I don’t care who you are, that was funny, right there.
When I approach a debate, I do so with the knowledge that my conclusions may be disproved, or that certain evidence I am relying upon in support of my conclusions may be disproved or weakened.
When that happens, I admit error. There are a number of examples of this in my five years on this board. This isn’t something that happens every day, i grant you, because I have devoted a fair amount of thought to positions I hold before bringing them here for debate. But it’s happened, and when it does, I admit it.
I believe this is one of the hallmarks of a reasonable debater.
ElvisL1ves is seemingly never wrong.
So far as I can recall, ElvisL1ves has never admitted error and reversed his position.
Of course, this may simply be due to the fact that he is unusually perspacacious, and has unerringly selected the correct positions and correct supporting facts every single time.
But just off the top of my head, there was a recent thread in which he claimed that judicial textualists were literalists. When I told him they weren’t, and asked him for any supporting evidence for that view, he dodged the question. When I pressed the issue - calmly - he said that he wouldn’t coddle those that threw tantrums.
So I’d advance this proposition: when a poster is unwilling to ever admit error, even when they err, they contribute to the hostile and bad-faith arguments atmosphere. And ElvisL1ves is such a poster.
In this thread, I stated: “Just reading Captain Amazing posts, it seems to me Clinton clearly committed perjury. He gives the definition of perjury, and then supports the facts underlying the charge with cites. Were I you Elvis, I’d dump the pretentious and condescending tone in the OP, and give the Captain the praise he deserves.” Look at that thread, any of the other Clinton perjury threads where I disagreed with you, and you’ll see. You can also check out this thread, where I said: “In a recent Pit thread, we discussed the need for a bit more civility and in Great Debates and the need for people who may, in fact, agree with a particular poster to point out flaws in their in posts. In light of that discussion, I think you are being a bit harsh, ElvisL1ves. What Bricker, I, and Huerta88 (if he ever makes it back) are discussing purely constitutional issues. Bricker has repeatedly stated he supports same sex civil unions (which, unless it has the exact same effects as a “real” marriage is still creating a group of second class citizens) and may, in fact, not have a problem with same sex marriages. However, this is a constitutional discussion, not a simple policy one.”
I’ve also done so in numerous same sex marriage threads. And it never changes your abrasive tone, your use of insults over argument and your general asshollishness. Why on earth I think it would change now, I don’t know.
You want a fucking poll. The numerous threads you’ve posted in where people have mentioned it isn’t enough. Perhaps a “Is Elvis an asshole thread?”. If you honestly think you have a positive reputation here, more power to you. I’ll just put you down for delusional.
Pick a topic. Same sex marriage? OK. We agree on that issue. But anytime it is debated, I try to offer legal, and policy arguments for the recognition of same sex marriage. You offer up nothing but insults to Dewey or Bricker, or whoever else has the audicity to disagree with you.
Filibuster? OK. We agree on that issue. Yet in Bricker’s stupid thread, you insist on asking for cites to the obvious (which were provided), on misstating the position of those who dare to disagree with you, refusing to answer valid questions from the opposition, and eventually, resort to groundless veiled insults. All the while, intelligent posters like Gadarene and Random are having an actual debate.
You may be right. Letting me get sidetracked by a fucking moron with a grudge isn’t very productive. So why don’t you just go away, mmmkay?
I remember a GD thread where you tried to convince me that since Hillary Clinton is a socialist and she was elected by a majority of the voters in New York, socialism is therefore a centrist position.
We need a “GIT R DONE” smiley! 
And Martin Hyde, Mr. Moto, and their ilk shouldn’t forget the “I Support Manhattan” magnetic ribbon for their computers.
Hmm. On the one hand, my only real interaction with manhattan was him going way over the top in being nasty to me for something bizarre (putting a thread in the pit about an action which I found questionable, and asking if anyone had details–he thought it should’ve gone in General Questions, and so was extremely insulting to me for the perceived mistake). He eventually called a truce about it–and since I never could tell why he was so upset in the first place, I happily agreed to the truce. But it didn’t leave me thinking about him as a Most Valuable Poster, and I’m personally not going to miss him.
On the other hand, I would miss Bricker or even Shodan if they left. They’re folks with whom I’ve had good conversations, and it drives me crazy to see idiot leftists monopolizing their attention and trying to drive them off.
On the third hand, there’s a difference between idiot posters and fleas in a dog’s bed: the fleas don’t come with an “ignore” button. Instead of being driven away by the throngs of idiot leftist posters, why not just ignore them? That way you can choose to pay attention only to the posters you respect.
