------- “I suspect he is one of those people who is congenitally unable to admit he’s been wrong about something.”
I’ve seen Manhattan admit he was wrong. FWIW. I’ve also seen him backpaddle.
I’ll take “Reeder” for $500, Jack…
-Rav
A four page long thread to determine that manhattan is a card-carrying member of the True Believers Foaming and Frothing Lemmings 4Dubya Brigade®
And that’s news, how?
Fuck him.
It’s news to me RedFury. I wasn’t surprised by the vehemence in the initial thread, inappropriate though it was. I was surprised at the heavy use of the specious “the Cuban government controls everything” line. And I was dismayed by the weasel “X-liar” tosh.
Manny’s a right-winger, but over a very long period of time I’ve observed him putting the fight against ignorance first and making this place what it is (a place where the voice of reason does not have the stage to itself, but is always audible). In this instance I’m disappointed.
Those who say that manhattan is getting a soft ride have short memories. It takes a lot to get banned here if you’re a well-established poster.
You need only look to an earlier section of this thread to see that this is not always the case.
Zing!!
Being banned because of having a sock isn’t equivalent to this particular case; hawthorne was talking about what you write, not as whom you write it.
At any rate, the unbanning for you and yer pop happened quickly and Lynn admitted her mistake. Other than being casuistical or offering that up as fun tongue-in-cheek, I’m not seeing the relevance.
As I’ve said before in this thread, I don’t find it remotely hard to believe that Lynn was just doing her job. And I don’t think there was any great miscarriage of justice. But I also don’t think they make any bones about the fact that they treat some similar cases differently.
This is the most important issue in this thread, and if we’re not careful it can really cause problems in GD. Here is my take on the issue.
I think the distinction between an assertion that a particular person is Pro-X and an assertion that someone is a Pro-X liar is a distinction without a difference. The theory behind the distinction is that, although the motive was not to support X, the actual effect of telling a lie about X is that it will support X. Therefore, person A is now promoting X through the use of their lies. Their intention was to denounce position Y, but their rhetoric served to weaken the denunciation of X, therefore they are promoting X.
Look, if you want to accuse someone of being pro-X, then just do it. This Pro-X liar thing is just an extension of the logically dubious “useful idiots” theory. If a Poster A believes Poster B is lying in order to discredit Talking Head Q, who is denouncing position Z, but Poster A supports Talking Head Q and their message, then attack the lies. Saying Poster B is a pro-Z liar is just nonsense. Poster A has no idea if Poster B is pro-Z or anti-Z. All they know is that Poster A has critized the statements of Talking Head Q. It is fully possible to think Talking Head Q is full of shit and their assertions about issue Z miss the mark and still not be pro-Z.
Enjoy,
Steven
**Mtgman[/], taking into account that he accused me of the same thing twice with different words there is just no doubt that he was directly insulting me and smearing me and trying to discredit me because he could not discredit my arguments. He has a very short fuse, that’s for sure
Now the whole X-liar thing is a pathetic attempt at weaseling and justifying what he did. It is so ridiculously convoluted and false that it is worthy of Johnny Cochran.
It is the same tactic of those who say that if you do not agree with presient Bush then you are pro-terrorist.
Or, as happened in some thread quite some time ago where someone claimed a huge percentage of women were raped during their lifetimes. Anyone who questioned the statistic was branded pretty much pro-rape or, at least, indiferent to rape. With people like that you can’t win.
Sailor, m’man, it’s time to drop it.
Your purposes have been well served, most everyone here sees that manny’s a dick, and will be even more likely to react when he says something like that again. And we both know he will.
No purpose could be served by keeping this thread going any longer.
Actually, I read Manny to be saying “You’re so eager to attack Bush you support a government that encourages child prostitution (Cuba) (by lying and saying it doesn’t)”
I guess I’m a pro-child prostitution liar too then. I also say the Cuban government doesn’t encourage child prostitution. Although I couldn’t care less about Bush’s position on the subject. I’ve extensively supported my position in the original thread in GD.
Enjoy,
Steven
You are talking about this thread http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=91564&perpage=50&pagenumber=1
Un-Fucking-believable. I don’t know (ahem) who you are Pit Vulture, but you can’t be serious. Manny was just joining in one of the most deserved pile ons in SDMB history. I’m sure you hoped no one would bother to look that one up and actually read it.
I’m done with the substance of this discussion as I stepped in earlier to make my feelings known. That little attempt to impugn Manny by citing the linked thread however, was patently absurd.
Having suffered through the entire thread I have to agree. No poster has fallen so far so fast in my estimation. His Jerk-ish shot against Guin is beyond comprehension.
Thanks to Gaudere for explaining the warning distinctions. It must be hard punishing a member that has given alot of effort to the SDMB in the past, but this Board is bigger then any one poster- well other then the Perfect Master.
_______-liar?
:rolleyes: