Look, if you guys are gonna call me an asshole, at least refer to me by name. I have my reputation to think of.
For the record:
Pat Robertson. Grade A cretin? Yes.
Hypocrite? Yes.
Do I agree with Reverend Mykeru when he says:
No. I would not wish cancer (or more cancer) on my worst enemy.
Trion
I’m already used to it. So many of the so-called “great debaters” seem capable of only strawmen and vituperation.
Ah, that bit of rhetorical hyperbole is going to be the canonical quote?
Well, fair enough. At least you recognize that Robertson is a scumbag and hypocrite. Not quyite going the rest of the way to recognizing that, practically speaking, Robertson has not only wished cancer on his worst enemies, but wished it on his best supporters. That’s the practical effect of telling the lady in Cincinatti that Jesus has cured her cancer. Of course Robertson doesn’t believe that any more than John Edwards thinks he’s really talking to dead people. The scams of both faith healing and cold reading preclude well-meant delusion. It must be something consciously carried out. And by telling people that they are cured when they are not in order to fill his coffers, the net effect is wishing that illness on the person and, often, condemning them to succomb to it.
But, as I said, at least you recognize that Robertson is a cynical fraud and not a nice person at all. Far better than the people who seem to cop a holier-than-thou attitude by ignoring what it is Robertson does by sheer force of will.
Fuck Godwin’s Law (it’s a usenet joke, morons): Revisionists are revisionists are revisionists.
I agree. **iampunha, you are worthless. Why don’t you stop moralizing and just shut the fuck up?
My farher has had prostate cancer for nearly the last 10 years…The doctors don’t even treat it because in his case of failing health the treatment would be more detrimental than the disease…It would seem this clamity that would take more time to Derobertson the world than the OP would be comfortable with…Perhaps ole Pat could awake Sunday morning as a atheistic homosexual black female Democratic, recovering from a recent abortion from her unwedded tryst with her Jewish pre-op transexual pot smoking boyfriend.
Just one fast comment, addressed to two people in this thread: Mykeru* and Hazen21. I detest the “jump on newbies” attitude that often rears its ugly head, so before commenting on what you had to say to iampunha, I did a search. Parameters your-name-as-poster, one month back, all forums. Neither of you has posted anywhere but in the Pit. With one exception it’s all been snide remarks directed at other posters’ comments. (Hazen21 did make one intelligent comment about not combatting generalizations with other generalizations in the Illegal Immigrants thread.)
This is a community. Most of us know and like iampunha, know something of what he’s been through in his life, where he stands on issues, and so on. We don’t jump to conclusions when he makes a given comment. We may disagree, but it’s a disagreement with a friend, in which both sides listen to each other’s arguments.
I’m not making any threats or giving any warnings – that’s for the moderators and administrators to do – but I’m urging you to rethink your style here, contribute positively to threads (as Hazen21 did once), and if you feel that somebody is taking a bizarre position, challenge them on it with reasons why they’re off the wall. For the record, the overwhelming majority of this board is dead set against Pat Robertson’s fulminations against gays, liberals, the ACLU, and you name it that’s attracted his ire, and conceives of his little milk-the-religious industries as slightly better ethically than Belsen but not a whole lot. But that doesn’t mean that we think that he deserves to suffer from an agonizing disease – he’s a human being, with at least the potential, however unlikely, to turn around and become a decent person. Just like you do. Posting just to get a rise out of somebody else is called “trolling” and it’s a bannable offense here. Most of us would much rather have you two as contributing parts of our community than see that happen. But the choice is up to you. Enough goes on in this world that I find loathsome that I often have to figuratively bite my tongue rather than slam somebody who seems to be defending it. But I find that refuting their statements, with reason, usually works a whole lot better than making a snide remark at them. I hope you won’t be insulted by this, but take it as an attempt at good advice. 'punha’s my friend, and I don’t like you taking digs at him. But I’m trying to say it in a way that at least preserves the chance of becoming friends with you too.
