# Manhattan: wake up call or whiny bitch? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [May 25, 2005, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manhattan-wake-up-call-or-whiny-bitch/305439 "2005-05-25T15:07:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 13
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2005, 8:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manhattan-wake-up-call-or-whiny-bitch/305439/241 "2005-05-28T08:40:08Z")
I know it’s tough, and stuff like this would invariably come down to judgement. Which is why I wouldn’t actually penalize anyone - again, more like a refereeing situation. If a boxer clutches another one, he doesn’t lose the fight, but the referee steps in to separate them and get the fight back on track. No harm, no foul, but back into your corners, boys. But hell, I suspect there may be a natural fix - as the war recedes, the tone around here will probably improve all on its own. I think it already has. Except for that lemon over _there_. Bloody splitter. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2005, 8:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manhattan-wake-up-call-or-whiny-bitch/305439/242 "2005-05-28T08:41:11Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > [new NASA Administrator Michael Griffin hopes to restore the canceled Hubble servicing mission](http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/nation/11752849.htm) You’re right! There was something I agreed with! Thanks, Squink. For a minute there I thought I was going to have to give back my secret neocon decoder ring. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2005, 10:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manhattan-wake-up-call-or-whiny-bitch/305439/243 "2005-05-28T10:51:38Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Nonsense. **december** was an opinionated agitator who frequently (not to say typically) got his facts wrong, who posted thread after thread of an **IMHO** nature in **GD**. Saying that he was a good poster in other forums is like saying that he was a good poster twice a month. His _sole_ saving grace was his polite demeanor. I will agree that I would like to see such manners demonstrated by rather more people than typically do so, (especially among a number of the participants in these three related threads), but good manners hardly overcame the massive amount of uninformed and erroneous opinion he spewed in **Great Debates**. Holy cow, Tom. If that’s the standard, why are you tolerating the Blessed Mother Teresa thread? In it, the anti-religion rants of Michael Moore and Mother Teresa critic-slash-windbag Christopher Hutchens are being presented as fact. But Hutchens was so far off-base that Mother Teresa’s harshest critic, Aroup Chatterjee, disclaimed any association with him, and called his documentary, _Hell’s Angel_, sensationalist. > [@](#): > > I will also note that his “good manners” were used to good effect to cover a rather mean-spirited view of the world, in which every group with which he disagreed at one time or another was characterized as evil or as deliberately choosing to do evil things. Well, how about the “good manners” used to call people of faith “delusional” and “superstitious”? We’re evil too because we consider the eternal man as spirit to be a more urgent matter than the temporal man as body. Is it because tolerating mockery and insults against the faithful is safe here? After all, racial and ethnic slurs are forbidden, but you can damn sure slur people who’s experience has compelled them to hold certain religious beliefs. ---
**Author:** ![Polerius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d78d45/32.png) [@Polerius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polerius)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2005, 11:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manhattan-wake-up-call-or-whiny-bitch/305439/244 "2005-05-28T11:38:39Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > Often in the form of a third person gang pile-on, which are extremely frustrating. They go something like this: > > Poster A: I believe that \ > Poster B: That’s the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard. > Poster C: You expected better of Poster A? > Poster B: Nah. Par for the course from people like him. > Poster D: Why do guys keep talking him? Might as well talk to a tree. > Poster B: A tree would be more interesting. > Poster E: \ Good one! > Poster F: Well, now that Poster A’s ideas have been so thoroughly shot down, let’s talk about something else. I totally agree. It’s extremely annoying when this happens (on either side of any issue). Behavior like the above stiffles reasoned debate and should not be allowed in GD. > [@tomndebb](#): > > OK. Now frame a rule that prevents pile-ons that can be enforced. How about this rule: No pile-ons Yes, it sounds general, but we do have another, famous, general rule: Don’t be a jerk. If we can have the latter, why not the former? It’s a judgement call when someone is being a jerk and, similarly, it’s a judgement call when a pile-on is occuring. Also, I found this on another message board, and it sounded like a good idea > [@](#): > > - No cheerleading. We have decided we’re rather sick of many people here who come into debates just to quote a certain favored poster debating a disfavored one and saying things like “oh, well that’s \, why are you even bothering”; and also of people making parting shots when leaving the debate, such as “well, I can see there’s no way to cut through your idiocy, so I don’t know why I even bothered. You’re only interested in money and don’t really care for people” or somesuch. These kind of posts are clearly recognizable as part of a pattern of political factionalism (forum conservatives vs forum progressives, forum libertarians vs forum social-democrats, etc) that may be inevitable of itself but not something to be encouraged, let alone abused for firing shots from the back row. This is very aggravating to all involved and does nothing to help either debate or atmosphere in [this forum]. From now on this is probationable. Can something similar be applied to GD? > [@tomndebb](#): > > Are you proposing this rule for any particular Forum, or for all Fora, including the **Pit**? This kind of rule would benefit GD the most, and raise the quality of debates, which are the entire reason for having GD. It seems that people who go to the Pit do so at their own risk, so I don’t see that much need for it in the Pit. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2005, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manhattan-wake-up-call-or-whiny-bitch/305439/245 "2005-05-28T14:18:21Z")
> [@](#): > > Holy cow, Tom. If that’s the standard, why are you tolerating the Blessed Mother Teresa thread? Perhaps because the mouth foamers in that thread are in _that thread_ (not submitting thread after thread with the same faults) and because there has been no evidence that any poster there has distorted or falsified their evidence? In my post from which you quoted, I expressed my personal opinion that, for the reasons I gave, **december** was not the “good poster” that some others thought he was. However, **december** did not get banned for his constant errors or rabble rousing; he got banned for specifically and deliberately twisting and falsifying information. The general rule about bad information on this board has always been a demand for documentation and a rebuttal with better information. There have been exactly three defenses of Mother Teresa posted that actually cited information (and that is if I generously include your note that the Wikipedia article is self-identified as controversial). If Hutchens has lied, let’s see the evidence of his lies (or even of Chatterjee’s disclaimer). If any poster has deliberately provided false claims, report them. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2005, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manhattan-wake-up-call-or-whiny-bitch/305439/246 "2005-05-28T15:43:19Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > If Hutchens has lied, let’s see the evidence of his lies (or even of Chatterjee’s disclaimer). If any poster has deliberately provided false claims, report them. You can’t reason with **Liberal** when he’s in oppressed Christian mode. ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2005, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manhattan-wake-up-call-or-whiny-bitch/305439/247 "2005-05-28T17:00:55Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > That would be the consensus of every intelligent educated person in the U.S. Not in this space/time continuum. Clinton was a far-left liberal from the word go. However, to give the devil his due, he was a savvy enough politician to realize that he had to appear more moderate, so he paid enough lip service to enough things to make himself more palatable. But just as an example on one point you listed, he was strongly anti-military. The military itself noted it ([example](http://www.fraudfactor.com/ffhumor19.html) ) as did others: > [@](#): > > Upon entering office, President Clinton cut military spending from 20 percent of the total budget to 15 percent. He also cut our Navy in half (from 600 ships to 300). > For eight years, the military struggled under such a tight budget. > Indeed, our military came dangerously close to running out of bombs during the situation in Kosovo in 1999. [source](http://maroon.loyno.edu/media/paper542/news/2002/03/01/Editorial/Budget.Cuts.Lead.To.Soldiers.Deaths-194007.shtml) > [@](#): > > Clinton Leaves Military Weakened > > Are you better off now than you were eight years ago? > > The United States armed forces would have to answer: “Sir, no, Sir!” > > In fact, they are worse off, in many serious respects. Fox News took a look at the shape President Clinton has left America’s military in after his two terms in office and reported: > > • There is no firm evidence to support the contention of the Clinton-Gore administration’s Department of Defense that the United States could re-fight the Gulf War as well as it did a decade ago. > • Since then, the armed forces’ active personnel have decreased by 40 percent. > • The 10 Army combat divisions do not have a full complement of offices, tankers and gunners. > • The Air Force lacks 700 pilots to man its planes. > • With the exception of the Marine Corps, every branch of the armed forces is struggling to find new recruits. > . That is despite such radical measures as offering in some instances $50,000 college scholarships and signing bonuses up to $20,000. > • Nor is it only a matter of lack of numbers of personnel and materiel. The quality of America’s military might is increasingly under question. > > According to retired Col. David Hackworth: “It would have a hard time blasting into an old women’s retirement home.” [source](http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a64506c62ff.htm) And as far as welfare reform went, he talked big in 92 and didn’t do a damn thing afterwards until 96 when the Republican Congress held his feet in the fire. ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2005, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manhattan-wake-up-call-or-whiny-bitch/305439/248 "2005-05-28T17:05:18Z")
