Jodi, you’re a hypocrite and a blatant liar

[Neurotik]

Then after you claim victory, you realize that you just screwed up the vB code and politely and humbly ask a mod to get rid of the bold that isn’t a part of the quotes. Thanks eversomuch.

[Jodi]

DOPEYDAVE –

I don’t wish to get bogged down in the question of whether any of Jodi’s criticisms were accurate.

Heck no! That’s not important or anything. :rolleyes:

The question here is whether Jodi used unfair debating methods, and whether The Ryan was justified in calling her to The Pit.

To you, apparently. I have not invited anyone to evaluate the fairness of my arguments, nor to determine whether THE RYAN’s thread is “justified.” (Since when does anyone have to justify their threads?) Those who take it upon themselves to judge anyway will find their comments given the consideration I believe they deserve, based upon my opinion of those comments and the poster in question.

Jodi, your shit stinks!

Thank you for calling to register you opinion. Your call is very important to us. Please stay on the line and it will be answered in the order received.

[erislover]

Hmmm… I read the thread and understood perfectly well what Ryan was saying when the shitstorm began, but I quit reading after that. I can only imagine it degenerated from there.

But, for shits and giggles, I would like to perform my own version of the quote game from the OP’s thread.

Jodi’s first post said
Apparently, we as a society do not have the same hang-ups about violence that we do about sex, which I doubt anyone is surprised by. But if we put “protecting children from pornography” in one basket and “free speech” in the other, the scales have almost always tipped to the “protecting children” side. But if we put “protecting children from violence” in one basket and “free speech” in the other, then the scales tend to tip to the “free speech” side. The two are therefore not analogous, and one cannot simply be substituted for the other.

Ryan then asked (three times, tee-hee),

What do you mean? Are you saying that if people videotaped a child being beaten or killed and then sold the video, people would not have a problem with that?

Which, though I’m not sure is a valid inference on its face, was responded with a simple restatement of what she had already posted, as if that statement was some atomic fact from which nothing could be inferred. I find this inherently interesting because Jodi’s original post to the thread was phrased to in such a manner that a literal reading wouldn’t demonstrate merely that the two were not analogous, but that they were, in fact, opposites. This is why I understood Ryan’s query and even the exact form he used. This is why I do not understand Jodi’s hostility here.

Ryan then went on

We are discussing people videotaping the sexual abuse of children, and the consensus seems to be that that is bad. During that discussion, you said that we do not have the same hangups about violence as we do about sex. It struck me as a valid inference from those preceding observations that you either do not think that videotaping violence against a child is bad, or that you do not think that there would be consensus to that effect. [emphasis added]

Keeping that emphasized statement in mind we hear the following from Jodi

You totally misread my posts, which IMO are clear on their face. You re-cast them in terms I did not use, and twist them to mean things they very obviously do not say. An exchange with you goes like this: Me: “Y. Y, Y, Y. Y Y Y, and Y.”. You: “So you mean X?” In light of your pronounced and repeated tendency to misread what I say, you will have to take my tone as you find it. Though I assure you, if I intend to insult you, you will know it.

Umm… ok, yes, one person states Y and another asks, “Are you saying X?” That is, the question is does Y = X? In fact, I find that to be the most obvious general form of a clarification. I probably couldn’t put it more eloquently if I were to be paid to do such a thing. I’d congratulate Jodi except she didn’t realize what she was posting.

And yet, that isn’t enough for Jodi, who then says,

This is clearly an insupportable inference – in fact, to assume from the general statement “society is more tolerant of violence than of sex” that I, personally, “do not think videotaping violence against a child is bad” is a surpassingly ridiculous inference. Hence my irritation.

Hence his fucking use of the “or” construct in the previously emphasized quote! Holy fucking shit, this is really a war of the pedants, and it takes a pedant to point it out. Not only that, but Jodi didn’t even say society was more tolerant of violence! Jodi simply showed that they were handled in opposite manners with respect to free speech by the law, and never even stated that law was in some mystical way a direct representation of public opinion. Worse than that, Jodi later said, “Again, if you wish to argue that violence and sex are analgous in the realm of law or societal opinion…” which demonstrates, in fact, that it is not to be automatically assumed that laws represent public opinion.

So which is it? Is the law indicative of public opinion? Jodi’s restatement of her general thrust would say yes, but when specificially queried she would say no. I am both intrigued and dumbfounded.

