Actually, this turned out to be kinda fun.
I should get myself pitted more often.
Actually, the onl,y part that comes from Sam himself, is this: “I suggest you ignore the American media, and go right to the source material, which is where I’ve gotten most of this information from.” The rest is from the CPA. presumably, the CPA’s stuff, even when posted here, isn’t copyrighted by the SDMB.
Not true! I dropped by to compliment Svinlesha, dumping crap on this ridiculous thread was just too easy a bonus to be denied.
I have plenty of class, I’m just picky about where I use it. I respect Svinlesha’s decision to extend such benevolence to all, I just choose not to live up to such a christ-like standard, especially when presented with someone who makes no such effort at benevolence (by someone I mean you).
Besides, I thought my reluctance to attempt such a feat of patience and diplomacy was well displayed by this line:
Which rather succintly sums up my aforementioned postion.
In closing: C’mon man, are you fuckin’ kidding me? Is this the best you can do? A protestation of hypocrisy that doesn’t even momentarily stand up to a review? Shit, if I were you I’d be damn glad this didn’t turn into an honest-to-God pit thread. You’d be Sam Pebbles by now.
Weird with words indeed. And vaguely familiar somehow.
Compliment Mr. S.. WW, you gotta be kidding! You need protect his ego like a rhinoceros needs protection from a ravening chihuahua!
Lib:
Care to expand on that line of thought? I hate to think I bear any remblance to anyone, though I suppose it can hardly be avoided.
Elucidator:
I suppose I don’t know the depths of his ego, since I’ve never seen it displayed. I just think it’s refreshing to have someone around with the same persistence and scholarly integrity of Collounsbary, but without the flagrant displays of contemptuous language.
Looking back, I actually regret my last two posts. Not because I feel I was unjust, but rather, because I sullied my compliments to Svin by locking them hand-in-hand with a Sam Slam.
Kinda like when Jimmy Carter was given the nobel peace prize. He was entirely deserving, but it would have been better if they had just awarded it to him while letting the Bush slam remain implicit. Had they done so, any criticism of whether or not the award was warranted would have to be aimed at Carter himself, which would not have played well in the press.
elucidator:
Yes, not to mention that I got some really excellent beauty tips!
Sam, you know, now that we’re being all cozy and everything down here in the Pit (not that there’s a snowball’s chance in hell I’m swapping spit with you), might I be permitted to make an observation concerning your character? (You just knew this was coming, didn’t you.)
I can’t help but notice that you occasionally express a certain ambivalence in your relationship to the SDMB, and maybe to interacting on the net in general. This isn’t the first time I’ve read remarks like this one:
…emanating from your keyboard, for example.
At the same time, you wonder if it is fair to characterize your post here as a “rampage,” as I did in my original message to coll. I’d like to suggest to you that these two statements are related.
If you review the posts that caused to me to react, you’ll note that you begin by stating, “These are the facts,” followed by a list of items that may or may not support your position, and that are in fact rather difficult to put into context. You go on from there to assert that everyone else participating in the thread – or at least, the skeptics – actually don’t know what they’re talking about because they get their news from “the media,” a biased source. (This claim seems to imply, further, that your sources are not biased). You then wind up your argument (in either that post or the one following) by insinuating that those who still have doubts, or who adopt a critical attitude, are really just driven by their “Bush hate” – a claim that is little more than a backhanded ad hominem, really.
You are very adapt at defending yourself in this forum, but speaking for myself, truth is, you may be just a little too adapt, if you get my meaning. You landed in that thread with both feet flying, dogmatic assertions at the ready, kung fu-style. It was almost a “rampage.” And naturally, when you do something like that, you create an emotional reaction in all the other posters who happen to be participating in the debate. Namely, they counter-attack, often with the same sort of vigor. And the end result of the dynamic is that you suddenly find yourself at the receiving end of a whole lot of shit that you don’t really like all that much, often from a whole lot of people. Which, in its turn, lessens your personal enjoyment of the discussion and leaves you feeling profoundly ambivalent about whether the whole thing is really fun or not, or worthwhile or not, and so on.
Again, speaking for myself, it’s almost like I have this little Sam Stone meter inside of me, and as I read your posts the meter tilts upward, tilts upward, and then suddenly hits the red zone. And then I used to do something like dive-bomb your thread with sarcastic comments, etc. – things that really aren’t like me, most of the time. I’ve managed to quit doing that, but in this particular situation, the stuff you had written created an almost visceral reaction in me, something along the lines of, “Uh-oh, here we go again. I know there’s something wrong with this; he’s only telling half the story, or something.” But I couldn’t quite figure out what it was. That’s why I acted on an impulse and posted it over at coll’s journal, which I now realize was a mistake.
