# ElvisL1ves: Lying Weasel **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [July 3, 2003, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/elvisl1ves-lying-weasel/186060 "2003-07-03T16:30:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![IzzyR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/2acd7d/32.png) [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2003, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/elvisl1ves-lying-weasel/186060/1 "2003-07-03T16:30:20Z")
This comes about as an immediate result of [this](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=193726) 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: > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by IzzyR \* > The argument that seems to be driving your post is that homosexuality is an all-encompassing part of a person’s personality, and for this reason gays deserve to be defined as a “group”, against whom one cannot disproportionately impact. > As compared to nudists, who you would define solely by their desire to go about nude - this would not constitute a “group” and one could disproportionately impact them without violating Equal Protection clauses. I think that is a pretty nebulous argument (if indeed this is your intention). 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 > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ElvisL1ves \* > There’s nothing “nebulous” about your preference for women, is there? That has a great effect on your life, doesn’t it? Thus implying that I had said that a preference for men is nebulous. I pointed this out > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by IzzyR \* > I did not say that a preference for same sex was nebulous - rather that the argument that relied on the all-encompassing aspect of homosexuality was a nebulous argument. Elvis ignores this, but later in the thread he makes a new claim > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ElvisL1ves \* > BTW, declaring the subject matter “nebulous” and then accusing others of being “confused” is also not helpful at all. 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: > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ElvisL1ves \* > An example of your “nebulous” understanding is using “asexual” as a synonym for “celibate” - 'tain’t so 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 > [@](#): > > If I have heterosexual feelings, yet I never once act on them in my entire life, the operative effect is not that I am heterosexual, but asexual. The case is identical for homosexuals–only in that the (now former) law would require homosexuals to live in practice as essentially asexual beings whereas heterosexuals would be under no such compulsion. In responding to that post, I went with mrblue92’s use of the term asexual, but only after prefacing with the words > [@](#): > > **Even assuming that your definitions here are accurate** , this would merely imply that you happen to have a term (asexual) for someone who is prevented from satisfying his natural sexual urges 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: > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ElvisL1ves \* > Well, Izzy bubbeleh, if you’re insisting on saying that morality should be subordinate to the law as it happens to be written in a particular place and time, not that law should be a codification of morality, you’re on your own. 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: > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by IzzyR \* > I’ve not said nor implied anything connected to this issue Not good enough for Elvis > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ElvisL1ves \* > The religion and moral structure he purports represent is pretty explicitly above mundane civil matters. But our friend Izzy, and now you, are apparently claiming the opposite, as part of supporting a particular reading of the letter of the law above the spirit of the law I deny this again, to which Elvis follows with: > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ElvisL1ves \* > a challenge to find any mainstream cite for questions of morality required to be always subject to mundane laws, instead of vice versa as is the basis of the Scalia/Izzy letter-of-the-law-based rationalization of immoral behavior 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](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?postid=2627339#post2627339) 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 > [@](#): > > You denied to the point of calling it absurd that the impeachment was pursued for political reasons This is clearly untrue. Besides for the fact that the sentence clearly says otherwise, the very sentence that preceded this one was > [@](#): > > Nonetheless, it is true, as I noted in my post, that there was clearly a bias which affected the positions. And I had previously made my position clear on the issue of political motivation: > [@](#): > > Originally posted by IzzyR > > > [@](#): > > > > Originally posted by tomndebb > > Izzy might be right that the particular people in the GOP that went after the impeachment were prompted by the lying and not the sex. I think it is irrelevant. I doubt that the politicians in the GOP cared about either the sex or the lying except as they could be used as tools to get rid of Clinton who had the audacity to out-Reagan Reagan in maintaining his popularity in that face of the outrage of the opposition party. > > There is undoubtedly much to what you say. Though I doubt if many Republicans thought they were going after Clinton for political reasons, this desire must have influenced the thinking of many. Similarly, Democrats were just as surely influenced by the desire to protect their ally. It cannot be purely coincidence that the idea of whether Clinton deserved to be condemned/impeached broke down so strongly along party lines. Further, Elvis himself had earlier understood my remarks correctly > [@](#): > > ]\*Originally posted by ElvisL1ves \* > Draw your own conclusions as to the “absurdity” of the contention that it was pursued in disregard of the facts of the case. 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](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?postid=2569198#post2569198). 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. ---
**Author:** ![Esprix](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/esprix/32/7899_2.png) [@Esprix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esprix)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2003, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/elvisl1ves-lying-weasel/186060/2 "2003-07-03T17:02:45Z")
I swear, if you were to lock **Izzy** and **The Ryan** in a room together, they’d actually manage to semantic each other to death. Obfuscate, obfuscate, obfuscate, **Izz**. To this day I can’t tell what side you’re on in any argument because your incessant pedantic nitpicking completely obscures whatever point you’re trying to make - as evidenced by this OP. Just MHO. Esprix ---
**Author:** ![IzzyR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/2acd7d/32.png) [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2003, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/elvisl1ves-lying-weasel/186060/3 "2003-07-03T17:28:55Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Esprix \* > I swear, if you were to lock **Izzy** and **The Ryan** in a room together, they’d actually manage to semantic each other to death. > > Obfuscate, obfuscate, obfuscate, **Izz**. To this day I can’t tell what side you’re on in any argument because your incessant pedantic nitpicking completely obscures whatever point you’re trying to make - as evidenced by this OP. There is nothing easier than to breezily dismiss a detailed argument with some vague generalized handwaving and insults. Though it can be tempting, for some people. Why don’t you try to back up your words? Take one example out of this OP, and show why it amounts to “pedantic nitpicking” or “semantic[s]”. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2003, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/elvisl1ves-lying-weasel/186060/4 "2003-07-03T18:02:43Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by IzzyR \* > \*\*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. \*\* May I suggest that you’re not being very effective at heading off the notion that you _are_, in fact, posting it out of a desire to trash **ElvisLives**. To clarify, if you will: what exactly is it that you are hopeful that “a little bit of publicity might help” to do? Pardon me for being so dense. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2003, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/elvisl1ves-lying-weasel/186060/5 "2003-07-03T18:15:30Z")
I don’t think the content in the OP proves Elvis is a liar. It does provide evidence Elvis might not understand some of the arguments made in the linked posts, or was prone to knee-jerk reactions. But. Having said that, I do have a long memory, and Elvis DID deliberately and brazenly lie about me in the thread as linked, and he has yet to retract it, as I had quite reasonably asked. So there’s some evidence in support of IzzyR. ---
**Author:** ![IzzyR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/2acd7d/32.png) [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2003, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/elvisl1ves-lying-weasel/186060/6 "2003-07-03T18:19:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by kaylasdad99 \* > To clarify, if you will: what exactly is it that you are hopeful that “a little bit of publicity might help” to do? Well if this behaviour is highlighted, perhaps he will be motivated to stop. As I mentioned earlier, I have repeatedly pointed out that I’ve not said things he has claimed, and he has ignored this blithely. I don’t see what more I can do to maintain some control over what is being said in my name. If there is something else that can be done, beyond what I’ve tried already, I don’t know what it is. ---
**Author:** ![Ethilrist](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ethilrist/32/4604_2.png) [@Ethilrist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ethilrist)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2003, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/elvisl1ves-lying-weasel/186060/7 "2003-07-03T18:29:43Z")
Well, if what he’s doing violates the rules of the forum he’s in, report it to a mod. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2003, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/elvisl1ves-lying-weasel/186060/8 "2003-07-03T18:35:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by IzzyR \* > If there is something else that can be done, beyond what I’ve tried already, I don’t know what it is. Maybe marriage counselling? It’s legal, now. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2003, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/elvisl1ves-lying-weasel/186060/9 "2003-07-03T19:26:45Z")
**IzzyR** - I hope posting this made you feel better, because that is as much as you are going to benefit from it. Far too often, posters are reacting to what they think someone said, not what they did say. I have done it myself. It’s always easier to answer what you wanted him to say. Maybe you parsed your logic too closely to be understood by someone who didn’t want to understand. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Esprix](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/esprix/32/7899_2.png) [@Esprix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esprix)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2003, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/elvisl1ves-lying-weasel/186060/10 "2003-07-03T20:19:43Z")
Or maybe he parsed his logic to the point where _no one_ can understand. Anything’s probable. Esprix ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2003, 11:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/elvisl1ves-lying-weasel/186060/11 "2003-07-04T11:08:04Z")
I took the time to read the entire Opening Post. Izzy has demostrated with more than satisfactory evidence and compelling reason that Elvis is the King of strawmen. For what it might be worth to Izzy, at least one other person is now aware of the need to be supremely careful and precise when arguing with Elvis. And frankly, as shown above, that won’t even always work. It would require the patience and acumen of Spiritus Mundi to address the problem, and even then there is no guarantee. (Remember the Vorlon Ambassador’s Aide?) ---
