And who might that be? You? Ha. You and I disagree on just about everything, yet you continue to follow me around. You care what I say. YOu really do. To the point of bordering on obsession. In this thread and in others you said we were done, you tried to stay away, but you couldn’t. Me, I really don’t give a shit what you say. You come attack, and I get a modicum of enjoyment slapping you and pissing on you. I hold you in no esteem. You’re too predictable. Too boring. I do like pissing on you and puling your strings for a while though.
So you say. So you say… Yet…
Ahhh, another label. Don’t tell me you gave up on the other ones. Don’t disappoint me like that, my marionette. Now come post some more shit so I can piss on you again. Until I get bored. And the point, Rubes, is that Gates’ behavior was, in fact, racist.
Because I don’t give a shit about your label. I know you think I am a racist, a homophobe, and more. But, get ready for this, Rubes, I lose no sleep over this. I’ve come to learn that your a douche. You have problems, you have this pressing need to label people in order to disparage their opinions. Here’s a label I suggest you give me: The guy that pisses on you.
Another label—YAY!!!
Of course you can substantiate this, right? To do so, here’s what you need: you need to provide an untruth that I’ve uttered, and then show that I knew it to be an untruth when I said it. I’ll wait. Normally I’d also ask that you retract the accusation when you can’t provide what is needed, but I free you of this burden. Why? Because you do not matter to me. That you do not realize this by now is pretty comical, I must say.
THIS is why they call me The Puppet Master. Too perfect. ::Bows::
Hmmm. Let’s see, how shall I make the little uppity whore dance now?
I think I was in this thread first, so… might want to rethink your accusation. But you never rethink your accusations, so who am I kidding? All you do is resort to ad hominem attacks and ridicule. Scroll down for evidence. Nothing of substance, no rebuttal based on facts, just more personal attacks. You have no defense for your accusations of racism towards Cornel West, do you? You’ve got nothing.
I’m done talking to you about gay marriage, yes, because you’re hopeless. I guess you’re just as hopeless on race. It’s sad, really.
You think you’re slapping me and pissing on me? Hilarious. You’re the one whose ass is hanging out here, with your blatantly racist posts and indefensible positions. You don’t even TRY to defend them. You just say horrendous, unsupported shit, and then when called on it, you pretend that you’ve got the upper hand by typing the vile insults. Well, spewing evil shit does not give you the upper hand. Actually having some basis for what you’re saying does, and you don’t have it.
Why not stay on topic? The topic is, you said:
This, from the person so horrendously offended by Gates’ implication that Crowley was a racist. Oh the irony.
Here, you accused Gate and West of being “racist at heart,” as well as Sharpton, Farrakhan, and Jesse Jackson, and “many of these elite liberal black studies professors.” You refuse to articulate why these black studies professors are racist at heart, including Professor West. Why won’t you address this? You keep accusing elucidator of weaseling and not manning up. Man up and address your own words. Stop insulting me for daring to question you. OR, don’t say such stupid, indefensible shit. Your choice.
So was Pat Buchanan’s, but you contorted yourself into a pretzel defending him. You claim to take labels very serious, thus your great umbrage at what Gates said to Crowley, and apparently find it very offensive to be labeled yourself. But above, you freely labeled a bunch of black people racist, painting “elite liberal black studies professors” with your broad brush. So, do you only take offense at the label “racist” when it’s applied to you and other white people?
I piss you off, but you don’t piss on me. Your insults degrade you far more than they degrade me, because they show everyone that you have nothing of substance to say, just ad hominem.
You called me a liar first, toots. You hate labels SO MUCH unless you are the one applying them.
You claim you have evidence that allows you to assume that Cornel West is “racist at heart.” You have been asked, by myself and others, who Cornel West is, and why you think he’s racist, but you’ve failed to respond. Thus, when you say you have reason to assume this, you are a liar. You also claim that you find the label of “racist” to be a very serious charge, but you fling it around at lots and lots of people with color. Thus, your claim to take it seriously is a lie. You only take it seriously when your ox is being gored.
I hate to break it to you, but that’s not what they call you, toots.
Whore? I’m a whore? That’s the best you can do in defense of yourself? Wow, you are a pathetic little man. I’m the one who’s making YOU dance here, and you are doing so like ass a’fire. You’ve lost control of yourself and are now calling me a whore because I’ve made you lose your temper. The man who hates labels labels a woman who disagrees with him a whore. Classic! If you think you’re coming out of this conversation looking good, you’re fucking delusional. As usual. Not a single FACT in your last post, just the usually flailing around and insults that result any time anyone calls you on your bullshit. Thanks for being a predictable little bigot.
Don’t be stupid. They are rejected by law and principle. They have no legal status and the prosecutor knows better than to pursue them. You are being obdurate . You will reject all legal opinions that do not agree with you. Except there are none that do. You have nothing.
I agree that I am not often swayed to a position by emotion in discussions like this, but I don’t see that as a failing. But can you explain specifically what you are referring to by “they”. It seems that you are referring to charges of disorderly conduct in general. Is that right?
**Rubysqueak,
**
I had some time before my bike ride so I thought I’d pick up the puppet strings and straighten you out on a few things. Not that I expect it, based on your behavior with me across multiple threads, to do much good. But you seem so hungry for information that I’d thought I’d feed you.
This is probably all I’ll give you, as you seem intent on derailing the thread away from the belligerent, racist behavior of Gates and the degree to which Crowley was justified in arresting him. Enjoy. If you’d like more, constrain your questions to the OP. If not, so much the better.
Incorrect. I started to participate on Page 1, quite a bit before you entered. So, you are wrong.
