The OP triggered rjung’s “LiberalBiasDenial” neuron. Instead of the other one.
Regards,
Shodan
Ding ding ding ding ding. When you asked for a cite and Elvis clearly gave you his assumptions and framed them as a logical future consequence, you knew then he was talking about the future.
You accused him of lying when you, yes you, you could have backed down and said something less inflammatory, such as, “So you’re saying it is your assumption that it creates a future potential for legalized retribution against the Sunnis? I must discard this point as speculation; it is not established fact. Your cite is inadequate.”
Even Elvis admitted he had no adequate cite. You could have got the disputed point off the table for the right reasons rather than starting a semantic battle for the wrong ones. That you did not is nobody’s problem but your own.
In Kimstu’s three posts before your post in question, he did not. So, you brought it up first, and refused to back it up. If Kimstu posted anything after your inititial statement then you still have yet to even point it out. (As if the statements of another poster constitute a cite that would back up your factual claims.)
:rolleyes:
I really don’t know why I expected better of you, but for some reason I did.
I posted a link to the constitution itself, and referred to it and quoted from it. Clearly, your accusations against me here false, as is the norm for you.
Don’t you find it interesting that liberal posters are not taking your side here?
BTW, I didn’t even offer a “contrary view” such as it were. I simply asked you to back up your claims. Something you still haven’t done, except to point to Kimstu and say “what he said”.
Kimstu seemed to be fairly open minded about the nature of the constitution in any case. If Kimstu comes into this thread he can tell us if he even agrees with your three claims about the constitution, much less will prove them for you. I doubt he will.
This is false and anyone who reads the quotes can see it for themselves. You repeatedly called me a liar. Twice simply for having an opinion that differs from your own, and a third time for a silly strawman that you yourself constructed. And that’s just what I found in a five minute search.
This is simply more bullshit. I didn’t cherry pick at all to get the quotes from this OP. I posted what was relevent to the discussion at hand.
Hello Debaser,
I’m just a guest, but wow - all of that effort for what? In reading your gripe, I don’t understand at all the need for all of this.
After reading this page, I think you’re wrong - and - I think you should apologize for pitting Elvis.
More falsehoods. A link to the thread would have made it immediately clear to any reader that this is false; I’ll provide the link.
Tom said:
He didn’t accuse your opinion of being a false statement. He accused your response of being false, because it falsely reframed what I was asking.
What was I asking? Fortunately, you quoted my question, and fortunately, Tom requoted it. Here it is a third time.
How did you reframe it? Fortunately, Tom quoted it for you; I’ll requote it here.
When I told you that wasn’t what I asked, you went into your “Condescending Idiot” mode. When Tom told you, you argued with him. And now you’re here, still misrepresenting what happened.
If you’d just take your medicine like a man, if you’d just argue with integrity and intelligence, maybe you wouldn’t feel so persecuted by the nasty liberal mods all the time. Of course, maybe that’s the point. I’m no mindreader, but maybe you enjoy the feelings of persecution.
As for Debaser, I have no opinion on his tiff with Elvis; I find both figures so distasteful that I have trouble reading their interactions closely. However, his claim that he’s never gotten a warning before is belied earlier in the linked thread. Color me skeptical.
Daniel
Debaser, Kimstu is a woman. At least, I hope she is, because otherwise I’ll have to deal with issues of my own sexuality. I mean, I’ve been imagining her as a woman who is as hot as she is intelligent. Yowza!
Welcome to the SDMB, joli.
Posters here tend to take moderator actions and warnings seriously. In the GD thread I was facing a well known and respected moderator. He was debating with me, but also chastising me for actions which I don’t consider wrong. The proper place for me to speak out about this is here in the Pit. As you can see from the reactions so far, it just might be that I’m in the right and the moderator was wrong.
It’s not entirely uncommon for things like this to happen, where a poster complains about the actions of a mod. I don’t care about the tiff between me and the other poster. That’s business as usual. It’s more that a mod was finding my actions improper that I came here to defend.