**Author:** ![Kal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/9de053/32.png) [@Kal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kal)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2003, 12:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/elvisl1ves-lying-weasel/186060/12 "2003-07-04T12:03:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Libertarian \* > I took the time to read the entire Opening Post. But that’s you **Lib** , you’re quite brainy. What about thick gits like me? I got lost at the mention of “hot- button” issues. Can you knock together a website explaining the OP for me? Diagrams would be helpful. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2003, 12:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/elvisl1ves-lying-weasel/186060/13 "2003-07-04T12:27:25Z")
There is nothing more infuriating on these boards than having said something that seems unambiguous, only to have someone harrumph with a response that clearly misrepresents your position (“So, then you’re all for killing puppies with an axe, eh?”). I believe Izzy has built a strong, understandable case that Elvis has at least crossed the line of honest rhetoric in the instances cited (even if there was no “puppy reference” ;)). I didn’t feel I was wading through any obfuscation. BTW, I am not offering an opinion on either’s argument, except as they relate to the specific representations (or misprepresentations) mentioned. Anyway, if Elvis has a different spin or additional facts, I look forward to hearing them. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2003, 1:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/elvisl1ves-lying-weasel/186060/14 "2003-07-04T13:06:36Z")
> [@](#): > > Can you knock together a website explaining the OP for me? Diagrams would be helpful. [Sure, Kal](http://flagday.com/history/star_in_one_cut/flagstar.shtml). Always glad to help. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2003, 1:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/elvisl1ves-lying-weasel/186060/15 "2003-07-04T13:16:37Z")
Shame on you Lib. That’s a one star cite at best. As for the OP. Yes, it’s true. Elvis consistently misrepresents his opponents arguments, and his opponents as well more consistently and to a worse degree than any other poster I am aware of. ---
**Author:** ![hawthorne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@hawthorne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hawthorne)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2003, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/elvisl1ves-lying-weasel/186060/16 "2003-07-04T14:12:05Z")
I read the other thread and I don’t think you have much to complain about, **IzzyR**. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by IzzyR \* > The argument that seems to be driving your post is that homosexuality is an all-encompassing part of a person’s personality, and for this reason gays deserve to be defined as a “group”, against whom one cannot disproportionately impact. > As compared to nudists, who you would define solely by their desire to go about nude - this would not constitute a “group” and one could disproportionately impact them without violating Equal Protection clauses. I think that is a pretty nebulous argument (if indeed this is your intention). _Suppose_ we _define_ having sex with the consenting adult of your choice as a “big deal”, and going about naked as a “small deal”. A law restricting big deals would violate Equal Protection clauses. This would be rather well defined. It’s not at all nebulous. Suppose _instead_ you set a standard according to which something might be considered a big deal. This would be tricky - you’d have to weigh expert evidence and testimony from people who might disagree - but in the end you would make a judgement against a standard. Again, not nebulous. Controversial, perhaps. But it’s what judges do all the time. The existence of a continuum of things that are more or less important to people doesn’t mean that we can’t draw some sort of a line between what’s really important and what’s a mere hobby. It is only when there is no standard to be applied that it becomes handwaving. The way to make it _appear_ handwaving is to ignore any evidence that might be available as to what is crucial to your functioning as an autonomous person worthy of respect and just suppose that _everything_ is _just_ stuff you like. Rather akin to saying that the distinction in importance between your “desire” to observe the Sabbath and your “desire” to have Dijon mustard on your hot dog at the baseball is nebulous because they’re both just stuff you like. Anyone who had respect for you and who you are and what you care about would see it as bullshit. IMHO Elvis’ continued scornful use of the word “nebulous” in responding to you was in response to this. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2003, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/elvisl1ves-lying-weasel/186060/17 "2003-07-04T14:17:21Z")
I tried to follow the OP, and got lost before I got halfway through. I might could have parsed it, but dammit, it just wasn’t worth the effort. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2003, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/elvisl1ves-lying-weasel/186060/18 "2003-07-04T16:17:37Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by hawthorne \* > \*\*I read the other thread and I don’t think you have much to complain about, **IzzyR**. > _Suppose_ we _define_ having sex with the consenting adult of your choice as a “big deal”, and going about naked as a “small deal”. A law restricting big deals would violate Equal Protection clauses. This would be rather well defined. It’s not at all nebulous. \*\*You’re kidding, right? Yes, by your definition, nothing is nebulous. But if you believe the courts and the world have already agreed upon some consensus definition of big versus small deals, you’re mistaken. Exactly what is the standard you believe to be the reference point? The point Scalia made, and that Izzy paraphrased, was that O’Connor’s logic, by itself (remember it was addressing a single point she raised) could be used to invalidate virtually any law on the books. Murder laws have a disproportionate impact on pyschopaths. Pedophilia laws have a disproportionate impact on pedophiles. You could as easily argue that these tendencies (which are not at ALL analogous to homosexuality or heterosexuality, except to the extent, if any, that it can be argued that they are part of certain people’s natures and that certain subsets of society prefer certain activities) affect particular people in a manner or degree that they do not affect