Tell me, Badtz, because one of us has issues… Is accusing someone of being a pro-child prostitution liar the same thing as accusing someone of being a child molestor? Somehow, I see those two things as being, well, not the same. But perhaps I’m just nuts.
[ul][li]A mild tone in a warning does not negate one whit the officialness of a warning. If I say “Dear sweetums snugglebunny, please try not to call people ‘mouth-breathing idiots’ from now on, OK, babydoll?” it is still an official warning. Besides, as Tomndebb pointed out, manny’s warning was quite comparable to other warnings I have given in the past. My warnings are intended to inform the poster of his transgression and prevent him from making such an error again, not to blast the transgressor to assuage the wounded feelings of the recipient or gratify blood-hungry onlookers.[/li]
[li]I did say “take it down or take it to the Pit” because that’s what I usually say. I did not consider at that moment whether manny’s statements would be acceptable in the Pit or not. If Jasper, a Pit mod, says they are not, then they are not.[/li]
If I think for one second that you are going to try to run the ragged edge of insult in GD just to make my life harder or prove some asinine point, blithely ignoring the damage that it will do to debate and other posters, you will find yourself in deep, deep shit. [/ul]
Suddenly, I have this overwhelming urge to volunteer to clean the erasers.
Leaving much aside, I’m going to zoom in on one (of a few) core points.
Ok, I believe you. And with Batz Maru’s help, I’m guessing that I understand your point.
But please understand I find your intended interpretation of the phrase “Pro-blank liar” extremely confusing. Setting politeness aside for the moment, this English speaker has difficulty translating it into, “A deceiver whose words tend to support blank”. But it’s possible that I’m being thick.
I guess it would have been fairer to call him a pedophile instead of a child molestor, as that’s more analagous to the accusation he made. Accusing someone of being in favor of child prostitution is going to be equated to an accusation of pedophilia by most people, which is why several people were shocked when manhattan did it - after all, why else would someone be ‘pro-child prostitution’? About the only other semi-logical explanation would be if someone was an extremist about children’s rights to make money however they can. I don’t think that’s what manhattan was trying to imply about sailor though.
Translation: Don’t try to get away with the same stuff I let my friends get away with.
I disagree. He wasn’t allowed to get away with it; this is evidenced by Gaudere’s official warning. You’re taking issue with the severity of the warning, true, but to say that he “got away with it” (paraphrased, not an exact quote) is, depending on your intent, either misleading or disingenuous.
That said, I do agree that the accusation, “pro-child prostitution liar” is a poor word choice and horribly confusing. I wouldn’t have put it that way (not intentionally, at any rate), but I also didn’t write the post.
Regardless, manhattan has been warned and I don’t think it has been shown that any bias whatsoever (other than, I assume, giving an intelligent, valuable, long-time poster in good standing the benefit of the doubt) exists. I see no reason to disbelieve either Gaudere or manhattan in this matter.
But, of course, that board adage about one’s mileage still applies. 
Manhattan you have a very twisted and fanatical mind and the semantic games you are playing only make it more obvious.
Manhattan: “They had a fucking press conference congratulating the 9-11 terrorists.”
Sailor: I say this is a lie and I challenge you to prove it.
Manhattan: “In Baghdad, Iraqi state television hailed the attacks as ‘a natural reaction to American rulers hegemony, deception and foolishness.’
Manhattan: In a broadcast monitored by the BBC the television station said: ‘The American cowboy is reaping the fruits of his crimes against humanity.’”
You are utterly stupid. You keep posting quotes which support the opposite of what you said. In those quotes there is no “fucking press conference congratulating the 9-11 terrorists”. None. Nothing which can be construed as “congratulations”. Nothing. They are saying the causes of the attacks can be found wholly or partly in the policies and actions of the US government. You may agree or disagree with this assessment but it does not say what you said it says. It does not congratulate the terrorists. It does not even say America deserved what it got. It says the attacks were wholly or partially a consequence of “American rulers hegemony, deception and foolishness”. You know what? Many people in America and around the world have said the same thing. Many people on this board have said the same thing. The fanatical idiots like yourself jumped on them saying they were supporting and justifying terrorism. I guess the new style would be calling them “pro terrorist liars”. You are a fucking asshole and deserve to go the way of december whose place you have taken.
Furthermore, you have to be a very sick person to believe that words uttered by Iraqi officials, however much you may disagree with them, would justify an invasion and the killing of their people.
The fact is that you have no valid arguments and all you can do is insult me.
Wonderful. If that were true it would be very easy for you to provide ample evidence exposing my lies and inventions. Why don’t you do that? Why do you resort to insulting me?
See, in my case it is extremely easy to expose you as a liar because there are plenty of posts of mine supporting the outcome of the presidential election which resulted in Bush’s election and I supported the Electoral College system which produced that result. More recently I have agreed with President Bush when he said the money used for Iraqi reconstruction should be in the form of grants and not in the form of loans. See how easy it is for me to expose your lies?
You just said I lied when I said that "women are still forced into sexual slavery in Burma and other Asian and African countries but president Bush is not interested in that as there are no votes to be gained by talking about that. Fine. Let us se the evidence belying this. Where has President Bush been talking recently about Burma’s record in this regard? What measures has he proposed? Same thing with the other countries where the situation is worse than Cuba. Show me he has talked and done as much about those as he has about Cuba. Just do it and stop insulting me.
