SA, this is such a rich opportunity for you! All you need do is locate one post where the deranged lefty poster said Cheney was “mean”, followed by a post wherein you inquired for evidence, followed by an deranged lefty maundering aimlessly or suggesting that sheer Republicanism was proof certain!
That’s all you have to do! And then you have every right to do the Snoopy Victory Dance while your opponents gnash thier teeth and eat crow!
Unless, of course, you ain’t got the goods…
Hot shit, I made the list? Don’t play with my emotions here! Are you bestowing this honor upon me, or funnin’ with me? Tell me, please! I must know.
I see we’ve chosen the “Let’s fib about the nature of the request and hope no one notices” route.
Or rather, I should say that you are attempting a mixture of the “Fib about the nature of the request” and the “meaningless semantic distinction” dodges. If you are now claiming that unsubstantiated accusations of murder and saying that Cheney is Evil Incarnate is significantly different from calling him mean, you are either a fool, or desperate.
Right, this is what I meant by trolling. You know, and knew, perfectly well that this was so obvious as to require no cite. Yet you pretended that you needed one as a way to [list=A][li]try to distract from the actual debate, and [*] attempt to wear out Starving Artist with this kind of bullshit. Then, when he drops the thread, you can claim victory by default.[/list][/li]
Well, no, the shifting of goal posts is what you are attempting now. From your earlier claim that you didn’t believe that “people say that Cheney is mean”, which you now admit you never doubted all along, to a new claim that you had in mind all along. Then, when I provide cites for that, you will attempt to re-frame your claim for something else, and on and on.
See above. You are, of course, projecting here, and hoping for the usual chorus from the Usual Suspects to back you up.
No, the definition is as I described it. Unless you include “goal-shifting” and trolling as described as “winning”. No doubt you do; it is your best and only chance of finding some way in which you are winning the debate.
Oh, not so bad. My back is bothering me less. Thanks for asking.
Regards,
Shodan
Most likely the crushing burden of supporting the unsupportable. Get out from under, you’ll feel better.
Well, to be absolutely precise, it was elucidator, not Miller, who asked for a cite that SA had made a specific challenge in a specific thread, and had received numerous vague responses in that specific thread, that amounted to an admission that the charge of Cheney being mean was based solely upon his appearance.
When Starving Artist submitted a link to a thread that at least contained a challenge similar in character to the one referred to by him on page 1 of this thread, Miller stepped up and pointed out why the thread in no way matched his description of the numerous vague responses.
Yes, you are part of that mercifully small group of posters who show up in nearly every political thread to basically accuse every poster with a legitimate issue to discuss, but who you happen to disagree with, of practicing partisan politics. Yes, you declare every single criticism that happens to go against your party leanings to be irrelevant or illegitimate, without every really demonstrating factually that this is so. Yes, your posts are entirely predictable, entirely banal and add nothing but noise to the discussion. Enjoy your honor.
Nearly every political thread? You might want to do the math on that accusation, then come back with an apology.
But I appreciate the honor. Coming from a broad-brush master, it means a lot.
I didn’t think to open this thread til today; I had no idea it would take over three pages to say “not by anyone who’s actually capapble of independent thought.”
Good God, but you’re stupid. Please leave of slurping Shodan’s ass long enough to consider the following. Evil and mean are not the same. No, you probably can’t be evil without being mean as well, but you’ve pretty much proven that someone can be mean and small minded without actually being evil, in much the same way as the phone reps for the department of motor vehicles do just by existing.
What you asked for, you trog, was opinions. That was exactly what you got. I realize that an opinion that isn’t force fed down your massive Coors swilling boneless barbecued chicken wing glutted gullet by some authority figure is as alien to you as consensual sex with someone you don’t have to pay to blow you, and that a woman who isn’t afraid to say exactly what she’s thinking is as scary as the mental image of you in a leopard skin thong on a crowded beach, but that does not mean that opinion isn’t valid.
Dick Cheney is evil because he treats other human beings like things. He has no problem ordering men and women into harm’s way if it can enhance his net worth. He has proven time and again that the only personal freedoms he values are his own, and he takes actual pleasure in supressing the rights of others.
Now, I realize that opinion disagrees with everything you hold holy, and you have to sneer and point because, let’s face it, the bluster covers up your fear of all things different which causes your rectum to pucker and your penis to crawl up into your abdominal cavity, but then, you don’t HAVE to agree with it. You don’t even have to acknowledge it. Because people like you are becoming fewer and fewer, and opinions like yours increasingly irrelevant. So you and Shodan can go ahead and congratulate yourselves over some silly little point you think you’ve won all you want. Reality is catching up fast.
Nah, you don’t make the list. You actually show glimmers of humor on occasion, and a sense of humor constitutes intelligence. I still hold out hope for you, duffer 
“Broad-brush Master”, eh? Is that some kind of Ninja thing?