You might want to check the thread, hon. It’s filled with many posts by me filled with much of what you say doesn’t exist. There’s a word for what you’re doing here: lying. Whoring yourself for lies all in an attempt to paint me in the way you describe. Try having more respect for yourself.
A leisurely scan of the thread revealed a few other lies you can hold in your sweaty little hands like a bunch of quarters. I’ll grant you that some of these might be things you were just wrong about. I’ll leave it to you to explain which is which:
Ohboyohboyohboyohboy. You’ve been whining and stomping your feet about Cornell West, who is NOT the subject of this thread, about how I could consider him a racist, and I told you I’ve answered you. and here you whine about it again, demanding some answers! But in the spittle that’s spraying across your screen you don’t take the trouble to notice that the explanation is contained within the very quote you include. Precious. Here’s a hint: it comes right after “By that I mean”. Think you can find it now Rubes? Can you not see I was using the term loosely? Just imagine iof I hadn’t explained myself. Oh wait, we don’t have to imagine, that’s what you’ve done! Twit.
Gates’ actions were racist. I have evaluated him based on that.
See a few paragraphs above.:rolleyes:
Here’s another choice: Elucidator man up, and you read what I write without assuming the worst and trying to find snippets you can extract to use attach an ad hominem label on me. You know, stop whoring yourself simply in order to paint me with your labels. You don’t like me, great. You seem to not respect me, fine. Then why cheapen yourself by lying and misconstruing shit to paint me in a way that makes you feel safe? It’s rather odd that you would do so when the person who is the object of your displeasure who someone you hold in such low esteem. Kinda dumb, isn’t it?
No, no pretzel. Just go read the thread. I was very clear actually in defending the statement in question. (Another lie/misconstruance—take your pick.)
Priceless!!! This from the person who goes through great trouble, in this thread and others, to prove me to be a: homophobe, racist, bigot, etc. And reread the thread AGAIN, toots. Start with my very first post on Page 1. Do the math on the proportion of substance to ad hominem. This just cracks me up. I bet if you looked at the body of SDMB exchanges between the two of us that a good portion (majority?) would revolve around you trying to label me with one label or another. And you accuse me of reverting to the ad hominem argument? Comedy gold, toots. Comedy gold.
And you might want to do a little reading to gain an understanding between an insult and an ad hominem argument.
There was a reason for that: you lied, toots.
If you have to ask yourself, odds are pretty good that the answer is yes. Either that, or there’s a typo and the question mark should either be a period or an exclamation point, depending on the emphasis desired.
Allow me to use this as a teaching moment. The above is an insult, not an ad hominem attack. I hope that helps.
Actually, I was much more specific than that. There was artistry to it. Please reread.
Whatever makes you happy, Rubes. I’m here for you.
Another teaching moment: what you wrote is both an insult (obviously) and and ad hominem, as you’re using it to attack my position. Here and elsewhere, no doubt.
Merely the lawyers and prosecutors who know disorderly is a BS charge and they refused to pursue it. Crowley had no cause, legally or ethically to arrest Gates. His own prosecutor threw it out quickly. They did not want to waste more tax dollars on a case they could not win.
You believe pissing off cops is a legal offense. It is not in Mass. It should be nowhere. But you don’t seem to be able to get by that. Crowley should have left and gone on with real police business. his call in should have been "there is nothing here it was the owner’.
We must be strictly fair, Gonzo, even to those who demonstrate no capacity to return the dignity. Can you cite that the prosecutor made the decision? Or that the decision was based on “tax dollar” concerns?
Your posted cites amply demonstrate that the laws for disorderly conduct have been determined (at least in Mass.) to require a much higher level of misconduct that was ever even suggested in the Gates debacle, and that is good. Actually, that’s a hoot, but never mind. But by no means do they demonstrate that Disorderly Conduct is invariably a “BS charge”, only that the standards are set rather higher. They don’t even demonstrate that Crowley knew it, only that, of course, as a police officer of some standing, he certainly should have.
Not only is magellan01 a racist, a homophobe, and a hypocrite, he doesn’t know what a whore is either. No surprises here, toots-- just a hurtful name to call a woman, doesn’t have to have any actual meaning, right? Whatever. You’ve once again confirmed that you’re a bigoted piece of shit who is not worth my time because you’re incapable of self-reflection or meaningful argumentation. Your punishment? Having to get up every morning and look at your own face in the mirror. You’re disgusting.
I think this broke my brain. Rubystreak challenged you on this point - which however I read it comes across as unenlightened and ignorant, when by your own admission you know nothing about the works of either Gates or West, and you lump them together with Sharpton and Jackson.
And you explain this with “By that I mean all they see his race.” I’m confused. You don’t know their work, but you infer that all they see is race? I would wager anybody working in the social sciences sees race, gender, sexual orientation, social class, nationality, and a multiplicity of other factors. This is certainly true of Gates’ and Cornel West’s work.
Surely you don’t believe that someone who only sees race would have any traction in the academic community? I’m always amused by the idea that academia is one giant wankfest where one egghead spouts about his or her favorite bullshit theory and everyone just goes along with it, because Professor Egghead is so charming, well-dressed, charismatic, smart, well-spoken, etc. Peer review is punishing, and it’s likely that if your work is of any worth, it pushes against many conventional perspectives. You have to advance your work and convince many naysayers that your work has merit. Regardless of the field, I don’t know any academics that have achieved tenure that have not had to present and defend their work to non-receptive audiences.
I have no idea what “using the term loosely” means, either.
And while this is the Pit, I don’t see a logical reason for calling Rubystreak a whore and accusing her of “whoring” for lies, etc. You certainly might not think your choice of words matters, but it certainly suggests a misogynistic bent to your dispute.