I guess the point I’m trying to make is that in your posts here at the SDMB you either consciously or unconsciously provoke reactions that you later find unpleasant. You do this by stating you arguments in a categorical, dogmatic fashion, taking “the high road” in debate exchanges, employing subtle ad hominems, and/or tending to paint your opponents with a broad brush. In all fairness, of course, when the debate actually gets down to brass tacks (as in our exchange over the aluminum tubes), all of that stuff fades out and you do really address the issue…but when you start out, you tend to be a little “over the top,” from my perspective.
I don’t think its fair to say that you get exposed to a lot of this shit because your views are so “conservative;” after all, in my experience, not many of the conservative posters here are subjected to the kind of abuse you seem to regularly attract. And of course, even if what I’m writing is true, it in no way excuses others for their own actions, which are of course their own responsibility, ultimately. Anyway, for the sake of your own enjoyment here, you might want to reflect a bit over your posting style to see if you notice there’s any truth to my observations.
But like hell I’m going to kiss you.
Finally, Wierd with Words: please keep up the good work.
With me, flattery will get you everywhere.
Mr. S:
Fair enough. But I’ve never complained about similar hard-charging on the part of others. I enjoy a tough debate. For instance, you and I locked horns several times over the ‘do trees pollute’ thing, and it forced us both to hit the books and do some digging to represent our point of view. And frankly, I think we both came away from that giving a little up to the other side. And although the debate started off with quite a bit of rancor (me getting on your case about calling me a ‘liar’ for making the claim), it settled down fairly quickly and became one of the better discussions we’ve had. And a model for how I’d like to see debates go on this board - tough, well cited, but ultimately with both sides being fair and giving respect to the other.
My problem with this place of late is that debates are rarely like this. There are a number of posters around here who spend their time not engaging in honest debate, but prowling the forum looking for people they dislike that they can dive-bomb and take cheap shots at. I think we all know who they are. Their first instinct is to go personal, and even when a debate does end in a concession from one side, they can’t resist popping in to saying things like, “Wow, you ripped him a new one BUT GOOD! It’s about time someone showed him how stupid he is.”
Needless to say, this behaviour has a chilling effect on honest debate. It causes both sides to lock down and refuse to give an inch. It raises the heat-to-light ratio. it turns the place into just another partisan piss-fest, in a world way too full of them.
The problem is that there is damned little respect around here anymore for one’s opponents. Everyone on the other side is treated like an idiot or an asshole. Every debate is flavored with a hint of, “I’m going to make you feel REALLY stupid by the time I’m done!” It makes the place quite unpleasant to be around sometimes, especially when you’re in the minority. I adopted a strategy a while ago of not putting up with it, and calling people on it when they do it, if for no other reason than to bring it to the attention of others (including the mods) in the hope that people will start backing off and debating honestly again.
But that’s probably too much to hope for. These are tendentious times. Partisan sniping seems to have become the normal mode of discourse. Everyone’s backed into their corners, and the knives are out. I guess I’ll just have to live with it.
But I hope this helps you understand how upset I was when I read Collounsbury’s site and saw my name being dragged through the mud there. I hold him to blame for a good chunk of the deterioration that went on in this place.
Hell, I didn’t even no ol’ Collounsbury even had a website. Nor would I go there, even if someone were to email me the location. Nosirree, Bob!
I tend to observe other people’s personalities and tendencies with a frequency that borders on obsession, and I like to share those observations with the subject of my observation. For a while it got me into a lot of trouble, at which point I just stopped sharing that kind of shit. But lately I’ve been trying to steer myself towards allowing the complimentary truths to be heard. I’ve found that compliments almost always cheer their targets to some degree, and that nothing is more flattering than a compliment that comes from keen observation and nigh-absolute frankness. Now if only I could get better at disclosing the less complimentary truths…
BTW, you just FUBARed the majority of nobility you’ve gained here. Not that you’re incorrect, quite the opposite. But, to take a page from The High Road: For Evil Geniuses, the best tack to take would have been to just let this thread drop. Then, perhaps in a week or so, bring up those personality issues mentioned above on another occasion, hopefully using such language as “Sam my boy, you know you’re my friend, but…” This serves not only to make you look like you’re telling him something he needs to know for his own good; but it also serves to screw any chance he might have had at responding with thunder and anger in an attempt to dodge the issue (see: Bill O’Reilly on NPR).
As it stands, you’ve just watered down your apology with criticism – albeit delicate – when there was quite possibly nothing to be gained in terms of your image. Oh well, you’ll learn. We can’t all becomes evil geniuses of real politick over night.
