chicken-shit.
One more reason I won’t humor you.
stoid
“It’s a pity that both the verbal irony of these other posts, and the political irony pointed out in this post, are both lost on the audience.”
“I think it’s very important to “know your audience”. And when your “audience” is getting enraged and is flaming you (as what happened in that thread) what was the point of all that “play” and “irony” (that no one else apparently detected?).”
Well. Now you know don’t you? And don’t you feel just a little uptight? Haven’t you been burned again by your own intellectual and emotional rigidity? Americans aren’t very good at irony. But it remains the most efficient form of humor. If a black man or a woman votes for the Bush, that’s ironic. What is doubly ironic is their vociferous defense of him. How important is it to “know your audience” when they don’t even know themselves? I am 'minded of the archbishop, who upon reading Gulliver’s Travels, said; “I don’t believe a word of it”. Republicanism is the biggest refuge for the unimaginative. The play and irony aren’t for you. They are for me. While you sit there and froth at the idea that a monster such as myself is not incarcerated or extinguished, I jolly myself at your expense. I love you, Yosemitebabe. You are the Ur-American, peripatetic, you bounce about righting injustice on the board, your rectitude only eclipsed by your dogged determination to morally instruct us lesser creatures. I owe you a debt of gratitude I can never repay.
You know, re-reading that thread, it was obvious from my initial response to you that I figured you were “just kidding”. And I told you it “wasn’t funny”. It wasn’t. You may think your humor and irony and wit is effective, I beg to differ. As did everyone else on that thread.
Only if it is related in an effective way. You did not write it in an effective way. You prompted the ire of everyone, yet still continued. You knew you were prompting flames and outrage, you continued. This is not “irony”. This is someone getting their jollies by pissing a whole lot of other people off by expressing outrageous and reprehensible views that they do not actually possess.
My dear fellow, you are in no position to decide whether any of us do or do not know ourselves. What condescension. You are some stranger on a message board, that’s all.
I knew what you were doing. I wasn’t frothing that you should be “incarcerated”. I just didn’t think you were funny. What you wrote on that thread was sick, and weird. It could be said that it was trollish behavior. You amused yourself by getting a lot of people riled up. That seems to fit the definition.
:rolleyes:
As I have told you before, I think you are a pontificating windbag who has an irrational fear that people will think that they are “better” than you.
Carry on, with your “wisdom”. If you have refrained from trolling since that poisoned dog thread, I guess there is no further need to discuss that part of your character. You’re still a pontificating windbag, and I dislike you as much as you dislike me. I see no reason to change that.
My oh my, Milossarian … “clueless idiot” and “chickenshit” too, all in the same day … You’re right, when I make a comment that you folks tend to degenerate into aggressive ad hominems when faced with cogent dissent I guess I am COMPLETELY MISTAKEN, um, not.
I guess 8 long years of unprecedentedly vicious GOP bile directed towards everything not in lockstep with its selfish and leering worldview has not sated your appetite for the personal attacks. (So much for you guys being “uniters not dividers”; one leetle pocket of dissent and the curses and spit-flecks come raging out of your mouth!) … Nay, you’re a finger-wagger, all right. Except in your case it’s the middle finger.
Anyway Stoidela is 100% right; why you expect people to step & fetch for you like a pack of lawn jockeys, when these arguments have already been hashed over at great length, is beyond my comprehension … Maybe you should do some kind of search? and resurrect all those threads that address your concerns, rather than turning red and stamping your feet and demanding that people trot out the entire laundry list all over again, just to satisfy your need for edification.
RTA…you and Stoid and Chronolicht make a nice couple. I hope you’ll be very happy in your miserable hate-filed world together.
Why don’t you go spew your hatred somewhere else?
I’m just happy that you liberals are taking the election this way. The more incoherent and vicious and psychotic you all get, the less likely you are to benefit from Bush’s less-than-stellar performance. I’m gonna laugh when the “go nuclear” strategy backfires on your sorry behinds. Well, perhaps the left-wing implosion will mean we’ll get a decent democrat to vote for in 2004. Y’know, like how the republicans were desperate to put up a moderate after all the anti-Clinton crap rebounded against them?
