on. Because obviously you’re not going to listen to them. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Esprix](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/esprix/32/7899_2.png) [@Esprix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esprix)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2002, 9:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cite-and-link-are-not-synonyms/100315/66 "2002-03-31T09:19:25Z")
Well done, **White Lightning**. I wouldn’t have had the patience. (Not that it’ll do anyone any good.) Esprix ---
**Author:** ![iampunha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/74df32/32.png) [@iampunha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iampunha)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2002, 12:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cite-and-link-are-not-synonyms/100315/67 "2002-03-31T12:43:21Z")
Ooh, another contradiction: "If I mean conduct that is done by homosexuals, I will use the term “conduct of homosexuals”. I will not allow my vocabulary to be dictated by other people’s insistence on reading my statements in a manner completely at odds with their meaning. " “If all you wanted me to do is to change my word choice, I could have dealt with that.” So you can deal with word choice, but you will not allow your word choice (word choice/vocabulary) to be dictated by others’ understanding of the … forget it. I don’t care. This is giving me a headache. ---
**Author:** ![Fenris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fenris/32/498_2.png) [@Fenris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fenris)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2002, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cite-and-link-are-not-synonyms/100315/68 "2002-03-31T14:04:02Z")
Great post **White Lightning** (better by far than I could have done) but you missed one possible response. What **Waverly** over [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=87747&perpage=50&highlight=invisible&pagenumber=2) cleverly called “Vivisection by vB code” > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by White Lightning \* > **I fully expect to see some attempts to weasel out of this, possibly including, but not limited to:** could be Ryaned into: **I** You use the word “I”. Please define who you mean by “I”. Pronouns need anteceedents. **fully** 100% Fully MEANS 100%. Every molecule of your body feels this way? **expect** Expect isn’t the word you’re looking for. You hate me so you anticipate. Expect implies neutrality. **to** Cite? **see** “see” as opposed to “read”? Explain yourself. **some** Some? Some is less than half. If it’s only ‘some’ then why are you even discussing it. **attempts** I resent the use of that word. **to** Again. Cite? **weasel** Are you sure? I suspect you’re thinking of an aardvark or a coatamundi etc. What’s funny/sad is that this thread had (or was about to) drop off page one and was well on it’s way to being forgotten…until **TheRyan** ressurected it, in honor of Easter, no doubt. The things some people do for attention. The Amazing Fenris Predicts: **TheRyan** will now demand that I cite were he’s done _this exact thing_. Fenris ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2002, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cite-and-link-are-not-synonyms/100315/69 "2002-03-31T20:18:27Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Fenris \* > …could be Ryaned into:… Ryan is a verb now? 😃 😃 😃 ---
**Author:** ![SisterCoyote](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/958977/32.png) [@SisterCoyote](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SisterCoyote)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2002, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cite-and-link-are-not-synonyms/100315/70 "2002-03-31T20:20:28Z")
**eris** , thank you for reminding me what I was going to change my sig to: “Verbing weirds language” 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Esprix](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/esprix/32/7899_2.png) [@Esprix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esprix)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2002, 7:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cite-and-link-are-not-synonyms/100315/71 "2002-04-01T07:59:57Z")
_{bows to **Fenris** }_ I’m not worthy! You rule! Esprix [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cite-and-link-are-not-synonyms/100315.md?page=3)