In which minty green presents evidence that SPOOFE is being a jerk

The BBQ Pit
1

From page three of the Tell me gun control advocates: how can a dictator be stopped without arms? thread in Great Debates.

Very nice, starting out with an insulting clown reference, even though nothing in Abe’s posts could possibly be construed as a personal insult to you or anybody else.

Never mind that SPOOFE was the one to introduce the word “ridiculous” into the discussion, stating “What’s truly ridiculous is your attribution of human powers to a cold lump of steel.” Not that anyone should be surprised by childish behavior on the part of SPOOFE.

How 'bout you drop the personal insults in Great Debates, shithead?

Wasn’t there a recent Pit thread about exactly this sort of reprehensible rhetoric?

'Twas another personal insult in the wrong goddamned forum, asshole.

Ah, if only this really were an attempt to make friendly with the person you’ve been insulting for the entire post. Instead, you’re just using an ironic refernce to friendship in order continue to be a dick.
And now we move to SPOOFE’s next post, in which he proceeds to insult me personally, after having called him out on the previous post’s personal attacks.

Fuck you, you semi-literate piece of wormshit. You posted an incredibly stupid statement that “what’s so great about having lower rates of gun deaths if all other crime is higher?” I first gave you credit that you may have just misstated what you intended to say. But instead of saying “Oops! That wasn’t what I meant to say!” you come back with an insult about my alleged failure to read your post.

Here’s the deal, you sad little boy: I read your statement. It damn well could have been intended to mean exactly what you said, given the statistics UncleBeer and others had been discussing earlier about Australia’s rising crime rate in categories other than murder. You fucked up your own statement. If you aren’t willing to accept responsibility for your own fuckups, you should just go back to cruising for porn instead of continuing to blight the best goddamned site on the entire Internet. Jerk.
And now, back to the personal attacks on Abe:

The clown thing is getting old, isn’t it?

Stop hogging the cross, SPOOFE. Jesus is gonna be pissed if he catches you nailing yourself up there.

Nope, guess clowns are a perpetual source of amusement to the feeble-minded. What is there, like a dozen “Chuckles” comments in that post?
The final one just kills me:

Anyone know if there’s a phrase that captures the irony of a pot calling a kettle black, only the kettle hasn’t said one goddamned thing about the pot’s inability to do anything more complicated than insult the kettle?
In short, what the fuck is your problem, SPOOFE? Is writing anything more complicated than your usual content-free, drive-by drivel so taxing upon your mental resource (no, I didn’t forget the final ‘s’) that it made you forget the First Commandment of the SDMB?

Do not be a jerk. Do not be an asshole, or a fuckloop, or an insultingly mornic turd. If this presents a problem, I understand physicians are once again doing amazing things with shock treatment and lobotomies. Look into it.

2

FuckLoops didn’t sell nearly as well as the FrootLoops did. Must’ve been that whole “soggy in milk” thing…
(Oh, and 9.5 for the OP.)

SPOOFE, if you were half as clever as you’d like to think you are, we’d all have twice the reason to like your cleverness. That’s actually well intentioned criticism. You should tone down the snotty 'tude; you’d come across as a bit more, oh… adult.

Good luck with that.

3

Hey, I love the SPOOFEster. He and I regularly and often violently disagree on a lot of issues, but I respect him and I think the respect is mutual.

I have noticed that SPOOFE has been on a bit of a tear recently, doing more drive-bys and ratcheting up of the acerbity (acerbicity? Are either words?).

SPOOFE, I haven’t been closely following to see if you’ve crossed any lines, but if both minty and xeno think you’re going too far - and both, IMO, have good judgment - you should take the criticism to heart and, mayhaps, dial it back a bit.

My $.02.

Sua

4

1: Knock, knock.
2: Who’s there?
1: Insulting clown reference.
2: Insulting clown referen…
1: Hey, HEY!

5

SPOOFE said this? Is this the same SPOOFE that, in response to my comment in this thread - that the personal enjoyment of shooting sports is a valid reason for legal gun ownership - said “Compare ‘personal enjoyment’ to the thousands of deaths that occur each year as a result of guns, and you have a pretty pathetic argument in favor of keeping guns”? Oh, that was SPOOFE Bo Diddley. Must be a different guy.