Uh, sorry to be nitpicky, but you misquoted me in your last post, you know. It’s customary to either quote the whole sentence, or use ellipses to indicate the text not quoted. The way you did it kind of changes the context.
I accused you of being a member of a group that regularly posts the same damn thing to many political threads, not that you personally do every single time, nor that what you post and what, say, SA posts are necessarily the same thing. Sorry if I wasn’t clear.
Sorry likewise for being cranky but really, dude, your habit of leading off a post by pre-emptively accusing anyone who might decide to disagree with it of somehow having it in for you personally is bloody annoying. I would never presume to suggest that you quit posting to these threads, I don’t even dislike you particularly, I’m simply protesting what tendentious bores you, and SA, and Shodan, can be at times. What, if anything, you do with that information is entirely up to you.
There. I’ve apologized to you in three different ways. Hope that’s satisfactory.
Oh, you want cites? Hmm, think I’ll take the Starving Artist defense. I don’t see any need to dig up cites for something so self-evident. Seriously, though, if you feel that what I’ve said above is false, I’ll be happy to find a minimum of four citations from the past month or two of your posts that confirm my point.
Nope. The nature of the request has changed precisely once in this thread. Originally, it was “show that people who say Cheney is mean do not have any reasons for saying so.” SA failed so entirely in that task that it was broadened to “People who say Cheney is mean, period.” This was actually by way of a favor to SA, because it’s an easier request to fulfil. He was also unable to meet that request, which I admit surprised me, as I thought it would be relatively simple.
I prefer to think of it as “competent in the English language.” The guy who used to bully me in high school was mean. Adolf Hitler was evil. To say that Adolf Hitler was mean would be rather pointless, as “mean” is such an inconsequential fault compared to his other crimes. A person arguing that Cheney is actually evil is most likely not interested in defending the position that he’s mean. It’s too minor a distinction to worry about, relative to his over-all character.
[quote]
Right, this is what I meant by trolling. You know, and knew, perfectly well that this was so obvious as to require no cite. Yet you pretended that you needed one as a way to [list=A][li]try to distract from the actual debate, and [*] attempt to wear out Starving Artist with this kind of bullshit. Then, when he drops the thread, you can claim victory by default.[/list][/li][/quote]
Wow, that would be a really stupid plan, since all Starving Artist would have to do to shut me down would be to post the requested cite. And since the claim is so obvious, it should have been easy for him to provide a cite. Easier than all this dodging and weaving he’s been practicing so far, at any rate.
And no, I did not “know perfectly well” that such cites existed. I assumed they did, but an assumption is not the same as actual knowledge (a distinction SA should take to heart) His total inability to provide any sort of substance for his claims has made me re-evaluate that assumption.
How have I shifted any goal posts? I’m still requesting exactly the same thing: a cite for people calling Cheney mean, and then admitting that they didn’t have any reason to call him mean. In an attempt to actually move this debate forward, it was relaxed to, “Someone calling Cheney mean.” From my first post here, I’ve maintained a distinction between “mean” and “evil,” so rejecting your cites does not constitute a moving of goal posts at all. It is, in fact, an attempt to prevent the same. The original claim was “mean,” so I want to see some evidence for “mean.”
Yeah, right. Because I’m in tight with that crowd. Do a search for my name and ElvisL1ves or rjung. I’ve got about as much contempt for them as I do for you. The whole lot of you are the “Usual Suspects.” You’re all blindly partisan, wholly dishonest, and thankfully so busy sniping at each other that you mostly leave the rest of us alone. And you are their Keyzer Soze.
Speaking of projecting…
Well, don’t lift anything heavy for a little while.
As you may be aware if you’ve followed the entire thread, I made my original post in haste as I was getting ready to leave for a friend’s house and I posted the link to elucidator as I was headed out the door. I made a follow-up response to John Mace from my friend’s house. My original assertion was intended as a sort of throw-away post to the effect that while Cheney may be widely thought of as mean (and I would certainly include ‘evil’ in this definition), I remembered a Cheney-bashing thread wherein I recalled no substantive response to my question as to whether anyone could come up with any definite instances of Cheney exhibiting mean behavior. It was a hurried and lightly posted comment intended merely to illustrate the likelihood that any impression of Cheney as being mean-spirited was off-base.
Several of my old enemies immediately seized upon the factual errors they were able to find regarding my paraphrase of the old thread and used it to construct this utterly ridiculous hijack.
I have been involved in enough of these disingenuous, obfuscatory and dishonest citefests before to know that they lead nowhere. No matter what cite I would come up with, it would only lead to further nitpicks and hairsplitting. Further, I dislike doing searches. I don’t use the search feature here much and I don’t use the search feature on any of the other boards I frequent either. The search capabilites are too imprecise, and as I said I’ve got better things to do with my time that to sift through 100 posts trying to find a nugget here or there that I could post as a cite…and a cite that would accomplish absolutely nothing worthwhile.
