I forget, do we have a general HurricaneDitka Pit thread?

That was ridiculously lazy.

But brief!

He needn’t worry about it. The mods have made a collective decision that the death-threat rule is not to be enforced for posts that state the intent of killing cops who might come to take their guns. Apparently it’s okay if it’s only hypothetical.

HD tells us what would make him stop supporting Trump:


Not included in the list – collusion with a foreign government against political opponents; sexual assault/rape/harassment; financial crimes; racism/bigotry/white supremacism… the only things he lists are a non-conservative SCOTUS nominee, raising taxes, or opposing gun rights.

It shouldn’t be a mystery to anyone why so many of us think HD is a morally bankrupt person, at least by his posts.

You seem rather frustrated and angry here. I don’t know why, but whatever. I suppose the polite thing would be to express some sympathy, but actually I’m amused.

Enormous amount of jive here, but nothing of any real substance. Just empty insistence that “you’re wrong you’re wrong you’re wrong” accompanying by the typical spewed froth.

It would appear based on your own cite earlier that you’re also unfamiliar with the concept of noun-pronoun agreement. Not surprising, based on your track record.

One thing I will comment on is your complaints about “insults”. I like these types of complaints. I myself would prefer a frank and cordial exchange of ideas, and never (or at least extremely rarely) begin insulting people. But I get insulted a lot, and when that happens I don’t complain about it, but either ignore it, or on occasion mix it up too. And the ironic thing is that many times the people who begin with the insults are the ones who end up whining about how they’re being insulted. As is the case here, with you. Works for me. :slight_smile:

Come on, andy. With all the reasons to dis on the guy, you’re dis’ing him for things he didn’t say? And if you look at that post, he explicitly said the things he supported was a partial list. I think we can assume that that it’s also a partial list of things that would cause him to withdraw support.

No, really just amused that you seem to be trying to compete with trump in gas lighting.
Though I could have some sympathy for your continued failure at reading other people’s minds, along with your insistence that you have that capability.

If you are not just a troll, and the implications that has for your character and capability, then you are just a really stupid person who cannot stop being amused by his own lying. Pathetic either way.

If I’m wrong, he has all the freedom in the world to correct me. But based on this post and other things he’s said in threads about non-white immigrants, sexual assault and harassment, the OK City bomber, and more, then I think my assessment is entirely reasonable.

Well I think my interpretation is correct, but you claim you’re just amused and I’m certainly amused in which case it works out for everyone. Everything is for the best in the best of all possible worlds … :slight_smile:

Heh, okay.

You enjoy lying, I enjoy calling out liars. No frustration or anger, just the unencumbered pure joy of pointing out the intentional falsehoods that liars like yourself are stupid enough to try to perpetuate.

Fun game for all to enjoy.

OK, whatever.

I don’t think it’s fair to impute things to people and insist that they have the freedom to correct you. There’s no limit to what you can impute to people, and especially given the board makeup, if a guy like HD had to deny everything that people were imputing to him he would constantly be on the defensive and would have no time for anything else.

As for the substance, I agree with JM that HD clearly left things out. But even more than that, I think HD was thinking in terms of reasons for his current support for Trump that might be withdrawn and cause him to lose support. He wasn’t discussing things that might override his support, and his list didn’t include anything along those lines.

One needs to consider one’s audience, and tailor the effort to the circumstance.


I think there’s plenty of good reasons for the things I’m criticizing HD for. You might disagree. I don’t say things unless I think I have good reason to do so, and I think I do here – most notably, the things he’s said about non-white immigrants, the OK City bomber, sexual assault and harassment, and more, in addition to the things he left out here (which are, quite notably, most of the chief reasons so many liberals are so strongly critical of Trump).

At best I think this (and many of his other posts) show that he’s tolerant or indifferent to bigotry/racism/white supremacism, sexual assault and harassment, and the like, as long as they’re accompanied by lower taxes, gun rights, and his preferred SCOTUS nominee.

But you’ll notice that I’m saying “I think” and “I feel” and the like. These are quite obviously opinions. And they’re just based on his posts. Maybe the true person behind the posts is entirely different, but all I can go on is his posts.