> [@Fear Itself](#): > > I rest my case. But just for fun, name a Democrat you consider ‘moderate’ . Extra credit if it is not Zell Miller. Well if you take Miller out of the mix, Lieberman probably is the best choice. Take him out of the mix and you’d have to go back to JFK. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2005, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manhattan-wake-up-call-or-whiny-bitch/305439/249 "2005-05-28T18:07:41Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > Hey, **Bricker!** Hey, **Shodan!** You guys gonna let him talk about you like that? I guess I’ll object when I give a tin shit. Getting lumped in with **Bricker** - and you - is a _compliment_, not a dig. OK, **rjung** is too stupid to realize it, and I grant you that a compliment from a mouth-breather like him is as meaningless as an insult, but I’m trying the DNFTTwit route for a while. Plus I fixed my Internet access problem, so I want to go read the interesting posts. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2005, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manhattan-wake-up-call-or-whiny-bitch/305439/250 "2005-05-28T18:10:11Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > Well if you take Miller out of the mix, Lieberman probably is the best choice. Take him out of the mix and you’d have to go back to JFK. Wow. Given how many Democrats get elected to office, is it your contention that 40-50% of Americans are far-left ideologues? Wacky fun! On the one hand, I can see the rule against pile-ons being tempting. On the other hand, there are plenty of occasions where an otherwise interesting thread gets hijacked by a single person who loves to come in and stir up trouble either by saying something outrageous or by trying to turn the discussion toward whatever their one favored topic is. I find that extremely annoying, and I find that sometimes the discussion can get back on track if someone points out this behavior and says, “Folks, can we dismiss the outrageous statement instead of showing how eloquently we can destroy an easily-destroyed comment?” Making such a statement has the appearance of a pile-on, but it can lead to more productive conversations, I think. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2005, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manhattan-wake-up-call-or-whiny-bitch/305439/251 "2005-05-28T18:40:40Z")
Let’s compare Clinton’s spending on the military with that of the rest of the world. ```auto Military Spending 2001 GDP 2000 Military Share of GDP 2001/2000 Military GDP Spending 2000 2001 share US 396.1 9810 4.0% Germany 21 1866 1.1% Japan 40.4 4765 0.8% UK 34 1427 2.4% France 25.3 1294 2.0% Costa Rica 0 31.9 0.0% (GDP: PPP) Canada 7.7 701 1.1% Russia 60 1200 5.0% (GDP: PPP) Iceland 0 9 0. 0% Spain 6.9 561 1.2% Finland 121 2.0% ``` The US spent roughly twice the share of GDP on the military as did Europe. As for Russia, total spending is not remotely in the same league. I can only conclude from the above that, internationally, Clinton was extremely pro-military. ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2005, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manhattan-wake-up-call-or-whiny-bitch/305439/252 "2005-05-28T18:50:41Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > I guess I’ll object when I give a tin shit. > > Getting lumped in with **Bricker** - and you - is a _compliment_, not a dig. OK, **rjung** is too stupid to realize it, and I grant you that a compliment from a mouth-breather like him is as meaningless as an insult, but I’m trying the DNFTTwit route for a while. On what basis are you accusing **rjung** of trolling? And how does that particular claim fit in with your side’s shrill and repeated calls for “tighter moderation.” ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2005, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manhattan-wake-up-call-or-whiny-bitch/305439/253 "2005-05-28T18:51:39Z")
There seems to be a corollary to **Gaudere** ’s Law. A person who loudly complains about another person’s conduct on the board either has been or will be at least as guilty of it himself within two days either way, if not in the same thread or even the same post. Discuss. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2005, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manhattan-wake-up-call-or-whiny-bitch/305439/254 "2005-05-28T18:56:51Z")
----- According to retired Col. David Hackworth: “It would have a hard time blasting into an old women’s retirement home.” … and yet Bush was able to use Clinton’s military quite ably in Afghanistan. Thank you President Clinton. I commend Clinton for his foresight in investing in new technologies such as the Predator aircraft and improved battlefield command and control. There will always be armchair strategists intent on finding the last Cold War. It takes leadership to identify the true threats to America’s health and security: terrorism, fiscal irresponsibility and pandering to the highest-paying lobbyists. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Svinlesha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/22d042/32.png) [@Mr.Svinlesha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Svinlesha)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2005, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manhattan-wake-up-call-or-whiny-bitch/305439/255 "2005-05-28T19:13:29Z")