Dammit, Polycarp, whyja always have to be so danged decent all the time? It just raises the bar for the rest of us.
:wally
Polycarp
If you just look next to my name, you will see that I have 35 (36 now?) posts here. I have just started posting to this board. But I am no stranger to forums and I know the various species of posters down to hair-splitting toxonomic distinctions. Yes, it’s a community. Thanks for the statement of the obvious. I repeat: I am no strangers to forums, but strangely, many on the Straight Dope seem to think this is the only forum in existence. I suggest those people get out more.
Now, while I appreciate your attempt to be “decent” , as patronizing as it is, at the same time I don’t appreciate nor take to heart thinly veiled threats. Ever notice that when someone says “not to give you advice” they will invariably be giving advice? When you say “not to threaten” you are, in fact, threatening. Should someone ever say to me “Not to poke you in the eye with a fork” I’m running. I will take my chances with the moderators. When possible I have tried to make something like a reasoned, if somewhat acerbic, argument even in the face of abuse.
I also recognize that some people will attempt to derail discussions with absurdities, like a completely pedantic discussion of Godwin’s Law, which is a usenet joke and not part of the licensing agreement for accessing the internet. I don’t recognize Godwin’s Law because sometimes discussions of Hitler and Nazis are perfectly appropriate and should we take it to heart it would also preclude discussions of the Holocaust, the Second World War, fascism and quite possibly space exploration because of the necessary reference to Wernher van Braun.
I also recognize that these same people, compared to a new poster, have feces that is remarkably free of odor and may, in fact, be described by other posters as having a springtime fresh fragrance. It’s to be expected. At the same time one should not be surprised that I base my reaction to posters not on their long and noble history on the board, but simply on what I read of them. If their shit stinks, I might remark on it.
Now, the reason this thread caught my eye is simply that I wrote on this topic on my website. I had interest in this topic before I posted here. I have also posted on the Secular Web forums. Before that I have read extensively about the subject of Faith Healers such as Robertson. I cannot say that I have a signed copy of James Randi’s The Faith Healers, but I do have a signed copy of his book The Truth About Uri Geller. Suffice to say, I have had interest in Faith Healers and other purveyors of pure bullshit when many of you were still having your milk money stolen. I suspect that many of you have a very tenuous grasp of who Robertson is and what he and his type of con man have done. Moreover, I suspect you don’t care. While you might give you the glow of unconditional saintliness, I think it shows profound contempt for the people Robertson has conned and hurt over a very long career.
Your mileage may vary. Obviously it does.
Now, you and I have a genuine heartfelt disagreement: You think “But that doesn’t mean that we think that he deserves to suffer from an agonizing disease – he’s a human being”. I disagree with the first part of that statement and the second part is merely a technicality. Were membership cards in the human race routinely checked Robertson’s would have been revoked a long time ago. Lots of arguments can be made for some people being well-meant but deluded. One can argue that the Cultural Revolution in China was started with the best of intentions by Mao. It was still a cluster fuck. Then again, some vile acts have no recourse to even that “seemed like a good idea at the time” out. Its hard to see how Robertson could have any good intentions. The con artist nature of faith healing precludes that out. It’s a cynical and destructive game.
Considering the number of people who have suffered and died, thrown away their medication or rejected legitimate cures under the spell of Robertson and his ilk, I would argue that if anyone really deserves to suffer like his victims, Robertson makes the short list.
Of course, he won’t. He will get just the sort of advanced medical care that he has spent a career convincing people displays a lack of faith in Jesus.
Cynical con man? Purveyor of human suffering? Add hypocrite to the list.