6

Acerbity is the correct noun form, though not particularly common. Another option is acerbitude, which has a nice ring to it even if it is obsolete.

7

Don’t you guys have any compassion?

Minty, Xeno, Stoid…lets all get together and give SPOOFE a nice big group hug!

There, there, SPOOFE. There, there.

8

All right, my own Pit thread. I’m honored.

I already ‘splained that one, Minty ol’ boy.

This is a criticism? Provide some context about it, you moron. Use of the word “ridiculous” wasn’t the issue, it was HOW the word was used. Again, I already 'splained this back in the original thread. Next.

Please explain to me how applying a colorful nickname to another poster is a “personal insult”, asshole.

I recall a Pit thread about people criticising others for misspellings and typos… I DON’T recall a Pit thread about people criticising others for not reading someone’s entire post.

A personal insult falls along the lines of “Yo’ momma” and “You gave your girlfriend herpes”. Again, please explain to me how a colorful nickname (a very, very mild one, at that) is a “personal insult”.

Oh, please. Calling someone “pal” in the middle of a debate is just the same as saying “Hey, man” or “Watch it, mister”. Is this the best you can do?

But you did fail to read my post. Or are you denying that I did clarify my statement later on in my post?

If you don’t want to be accused of not reading the whole post, then read the whole damned post. It’s not my problem if you’re a lazy debater.

Congratulations. Some find it difficult to read.

Now, for the next step, try linking each statement together. You’ll find it a lot easier on yourself if you take a poster’s comments as a whole, rather than separating each individual sentence and using that as a basis for a Pit thread.

All right, so basically Minty has raided the larders of every Pit thread in the past and thrown it all together in a pathetic attempt at a flame. What a lack of creativity.
All that’s missing is a “one-trick pony” reference.

Okay, let’s examine this, shall we?

Step one: Abe insists that I “stick to the subject”.
Step two: The longest paragraph in Abe’s post is one that whines about something completely off topic (how I corrected his quoting of the word “wack” with “whack” in a - apparently too subtle (I guess he missed the fucking smiley) - attempt at humor.
Step three: I note the irony of someone insisting that I “stick to the subject” going off on a completely unrelated, irrelevant tangent.
Step four: Minty, in an attempt to try to flame someone, finds this, acts misleading about the context, and posts it as something that I randomly come up with spontaneously.

Twofold, I guess: one is that I’m starting to see Gun Debates as another “-Gry question”, and it’s annoying to see all the old arguments hashed and rehashed. Two is that I’m getting tired of self-righteous dickheads looking down on gun ownership advocates for being “primitive” and “unenlightened”.

Sure. Why not? Your whole OP has been a joke so far anyway (Oh horrors! I called someone “Chuckles!” I’m evil, I tell you, evil!)

Good advice. Try taking it.

Oh, and, hi Zwaldd. Still stinging from the lumpings your disingenious tactics took in previous gun threads, huh? Don’t blame ya.

9

er . . . just out of curiosity, when is it acceptable for the Master to call someone, say “Chuckles,” but not a Doper?

10

I don’t have any opinion on the OP, as I am not following the thread in question, but I believe (though I may be presuming) that Minty Green is talking about Yue Han’s post here and my follow up where I contend that making it the reader’s responsibility to understand, not the writer’s responsibility to make themselves understood, is a cheap rhetorical trick. None of us are such clear writers that we can only be misunderstood by idiots and the willfully ignorant, and when we are misunderstood it is our responsibility to find a new way to express ourselves. If you do not have faith in your fellow debator’s good intentions–if you assume that when they misunderstand the problem is with them, not you-- then meaningful debate can’t happen. The charge of intellectual dishonesty–of deliberitly refusing to understand what is written–is a damn serious one that should be made over one or even a handful of misunderstandings.