P.S. Never acknowledge a compliment, unless in conversation, and then only with a nod of the head and a murmured thank you. The acknowledgement might make the complimenting party feel good, but what good does it do you?
elucidator: Really? I mean, really? You wouldn’t even, like, peek?
Sam, I may be entirely wrong, and if I am then I owe you an apology since most of the sentiments of my above posts derive from this misconception, but I’ve always been under the impression that you and Brutus and december were at the forefront of the “partisan piss fest.”
Once again, could be wrong, but I don’t think I’ve ever seen you stray from the party line, and I’ve been watching for a couple of years.
Err, I certainly and unabashedly tow the Party line, but I don’t think I represent the same political philosophy and/or branch of The Party as did our dearly departed Br’er December (a closet Red, if you ask me), or Sam. It’s all about the nuance, baby.
Better take another look. I’ve hammered Bush plenty. I’ve criticised his lousy department of homeland security, his big spending ways, his decision on cloning, his moralizing, his expansion of the Dept. of Education, his steel tariffs, his farm subsidies, etc.
Come to think of it, there’s not much I DO like. As I’ve said before, if I were an American, the only thing that would get me to vote for Bush is the fact that the Democratic opposition is so freaking pathetic.
I’m a small-c economic conservative, and a social liberal. I want a government that interferes as little as possible in the economy, and not at all in the private lives of people. I’m agnostic on abortion, having trouble with both sides. I’m pro gay rights, and have no problem with gay marriage. I’m against the drug war. If I were a Republican, I couldn’t get elected dogcatcher in Podunk with my views.
It’s true that I wind up defending the Bush administration on this board, but that’s for a couple of reasons: First, I support this war. And second, I support his tax cuts. And those two issues tend to dominate debates around here, so I can understand why you’d think I was some Bush partisan.
By the way, there’s two aspects to a ‘partisan piss fest’. Partisanship is only part of it, and the least objectional part. There are plenty of partisans out there who can make their case with eloquence and wit, on both sides of the aisle. It’s the ‘piss fest’ part that really gets to me. If you can’t refute your oponents without resorting to personal smears and ad-hominem cheap shots, then perhaps you should reconsider either your debating ability or the strength of your arguments (this is the generic ‘you’ - not you personally).
It can be done, you know. There are posters on this board who disagree with me vehemently, and vice versa, yet whom I’ve never taken issue with. Jshore, for example. We rarely agree, but our disagreements are always civil and respectful. And he’s a damned good debater, to whom I have had to concede points on many occasions.
That would be “toe”, Brutus. From what I can figure out, your branch would be the “Shameless Imperialists”, no?
And december a Red? I’m gonna have to mark my calendar; never thought I’d see the day when he was described that way.
A) I was under the assumption that ‘tow the line’ had it’s roots in some naval nomenclature. As in, lets all ‘tow the line’ together, etc.
B) SPQA? No need to prepend ‘shameless’, ‘Imperialist’ alone does the trick.
C) Bit tongue in cheek. Comrade December was no member of Comintern. Elucidator, on the other hand…
Shit. Time for me to fess up. I knew the day would come, just didn’t think it would be today. I wanted to drag it out a bit longer, see if anybody would make the connection on their own, and it looked like Libertarian was just about to, but I guess now I’ll never know…
People, there has been a mistake. Elucidator’s latest post, the one referring to Sam’s partisanship (or, as I see now, my misconception of his partisanship), was actually my post.
[gasp from the audience]But how could that be?!
Because, [dramatic pause] I’m his son.
My dad just left to go see Emmy Lou (or something. I wouldn’t know Emmy Lou from Lucy Liu. Well, that’s kind of a lie. Lucy Liu’s hOt with a capital ‘O’, which stands for: “O, fuck yeah!”) So I took the chance to play with his new computer. And, though I never in my life would have guessed that I’d ever say this, I got fucked by cookies.
So, now that you who my father is, please don’t hold it against me. I’ve already had to suffer with it for twenty-two years…
I think, though I’m not sure, that it’s a reference to boot camp, where they make the recruits all stand in a rigidly straght line determined by the line made by the tips of their boots. Thus, “toeing the line”.
First off, welcome, Wierd With Words.
Secondly, it is toe, Brutus. Found this cite for ya: http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/toe+the+line
If you put “tow the line” instead in there, it finds nothing.
Not a bit of it. To “toe the line” is to stand to the line when boxing in old fashioned Marquise of Queensbury. Similar phrase: “toe to toe”.
pantom Certainly not. Not even if someone were to e-mail me the coordinates. Which no one has. Yet.
As to recent revelations, I guess you could best regard me as a seminal influence. And having a bad heir day.