In a recent thread, Bricker was in a theological argument (I was just reading along with interest). Several people, I thought, were raising interesting points–and then scott plaid was launching an incoherent screed against religion. Bricker seemed to explicitly delay responding to the reasonable people in favor of laying the smackdown on scott.
Did scott deserve the smackdown? Probably; it was kinda fun to watch. But Bricker, if that’s an example of the shrill cries of leftwingers on the board, I gotta say, your experience there was your choice.
Daniel
…and the left has been <left> behind for a long time.
Both statements are utter nonsense.
how many are you looking for? add my name to the list.
Sign me up. I’m a socialist, and Elvisl1ves fucking sucks.
Me too, Elvis, if you want this to be an unpopularity contest. If this board has any persuasive power, you’re persuading people to solidify their Republican stances, and encouraging at least some leftists to avoid Democratic gatherings.
Daniel
Ahh, but if only you had POSTED there to note that Scott’s arguments amounted to nothing more than an incoherent screed, I could have left them alone with a clearer conscience. Since no one, apart from me, was doing anything of the sort, I felt that leaving his posts unanswered would have the effect of miring down the entire debate. Sampiro was making some EXECELLENT points; had I responded to him without addressing Scott_plaid, it seemed to me I ran the risk of losing the audience.
If some of the audience had made it clear that they saw incoherent screed for what it was, I could have abandoned it, happily.
And this goes back to the request that posters criticize the people on their own side when they offer garbage instead of reason…
What the fucking hell are you talking about? I’ve never called *anybody * a socialist - nor, in all probability, would I even agree with your definition, if you could even provide one.
Anybody with any actual substance is invited to provide it. All we’ve seen so far is several people demonstrate their willingness to post simple-minded invective. *Fight * ignorance, people, don’t wallow in it, m’kay? Sheesh.
Do it somewhere else please. I don’t want this thread to become all about you, but rather about the tenor of the board and the defection of some posters and the unwillingness of many others to get involved in political discussions.
Damn. That looks suspiciously like something I might have typed just a very short time ago in this very thread.
Honestly, I try to ignore posts that appear to be garbage. While I sometimes criticize them (see this thread, for example), mostly I ignore them. My counter-request would be for you to do the same: the garbagemakers never respond to a response by saying, “Gosh, you’re right–I’m an idiot, and I’ll shut up now!” But if they get the last word in, they’re often satisfied and will wander away.
Daniel
Sorry, Hamlet. I’m as guilty of what you want to avoid here as Elvis. My apologies.
You may be onto something here. I was thinking the same sort of thing myself last week in an offline discussion about the politics of the Board.
I used to be known as a “conservative” poster. I stopped posting in nearly all debate theads and political threads in any forum, simply because there was no point any further. I could prove someone wrong with a half-dozen cites, and not only would they often slink out of the thread or hurl abuse back, but they would often return to the topic a month later, requiring the same cites be posted to shoot them down. That’s certainly trolling IMO, but some have been doing it for years. But it didn’t have to do with liberal v. conservative things, rather a variety of topics.
So I could either get mad, or not even open the threads. A lot of times when I do post in a debate now it’s just a factual sidebar or correction, which people ignore anyhow.
I enjoy the SDMB more now. I post answers to GQs when I have time or some special interest in the topic, I still do and am doing several staff reports, and I browse to see what old friends and contemporaries are up to. I’ll never be a member of the community again, but then there are other reasons for that which are off-topic.
The SDMB is still, to a large part, what you make of it. There is a lot that is generally the best on the net here. If you can cut out the irritating parts, it’s still good. And I think some of the recent Rules changes and appointments of new blood Moderators like Skipmagic and Giraffe are definite signs of the SDMB improving.
Bricker, I’d like to personally request that you not leave. I’m sure you don’t know who the hell I am. I don’t post in political threads, but I do read them.
I don’t agree with a lot of your politics (I am the very model of a commie-pinko-liberal), but I think it’s important to understand where others’ viewpoints are coming from. I get a lot out of your posts (and Shodan’s). If one side bows out, how can there be debate?
I really dislike the sharp, animosity-filled divide that has taken over political discussions here, and IRL.
Next time you feel inclined to either call someone out, or simply post a whine, try to think why you’re doing it and what you hope to accomplish. Your OP did exactly what you’re complaining about in others, and you have done nothing to try to pull the thread back onto the high ground you mistakenly claim to be on.
To the extent this thread is already a train wreck, that can be attributed to the engineer putting it on a dead-end track right from the start and then jumping off.