I wouldn’t be surprised if there are other people who had a similar experience.
Regards,
Debaser
Seeing both Sam Stone and Debaser back on the SDMB is well worth being Pitted by morons.
Regards,
Shodan
Do you know what OTHER place has people with a similar experience? SOMALIA, that’s where!
This. +1. QFT. And whatever other endorsements…
Eddie Haskell.
“One may smile and smile and be a villain.”
And whatever other cultural references illustrate a similar point.
Coulter. At least she’s overtly shrill. Peddling total bunk (Mitt knows adversity because his ancestors were penniless in 1912!) in an even tone of voice doesn’t turn bunk into reasoned argument.
I joined here in December 1999 – that gives me more than twelve years of getting the treatment you describe.
+1 from me on this point.
Wah, wah, wah. This is your reason for acting like dicks, that you (perceive that you) get mistreated? So your response is to mistreat others?
I submit that the board’s conservative posters are also its least dickish…at least in the GD, Elections and Pit threads. We don’t pile on posters we conservatives disagree with, we don’t often refer to our opponents as body parts, we’re far less prone to hysterical overreaction, and we generally comport ourselves in a gentlemanly fashion.
YMMV.
Regards,
SA
I’m afraid I’m going to have to echo prr’s sentiment. There’s nothing heroic about having a minority viewpoint on an internet message board (especially if you do so anonymously) and I’ve done my part to present valid thoughtful counterpoints to conservative arguments (or any arguments, really) when I thought they were merited, only to get ignored because the conservative was embroiled in an insult match with someone else, often while bemoaning the lack of serious consideration their views were receiving.
Are you honestly prepared to have this statement challenged? If so, I invite you to name five to ten users you consider to be “conservative posters” and I’ll see if if I can find some hysterics from any of them.
I’m willing to concede Bricker - he’s less hysterical than most.
Suppose your estimate of future income in the year is somewhere between $90,000 and $110,000. What do you call that $20,000 of uncertainty? I’m not sure, but “rounding error” wouldn’t be my choice.
Now your bill to one customer would normally be $2000, but that customer tells you to only bill him $1000 since the extra $1000 is irrelevant to you – it’s “less than the rounding error.” After all, you might still make $109,000 that year even if he underpays. Or make only $91,000 if he pays the correct amount. What do you think of that customer’s argument?
My question is rhetorical. With one exception, I don’t think everyone here would be baffled by that argument. After all, if you get the extra $1000 and spend it on a set of tires, those are real tires – not a “rounding error.”
What does this have to do with Sam Stone and his fatuous pomposity? In a discussion he seemed to imply that “liberal” calls to restore taxes on the rich were wrong-headed, since only a trillion dollars (in round figures) can be raised that way and a trillion dollars is just a “rounding error.”
I pointed out to him that his diction was unhelpful. Future uncertainty isn’t “rounding error” and, in any event, uncertainty about tomorrow doesn’t make today’s real money less real. Furthermore, one has to wonder how someone who considers a trillion dollars to be too insignificant for consideration would have anything meaningful to say about billion-dollar wastes … let alone about that taxi driver who just tried to overcharge me $10. 
Stone replied with some hugely long excerpts from one of his right-wing sites to substantiate his claim about future uncertainty. I responded that he’d missed the point. He then whined that his mammoth typing job had just been wasted. After all, didn’t we come here just to learn from him. Meanwhile, in another thread, he was insisting that any Doper who wanted to debate economics with him needed to watch some nine-hour video by Milton Friedmann. :rolleyes:
In another thread he pulled some number out of his ass that was off (in the direction to support his argument of course) by a hundred billion or so. I called him on it … and was accused of nitpicking.
I see that Sam Stone has a reputation for being one of the smarter right-wingers here. That just confirms the proverb “In a village of idiots, the imbecile is King.”
Shut up you fucking pedophile. Excusing the molestation of kids isn’t gentlemanly, you subhuman piece of garbage. You wouldn’t understand manners if they were raping a kid in front of you.
PS: Stone will probably respond to the preceding with a repetitious screed duplicating one of his previous screeds, probably with numbers that are only half-wrong.
Hi, Sam! You miss the point. Nobody cares whether your numbers are off by 20%, or only 10%. I’m trying to help you with basic logic and diction. Uncertainty isn’t “rounding error.” And if you really think that a trillion dollars is “chump change” (another oh-so-erudite Stone phrase), then perhaps you should keep your “wisdom” to yourself in threads that debate spending measured in mere billions.
Certainly not. But attempting to ascertain the exact type of molestation rather than blithely and blindly jumping to the worst possible conclusion is.
Now, having said that, I’d suggest to take your hysterical rantings to one of the appropriate threads before I get busted for hijacking the thread. 
So you acknowledge that molestation occurred, and Paterno knew about it?
I’m sure you’ll understand if I don’t take the bait. I’m on a rather short leash these days when it comes to hijacks, you know. Plus, for this thread the hijack is rather glaringly out of place.
Wait. You put me on ignore for defending him from the charge of being a pedophile, but you haven’t put him on ignore?
(Just in case somebody quotes this)
So you don’t acknowledge that molestation occurred, and Paterno knew about it?
It would be if you said that you were going to buy a 100 ft yacht with that difference, and I said that whether you made 90,000 or 110,00, the difference was just a rounding error in the price of a 100 ft yacht. See, it actually matters what you’re comparing that number to, doesn’t it?
You have been prattling on about this for months. You need to go back and re-read that, in the context in which I said it.
What I actually said was that, while 890 billion dollars over ten years is a freaking huge amount of money, in terms of fixing the U.S.'s fiscal imbalance it’s little more than a rounding error. In ten years, the U.S. will rack up probably ten trillion dollars more in debt. Its total unfunded liabilities are over 60 trillion dollars. And that’s just the federal government. The state governments have huge unfunded liabilities in their pension programs as well. Therefore, the notion that raising taxes on the top 1% will fix anything substantial is a fantasy. It’s a huge amount of money, but it’s a tiny fraction of the stupendous fiscal hole the United States is in.
The numbers are factually correct. You teed off on my characterization of 890 billion dollars over 10 years as a ‘rounding error’, suggesting that it was hyperbole and an example of how I ‘twist’ things. In fact, it was just colorful language that accurately describes the point I was getting to - that you can’t come anywhere near fixing the U.S.'s financial problems with tax increases on the top 1%.
In fact, I even went out of my way to point out that it was roughly the cost of Obamacare, and the Republicans who think repealing that will magically fix the economy are just as wrong as the liberals who think raising taxes on the rich will fix the problem. I didn’t need to do that, but I was trying to provide rhetorical balance - something I rarely see my opponents doing. Yet you still got so incensed by that you had to spam and derail multiple unrelated threads with commentary about it, and you’re still whining about it months later.
I couldn’t ask for a better example of the crazy critiques coming from some of the left-wing members of this board.
And there you go. All the right wingers here are ‘idiots’, and I’m an imbecile. How very open minded of you.
Awwwwwwwwww… 