# Gaudere, I believe you are in error. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [May 19, 2004, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gaudere-i-believe-you-are-in-error/245897 "2004-05-19T02:53:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2004, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gaudere-i-believe-you-are-in-error/245897/101 "2004-05-19T21:51:27Z")
> [@Gaudere](#): > > I still kind of doubt manny really believes anyone posting really “supported” Saddam. So you are suggesting he may have been tro. . . No, I’m not going there. I’ll buy you a drink Saturday, instead. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2004, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gaudere-i-believe-you-are-in-error/245897/102 "2004-05-19T22:14:17Z")
> [@](#): > > Some Dopers do not support the action aimed at removing him from power. Therefore, by implication, they support Saddam’s continuation as “leader” of Iraq. QED. I don’t support military action removing George W. Bush from power, am I a Bushite? ---
**Author:** ![Gaudere](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e495f1/32.png) [@Gaudere](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gaudere)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2004, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gaudere-i-believe-you-are-in-error/245897/103 "2004-05-19T23:19:26Z")
> [@](#): > > No, he started a thread where he called me a torture-lover, and an earlier one where I was a racist. Because I am a Republican and a Bush supporter. We have people on this board from practically every group in the world. No matter what group you reference, even if it’s one-eyed French hookers, _someone_ is going to be a member of that group. I think it’s a matter of either not being able to say anything unsavory about _any_ group: homophobes, liberals, marxists, anti-zionists, atheists, etc., or allowing it for everyone. I already explained this. I didn’t see the “homos” bit; if I did I would have warned him; even though I do think he’s using it ironically it’s too ambiguous for comfort. > [@](#): > > Because EC is an idiot, he gets a pass on posting something idiotic. Because manny is pretty smart, he doesn’t get a pass on posting something idiotic. Because EC is prone to making irrational arguments, I am not surprised when he makes more. Because manny is not prone to making irrational arguments, I am surprised that he would make one. Unclebeer seems to think manny is arguing a point he does not believe in order to make some point about the rules of GD. This is one possible explanation for why manny would argue illogically, but one I do not like to see. Manny is perfectly free to argue illogically just as EC does. However, we generally frown on posters knowingly posting inflammatory things they do not actually believe. > [@](#): > > There was no clear target for it because of this. Manny said “I’m always curious to see what the Saddamites in this forum will come up with next. And Stoid, you’re as good a leading indicator of future GD looniness as anyone…have **y’all** abandoned this semantically contradictory, factually incorrect and racist assertion? That would be a welcome piece of news…I was wondering where the Saddamites on this board would go when it became clear American voters weren’t buying the “OMG BUSH LIED ABOUT WMD TO HELP HIS OIL BUDDIES” line of crap. Thanks for the head’s up.” (bolding mine) This seems to me to be pretty clearly calling posters _in that thread_ “Saddamites”. Not just liberals in general. Amok: I would have done a “cool it” post for the remedial reading and “type slowly” bits. We did used to allow those depending on the situation, but I’m getting pretty tired of them plus when a thread’s already “hot” you need to be a little more vigilant. I’ve actually been really busy the past couple weeks with work and freelance jobs and stuff or I’d be babysitting both that and EC’s thread. Yesterday when I checked EC’s thread it was just a discussion of Bush’s IQ and I figured, “eh, however it started, it’s a debate now and seems harmless”. Who knew it would inspire manny to call people “Saddamites” and get me pitted. ---
**Author:** ![manhattan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/manhattan/32/7_2.png) [@manhattan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/manhattan)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2004, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gaudere-i-believe-you-are-in-error/245897/104 "2004-05-20T00:17:37Z")
> [@Gaudere](#): > > 1. manny was specifically referring to the posters in that thread, not a general statement I was not. It was general – y’all was intended as an all-inclusive, non-specific term. Sorry if that confused. > [@](#): > > manhattan was aware that Saddamite sounds just like “sodomite”; that’s what makes the slur “clever”. As you know well, I have nothing against homosexuality, or straight sodomy, or anything of the sort. It wasn’t an attempt to make a parallel in any respect – it was just word play, as in my contrast earlier in this thread. I’m not going to apologize for it, as I had no ill intent towards homosexuals at the time or now, but aware that some people _did_ take offense, I reiterate that I won’t use the construction again. > [@](#): > > I still kind of doubt manny really believes anyone posting really “supported” Saddam. Again, it was a general construction and not intended to apply to any specific poster in that thread. But yes, I do believe that there are members of this message board who did and do support Saddam – at least enough to earn the sobriquet. People who draw a moral equivalency between the United States, where persons suspected of torture are prosecuted and Saddam’s government, where such persons are promoted would be examples of those whom I believe fall into this group. > [@](#): > > I can believe EC thinks republicans are Ok with torture, because, well, it’s EC. But manny’s pretty bright, so his chain of logic seem uncharacteristic. It _sounds_ like you’re saying what I suggested; that it is the official policy of this message board to hold people who are stupid to a lower standard than people who are smart. Again, I’d be saddened by this but would of course abide if it were clear. Is my understanding in error? > [@](#): > > It could be he is saying things he does not truly believe in order to make some sort of point against some things people have said against Republicans. Unclebeer seems to think this is what he is doing. I hope not, because then he is deliberately making GD a worse place AND making my job harder. It was not what I was doing when I posted in that thread. However, I reiterate that it was based on other posts which you have allowed to go unadmonished that I developed my good-faith belief that my post was within the rules. So I guess in a sense that’s what I’m doing in _this_ thread (not saying things I don’t truly believe of course, but rather making a point). I think what I’m hearing in response is, ‘Yes, we hold you to a higher standard because you are not stupid. And yes, we allow stupid people to get away with more. Get over it.’ Again, if that’s the policy, clearly and unambiguously stated, I will indeed Get Over It. > [@](#): > > Posters who post as close to “acceptable” in GD as they can get every single time are bad enough when it’s just a lack of control; when they’re doing some sort of organized campaign out of what they think is a moral obligation there is little hope they will stop, and ever warnig will be used as a springboard for extensive debate. If it’s any consolation, I’m having even less fun doing this than you are responding to it. I have no wish to spend my time on this message board in the Pit, nor do I wish to go on any crusades. I do want to unjerk a few knees between posts to the economic threads. I do wish to make an assertion without having it called “Republican porn.” I do wish to make a GQ-style post in response to a good-faith GD that has a heavy GQ component without being called an “apologist.” I do wish to not see people say things like “Never confuse (this or that person) with the facts.” I _do_ wish to be able to go tit for tat in GD without fear that tit will be allowed and tat will not. But again, if it’s your intent to hold different posters to different standards, just say so unambiguously and I’m on board. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Svinlesha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/22d042/32.png) [@Mr.Svinlesha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Svinlesha)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2004, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gaudere-i-believe-you-are-in-error/245897/105 "2004-05-20T00:19:25Z")
**Amok** : > [@](#): > > _Too me, all three quoted portions are insulting, though the latter two are not direct, personal insults. I’m not sure that they’re against the rules, although I think that ideally they should be, at least in GD. Comments of that type are cheap snipes intended to imply that the other person is dumb, and they serve no purpose in debating._ First off, thanks for dragging me into this mess, **Amok**. Secondly, I take your point. I agree there’s a thin line between…hmmm, let’s call it “provocative speech,” on the one hand, and outright insults, on the other. But in my experience of GD, the occasional zinger is looked upon with a certain amount of indulgence there; sort of “sauce for the goose,” if you take my meaning. Debates that don’t include a put-down or two are generally rather sterile affairs, and anyone who feels passionately about a subject is going to find himself, inevitably, employing colorful language in a hot moment in GD. I’ve been involved in a number of altercations in that forum which have come quite close to crossing the line into downright mudslinging, but thus far managed to avoid censure by following this general rule of thumb: as long as you attack the post rather than the poster, you’re in the clear. While direct insults are not allowed, cheap shots are. Regarding my specific comments to **manhattan** in that thread, I think one only need refer back to his post to understand why someone might feel insulted by it, and thus motivated to return the compliment. He begins in the most deprecating manner imaginable, by labeling **Stoid** a “Saddamite” and a “loony.” One can literally feel the venom dripping off his keyboard. (As far as that goes, **Stoid** had done little other than quote an article from MSNBC for the purpose of debate; I guess **manhattan** believes their offices to be a den of “Saddamites” as well.) The body of his post is a willful misrepresentation of the anti-war position, intended to make those of us who have opposed the invasion look like idiotic hypocrites. He finishes off by insinuating that an anti-war stance is synonymous with being “reflexively anti-American.” I confess that I experienced his post as both “snide” and “hateful.” I also confess that this experience has been a very common one for me over the last couple years in my various run-ins with those who supported the invasion; so common, in fact, that I started my own thread about it a few a months ago: [The Great Pro-War Massacree Thread (and General Meltdown)](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=236525). Considering how incredibly wrong the Bush administration has been about virtually every aspect of the Iraq debacle, and how spectacularly wrong his supporters have also proven to be here on these boards, one might reasonably expect a certain amount of humility in their demeanor at this point. Such expectations, however, are in vain; Bush supporters are just as obnoxious now as they were then. **Sodan** , for one, accused us lefties of “denying reality” when we argued against the war (see the linked thread for more examples); he certainly hasn’t apologized for that. And so on. I just want to respond to this, as well: > [@](#): > > _But it’s really the first quote that I’m interested in. It seems to me that it directly insults a group of posters: “conservatives on this board”. I don’t think the fact that he qualifies it with “many” changes that._ In fact, the word “many” is indeed placed there to qualify my statement. There are a number of conservative posters at the SDMB whom I _do not_ experience as hateful, and for whom I have a great deal of respect, even admiration. **Simon X** , in particular, has proven to me that one can be a Republican and still think for oneself. I have nothing but respect for **Sam Stone** as well, even if he and I have bumped heads a time or two. **Bricker** is another name that leaps to mind, and **DCU** (although I haven’t seen him around for a while, now). And IRL, horror of horrors, my bestest friend back home in the States was nothing more than a died-in-the-wool Pubbie, hisself. On the other hand, there are many conservatives here (note the use of that word, “many”) whom I _do_ find to be particularly snide, hateful, condescending, and so on. **Milum** , **Brutus** , and **New Iskander** stand out as particularly egregious examples, as does **Shodan**. > [@](#): > > - And “hateful” and “snide” are insults, in my opinion, because unlike “liar” (which is allowed) these qualities are mostly subjective. If a poster is caught in a lie, then he’s a liar. But what qualifies someone as being hateful? That their posts frequently contain hate? But there’s no easy way to determine that, except possibly for really extreme cases (such as white supremicists). If I read a poster’s posts and think that they are frequently dumb, then I might honestly say that, in my experience, the poster is dumb. But that (rightly) wouldn’t be allowed in GD. I see “hateful” as being similar.\* I don’t know. If I had written, “ **manhattan** , I found your post to be hateful and snide,” would that be an insult? Maybe, but not in sense intended by the rules of GD, as far as I can tell. Finally, in my own defense, I would also like to point out that I _did_ continue my reply to **manhattan** laying out a logical argument, along with a cite, in a manner generally considered to be standard debating form in that forum. Actually addressing the issue at hand is the manner by which I show my respect for my debating opponents, even if I sometimes feel they show little, or no, respect in return. ---
**Author:** ![manhattan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/manhattan/32/7_2.png) [@manhattan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/manhattan)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2004, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gaudere-i-believe-you-are-in-error/245897/106 "2004-05-20T00:21:56Z")
> [@Gaudere](#): > > Who knew it would inspire manny to call people “Saddamites” and get me pitted. I think this needs to be public, but of course I don’t intend to “Pit” you in the “Moderator X is an Ding Dong” sense with which we’re all familiar. Just following board rules. As an aside, I’d make the suggestion that since everyone’s got a little more skin in the game now it might make sense to experiment with requesting that administrative questions or disagreements such as this one go back to ATMB – it would certainly cut down on the hit-and-run sniping which always seems to infect these threads. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2004, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gaudere-i-believe-you-are-in-error/245897/107 "2004-05-20T00:32:59Z")
> [@Airman Doors](#): > > **manhattan** , it’s always interesting to see what Moderators/Administrators will and will not allow. > > So, how does this work? It’s clear that insults are allowed if you support/supported/participated in the war or if you are a Bush supporter. I’m curious as to why that door only swings the one way. > > Methinks there needs to be a bit more consistency here, guys. You either allow backhanded insults or you don’t, and if you do then the criteria should be applied evenly across the spectrum, not just when it suits your mood. There are no rules, it works by them deciding whatever they say on any given day is “being a Jerk”, and there is noting even close to consistancy. They don’t even have to warn you. They have banned dudes for being “hostile and insulting”- IN THE PIT. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Creative\_Munster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/919ad9/32.png) [@Creative\_Munster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Creative_Munster)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2004, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gaudere-i-believe-you-are-in-error/245897/108 "2004-05-20T00:53:12Z")
The moderators are liberals with a liberal agenda. It’s a fact that those with right wing tendencies are treated more harshly than those with a liberal bent. That’s one of the reasons I was sorry to lose you as a moderator, **manhatten**. ---
**Author:** ![Gotterfunken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/58956e/32.png) [@Gotterfunken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gotterfunken)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2004, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gaudere-i-believe-you-are-in-error/245897/109 "2004-05-20T01:02:03Z")
I’d like to hear more about those “one-eyed French hookers”–especially if they’re wearing pirate eye-patches. _Arrrrrrr_! Sorry. I’ve got nothing. Carry on. ---
**Author:** ![TwistofFate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/cdc98d/32.png) [@TwistofFate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TwistofFate)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2004, 9:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gaudere-i-believe-you-are-in-error/245897/110 "2004-05-20T09:55:46Z")
> [@Creative\_Munster](#): > > The moderators are liberals with a liberal agenda. It’s a fact that those with right wing tendencies are treated more harshly than those with a liberal bent. That’s one of the reasons I was sorry to lose you as a moderator, **manhatten**. Yes, CK Dexter Haven is such a commie. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2004, 10:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gaudere-i-believe-you-are-in-error/245897/111 "2004-05-20T10:15:56Z")
> [@Creative\_Munster](#): > > The moderators are liberals with a liberal agenda. That certainly is bullshit. There ain’t a liberal among them. ---
**Author:** ![Coldfire](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a587f6/32.png) [@Coldfire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Coldfire)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2004, 12:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gaudere-i-believe-you-are-in-error/245897/112 "2004-05-20T12:10:51Z")
No libertarians, either. But… we have an agenda, now? Could someone inform me what it is, please, because I seemed to have missed _that_ fucking memo. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2004, 12:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gaudere-i-believe-you-are-in-error/245897/113 "2004-05-20T12:41:18Z")
> [@Gaudere](#): > > > [@Bricker](#): > > > > Because EC is an idiot, he gets a pass on posting something idiotic. Because manny is pretty smart, he doesn’t get a pass on posting something idiotic. > > Because EC is prone to making irrational arguments, I am not surprised when he makes more. Because manny is not prone to making irrational arguments, I am surprised that he would make one. Unclebeer seems to think manny is arguing a point he does not believe in order to make some point about the rules of GD. This is one possible explanation for why manny would argue illogically, but one I do not like to see. Manny is perfectly free to argue illogically just as EC does. However, we generally frown on posters knowingly posting inflammatory things they do not actually believe. I’m not sure your rephrasing helped matters, **Gaudere**. Posting inflammatory arguments unsupported by reasonable, logical underpinnings is fine if you lack the wit to form such arguments; if you possess such wit, that route is denied to you. Apart from the obvious rhetorical value in being able to offer “Modest Proposals” and urge the consumption of Irish babies from time to time, the fact of the matter is that there is a clear perception of unequal application of the rules when you apply this standard. Now, there is no monopoly on the left for hysterical, inflammatory posting – **Milum** comes to mind as a practicioner of this on the other side, and certainly former posters such as **December** were wont to engage in this practice. I agree that, despite initial appearances, this is likely not a liberal conspiracy to stifle conservative thought. However, the application of rules **Gaudere** urges upon us seems to draw an even more invidious distinction: giving freer reign to those posters who are either unwilling or unable to approach GD with logic and fair-mindedness. That, I find disturbing and sad, given this board’s oft-quoted mission statement. - Rick ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2004, 12:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gaudere-i-believe-you-are-in-error/245897/114 "2004-05-20T12:51:55Z")
