# Meanwhile, back at the ranch... pitting the misuse of "skepticism" **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [February 26, 2007, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meanwhile-back-at-the-ranch-pitting-the-misuse-of-skepticism/393777 "2007-02-26T21:36:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 18\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2007, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meanwhile-back-at-the-ranch-pitting-the-misuse-of-skepticism/393777/141 "2007-03-01T22:34:27Z")
[QUOTE=MrDibble] For Fuck’s Sake! It’s a fucking yes/no question, idiot. Your can’t hide behind your personal fucking baggage without being a dodging cunt. [/QUOTE] Sorry, but I’m not going to make this personal. Did the winkie I gave you mean anger or something? It’s a simple thing. A bovine is not always a cow, but a cow is always a bovine. Same same for pretentious. Pretending is not always pretentious, but pretentious is always pretending. (And on preview, hello Miller!) 🙂 > [@Frank](#): > > Were that directed at me, I would think that I was being told I was either ignoring evidence or was faking ignorance. I’d take either as a hit, but neither as calling me pretentious. And I would respect whatever interpretation you might have taken since you would know best the history between you and him, the flow of the discussions you’ve had with him over time, and your own life experiences with him that have shaped your perceptions of what he says to you. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2007, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meanwhile-back-at-the-ranch-pitting-the-misuse-of-skepticism/393777/142 "2007-03-02T01:04:08Z")
[QUOTE=Liberal] And I would respect whatever interpretation you might have taken since you would know best the history between you and him, the flow of the discussions you’ve had with him over time, and your own life experiences with him that have shaped your perceptions of what he says to you. [/QUOTE] Oh for crying out loud, **Liberal**. What will it take to get you to accept that your cherry picking of definitions and your insistence that that cherry-picking is the only possible way the word was meant is only due to your intransigence? So far, in this thread alone, you have been shown that your definitions of skeptical, liberal, and pretentious are only your desired interpretations and have nothing to do with the meaning meant either by the referenced uses or in the vernacular. As evidenced even by **Czarcasm** ’s bewilderment, pretending was not meant to mean pretentious. Pretentious is what you are in this thread. Not only that, for someone as smart as you are, you’re being awfully fucking stupid. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2007, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meanwhile-back-at-the-ranch-pitting-the-misuse-of-skepticism/393777/143 "2007-03-02T04:16:06Z")
So **Liberal** , you still think: > [@Liberal](#): > > Each time you link it, people can see that I used the dictionary itself to show that “pretentious” means full of pretense or pretension and that “pretense” means pretending or feigning. Because personally, I doubt a single non-ESL Doper will agree with you. Because in this bit: > [@Liberal](#): > > Pretentious: “claiming or demanding a position of distinction or merit, especially when unjustified”; i.e., pretending to be something you aren’t. is wrong. No, it’s not “i.e.” pretending to be something you aren’t when you lop off the important bit, i.e. “distinction or merit, especially when unjustified”. That is what pretty much everyone understands the word to mean. It’s almost like you discovered the word “pretentious” for the first time ever, and decided to use it. To further decide, why not stick it in an online thesaurus and see if any synonyms jibe with your description of **Czarcasm** ’s post. ---
**Author:** ![Dan\_Norder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/4af34b/32.png) [@Dan\_Norder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dan_Norder)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2007, 4:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meanwhile-back-at-the-ranch-pitting-the-misuse-of-skepticism/393777/144 "2007-03-02T04:44:08Z")
Do we really need another thread about how Liberal picks and chooses his own definitions for words so that they suit whatever he is trying to complain about instead of what they actually mean? Because I thought that was old news. ---
**Author:** ![lowbrass](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/dc4da7/32.png) [@lowbrass](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lowbrass)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2007, 5:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meanwhile-back-at-the-ranch-pitting-the-misuse-of-skepticism/393777/145 "2007-03-02T05:24:34Z")
[QUOTE=Liberal] Yeah, I’m aware that you keep referencing that, but I don’t argue against it because it proves my point. Each time you link it, people can see that I used the dictionary itself to show that “pretentious” means [full of pretense or pretension](http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=pretentious) and that “pretense” means [pretending or feigning](http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pretense). Therefore, to say that someone is pretending is to say that someone is being pretentious. [/QUOTE] Unless they read to the end of the thread, where I point out that you _cherry-picked_ ONE definition from ONE dictionary and used some slightly tortured reasoning to come to the conclusion that you did. Your definition doesn’t even _appear_ in most dictionaries. How typically disingenuous of you. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2007, 5:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meanwhile-back-at-the-ranch-pitting-the-misuse-of-skepticism/393777/146 "2007-03-02T05:48:11Z")
