# Clueless Idiots: The Nobel Committee **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 9, 2009, 10:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clueless-idiots-the-nobel-committee/513175 "2009-10-09T10:53:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 18
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clueless-idiots-the-nobel-committee/513175/341 "2009-10-23T22:32:04Z")
Oh, I see, its not because the question is tough for you to answer, you’re making a stand on principle! Of course! Well, if someone else were to pose the question…which is, to refresh your memory… [QUOTE=Me] …If this award is as wildly unpopular as you so shrilly insist, why should it take “stones” to refuse it? What sort of courage is required to perform a politically popular act? Don’t most politicians crave an opportunity like that? And yet you seem to believe that such a refusal would be an act of political courage, a Profile in Testicles. Why is that?.. [/QUOTE] You see, there’s an obvious contradiction in your positions, and in most Doper circumstances, there’s a good chance you’ll get called on stuff like that. Like now, for instance. Making it personal is a pretty good bluff. So long as nobody calls you on it. ---
**Author:** ![intention](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e95f7d/32.png) [@intention](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/intention)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clueless-idiots-the-nobel-committee/513175/342 "2009-10-23T22:47:39Z")
Whatever … ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clueless-idiots-the-nobel-committee/513175/343 "2009-10-23T22:47:53Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > My impression has been that there is a peculiar definition of what is the opposition that we are talking about, it is more like a “meh” opposition or the one that means “I despise it?” The same USAToday/gallup reported also that: “When asked if they were personally glad that Obama won the award, 46% said they were and 47% said they were not glad.” > > I would say that it is silly to take an absolute position on this ad populum argument. Kinda my point, better stated. I think he’s not on really shaky ground to suggest widespread, if lukewarm, disapproval, but when he calls it “condemnation”, I think he’s talking from out his ass. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clueless-idiots-the-nobel-committee/513175/344 "2009-10-23T22:48:16Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > If the time ever comes that I am, you can certainly expect that I will acknowledge it. > > I’m kidding, of course. Do a search of my user name with “apology” or “apologize” and you’ll see numerous instances where I’ve not only admitted I was wrong but apologized accordingly. [Going back to October of last year](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/search.php?searchid=4705666), and searching for posts by you including the word “apologize”, I found one post in which you [apologized to Banquet Bear for failing to get back to him](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=11289544&highlight=apologize#post11289544), one where you [apologized to somebody else for taking a joke poorly](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=10873998&highlight=apologize#post10873998), and one in which you [apologized for plagiarism in an OP](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=10887558&highlight=apologize#post10887558). I also found [another thread in which you invited another poster to check your posting history to prove that you always apologize when wrong](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=10859651&highlight=apologize#post10859651). Seems weirdly familiar somehow. I found any number (as in, at least a dozen) where you demanded an apology from other people. I found [_one_ in which you apologized for being wrong](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=10792543&highlight=apologize#post10792543)- about Obama dressing less formally than previous Presidents. So yes, you’re absolutely right- you’ve apologized in numerous instances when you were wrong\*. \*where _numerous instances_ = 1 ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clueless-idiots-the-nobel-committee/513175/345 "2009-10-23T23:00:03Z")
I’m not wrong that often. Sorry, I can’t help it. 😃 Seriously though, why did you limit your search to a year ago? I’ve been here for six years. That’s five years’ worth (or at least three or four more times when I was wrong 🆒) that you appear to be hoping to let lie fallow. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clueless-idiots-the-nobel-committee/513175/346 "2009-10-23T23:25:50Z")
As a wise man once said, “I’ve got shit to do”. You are free to poke through your own posting history and find your apologies. Link to the search is in the first line of my post above. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2009, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clueless-idiots-the-nobel-committee/513175/347 "2009-10-24T00:14:58Z")
You gotta be kiddin’ me. I know what my posting history is. _You’re_ the one who misrepresented it, and then tried to downplay your error by posting a handful of what you consider lightweight apologies over a short period of time. Really not very kosher of you, old bean. Btw, how many admissions of error/apologies have you made in the last year? ---
**Author:** ![bengangmo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/50afbb/32.png) [@bengangmo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bengangmo)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2009, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clueless-idiots-the-nobel-committee/513175/348 "2009-10-24T00:49:23Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > You realize, of course, that nuclear disarmament is as much in the strategic interest of the US now as nuclear proliferation was in 1960? During the Cold War, we needed nukes to keep the Soviets from invading Western Europe, since no combination of European and American conventional forces (stationed in Europe) would have been able to repel them. > > Now, we’re the ones with the overwhelming advantage in conventional forces, and nuclear weapons are the equalizer for our enemies instead of our allies- so it is in our interest, and not necessarily in anyone else’s, for us to demand that that the world lay down (or stop seeking) nuclear weapons- so we can continue to invade sovereign states at the drop of a hat, without worrying too much about them shooting back. > > I’m sure Obama has the best intentions here, and no intention at all of invading anyone, but it pays to bear in mind that nuclear disarmament is no longer the province of the peaceniks. Uhmm…am I parsing you wrong, or are you trying to say (or imply) that nuclear de-armament is acutally an act of agression by America? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2009, 4:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clueless-idiots-the-nobel-committee/513175/349 "2009-10-24T04:47:45Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > You gotta be kiddin’ me. I know what my posting history is. _You’re_ the one who misrepresented it, and then tried to downplay your error by posting a handful of what you consider lightweight apologies over a short period of time. Really not very kosher of you, old bean. I misrepresented your posting history? [QUOTE=Me] When have you ever admitted you were wrong? [/QUOTE] Then I went back through _a year of your posts_, at your own suggestion, and shared my findings. I didn’t comment on whether they were “lightweight” or not; I merely pointed out that save one, they weren’t admissions of error, which is what you suggested I look for. I even posted a link to the search parameters I utilized so you could check my work. Frankly, I fail to see what I could have done to make the exercise any more kosher. Hired independent adjudicators to examine your posts? Submitted my findings for peer review before publishing? Oh, and since you ask, _plenty_: [1.