# Disagreement with mod actions of tomndebb re: ElvisL1ves in GD thread **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 26, 2005, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disagreement-with-mod-actions-of-tomndebb-re-elvisl1ves-in-gd-thread/327998 "2005-10-26T14:35:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2005, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disagreement-with-mod-actions-of-tomndebb-re-elvisl1ves-in-gd-thread/327998/1 "2005-10-26T14:35:45Z")
In [this GD thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=341238) I’ve gotten into some trouble with **tomndebb** regarding an exchange with **ElvisL1ves**. Rather than continue to muddy the waters in that interesting thread, I’ve decided to open this pit thread to explain myself here. (Against my better judgment!) On page one of the thread I was debating **Left Hand of Dorkness** , **Kimstu** , **This Year’s Model** , **yojimbo** , **SentientMeat** and some others about the constitution ratification in Iraq. I made a statement that _“Regardless, any form of democratic government would be preferable to the whims of an evil dictator that they had before.”_ To which **ElvisL1ves** responded that: > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Even if it’s an oppressive theocracy like Iran, combined with legalized retribution against the Sunnis and provision for Kurdistan’s secession? Are you sure? Because that’s what this constitution creates. I read this statement by ElvisL1ves to factually state that the new Iraqi constitution that we are discussing creates the following: 1. creating an oppressive theocracy like Iran, 2. combined with legalized retribution against the Sunnis 3. and provision for Kurdistan’s secession. I doubted all three of these statements, but specifically had questions about #2, so I asked for a cite. > [@Debaser](#): > > Do you have a cite about legalized retribution against the Sunnis? To which **Elvis** responded: > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Obviously a cite isn’t possible yet, but it follows inevitably from the Shiites being put in power under a theocracy. I then replied that _“So, when you said that the constitution creates legalized retribution against the Sunnis you were lying? OK. Good to know.”_ Maybe I was being a bit snarky here, and for that I apologize. Perhaps I was overly aggressive with an accusation of lying at this point. However, it does seem clear to me that **Elvis** made a factual claim that has no truth to it, and cannot back it up with a cite. He should be called out in GD for doing this, and if he refuses to back down this does constitute a “lie” IMO. > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Pit it or retract it. Your demand for a cite as factual for what was clearly offered as an opinion/prediction was inappropriate, but not as inappropriate as that remark. A bit later on in the thread **tomndebb** dons his mod hat and scolds the both of us: > [@tomndebb](#): > > You are being deliberately belligerent, here. The initial statement by ElvisL1ves was couched as a hypthetical with a clear implication of opinion. The accusation of “lying,” while technically defensible in the way that you choose to shape your side of the discussion, does not promote discussion. > > On the other hand, Elvis, you need to refrain from rising to the bait so quickly. Kimstu has done a pretty good job of making the case that you could have rather than having the two of you square off in GD. > > Stop it, both of you. I know I should just let this go, and that nothing will result from this pit thread but a pile on. But, this just bugs me enough that I feel I have to respond. You’re wrong, **tomndebb**. I’m not being deliberately belligerent. The initial statement by **ElvisL1ves** is not couched as a hypothetical at all. He says “That’s what this constitution creates.” It’s a statement of fact, not a hypothetical. It’s also not a matter of opinion, IMO. 😉 The constitution either does the three things he claims it does or it does not. If it does do those three things he should be able to point to where in the text he is referring to. (I provided a link to it in the thread.) It was also I, not **Elvis** that is guilty of _rising to the bait to quickly_. I resent the implication that I’m the troublemaker and that **Elvis** is simply guilty of responding to me. I was trying to be as civil as possible with the other half dozen or so posters in that thread with whom I disagree. **Elvis** is widely recognized as a difficult personality who makes his own side look bad by sinking into the muck in any thread he enters. He’s been often pitted by his own side of the political debaters because he’s an embarrassment to them. It’s me who’s risen to his bait, if anything. Not the other way around. [Here is a thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=314234&page=2&pp=50&highlight=debaser+lying) on Social Security from a while back where the shoe was on the other foot: > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Debaser, you have yet to support your assertion that SS must necessarily burn out, like a Ponzi scheme (in any form) must, hence its fraudulence. It’s been seven decades already, and even if the machine isn’t tuned up for a while it won’t even slow down for another four. Unless you’re seriously claiming that it cannot be fixed and is inherently fraudulent, **you are indeed lying.