Sometimes ‘droll’ doesn’t come across terribly well on a message board but, in this instance, I think Lib’s got it nicely pegged.
BTW, I find ** Mandelstam** to be a particularly good and clear poster.
Geez, by saying this, I think that december was actually trying to toss the liberals a compliment. I do see a lot of this thread as a pack of liberals picking on a conservative, so I may as well try and help some.
I would think that this attitude is actually worth discussing. I find many liberals, but not all or even most, have that certain naive attitude of “let them eat cake”.
Just this weekend I had a conversation with a woman who was opposed to nuclear power, and quite appalled that I didn’t share her view. When asked what her solution to our energy needs would be, she suggested simply conservation would solve all of our problems. This stikes me as a perfect example of a certain liberal attitude of good intentions, that are not always grounded in reality. I think that all liberals having this attitude is an unfair stereotype, but not an entirely unfounded one.
running for cover
I just wanted to say thank you, and I have respect for and enjoy talking/debating with you as well.
(I can be happy/feely in the Pit. It’s one of the perks of being a Mod.)
I’ve always liked december, with all those fun holidays…
[sub]sorry[/sub]
I stand corrected. december is a fucking moron who ignores facts that disagree with his ideological bent. Please disregard the above defense of him - I was simply wrong. My apologies.
Sua
Testify.
It is entirely possible to be outside the conventional debate. To be absolutely for the cause of liberty (freedom of action, speech, etc) while being aware that all things have costs and that fact places limits on actions.
Not good enough. You must now perform the Ancient Tasmanian Ritual of Self-Abasement, accompanied by a chorus of bitter virgins, intoning dirges of woe and humiliation.
So let it be written. So let it be done.
My problem with december is that when he starts losing an argument he starts in with personal attacks. I have seen it many times but will only add the one time our paths ever crossed.
From http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=84031
"
quote:
Originally posted by JRDelirious And december, I’m confident that there is no real risk that the reputable RA consortia will start accrediting astrology programs right and left…
If SqrlCub is making the decisions, there will be a lot of accreditiations"
Which sure sounds like a personal attack to me and later follows it with:
"
quote:
Originally posted by SqrlCub
Do you know what my actual job is? Many of the DC area people do. Take a guess.
OK, I’ll take a guess.
Is W your middle initial?"
Which sure sounds like another personal attack. I stopped reading the thread immediately after I saw december’s original attack. That took it out of debate form to me and into a personal level attack mode. Not a sign of a good debator for me. And for what it is worth now. I work for the US Department of Education though not directly with the accreditation of programs.
HUGS!
Sqrl
Ps. No Hugs for you december and for what it is worth, vanilla either.
Understood. Outside of political topics he’s merely illogical and stubborn. Perhaps not even that bad. He’s certainly not Peace – recall my minor dispute with him – but he is a discredit to the board in regards to engaging an argument in logical, rational manner.
SC had previously written in part:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=84031
SQ’s post went on at length in this vein apparently making arguments in favor of accrediting schools of astrology. My comment alluded to what seemed to be his/her express position.
BTW SC might have mentioned that I had apologized on that other thread. On 8/30/2001, I posted, “I took the above to mean that you’d be willing to accredit a school of. Sorry I misunderstood you.”
**
**This was meant purely as a joke. I thought there was some humor in the concept of this President spending his time on the Straight Dope message boards. I never imagined that it would be seen as an attack.
It didn’t sound like a joke since it follows your previous attacking tones. Your apology is moot when you finish the thread off with an attack. You are a bad person with debate skills that are sometimes ok, but when you lose you resort to personal attacks which isn’t good. And if it matters, religious schools are accredited and receive financial aid. So what, the point of a trade is giving someone the necessary skills and credentials to get a job afterwards. There is not much else required for accreditation really. You are as bad a person as vanilla. And for what it is worth, I won’t read this anymore so you can continue whining about it all you want. Obviously I am not the only one who thinks you are a bad person.
Sqrl
Squrl - in your first post where you quote the exchange about “is your middle intitial W” and said you felt insulted, my reaction was ‘huh?’, since it seemed clear to me that since december in general is a conservative:
his reference to “W” is most likely to be GW Bush,
he is not one of the posters who routinely refer to Bush as some near neanderthal,
was probably meant in a gentle jest, as in seeing a heated debate, poking gentle fun, ie not intending an insult to you.
It’s also clear that you felt it was an insult. Just thought you’d appreciate hearing that others (and those who are not generally on his side) didn’t see it as an insult.
Now, the remark about liberals having a faulty world view, that’s clearly an insult…
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=96443
It’s like watching a trainwreck. I’m starting to feel sorry for him-he just never gives up-he just keeps smashing his head against that brick wall, no matter how bloody he gets.
My latest theory is that he’s really Wildest Bill, since I always believed that a good portion of WB was a put on.
The biggest similarity is the whole :
december/wb: A is true, D is true and therefore 123 is true.
Poster 1: A isn’t true. Here’s proof.
Poster 2. D isn’t true, either, here’s proof.
Poster 3. And, even if A and D are true, it doesn’t follow that 123 is true.
december/wb Nananabooboo I don’t care. I know that 123 is true, and besides you can’t prove that A isn’t completely false and D is almost 2% true, which is similar to it being 100% true, etc.
I rest my case ya’ll. 
In both the “Democrat corruption” thread and the “Newt on drugs” thread, december has acknowledged that the opposing position is the logical one, yet he keeps debating.
In Great Debates, logic wins. Ergo, ya putz, you’ve admitted defeat already, so shut up, already.
Sua
Wildest Bill would never have used the word “magnamimously” correctly, which I have seen december do. I shall never forget bill’s “virus anecdotes.” I still chuckle whenever I think of it.
It wasn’t quite intended as an insult, although I can see that it sure looks like one. I meant to address the philosophical question of how we explain to ourselves why some people don’t see things our way.
E.g., liberals and conservatives tend to differ on many issues. One can say, "Oh, THOSE people are evil! THEY want to starve children or send us into a depression or destroy the environment or eviscerate our military or subjugate minorities, etc. Or, one can say, “THOSE people are well-intentioned, but wrong about the consequences of the approach they believe in.”