But it gets better, ladies and germs. Jodi then comes out to say,

Then stop misreading my posts. When you do so, you are misrepresenting what I said, even though what I did say is right there for you and everyone else to read.

Incorrigible! Far be it for The Ryan to ask for clarification on what might be construed (again, though I wouldn’t construe it as such) as a restatement of your expression! Jodi, I really, really appreciate your presence on the boards even though you and I don’t often come into contact in actual debates, but this is, to me, a very clear situation of you flying off the handle.

Originally posted by Jodi
In light of the fact that I honestly believe that what I have said (and what I have meant) is very clear from my posts…

Well, to be sure I did know what you meant. You just didn’t say it, and I think The Ryan was well-intentioned and honest.

[erislover]

I said
I read the thread and understood perfectly well what Ryan was saying when the shitstorm began, but I quit reading after that. I can only imagine it degenerated from there.

But it looks like I got the whole thing.

[yosemite]

*Originally posted by The Ryan *
Having been treated to you “debating” practices, your opinion means nothing to me. You spent an entire thread misrepresenting my position. The conversation went something like this:
Me: Your implication that someone you’ve never met is a rapist indicates that you’re unreasonable.
You: So because the OP won’t let a guy she doesn’t know in her room, she’s unreasonable?
Me: No, she’s …more rambling

Oh, so you want to paint yourself as the voice of reason on that thread? You wanna drag that one out, as an example of the excellence of your debating skills? It is to laugh. Anyone checking out that thread (especially the last page) will see that most people could not seem to get through to you that no accusation was made. “Your side” on that issue was definitely in the minority. I will make no claims for the clarity of my debating skills, but certainly others there (in my estimation) clarified the whole thing more than sufficiently. And yet you persisted, and persisted, and persisted, and persisted…

[MysterEcks]

Ok, never mind–I was reading that uppercase “OR” as The Ryan’s emphasis rather than Jodi’s, and thinking it meant something. My bad…though it was hiswriting style.

Since I managed to misunderstand what somebody meant, I’m not about to get in between two somebodies arguing about what they meant.

[DopeyDave]

*Originally posted by Jodi *
DOPEYDAVE –

I don’t wish to get bogged down in the question of whether any of Jodi’s criticisms were accurate.

Heck no! That’s not important or anything. :rolleyes:

What’s ‘not important’, Jodi? Let me guess, at the grievous risk of misreading you. You think I was ignoring or downplaying the importance of your criticisms in order to strengthen my position, right? I was not doing that at all, as my next sentence showed (I thought):

• by DopeyDave*
  I don’t wish to get bogged down in the question of whether any of Jodi’s criticisms were accurate. Some people think they were. I think that initially they were not, and later they could have been – since everything got so murky, who could tell who was right, let alone argue the point coherently? (underlining mine)

On preview, that does not seem clear (am I allowed to admit fallibility in The Pit?) Essentially, I believe that unless The Ryan’s behaviour in the thread in question was manifestly dishonest, then it was irrelevant whether he was as stupid as Jodi thought: at best, her language was intemperate, at worst, her analysis was incompetent and malicious.

Jodi

DopeyDave
The question here is whether Jodi used unfair debating methods, and whether The Ryan was justified in calling her to The Pit.

To you, apparently.

Well, the first part of it (unfair debating methods) is a reasonable inference from the subject wording. The second (whether The Ryan was justified) is my humble attempt to analyse the whole thing taking the location into account. If The Ryan was partially or wholly correct in his analysis, he could still be accused of being overly sensitive in bringing the matter to The Pit. In my limited time here I have seen many cases where people are told they are in the wrong thread.

I have not invited anyone to evaluate the fairness of my arguments,

Sorry, I didn’t know I needed an invitation, your Highness.

**nor to determine whether THE RYAN’s thread is “justified.” (Since when does anyone have to justify their threads?) **

No one is asked to justify, but many are criticised – correctly, sometimes, I am sure – for the manner, content and location of an OP.

** Those who take it upon themselves to judge anyway will find their comments given the consideration I believe they deserve, based upon my opinion of those comments and the poster in question.**

I think all of us knew that anyway, your Honor. But thank you for leaving me in no doubt.

Jodi, your shit stinks!

**Thank you for calling to register you opinion. Your call is very important to us. Please stay on the line and it will be answered in the order received. **

Does anyone have a spare irony detector? Jodi seems to have lost hers.