** Are you finally willing to either make that claim or back off? > > SS is not an “investment” but a transfer tax, btw, of course - **you’re either lying about that too or are simply being stubborn.** Recipients don’t “get their money back” and never did. They get tax money paid by those still working. **Elvis** doesn’t seem to have any problems hurling the “liar, liar, pants on fire” accusations at me, simply for having an opinion that is different from his own. Here is [another thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=309286&post=44) where he goes even farther: > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > It’s going to be underfunded in a few decades with no changes in the numbers, yes, unless the underfunding pressures created by the Reagan/Dubya deficits are eased. But your idea of “fundamentally flawed” is that it’s fraudulent, doomed to collapse, hopeless, nothing to do but gut its corpse and trust in the NASDAQ instead. **That is a lie,** and I don’t mind calling you out on it. In this case, **Elvis** sets up a strawman of my argument, and then calls me a liar for it! I’m a liar for something that I didn’t even say. :rolleyes: In neither of these situations was **Elvis** talked to by the mods. Both times, he’s clearly way out of line calling me a liar when I have not lied about anything. I’m not suggesting bias on the part of **tomndebb**. I just think that he’s wrong in this case. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2005, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disagreement-with-mod-actions-of-tomndebb-re-elvisl1ves-in-gd-thread/327998/2 "2005-10-26T14:50:18Z")
With all due respect, **Debaser** , it sounds to me like both of you are slightly at fault. **Elvis** , I think, offered a predictive opinion, albeit in terms that sound mighty like condemnation of what he _knew_ would be happening. Your request for information had just enough snark in it to precipitate a situation that, if not strictly flames, had smolderings. On another board I belong to, flaming is strictly forbidden – but along with that ban, there is an ancillary one on “baiting” and “brinking” – which is characterized as efforts to get _someone else_ to violate the rules by either antagonizing them (baiting) or edging very close to the line (brinking) while technically remaining within them, in hopes that your opponent would step outside them. I personally have no doubt of the sincerity of your intent, to get **Elvis** to justify the opinion he advanced. But to suggest that you’re purely innocent in the matter, is the equivalent of pious hypocrisy. Knowing **Elvis** as the OP here proves you must, you could have expected the results you got. And **that** is, IMO, what **Tom~** had problems with you about. He, no doubt, saw it as a form of baiting, even if you didn’t intend it to come out that way. In short, either put your insulated gloves on before you push the button labeled “launch a hot potato,” or keep your finger off the button altogether. I will get into a heated argument if I think the topic deserves it and the truth to be defended is sufficiently important. But there’s an old saying of, “Choose your battles wisely” that may apply. In hopes this may help, and that it’s not seen as condemnatory. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2005, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disagreement-with-mod-actions-of-tomndebb-re-elvisl1ves-in-gd-thread/327998/3 "2005-10-26T14:58:33Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > With all due respect, **Debaser** , it sounds to me like both of you are slightly at fault. Agreed. I could have chosen my tone more carefully, and delayed my “liar” accusations until he really stepped over the line. However, **tomndebb** seems to be putting more of the blame on me, and that’s what I take issue with. I’d put the blame at 20% me, 80% him. 😉 > [@](#): > > In hopes this may help, and that it’s not seen as condemnatory. Yes it does, and not at all. BTW, my gloves are sufficiently insulated to take all the heat from a poster like **Elvis**. It’s the heat the mods are packing that I fear. I take pride in the fact that after my years of posting heavily in the pit and GD I have never been so much as warned by a mod for anything. ---
