Elucidator:
But you need to eat what’s on your plate before you can ask for more.
Izzy’s done an excellent job establishing false attribution with his cites.
All you’ve done is call them “nebulous.”
That does’t refute them.
Wherein E., in the guise of Oliver Twisted, gazes into his proferred bowl. What was alleged to be porridge turns out to be bullpucky stew. The plucky lad picks up his bowl and, to the amazement of those gathered, says:
“Please, sir, might I have considerably less?”
No better than “nebulous.”
Calling Izzy’s cites names is not refutation.
But I’ll give you a freebie, anyway.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=194840&highlight=Elvis
Age quod Agis says
Elvis responds:
It?s a lie of course, and Age calls him on it:
Would you maintain that Elvis’ characterization was accurate, or woul you think it fair to call it a false attribution?
What I see is two posters accusing each other of “malfeasance, misattribution, and general mendacity” as is commonly the case here. A cursory examination, bolstered by an almost absolute indifference, leads me to conclude it is merely another example of mutual misunderstanding.
I have this dreadful feeling that I have lent credence to Scylla appointing himself Prosecutor in the case of SDMB vs. Elvis. A clearer recipe for meltdown/trainwreck could hardly be imagined. Howzabout we just don’t go there, hmmmmm? Mote in thy brothers eye, 2X4 in thine own, yes? Theres a good fellow!
Well, you asked me for a cite. I gave you one. I am not tryin to be mean. I think Elvis does this often and by identifying it, maybe he’ll consider making an effort not to.
I will ask you again. it’s a simple question.
In the cite I provide is Elvis’s characterization accurate or is it a false attribution?
I will answer again. Its a simple answer. Mutual misunderstanding.
Scylla, m’lad, you are the wrong guy for this job. Truly. Its a bit like Bluebeard prosecuting a case of spousal abuse.
Ain’t worth it, let it be. C’mon over to GD and we can argue about what a lying sack of shit GeeDubya is. A subject with a bit of meat, yes?
I don’t see this “mutual misunderstanding” you’re talking about. It appears to me that Age quod Agis understood what was being discussed, and then Elvis misrepresented what Age posted.
That is funny.
Well yes, I do look back on my pirate days with affection.
I just feel that you were all over me for not having a cite, so I wanted to bring you one.
I happen to think that “mutual misunderstanding” is a charitable interpretation of this event. I see nothing mutual.
Is the misunderstanding Elvis’ fault or the other guys’?
Scylla w/a/d/r - when talking about written words, it’s not easy to characterize ‘misunderstandings’ as an either /or fault situation. Is it the writer for poor sentence structure or failiing to make clear the intent? is it the audience for deliberately misconstruing?
or, is there another possability - the construct lends itself to multiple interpretations and some one takes on one interpretation vs. another?
Honestly, if some one made some historical reference to ‘problems in the world’ that Clinton failed to deal w/ and therefore left in Bush’ lap, I’d be hard put not to interpret that as referring to 9/11 and related stuff. Why would anyone assume otherwise?
economy? was doing ok under Clinton, not so good under Bush.
Middle east (ie Israel/Palestine) both Clinton and Bush have made attempts, neither ignored it.
Seriously - what has Bush focused on since his taking office, other than 9/11 and related stuff? Oh yea, tax cuts (refer upwards to economy).
I’ve tried (not always succeeded, but I do make attempts) to ask for clarification when it’s unclear. Elvis didn’t.
remember the recent scrap you and I got into? where I didn’t note your sarcasm in a post and took it literally? We, I think, were able to get past it mostly 'cause we avoided this ‘liar liar pants on fire’ stuff when the issue is interpretation of written words.
does Elvis misconstrue others positions? Probably. Most of us do. Does it raise up to the level of dishonesty?
Dunno - what I’ve seen here as evidence doesnt’ IMHO.
further clarification -
while there is a stretch from “could have done more” to “it’s his fault”, it, IMHO, doesn’t rise up to the level of mischaracterization to any degree that’s unusal in GD here. If I had a penny for every post I"ve seen where it went ‘where did I say such and such, show me where’.
my general response to such mischaracterizations is to say “I didn’t say that, this is what I said” sort of thing, rather than declare the other poster a liar. I do recall once getting pissed where some one had suggested that if I wasn’t upset about “A”, then therefore I’d not be upset about “B”, implying that I was anti-semetic/racist. but again, it was more of a ‘you’re wrong’ vs. “you liar”.
Wring:
I would agree that one incident clearly does not a habit make.
It is my position that Elvis habitually puts words into other people’s mouths, and makes false attributions. It is my position that it goes beyond simple misunderstanding and well into the realm of dishonesty and bad faith.
I don’t know if he’s aware how often he does this often, but he does.
Reasonably speaking, how many more examples would you like me to produce in order to convince you that it is habitual?
I don’t know.
it’s a grey area, AFAICS. When does it become dishonest? It’s a standard technique, to ‘restate’ the other’s argument. “I’m against stomping on kittens”. “Oh, so in other words, you’re in favor of stomping on puppies” to me would be dishonest.
But it happens all the fucking time. It’s a standard tactic - failure to condemn bad acts by one group means that you support those actions. Damn near all one side of the show stated over and over again that ‘not being in favor of GWII = conclusively in favor of letting Saddam H. kill Iraqi’s at will". Being against the death penalty means you’re in favor of murderers not being punished and being free to kill innocents again, being against abortion means you’re against womens’ rights, etc.
and you know that it happens.