BTW, Jodi, you seem to have overlooked the first half of my initial posting, where I included many examples of your tetchiness. How am I to interpret that, O Wise One? (As if I didn’t know!)

[Jodi]

DOPEY –

BTW, Jodi, you seem to have overlooked the first half of my initial posting, where I included many examples of your tetchiness. How am I to interpret that, O Wise One? (As if I didn’t know!)

You are to interpret it as me (a) not having the first idea of who you are and therefore (b) not giving the single smallest shit what you think. Criticism is pretty thick on the ground around here; I quite frankly can’t be bothered by that offered by people whom I don’t know and have never heard of, either IRL or even in the constraints of the MB. Feel free to continue your critique; I assure you I will give it the merit it deserves.

Moving on to someone not in that category –

ERISLOVER notes that I said:

Apparently, we as a society do not have the same hang-ups about violence that we do about sex, which I doubt anyone is surprised by. But if we put “protecting children from pornography” in one basket and “free speech” in the other, the scales have almost always tipped to the “protecting children” side. But if we put “protecting children from violence” in one basket and “free speech” in the other, then the scales tend to tip to the “free speech” side. The two are therefore not analogous, and one cannot simply be substituted for the other.

And then says of THE RYAN’S reply:

Which, though I’m not sure is a valid inference on its face . . .

You’re not sure? I was sure. You cannot get what he said from what I said. You admit as much.

. . . was responded with a simple restatement of what she had already posted, as if that statement was some atomic fact from which nothing could be inferred.

Au contraire. Any number of inferences might follow from my statement – but not the one posted by THE RYAN. Just because one person responds in a way that is surpassingly stupid does not mean that his is the only possible response – or that I ever said or even thought it was.

I find this inherently interesting because Jodi’s original post to the thread was phrased to in such a manner that a literal reading wouldn’t demonstrate merely that the two were not analogous, but that they were, in fact, opposites.

Not true. Read it again. If I say “if you put weigh an softball against a five pound weight, the five pound weight weighs more, but if you weigh a bowling ball against a five pound weight, the bowling ball weighs more,” it is not accurate to say that I have stated or implied that a softball is the “opposite” of a bowling ball. Just because two things are different does not mean they are opposites.

Umm… ok, yes, one person states Y and another asks, “Are you saying X?” That is, the question is does Y = X? In fact, I find that to be the most obvious general form of a clarification.

And yet you fail to see why the request for such a clarification would be aggravating if the statement is clearly and obviously Y and not X.

Not only that, but Jodi didn’t even say society was more tolerant of violence! Jodi simply showed that they were handled in opposite manners with respect to free speech by the law, and never even stated that law was in some mystical way a direct representation of public opinion.

They are not handled in “opposite manners,” they are handled in the same manner, but opposite conclusions are reached because the right to free speech in regard to pornography is much narrower than the right to free speech in regard to depictions of violence.

Worse than that, Jodi later said, “Again, if you wish to argue that violence and sex are analgous in the realm of law or societal opinion…” which demonstrates, in fact, that it is not to be automatically assumed that laws represent public opinion.

It is not assumed that laws represent public opinion totally, but it is a safe bet that they quite often reflect to some extent prevailing public opinion. This is especially true in the realm of pornography, where free speech protection turns on a determination of whether the matter in question is or is not obscene – which is a subjective, not an objective determination, and subjective determination in turn are often based on societal mores.

So which is it? Is the law indicative of public opinion? Jodi’s restatement of her general thrust would say yes, but when specificially queried she would say no.

Why would you think that when queried I would say no?

Incorrigible! Far be it for The Ryan to ask for clarification on what might be construed (again, though I wouldn’t construe it as such) as a restatement of your expression!

ERIS, he can construe me as having said “up” when I clearly said “down.” He can construe me as having said “black” when I clearly said “white.” You apparently believe I must respond to every “restatement” of my opinion, no matter how ridiculous – even as you yourself admit that you would not construe it as he does.

Well, to be sure I did know what you meant. You just didn’t say it, and I think The Ryan was well-intentioned and honest.

The bottom line for me as far as THE RYAN is concerned is this: He either willfully misrepresents what people say – not just me, but lots of people – in which case he is a troll, or he inadvertently does it, over and over and over again, in which case he is an idiot. I would not say, if the truth is the latter and not the former, he may not also be “well-intentioned” (though I doubt it) or “honest” (which I have no opinion of), but in neither case do I feel obliged to “clarify” something that needs no clarification to anyone except him.

