Good Lord, that’s exactly the sort of thing I’d cite to show what a duplicitous little toad you are.
This was a 2004 thread. Mr. Svinlesha was pointing out that Saddam had fully complied with the inspections regime instituted in the wake of the 2002 U.N. Resolution 1441.
And you responded by saying, no, Svin is wrong, U.N. Resolution 1441 specifically states that Saddam was in material breach of his disarmament obligations.
Only you made it blurrier than that, to make it look as if your rebuttal actually held water.
If that’s the best you can do to support the notion that you’ve contributed something of substance to debates on this board, what more is there to say?
And when you lie about what is right in front of you, you are making mine for me.
As I have said, this is why it is so hard to work up any enthusiasm to respond to assholery with substance. Here we have RTFirefly, who has stated clearly and explicitly that he is a troll, in GD no less, patting himself on the back for how wonderful his posts are. We have pseudotriton ruber ruber or whatever the fuck it is, [del]the biggest[/del] one of the biggest trolls on the SDMB, trying to troll me like he did Liberal. We have the Usual Suspects dancing up as close to the line of calling OMG A Black Conservative “nigger” as they can, and then running off to complain how racist the Tea Party is.
And these are the people I am supposed to take seriously, and be oh so careful not to offend them, lest they start a Pit thread to make themselves look stupid.
It’s interesting to take a second to read the post that Shodan’s link is a response to, which begins, “Well, with all due respect, it seems hopeless to you, friend Shodan…” after which I politely and sincerely respond to almost every point he had previously raised in the thread. For my troubles, Shodan declares:
…all while carefully sidestepping the simple fact that there were no WMD found in Iraq, a truth he simply can’t bring himself to admit, because, oh my god, it would mean us stupid, nasty leftists were right, and he was wrong.
However, there is actually another post by Shodan in that thread that might reasonably be considered substantive, so there you go. I will grant you that at least once in the last eight years you’ve written a substantive post.
It doesn’t really address the point though, when you stop to think about it. It doesn’t matter if you’ve written 100s of substantive posts, if you also (as you admit) sometimes post just to piss off the lefties. Posting for the sole purpose of pissing people off is the definition of trolling, isn’t it? Regardless of whether you’ve written something substantive at some other point?
To be honest, and I am as lefty as they come (far left of this board which would be considered fairly centrist in western Europe IMO), that comment is not far from reality. Saddam constantly challenged the no-fly zone enforcement and tried as hard as possible to make it look like he still had WMD’s post Gulf War 1.
I’ve stayed out of this so far, but I feel compelled to ask: Bricker, are you really trying to compare the depth and breadth of published and peer reviewed evidence regarding ‘global warming’ to a newspaper article offering some statistically questionable (as others have pointed out) data for a mere two years period, compiled by non-statisticians, for purposes not necessarily directly relevant to the issue under discussion?
Yes, when the overwhelming weight of the evidence goes my way, I’ll accept it. And when evidence that doesn’t go any particular way is clearly incomplete or even suspect, then I will insist on more data. There is nothing either partisan or nefarious in that, and isn’t the slightest bit “reminiscent of the global warming deniers”.
How anyone can read this and not call you dishonest is beyond me.
For the record, Tropic Thunder references aside, what I meant by “you people” was “OMG, Shodan, Starving, Moto, and all the other idiots who whack off every time they’re called an idiot by a liberal.”
Take note, Shodan: I actually named names, not hid behind some amorphous “Usual Suspects.” You dickless shitstain.
No, that’s not the definition. The definition is posting something you don’t mean, just to piss people off and attract attention. When you claim I have admitted doing this, you are lying.
I completely agree that during the years after Gulf War I the Hussein regime resisted inspection. When I wrote that the regime “bent over backwards”, I was referring specifically to the last year or so prior to the invasion, and especially after 1441. This is pretty obvious from the context of the discussion, at least to me, but in case it isn’t, I’ll clarify here. Shodan wrote:
“(1) He has been sitting on his ass thumbing his nose at the inspection regime for the last dozen years. (2) So we go to the UN Security Council, and get them to pass a resolution warning Iraq to cooperate or face “serious consequences” if they are found in material breach of the inspections. (3) They are found to be so.”
And then I respond, in essence – hold on a second! They haven’t been found in material breach. In fact, they never had the weapons at all, so they couldn’t have been in material breach.
But of course, it’s all a shell game. 1441 didn’t authorize the US invasion, so the point is moot. And in fact, in the months prior to the invasion, the regime was bending over backwards to give the inspectors everything they asked for, so much so that the inspectors on the ground sometimes complained that the regime supplied them with too many personnel – that is to say, that they were being too compliant. None of these facts stopped the incessant drumbeat for invasion promoted on these boards by Shodan and his companions.
My claim is that you admit to posting for the sole purpose of pissing people off, which you have readily conceded on a number of occassions. I did not realize that the accusation of trolling also toucheds upon the contents of poster’s mind while posting. How am I supposed to know what you, or anyone else, sincerely believes when they’re trolling? Using your definition, virtually eveyone is immune from such an accusation.
The guidlines posted at the top of this forum read:
This definition says nothing about whether or not you “mean” what you post.
For the record, I haven’t accused you of being a troll (yet), I’ve only stated that you freely admit you sometimes post a response just to piss people off. It does, however, seem as if your posting style falls within the board’s official definition of trolling.
Everyone knows that. The trouble comes when idiots like Mr. Svinlesha get carried away by the heat of debate and lie about it. Just like he lied when he claimed that Saddam was never found to be in violation of the inspection regime. (Emphasis in original.)
You can get away with those kind of lies, and the Usual Suspects will defend you. Which is kind of sad, but also kind of funny.
I mean, look at this nonsense -
Then I post a cite, from the UN, saying that they have been found in material breach, and that they do face serious consequences. Those words, specifically, right there in black and white.
And we get the usual Geek Chorus of morons all gibbering about how never doesn’t mean never, and anyway it’s dishonest to point it out and trolling to puncture any liberal fantasies, and blah blah.
You know what one of the big temptations is? To think that all liberals are as silly and dishonest as these clowns. They aren’t, thank God, but every time I wonder if my opinion of some of them is too low, along they come to show that, if anything, I am giving them more credit than they deserve.
Because the proposition I asked for admissions on in that thread was NOT nebulous, and the evidence was not statistically insignificant.
I said, then:
Now, your point about statistical weakness certainly applies to the long haul.
But as to the specific question: in that first year, gun crime in bars did not rise. THAT is an issue on which we have reasonably full, competent data on which to rely.
Right?
That’s all I asked for. I specifically said I’d be happy with someone who said, “I still say in the long run that crime will rise, but I admit that I was wrong about what would happen this past year.”
We have enough data to answer that question confidently, don’t we?