Ah, well, it doesn’t matter anyway, since me and my plutocrat buddies are gonna put a stop to all this “voting” crap pretty soon. We shreiking rottweilers have to stick together, you know…after all, we don’t live in a democracy anymore, right?
Teaching remedial quantities really isn’t my bag, but as you go forth in life, you should know that a “couple”, when speaking in relationship terms, consists of only two people.
Silencing the opposition - that’s good! Maybe there’ll be a job for you yet.
Me? Hatred? Nah…
On the other hand…
Yes, I think it’s clear that your assessments of who is hate-filled are based on a greater, shall we say, “familiarity” with hatefulness than the average joe.
Perhaps it is time for you to familiarize yourself with the term “projection”, and then try again.
Stoid
I do disagree with your characterization, but I’m a fair guy. I challenge you to find… oh… ten posts (out of two and a half thousand) of mine (not counting ones made in humor, which shouldn’t be hard to detect) that shore up your characterization of me as a “hippy-hater” (or whatever the hell it was). You can’t do it, because your characterization is wrong.
Stoid…
If it’s been done so much already, it’d be easy for you to answer, wouldn’t it?
You’ve NEVER answered the questions… you’ve only said “I refuse to do so, because I’ve already answered them.”
I suggest you look up the word “frustration” sometime. When one person asks a question, and the other dances around squealing “Not gonna answer! Not gonna answer!”, it tends to get “frustrating”.
I see that they re-calibrated the percentage scale to max out at one million.
I’ll say this real slowly for y’all (Stoid, RTA, etc.): Just because you can convince yourself that you’re right, it doesn’t mean that you are. Just because that you can convince yourself that the other side of the issue doesn’t exist, that doesn’t mean it’s gone. And just because you have the ability to remain oblivious of reality, that doesn’t make you intelligent.
(Ten bucks says that the smartest answer that any of 'em can come up with for that is another take on the “Just because you…” repetition)
**
Ditto, RTA.
You clueless idiot.
You know, if I called you a liar based on this one remark, I don’t think it would be fair, even though to be accurately called a liar, it merely takes being “one who lies”, I think it should be a pattern of behavior before having that label slapped on, don’t you? So, if it makes you feel better to, umm…shall we say “misstate” the facts in order to appear a little bit more right, well, that’s between you and your conscience, isn’t it? [sub]Unless of course, we’'ve entereed some parallel universe…let me check…whew, no, I just looked and sure enough, a search will bring up dozens and dozens of threads in which I, along with many others, answered all the questions about our view of the election. You had me going there for a minute![/sub]
My job is only to answer the question: Is rehashing the details of election2000, which were actually ** RE ** hashed to death while it was happening, going to serve some real purpose? Is the person who is asking for this truly interested in actually getting some information that they do not already have, or have ready access to, in the interest of coming to a new understanding? Or is this person, and many of their supporters, doing the verbal equivalent of provoking an altarcation so they can try to prove that their dick is bigger…oh sorry…they are right?
Survey says:
No, not in this instance.
No, not in this lifetime.
Yeah, pretty much.
stoid
Well, you were completely mistaken about one thing – while you hate the Republicans violently, you voted for Nader, thus voting for Bush - in Florida, no less.
Well gosh, I’m glad you’re taking the high road and behaving differently than the GOP.
Then why did you vote for Nader?
Sua
Stoidela said:
“You know, it is the most useless and pathetic sort of ‘debate’ to simply call names and otherwise denigrate people personally. I really expect better from Dopers. If you pay attention, you will see that there are those here who are quite capable of viscerating arguments without eviscerating the person who makes them. Look to them and learn.”
RTA said:
“Meanwhile the discussion continues, and I grow weary of the shrieking Rottweilers (Lemur866, CLedet et al), naked W apologism poorly disguised as neutral & dispassionate discourse (waterj, friedo et al), masturbatory what-about-me-remember-me self-aggrandizement (SuaSponte, Wildest Bill et al), and Wilford Brimley-esque, “you-dirty-hippies” finger-wagging (Milossarian, SPOOFE et al).”
