DrDeth, yes, he does indeed do as you describe. But I don’t think it’s phonyism as much as it is a manifestation of his (pardon, Diogenes) sometimes hot-headed, quick-draw reflexes. I think he truly believes his cites are proofs, and that his interpretations of what you say are accurate, even though others would disagree. I’ve gotten to the point where I just look past such things and don’t pay them much attention. Posts by Dio are like fields of wheat: you have to separate the wheat from the chaff.
The good thing about Dio, though, is that there’s lots of wheat to be harvested. If you don’t like what he says in GD or the Pit, don’t engage him. But there’s lots of good stuff posted by him in other threads and forums and I’m glad he’s here. I learn lots of things from him that I wouldn’t have expected in the beginning. In toto, SDMB is a better and richer place as a result of his being here.
My apologies, Diogenes! I know it must be embarrassing to have praise heaped upon you by an evil conservative such as I, but hey, since I joined this board I’ve become used to playing the devil’s advocate and I just couldn’t hep mysef.
Ah, don’t worry about it, Snakey. We’re all friends here (more or less.)
It’s pretty much standard around here to forgive typos and spelling errors. I’m surprised Marley23 even brought it up. He must have you pegged as a conservative!
Diogenes is dishonest, overly opinionated, and only very loosely acquainted with facts. If you’re a gun owner, he has no problem insulting you by proxy, calling the segment of the population you belong to ‘cowards’ who need ‘substitute penises’.
He states that as if it’s a fact, and then he gets angry when he’s challenged, so he backpedals and says that cops and soldiers with guns aren’t cowards with penis problems.
He asks for an example of someone who wants to ban all firearms, and when he’s given one he decides that it only counts if he changes the criteria to ‘actual proposed legislation’.
And it’s not just gun owners that he will insult that way. If you’re a Republican, you’re obviously a gay bashing Bush lover with no brain, according to a lot of Diogenes’s posts.
The only thing he’s not is a phony. He really believes he’s the wisest man on earth and that his opinion is fact, his posts need no defense with facts, and because he insults with an absolutely huge brush, he manages to stay on the inside of the ad hominem rule in GD.
Saying that all gun owners are penis envying cowards is acceptable in there, but I don’t know why. Diogenes has yet to provide a single fact to back up anything he’s said in either of the two current gun threads and has done a lot of slandering of all gun owners. What amazes me is that he’s not only not been warned about his behavior (he’s obviously attacking his opponents, not their arguments), but people in this thread are defending him as intellectually honest? What the fuck?
Well, I started this pit thread to document his BS, but to get to the substance you need to go read (gee, seems you already read it, maybe you need to read it again, more carefully?) THIS THREAD ATTEMPTING TO TRASH ME in which I specify how he lied and about what. I can’t cross post - been called on the carpet once for that already.
In short, he asked for a cite, no, three cites, I came back with about 10 web pages, and ten minutes later (10 minutes!) he came back and said they were all crap and even indicated in his answer (by his lack of knowledge about the last one) that all he did was read the titles, if that. He said my post regarding an incident from April 2004 was from a ten-year old 60 minutes program.
I may not be good at communicating precicely any more, but I’m gonna let that stop me?
You must live in a deluded world to comment about anybody else’s honesty or integrity. You represent the dregs of the SDMB on all sides of the political aisle.
Weblogs. Usually some amateur attempting to be a real columnist, frequently run towards political commentary. Some famous people have begun using them like an online diary.
Like last time, I’ll spend a couple of hours getting you a cite and as soon as I post it you’ll call me names, say my cite is BS and you won’t even bother to read it!
Right. Fool me once, shame on you. You ain’t gonna fool me twice.
What do we call someone who ignores the essential points of a criticism and misdirects the question by questioning an unimportant part of the terminology?
I’ve seen DC do that countless times (Oh, he’ll probably misdirect us by saying they can be counted). He seems to be afraid to face the accusations.
Would we call that a… dare I say it… coward?
