And only an intellectually dishonest flaming asshole hypocrite and disgrace to the legal profession, to his faith, and to all his party and partisans like Bricker would insist otherwise, and persist in doing so for six motherfucking pages!
Consider yourself Pitted but not persecuted, Bricker, and thank your God for that, Christian. If you’re ever persecuted for your faith, you’ll know it, and it will be more in the nature of sticks and stones!
It took you four days to come up with a response, and this is the best you can do?
It took four days to get around to it. Please forgive my sloth while admiring my patience. As for the quality, I have been sensible of recent criticism that my Pits are too mild and show too little creative effort, and sought diligently to correct that in this while yet bearing in mind that brevity ith the thoul of pith, and I believe I managed to pack a lot of richly deserved nonpersecution into a few lines, thus was not expecting to be sniped on that point this particular time, but I suppose it’s all just pearl necklaces before swine, what can one do but smoke.
Bricker uses language as an obstacle to communication. He’s a logic-chopper of more than Jesuitical causistry. He ate a big omelette made of Humpty Dumpty, and now pays words to mean what he wants them to, that’s all. I believe I may have met people more dishonest than he is.
I feel that Bricker acquitted himself poorly in that thread and then just kind of wandered off, rather than respond to posts such as #265 in which I attempted to address the discrepancy in definition head on (and similar posts from other posters).
That said, savagely pitting him for it 4 days later after the thread has died down is a little odd.
I still can’t believe he described purveyors of woo as persecuted. Then again I suppose I can.
The pit is a dish best served cold.
Bricker did what he intended to do though. There was almost no discussion in the thread about the question of whether or not American Christians are persecuted. Too busy discussing what the definition of “is” is.
I may not like Bricker but if I needed a lawyer, especially if I was guilty, I’d want one like him.
True, some unkind things were said about Kevin Trudeau. 
Bricker shits things with more redeeming qualities than Brainglutton.
The shrimp store called…
Pretty weak sauce BG. That said, I thought about pitting Bricker for a couple of days about that. Shit, it was a GD thread with the OP “Why do American Christians feel persecuted?” and he answers with a straight face because “maybe because they read the SDMB”. Fucking bullshit. I know he’s a lot smarter than that so I read that as a dismissive attempt to derail the whole thread because of Partisan ideology.
Whatever. Lame pit, but not as lame Bricker’s derailment.
I think BG needs to lay off the sauce for awhile. OTOH, if he’s not posting while drunk, then he has a serious problem.
I am so stealing this - I can see many useful applications both at home and at work.
You’d be the one who’d know.
Really, there’s nothing to discuss. They are not. End of thread.
The persecution complex is strong with that one
Is it against the rules to advocate persecuting Bricker? If so, is it against the rules by his definition? There are very few times when the restriction on claiming that someone is lying has bothered me so much, because Bricker, for 6 fucking pages, was being a dishonest, threadshitting douchebag. I don’t why the fuck the mods didn’t step in; I’ve seen accusations of threadshitting for far less, and I reported it and nothing happened. This sets a very nasty precedent, as this guy basically derailed the thread for 6 pages with the debate equivalent of going into a thread about google phones and trying to redefine “android” as “a robot with a human appearance”.
I suppose that is a matter of taste, but I’ll pass on finding out.
I’m going to give this pitting a “meh.”
This is still hilarious. What dictionary does Bricker cite? Google, or put in another way somebody on the internet.
I went over to Dictionary.com and picked up the following: …a program or campaign to exterminate, drive away, or subjugate a people because of their religion, race, or beliefs: the persecutions of Christians by the Romans. To say that Christians are persecuted on this message board robs the word of all meaning.
Hostility? Definitely. Abuse? Sure. Ill treated? Maybe. Human rights violations? Sorry, but no.
I’ll admit that persecute gives me, “to pursue with harassing or oppressive treatment, especially because of religion, race, or beliefs; harass persistently.” That’s a little closer. Except the pursuit part is missing, as is the implication of official abuse of human rights. You know, like the Ancient Romans.
Oppression? On a message board? Really? ::snort::
This is basically what he is, and all he contributes to the board. He’s like a lawyer that seeks out the most guilty defendants - ones who obviously are guilty, who have 20 witnesses, bloodstained hands, and video proof of their deeds - and then attempts to construct a Baghdad Bob style “nothing is wrong here!” defense. People often compliment his intelligence because he’s obviously articulate, and sometimes gives the impression of good argument, but isn’t it even more damning if that’s the case? He knows better, he knows he’s making ridiculous arguments to shill for wrong things, but he thinks that if he can somehow hit just the right logic, the right semantics, the right tangential argument, he’ll dazzle everyone to his side.
For all the effort he ostensibly puts into communication, his only real purpose here is to prevent and harm that very thing. He feels himself to be a righteous defender of his partisan camp against all comers, but he ultimately discredits them. You end up thinking not “Hmm, maybe he’s right” most of the time, but rather “if someone who seems so intelligent and capable of discussion will argue so hard for something so wrong, how could I expect intelligent people from his side of the argument to ever realize that they’re wrong about something and not just take denial and delusion to new heights?”