[DopeyDave]

*Originally posted by Jodi *
**DOPEY –

BTW, Jodi, you seem to have overlooked the first half of my initial posting, where I included many examples of your tetchiness. How am I to interpret that, O Wise One? (As if I didn’t know!)

You are to interpret it as me [sic] (a) not having the first idea of who you are and therefore (b) not giving the single smallest shit what you think. Criticism is pretty thick on the ground around here; I quite frankly can’t be bothered by that offered by people whom I don’t know and have never heard of, either IRL or even in the constraints of the MB.**

ROTFLMAO. So that’s a Nolo Contendere, then?

I didn’t want you to care about little old me, Jodi, but I was naive enough to believe that you cared about ethical arguing, even if that included listening to supplications from the ignorant anonymous masses.

(BTW, I note your colloquial use of the accusative case ‘me’ before the gerund ‘giving’. You might like to make a note to use the more orthodox possessive case ‘my’ when writing IRL. You’re welcome.)

[Jodi]

ROTFLMAO. So that’s a Nolo Contendere, then?

Uh, no. It appears one of us isn’t 100% clear on what a nolo plea is, and I’m pretty sure it ain’t me.

I didn’t want you to care about little old me, Jodi, but I was naive enough to believe that you cared about ethical arguing, even if that included listening to supplications from the ignorant anonymous masses.

Ah, yes, ethical argument such as “your shit stinks” – a phrase guaranteed to make me consider seriously the opinions of total strangers.

(BTW, I note your colloquial use of the accusative case ‘me’ before the gerund ‘giving’. You might like to make a note to use the more orthodox possessive case ‘my’ when writing IRL. You’re welcome.)

Me thank you. Me making note of this, though me also tells you that me is more open to grammatical correction (as opposed to “ethical arguing” correction) when me has made an actual error, and not merely chosen one of two accepted constructions.

[CrankyAsAnOldMan]

I will butt in here (in a most unwelcome way, I am sure) and put on my granny-baking-cookies apron and hold my wooden spoon up to make my point. And I will note that this goes for everyone, which means not just any one person (or both) in this thread but also everyone else. I’m not taking sides. I didn’t read the threads because I’ll be damned if I wanna read 3 pages of nitpicking over fine points that I presume anyone with a forgiving mind when reading complex posts got in the first page.

Any way, Granny sez:

If you want to debate the issues and keep an argument on track, as opposed to debating the intelligence and reading comprehension of your fellow posters, a little deference goes a long way. When someone misquotes you, you can react in several ways:

Way 1: Self-righteous indignation with a bit of exasperation at the other poster’s behavior thrown in: (Posts usually contain some variation on the following) “I did not say that, I would never say that, and if you’d take three seconds to go up and reread my posts you wouldn’t so blatantly attribute words to me that I never said, you fucking moron. If I want you to put words in my mouth, I’ll send you an engraved invitation. You didn’t get one, although you might want to check your mailbox for the invitation to kiss my ass.”

Way 2: Take a little blame on yourself, even if it’s not warranted: “You’ve got my meaning a little wrong, and I’m sorry if I wasn’t as clear as I could be. What I really said was “X” and what I meant by that was “Y.” Sorry about any confusion.” OR “I see why you might feel that way, given the way my comment can be interpreted out of context. But what I really said isn’t as objectionable as the way it appears when you parse that quote…”

Do we see the differences, here? If you want to keep the debate going, a little more mea culpa, even if you are not at fault goes a long way towards keeping things moving ahead. It makes you the bigger person (particularly if the other person won’t do the same and continues to be an ass) which is evident to everyone. It also lets you get on with debating the goddamn issue that was important enough to start a GD about. Furthermore, it goes a long way toward increasing civility on the boards.

I know everyone knows this, but it seems we forget it in the heat of the moment. Or maybe it’s a secret love of tearing people down, instead of their arguments. But that’s not such a noble thing to display, so why not try to rein that in a bit?

Now, I’m going to go back to making cookies. If you play nice, you can lick the beaters.

[Jodi]

With all due respect, dear Granny, and what I think many of the newer posters appearing in this little play are missing, is that if you have a history of interaction with a given poster, and you do B, and you do B, and you do B (in thread after thread after thread), and he still acts like you’re speaking Urdu, eventually you’re going to do A.

[Slip_Mahoney]

(BTW, I note your colloquial use of the accusative case ‘me’ before the gerund ‘giving’. You might like to make a note to use the more orthodox possessive case ‘my’ when writing IRL. You’re welcome.)