I frankly notice it most often when your side does it, not so frequently when my side does it (probably a common phenomenon). I try like hell (not succeeding always) to not do it, to allow it to be a question “Does that mean you’re in favor of stomping puppies?” (Or my tendancy in your case to say it in the negative “I’m pretty sure you’re not in favor of stomping puppies”).
It’s not a good tactic. But I’d really shy away from calling some one a liar 'cause they do it.
Especially since in some cases, it’s a question of interpretation.
I accept that there’s folks on both sides of the spectrum whose tactics are less than stellar, folks I’d rather not have on my side, folks I’m glad as hell are on yours. For me, tho’ saying some one’s a liar is a more serious charge than I’m willing to put out there. “weaseler” in debates? sure, no problem. liar? nope, makes me nervous.
RickJay, apparently you’re reading what you want to. I summarized the impression you gave me after a number of posts immediately preceding that one. You can call me mistaken or misinformed, but not a liar. Now grow the fuck up - and, while you’re at it, you might re-enter the GD thread in which you made a number of assertions about US foreign policy that are not only defamatory but factually incorrect. You have failed to either support or retract them - I suggest that there is more evidence right there for you’re being a liar than there is for me, ever. Now grow the fuck up, hoser.
Monster104, ah, you’re back - got any facts this time, or are you also resorting to invective as a cover for lack of argument? You know the threads I’m referring to. You also can try to imagine taking responsibility for what you say before you say it - meanwhile, better stay in school.
Fer chrissakes, Scylla, you might have noted what I responded to Age with - a reference to earlier in that same damn thread where I pointed out that he was taking out of context a statement made in reply to another that was, in fact, regarding the subject matter I said it was. You might also note the number of other simple falsehoods he made that puts his post on a lower rung than Bush’s Iraq WMD evidence. But it seems to have been too much trouble for you to keep reading past the part that said what you wanted to hear - a typical failing for narcissistic ideologues.
So, that makes your supporting cite count a total of 0, and your Slopometer is pegging the needle. Now quit doing the Vindication Dance around Age like Rumsfeld dancing around a hydrogen-balloon trailer, and find something to back up your assertions. Or, pretend to be an adult for once - you’ve seen them; you must have a clue what they act like.
You’ve already been challenged to put up or shut up. Alas, it once again appears that, for you, it will be neither.
wring, your peacemaking efforts are nobly intended, of course - but it’s casting pearls before swine, ya know? Save it for where you can do some actual good.
IzzyR, have you walked away from your own thread after only the OP? Tsk, tsk. Hardly making a principled stand, is it?
We do have a close race for Sad Wanker of the Year, it appears.
What the hell? This is all I posted to this thread:
Invective? You’re a liar (how’s that for invective? :rolleyes: )
The threads your referring to? You mean the one where I and others also call you for lying and/or misrepresenting other people’s positions? (I already tried to find that one before I even posted to this thread, I think it was lost in the Great Crash).
And taking responsibility for what I say before I say it…uh, what? Where do I not take responsibility for something I say before I say it (how is it even possible for me to be responsible for something before I do it?), let alone not take responsibility for something I said after I say it?
Don’t worry, no one’s quite up to the task of challenging you for that particular award.
Elvis:
**
This would be a falsehood. There was no earlier in the thread as far as Age is concerned. My first quote comes directly from Age’s first post in that thread. Your justification after the fact is a poor excuse. If you are going to have a “misunderstanding” where you accidently put words into somebody’s mouth, it behooves you to be polite and note the correction with apologies.
Whether or not the mistake was sincere, when you are aggressive and nasty you lose the benefit of the doubt.
Whether or not you believe his post to be accurate, does not excuse mirsrepresenting it. If it is innacurate it should be simple enough to refute when you take it at face value. If it’s so bad, why do you have to misrepresent it to refute it?
So much anger.
Anyway, here’s your answer: No. Who are you to tell me what to do?
Ask me nicely and I will gladly get you another cite. As I said before, you do this a lot, so it’s no problem.
But you have to ask nice.
Petty, Elvis. Petty and immature. Why don’t you make fun of his poetry while you’re at it?
Yeah, it’s pretty ironic that he’s going about telling people to grow up. Ironic, and pathetically amusing at the same time.
Maybe so, but if you repeatedly say that you did not say what he is claiming, and he ignores this completely, and continues to say “IzzyR is claiming such-and-such”, it amounts to deliberate dishonesty.
Elvis,
I’m not going to address the rest of your post, as you’ve not directly addressed anything in the OP. Except for this:
The first part of this statement is incorrect. But the second - that I’ve claimed “that those who do recognize that are “lying” about it” - is absurd, and is another example of your dishonesty, IMHO. Life goes on.
But what you do when, having done that, the person continues to say “wring has said that”?
There are no posts prior to that one on which a rational person with a reasonable grasp of English could have come to your stated conclusion. Sorry, but your claim is nonsense; either you lied, and you’re lying now, or your memory is much poorer than you claim it to be. You shot your mouth off (figuratively speaking) and you’re unwilling to admit you shot a brick. I am absolutely, one hundred percent correct on this issue, and you are one hundred percent wrong. There is no evidence or rational argument to the contrary.
Linkety-link? I vaguely recall the thread. IIRC. my statements were factual (and I certainly do not recall defaming anyone) and your reply was a non-sequitur, but I don’t remember the details and I don’t think the thread’s still bumped. I’d be happy to reply in detail or apologize for any errors I made, which is certainly a possibility.