**Kimstu ** is a “she”, you fool.
Woulda been pearls before swine, right?
No. Why would you think the “question” you raised is a partisan one? Can you conceive of any other kind?
So *all * you want to do is whine. Pity, most others in that thread were trying to discuss the topic, and had information and views to contribute.
Back to the TV room, please, the grownups are talking.
I have a little trouble buying the idea that anyone was confused about wether ElvisL1ves was stating fact or opinion. I mean, it seems unlikely that the Iraqis actually passed a Constitution that said, “By the Grace of Allah, we will eradicate the Sunni blashphemers!” I rather expect that would have gotten more media attention.
There. I’ve defended ElvisL1ves in a pit thread. Now I need a shower. I suppose it could have been worse, though: I might have had to defend Debaser. If ever a pair of disingenous, two-faced partisan hacks deserved each other more than the pair of you, I don’t care to know about it.
A moderator simply talking to you doesn’t constitute a warning. At least, I never thought it did. Moderators are very specific with warnings.
For example:
“Left Hand of Dorkness, personal insults are not allowed in GD, knock if off immediately.”
- not a warning.
“Left Hand of Dorkness, personal insults are not allowed in GD, consider yourself warned.”
- is a warning.
Oh. I apologize for my mistake. I had thought otherwise.
:dubious:
You may be right, but I’d be surprised if you were. In any case, if what you’re proud of is having skated close to the line but never having quite stepped over it enough to have them type the words, “consider yourself warned,” then that’s a pretty lousy trophy you go.
Daniel
In the way of background information and not to be construed as current policy, when I issued “warnings that count” back in my mod days, I tried to be pretty explicit about my intentions.
I do not believe it was a misrepresentation.
The question of the OP was as stated - which Democrats also thought Saddam had WMD. Clinton said he thought Saddam had WMD. He also said that this is why he bombed Iraq. That’s why I provided a cite, to show that he had made both claims.
My error, I suspect, was not to mention that the cite was provided to establish two elements of the Clinton lie, not just one.
In other words, Clinton is a known liar. (Too obvious to provide a cite - if you disagree, feel free to stick it up your nose). Therefore, it makes sense (to any but a true believer - read “a moron”), to examine the circumstances and see if Clinton might have some motive for a statement other than a high regard for the truth. Thus, the timing for his Operation Wag the Dog, as well as his lack of follow thru to actually deprive Saddam of the WMD Clinton allegedly used as the reason for bombing, indicate that his statement at to his motives in Wag the Dog were false.
Now here is where the Usual Idiots chime in requiring cites as to what was in Clinton’s mind during WtD. And you chime in (as do others) telling me that you know what I am thinking, but that I do not.
So, when the moronic ElvisL1ves posts something stating explicitly that the constitution legally establishes something, then that is clearly an opinion and no one has the right to call it false or a lie - because we can see into his head and tell that this is how he meant it. Just like you and tomndebb can see into my head, and tell me what I know and what I meant.
But somehow or other, it doesn’t seem so clear and obvious on every topic. Just those that hit someone’s hot buttons. Go figure.
So ElvisL1ves states an opinion, gets called a liar, and Debaser gets warned for doing it. I state an opinion, and tomndebb tells me I am making false statements, and I get warned for it. Again, go figure.
Fine, I retract the statements I made in the linked thread. What I should have said was, the US constitution legally establishes that Clinton was lying about his motives for attacking Iraq.
Better?
Regards,
Shodan
Then it was very stupid for you to preface your cite by quoting me and saying, “You want a cite that Clinton said that Saddam had WMD?” If you’re providing a cite to respond to the OP in the future, and I’m not the OP, don’t quote me, and don’t ask me if I’m saying something I"m clearly not saying.
No. That was not your error. But I’ve explained it to you several times, as has Tom; I really don’t see where explaining it yet again is worthwhile.
