I hope it’s coming across as insulting. That was my intent, anyway. If he misinterprets the insults, I’ll be happy to clarify them for him.
Well, at least you’re still amusing 
No. I understood quite well. I’m wondering what you intend to do about all those things you said now that you seem to understand that you were mistaken.
Oh whack off already, what would I have to be paranoid about. The radical Muslim clerics have found a haven there, and the anti-Jew thing is celebrated in the streets and doubles as an anti-war march, if last February was any indication. Here’s another from last year: http://www.inminds.co.uk/palestine-rally-18may02.html “Justice for Palestine” “Jihad Jihad Jihad” etc. etc. Ick. It’s deplorable.
That’s three explosive-toting Brits so far, counting Richard Reid who is currently supported by my tax dollars, thank you very much, and now here’s your mayor of London today, something called ThisIsLondon: Mr Livingstone later added: “This really is a completely unsupportable (US) government and I look forward to it being overthrown as much as I looked forward to Saddam Hussein being overthrown.” Charming!
If December is the only one who has ever voiced the idea of rising anti-Semitism and/or anti-Americanism in Europe overall, then I’d have to say you people have been quite sheltered thus far.
I don’t intend to do a goddamned thing.
Hey, minty, I gotta weigh in here. Quite frankly I’ve been considering pitting Scylla myself recently, although it would be for his apparent lack of understanding of the realities of the working lower-mid/lower class and his handwaving in response to attempts to address those issues. I find his continual projection of his value systems onto others(i.e. people who own a Viper can’t possibly be handicapped, and his recent screeds over the use of personal mobility devices by those he, in his expert opinion, don’t have a valid reason for using them) extremely annoying. The ability to detatch himself from his socioeconomic situation and see things from another point of view seems woefully underdeveloped in our friend.
Still, I saw the remark “The third possibility, and the only one I see left, is that you think so little of me and my intelligence, that you are comfortable ascribing such a fucking stupid and asinine point of view to me.” as weaseling, not attacking. More along the lines of “Come on! Do you really think I’m that supid?” Now it is a given that human stupidity is pretty much the only infinite quantity in the universe, so I’m not sure we can rule out Scylla actually BEING that stupid, but I think there’s been a disconnect. This advice is non-billable.
Hijack! Got a call last night from some of our best friends from years back. Haven’t seen any of them in six months or so because they live in West Texas. They’re coming into town impromptu, this weekend. We’ve told them they can have the guest bedroom at our place and arriving ~ midnight tonight(they have to attend graduation at the college she teaches at before they can leave, graduation starts @ seven IIRC, so they probably won’t leave the area till after 9, they’re two hours away at best). Not sure what this portends for a Saturday midnight movie, we may just see if anyone wants to volunteer to watch the kids(our four and their two**) and you’ll get to meet some new people 
I know my friend expressed interest in “The Matrix” on a big screen when we were talking about it last night.End Hijack!
Tamerlane, thanks! I had forgotten Chumpsky. Definitely needs to be added to the list of pitted/smacked down liberals, but you’re right that the whole line of reasoning which compares the number of conservatives/liberals and the boards reactions to them is irrelevant. What matters is if december deserves to be tossed on his arse. Others may be cited as non-binding precedent, but his deeds, or misdeeds as the case may be, should stand on their own.
As for you december the only bovines in danger from you are the males of the species. They may not be able to keep you supplied.
Enjoy,
Steven
Out of interest, how many explosive-toting Americans have there been?
And only someone who has never actually been to our fair shores could suggest that this islamophoboc populace with its extraordinarily anti-muslim and generally anti-foreign-anybody-except-America tabloid press could be described as a hotbed of islamic fundamentalism.
But hey, I just live here. What do I know?
pan
Joke?
I had hoped that once you saw you were in error, that you would do the right thing.
Originally posted by Shodan:
and
Shodan, god damn it, I told you on page one of this thread to go back and read what Collounsbury actually said. Since you obviously ignored me, allow me to point it out to you.
Collounsbury’s first post was the quote you originally offered to impugn his character:
But had you actually read that thread past the second post, you would have seen Collounsbury’s second remark:
As you can clearly see, Collounsbury was attacking the author of the cited article, not december, as I strongly suspect you were attempting to imply. Only then, after december blithely wandered into a minefield by saying the liberals think the US was responsible for the overthrow of the Chilean government (perhaps because the CIA itself admits to supporting the military junta that took over after the overthrow of the Allende regime), did Collounsbury address december:
Which is exactly what december regularly does, as you can see by the twelve fucking threads I cited on the same page of that thread, which december authored and which attacked his oh-so-despicable “liberals.”
That is why Collounsbury authored this thread.