**Author:** ![Neurotik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/91b2a8/32.png) [@Neurotik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Neurotik)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2005, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disagreement-with-mod-actions-of-tomndebb-re-elvisl1ves-in-gd-thread/327998/4 "2005-10-26T15:05:04Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > With all due respect, **Debaser** , it sounds to me like both of you are slightly at fault. **Elvis** , I think, offered a predictive opinion, albeit in terms that sound mighty like condemnation of what he _knew_ would be happening. Bullfeathers. He specifically said that the new constitution created a theocracy with legalized retribution against Sunnis, then couldn’t back it up and tried to pass off his statement of fact as opinion. **Elvis** is a fucking asshole and completely in the wrong here. **Debaser** was right to call him on it, and to call him a liar. **Elvis** made a factual statement, got nailed on it, then tried to backpedal like the stupid coward he is by saying, “It was clearly hypothetical.” **Tom** was also in the wrong to come down on you. ---
**Author:** ![Gangster\_Octopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a8b319/32.png) [@Gangster\_Octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gangster_Octopus)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2005, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disagreement-with-mod-actions-of-tomndebb-re-elvisl1ves-in-gd-thread/327998/5 "2005-10-26T15:10:22Z")
I agree with **Debaser** on this. **ElvisL1ves** gave a statement that sounds very much like a factual statement to me and then tried to hide. If W, or Rush or Coulter or somebody of that ilk tried to get away with that kind of spin do you think **Elvis** would let it go? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2005, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disagreement-with-mod-actions-of-tomndebb-re-elvisl1ves-in-gd-thread/327998/6 "2005-10-26T15:31:22Z")
> [@Neurotik](#): > > Bullfeathers. He specifically said that the new constitution created a theocracy with legalized retribution against Sunnis, then couldn’t back it up and tried to pass off his statement of fact as opinion. > > **Elvis** is a fucking asshole and completely in the wrong here. **Debaser** was right to call him on it, and to call him a liar. **Elvis** made a factual statement, got nailed on it, then tried to backpedal like the stupid coward he is by saying, “It was clearly hypothetical.” **Tom** was also in the wrong to come down on you. **Neurotik** nailed it. ISTM that **tomndebb** is tending in the direction of labelling statements with which he disagrees as statements that are deliberately false and inflammatory. He did it here, with his characterization of your (IMO completely justified) calling **ElvisL1ves** on his lie as “bait”. He did it with me, where I also stated an opinion (that Clinton lied about his motives for bombing Iraq), where he accused me of deliberately making a false statement to set up a strawman. Calling something a “lie” in GD has been ruled acceptable in the past. If this has changed, a sticky to that effect ought to be posted. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2005, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disagreement-with-mod-actions-of-tomndebb-re-elvisl1ves-in-gd-thread/327998/7 "2005-10-26T15:45:02Z")
Countdown until someone accuses **Tomndebb** of “liberal bias” in 5… 4… 3… ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2005, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disagreement-with-mod-actions-of-tomndebb-re-elvisl1ves-in-gd-thread/327998/8 "2005-10-26T15:49:16Z")
> [@rjung](#): > > Countdown until someone accuses **Tomndebb** of “liberal bias” in 5… 4… 3… From the OP: > [@Debaser](#): > > I’m not suggesting bias on the part of tomndebb. I just think that he’s wrong in this case. ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2005, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disagreement-with-mod-actions-of-tomndebb-re-elvisl1ves-in-gd-thread/327998/9 "2005-10-26T15:49:35Z")
I’m just savouring the delicious irony of The Usual Suspects who are so quick to claim ‘liberal pile-on’, piling on. ---
**Author:** ![woodstockbirdybird](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/woodstockbirdybird/32/7905_2.png) [@woodstockbirdybird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/woodstockbirdybird)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2005, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disagreement-with-mod-actions-of-tomndebb-re-elvisl1ves-in-gd-thread/327998/10 "2005-10-26T15:52:54Z")
> [@rjung](#): > > Countdown until someone accuses **Tomndebb** of “liberal bias” in 5… 4… 3… I haven’t seen anyone even hinting at that here yet, so why are you trying to stir up shit? FWIW, I’m pretty damned liberal, but I agree 100% with **Debaser** here. I don’t think the “lying” remark was unacceptable (or even particularly snarky) given the bullshit way **Elvis** framed his “argument”. ---
