Then why don’t you put some effort into your OP and post the GD links? Otherwise, what is the point of mentioning it? I have to agree with JonScribe.
Clothahump is a barking mad idiot. He’s consistently proven that over the years.
Hey, the topic was Clothahump. I’ve posted my opinion regarding him. End of post. End of story.
huh. gee didn’t realize the linked thread was in IMHO. oh wait, it wasn’t.
Is that what’s at issue here?
Clothahump was accused of drive-by posting. I maintain that the OP’s cited complaints don’t rise to the level of drive-by posting, regardless of which forum it was in.
Since always, where “succinct” equals “void of any serious intellectual content.”
Come on. Any Doper can click on “Find all posts by Clothahump.” It’s easy.
and I disagree. The OP
posted a long bit from Maher, complete w/commentary. Clothy posted, essentially, “nuh, huh, he sux” w/o evidence, or substantiation. He was called on it, by several folks, and posted again, essentially, “yea, he sux the big one” againw/o even any examples. The very definition of ‘drive by’.
“But they won’t last long if they try!”
–Tom Lehrer, Pollution.
Sorry for the drive-by…
"Sharks gotta swim, and bats gotta fly
“I’ve gotta love one woman 'till I die . . .”
Tom Lehrer, “But I Love Her”
OK, I’m a bit bored tonight, so I’ll have a go. Searching back just through the last 12 GD threads to which Clothahump has posted, I find these that I think could fairly be called drive-by’s:
Don’t get him started on Lyndon Baines Johnson (post 14)
Now, see? You got him started (post 108)
He doesn’t like Ron Paul much either (post 25)
Six Sigma and black belts (post 55)
College football should be abolished (post 45)
As for the thing with Maher, here is a selection of Pit threads, started by the esteemed Mr. hump over the past year or so, that just might strike one as being a bit barking themselves:
Clothahump Pits a year-old thread
I don’t really have that much of a problem with him; he reminds me so much of a cranky male version of Emily Litella that it’s hard not to like him. To suggest that he doesn’t exactly bring much useful content to the board seems to me to be stating the blindingly obvious, however.
I say we lynch him. Oh sorry… wrong thread 
I appreciate the posts by folks like ol’ Humpy. Without those selfless souls throwing themselves on the pyre of self-incrimination, it would be more obvious that I tend to the drive-by, myself.
(raising a glass)
Clothahump, keep up the good work.
I’m not bothered at all by Clothahump’s post, but as the OP of the thread in question, I’d just like to clarify that the topic was more about Valarie Plame and the Bush administration’s outing of her. Maher was not off-topic necessarily, but I had hoped for more of what we got toward the end of the thread — discussion about whether the outing constituted treason.
I think the reason he raised the whole business to begin with was my position in another thread at the time that Messianic Jews were in fact Jews, especially the orthodox ones to whom I had linked. They merely interpret one or two passages from the Torah differently than most Jews. I argued (with a link to a Maher interview) that Maher is completely at odds with the Noncoercion Principle, and when compared to mainstream libertarians, has practically nothing in common. That’s a difference that is more than just subtle.
Thanks El_Kabong. If the Black Belt post wasn’t written by Emily Litella’s male-counterpart then I’m a damned fool.
Naw, your post was more like: “Clothahump is dumb – especially in GD. Discuss.” I opened the thread to be entertained by a ribald skewering of a fellow doper only to find an OP shorter than its subject and a pair of links to a thread I read last weekend. I’m just asking for a little bit of effort, that’s all. Not to mention pitting Clothahump is a bit of the fish-in-the-barrel. What’s next? OPs like: “Polycarp is friendly and kind, discuss” and “Tomndeb is reasonable and calm, discuss”?
Point taken.
I’m positing that what some Dopers view as a drive-by posting with little value might actually have its place, even in a forum such as Great Debates. Hijacks are a different matter, but if someone wants to post a response to something in a thread that basically amounts to “(Cough) Bullshit,” I think that’s reasonable, especially if the intent is to inject a little humor into the debate. (I’m speaking in general terms; no implication is made here that would confer a talent for wit upon Clothahump.)
Such posts should be on topic, but I don’t think every post has to include citations of fact, footnotes and a link to the related Wikipedia page. If I know the poster and either respect or lack respect for his or her point of view, then a post of “Bullshit,” can tell me a little something about the topic and a little more about the poster. And because such responses are generally short, it doesn’t necessarily derail my Little Engine That Could train of thought, and I can still enjoy the thread.
Well, there was really no more to be said, and I only started the thread because it’s high time Clothahump got Pitted. Had to happen sooner or later.
Just as Clothahump never responds to criticisms of his posts within a given thread, I predict he will not show up in this one.
I know exactly what you’re describing, and we do indeed have posters with a gift for it. Elucidator is one. Bryan Eckers is another. Those are off the top of my head.
We’ve already done the second one.
Both of them. Repeatedly. (No links because they are boring–I mean, who wants to read about how great somebody is? )
Er, besides me?