Shodan, buddy, I think you’d better back the fuck off of your two uninformed posts about Collounsbury’s “jerkish” behavior in that GD thread, because he did exactly what he was supposed to do–he took the ad hominem part right here where it belongs and allowed december’s foolish GD thread to devolve into the usual beat-down that results when the guy sets himself up for yet another intellectual schooling.
I’m willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you just misunderstood what was going on in that thread, but if you did understand it, you are guilty of some serious bullshit flinging. I suggest you apologize, not to me, but to Collounsbury, and then maybe you ought to shut the fuck up until you can get your story straight.
Fuck off. A huge number of people turned up to protest against a war and you try to claim it’s an example of anti-semitism. I challenge you to give some reasoning or proof for that, you contemptible prick.
Fuck off and read your own cites. The cite you’ve provided accuses the UK of being zionist, the Metropolitan police of being “politically motivated”, and the BBC of “deliberate omission”. If you’re going to give an example of what an anti-semitical state the UK is try to not give as example a cite claiming it’s zionist.
And again you dumb shit, out of 58000000 people 50000 turned up to protest against israeli activities in the Palestine. Please justify how this is some example of the UK as an anti-semitical state, that 0.0008 percent of the population disaproves of Israel’s Palestinian policy.
What the fuck? You really are a fucking asshole, aren’t you. Your further proof of rising anti-semitism is a socialist policy who dislikes George Bush, and 3 british terrorists.
You’re a paranoid, ignorant shit with a fucking terrible grasp of logic. No doubt in your mind my anger at your bile is down to anti-semitical tendencies too, rather than just the fact you’re a twat.
Mtgman: If Scylla had simply asked “Do you really think I’m that stupid,” I would have answered with a simple “No,” just as I answered with a simple “Yes” when he asked whether that was really what I got out of his posts. It read to me then, and frankly still reads to me now, as indistinguishable from his usual assertion that everyone who disagrees with him on a political issue is just blinded by partisanship and can’t truly believe what they’re saying.
But Scylla didn’t ask whether I thought he was stupid. Instead, he launched into that bullshit three-part assault (I was perfectly clear/I’d be happy if you were retarded but you’re not/so you must think I’m so stupid that you can say horrible things about me). I’ve read this thread multiple times, and I can’t find where I did, said, or implied anything at all to prompt such a mean-spirited attack.
And now he’s acting like he’s owed an apology? Not bloody likely.
(But to continue the hijack of the hijack, you’re certainly not going to hurt my feelings if extra friends show up to the movie. The more the merrier! And with any luck, tomorrow’s the night when Palmeiro hits his 500th, so I’ll be well over the present unpleasantness by the time Keanu delivers his first awkward line reading.)
I just don’t understand this. If you don’t think I’m stupid enough to really mean that, than why would you think I mean that?
I did ask. It seemed to me that you made an invalid misinterpretation, one not shared by others. And, I asked you if you were comfortable ascribing that level of stupidity to me.
At this point you decided to fly off the handle and start hurling insults under the justification that “comfortable” was used by me to mean that you were comfortable in a lie.
That was not what I meant, and I’ve been working very hard, and in good faith to clear that up. More importantly I’ve completely ignored the insults and the accusations that you have thrown at me, here. Even more, I’ve stressed the respect in which I hold you. It is this respect that has restrained me from what I feel would be deserving retaliation for your behavior.
Thanks to the reasoned intervention of Kabbes and Gary, you seem to have acknowledged that the misinterpretation that spawned your attack was in fact an error that you made.
Nonetheless, you’ve stated that you have no intention of making amends for the attack you launched at me in error.
That’s your choice.
How you handle it will determine how I reevaluate the respect I hold you in, as well as the amount of good faith and goodwill I am willing to extend to you in the future.
Quite frankly your behavior in this thread is more in keeping with our dearly departed friends Ace and Sparticus, than what I would have expected from you.
C’mon kabbes and Gary, it has to be a parody of a classic december ploy; logical absurdity, nonsensical, shifting the debate from issues to posters, begging the question, incitement, provocative national generalisations, etc, etc, etc, anything but address the OP …… which was again …… ?
Woah. The thought of Minty Sparticus or possible Ace of Green has just made me lose all concentration on my so-called work.
Thanks for that.
pan
This is one of the more entertaining threads I’ve read in a while. There’s the whole Minty vs Scylla blowup (with Kumquat getting an A for effort in the moderator role).
There’s the december aspect, which is always fun. “Sacred cows.” Sounds like something I’ve heard before - “You guys don’t like me because you are narrow-minded” or “I’m sorry I won’t stop telling stuff you don’t want to hear so you can keep oppressing the poor and killing brown people.”
And then there’s the whole “The mods are biased because they don’t agree with me” dynamic going on. Good times.
This should just be called the “Meltdown and Pile-on Thread” and made a sticky.