**Author:** ![Uncommon\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Uncommon\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uncommon_Sense)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2005, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disagreement-with-mod-actions-of-tomndebb-re-elvisl1ves-in-gd-thread/327998/11 "2005-10-26T16:01:31Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > But to suggest that you’re purely innocent in the matter, is the equivalent of pious hypocrisy. Knowing **Elvis** as the OP here proves you must, you could have expected the results you got. And **that** is, IMO, what **Tom~** had problems with you about. He, no doubt, saw it as a form of baiting, even if you didn’t intend it to come out that way. Hold on. Are you saying that we have to walk on eggshells because some other poster has a tendency to be half cocked? Just because you suspect a poster may react sharply to your response shouldn’t alter the response itself when delivered in a genuine way. He may have suspected a certain reaction but he shouldn’t have to be wary of said reaction. That is the responsibility of the respondent, No? ---
**Author:** ![Uncommon\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Uncommon\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uncommon_Sense)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2005, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disagreement-with-mod-actions-of-tomndebb-re-elvisl1ves-in-gd-thread/327998/12 "2005-10-26T16:04:49Z")
> [@tagos](#): > > I’m just savouring the delicious irony of The Usual Suspects who are so quick to claim ‘liberal pile-on’, piling on. No-one mentioned political agenda untill a pile-on artist himself did. :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2005, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disagreement-with-mod-actions-of-tomndebb-re-elvisl1ves-in-gd-thread/327998/13 "2005-10-26T16:06:17Z")
> [@Uncommon Sense](#): > > No-one mentioned political agenda untill a pile-on artist himself did. :dubious: No one needs to actually say shit when we can smell it either. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2005, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disagreement-with-mod-actions-of-tomndebb-re-elvisl1ves-in-gd-thread/327998/14 "2005-10-26T16:10:08Z")
> [@woodstockbirdybird](#): > > I haven’t seen anyone even hinting at that here yet, so why are you trying to stir up shit? I dunno, looks to me like **Shodan** was dippin’ a toe into the water there. But then, the guy still thinks GWB is competent, so his judgement clearly isn’t up to snuff… ---
**Author:** ![Harborwolf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Harborwolf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Harborwolf)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2005, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disagreement-with-mod-actions-of-tomndebb-re-elvisl1ves-in-gd-thread/327998/15 "2005-10-26T16:10:49Z")
> [@rjung](#): > > Countdown until someone accuses **Tomndebb** of “liberal bias” in 5… 4… 3… Please stop. Every time you post something like this, the collective i.q. of the board drops. I agree with the op. Elvis said clearly that the constitution would create a theocracy, lead to retribution and Kurdistans succession. As it’s GD, I’d think that even if it was stated as an opinion he should be posting his reasons for the belief. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2005, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disagreement-with-mod-actions-of-tomndebb-re-elvisl1ves-in-gd-thread/327998/16 "2005-10-26T16:24:47Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > I read this statement by ElvisL1ves to factually state that the new Iraqi constitution that we are discussing creates the following: > > 1. creating an oppressive theocracy like Iran, > 2. combined with legalized retribution against the Sunnis > 3. and provision for Kurdistan’s secession. If you’d go back into that thread, you’d see that **Kimstu** has provided a quite-detailed summary from the text itself to support that. As I said there, I made the assumption that the other participants in the thread had actually read at least a summary of this constitution. That assumption was mistaken; obviously you have no interest in finding out for yourself, but are satisfied to simply take the word of, well, who was it this time? Bill O’Reilly? Now that you are aware that what I said was soundly based in fact, and that your contrary view is not, how does that change your working definition of “lying”? It’s a given that you won’t back away from it. As for your other examples, those too are discussions about what constitutes fact. The definitions and explanations I gave to you about the function of Social Security and how it differs from Ponzi schemes are similarly statements of fact. That you have apparently been misled by your favorite RW commentators into believing the opposite does not make my statements of fact the opposite. The burden of adjusting your views to conform to fact is your own, but you have failed utterly to accept it. Now you’ve been admonished for it and choose to whine like a kindergartner instead. > [@](#): > > I’m not being deliberately belligerent…I was trying to be as civil as possible Tell it to the chaplain. Your un-thought-out use of the word “lying” is not consistent with that smarmy little act of self-excuse. You know as well as anyone that there was no baiting by anyone until your own. You now know as well that your accusation of “lying” is itself a lie. > [@](#): > > I’m not suggesting bias on the part of **tomndebb**. Um, right. :wally I will not recapitulate my mistaken assumption above, that everyone who’s posted a cheap opinion in this thread has taken the trouble to read the ones linked to in the OP, to steer clear of his self-pitying cherrypicking and find out what was actually said. Obviously some of the other members of Waah, The World Is Picking On Us Again Club enjoy their own company too much. ---
**Author:** ![brickbacon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@brickbacon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brickbacon)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2005, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disagreement-with-mod-actions-of-tomndebb-re-elvisl1ves-in-gd-thread/327998/17 "2005-10-26T16:34:50Z")
> [@Harborwolf](#): > > I agree with the op. Elvis said clearly that the constitution would create a theocracy, lead to retribution and Kurdistans succession. As it’s GD, I’d think that even if it was stated as an opinion he should be posting his reasons for the belief. I agree. But let’s not pretend his statement was intended to be a statement of fact. It was clearly an opinion that should be supported with evidence if any exists. To call him a liar is ridiculous for that reason. His opinion may be unsupportable, but that doesn’t make him a liar. Either way, I think it’s clear **Debaser** has far too much time on his hands. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2005, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disagreement-with-mod-actions-of-tomndebb-re-elvisl1ves-in-gd-thread/327998/18 "2005-10-26T16:40:44Z")
> [@Neurotik](#): > > Bullfeathers. He specifically said that the new constitution created a theocracy with legalized retribution against Sunnis, then couldn’t back it up and tried to pass off his statement of fact as opinion. Not quite. \*\*Elvis \*\*starts his statement by saying “Even if…”, which I interpret as meaning he is presenting a hypothetical. His further clarification indicated he was talking about some future event, which has to be an opinion, since none of us can predict the future. Granted, he talked about it as being inevitable, but I still don’t see it rising to the occasion of lying. ---
**Author:** ![Neurotik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/91b2a8/32.png) [@Neurotik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Neurotik)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2005, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disagreement-with-mod-actions-of-tomndebb-re-elvisl1ves-in-gd-thread/327998/19 "2005-10-26T16:54:55Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Not quite. \*\*Elvis \*\*starts his statement by saying “Even if…”, which I interpret as meaning he is presenting a hypothetical. I disagree. When you start the question with “Even if…” it starts out as hypothetical. But when you then say “Because that’s what this does” it means you are claiming the initial hypothetical as being a fact and reveals the initial “Even if…” to be a rhetorical trap. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2005, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disagreement-with-mod-actions-of-tomndebb-re-elvisl1ves-in-gd-thread/327998/20 "2005-10-26T17:00:32Z")
This discussion is idiotic. Is that fact or opinion? Must I explicitly label every opinion as such? A statement like “Because that’s what this does” can imply “in my opinion,” depending on the context. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disagreement-with-mod-actions-of-tomndebb-re-elvisl1ves-in-gd-thread/327998.md?page=2)