Simply because we disagree doesn’t mean that I am a troll. Although I can imagine how terribly convenient it would be to characterize everyone you disagree with as a troll, or stupid, or showing moral terpitude. It’s a common reaction, if somewhat rigid. I have provided evidence, links and arguments for why Robertson is a particularly nasty scumbag for whom a little suffering would not be nearly enough. You may think it’s to “get a rise out of people”. Actually, I hardly give a shit what anyone thinks of my opinion, although I am open to having my opinion changed. My purpose is merely a heartfelt reaction: Robertson is a cynical human predator and hypocrite and I simply have no sympathy for his condition. When I think about the people who succombed to cancer, or when into shock after tossing their insulin or otherwise fell victim to the money siphoning machinations of faith healers, of which robertson is on, I reiterate that my only regret is that he has only one prostate to get cancer.
Job he is not.
preach it Reverend…
hopefully he will die peacefully… i’m sure he’s rich enough by now that he can afford the good drugs.
You know, I agree with 99% of your analysis of Robertson, and the other 1% is simply from knowing a little about him as a person – he’s part of a Virginia political dynasty; his father was a U.S. senator. And I have a great deal of respect for the tone of your post, which was to argue with me on facts and fact-based opinions. At bottom, that was what I was urging you to do.
I’m sorry you saw a patronizing tone in my post – there’s always an element of such creeping in, in a statement such as I made, but it was not my intention to patronize you. As you may have noticed, there’s a style shared by people here. And many of us have participated in other boards – and find this one, with its combination of wide-open discussion of virtually anything other than practical information on how to commit crimes combined with its tone of mutual respect, to be our preferred discussion-board site. It’s a part of that sense of community, of mutual respect, that we try to “run interference” for each other and alert a fellow member when his or her tone is heading towards getting a moderator upset enough to warn or call for a ban. That was the sort of thing I was trying to do with you, and I appreciate the measured tone of the response. (Although unless you’re in your 70s I doubt strenuously that “[you] have had interest in Faith Healers and other purveyors of pure bullshit when [I in particular was] still having [my] milk money stolen.”) But I very much like the fact that we have someone with an interest in exposing televangelists and their evil ways among us – and I encourage you to get into discussing that in Great Debates. (There’s at least one member here which one of my minor goals is to open her eyes to the real evil that they perpetrate on a daily basis.) A question for you to ponder, and perhaps start a debate on: Is there any way to protect the unwary from snake oil peddlers like him while still preserving First Amendment protections – which I would hope you feel as strongly about as most of us do!)?
And you’re perfectly free to suggest that he deserves what he got – I find it deliciously ironic, at the same time that I feel sorry for him as an individual for having been struck by it. Perhaps some of his fellow faith healers will go pray over him and cure him? 
Considering the volume of people who arrived here via another board/community-type place (bored.com, slashdot, a few via TMF, pizza parlor, lbmb, etc), is there anything in the way of substantive proof you wish to offer to provide some teeth to this comment of yours?
By the way, what type of poster am I? I’m interested to see where I fit in your pre-determined (with no prior knowledge of me) schema.
If Polycarp had been threatening you … well, let’s back up one step here. Let’s re-examine what he said:
" I’m not making any threats or giving any warnings – that’s for the moderators and administrators to do – but I’m urging you to rethink your style here, contribute positively to threads (as Hazen21 did once), and if you feel that somebody is taking a bizarre position, challenge them on it with reasons why they’re off the wall"
If Poly had wanted to warn or threaten, he would have linked to the FAQ/Rules and shown you various behaviours you’ve exhibited that were against the rules. He might have suggested actions moderators would take.
However, he didn’t. Why? Because A) he’s not a Mod and B) what purpose would that serve? You’d see him giving you advice and take it as someone trying to flame you, most likely.
Many people do say “not to …, but let me just … here.” Poly doesn’t. He doesn’t do that whole “art of saying without saying”. At least not as others do. And as someone who’s learned few things as thoroughly as this, let me give you advice: there are many people on here, myself included, who post a good deal of fluff. Anything Poly writes is worth reading. I don’t care if it’s a grocery list or the number of hairs onhis left hand, it’s worth reading.