others. In fact, Scalia concedes this. That does not lead us to conclude, he argues, that the very fact that there is disproportionate impact means that equal protection has been violated, which is what O’Connor has clearly concluded at least in part based on this very point. To conclude this is to conclude that any restriction of behavior is a violation of equal protection. You may feel that there are other points that still make the case for the majority opinion, but on this point, I agree with Izzy. It’s silly for O’Connor to point this out, unless she intends to invalidate any restriction of any behavior on the books. The fact that certain types of behaviors may seem trivial or “ancillary” compared to gay people’s sexual activity is, in the end, simply not relevant to this particular point. It may be critical to other constitutional issues, but not to this one. To ask Izzy if his sexual preferences are nebulous in response to Izzy’s post, is at best a gross misunderstanding of the point Izzy made. Given the exchange that occurred after that, it would be extremely charitable, IMO, to believe that Elvis wasn’t grandstanding, ignoring completely Izzy’s clarification of what should already have been unambiguous to anyone not willfully inferring false meanings. And I believe this does not in any way imply an anti-gay bias (perhaps other things in Scalia’s opinion do). I am for gay rights. I believe gays should be permitted to marry, that they should have all the rights and privileges of heterosexuals. But I do not believe that means that any pro-gay opinion is then logical by definition, or that any criticism of a pro-gay opinion is to be held in contempt for anything other than what that criticism specificall states. Just call me a strict constructionist, I guess. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2003, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/elvisl1ves-lying-weasel/186060/19 "2003-07-04T16:56:49Z")
I do hope you’re all having a happy Fourth of July, enjoying all the freedoms based on mutual respect and concern for others that are the basis of American society - and that, sometimes, require reinforcement. **RickJay** , I really could have sworn that I hit “Submit” on my reply in the linked thread (another Pit rant about december, with substantial character self-exposition relevant to this thread on the part of, well, whaddaya know, **Izzy** ) before blowing it off entirely. I did summarize what seemed to be the effective point of several posts I recall you making (my memory is likewise excellent) - but, once again, the fact that you don’t like something doesn’t make it a “lie” or even require apology. No, on rereading, it appears you stormed off in a huff too - except you’re still pouting about it. **Scylla** , posting drivebys is bad enough, but piggybacking on others’ is just pitiful. This isn’t even the first time I’ve seen you do that, either. You do have the writing skill, and possibly even the reasoning ability, to do your own if so inclined. **Libertarian** , still licking your wounds from your last meltdown, are you? I am quite amused by your calling a need to be “careful and precise” in debates a _bad_ thing. Ignorance on this board is to be fought, not cherished, remember? Now: **Izzy** dear, the first, and most common, use of “nebulous” to describe arguments that you happen to dislike is in fact yours. Further, rather than acknowledge that the concepts you’re struggling with are, in fact, at the heart of the subject and therefore _require_ some analysis of their nebulosity, you dig in your heels and add unseemly invective. Surely you can understand how evasive that appears - after all, your use of the words “dishonest” and “weasel” in the thread title itself suggests some understanding of their meaning. But perhaps that’s a struggle for someone who refuses to acknowledge that asexuality and celibacy are not synonymous, but would rather resort to calling anyone who points that out a “liar” - and with more keyboard time than a quick look at [dictionary.com](http://dictionary.com) would have taken. Yet a basic conversancy with the terms of the subject is plainly necessary to an effective participation in a debate over it. None so blind as he who will not see. I have tried on multiple occasions to help you clarify and defend the positions you hold, but with a lack of success that can only be attributed to recalcitrance on your part. If I have summarized your thoughts _incorrectly_, then no doubt other readers have as well - I am quite literate in English - and the only person who can clarify them is yourself. If that leads you places you don’t want to go, well then, that’s how people learn and grow, isn’t it? I would expect _and desire_ the same from anyone else who finds flaws of fact or reasoning in my own arguments. You’re clear in refusing to recognize sexuality as a basic part of one’s identity, but to claim that those who do recognize that are “lying” about it is almost as sad as not having sexuality as part of one’s own life. I’ve asked you to consider that, but again, have been replied to with invective. Yet that’s the basis of this thread, isn’t it? Let me ask you again, and I’ll reiterate that this is not “irrelevant” as you stated but in fact illuminates the (yes, nebulous to some) issues at the heart of the gay rights debate: When did you decided to be straight? To everyone else, thanks, but you really don’t have to help Izzy melt down, or help me help him either. The burgers are on the grill, and the Sam Adams is cold - anyone wanna drop by? Fireworks at the harbor later. ---
**Author:** ![Kal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/9de053/32.png) [@Kal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kal)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2003, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/elvisl1ves-lying-weasel/186060/20 "2003-07-04T16:58:45Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Libertarian \* > > > [@](#): > > > > Can you knock together a website explaining the OP for me? Diagrams would be helpful. > > [Sure, Kal](http://flagday.com/history/star_in_one_cut/flagstar.shtml). Always glad to help. 😃 Now **Lib** , did you create that site? Did you? I don’t think you did. Looking at the bottom left, it says quite clearly: “Powered by Apache”. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/elvisl1ves-lying-weasel/186060.md?page=2)