This comes about as an immediate result of this thread. This thread, as with many about similar “hot-button” issues, has become somewhat heated. But no problem - I can live with any amount of invective tossed my way. What I cannot abide by is misrepresenting my words and my positions.
Elvis is a past master of this art - it appears to be his stock in trade. And even after my insisting and directly pointing out that I did not say what he claims, he simply ignores this, and repeats his lies, or makes up new ones. Most recently, he challenged me to “try pointing out and actually addressing any of “my lies””. Problem is that I have already done this repeatedly throughout the thread - it is he who has simply ignored these points.
And I am aware that there is frequently room for honest misunderstandings in people’s posted words. ISTM that the evidence is overwhelming that this is not the case with Elvis - that he knows full well what he is doing.
Some specifics:
Use of the term “nebulous” is at issue here. I think it pretty clear that it is being used to describe a particular legal argument. It says so in that very sentence - “pretty nebulous argument”. Plus the sentence follows the actual argument that is being described as nebulous. You wouldn’t think there is much room for misunderstanding here. But Elvis follows up with
Thus implying that I had said that a preference for men is nebulous. I pointed this out
Elvis ignores this, but later in the thread he makes a new claim
So first I’ve declared same sex relationships to be nebulous. Now I’ve declared the subject matter to be nebulous. I don’t see any way to charitably interpret this. It is clearly a deliberate misrepresentation.
The thing is that it is obvious that I’ve never said these things, and yet there is apparently no denial that will suffice for Elvis. He will continue to repeat that I’ve said this or that, while making not the slightest effort to show that I’ve said so, or even address my denials.
From the same post by Elvis:
Here again is something that is clearly untrue. I did not use asexual as a synonym for celibate. It was another poster named mrblue92 who said
In responding to that post, I went with mrblue92’s use of the term asexual, but only after prefacing with the words
This is the only sentence in which I used the term, and the opening words make it as clear as possible that I am merely assuming the word usage of the post that I was commenting on.
Further:
Anyone can read this thread. The argument here is not about morality, or the interplay of morality and law. It is about a particular bit of legal reasoning put forth by Scalia (whether a law that technically applies to all equally but disproportionately impacts the groups that desire to engage in the banned activity violates Equal Protection). It is not absolutely inconceivable that someone might find some way to tie these two together, but it is certainly not something I’ve done, much less insisted on. I point this out immediately:
Not good enough for Elvis
I deny this again, to which Elvis follows with:
Again, not even the slightest attempt to demonstrate anywhere that I’ve said this, or to show how such a thing might be implied in something I’ve said. Apparently Elvis has the right to simply decide that other people have said something and thereafter refer to this as fact, all denials notwithstanding.
This is not the first time I’ve encountered this type of behavior from Elvis. Observe this post. At issue here is what I had previously described in that thread as being “absurd”. In actuality, it was the notion that the Republicans who went after Clinton “knew their charges were baseless and consciously went after Clinton for political reasons”. It says so in the very sentence. Elvis, on the losing end of an argument here, said
This is clearly untrue. Besides for the fact that the sentence clearly says otherwise, the very sentence that preceded this one was
And I had previously made my position clear on the issue of political motivation:
Further, Elvis himself had earlier understood my remarks correctly
So here he understood that what I was describing as absurd was that it was pursued in disregard to the facts of the case, not that there was a political motivation. It was only after I disputed whether his cite showed disregard for the facts of the case that he decided to distort my words.
Lastly, from a third thread.
The post is referenced here. Here too Elvis asserts that I (& RickJay) have said something that I have not said in that thread or elsewhere. I confronted him about this and received no response. (RickJay also confronted him - he weaseled a bit here, and then commenced ignoring him too).
Anyway, I’m pretty sure that I’ve encountered other examples of this behavior from Elvis, both to me and others. But these are the examples that I recall offhand, and they should suffice.
I am not posting this out of a desire to trash Elvis (at least I don’t think I am), but as he has indicated that he has no intention of modifying his behavior I am hopeful that a little publicity might help. Not too hopeful, though. Just a bit.