If your arguments were reasoned, then the person with whom you were arguing was invisible to the rest of the board. Nobody was disagreeing with your comments on his religious lackings nor his hypocritical methods, yet you chose to continue to berate us about the head, figuratively speaking, for supposedly elevating him to human status and worshipping him. What you failed to address in almost every single post in which it was brought up was one of the first things that was mentioned when all this came about in the first thread: it may feel nice to say “yay he’s got cancer”, but not everyone who suffers with the pain of his cancer deserves it.
In short, you were debating with someone none of us saw, and your responses to our posts frequently exhibited this invisible person.
Ah, remember you were the one to bring up the (erroneous) interpretation of “invoke”.
Missed the part where that’s relevant. Again, nobody said “You invoked Godwin’s Law: I win”. You said “Now, according to the FAQ of this USENET joke the proper methodology isn’t to say ‘you invoked Godwin’s; I win’”. Nobody disputed that and IIRC at least two people pointed out that nobody brought it up in the first place until, again, you started in on this mysterious third person.
Shit doesn’t get any more believable if you have to dig deeper to get it. Best to just put a bucket under a horse and wait a bit. Much easier, plus you don’t have to worry about a shovel.
I’m getting really tired of this post … let’s skim the rest and see if there’s any actual substance or if you just felt like typing “I’m frustrated that I can’t win a debate here” in other words.
…
Are you unable to comprehend more than a sentence per hour? If that’s the case, read this very slowly:
Nobody is disputing the horrible things Roberston has done; those who have expressed sympathy have done so either for those among his kin who don’t deserve this pain and/or those who have gone through cancer before, either themselves or in a loved one.
Incorrect. You have presented your argument for such.
Ah, see, there’s the rub. You don’t care how you’re perceived, and thus you aren’t going to try to show people why you’re right, you’re going to use the same technique over and over. In that case, two suggestions:
Leave. Your ways aren’t working here. You’re wasting your time and others’. While you may not care about theirs, you obviously care enough about this issue to blather on for the urinary equivalent of a horse after a race. Therefore the more convenient solution is the latter;
Figure out what works and use it.
What do you feel for those he knows who have been touched by this cancer of his and are hurt? Surely in that city of thousands there must be ten good men for whom you would spare your wrath;)
**
He was accused of being a sock because he knows VB code. That is ignorant bullshit spewed by dumbfucks who don’t realise that other fora exist on the net.
Here is the thread where Mykeru is accused of being a sock.
Personally, I think he is a little extreme but this rhetoric of claiming he is “just as bad” is complete bullshit. Being glad when something bad happens to a genuinely bad person may not be anything to be proud of, but it is a natural human reaction.
Not necessarily. I can think of at least three other MBs on the web that do not use vB code. Had I experience only with those three MBs and this one, the thought that someone was freshly coming here and had not indicated that s/he had lurked and was using VB code like they’d grown up with it might lead me to a similar conclusion. As is, the thoughts I had about Mykeru being a returning guest, so to speak, had more to do with mannerisms and such than any VB ability.
And re: " Being glad when something bad happens to a genuinely bad person may not be anything to be proud of", does it not seem to you that he is happy that Robertson has cancer, even at the expense of those around him (Robertson) who have done absolutely nothing to deserve it? And furthermore that he shows absolutely no remorse for this?
When we wish ill of people who do bad things we are not thinking of their innocent relations.
Did Robertson think of the families of homosexuals who were murdered by religious fanatics on September 11th before claiming they caused it themselves?
You know, it’s hard enough trying to communicate with only the written word. I can understand why someone would get annoyed at having to wade through strawmen and vituperation to get to the point. Perhaps you can understand that it’s also annoying having to wade through the “rhetorical hyperbole”.
** iampunha **
Of course, in answering your question and changing the subject once again at your behest from irrelevancies like the OP to truly important matters, like you, I will probably be accused of hijacking the thread. Oh well. You are just too clever for naughty people like me.