Stoidela said (in reply to RTA’s post):
“MY tone!!! Dude… you have left me in the DUST with that rant! I’m proud yer on my side, dude…”
Okay, Stoidela, I don’t have much of a problem with you, but this little sequence struck me as vaguely…hypocritical? You say that there are many here who can make good arguments without insulting people, but then you back someone up who simply insults people? Can you clarify this? (I’m not going to hold my breath or anything, but I figure you’ll give me something eventually.)
Why would you feel you couldn’t hold your breath? I respond to everyone who addresses me directly, with the following exceptions:
-
People who attack me personally, and/or demonstrate such personal hatred and viciousness towards me that their conversation with me is obviously merely a way for them to vent their unpleasant feelings on me. Why would I want to participate in that? I wouldn’t and I don’t.
-
People, and there’s really only one I can think of on this board, who are, in addition to obviously disliking me personally, are really just so inadequate to the task of defending their hostility that it would be unkind of me to engage them. So I don’t.
-
Sometimes I will not respond to a direct address when others have answered the question being asked as well or better than I could. No point in being redundant.
You do not fall into any of these categories, so I will be happy to answer you.
While I honestly do not have a great deal of respect for using personal swipes as a form of argument, because I think it is vicious, unpleasant, and inappropriate to a forum such as this, not to mention just a lame way of debating anything, and I make it a personal matter of honor never to indulge in it (and sometimes it really does require tremendous restraint…but I’d be so ashamed of myself), that doesn’t mean that I can’t occasionally enjoy it coming from someone else.
However, in this case, I was actually gently * chiding * RTA for * his * hypocrisy in saying that even though he agrees with me, he apparantly is under the impression that I am so strident that it would be unwise to publicly align himself with me:
And then he goes on to be ten times more nasty and vicious in one post than I have been in all nearly 1700-odd posts I have made here altogether. But I didn’t want to be tooo hard on him, because, after all, we’re on the same side.
See the thing that is so strange about all this is that I am accused of being all kinds of insufferable, but the fact is that while I may hold some pretty radical opinions, and I will announce and defend them without apology, I’m actually pretty harmless in both word and deed. I am harsh on Dubya, because I think he’s an idiot and a tool of evil forces, not to mention the fact that I believe he stole the election and does not deserve to be the President, but he’s fair game in my book. As are all other politicians and public figures. But even then, I don’t just say randomly shitty things about anyone, and I never just spew hate. I have a few less than popular, even harsh, opinions about a few things, but I have my reasons and I give them.
So. Does that answer your question?
stoid
“If you have refrained from trolling since that poisoned dog thread, I guess there is no further need to discuss that part of your character.”
I am condescending? What does this sound like? You little black pot, you. You waddle over to this thread only to cast aspersions on my character. You have the puritanical, dictatorial little black heart of a boarding school matron. I suggest you trundle your giant hirsute glutes over to another thread where they need your moral guidance, or address the subject at hand. My money says that you are a Republican.
I have yet to see Lemur or Millosarian or any other Republican debator properly address the issues here. “Conservatism” is stupidity. I would like to see one Republican refute the arguments made for a just, equitable and sustainable society with eloquence, reason and systematic articulateness. It can’t be done. You people won’t be finished until you leave this little verdant jewel a smoking husk for your own children. Yes, I despise you for your lack of imagination and good will. I won’t apologize for it. I have nieces and nephews who will inherit what your blind devotion has wrought.
See, now, ** Nocturne **, I would NEVER say that. And I don’t think it was very nice or very good debating style of Chronoclicht to have done so. But I can be and am still highly amused reading it. 
Hallelujah brother! Shout it out! Preach it!
stoid
“Cast aspersions”? Since apparently there was only “irony” and a “sense of play” in that other thread, and since I primarily pointed people to it (to “judge for themselves”) what exactly have I done? You must be proud of your cleverness on that thread - so in essence, all I did was highlight it for others to admire. Right?
