Brutus - I’ll be more than happy to make the hamsters groan.
IF you agree that once I find said cite, you’ll admit that he’s a shameless troll and stop this bullshit defense. fair enough?
fer cryin out loud Izzy
I may not be able to find that specific wording = however, on a reqular basis, he claims that it’s his point of view that gets him pitted, that liberals aren’t treated the same way (even here his claim is that newbies should be warned that conservative views will result in pit threads).
I"m already hurting the hamsters on Brutus’s request.
It ain’t a direct quote (hence the lack of quotation marks). it’s a summation of his POV and damned more accurate than the ones he makes for others.
I made no mistake. In regard to that specific thread december was not the one making personal attacks. I can certainly see how his take on political issues can be grating to someone less conservative than he is (and apparantly even to some people that share his ideology), but calling for his banning because of this is a bit much. I think its a comparable situation to Stoid’s seemingly constant barrage of “Shrub” threads during the elections. There was no need for her to be banned for this and I think the same holds true here.
Also, though its possible you have a cite where he specifically says “Yes, I make unsubstantiated claims to elicit outraged responses,” there’s an important difference between a clumsy attempt at promoting discussion on an issue and deliberately trolling.
Anyway, my point was that the specific thread that Mtgman was referencing was not a particularly good case for banning anyone.
Starbury I never said any specific thread was a case maker, or case breaker. His continued behavior, which the thread was pretty much typical of, is the case for his banning. Everyone has bad days, everyone makes poor assumptions and paints with too broad a brush occasionally. The problem with december is he does it almost constantly and is completely unrepentent of such gross mischaracterizations. It’s all straws, nothing extremely repellent in a single instance, but eventually, given enough straws, the camel’s back breaks.
Enjoy,
Steven
Nooooooooooo!!! Heed the wisdom of the sig!
A slight mischaracterization, perhaps, but not by a whole lot. You may recall this particular turd:
Which is, of course, a blatant lie in that it essentially asserts that conservatives get Pitted because they criticize Democrats. Not so, as the track record of any number of respected (and respectable) conservative posters demonstrates.
wring
There is a vast gulf separating “I’m being pitted for being conservative” or “conservatives are apt to be pitted” and “only conservative posters get pitted”. What you have done is to attribute a much more extreme view to december than he actually expresses. Which of course makes it easier to ridicule and disprove. In fact, your description of it as a “blatent specific lie” is wholly reliant on your misrepresentation.
Not good form at all on your end.
Just for fun - what do think would be the likelihood of december getting away with an excuse like that?
I don’t know if it is a blatant lie - I would say there is some ambiguity with regards to how often and strongly you criticize Democrats and liberals. So let’s call it a “slight mischaracterization”, shall we? 
Thank you Izzy. I know many of us get carried away in debates with december and the glass of water you’re throwing in our face right now helps us, me at least, remember “When fighting monsters, one must take care not to become one.” You’re right. We need to stick to the proper forms and be careful that our arguements are bulletproof, lest we become overzealous painters ourselves.
Enjoy,
Steven
Mtgman, that is fine style. Peace, brother. 
and Izzy all of your ‘there’s a difference betweens’ are all lies.
Not bad form, I’d say. difference in degrees, yes, but all are untrue, so the difference in degrees is moot. OTOH, when he characterizes (as he did in the GD thread where you’re defending him) a long post of mine, ignoring several points and boils it down to the (Unsaid and unclaimed) “so he was loosing anyhow, so what”, is, I would submit, an egregious mischaracterization, vs. what you call ‘bad form’ from me.
Not at all. The first two are subjective - perhaps you could verify them if you did some sort of extensive study, but meantime they are lies in your opinion. They are not demonstrably false (“blatent specific lies”) in the manner of your revised version, which is rediculous as you pointed out.
Changing your opponents argument - even if you feel you can also disprove it in its pure form - to a more rediculous version that you can more easily disprove is not proper.
I did not check all the summaries in the other thread that you refer to - I know I agreed with Sua’s complaints on the same score. I’ll check yours out too if you’d like.
My point here is not to trash you or to hold december blameless, but to point out - as I’ve done on previous occaisons - that there is no clear line separating december from many of his critics.
IzzyR, I think the horse is already dead-ain’t gonna get any deader.
December, having been found guilty, it is the decision of this Board that you be sentenced to 40 posts in the wilderness. You must make 40 logical and reasonable posts WITH citations on DrizzleFront.org. Then you, too, will understand what it is like to be an erudite liberal attempting to debate with a right-wing zealot apparently immune to reason.
May God have mercy on your soul.
Hmm…so you pull up a thread 20 hours after the most recent post just to tell someone else that the horse is dead. Odd.
But it’s a good point Guinastasia - I suggest that you consider it next time you are thinking of starting yet another Pit thread attacking december - I think this is your third one already (unless I’ve missed some others).