Bonus points to people who detect both the sarcasm and the Monty Python reference.
I think a simple “dumbfuck” is not quite clinical enough to describe you and the Italian slang word “stunad” (someone so stupid that they don’t realize how stupid they are) may be too obscure and ethnic.
So, to put you in a more established taxonomic category, you strike me as a fundamentalist. Not in the literal sense of a Christian, but merely as someone who starts from the position of having revealed truth, some a priori deontological rule, and then seeks confirmation for whatever bias stuck up your sphincter. Now, I am sure that fellow posters will pop up and vouch for you, but I just go by what I see. You speak about my opinion being “predetermined”. I think that gets the big pot-kettle-black of the day. For example:
iampunha:
Then someone else answers the question for me:
grendel72:
[/quote]
And furthermore:
grendel72
Do you suck it up? Do you admit that you might have been a little off there? No, of course not. When reality and you conflict, obviously there must be something wrong with reality:
iampunha:
Ah, no, not really, dipshit. If you read it you will find that accusations of being a sock puppet, a bad, bad thing to do according to another poster who oddly --and this seems to be a Straight Dope Forum technique honored in song and story-- takes me to task and threatens the wrath of moderators on me for bringing up sock puppets, even though the charge was originally leveled against me and not by me. Sort of like being accused of hijacking a thread when some other poster, who will remain nameless, goes off on Godwin’s Law. I am beginning to think your SD forum mutual admiration society is a family tree that doesn’t branch, if you know what I mean, and I think you do.
In any case, rather than acquiesce to the obvious fact that one can learn vB code from some other forum, you, rather than being wrong, which is impossible in this little alternate universe of yours, you bring up the hair-splitting irrelevancy that “Not necessarily. I can think of at least three other MBs on the web that do not use vB code.”
Uh, who gives a fuck? What does that have to do with anything? VB code, UBB code, it’s all the same fucking thing. It’s basically HTML where you use these brackets “” instead of these brackets “< >” and there are some slightly different tags, like quote and /quote, but if one already knows HTML, which I do, none of the forum codes are a stretch.
You seem to draw quite a lot of strength and confidence from your appalling ignorance.
Oh, bite me you dense little didactic twerp. I already covered the whole “I’m not threatening”, “I’m not giving advice”, “I’m not poking you in the eye” rhetorical device.
Whatever. Many do, many don’t. Lots of wiggle room there. Once again you resort to hair-splitting. You seem to think because you tend to hedge statements that it gives you some sort of clever out. It doesn’t.
Oh, I understand. I am sure Polycarp is not only one of the Straight Dope immortals, but loves dogs and small children and has a lovely singing voice. My problem with Polycarp is that he comes across speaking to me as if he thinks I just signed up for an AOL account this afternoon. I haven’t. As wise as his words may be, he is not telling me anything new. In addition, considering the level of distortion and vituperation I have gotten from other here, including you, I really don’t need Polycarp telling me how to post, especially when you crude bastards didn’t offer me any K-Y before you swarmed me.
Oh, and I did read what Polycarp wrote. I responded to it and offered an opposing view of things, including his implication that I am trolling. I’m not. I’m offering my opinion and my reasons. You should try it some time.
Oh, ok, if you assert that my arguments were not reasoned, that’s good enough for me. Can’t argue with that.
See, there you go spinning again. I wasn’t referencing Robertson’s “religious lackings”. That would be sort of like Jimmy Swaggert preaching about sin to only be caught with a $10 hooker and a backseat full of porn. What I was talking about is, whether religiously motivated or not, the practical effect of Robertson and his ilk on people. Whether it is religiously motivated, or motivated by a desire to please the flying saucers from the planet of the sex goddesses is besides the point. The point is for whatever reason, someone who tells people they are cured of cancer or has them toss their medication is a scumbag.
