I think there’s a lot of deep denial that the subject of this thread is posting anything that’s not designed to troll this board. Come on, someone supporting a rapist to such an extent that some question whether or not it’s also a rapist? That’s 100% pure troll gold.
That’s giving DD way too much credit.
There are receipts from the last couple decades. This is one seriously dumb person.
As in, not remotely smart enough to design a classroom seating chart, much less any semi-intelligent campaign of trollery.
And with some bizarre hangups. He’s at times put up more protracted efforts supporting his bizarre WWII fantasies and ridiculous spellings than supporting this particular rapist.
Not every poster is some Machiavellian plotter considering every post. I know the internet is full of trolls but sometimes a dumbass is just a dumbass.
I don’t ascribe any intelligence to it, just enough cunning to see what’s getting attention and dialing it there.
Nah, at this point none of his particular bugbears are surprising anymore. This latest bit of inanity is unsurprising. It involves an author he likes and also women. So of course he supports the author.
It seems to be some sort of (perhaps undiagnosed?) mental health thing.
He has periods of overly pedantic, legalistic and combative posts interspersed with better behavior.
I think I posted it before in this thread (?) but DD shows every sign of being an older, no doubt white gent who finds it unfathomable that his social inferiors question his assertions to his face. Stuck socially back in the '60s with no alternative but to deal with the 21st century.
Personally, I don’t want to hate Neil Gaiman. His works have brought me such great pleasure throughout the years and I don’t want to throw all that away.
Doc Pedant is at it again.
At least a pedant would be correct.
As usual, his cites and arguments don’t actually refute anything.
Okay, wannabe pedant. 
I swear he (or somebody like him) has made that argument before and had it shot down.
ETA: Et voila
It is probably worth flagging his post and mentioning he is arguing an old argument already disproved. If you do, please include that link. FQ is not my forum.
I think he was modded in that thread.
Personally, I thought he was referring to our long-ago racist poster Chief Pedant.
I’d just like to take a moment to admire this phrase.
There’s a sliver of truth in what he says, and if he actually looked for cites to establish instead of assert, he could make a correct nitpicking comment that doesn’t help his case, instead of an unsupported incorrect nitpick that doesn’t help his case.
Once, I saw feces with a kernel of corn in it.
Perhaps that corn was a perfectly good kernel. But I had no desire to go digging through shit to find out. And that pile of shit would still be a pile of shit even if had been extracted.
I grasp the metaphor
I hope you wash your hands afterwards.
Thoroughly
Wait, that’s a flaggable offense? Because I’ve got a couple hundred posts of his that I could flag if that’s the case.
Actual kernels won’t pass through the digestive system intact, just the hull, a structure without a kernel in it.
It looks vaild but there’s no actual substance to it. The only reason it hasn’t collapsed is because it’s literally full of shit.
Your analogy is therefore very apt.
No, it was because I think he was modded about this specifically. Sorry, I’ve been busy and didn’t right a clear post at all.