You, OTOH, have made many assertions in the Cuban Prostitution thread which we are waiting for you to prove. Many questions have been asked and you have yet to respond. Mtgman and others have presented tons of evidence which contradict your assertions and you have nothing to say. You cited one page and when I read it (and then cited it) it turns out it supported my OP much more than it supported your opposing view. december used to do that regularly. Twist the few cites he could find beyond recognition. Ignore all the evidence and questions presented and pick on minor things here and there.
:rolleyes:
Some “clarification”. That’s all you have to say?
I expressly said I was not demanding any explanation from the mods because I realize you have personal friendship with manhattan and I did not want to put you on the spot but this is just outrageous. As soon as you get the chance you slip in a word in favor of manhattan. You do not have a word to say about his outrageous behavior which prompted this thread and yet you thank him for his “clarification” which, essentially is just a way for him to justify what he did. I am disgusted.
No, it is not confusing when you consider his own clarification:
He is accusing me directly and inequivocally of defending child prostitution.
Is there any rational person who can find evidence in that thread that I was defending child prostitution? It takes an extreme fanatic to do that.
TheLoadedDog said:
I agree that the difference between accusing somebody of being pro child prostitution, and of being a child molester is small. And that both are offensive.
However, I don’t believe that that is what happened.
I originally read, and still read the post in which the infamous phrase appears, in the way manhattan says he intended it. Which means I don’t believe it was an insinuation about sailor’s character, but an attempt to demonstrate what manny believed to be a serious consequence of sailor’s position.
Please explain to me how you interpret the following not to be an assertion about my character:
Please explain how that does not mean I am defending child prostitution. Please explain it because I do not understand it.
Rationality seems to have fallen to the wayside long ago. But here goes.
Consider for a moment that you may not have complete knowledge of Cuba, its political/cultural/social intricacies, or whether or not child prostitution exists there. Consider that if it does exist and is allowed by the government of Cuba, whether by active involvement or by turning a blind eye, then your position would tend to support it. This approximates manny’s perspective.
If, of course, both you and your sources are infallible disregard the above paragraph and continue on your merry way.
I have no idea who is right or wrong in the original thread, you or manny. I suspect both may be a bit of both.
So are you suggesting that this is kind of a Dom Irrerra sort of thing?
“You’re a pro-child porn liar! But I don’t mean that in a bad way”?
Fatwater Fewl, ok, then. Let us turn the tables. Suppose that, in my blind hatred for President Bush, I accuse him of raping children in the White House. I assume manhattan and others would immediately point out that I have no evidence of such thing and that they don’t believe it. Can he then be accused of being pro child rape? By that standard there is not one single person in this board who is not pro child rape and manhattan would be among the most pro child rape of all.
Or is there anyone here who believes President Bush rapes children in the White House?
>> Rationality seems to have fallen to the wayside long ago.
Nope. The original thread has continued pretty rationally with some very interesting posts by a number of posters. Manhattan has chosen to not return with the evidence which I was asking for. I suspect he does not have it. And there is plenty of evidence contradicting him. Plenty.
Where did the child “porn” come from? I was talking about manny’s and sailor’s perspectives. Specifically I’m saying that some unfortunate phrasing happened while manny attacked sailor’s position – his posts – from his own perspective.
-
Child Prostitution Exists in the USA
-
The United States Government has so far failed to totally eradicate child prostitution
-
manhattan has told lies in support of the US Government
-
manhattan is a pro-child prostitution liar
Personally, I never thought you did. I think you’ve become so comfortable with your regular use of slanderous venom that you no longer even notice it.
**Hmm, yes, a tricky, almost metaphysical semantics riddle.
Do you know what the definition of “is” is?. How about the definition of “reaching”?
I’d characterize, and criticize, you as being the main source of any form of hatred in that thread.
[Simpsons Comic Guy]
Wort, apology, ever.
[/SCG]
Manny, I used to think that you were a jerk. Now I see that you’re actually a pro-jerk-liar. And a pro-fuckhead-liar. And a pro-asshat-liar. And just a generally pro-surly-son-of-a-bitch-liar.
Please pardon my intrustion, but I’ve been reading this thread with interest.
Could someone please explain the difference between an X and X-liar to me? I still don’t see the distinction, or even the intended distinction.
Bonus points for not using words with large syllables in said explanation.
Johnny Bravo:
X-Liar is a piss-poor expression and we’re hoping that it will disappear. Ok, actually, I’m hoping that it will disappear.
At any rate, see Batz Maru for an explanation. (ie. "So, the argument here is that manhattan was NOT accusing sailor of being pro-child prostitution, but of repeating lies that supported child prostitution, and THAT is what he meant when he said he was a ‘pro-child prostitution liar’. ")
You asked this:
As far as I can tell, that’s a request concerning the posts in that thread preceding the time you opened this pit thread.
My comment concerning rationality referred to the opening of this thread and the continued strident posturing about your perceived injury and manhattan’s perceived special status.
Manhattan’s specious wriggling re: “pro-child prostitution” and “pro- child prostitution liar” is absolutely mindboggling. I simply cannot believe he could say what he said and believe it to be true.
I suspect he is one of those people who is congenitally unable to admit he’s been wrong about something. Such people’s capacity to learn and change are radically diminished. My old man is the exact same way. So I guess I feel sorry for manny in the same way I feel sorry for my old man.
That being said, manhattan’s shot at Guin re: the Catholic Crutch is probably the most disgusting thing I’ve ever read on these boards. The fact he wasn’t tossed after that, or at the very least relieved of his moderator duties, speaks volumes.
He comes off as a pretty reprehensible human being, although I’m sure he loves puppies and children as much as the next frothing lunatic. IMHO, YMMV, etc.