Well, isn’t that a familiar refrain! Where have I heard that before? Ah, I believe it was when you made an ass of yourself trying to defend your lying deceptions on health care, eventually declaring that you would only debate [del]posters you respect[/del] posters who agree with you. I believe you’ll find those are pretty scarce.

But this prompts me to make a quick comment about this noun-pronoun business in relation to your brilliant linguistic construction where you wrote “JohnT’s point had been …” followed by “… it was a shaky point”.

In the world that I inhabit, the pronoun “it” would unambiguously be understood in this context by any native English speaker to refer to the most proximate antecedant, the noun phrase “JohnT’s point”. The fact that “point” is repeated in the second sentence only strengthens its association with the nearest candidate antecedant “JohnT’s point”. Only the poorest, most incoherent writer could possibly think “it” refers back to anything other than “JohnT’s point”, and only an idiot would blame the reader, as you did, for making the obvious interpretation.

And it’s really adorable the way you complain to JohnT that “You left off the first two sentences of the paragraph when you quoted it.” Only a delusional illiterate would imagine that including two sentences from a prior paragraph could possibly change the implicit understanding of noun-pronoun agreement several sentences later in a completely different paragraph, the understanding that I just described above.

And only a shameless hypocrite would whine about someone leaving out those irrelevant sentences, when that hypocrite had just recently quoted one of my posts with the entire conclusion left out in a deliberate, deceitful attempt to completely reverse the meaning.

As for your incoherent grammatical analysis in #383, I challenge you to find any dictionary that classifies “it’s” as a noun.

You might want to reflect on the fact that almost every time you post, you reveal ever more of your dishonesty and ignorance. Most folks would consider that a good reason to post as little as possible, but to each his own, I guess.

True, but you were too lazy for that.

Depends, don’t it? I kinda like my audience, don’t really think he does.

No, only an idiot would think otherwise, if they were following the context - which was an explanation of why the point was shaky - plus the fact that “as I said” was obviously refering to something which I had previously said.

I don’t doubt that your claim about “the world [you] inhabit” may be true. But that says more about the world you inhabit than about the normal world.

Look your lack of integrity is evident regardless, but there’s no need to highlight it. It’s a trivial matter to see that the “first two sentences of the paragraph” were not from a prior paragraph but were in the very same paragraph. To not just lie about this but to make this lie in bold font as if to emphasize your dishonesty is something else, even for your standards.

Sorry, but it didn’t reverse the meaning. The part I omitted was you saying why you found the part I quoted less significant than your general feeling that private healthcare sucks!!!. Personally I was interested in the factual issue that I had raised and not your general feeling on private healthcare or any other issue, and on that factual matter you conceded.

You’re seizing on a typo which did not have any impact on the point, which was that the meaning was clear. Whether it was a noun or a pronoun is irrelevant to that.

In sum, this is just more of wolfpup being wolfpup, with all that entails. Glad I’m not you, but I think you deserve yourself.

Sorry, my mistake. I looked at this post, saw the two sentences in a separate preceding paragraph, and assumed from a quick glance that those were the sentences in question. But why was that paragraph there? Well, as we’re about to see, because that’s a necessary part of your argument, too, so my mistake doesn’t change the fact that your entire argument is bullshit.

The problem, you see, is that your reference to “it’s” as a noun was not a “typo” but symptomatic of your fundamental lack of understanding of language. Those first two sentences in that paragraph would not in the best of circumstances have corrected the obvious implication to any native English speaker that “… it was a shaky point” referenced anything other than the proximate “JohnT’s point”. What made it infinitely worse was that each of those sentences was itself infested with an ambiguous pronoun phrase, both which you somehow think a reader would believe are the antecedents for “it” in “… it was a shaky point”.

The trouble of course is that a pronoun as antecedent doesn’t resolve the referent pronoun, so one really does have to go way back to the preceding paragraph to figure out what the fuck you’re talking about. And what does one find? One finds two sentences, one of which talks about something that JohnT said, and another that talks about something that HD said. So even this tortuous analysis still technically leaves ambiguity as to what the fuck the “it’s” is referring to. Meanwhile a plain reading without this tortuous analysis yields the obvious – and unintended – interpretation of the final downstream “it” as referencing the closely preceding “JohnT’s point” that everyone except you can plainly see. IOW, you don’t write English very well.

Sure, pal, whatever you say. You claimed that under Canadian health care it was “tough to get service”. In an attempt to have a rational conversation, which is always a mistake with you, I wanted to point out that certain elective procedures have prioritized wait queues in order to maximize resource utilization, so expensive equipment and staff doesn’t sit idle, but that it’s not in an way shape or form “tough to get service”, as illustrated by my immediate access to the procedure I needed. And it wasn’t even urgent, I was just happy to get it done right away so I could go home.

To summarize: You said “it’s tough to get service”. I said (paraphrasing) “sure there may be a wait in some cases, but it’s NOT tough to get service”. You quoted “sure there may be a wait in some cases”, lopped off the rest, and declared victory. This is pretty standard m.o. for you. Honest debate is not your strong suit, to put it mildly.

It’s relevant insofar as you don’t know what you’re talking about. An antecedent pronoun doesn’t resolve the referent pronoun like a noun does.

If a guy writes “As I said, you left off the first two sentences (not to mention the prior paragraph)”, it’s quite a feat to assume that the “first two sentences” were themselves “the prior paragraph”. (Do you understand what “not to mention” means?) At an absolute minimum it indicates that you were hardly paying attention to what you were reading, which makes your claims about how clearly it was written worthless (even if they weren’t otherwise so).

It provided context for the paragraph which followed. Understood that you’re not big on context, but for many people it’s helpful in understanding things.

Actually what happened was that I copied those bullet points from JohnT’s post and changed what I thought was relevant. The distinction between a noun and pronoun was not relevant to understanding the meaning of the sentence, so I didn’t focus on it and overlooked it. Typo.

If you were an idiot who couldn’t understand what you were reading - a description which seems to fit JohnT quite well - you might have trouble with it. A normal person who understood the context would have no trouble. Unlike yourself, apparently, I have a day job and don’t have all day to work at this, and as long as the meaning is clear I’m not going to worry about making sure even the silliest idiot can understand what I write.

Though FWIW, in my assessment you - despite your manifest deficiencies - are probably more intelligent than JohnT (for what that’s worth) and probably can read and understand that sentence just fine, and are purely motivated by antipathy in this discussion.

I notice you didn’t even address that it’s really difficult to understand that sentence as referring to JohnT’s point if you were paying attention to the context, or even the words of that sentence itself. Again, understood that you’re not big on context and all. But I think you’re just looking to score points here.

That’s not what happened and you’re misrepresenting what you wrote. You said that “It’s true that one typically has to wait for most purely elective procedures, from considerations of efficient resource utilization (it’s called queuing theory). But when my cardiologist came into my room to tell me that the doctors had decided that in my case a particular form of PCI would be a viable alternative to bypass surgery, I asked when this could be done. His answer, “they’ll take you down in about two hours. You’ll be home tomorrow.” Yeah, it was “tough getting service”.” (emphasis added)

You were contrasting “most purely elective procedures” for which “one typically has to wait” with more important procedures such as you got from your cardiologist. This was relevant to you under your delusion that the discussion is about the greatness of the Canadian system versus the horrible private insurance system. But that’s not a conversation that I’m actually having, and I’m simply discussion whether costs are held down via rationing services, and from a purely cost perspective it makes no difference whether it’s purely elective procedures or important ones.

One of the many problems in discussing things with you is that you’re completely fixated on this issue of how much better the Canadian system is than the American one, and you insist on interpreting everything as being a statement about this comparison, even if that’s not at all what it’s about. Far from the only problem, but one of them.

A bunch of technical terms which don’t have any actual import. I said at the outset that you were a “pseudo-intellectual poseurs” given to “a lot of technical lingo and name dropping”. Check.

“Pit mooch”, noun, a Doper who distracts and diverts a Pit thread to make themselves the focus thereof.