Well, I’m sorry, pantom, then I appologize. I don’t agree with the governing of the church either, but that’s not what december is trying to say. He’s saying that John Paul II is anti-Semitic and supporting Saddam. And all because the man is against war.
I almost hate to tell you this Weirddave, but “that thread” is “this thread.” Please try to pay attention to where you spew your nonsense. This thread exists because december chooses to ignore the distinction between pitworthy, and non-pitworthy tactics.
Hmm. You’re right. I swiched “this” and “that”. My mistake.
Apology accepted.
And I apologize too. (That goes for you too, Coldfire.)
Even further, I went back & reread that page of the thread yet again (freakin thing is burned into my brain by now), and I have to say it was pitworthy.
Sigh.
I actually had to leave the room to change my mind. My ego got in the way.
BTW: et tu, Scylla? (Sorry, don’t know the Greek for that.) :eek:
Have to concur. Mtgman, that was an excellent post.
When I’m taken to task in The Pit,
I don’t like the insults one bit.
…But I’ll keep my ideals,
…Despite how bad it feels.
For defence, I’ll use side-spitting wit.
Incidentally, Christopher Hitchens in the current Slate harshly criticized the Vatican position on Iraq..
I’m going to have to agree with Guin here regarding the limericks. The fucking limericks.
Just to sum it up, I give you a short overview of december’s Modus Operandi. [ul][li]Post highly inflammatory OP, using either a selective quote from a trustworthy source, or an entire quote from a complete fruitcake source. []Make sure there are some backpaddling possibilities in inflammatory OP, so as to facilitate later weaseling and/or semantics games.[]Depending on factual evidence behind the OP, select forum of choice. Hardly any evidence, or deliberately misinterpreted facts: GD. No fucking evidence whatsoever: the Pit.[]When people call you on your OP, start Back Paddle Phase I. This phase usually involves adding new facts from (somewhat) credible cites, albeit typically misrepresented in some way. []When people still don’t buy your crap, start Back Paddle Phase II. This involves the much-loved semantics games: start selectively quoting people’s rebuttals, put words in their mouths, and claim they misinterpreted your words. If necessary, start debating the meaning of common one-syllable words.[]When the majority of the pack are still out for your blood, start using humour. A light-hearted joke, a friendly jab at one of the fuming moderators. Be sure to toss in the odd grin smilie or two.[]As a last resort, use the fucking limericks. You’re quite good at it, so it would be shame not to use them. Repeat until your adversaries are bored to such a degree that they just leave the thread.[]When thread falls below the 20th position of the first forum page, select new topic and go back to step one.[]Whatever you do, don’t curse, and don’t call anybody any names. As we all know, those are surefire signs of troll behaviour, and we don’t wanna be accused of THAT. Just be polite, pretend to provide cites for your ridiculous claims, and you’ll get away with murder.[/ul]Who said moderators couldn’t be critical of board policies and their applications?[/li]
pantom, I’m glad you only thought I was disgusting for one hour and one minute.
My god, it’s the script for the december-bot. Be careful, Coldfire, you don’t want the Iraqis to get their hands on that.
So pissing people off is okay as long as limericks are involved? Kewl.
I give you the Doper december,
The poster most want to dismember!
When dragged to the Pit,
He will trot out his wit
So his weaseling we won’t remember.
Welcome back, minty! We missed you.
I agree that Coldfire’s analysis was not bad. Note that his last point could almost be re-stated as *“december obeys the rules of the message board.” * :eek:
That’s hardly a deep insight, and has already been mentioned earlier.
Plus, I would guess that if Coldfire or one of the other mods thought you weren’t following the rules of the message boards, you would have received a clear and unambiguous message to that effect.
Well, let’s just say that the staff have severely mixed feelings about december’s tactics around these parts. Obviously, december is aware of our rules, and strives to operate within them as much as possible.
It is, however, possible to fully operate within the rules and still piss the staff off in the long run. Say, four years or so.
Naturally you have at least one example of a “they”, or of the “liberal thought police” in action. You do, don’t you? Or are you just whining about something you’re imagining (a.k.a. lying)?
Now put up or shut up - if you can do either one of those things. We’re waiting.
Now, since you’re on that kick, let me point out that the person in question’s political orientation is not the topic here, although you may have failed to grasp that in your haste to denounce anyone who might upset your fragile worldview. He does an effective-enough job of discrediting those views himself without any help. No, friend, this is about ignorance itself, and its cousin bigotry. You want to defend them? Not without a fight, not here.
Actually, just read coldfire’s latest for a good summary of the topic here - not a thing in it about political orientation, notice?
december, if THAT is what you call
I’d hate to see what you consider really bad wit.
December, please. Do you really think that an article from an auhtor who simplifies the Spanish ** civil ** war in that way, counts as a credible source againts the Vatican. Invasion my ass, Franco was a general in Spanish africa, he didn’t invade anything.
I agree that the word “Invasion” inplies entering, so it doesn’t apply to Gen. Franco, who was already in Spain. OTOH much of his army did come from outside Spain, so the word “invasion” more accurately might apply to them.
I don’t blame you for objecting to Hitchens’s snide oversimplification, but that’s his shtick. His fans enjoy that style of writing.
I agree that Hitchens’s article isn’t conclusive evidence. My point in presenting it is to show that harsh criticim of the Vatican for its stance on Iraq is a defensible POV. It deserves refuting, rather than Pitting.
Harsh criticism is not the same as saying he condones the killing of Jews.
TwistofFate, please look at what I actually wrote.
You’re only half right.