Yeah – I’m having trouble seeing how his latest trick doesn’t qualify him for a DO NOT TROLL warning, at the very least.
Daniel
I agree with DanielWithrow. If this doesn’t count as trolling, I’m not sure what does.
Hadn’t you heard? ** december’s ** a * polite * troll, so it doesn’t count.
Like hell she does. Unless you’re claiming that your thread was proof positive of this, which it certainly is not. So answer her question.
I gotta say that other thread seemed pretty low, even for you December.
Other than the misattributed quote(the hillary part), which december has acknowledged and apologized for, in what way did he lie in his OP?
I have to admit to being tempted, several times, to do something like this, because I am frustrated by several posters that appear to base their support or disdain for a concept solely on whether it will help or hurt the political party they support.
I have not noticed any particular tendency for this to be limited to those who support Democrats or those who support Republicans; I believe that december’s “trick” would have worked equally well on [b[december** himself in the other direction.
Perhaps this is not surprising, since this behavior a mirror of actual politicians. I’ve said before how distressing it is to watch Democrats derail judicial nominations and Republicans cry foul, when less than a decade ago it was the Republicans derailing judicial nominations and the Democrats crying foul. Each side seems willing to bury their integrity for the sake of political expediency, and each seems confident that the public will simply forget their earlier, contradictory stances.
It’s an ugly thing, perhaps the ugliest thing in politics.
I agree, reluctantly, that december deserves criticism for the way he did this. But I also think that extremists on both sides ought to ask themselves if their party is really so important that it’s worth sacrificing their integrity to offer unconditional support.
- Rick
For that matter, answer (directly mind you) any question that you have been asked in this thread.
So, you believe him? Interesting.
me too. I’d really appreciate an explanation from the administration how the actions of the OP in the GD thread do not constitute trolling.
I’d also appreciate an explanation (if any) from december’s appologists if they would consider his actions in that thread “polite” and would continue to refer to him as being polite.
I also, for the record, want a pony.
december is a deconstructionist. Take me now, Lord, I’ve seen it all. No wonder could ever again astound me, my sense of awe and astonishment forever cauterized.
Believe him on which part? Do I believe the hillary part was an honest mistake before he got called on it? I don’t honestly know. I know he has issued a mea culpa WRT it. Most of the responses here mostly sound like sour grapes from people whose knee’s jerked in the other thread. That’s what I object to.
I had a post typed out, then deleted it. Bricker already said exactly what I wanted to say. Good show.
december, old adversary, you of all people are the last who should be whining about the corrosives effects of partisan politics. Of all the participants who regularly contribute here you are without a doubt the most annoyingly and hard headedly partisan. On top of that you lack the mother wit to pull it off. If you were an obvious fool, like for example that excretal occasional poster Monty something-something, it would be different. If you posts occasionally had an amusing turn of phrase of entertaining word play it would be different. It is pretty apparent that you have put a fair amount of thought into your partisan blather, and worse, that you believe it.
You have taken a statement by President Clinton, maybe more than one statement by President Clinton, and a statement by his wife, the junior senator from New York, blended them and published them in a deliberately deceiving and deceptive form. It is not the first time you have done that. Remember your thread about anti-Semitism in the French schools? Now you have the mendacity to claim that you did it all as an object lesion and that you are being put upon. Disingenuous does not fairly describe your behavior. Dishonest, weaseling, fraudulent, underhanded and self-serving come close. It is the behavior I would expect of a crooked lawyer. It is worse than dishonest; it is French (to paraphrase Mark Twain). Some how my instinctive reaction to your stuff in often: Are you really that Goddamned ignorant or are you just pulling my chain? Now I know. The answer both parts of that question is Yes.
It is pointless to try to justify yourself to me. I made up my mind about you a long time ago. Now your problem is justifying your self to the administrators. If you value your participation on these boards you really ought to devote a little more time to getting right with them.
Tell me again why Collunsbury got banned but december is still here?
A question or three, d: Do you think that Sokal will ever publish in Social Text again? Why or why not? And what, if any, parallels should be drawn by the administration of this website?
Full disclosure: Whist the term “moderator” appears under my name as I make this post, it does so simply because the mechanics of changing it have not yet been taken care of. I am simply a member and post only as such.
Oh Manny, that’s why we love you.
The 2nd paragraph of the OP was from Senator Clinton, who also has access to classified information as a Senator, and as one from the state that bore the brunt of the attack. Are you calling her a liar? If not, why not?
Rightly or wrongly, I didn’t see my OP as taking advantage of the board administration. On further consideration, that may have been a wrong judgment on my part. I regret offending the administrators.
Leaper, I provided a cite showing that the quotes came from Bill and Hillary Clinton. Some posters called President Bush a liar when they thought the quotes came from him. They now have an opportunity to call the Clintons liars for making these statements about Iraqi WMDs.
Next question, then. Clearly, you intended to mislead the membership. The stated purpose of this message board is to eradicate ignorance. Do you think that the administration of this message board should accept as a member a person who intentionally and with bad intent spreads ignorance? How is the mission of the board furthured by intentional lies?
same disclosure