I pit DrDeth

[Dissonance]

You can’t debate someone immune to reality and basic facts that disagree with his presumptions, which is why I haven’t bothered reading that thread. I’ll just assume that someone has pointed out that Germany declared war on Russia, not the other way around. Oh, and in its zeal to start the war, accidentally handed the Russians both versions of its justification for declaring war, both that Russia had refused to comply with Germany’s demands and that Russia hadn’t answered the German demands,

The German Declaration of War on Russia - World War I Document Archive

Russia having refused to comply with [not having considered it necessary to answer]* this demand, and having shown by this refusal [this attitude]* that her action was directed against Germany, I have the honour, on the instructions of my Government, to inform your Excellency as follows:

His Majesty the Emperor, my august Sovereign, in the name of the German

Empire, accepts the challenge, and considers himself at war with Russia.

---

*The words in brackets occur in the original.

[ASL_v2.0]

@Jackmannii

DD has morphed into entirely blaming the Allies for WWI.

*Entente. The Triple Alliance was the other guys (less the Italians, who declined to join Germany and Austria-Hungary in a non-defensive war of aggression and then sided with France and the Entente powers for opportunistic reasons).

But otherwise, yeah. He’s a total jackass.

[Mighty_Mouse]

When I saw that thread title, my first thought was that DrDeth is going to shit all over this.

[ASL_v2.0]

Well, yes, but that was kind of the… I won’t say point of the thread, but it was certainly an eyes-wide-open decision to create the thread and title it so, with the expectation that the bad Doctor would arrive to soil it. It had its origins in this very pit thread.

ICYMI:

@DrDeth

But you know, if you were not a coward, you could have started a thread in Great Debates about the causes of the Great war- but of course you just put your cowardly tale between your legs and slunk off to the Pit instead, knowing that in any non- Pit thread, you would lose.

[gnoitall]

@ASL_v2.0

Well, yes, but that was kind of the… I won’t say point of the thread, but it was certainly an eyes-wide-open decision to create the thread and title it so, with the expectation that the bad Doctor would arrive to soil it

In other words, trolling, in the sense of playing out delicious and irresistible bait and waiting for the chosen fish to strike.

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

In a way, one could say that he started the thread…

[Jackmannii]

@ASL_v2.0

@Jackmannii

DD has morphed into entirely blaming the Allies for WWI.

*Entente. The Triple Alliance was the other guys

“Allies” is also an accepted term for the other other guys.

[steronz]

Bravo.

[ASL_v2.0]

@gnoitall

In other words, trolling, in the sense of playing out delicious and irresistible bait and waiting for the chosen fish to strike.

More like picking up the gauntlet and swatting him down with it.

Anyway, the doctor seems incapable of distinguishing between Germany’s reasons for starting WWI versus the concept of an “act of war” as an act that justifies an armed response. As in “Germany went to war because France and Russia did X, therefore X was an act of war.” Sorry, no, not how it works.

[Great_Antibob]

I dunno. The “Ma, he’s looking at me funny” defense seems to be a go-to for a lot of idiots

[Monty]

Check out his latest post (about an hour ago). He’s moved onto “If I cite it, they’ll be mean to me” defense.

[Atamasama]

@Monty

“If I cite it, they’ll be mean to me”

Which means either (A) the cite is shit, or (B) it actually contradicts his point.

(Or maybe both.)

[MrDibble]

Look, I don’t know why you’re all pushing him on this, he’s made his feelings on this sort of thing quite clear in the past:

@DrDeth

And generally, a Book as a cite is not the best. Something we can all check to see if the quote is out of context.

So whoever brought a book as a cite is clearly the idio… wait, who, now?

[Monty]

@MrDibble

So whoever brought a book as a cite is clearly the idio… wait, who, now?

In the latest DrD Dance thread, I thought he was the one who actually cited (or alluded to) it and it just so happens another poster actually has the physical book.

[MrDibble]

@Monty

In the latest DrD Dance thread, I thought he was the one who actually cited (or alluded to) it

Yes, that was my point.

[crowmanyclouds]

@DrDeth

But you know, if you were not a coward, you could have started a thread in Great Debates about the causes of the Great war- but of course you just put your cowardly tale between your legs and slunk off to the Pit instead, knowing that in any non- Pit thread, you would lose.

How’s that easy win going for ya?

[Monty]

@MrDibble Got it. I read it as “someone cited the book” not as “someone brought up a book they actually and physically had in their possession”.

[puzzlegal]

If you follow the link, you’ll see that MrDibble cited a book, and quoted a relevant paragraph, and DrDeth objected to his bringing books into the debate.

The book is widely available (my library has an e-copy i could borrow today) and it seemed like an odd objection at the time. I was sure that was where MrDibble was going.

[Great_Antibob]

Yeah, the objection was to the totally unfair tactic of actually bringing relevant citations and quotes into the debate.

That’s not something we do around here at all. We should involve only vague, incorrect recollections from posters with dubious records and those should be accepted at face value. /s

[MrDibble]

@puzzlegal

If you follow the link, you’ll see that MrDibble cited a book, and quoted a relevant paragraph, and DrDeth objected to his bringing books into the debate.

Yep. My point is that he’s being a raging hypocrite now with his Sleepwalkers advocacy (well, that and a giant coward for not actually standing by that advocacy when called on for valid citations for his bullshit)