It’s always gtatifying to see a pedantic twit make a fool out of himself in public.

[DopeyDave]

*Originally posted by Jodi *

ROTFLMAO. So that’s a Nolo Contendere, then?

**Uh, no. It appears one of us isn’t 100% clear on what a nolo plea is, and I’m pretty sure it ain’t me.

**[ul][li]NOLO CONTENDERE - No contest-has the same effect as a plea of guilty, [/metaphorical use] as far as the criminal sentence is concerned, but may not be considered as an admission of guilt for any other purpose.[/complete glossary entry for Jodi’s chance to nit-pick]*[/ul][/li]

I didn’t want you to care about little old me, Jodi, but I was naive enough to believe that you cared about ethical arguing, even if that included listening to supplications from the ignorant anonymous masses.

Ah, yes, ethical argument such as “your shit stinks” – a phrase guaranteed to make me consider seriously the opinions of total strangers…

Ahem, I was not arguing, rather, as a sort of signature following my argument, I was trying to lightly point out, while retaining some of the Pit spirit, that you are as human as the rest of us, in that, ahem, ahem, your rectal waste matter has a not undetectable odour. Again, I must bow to your ineffable purity and admit the error of my assertion.

(BTW, I note your colloquial use of the accusative case ‘me’ before the gerund ‘giving’. You might like to make a note to use the more orthodox possessive case ‘my’ when writing IRL. You’re welcome.)

**Me thank you. Me making note of this, though me also tells you that me is more open to grammatical correction (as opposed to “ethical arguing” correction) when me has made an actual error, and not merely chosen one of two accepted constructions. **

So you chose to write that way, did you? Of course you did. It must have been for my benefit. Thank you. More importantly … I WAS JOKING! (Well, to remain honest, I did think your expression was a little clumsy, but normally I wouldn’t care. I just thought you would appreciate my noticing.)

Believe it or not, folks, I think all this crap is still relevant to the thread.
PS: On preview, I see that CrankyAsAnOldMan has dared to add some wisdom to The Pit. Is that allowed, Moderators? What the Dope is going on here! Just when I thought I knew the Rules. (Sniff)

[Slip_Mahoney]

Dopey, nice of you to instruct Jodi on nolo contendre. She’s just a lawyer and doesn’t know about these things.

[DopeyDave]

*Originally posted by Slip Mahoney *
**

(BTW, I note your colloquial use of the accusative case ‘me’ before the gerund ‘giving’. You might like to make a note to use the more orthodox possessive case ‘my’ when writing IRL. You’re welcome.)

It’s always gtatifying to see a pedantic twit make a fool out of himself in public. **

And it’s particularly pleasing to publicly perplex a plod, although that was not my intention:

More importantly … I WAS JOKING! (Well, to remain honest, I did think your [Jodi’s] expression was a little clumsy, but normally I wouldn’t care. I just thought you would appreciate my noticing

Dopey, nice of you to instruct Jodi on nolo contendre. She’s just a lawyer and doesn’t know about these things

Did you really think I was instructing her, Slip? I simply gave the definition in reply to her (pedantic?) assertion that I was not fully clear about the term.

[Slip_Mahoney]

Yawn

[beagledave]

*Originally posted by Jodi *
**With all due respect, dear Granny, and what I think many of the newer posters appearing in this little play are missing, is that if you have a history of interaction with a given poster, and you do B, and you do B, and you do B (in thread after thread after thread), and he still acts like you’re speaking Urdu, eventually you’re going to do A. **

<hijack>
…when I don’t have my morning fix of caffeine yet…all this “do B” stuff makes me think that this is either a thread about pot…or a thread singing the praises of Frank Sinatra.
</hijack>

That is all. Move along now.

[Polycarp]

Well, you could all go look for a board on which everyone else was never “tetchy” and was totally clear at all times on what every other poster was saying, no matter how obscure or garbled his syntax. And where nobody ever posted something that got your goat.

Of course, you might have to do some traveling and learn a new language, since there would be no human beings posting to that board. And you might need to change your own personalities to fit in with the accepted standards for that board.

All of which is to say: People are human, sometimes misunderstand, rarely lie, usually do not see the fallacies in their own statements (trolls to one side, if they did, they wouldn’t post them).

Get over it.

[wring]

I know the normal rules of the SDMB, and specifically this forum, but um,

Polycarp has it dead to rights.