[QUOTE=lowbrass] Unless they read to the end of the thread, where I point out that you _cherry-picked_ ONE definition from ONE dictionary and used some slightly tortured reasoning to come to the conclusion that you did. Your definition doesn’t even _appear_ in most dictionaries. How typically disingenuous of you. [/QUOTE] Disingenuous. Now _there’s_ a felicitous term for the discussion at hand. As it happens, **Czarcasm** ’s post > [@Czarcasm](#): > > Quit pretending(whether it’s to yourself or to others) that the RRR is limited to some fringe area. looks a lot more like an accusation of disingenuosity than of pretension. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2007, 5:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meanwhile-back-at-the-ranch-pitting-the-misuse-of-skepticism/393777/147 "2007-03-02T05:58:46Z")
[QUOTE=kaylasdad99] Disingenuous. Now _there’s_ a felicitous term for the discussion at hand. As it happens, **Czarcasm** ’s post looks a lot more like an accusation of disingenuosity than of pretension. [/QUOTE] Exactly. I felt that **Liberal** was _disingenuous_ in that thread. If I wanted to call him _pretentious_, I would have participated in _this_ thread. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2007, 8:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meanwhile-back-at-the-ranch-pitting-the-misuse-of-skepticism/393777/148 "2007-03-02T08:47:26Z")
[QUOTE=Liberal] Sorry, but I’m not going to make this personal. [/QUOTE] It is to laugh, ha…ha. You already “made it personal” when you dodged the question the way you did, Tonto. [QUOTE=Liberal] Pretending is not always pretentious, but pretentious is always pretending. [/QUOTE] So that’s a “No” then? So Czarcasm’s “pretending” might not have been “pretentious”? Yay, progress. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2007, 5:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meanwhile-back-at-the-ranch-pitting-the-misuse-of-skepticism/393777/149 "2007-03-05T05:11:29Z")
I am not reading the whole thread. But the irrational fear of mankind is anthropophobia; the fear of gooms, or “men” is androphobia; homophobia is “fear of the same,” which if not a category error in logosynthesis might mean fear of people like oneself. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2007, 10:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meanwhile-back-at-the-ranch-pitting-the-misuse-of-skepticism/393777/150 "2007-03-05T10:55:55Z")
[QUOTE=Czarcasm] Exactly. I felt that **Liberal** was _disingenuous_ in that thread. [/QUOTE] Then why didn’t you say that Poly, who agreed with me, was disingenuous as well? And what about the cites given from leaders on the religious right who condemned Robertson and his looney ideas? You should be ashamed that, amidst all that discussion among all those people, you swooped by for no reason other than to call one poster — who, unlike you, cited sources — some irrelevant name with an ambiguous term that took fifty-three people three pages to figure out. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2007, 12:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meanwhile-back-at-the-ranch-pitting-the-misuse-of-skepticism/393777/151 "2007-03-05T12:39:32Z")
[QUOTE=Liberal] Then why didn’t you say that Poly, who agreed with me, was disingenuous as well? And what about the cites given from leaders on the religious right who condemned Robertson and his looney ideas? You should be ashamed that, amidst all that discussion among all those people, you swooped by for no reason other than to call one poster — who, unlike you, cited sources — some irrelevant name with an ambiguous term that took fifty-three people three pages to figure out. [/QUOTE] It only took _one_ person three pages to figure it out-it took the other 52 people to help you do it. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2007, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meanwhile-back-at-the-ranch-pitting-the-misuse-of-skepticism/393777/152 "2007-03-05T14:35:26Z")
[QUOTE=Czarcasm] It only took _one_ person three pages to figure it out-it took the other 52 people to help you do it. [/QUOTE] Well, if I was disingenuous for actually providing [proof](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8255559&postcount=320) that Robertson is fringe, and Poly was not disingenuous for making the same argument, then I guess you’re just whatever word you people use to mean “fucked up”. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2007, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meanwhile-back-at-the-ranch-pitting-the-misuse-of-skepticism/393777/153 "2007-03-05T19:07:24Z")
[QUOTE=Liberal] Then why didn’t you say that Poly, who agreed with me, was disingenuous as well? And what about the cites given from leaders on the religious right who condemned Robertson and his looney ideas? You should be ashamed that, amidst all that discussion among all those people, you swooped by for no reason other than to call one poster — who, unlike you, cited sources — some irrelevant name with an ambiguous term that took fifty-three people three pages to figure out. [/QUOTE] Doesn’t look like **Polycarp** actually participated in that thread, so that might be why **Czarcasm** let “the most non-disingenuos guy on the boards” off the hook this one time. Also, Czarcasm was specifically addressing [post=8246070]your blaming it all on CNN, Fox and gullible people[/post], which I hadn’t noticed others do. > [@Czarcasm](#): > > Liberal, you keep claiming that the problem is limited to Fox and CNN, but you’ve got to know the problem is much more widespread then that. Which makes it quite clear to us English speakers what he was accusing you of. Or maybe you’re being persecuted? That seems just as likely, I suppose. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2007, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meanwhile-back-at-the-ranch-pitting-the-misuse-of-skepticism/393777/154 "2007-03-05T19:35:19Z")
[QUOTE=CarnalK] Doesn’t look like **Polycarp** actually participated in that thread… [/QUOTE] My apologies to Poly and Tom for confusing them. They are equally good men. > [@](#): > > Which makes it quite clear to us English speakers what he was accusing you of. You English speakers should learn how to write prepositional phrases. I never said anything was limited to Fox and CNN. Fox and CNN were the sources Gonzomax cited, and about which [I responded](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8245642&postcount=232). And it was my first mention of the two at all — 232 posts into the thread. You don’t give a damn what was said, but only who said it. And that’s not persecution on your part; it’s deliberate ignorance. Pretense. Disingenuousness. Whatever word you like. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2007, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meanwhile-back-at-the-ranch-pitting-the-misuse-of-skepticism/393777/155 "2007-03-05T22:17:01Z")
[QUOTE=Liberal] My apologies to Poly and Tom for confusing them. They are equally good men. You English speakers should learn how to write prepositional phrases. I never said anything was limited to Fox and CNN\*. Fox and CNN were the sources Gonzomax cited, and about which [I responded](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8245642&postcount=232). And it was my first mention of the two at all — 232 posts into the thread. You don’t give a damn what was said, but only who said it. And that’s not persecution on your part; it’s deliberate ignorance. Pretense. Disingenuousness. Whatever word you like. [/QUOTE] Hey, I’m just reporting what **Czarcasm** said and what he was responding to. He said “you know” that’s not true, implying you were disingenuous. That’s me understanding English. Your request for prepositional phrases and stated rebuttal of his point is moot here. > [@](#): > > \*_[Originally Posted by **Liberal**](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=8246070#post8246070)_ > I think it’s right to blame two sets of people: (1) Fox and CNN for copping out to sensationalism and ratings, and (2) gullible people who think these wackos represent the mainstream. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2007, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meanwhile-back-at-the-ranch-pitting-the-misuse-of-skepticism/393777/156 "2007-03-05T22:23:21Z")
[QUOTE=CarnalK] Hey, I’m just reporting what **Czarcasm** said and what he was responding to. [/quote] Good thing he has you to help, I reckon. Again, “Fox and CNN” were used by Gonzomax, and so were referenced in response to him. In fact, for most of the thread to that point, almost everyone referenced CNN only. Any complaint about that? Didn’t think so. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2007, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meanwhile-back-at-the-ranch-pitting-the-misuse-of-skepticism/393777/157 "2007-03-05T22:48:41Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Again, “Fox and CNN” were used by Gonzomax, and so were referenced in response to him. In fact, for most of the thread to that point, almost everyone referenced CNN only. Any complaint about that? Didn’t think so. Actually, no complaint about that. [post=8246120]You[/post] and [post=8246107]Lord Ashtar[/post] correctly pointed it out to **Czarcasm** in that thread immediately afterwards. So there you go. What THIS thread was about was your quibbling over the (mis-)use of “skepticism” and has been hijacked into your misuse of the word “pretentious” and failing to grasp “disingenuous” as the better descriptor. But since you’ve apparently [post=8311715]relented on the point[/post], I guess there’s no point draggiing out the hijack any longer. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2007, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meanwhile-back-at-the-ranch-pitting-the-misuse-of-skepticism/393777/158 "2007-03-06T01:32:16Z")
This is getting weird. So, whether the accusation was valid or not, are we at least agreed that it was an accusation of disingenuosity, and not of pretensiousness? Err, I mean, what **CarnalK** said, I guess. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meanwhile-back-at-the-ranch-pitting-the-misuse-of-skepticism/393777.md?page=7)