> [@Coldfire](#): > > But… we have an agenda, now? Could someone inform me what it is, please, because I seemed to have missed _that_ fucking memo. :rolleyes: A copy of it was sent to me mistakenly. I can’t put it out here for all to see; I will say jackboots are heavily involved. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2004, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gaudere-i-believe-you-are-in-error/245897/115 "2004-05-20T13:50:41Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I’m not sure your rephrasing helped matters, **Gaudere**. Posting inflammatory arguments unsupported by reasonable, logical underpinnings is fine if you lack the wit to form such arguments; if you possess such wit, that route is denied to you. my understanding is that the mods expect everyone to argue to the best of their ability in GD. As I’ve said before, illogic isn’t fatal to a debate, but willful deceit is. If someone is merely illogical, you can confront their position with superior logic and hope to make headway. If they’re willfully deceitful, however, there’s not only no way of making headway, but there’s also often no way of knowing that your efforts will be fruitless. Stipulate that EC was doing his best to argue from a logical position and sincerely believed what he was saying, whereas Manny was knowingly misrepresenting his opponents’ viewpoints. If this is the case, then EC’s posts are less poisonous to productive debate. As Gaudere said, you can’t fight ignorance if there’s no ignorance to be fought. And EC’s post comprised ignorance in its purest form. Manny’s, however, wasn’t ignorance; rather, it was deceit. And the mission of this board isn’t fighting deceit. Okay, we’re done with that stipulation now. I’m not sure whether Manny realizes how horribly twisted his statement about antiwar positions really is. He may really be ignorant instead of deceitful; that’s not for me to say. As an aside, Lib, you wondered why I had a hardon for your silly namechange; it’s precisely because of cryptic little self-righteous drive-bys like the one you just did. You’re such a gas! Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Gaudere](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e495f1/32.png) [@Gaudere](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gaudere)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2004, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gaudere-i-believe-you-are-in-error/245897/116 "2004-05-20T15:34:28Z")
> [@](#): > > It sounds like you’re saying what I suggested; that it is the official policy of this message board to hold people who are stupid to a lower standard than people who are smart. Again, I’d be saddened by this but would of course abide if it were clear. Is my understanding in error?[…]So I guess in a sense that’s what I’m doing in this thread (not saying things I don’t truly believe of course, but rather making a point). I think what I’m hearing in response is, ‘Yes, we hold you to a higher standard because you are not stupid. And yes, we allow stupid people to get away with more. Get over it.’ Again, if that’s the policy, clearly and unambiguously stated, I will indeed Get Over It. Posters, bright or dumb, should not be deliberately deceptive in order to stir things up. Remember when you had a fit about what you considered willful deception on RTFirefly’s part two weeks ago? _You_ didn’t like it when you thought RT was posting things he did not believe in order to get people worked up. > [@](#): > > However, I reiterate that it was based on other posts which you have allowed to go unadmonished that I developed my good-faith belief that my post was within the rules. If you have examples of a poster popping into a thread and calling the posters therin pro-murdering-dictator-of-your-choice-that-is-a-deliberate-homophone-of-a-gross-slur, please post them. Or report the post. I have been busy lately, as I mentioned, perhaps I did not see them. You may also email me and ask my advice regarding whether a proposed post of yours in acceptable. I do remember you saying something before about turning over a new leaf in GD. I am disappointed that you instead choose to follow the example of people like Evil Captor. He’s not converting people to his side; you know that. He’s not fighting ignorance, BUT the people who argue with him _are_. I wish you would do more fighting of ignorance and less pot-shots. But if you obey the rules of GD you can post like Evil Captor if you like (as long as you are not being deceptive just to stir stuff up). > [@](#): > > If it’s any consolation, I’m having even less fun doing this than you are responding to it. Trust me, I am not having one iota of fun here. I am having anti-fun. I am not consoled. Do you truly intend post as obnoixously as you possibly can juuuust within the rules of GD? If it’s so terrible