Of course, you will continue to soft-soap it, pretend that I don’t like Robertson’s politics and religion rather than dealing with the fact that I don’t like Robertson killing people.
I don’t think I said people worship Robertson. I do think that because of his religious affiliation people are cutting him a little more slack than he deserves. That is not suprising considering that the Supreme Court denies Rastafarians the right to smoke Ganja for their religion, or American Indians to use Peyote, but oddly enough Christian Scientists have been cut quite a lot of slack to withhold medical care from their children to the point of death (although this is changing) and Faith Healers like Robertson can engage in manslaughter and no one will touch them. Christians, it seems, can commit bigger crimes for their religion.
Think that’s overdrawn? Fine. I will refer people again and again to the link that I posted describing the harm of faith healers.
You say “not everyone who suffers with the pain of his cancer deserves it”. Does that mean that some people do? Who are these people? What is your criteria for someone deserving the pain of someone’s cancer?
Once again you wish to shift the emphasis from Robertson to your assumption about the suffering of his family, which you have in no way established. You just assume that they are suffering. I have previously pointed out that if they are half the sociopathic con man that Robertson is, they may well be praying to Jesus that he croak so they can take over the money machine. Others have pointed this out as well, but, of course, you just ignore the fact that Robertson’s family, for all their supposed suffering, have benefitted greatly from his fortune built on the suffering of others.
I have an idea, why not shed a little tear for the people, and the families of the people, that Robertson has bilked and perhaps sent to an early grave over his career? Or would that tarnish your gold-plated halo?
Yeah, whatever. The English language, including the word “invoke”, mean whatever you want it to mean based on the expediency of the moment. How silly of me to think that dictionaries meant anything when I should have consulted you first.
True, so very true. I’ve noticed, however, that you have granted yourself an exception to your own maxim, oh masterful hair-splitter, hedger, equivocator and deployer of strawmen. If we shot the shit you generate into space it would form a sphere with a pronounced equatorial bulge.
Odd that as tired as you are, you managed to find the energy to parse ever other sentence and then, surprise-suprise, claim victory:
Again, just because you tend to ignore substance when it doesn’t fit in with your preconceptions and your urge to canonize yourself, doesn’t mean that there isn’t any. Willful ignorance and recalcitrance hardly makes you a victor.
I’m sorry, is the point to “win a debate”? I wonder how that is judged. Is it a three fall thing? Is there a set time limit? Maybe if you concentrated more on making something like a salient point or two and less effort on trying to “win a debate” you would seem like a lot less of a blithering moron.
Oh no, I’ve been patronized. What a stunningly original ploy.
Sure you have, you disingenuous twit. You have done nothing but soft-soap Robertson and continually tried to deploy the strawman that my problem with Robertson was his politics and religion and not his complicity in manslaughter.
In any case, that’s your entire argument? That we should not be harsh on Robertson because he has a family? Well, who in fuck doesn’t that apply to? We will set aside whether or not his family are as much scum as he is. I have news for you: I would assume that the overwhelming majority of people on death row have family. The mere fact that they have family (we will set aside arguments about the fairness and possible errors in imposing the death penalty) doesn’t mitigate their guilt. Nor does it mitigate the sense of justice when they are punished for their crimes.
In addition, if we are at an impasse in judging Robertson by your standards, or by my standards, perhaps then we should judge him by his own standards. Robertson is an adherent of what is known as the “Pelagian heresy”. This miserable belief states, quite simply, that if the proscribed formulas are followed, and no miracle is granted, then it is the fault of the supplicant. Yes, that’s right, it’s their own badness and lack of faith that is to blame. It’s convenient too, because no matter who dies and how they die, it’s not Robertson’s fault, it’s not God’s fault, it’s the sufferer’s fault.
What a shitty thing to tell a sick, dying person. What a scumbag.
But by Robertson’s own standards his illness is the will of God and yet, should he suffer and succumb to it, it is his own damn fault.
