Veb, I hope you realize that I respect you and generally agree with your decisions, but you are absolutely wrong in this instance. The title may have been flashy, and there are no rules against that, but it accurately summed up DeLay’s apparent position while still fitting inside the board software’s title length limits. Those limits prevent us from framing a complete discussion, including a look at all sides of an issue, within the title. And what the hell is wrong with a flashy title, anyway, if it is reasonably accurate in its portrayal of the subject? If, in order to keep you happy, every thread about something stupid done by Tom DeLay were titled, “Tom DeLay did something with which I disagree,” we would have trouble keeping all those thr4eads straight.
DeLay is either:
-
Woefully out of touch (to the extent that he, a legislator, may be unaware of the internet’s abundance of legal research sites); or
-
Purposely misleading those who might not be aware of the internet’s legitimate use as a legal research tool.
If the former, then he is too ignorant to hold his position. If the latter, then he is too dishonest.
Actually, I was talking about why you have no business being a mod now. But you’ve been a frickin’ hothead for a long time. Remember when you repeatedly stalked me over at Fathom because of things I said here that you didn’t like? Sheesh. Anyone who pursues someone to another board just to keep a fight going, had better not claim he isn’t inflammatory.
OK, then, if you don’t say it, you’re not disagreeing with Daniel’s interpretation. So what’s your beef - or are you just pretending you’re 50 Cent, and Daniel’s The Game?
Yeah, and what you’re saying is that if Person A mentions a potential weakness in their argument, however trivial, it’s incumbent on them to track it down to the ends of the earth.
Baravelli, you’ve got the brain of a four year old, and I bet he was glad to get rid of it.
Does it bother manny that you’re stealing his “all my adversaries are liars” shtick? I’d hate to see the two of you have a falling-out.
What an ugly, ugly thread. It’s pathetic.
I agree. I’m tempted to ask for its closure, except that:
- I’m hoping that the back-and-forth rehashing of old disputes will die down or go somewhere else; and
- I’m still interested in seeing whether anyone can point to something specific Kennedy said about the Internet that may have spawned DeLay’s remark (maybe Unclebeer will put his money where his mouth is re: twenty minutes of research); and, less importantly (since it can be offered via email),
- I’d like a response from TVeblen.
If the moderators think that my wishes will all be in vain, though, I’d appreciate some threadlocking action.
Daniel
Actually, I’m pretty sure #2 is gonna come true: it looks as if other folks are starting to pick up on, and discuss, this, and we’re likely to get some context out of the discussion somewhere. So I’d appreciate the thread not being closed, for this reason. (And I’d appreciate everyone, left and right or just plain cranky, to take the personal attacks elsewhere).
Daniel
The strawman above in no way accurately reflects my statements in this thread. I made a specific statement: ElvisL1ves is a liar, and I’ve backed it up, but if you think I’m wrong, RTF, I happily extend the same invitation to you. Please quote where in this thread manhattan has defended Mr. DeLay. If your response is to refuse to do so and instead offer insults, then I will conclude that you are standing by that untrue statement, and thus you are a liar. Not because of any political opinion that you may hold that doesn’t agree with mine, but because you are not telling the truth. Remember:
Surely the due diligence required to provide a cite from this very thread backing up a statement made in this very thread shouldn’t be too rigorous a standard to expect. I await your cite.
I honestly don’t think this matters one whit. There is little to no doubt in my mind that Justice Kennedy does use the internet to do his own research. Whether he has admitted to it in “open session” or not, I think, is a very minor, tangential issue. To be honest, this whole thing is a bit silly. Delay’s comments were idiotic, but completely unsurprising. Getting so wound up about them is looking for something to fight about, which, it appears, a lot of posters are willing to do. And, predictably so, it gets ugly.
I’d apreciate it not being locked until the matter of ElvisL1ves’ baldface lying is resolved. RTF seems to think he’s got a case to refute this, I’d like to see him try and make it.
Ya know what, not only are you overstating your case, but you’re understating the facts. Fact is, I fucking apologized to you for that. Fact is, you accepted. Fact is, you agreed to put it behind us. Fact is, you even said at one time that you didn’t think I had anything to apologize for. You want me to produce the fucking e-mails from February '01?. Now I find you’re holding a four-fucking year old grudge?
And bringing shit from outside boards here? Tsk, tsk.
Anyhow, enough of this. Enough of you, for that matter.
Perhaps not, but I’m curious. I’m interested in how the Supreme Court works, and if Kennedy is using the Internet in a remarkable fashion, that’s kinda cool.
In one sense, what folks are saying is right: this isn’t about Kennedy so much as it is about DeLay. In another sense, though, unless he’s making things up out of whole cloth, there’s potentially something interesting about Kennedy buried underneath of it.
And please, guys–can you start your own thread to debate who’s a liar and who’s not?
Daniel
Your thread title was misleading by attributing a quote inaccurately. You certainly aren’t known for doing this, and nobody expects that a full argument be summed up in a thread title. But thread titles should at least start out the discussion on a sound footing.
This thread demonstrates why it matters. Who needs more trainwrecks? Remember the chaos spawned by december’s constant use of this tactic?
Again, AFAIK, this is the first time your foot ever crossed that line and I’m quite willing to believe it was inadvertant. Mistakes happen and it’s no big whoop. The only point is stop the practice before it takes root–with anyone.
It’s too late to change the thread title now, because so much of the discussion has focused on the original version. Nobody coming into the thread now could make much sense of it.
Veb
Okay, thanks for the response. If I understand, it was the quotation marks that drove it over the line–is that correct? If so, I apologize: it was thoughtless of me to put it in quotes, and I did so in a sloppy effort to signify that DeLay was expressing the thought. Won’t happen again.
(It honestly didn’t occur to me until Brutus pointed it out that eliding the “for research” clause would make any difference–it seems to me that if DeLay only condemned judges who used the Internet for research, it’d be an even dumber thing for him to have said.)
Daniel
As someone who’s very late to the party, I’d just like to address Mr. DeLay’s quote by saying that I interpreted it as a simple confession that he thinks knowledge is bad. 
Who has the reading comprehension problem?
No kidding. The internet should only be used for illegally sharing music and porn, just as Al Gore intended.
Well, it seems now we can tell why DeLay is flinging poo distract attention.
<Avenue Q>
o/The Internet is for porn! The Internet is for porn! Me up all night honking me horn to porn, porn, porn...o/
I’ve been over it for years. But if you’re going to pretend to have been the sort of person you weren’t, just to try to lay a smackdown on me - well, my memory works just fine, thanks.
Oh, I see, it’s OK to follow people from here around the Internets when you’re pissed at them, but not OK for those people to mention it here.
Whatever.