If I may make asuggestion: if this is how you feel, stay the hell out of them, then. Just cause they are singing the same old song dosen’t mean you are obligated to join the chourus. Other people need these threads because they haven’t sung the song enough times to get a clear opinion, and for them the debate–not just the rereading of old threads-is needed to clarify their thinking. If it makes you this pissed off, stay out. As you yourself have pointed out, the exact same debate, almost word for word, will go on wether or not it is you typing your part in the script or if someone else is doing it. Let someone who still enjoys it play your part.

11

IMHO, wrong. To continue to call someone by something other than their name (unless they specifically asked to be called this other name/term) is quite rude, and on a personally insulting level, as well.

For example, if your name is Anthony, and you introduce yourself as “Anthony”, it would be condescending and rude to insist on calling you ‘Tony’ or “numbnuts” or ‘diddly’.

I’ve said before, if you’re confident in the content of your post, you shouldn’t have to resort to name calling, rudeness, snide comments, personal attacks etc.

12

I agree that something like chuckles is an insult. I don’t see what else it could be. Except for shortening of names that is.

13

'Course that’s from someone who shares the name of an extremely vile and odious fictional character . . .

:d&r:

14

All I have to say is, unless Abe feels insulted or a moderator says it’s an insult, then you should all stop filling the boards with this baseless crap. Unless you want me to go through GD and dig up any statements or phrases that I think might be insults and flame you for them, but I don’t want to lower myself to your standards.

:rolleyes:

15

in the posted thread (on the same page, even), Abe sez to Spoofe

To me, the phrase ‘trying to debase the person making the argument’ demonstrates that **Abe did ** take offense. so, I would suggest that you save your :rolleyes: for another time.

16

I don’t think the issue of Abe feeling insulted or not is particularly relevant. I know I’d feel insulted if someone called me something like “Chuckles” or “Chucklehead.” I agree with wring on this. Doing this outside the Pit is rude and uncalled for, whether or not the recipient cares.

17

Hey! Your the first person ever to actually say they hate that character. Most other say “why did you choose the weak one?”

Really I think that The Wheel of Time has the most hated characters of any series I have ever read. And its not a general hate either, some people just pick a few and hate them.

18

Behold spoofe! His fingers move over the keys, yet only bile and spittle appear on the screen! Refusing to acknowledge that personal insults are not the appropriate means of responding to a contrary perspective in GD, he instead attempts to justify every completely inappropriate insult. After all, he says, anyone who debates gun control deserves nothing but rudensess and personal abuse. This motivation, of course, is why he’s taken to calling the pro-gun posters in the thread all sorts of terrible names. I mean, he has done that, right? Because it would make spoofe both a jerk and a liar if he only personally insulted the people he disagreed with.

But I suppose transparent rationalization is certainly a possibility. You may recall the quote in the OP where spoofe insulted me for not reading something that wasn’t there into his statement, since that would have clarified that he was only incapable of expressing himself clearly instead of merely being a fucking idiot. You may also recall that in his response to my OP, he repeated the assertion that I was just lazy for not reading his mind, which was allegedly expressed elsewhere. Yet when another poster takes this suggestion and attempts to divine intent from his written words, spoofie responds with this:

Jerk. Asshole. Fuckloop. Moronic turd.
andros: Although the very thought of comparing Cecil Adams and spoofe is admittedly great comedic material, I’m afraid a search of the archives revealed no use of “Chuckles.”

Monster: Abe did indeed thank me in the original thread for calling spoofe on his reprehensible behavior. Even if Abe had not been insulted, my OP would still stand. I have no desire to see a place as cool as GD needlessly taken over by the rules of the Pit. If spoofe can’t engage in grown-up debate without resorting to childish personal insults, he needs to get his ass back to junior high.

19

The morale of the story?! Ah, that explains it: The OP of the other thread mustj’ve been upset that the story, itself, wasn’t feeling all that warm and fuzzy.

20

IMHO, “Chuckles” is most definitely an insult, and a bad one, to boot. Especially when it’s repeated ad nauseum. Honestly, SPOOFE, when you go off on a tangent of needless assholery, you could at least be a bit creative.