Hey, that’s not my standard. It’s Robertson’s. Now, it’s rather hard to continue to defend Robertson (or use his family as a human shield) while at the same time disavowing the very standard that Robertson has applied to people even sicker and more suffering than he, not to mention their family.
“Hey, sorry Granny died slowly and in agony, but it was her own damn lack of faith”
Nice. Granny is gone but the Pelagian heresy keeps the suffering going.
Now, no doubt your reply will repeat your same themes of claiming that I offer no reasons and that I am lunch for a great debater such as yourself (by the way, how do you keep the sand out of your eyes and nose when you have your head so firmly stuck in it?). I would be far more impressed if you could deploy something more than equivocation and strawmen and appeals to pity such as “but he has a family”.
Yeah. No kidding. So what?
Polycarp
Convince you otherwise? Sure. Not a problem: I paid my $30 to "Bob"
Now, in reference to your snarky little insult: “I don’t use it in referring to Fred Phelps or Pat Robertson, for reasons you can guess – and I have seen no reason to apply it to you” (Oh yeah…"no insult intended "), I would tell you to print out a SubGenius ordination form, roll it up into a tight cylinder and shove it up your prim, puckered little asshole, but I suspect that would be an overreaction to someone who takes his name from dubious and probably forged epistles of a saint and Christian martyr who may or may not be ahistorical.
In which case your name is very appropriate.
P.S. Blow me. No insult intended
Mykeru, truth be told I don’t really care how much you dismiss my comments … saves me having to wade through five pages of your self-important bullshit looking for anything to respond to that might reach you … but you’re really in for a long, hard, bumpy ride if you’re going to target Polycarp. A few people spoke up for me when I got “attacked”. You’re looking at several dozen people, minimum, if you keep trying to get at Poly. And quite a few of them, debate-wise, could chew me up and spit me out without even noticing it. While you will certainly pretend that’s nothing you couldn’t do before your first cup of morning coffee, you might want to reexamine if you really want to continue down this vein.
I agree. But for the problem of “intent”. The intent is to heal. (Whereas some people are more interested in public relations and profit. Ignoring PR and his ilk like I do, it’s hard to judge among them.) These people themselves are looking for miracles. I don’t expect that most people find them…but there is a definite market out there for cure through faith, especially among people who are terminal, who have been told that they are at the end of the line, that they are already at the limit of what medicine can do. They also might go to Mexico for bizarre chemical compounds or to the alternative (the quack-alternative) methods like herbal enemas or something.
Anyway…there seem to be people here for whom the natural view of the situation would be one of sorrow first, and hope that PR learns from the experience and might change his ways…and that might be a hard-won view instead of a naive or disaffected one. At least consider that possibility for a moment, it is important in the context of whom you are arguing with.
Maybe you’ll even rethink that last post I see on preview, I hope…
iampunha
Which, of course, was my response to your “self important bullshit” which you conveniently decide to dismiss rather than respond.
Actually, I was responding to Polycarp’s completely unsolicited insult. If he can’t take a response, perhaps he should keep his snarky little comments to himself. I assume his typing all that involved some sort of intent. Of course, that may not be the case. He/she/it may just be channeling Dame Edna.
Trying to get at Poly? I was simply respoding to his ass-puckered patronizing and unsolicited insult. I assume that what you are telling me here is that in the Straight Dope community some people are so revered that they can count on slinging insult without expecting response.
How fucking lovely for them.
Please tell the “several dozen” to take a number and get in single file.
Wow, that certainly comes as a surprise.
You mean respond to people? Oh, I think I will continue and laugh off the barage of silly “Doper” warnings that all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
Now that you have done yeoman’s work picking the corn and peanuts out of Polycarp’s shit, why don’t you respond to my previous post unstead of (conveniently) dismissing it to rush to Polycarp’s defense.
Hmmn, Godwin’s Law, definitions, dire warnings…Are you even capable of remembering what the subject is for 5 minutes at a time?
Jerk.
