People shouldn't cook meat on Friday

[The_Ryan]

Miller

How can anyone with an adult understanding of the language not see that, when you call someone dishonest, you are calling them a liar?

How can anyone with an adult understanding of English not see that “dishonest” and “liar” are two different things? And you say I don’t understand shades of meaning. It is quite possible to be dishonest without explicitly stating a lie. Everyone knows that. Everyone not desperately trying to come up with something one which to disagree with me, that is. “I think people who eat children should be arrested. Miller in particular is someone who should be put away for a long, long time.” Was that a lie, or was that a completely honest statement? According to you, it’s one or the other. It can’t possibly be a dishonest attempt to imply that you eat children, unless it is also a lie. So which one is it?

Biases are not always a bad thing, when they are based on knowledge and not ignorance.

I never said that biases are always a bad thing. I said that your bias compounds my doubt that your condoning of Muffin’s quote was based on an honest evaluation. If you’re going to lecture other people on their reading comprehension, it might help if you showed more than just a passing familiarity with the subject.

The stuff between the quote tags is a direct quote.

Yes, it is. That’s my point. Is that what you consider effective rhetoric? Repeating what someone said? What Muffin posted was not presented as an interpretation. This is not a case of simple “miscommunication”; it is a case of outright lying.

You never give anyone the benefit of that doubt, though. Whenever anyone misunderstands what you’re saying, you consistently jump to accusations of deliberate dishonesty.

What a load of hypocritical, self-serving, sophist crap. You as much as said that you never give me the benefit of the doubt. And you have the gall to take an example of me making an informed decision as to whether to give the benefit of the doubt, and claim that I “consistently” refuse to do so. I give the benefit of the doubt all the time, and for every example of me not, I can give you two. You, on the other hand, refuse to give me the benefit of the doubt, approve of Coldfire doing the same, and have the audacity to complain that I deny the two of you the very thing you refuse to give to me. You have one standard for yourself, and a completely different one for me. No, I take that back. You have no standards at all. You simply present whatever rule favors you at the moment, and discard it the moment it becomes inconvenient.

[Miller]

*Originally posted by The Ryan *
**How can anyone with an adult understanding of English not see that “dishonest” and “liar” are two different things? And you say I don’t understand shades of meaning. It is quite possible to be dishonest without explicitly stating a lie. Everyone knows that. Everyone not desperately trying to come up with something one which to disagree with me, that is. “I think people who eat children should be arrested. Miller in particular is someone who should be put away for a long, long time.” Was that a lie, or was that a completely honest statement? According to you, it’s one or the other. It can’t possibly be a dishonest attempt to imply that you eat children, unless it is also a lie. So which one is it?

That would be a lie, actually. Because, by juxtaposing those two sentences like that, you are trying to imply that I eat babies, which is untrue. It’s dishonest. It’s a lie. It’s the same damn thing.

I never said that biases are always a bad thing. I said that your bias compounds my doubt that your condoning of Muffin’s quote was based on an honest evaluation. If you’re going to lecture other people on their reading comprehension, it might help if you showed more than just a passing familiarity with the subject.

I never said that you said they were always a bad thing. I was just pointing out that, in this case, the bias is richly deserved.

Yes, it is. That’s my point. Is that what you consider effective rhetoric? Repeating what someone said? What Muffin posted was not presented as an interpretation. This is not a case of simple “miscommunication”; it is a case of outright lying.

No, it’s not a lie. It’s not dishonest. It’s what you said. He just removed the hypothetical setup. You claimed that Muffin was misrepresenting what you said. I posted exactly what you said, in context, to show that, in fact, he was not misquoting or misrepresenting what you said. He was accurately representing your statement. That you continue to argue that he didn’t says quite a bit about either your intelligence or your honesty. I’ll leave it up to the readers to figure out which.

What a load of hypocritical, self-serving, sophist crap. You as much as said that you never give me the benefit of the doubt.

That would be untrue, although not necessarily a lie. I gave you the benefit of the doubt for a good year or two. But you’ve consistently shown that I was wasting perfectly good doubts on you. You’ve more than amply earned your reputation around here. It’s a little late to start whining about it.

