It’s like the Magic 8-Ball of Idiocy, isn’t it?
I said, “Elaborate.”
You respond, as though I have issued some sort of rude command:
And RTF supports the narrative:
But I didn’t just say, “Elaborate,” out of the blue. It was in direct response to you:
Surely it’s not rude to answer that statement with “Elaborate,” and not be considered overly authoritarian?
That’s nice, sweetie, but I was responding to YOUR narrative, which was that requests by liberals like me to provide dates in a discussion where the timeline was at issue were unreasonable. The same was true of that ‘Guns in Bars’ thread that you said demonstrated the equivalence of liberals to climate deniers: your claim that liberals wouldn’t acknowledge the validity of your data wasn’t backed by any basics like “how many people who had been arguing pro-gun-control in the thread rejoined the thread when you bumped it after a year and a half?” You know, data that might’ve given some sort of clue as to what the maximum number of people might’ve been around to say, “Oh, Bricker, we were so wrong 18 months ago, and we repent in sackcloth and ashes.”
Hell, I’ve come up with my own count - after your request at post 142, of all the pro-gun-control types remaining in the thread, 1 out of 1 did what you said they should.
You’re free at any time to come up with an alternative measure, and I suggested one earlier, before I realized you were talking specifically about post 142, rather than post 100 where you bumped the thread. But ISTM that if YOU are claiming that thread as evidence for something, you’d better come up with a count of your own, because right now, mine is by default the authoritative summary of how we libruls behaved that thread. And all it says is: you won’t take ‘yes’ for an answer, but you rather invent hordes of librul lurkers who should have suddenly de-lurked after post 142, and your entire argument is built around these ghostly presences.
What did you do - read a self-help book about “How Ectoplasm can be on your side”?
Yup - if you get lucky when you shake him, you might get “Reply Hazy - Troll Again Later.” 
Oh, and a little present for all those conservatives who think the problem is liberal incivility.
If you want to keep the ‘both sides are doing the same shit’ bullshit meme alive, try to match the link.
What? That was just an analogy, Rufus.
Man, bleeding heart commie anti American librul pussies are so sensitive.
Signs point to yes.
Really? You should try it more often then, instead of just shitting up the place.
My mother taught me that the way to respond would be to say “Please elaborate.” That’s my narrative.
In the context of your selective non-responding to key elements, it comes across even less like a real desire for an honest exchange. For instance, you’ve not yet indicated what the rate of gun crimes in bars in Virginia was in the year 2008-2009, nor between 2011-present.
What do you estimate your substance/snark ratio to be?
In your recent postings regarding the Halperin memo at ABC, you’re proving everyone’s preconceptions of you. Your MO seems to be make shit up and then put your fingers in your ears shouting “la la la I win!”
If he were a liberal, nobody would complain about his shitting up the place. He could shit himself a maze of 40-foot walls and everybody would dance and shout “hosanna” and throw flowers. It’s only because he’s a conservative that his shit stinks.
Hey, these unsupported Dertrihsian proclamations *are *kinda fun! Now I see why you like them, Shody!
He’s at homeopathic levels.
I answered that (in a sense) by asking why the burden was on me to provide that numbers, when my position in the original debate was rejecting the contention of others that gun crime would increase. How has this transformed into my needing to show that it hasn’t? At the very least, I’ve made a prima facie case. Granted, there could be other factors that I don’t see that could revise this conclusion, but why is it my burden to hunt them down?
To explicitly answer your question: I don’t know. But since the burden of proof isn’t on me, why do I have to do the work to get that answer?
Oh. Sorry.
I meant, “‘Please’ tell me why the burden of proof is on me?”
Well put!
Keith Olberman to/about George W Bush:
Wow. You are king of the false equivalence.
Why did you bring it up in this thread? That should help give you a start at answering your own question.
God bless Keith Olbermann, without whom conservatives would be forced to trail off at the end of their “oh yeah? Well what about ______!” retorts whenever media partisanship/vitriol is being discussed.
(Former winners include Michael Moore in the “political propaganda” category.)
No. But this is a good tactic on your part: demand evidence, when in my view this is intuitively obvioous.
Tell you what: in July of this year, we’ll have another year of data. I’ll repost the question.
Do you think there will be much change in terms of people willing to admit error after two years of lower numbers?
Or maybe the thread will just sink and die, and in our later discussions you’ll posit that not that many people saw it.
Because Bush really was a fascist? Or because “fascist” is ever so much nicer than “pot and coke dealer?” Or because Bolling is a real right wing commentator and Olberman isn’t a real left wing commentator?
I’m baffled how this wasn’t a valid comparison. You tell me.