As far as other “aspersions”, I have called you a pontificating windbag with trolling tendencies, here and on other threads. I think you are. I think that pretty much covers my aspersions towards you. Your aspersions towards me and others have been far more florid, colorful, and prolific. So I don’t see any reason for you to feel too put out by anything I’ve done to you, my dear. You always manage to liberally dish out far more “aspersions” than you ever recieve. I’ve seen it on other threads. It’s almost Pavlovian with you. The minute someone looks cross-eyed at you, disagrees with you, you go ballistic. It’s really amusing. It’s especially amusing to see what amount of hysteria and bile can be produced from you by directing just ONE word at you. (That happened on another thread. Amusing, that.) Sigh. You are really too predictable.
And Stoid, I said it on another thread, I’ll say it again - GUTLESS. You won’t address me personally, you’re doing the “la la la la I can’t hear you” thing that so many have commented on. But you’ll “respond” to me in this passive/aggressive gutless manner? You’re quite predictable as well.
Well, this is a new year, and this hijack has gone on long enough.
Same challenge I gave to RTA. Prove it. Prove that I have a “pattern of behavior” that suggests that I am a liar.
Once again, dear ol’ Stoid, you can’t do it, 'cuz yer wrong.
Ah, I see! Your eyes see words on the screen that aren’t there!
The question posed to you had nothing to do with “rehashing” anything. It was meant for clarification. Apparently, your words have become so convoluted that very few understand their meaning.
I suppose YOU don’t even know what your words mean, lest you would have clarified your stance for the general public.
I’ll ask again: What parts of the series of events outlined by Milo are incorrect or inaccurate? THAT is the question posed before you, and THAT is what you’re dancing around. It has nothing to do with your political beliefs.
That’s amusing. I suppose you either A: must have multiple personalities, or B: you’re a liar (hey, we can toss the L-word around all day, dear). Find… oh, ten people who agree with you that I’m a liar, and we’ll call it even, 'k?
Shouldn’t be too difficult… if I really WAS a liar, there MUST be at least ten people out of 11,000 who’ve noticed it.
Once again, you can’t do it, 'cuz yer… oh, why do I bother?
So it’s okay for YOU to be irrational and vicious in your posts, yet it’s not okay for others to respond to you in kind?
In other words, “They can prove me wrong, so I pretend they don’t exist, and I’m happy again.”
“NO POINT IN BEING REDUNDANT?!?!?” This from the moron who’s posted a dozen threads about one fucking election?!? The SAME thread, over and over and over and over?!?
Stoid, not only are you so full of shit that your breath smells of pinworms, you’re also a hypocrite.
This from the moron who’s best debating point is “Bush is evil evil evil”?!? From the same moron who started the “Why I Hate Republicans/conservatives” thread?!?
Again, Stoid, you are a hypocrite.
Well, you’ve often given the wrong impression, then. Note the above thread example.
::grumble grumble:: I’m getting too old for this… ::grumble grumble::
I haven’t even read the rest of it, because just reading this tells me what the problem is. YOU DON’T READ. You are LOOKING for things that are not there.
READ IT, SPOOFE.
I am saying PRECISELY that it would NOT BE FAIR TO CALL YOU LIAR, because you have NOT shown a PATTERN of lying…you have simply come damn close to telling an outright lie in this instance!
Jesus!
NO FUCKING WONDER you have such a problem with me… you cannot read what I write!
Grumble grumble indeed!
stoid
I may or may not be irrational. I don’t believe I am at all. However, I am NEVER vicious. I invite you to show me otherwise. (Attacks on public figures do not count. You say here: “respond to you in kind” - If George Bush wants to come around here and get shitty with me, well, he’s welcome to and would be responding to me in kind. But no Doper can accuse me truthfully of being vicious towards them. Not even close. You can keep ignoring this point, but others, lacking your agenda, can see the truth for themselves.
Huh?
If I’m so damn redundant, why do you keep hassling me to have that same conversation over and over? You keep wanting it both ways, Spoofe. You have to pick.
Just two examples of why I won’t be responding to you after this. Calling me a moron doesn’t make me a moron or prove you right, Spoofe, it just makes you an extremely unpleasant person who doesn’t know how to debate something without getting shitty and calling names like a child in a schoolyard. “Hey, Stoid, yer a stoopidhead!”
I’m here to enjoy myself. Interacting with * your * quite pointed and deliberate viciousness, is not enjoyable to me.
See ya!
poof