Some of you are aware of the poster brazil84, and the fact that
[ul]
[li]he has his own set of debating rules[/li][li]he is often vague about, or evades specifying which propositions he’s arguing[/li][li]but he usually, by appearances, has an agenda[/li][li]he has a catch phrase: “Show me where I said that. Quote me.”; and [/li][li]that he at any time may decide that you haven’t abided by his rules and bid adieu (in the jollyest of ways).[/li][/ul]
He’s a huge dick.
A summary of our fallout:
I can’t shake the feeling that this was a cop out from brazil…
(I admit to being a bit of a stickler here, but those who’ve encountered brazil in “quote me.” mode will understand)
Ah, don’t sweat it.
I got the same “I will no longer engage you” (translated: I will put you on ignore) from him when he showed what an ignoramus he was regarding global warming, as per his own blog, it is clear that even lukewarm supporters stopped replying to his tripe even there and it is mostly just a mothballed blog. He is just a nowhere man making plans for nobody.
Oh yeah, that’s why he sticks out. I couldn’t remember why I had such a low opinion of him, just that I’d formed it somewhere. He’s the douche who ‘bans’ people.
I’m not a very frequent poster here but I did participate in one of his AGW threads a couple of years ago (something about a hockey stick and a small ice age). Fun times.
A little Ikeman, you say?
Wow, that little list of people he’s “banned” formally written up is pretty odd.
Heh, I didn’t notice that! Names witheld to protect the innocent, so I guess I wont get to see my handle on the wall of shame then. 
Badge of honor, it would have been.
That’s hilarious! I’m starting to get the feeling that brazil may a bit of a charming, excentric nutter IRL.
“NO MORE TEA for you, Polly Prissy Pants! Clyde Frog, would you like some more tea?”
Demand to be banned!
(You think somebody at Anonymous could build us a hack where you put yourself on somebody’s else ignore list without them finding out? Then, after a while, he logs on and its like that Twilight Zone where the city is empty and you don’t know why…)
All that said…it isn’t a bad rule! Reading the Straight Dope (I’ve lurked for a very long time, only recently dared stick my nose out) I have seen a LOT of straw man re-interpretation of other people’s posts, and I have to say, I don’t like it.
The poisonous phrases tend to be, “So, in other words…” “Taking that to its extreme…” “If everyone did that…” “What you’re really saying…” and so on. Sly re-phrasings, equating of secondary implications with direct intentions, etc.
I wish that kind of stuff would not happen, but, alas, it seems a stock in trade of many Great Debates threads…
Trinopus
("So, you’re saying, posts here should be censored . . . ")
“Taking that to its extreme” and “If everyone did that” aren’t strawmen.
It can be a fair cop, or it can be a rhetorical stink bomb. But just about any argmentative approach has those.
I don’t disagree. The problem with brazil’s approach though is that he considers any discrepancy between his position as understood by him and how someone else understands it, refers to it or summarizes it as an ipso facto straw-man.
But that assumes bad faith from his counterpart, and denies the possibility of misunderstandings without intent to willingly misrepresent his position.
If someone gets his position wrong he’s got the right to set the record straight, but it’s only if someone got his position wrong in order to knock it down more easy that’s it’s a straw-man proper.
To which brazil responds that he’ll make his own rules thank you very much, and good day to you sir.
He’s been a moronic douchebag for years; why would he change now? I mean, he thinks he’s winning.
And the wall of shame is his trophy cabinet, for sure.
Aw, and it was so nice without him.
I thought this was going to be a zombie thread.
The latter, certainly, isn’t, and was a poorly chosen example… The former sometimes is, when it’s taken as “If you support ABC, then you obviously must support DEF and, in fact, Z.” Sometimes seen as a “slippery slope” argument. “If you favor gay marriage, you can’t help but also support multiple marriage, since that must follow.”
When it’s used to attribute an opinion to someone who hasn’t actually stated it, it certain feels strawish…
Trinopus (supports PDQ)
For some reason I always assume it was a she.
At any rate, I was surprised to see him in the Oslo shooter thread. Assumed he had been banned awhile ago. Not surprised at the dumbassery of his posts.
Wow. That’s a little … obsessive … to meticulously document the details of people of have pissed you off in long-forgotten arguments that no one reading your blog could possibly care about. Even as examples of what not to do when arguing with said nutcase they fail because they’re too tedious to read. I mean, that’s time that would be better spent doing just about anything (except possibly watching “The Undefeated”.)