for you to act like you have, why do it? You fight more ignorance when you post more calmly. Do you really want to become the republican version of Collounsbury? > [@](#): > > But again, if it’s your intent to hold different posters to different standards, just say so unambiguously and I’m on board. Charming, manny, charming. > [@](#): > > I think this needs to be public, but of course I don’t intend to “Pit” you in the “Moderator X is an Ding Dong” sense with which we’re all familiar. Just following board rules. As an aside, I’d make the suggestion that since everyone’s got a little more skin in the game now it might make sense to experiment with requesting that administrative questions or disagreements such as this one go back to ATMB – it would certainly cut down on the hit-and-run sniping which always seems to infect these threads. I know what you’re doing–you’re worried I’m going to surpass your Pit thread record since I’ve been pitted 'cause of you twice in the past two weeks! Well, it won’t work, buster! Keep posting like you have and I’ll beat your record by Thanksgiving; because either you’re going to Pit me for warning you due to my Liberal Bias or _other_ posters will Pit me for NOT warning you due to my Ex-Mod Bias. I can’t lose! 😛 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Gaudere](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e495f1/32.png) [@Gaudere](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gaudere)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2004, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gaudere-i-believe-you-are-in-error/245897/117 "2004-05-20T15:38:41Z")
> [@](#): > > Apart from the obvious rhetorical value in being able to offer “Modest Proposals” and urge the consumption of Irish babies from time to time, the fact of the matter is that there is a clear perception of unequal application of the rules when you apply this standard. I expect posters, smart or stupid, to not be willfully deceptive in order to stir things up. “Modest proposals” are fine if a reasonably intelligent person can tell what you’re doing. But that is why, for example, we require links for parody threads in the Pit; people were posting a bunch of parodies without links, others would take the parodies seriously and get wound up, and no one was sure if a thread was “real” or just a parody. I am forced to reconsider my belief that Manny did not think that liberals/democrats are pro-Sadaam, however. He says he does think so and is not calling people Sadaamites just to make a point. Another poster in this thread reminded me that manny called him pro-child-prostitution. And he once called Catholics pro-child-molestation. So I guess he has used this demonizing sort of rhetoric before, and he couldn’t have been making a point about EC’s thread then since those examples were at least a year ago, possibly two. He certainly never suggested then that it was to make a point becuase of “unfair” GD policies. I seriously question its usefullness if you want to sway people to your side, though. ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2004, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gaudere-i-believe-you-are-in-error/245897/118 "2004-05-20T15:58:31Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > As an aside, Lib, you wondered why I had a hardon for your silly namechange [continuing the aside] Who did he used to be? Have I mentioned my belief that nobody with more than ten posts should be allowed to change their username? I mean, I HATE mine but keep it because tha’s how people know me, for better or worse. [/my part of the aside] ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2004, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gaudere-i-believe-you-are-in-error/245897/119 "2004-05-20T16:04:43Z")
> [@dropzone](#): > > [continuing the aside] > Who did he used to be? Have I mentioned my belief that nobody with more than ten posts should be allowed to change their username? I mean, I HATE mine but keep it because tha’s how people know me, for better or worse. > [/my part of the aside] Fifteen thousand posts, cryptic self-righteous political one-liners, and the nickname Lib? Tell me that you don’t recognize **Libertarian**. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2004, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gaudere-i-believe-you-are-in-error/245897/120 "2004-05-20T16:05:55Z")
> [@Gaudere](#): > > If it’s so terrible for you to act like you have, why do it? You fight more ignorance when you post more calmly. Do you really want to become the republican version of Collounsbury? just ftr, I think that **col** _is_ a Pubbie. He’s at least conservative. …I may note that for example I had a long association with a major human rights organisation that was largely funded and backed by [Republicans (like my](http://www.livejournal.com/users/collounsbury/176152.html?thread=517400#t517400)self to be sure, not like you, which is to say those of us who maintain a certain degree of rational capacity). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gaudere-i-believe-you-are-in-error/245897.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gaudere-i-believe-you-are-in-error/245897.md?page=7)