But here, at last, you’re putting forth an argument. At the risk that you’ll keep waving your little trophy, the one you won for catching me implying that I know what you’re thinking (i.e., implying that I know that you can read), I’m going to post what I think is your argument:
- Clinton said that Iraq had WMDs.
- Clinton said that he was attacking Iraq because of these WMDs.
- Clinton was a liar about other things.
- Clinton’s timing was suspicious in this case, as was his lack of follow-through.
- Therefore, Clinton was lying.
Is this the substance of your argument, and do you believe it constitutes “putting up” in response to my request in the prevoius thread?
Daniel
Apologies. I wasn’t trying to imply that I thought Debasers remarks about lying were on the mark. They were off the mark.
What I was agreeing with was that Elvis’ remark was not stated as a hypothetical. If I say “I am going to go to the store,” that’s not a hypothetical. When he says that the events listed “are going to happen,” then he clearly believes that they are going to happen. That’s why we have the word “may.”
And as I said, even if it was stated as a hypothetical, he should at least be saying why he feels that way instead of ducking out by saying that he doesn’t have to explain anything because it is an opinion.
That’s a good point, but he’s still talking about something that hasn’t happened yet. If he were talking about a past event, it would be hard to justify the idea that it’s just an opinion. And I certainly agree that he should at least have pointed out which part of the constitution made him think it would be open season on Sunnis. That’s an absurd statement to make.
:shrugs:
You requested an example of a lie that Clinton told that was equivalent to what you think Bush did. So I gave it to you.
You need to understand something.
“Putting up” in this context does not constitute an invitation to debate. Take it for what it is worth, dismiss it if you like, repost your arguments for the umpteenth time - just don’t expect a debate. There are some topics, as I also mentioned in the other thread, that the SDMB is not capable of debating rationally. Bush’s motives vis-a-vis Iraq is one of those topics. It can’t be debated without being accused of arguing in bad faith.
It was a mistake on my part to participate in the other thread, it was a mistake to respond to you, it was a mistake to respond to tomndebb. It is probably a mistake to respond to you here.
I don’t mean to “wave my trophy” if that offends you, so I won’t. The Usual Assholes will jerk each off in glee at having shouted down someone as well as the rest of the entirely predictable response I mentioned in the other thread, but there is nothing I can do about that.
“We will have to agree to disagree”, or “fuck off”. However you want to interpret it.
Regards,
Shodan
Couple of quick points. Mis-Idnetifying some one’s gender here should elicit something along the lines of “so and so is (fe)male” vs. “you fool”, for the most part. I suppose if some one misidentified “pammigrrl” as a male, I’d add a ‘point and laugh’ sort of thing, but really, it’s damned difficult to identify gender in a written medium.
I"m more than a little bit tired of the whole “you liar” thing in the first place. Especially when the actual thing being claimed is “you’re wrong”.
the two examples listed in the OP have a major difference - the instance in the current GD thread speaks about the future of a government that ratified it’s constitution like yesterday. I would have thought it’d be perfectly clear that any comment about what how that government will operate would of necessity be of an opinion vs. factual based.
the Social Security comment, however, it’s also clear that there’s an abundance of data from that system, therefore a statement about how that system operate(s) would be more of a factual basis (although there also could be opinions about how well it operates, what it will do in the future and so on).
That said, I think both the pittee and the pitter were less than clear in their statements, and way too quick on the snarky bullshit.
I guess that’s why I’ve (mostly) avoided GD for the past while. The vindictiveness in the Pit is more honest than the snarkiness there.
Sorry I missed this earlier.
In the interest of keeping the actions of Moderators clear, most of us have been following the suggestion offered last summer that any Warning we issue be accompanied by a clear statement to that point. I have certainly been following that suggestion.
I would much rather get people to rein in their emotions (or take them to the Pit) before anyone goes so far that I need to issue a Warning.
If I do not tell you that I am issuing a Warning, then you have not been officially Warned.