Fine, I’m a dumb shit…is that what it’s called, ‘disapproving of Israel’s policy’? These are the people, you vacuous turd, who disapprove of Israel being there in the first place and who will support any effort to remove it. Did you notice the “I salute the martyrs” business and the crowd chanting (singing?) about Hezbollah? Hezbollah, especially, are the very people who prefer not to negotiate for a separate Palestinian state and would rather just take it all back the easy way. And they have MPs cheering them along and British mosques sending and promising reinforcements…what. Is everyone supposed to politely ignore it?
Well yes I can probably be an asshole…but I’ve not started yet, there’s plenty more. And you can kiss off, by the way, I’d rather be ranted at by L_C of the {:::whine:::} Israel cites are too biased {:::whine::} December is biased toward Jews. Let’s see if he same crap gets pulled on a lapsed-Catholic using UK cites exclusively. Bet it doesn’t.
These are quotes from three separate posters on this thread. Do you guys really believe this, that december’s a racist bigot? And what “race” is it that he supposedly hates?
Tamerlane et al are missing the point. At least part of it. It is true that a person can be guilty even if other guilty parties got off free. But what frequently happens - and happened here - is that the number of pittings a person had is itself used as evidence of wrongdoing. A general charge is being supported by saying “look how many times he has been pitted - there has to be a good reason for that”. But the number of times a person is pitted is a relative one - it is meaningful only in comparison to other posters. So pointing to other factors that would increase the likelihood of such a person being pitted as compared to others is a valid argument.
(Beyond this, the severity of a transgression, or pattern of transgressions, is itself affected by how much of a deviation from group norms it is).
As for the various liberals being held up as examples - I think it might be futile to try to really get an accurate objective answer to the question as every case is different. I suspect that such charges can never be proven - all we can do is give our impressions and leave it at that. Still, these specific examples are bad ones. (Beyond what follows, there has to be some more clarity as to whether the issue is moderator action or poster antipathy. I am Sparticus was banned but was not the subject of an inordinate amount of pit threads or poster antipathy. Chumpsky was the reverse.)
IAS was banned for responding to a moderator admonition with more of what he had just been warned about, along with a taunting challenge to the moderators. That is a capital crime here, and automatically triggers banning, regardless of anything else.
The Chumpsky example is misleading. Fact is that to the extent that there is bias at work, it is not specific to conservatives - it is to anyone who diverges from the mainstream viewpoint. To the extent that fewer people share your viewpoint, your debating tactics and integrity will be judged harsher. To the extent that more people share your viewpoint they will be more tolerant. This does NOT mean that liberals are incapable of judging harshly other liberals, or conservatives other conservatives, but it means that they will be less likely to do so. This is so obvious and such a deep-rooted part of human nature that it is mind-boggling that so many posters seek to deny it or at least to ignore the issue. If there is a debate between a Republican and a Democrat running for office, does anyone doubt that a survey of only Republicans will find most people thinking the Republican won and a survey of only Democrats will find the reverse? I can’t imagine anyone would deny this. But it is a general point. There is no way to objectively separate people’s opinion about the supporting arguments from their opinion about the underlying issue.
This is larger than just politics. Someone arguing in this forum for the moon landing being a hoax will have their tactics criticized more harshly than someone arguing the other side. Their cites will be more likely to be dismissed - even if equally credible. Their logic will be found more faulty. Their assumptions will be challenged.
Returning to Chumpsky, it is true that Chumpsky was a liberal. But he was an extreme liberal. He too was far removed from the mainstream of SDMB thought. So he was subject to the same phenomena as a conservative would be. But the point here is that in terms of the overall US political spectrum, Chumpsky is much much farther removed from the mainstream than december is. In terms of the SDMB political spectrum this is not true to nearly the same extent, if at all. So it is true that if you are too liberal you can run into the same problems as if you are too conservative. But I would think you have to be more liberal as compared to conservative before it being subject to the same amount of pressure.
The Ace example illustrates the exact opposite point that it was intended to illustrate. As pointed out by wring, Ace ran into his fatal problems because of his defense of a couple of conservative fundamentalist Christians. And he was in trouble before that with many posters because - despite his overall partisan liberal persona - he was deemed to not be tolerant enough with regards to gay issues. So despite his tactics being the same with regards to all his positions, what proved to be fatal was when he used the same tactics in support of stereotypical conservative positions, while he got off easier for using them in support of liberal ones. (This is my impression from following the saga - as his popularity declined he got attacked for posting in support of anything - see my previous post with regard to this phenomenon. So it might be hard to sort out).
Governor Quinn: I think your posts are in poor taste, and quite possibly in violation of Board policy. I don’t wish to “junior mod”, but I would suggest that you ask to have them deleted or edited.
Tee, you are a complete fucking idiot.