And you have the gall to take an example of me making an informed decision as to whether to give the benefit of the doubt, and claim that I “consistently” refuse to do so.

I don’t have the slightest clue as to what you’re refering to now.

I give the benefit of the doubt all the time, and for every example of me not, I can give you two. You, on the other hand, refuse to give me the benefit of the doubt, approve of Coldfire doing the same, and have the audacity to complain that I deny the two of you the very thing you refuse to give to me. You have one standard for yourself, and a completely different one for me. No, I take that back. You have no standards at all. You simply present whatever rule favors you at the moment, and discard it the moment it becomes inconvenient.

Now that would be a big honking LIE. Just 'bout every word up there is manifestly untrue. Although, I’ll give you this one last benefit of the doubt: I’m still not sure if you’re lying to me, or to yourself.

[The_Ryan]

*Originally posted by Miller *
That would be a lie, actually. Because, by juxtaposing those two sentences like that, you are trying to imply that I eat babies, which is untrue.

Ah, you see; you’re simply making up new definitions for words. While it’s true that the word “lie” is used metaphorically to denote dishonest statements, that’s not part of its literal meaning. You seem to be asserting that the fact that some people refer to dishonest statements as lies means that for me to call something dishonest is to call it a lie; that reasoning is seriously flawed. Had you wanted to know what I found dishonest about your posts, you could have simply asked, instead of giving this runaround of putting words in my mouth. Which is yet another thing I find dishonest (not a lie, though), about you.

It’s dishonest. It’s a lie. It’s the same damn thing.

The vast majority would disgree with you.

I never said that you said they were always a bad thing. I was just pointing out that, in this case, the bias is richly deserved.

:rolleyes: And I never said that you said that I said that they are always a bad thing. Look, we can play this game forever, but I do understand subtext enough to know what you were implying.

No, it’s not a lie. It’s not dishonest. It’s what you said. He just removed the hypothetical setup.

“Hypothetical setup”? What “hypothetical setup”? I did not say that moderators get to lie about posters, I asked whether they get to lie about posters. For you to claim that changing a question to a statement is not dishonest is itself indicative of dishonesty. Merely because the wordds appeared in my post, that does not mean I said them. They appeared in your post. Would it now be accurate for me to say

Originally posted by Miller
Moderaters get to lie about posters

?

You claimed that Muffin was misrepresenting what you said. I posted exactly what you said, in context, to show that, in fact, he was not misquoting or misrepresenting what you said. He was accurately representing your statement. That you continue to argue that he didn’t says quite a bit about either your intelligence or your honesty. I’ll leave it up to the readers to figure out which.

That would be untrue, although not necessarily a lie. I gave you the benefit of the doubt for a good year or two.

You are unable to recognize the use of the present tense, and you question my reading comprehension skills?

It’s a little late to start whining about it.

Wow, quite a lot of projection you’ve got going on here. You post dishonest posts, then call e dishonest. You whine about me not giving people the benefit of the doubt, then accuse me of whining.

Now that would be a big honking LIE. Just 'bout every word up there is manifestly untrue.

I guess I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume that was merely hyperbole. I said that you did not give me the benefit of the doubt. Is that untrue? No, it’s not. I said that Coldfire didn’t. Is that untrue? No, it’s not. I said that you complained that I did not give other people the benefit of the doubt. Is that untrue? No, it’s not. You have no rebuttal of my statements, and so you simply start chanting “lies! lie!”, exactly what you earlier accused me of doing. The fact is, in the O’Reilly thread, Coldfire accused me of playing semantic games without giving me the benefit of the doubt. Despite this, I gave him the benefit of the doubt, trying to explain my position to him. He reacted even more rudely. It was only then that I concluded that he was being dishonest.

[The_Ryan]

I think that it is reasonable for me to ask for a clarification as to whether the “do not misattribute quotes” rule prohibits making false statements about what other posters said, or whether Muffin gets off on the technicality that the words actually did appear in my post. However, despite the past and presumably continuing presence of a moderator, no such clarification has been forthcoming. Continuing in the spirit of “giving the benefit of the doubt”, and assuming that the moderators are not in fact aware of this question, I have reported the post, so that further silence can, without any reasonable doubt, be considered intententional.