**Sam** : > [@](#): > > - Perhaps not lately, but there was a time a couple of years ago when the four mentioned, along with a few others such as Collounsbury, were totally out of control in Great Debates. I think that was when we lost a lot of the conservatives…\* That’s an astoundingly selective memory you’ve got there, **Sam**. In point of fact, conservatives didn’t start making themselves scarce on these boards until quite some time _after_ the invasion of Iraq had been launched, and it began to become apparent there weren’t any “WMDs” after all. And let us not forget that, by any reasonable standard of measurement, **Collounsbury** was himself a conservative. It astounds me still that you, and many others on the right here, continue to harp upon this situation as if you alone were the innocent victims of us “vicious liberals.” Once long ago I even started a thread about this topic, you may remember, in which I listed just a few examples of hateful bile spewed out by proponents of the war in GD. Believe me, the Right dished it out fast and thick back then, and gave as good as it got, if not better. > [@](#): > > _…and a couple who were banned, such as December, were in my opinion essentially railroaded until they snapped. December used to be a very good poster, and was a great asset to this board in other forums than GD._ I’d like to see you produce 5 substantive posts by **december** to back up this claim. Certainly by the time I began participating on this message board, if not long before, **december** contributed virtually nothing of value to GD: on the contrary, his _modus operandi_ seemed to be that of purposefully posting reams right-wing propaganda, forcing more intelligent posters to waste hours refuting his unsubstantiated accusations. > [@](#): > > - Even Collounsbury was allowed to return after being banned for outrageous behaviour - after which he promptly engaged in the same behaviour and managed to get multiple warnings again before having the plug pulled. I don’t think I’ve ever seen other posters get the kind of leeway those guys have had over the years. > > To this day, I cannot understand the tolerance the SDMB staff has had for some of these people. They are clearly a detriment to Great Debates.\* On the contrary, one **december** was more detrimental to GD than a handful of Collounsburys. Collounsbury was kept on because he was an acknowledged expert on the Middle East – far more knowledgeable than you, **Sam** – who added a very great deal of substance to this forum despite his raucous manner. It is in my opinion a major weakness of the rules that idiots who play by them abide forever, while intelligent folks who can’t get the boot, sooner or later. Still, I don’t see a way around that problem, and am willing to accept that we live in an imperfect world (and post on an imperfect message board). ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2005, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manhattan-wake-up-call-or-whiny-bitch/305439/256 "2005-05-28T19:33:23Z")
> [@RedFury](#): > > On what basis are you accusing **rjung** of trolling? And how does that particular claim fit in with your side’s shrill and repeated calls for “tighter moderation.” On what basis are you accusing me of accusing him of trolling? Feel free to report me to the mods, if you see fit. Or perhaps try new bifocals. Try reading it again, but relax your sphincter a little this time. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2005, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manhattan-wake-up-call-or-whiny-bitch/305439/257 "2005-05-28T19:36:18Z")
> [@](#): > > But just as an example on one point you listed, he was strongly anti-military. The military itself noted it (example ) as did others: Clinton was never _hostile_ to the military. He was the first president in a number of years to rein in some of their spending, but he was also the president who presided over the period after the collapse of the Soviet Union. It would have been irresponsible for him to have continued to maintain a miltary as large as the one we had kept during the Cold War. (Remember the much touted “Peace dividend”?) It can certainly be argued that Clinton and the military did not see eye to eye on the specifics of where cuts should be made, but Clinton never set out to pauperize or destroy the military. (For example, the reduction of ships from 600 to 300 was an extremely wise choice. The “600 ship Navy” had been one of Reagan’s propaganda set pieces and a huge number of obsolescent ships were carried through the '80s and into the '90s in order to preserve that facade. Under Clinton, the Navy was authorized to build the carriers Truman and Reagan, nearly the entire line of Arleigh Burke class destroyers, and almost a third of the Ohio class submarines along with a number of the fast response transports that the Navy had sought–hardly a sign that the Navy was being ignored or reduced without cause.) ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2005, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manhattan-wake-up-call-or-whiny-bitch/305439/258 "2005-05-28T19:40:28Z")
I wonder if **Clothahump** is prepared to tar Mr. Bush as “hostile to the military” now that his Administration is planning to shutter all those bases. Or is this more IOKIARDI in action? ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2005, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manhattan-wake-up-call-or-whiny-bitch/305439/259 "2005-05-28T19:44:55Z")
**Mr S**! The very model of liberal decorum: the patience of Job with a young Tyson’s explosive left hook! You’ve been missed, good to know you’re still around. Trust all is well with you and yours. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Svinlesha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/22d042/32.png) [@Mr.Svinlesha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Svinlesha)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2005, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manhattan-wake-up-call-or-whiny-bitch/305439/260 "2005-05-28T19:54:18Z")
Hey, **Red**! Apologies for the long absence. Nice to see you as well! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manhattan-wake-up-call-or-whiny-bitch/305439.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manhattan-wake-up-call-or-whiny-bitch/305439.md?page=14)