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=10955802&highlight=wrong#post10955802) > [@](#): > > Never mind, I found it… and guess what? It was the same guy. I now retract anything I may previously have said about Tracy Lord overreacting. [2.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10728361&postcount=17) > [@](#): > > :smack: > > You’re right. [3.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=10581074&highlight=wrong#post10581074) > [@](#): > > Never mind - you were right and I was wrong. [4.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=10415406&highlight=wrong#post10415406) > [@](#): > > Well, it looks like I was wrong about Quinn… [5.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=10730664&highlight=apologise#post10730664)\* > [@](#): > > Okay, the darkies to the back thing was a bit over the top, and I sincerely apologise for that. [6.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=530331&page=8) > [@](#): > > Oh, fine. You win, Omni. See how that works? I looked them up myself. \*that one was to _you_. > [@](#): > > Uhmm…am I parsing you wrong, or are you trying to say (or imply) that nuclear de-armament is acutally an act of agression by America? No - I’m just saying it’s no longer _necessarily_ a step taken with peace in mind. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2009, 5:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clueless-idiots-the-nobel-committee/513175/350 "2009-10-24T05:04:41Z")
You are right. “Incomplete with apparent intent to mislead” would have been a better way of putting it. So I was wrong in using the word misrepresent. See how easy it was for me to admit my error like that? 😉 Thanks for the cites on your admissions. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2009, 5:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clueless-idiots-the-nobel-committee/513175/351 "2009-10-24T05:16:53Z")
The compounded irony is so post-modernist. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2009, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clueless-idiots-the-nobel-committee/513175/352 "2009-10-24T16:48:37Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > Anybody want to take bets on whether or not \*\*Shodan \*\*will have the balls to come back and either apologize or admit to making an eye-poppingly racist statement? I say “None of the above” at 7-4. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2009, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clueless-idiots-the-nobel-committee/513175/353 "2009-10-24T16:49:27Z")
Do I win if you have one ball? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2009, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clueless-idiots-the-nobel-committee/513175/354 "2009-10-24T16:54:55Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > I say “None of the above” at 7-4. > > Regards, > Shodan Strange, really. I mean, why spend all that time complaining about how liberals are always calling you a racist based on suspicion and innuendo, and then come out and confirm that they were right all along? ---
**Author:** ![Harborwolf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Harborwolf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Harborwolf)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2009, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clueless-idiots-the-nobel-committee/513175/355 "2009-10-24T19:47:15Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Strange, really. I mean, why spend all that time complaining about how liberals are always calling you a racist based on suspicion and innuendo, and then come out and confirm that they were right all along? He’s not racist. He’s just desperate for liberals to dislike him because it makes him feel more conservative. I suspect it’s about as close to being a conservative as he comes. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2009, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clueless-idiots-the-nobel-committee/513175/356 "2009-10-24T22:32:57Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Do I win if you have one ball? You know who _else_ … ---
**Author:** ![intention](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e95f7d/32.png) [@intention](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/intention)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2009, 8:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clueless-idiots-the-nobel-committee/513175/357 "2009-10-25T08:34:11Z")
> [@Enfant Terrible](#): > > Note the date. > > Note the events since the date. > > [Yeah, Barack Obama deserved to win the Nobel.](http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/02/us/politics/02obama.html) > > \ I HATE radiation poisoning. \ For proposing that we eliminate nuclear weapons? How about if I propose to eliminate poverty? I note that the article says: > [@](#): > > His speech was to come one day after an announcement by the Bush administration that it had tripled the rate of dismantling nuclear weapons over the last year, putting the United States on track to reducing its stockpile of weapons by half by 2012. So Bush tripled the rate of dismantling nuclear weapons, which is actually reducing the number of weapons. And Obama made a speech about nuclear weapons … remind me again about the rules for deserving the Prize? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2009, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clueless-idiots-the-nobel-committee/513175/358 "2009-10-25T14:09:23Z")
Oh, I don’t think so, we’ve belabored that non-point to death, really, I wouldn’t want to bring it up again, and be a dick. I’m still confused on why it would take such humongous “stones” to do somethiing you insist would be wildly popular, I’m not sure I can grasp how Mr Nobel’s will has the rule of law, somehow. ---
**Author:** ![bengangmo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/50afbb/32.png) [@bengangmo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bengangmo)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2009, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clueless-idiots-the-nobel-committee/513175/359 "2009-10-25T14:52:19Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > No - I’m just saying it’s no longer _necessarily_ a step taken with peace in mind. So are you then trying to say that Obama is totally devious and only you can see through his diabolical plot? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2009, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clueless-idiots-the-nobel-committee/513175/360 "2009-10-25T15:37:46Z")
Well, imagine there were no guns, and then your neighbor got one. And your neighbor decides it would be best if no one else had one, because he is a splendid fellow with the purest motives, and such power is responsibly placed in his hands, whereas you a not quite so splendid a fellow, and given to unseemly demands. You might be a mite suspicious, especially if you’ve seen this same neighbor stealing cars. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clueless-idiots-the-nobel-committee/513175.md?page=17) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clueless-idiots-the-nobel-committee/513175.md?page=19)