[Blonde]

Ryan - you must know the clock is ticking.

The way I see it, if 90% of your posts are hostile, you’re on your way out - but, hey! You’ve been around since 1999, over 3,700 posts under your belt. That’s quite impressive. Your last post was the worst example of how to use the Engish language I have ever witnessed - you have just singlehandedly killed the multi-syllable word as we know it. Thanks so much!

Unless I’m mistaken, it’s pretty much to that point where the accident is over, not much to see, move over. If it’s OK with others, I’d like to suggest we give the OP a little time to chill out.

[Esprix]

Originally posted by The Ryan

The vast majority would disgree with you.

If you’re going to use that as an argument, then you must concede that the vast majority disagree with you, on a consistent basis.

But then, you don’t really care about that, do you?

Esprix

[El_Cid_Viscoso]

And Blonde puts a whole new spin on Gaudere’s Law.

[Miller]

Originally posted by The Ryan
“Hypothetical setup”? What “hypothetical setup”? I did not say that moderators get to lie about posters, I asked whether they get to lie about posters. For you to claim that changing a question to a statement is not dishonest is itself indicative of dishonesty. Merely because the wordds appeared in my post, that does not mean I said them.

So, still beating your wife, Ryan?

Now, don’t get offended at that. I didn’t accuse you of anything. I was just asking a question.

Frankly, I’m more than a little disappointed in you. This isn’t nearly up to your usual standards of obfuscation and misdirection. Even Blonde can see right through you. You been feeling sick lately, or something?

[Muffin]

*Originally posted by The Ryan *
**I think that it is reasonable for me to ask for a clarification as to whether the “do not misattribute quotes” rule prohibits making false statements about what other posters said, or whether Muffin gets off on the technicality that the words actually did appear in my post. . . . . I have reported the post, so that further silence can, without any reasonable doubt, be considered intententional. **

I get off on a technicality because I cited the words actually used in your post? Here’s a news flash for you: that is what proper citiation is about. If your own words do not convey your meaning, then you had best look to yourself.

You’ve reported one of my posts to a moderator? That helps answer the question as to whether you are deliberately obtuse or if you come by it naturally. Looks like you come by it naturally.

As far as the “Silence of the Mods” goes, the mods have not been silent. Coldfire was very clear:

*Originally posted by Coldfire *
The Ryan: you’re an idiot.

That is all.

[Coldfire]

*Originally posted by The Ryan *
**I think that it is reasonable for me to ask for a clarification as to whether the “do not misattribute quotes” rule prohibits making false statements about what other posters said, or whether Muffin gets off on the technicality that the words actually did appear in my post. However, despite the past and presumably continuing presence of a moderator, no such clarification has been forthcoming. Continuing in the spirit of “giving the benefit of the doubt”, and assuming that the moderators are not in fact aware of this question, I have reported the post, so that further silence can, without any reasonable doubt, be considered intententional. **

All right, you want to know whether Muffin broke the rule with regards to misattributing quotes.

Originally posted by Muffin**
Here is a sampling of the little balls of deficate derision you spewed out. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Originally posted by The Ryan
Moderaters get to lie about posters

**

Now, did Muffin misattribute that quote? No, not really, although it should be stressed that he did take it out of context. Here’s the full paragraph in its entirety:

Originally posted by The Ryan
So is one of those rules “Moderaters get to lie about posters, and call them weasels when they deny making the statements that the moderators made up”?

What Mufffin did may have been somewhat disingenuous, but it was not a misattributed quote. It was selective quoting.

Now, normally that practice doesn’t exactly earn you browny points over here either. But here, I’m inclined to overlook it. In this case, it’s fairly obvious that you deliberately phrased your accusation in the form of a question, so as to later weasel, backpeddle, and squirm when asked whether you were accusing a poster (in this case, me) of lying. Because you didn’t outright say that I lied, now did you? You merely asked whether a moderator was allowed to lie about a poster. That’s obviously not an accusation, right?

