Only that in this case **Hentor **did not approach this by “assuming the worst without fact-checking.”
It is not the “naked truth” specially when we all can see that you already acknowledged that **Hentor **based what he declared here on the previous posting history of the one being pitted.
Bricker hasn’t told you anything at all different from comments by numerous other posters over the past several months. In those cases you routinely called them ‘hysterical’ and/or repeatedly claimed that their comments were politically motivated. Is Bricker hysterical and opposed to you politically? C’mon, it’s not that hard a question.
It’s hard to argue with this as a general principle, but since you so often post threads decrying liberal hypocrisy, I simply have to ask:
During your time as a criminal defense attorney, did you ever attempt to impeach the credibility of a witness by pointing out times where that individual had been untruthful on other matters? If not you personally, is this not an accepted tactic in the courtroom?
And why do you suppose it is acceptable to impeach a witness in court, where the stakes are real, but it is unacceptable during a debate, or even a mere Pitting, where there is literally nothing at stake?
♫
Bravely bold Sir Tube
Rode forth from Cardboard.
He was not afraid to fark
The brave Sir Tube.
If the tube don’t fit
You must acquit!
If the tube don’t fit
You must acquit!
♪
No one who said anything to me in the manner that Bricker did got called hysterical or politically motivated as a result.
I’m not going to say anything with regard to Bricker’s post until I’ve had a chance to discuss it with him by PM. Once he and I have arrived at whatever conclusion we arrive at, I will post what I have to say then.
Breath duly baited.
Bated.
Spoken by a true Master.
Thanks for letting us know. Did a school bus go by or something?
Do you honestly think that I’m bothered for one second by these childish taunts?
I see. And just which part of that renotely illustrates my alleged track record for misrepresentation?
Even if what you say is true, is has nothing to do with your original charge. Nor does it undermine in any way my claim to employ an empirical approach.
Nice fail.
No. In fact it appears you have some sorta pride in your reputation.
Under the circumstances, perhaps “naked truth” is not the most apt phrasing.
Aw gee. Here I was, sure that they would initiate some kind of corrective cognitive awakening in you. Dr. Hentor’s Guide to Insight through Insult.
I think that would require a degree of self-awareness that you manifestly do not possess, so no.
No, just you.
All sensible people do.
For example, suppose that your last three conversations with John Doe were:
[ol]
[li]His description of the performance of Hamlet he watched last week.[/li][li]His proposal that the current political situation be improved by a set of tax and spending adjustments.[/li][li]His arguments that reported encounters with ghosts, angels, and space aliens arise from a common psychological thread.[/li][/ol]
Suppose also that your last three conversations with Richard Roe were:
[ol]
[li]His description of the Jerry Springer episode he watched last week.[/li][li]His proposal that the current political situation be improved by marching on Washington and hanging every politician in sight.[/li][li]His arguments that that Apollo landings were faked by the government.[/li][/ol]
When evaluating future statements by Mr. Doe and Mr. Roe, do you treat them as equivalent in default credibility?
[QUOTE=Bricker]
“Weaselly” does not equal “imprecise.”
[/QUOTE]
The juxtaposition of these two quotes just made my day.
A lay witness testifies to things he’s personally seen or heard. When you attack his credibility, you’re specifically attacking just that: his supposed tendency to lie.
Your question above confuses this – the tendency or willingness to lie – with what’s in play here: the accuracy of conclusions; the insightfulness of analysis. If someone says they had lunch with Halle Berry, that’s either a lie or the truth. If someone says unions have helped the economy, that’s not a lie in the sense that fabricating an encounter with Halle is, and isn’t correctly debated (or analyzed, even) by impeaching the character of the union-fan poster who says it.