When people like mhendo and Miller challenge me to provide cites, they are really just looking for fresh material to split hairs with. The last thing they are looking for is an honest and accurate appraisal of the issue at hand (as Miller has admitted in this very thread by virtue of his demanding cites for information that he acknowledges exists in plentitude to begin with). As I said before, I’ve been there and done that and I have chosen not to play their game.
Well, I’m sorry to cause you such consternation, dear ETF. It all depends upon one’s perspective I suppose, but this thread is pretty much all good to me: I get to hear from old friends like you who I hear from only rarely; I get to study the dispassionate, objective and intelligent posting style of Shodan (sorry, Maureen ;); the humor of Duffer; I get to see Miller show his ass; and probably many more people have been exposed to my take on Cheney’s meanness than would ever have seen it otherwise had this ludicrous hijack not taken place.
Well, I don’t have Bricker’s patience for one thing, especially for the likes of 'hendo and Miller. However, have you overlooked my post to Kaylasdad in which I acknowledged that I had mis-recollected the specific details of the thread I mentioned, and my subsequent post to the effect that when I screw up like that I own it and just have to take my lumps? Kaylasdad pretty much promised me a big ol’ liberal hug if I would admit that I had made an error in what I’d posted, but all I got was a “see you around” from him and an accusation of stupidity from 'hendo for saying I owned it and had to take my lumps accordingly.
So you see, the true motives of my antagonists are crystal clear. They are not interested in the slightest in the question of whether Cheney may accurately be thought of as a ‘mean’ person, nor are they interested in all in a genuine debate with me. All they are interested in is hair-splitting and bogus calls for cites in an attempt to derail a perfectly valid point that they aren’t able to contest otherwise.
Now, having said that all that…how the hell are ya? 
Translation: Look at me, I tapdance almost as badly as the object of the OP, but I’m not about to stop now when lying has served me so well thus far.
Your “paraphrase” was 100% counterfactual to what actually happened in that thread. And if you’d just admitted that from the outset, this hijack would never have happened. Instead, we got ludicrous statements like, “The fact that no one answered me proves there was no answer!” Christ, just admit that you can’t prove what you initially claimed: there is no thread where people who hate Cheney were shown to have no legitimate reason for there gripes, and put this fucking thread to sleep already.
Jesus. Poor fucking you. Here’s an idea: if you don’t like having to do searches, don’t make claims about what other board members have said in the past. Because if you do, there isn’t a forum on this board where someone won’t ask you for a cite.
Once again, you are lying. I never acknowledged that they existed. Before I asked for any cites, I would have guessed that they existed. Since you have failed resoundingly to provide any, my current guess is that they don’t exist.
Bullshit, you fucking liar. You did no such thing in this thread. Unless you mean this pathetic little dodge:
You call that an apology? You “mis-remembered” some of the “finer points” of that thread? Every single thing you said about that thread was incorrect! It bore absolutely no resemblence to your claim! “Finer details?” Are you totally fucking shameless?
Actually, that’s pretty much how i view all of your posts.
Ah yes, the “support your assertions and debate rationally and honestly” game. It’s certainly true that you have chosen not to play that one.
Funny that you have the patience to keep repeating the same untruths over and over, but not the patience to get it right in the first place. The only person i’ve seen who competes with you for sheer dishonesty and delusion is the late, unlamented milroyj.
This is rich!
Given that you’ve put this silly exaggeration in quotes, I’m sure you can come up with a cite to prove it.
Or are you really just engaging in a perfectly understandable type of throw-away comment intended to illustrate what you view as my POV… you know, exactly the same kind of thing that you’ve been assailing me for these last few days? 
You’re hoist on your own petard yet again, Miller.
Perhaps the thread would have gone to sleep by now, given the weak, boring and impotent comment by Maureen that preceded yours. But no, you take what I would call a childish pride in attempting to “outlast” me (as you’ve admitted before)…thus you keep reviving it.
I have no problem with cites that are factual and that put an issue to rest once and for all. They tend to be easy to find for one thing, and they aren’t open to interpretation and semantic hair-splitting.
Cite?
I see you’ve been to the 'hendo school of putting words in my mouth. I called it an acknowledgement. Surely one who would quibble over the semantic difference between ‘mean’ and ‘evil’ can make the distinction between apology and acknowledgement.
I’m afraid you’ve become so foam-flecked with frustration and anger that you’ve lost all perspective, Miller.
I, for one, am impressed with the calm and civil manner in which SA supports an indefensible position. Class. Of a sort.
Steerage?
I wouldn’t know, Greyhound has no such distinctions.
Pwned!
Now the thread is interesting - I can’t predict how Miller is going to deal with this little contradiction. Deny he said it? Pretend he didn’t see it? Come up with some particularly strained justification for “it’s OK when I do it - but not for you”? Change the subject? Name-calling?
Inquiring minds want to know!
Regards,
Shodan