Rule 34
I went ahead and asked him directly. He ignored me. We have our answer.
Occasionally other posters do that, but he seems to do it as much as everyone else put together.
Pretty much everyone googles to gather information and obviously mistakes happen but DD is in a class by himself for citing things that say the opposite to his argument.
He also is the only person I’ve seen that quotes the part that contradicts himself.
Yep, replied to the thread and ignored your question. It’s pretty clear that his opinion is not well informed.
Well, that’s… disappointing.
Normal people do not lump places such as the British West Indies with the United Kingdom (that Historical Myths thread again).
“But here with Chavez unable to defend himself, I also give some side eye. 50 years and they are only now coming forward? Memories that old are pretty worthless.”
Really? If I were raped by a famous man I was working with, twice, and after two long pregnancies I bore two children from that….my memories 50 years later would be “worthless”?
Not that I’m discounting the memories of other women whose abuse experiences had less obvious, tangible effects. I don’t think their memories after 50 years are “worthless,” either.
He also couldn’t be bothered at first to read the NYT article before jumping in with that judgment, so he doubted that the other two complainants had been identified. When the message finally got through, we got “this is sad” from him.
He was right about it being sad, just not exactly the way he meant it.
Now he’s completely shitting the bed in the Neville Chamberlain thread. “I ain’t payin’ no mind to them perfessers with their fancy book learnin’. I know everything about World War II. Why, as Doug McArthur once said to my pappy…”
He seems appalled that someone would cite their own prior work. As if that isn’t something done routinely by literally every academic on the planet.
Good point.
Good point.
Yeah, he’s full of his usual amount of shit in that threat. You know, completely full of shit. I’ve made it a point to not directly address his idiocy in that thread. You have my sympathies for having to deal with him. Honestly you could just not respond to him (though I entirely understand the desire to). Everyone debating you there is fully aware of just how full of shit and how much of a thread-shitting gadfly he is.
I do it all the time! For example…
I’ve yet to see a thread in which DD actually added to the discussion. I’m sure they must exist but I’ve yet to run into one.
To the extent he provides value, it is to simply assume that whatever position he strongly holds is wrong. Kind of a reverse Cassandra. And that’s useful in its own way. If you ever finding yourself agreeing with him, it’s a major red flag to review and revise your own thinking.
He’s the sort of person who could claim the sun rises in the east and even provide ‘cites’, and I’d have to think long and hard if I hadn’t actually been mistaken my entire life.
His mom worked for Edwin Hubble, and watched him align the observatory’s telescope every morning at dawn to the rising sun.
/ignore
The crazy thing is that DD does actually make some decent contributions now and then. Usually in trivial topics, but I’ve had some good discussions with him. Which just makes it all the more frustrating how he acts the rest of the time.
It’s like eating at a restaurant that 1 out of every 4 times serves decent food, and the rest of the time gives you food poisoning. (Needless to say, it’s not worth it to ever eat in a place like that, and I also have DD on ignore because the signal-to-noise is not even close to favorable.)
I’ve done that a couple of times myself. “Hey, that position looks reasonable! Wait, DrD agrees with it! Better check myself!”
At least the wrongness is usually clear from the post itself, unlike a couple of former posters whose “value” consisted of posting links that usually said the opposite of what they claimed, but you had to actually click on the link to see exactly where the misrepresentation was.
I never figured that out. Is it projecting? For example, thinking to yourself “I wouldn’t bother reading a cite someone else posted, [therefore, I assume] they probably aren’t going to read mine, so I’ll just find something that looks like it backs me up and post that”. But after you’ve been called out on it 1 or 2…hundred times, most people would learn that they either need to provide cites that actually back them up, because we’ll read them, or don’t make claims that you know will having people asking for cites.
Having said that, I do get a small kick out of quoting the part of the cite that proves the opposite of what they said and asking them about it. I generally dislike making people uncomfortable, but when you’re posting in bad faith, that’s on you.