Have to disagree. After all, manny’s the guy who bought me (and the girfriend) a $40 steak—and in NYC coupla weeks ago.
Didja?
It became your responsibility once you impugned my integrity based on my dismissal of your cite. You spent a lot of posts talking about my laziness and lack of integrity, but you aren’t willing to do the simplest thing possible–the very thing you insisted I do–to back up your charge. That’s where the hypocrisy comes in.
Renounce your accusations against me, and your hypocrisy vanishes. Don’t, and it remains. Easy peasy.
Daniel
Speaking of easy…
Renounce your Pitting and admit you should have opened a GQ thread to find out what the hell you wanted to Pit before you did it and your spreading of ignorance vanishes.
Since I’ve explained my reasoning behind opening it here twice, and you’ve obviously not absorbed it either time, there’s no point.
Daniel
Yep. I opened each of the transcripts from the upper two argument sessions (17 in all) and searched for any instance of the word “internet” attributed to Justice Kennedy. And confirming this from my internet history folder for 4/20/05, I find 17 .pdf’s opened from the SCOTUS site. Didn’t find anything. You can repeat the exercise if you wish. I realsize, of course, that my simply saying so doesn’t necessarily prove anything conclusively and that you’re not likely to take me at my word, but there it is anyway.
Can’t do that. You were, while asking for sources where you might find the words uttered by Kennedy that had DeLay so up in arms, posting here far too frequently to be conducting even a cursory search during that time period. It was quite obvious that instead of honestly seeking an answer, you were far more interested in invective.
So, since I actually did look at the source I offered to you, I’m guilty of no hypocrisy, even without “renouncing” my accusations. You, however, can offer no such absolving activity.
For an NYC restaurant, that isn’t impressive.
Didn’t make that claim, Elvis. Just a brief commentary on Manny’s generosity.
Wrong. I was mildly interested in an answer to that question, but didn’t know of a good place to look. You suggested a place to look, which, after a cursory glance, I realized was going to be damned near useless. Your search just proves that my initial conclusion about your cite was correct, is all.
A useful starting place would’ve been an interview with another Republican making a similar, albeit more detailed, argument; or an article in some lawyer’s blog excoriating Kennedy for this type of research, with a link; or something like that. What you offered me was the equivalent of my saying, “Republicans are complaining about pork in the budget; what do they mean?” and your linking me to last year’s federal budget.
Turns out, if you did this research, you’re not a hypocrite; I apologize for that and retract it. You’re just baffling, that you acknowledge your cite was useless and yet you still say I was being duplicitous.
Daniel
Well, I don’t think I’ve said that the SCOTUS site was “useless.”
Mebbe that’s true, but you were looking for Kennedy’s comment in context, no? And the only way you’re get that in a satisfying manner is to go directly to the source.
Allow me to recant the “DicK” label I pasted on your earlier. I don’t think I’ve had any significant argument with you prior to this thread and it’s kinda childish and unfair of me to put that appelation on you for one stupid disagreement. You were, after all, gracious enough to take back the “hypocrite” you slapped on me and take me at my word. Sorry 'bout that, Daniel.
No, not useless, but useless for my purposes: the way the site was comprised, it would take many, many hours to find a relevant quote from Kennedy, if one even exists.
Right, I agree–but I thought maybe someone else had complained about this Kennedy comment and said something like, “And in Virginia vs. Snidely Whiplash, Kennedy said…” which would vastly narrow down my search, to a point that it became feasible.
I appreciate that.
Daniel
Which lobbyist’s credit card was he using? 
Andrew Jackson’s.
Nope, no axe to grind, as I’d never seen him before that I could recall. I just saw his posts here as totally out of line for anyone with words that would imply an affiliation with the people running the site u nder his name… And if you thought his posts were the same as others on here, you either didn’t read them or are highly biased.
I see now that manhatten has since either banned himself or been told by the Straight Dopers o walk or get kicked off. I’d like to think the latter. The concept that a site fighting ignorance would allow some flagrantly ignorant statements and over the top nonsense posts by someone affiliated with them is just mind-boggling.
Y’know, re-opening a thread that had laid dormant for six weeks simply to bash a now departed member is probably not one’s best course of action, even in the Pit.
As it happens, manhattan has recused himself from the board and is welcome to return if he chooses.