AND YOU WONDER WHY PEOPLE ARE FED UP WITH YOUR FUCKING SEMANTICS GAMES?

God, this is getting fucking old, The Ryan. Go on, report some more posts. Make us really tired of you. C’mon, try me.

[Esprix]

If only being pedantic could get you banned… {sigh}

Esprix

[The_Ryan]

*Originally posted by Coldfire *
In this case, it’s fairly obvious that you deliberately phrased your accusation in the form of a question, so as to later weasel, backpeddle, and squirm when asked whether you were accusing a poster (in this case, me) of lying.

What is this, Minority Report? You’re now taking umbrage at what I was “going” to do? I phrased it the way I did because it seemed the best way to contrast your false statements about me with your self-righteous post. When someone questioned on it, did I try to weasel out of it? No, I did not. Your claim is clearly contradicted by the evidence. You posted a false statement about me, and you have not shown any indication that you did so in error. A reasonable conclusion is that you were lying. I implied that you were lying, I provided support for that assertion, and I have done absolutely no weaseling, backpeddling, or squirming on this point. The only concession I make is that you may have been in error, rather than deliberately lying. However, I do not find this to be the most likely explanation.

You seem to be trying to claim that:
I worded my post to imply that you lied, but did not outright say that so that I could weasel out of that.
Muffin’s quote, while changing the meaning of my post, was in a way more honest, because it presented my words as saying that you lied, rather than merely implying that.
I accused Muffin of lying because the post made it clear that I was accusing you of lying, and I wanted to weasel out of that.

If this is what you think, you are absolutely incorrect. The problem I had with Muffin’s quote is not that it transformed the implication to assertion. In fact, it did no such thing. Rather, it changed my implication that you were lying to an assertion that moderators are allowed to lie. I never said any such thing, and it is not “weaseling”, “backpeddling”, or “squirming” for me to deny something which is absolutely incorrect. I never said that moderators are allowed to lie, and Muffin’s claim that I did is a lie.

Because you didn’t outright say that I lied, now did you? You merely asked whether a moderator was allowed to lie about a poster. That’s obviously not an accusation, right?

AND YOU WONDER WHY PEOPLE ARE FED UP WITH YOUR FUCKING SEMANTICS GAMES?

You make up a semantic game, imply that you are referring to something I said (but don’t actually say that I said it- planning on weaseling out of an accusation of misrepresenting my position?), then ask me whether I wonder why people are fed up with me? You’re the one playing games.

Again and again you have attacked me on the basis of acts that you have simply made up. In the O’Reilly thread, you made up that I was denying it, then attacked me for trying to “weasel out” of that denial. Here, you made up some nefarious motive for my choice of wording, then attacked me for that. If you were complaining about things I had actually done, I might actually wonder whether you have a point. But when you carry on and on about things that exist only in your head, then it’s clear whose problem it is.

Muffin

I get off on a technicality because I cited the words actually used in your post? Here’s a news flash for you: that is what proper citiation is about. If your own words do not convey your meaning, then you had best look to yourself.

This shows either an incredible ignorance of proper citation, or vast dishonesty. Proper citation is about presenting complete ideas. What you quoted was not an idea I was putting forth; rather, it was the subject of an idea. If every subset of a post encapsulated the meaning of the entire post, then any post with more than one word would be redundant. The fact that I am unable to write a post which remains comprehensible even when vital portions are removed is hardly a failing on my part.

[Miller]

Jesus, Ryan, give it up already. Nobody is buying the crap your trying to peddle. When all you can do in a debate is accuse everyone else in the thread of being a liar, all it does is highlight the fact that for you, the lie is the first recourse.

[wring]

it’s taking everything within my being to not quote selectively from his sentence removing "even when vital portions are removed " .

but that would be wrong.

[Coldfire]

*Originally posted by The Ryan *
But when you carry on and on about things that exist only in your head, then it’s clear whose problem it is.

Words to live by, The Ryan. I’m not the one reviving this thread from the dead every other day.

Since this is obviously going nowhere, and the OP has long been discussed, I’m closing this thread. If you want to continue your deluded play about how unfairly I’m treating you, you’re going to have to start a fully dedicated thread for it.