Same challenge:
QUOTE a post or two of mine in GD where I am “weaselly” and QUOTE a few posts of mine in GD which are trolling, in your view. (actually, trolling is a bit subjective to assess. You will probably have to take my word for it that I really believe the positions I take in GD)
If you can’t do it, then you can retract your accusation and apologize.
Is a “douchebag” somebody who demands that people back up their accusations? If so, then I plead guilty to douchebaggery.
That’s the only thread I’ve read about brazil84. It was a largely unsuccessful Pit thread IMHO. You weren’t able to show any lack of logic that people agreed with, so it floated off the page. If you could show something substantive, I bet more people would have jumped on it.
I have not seen any other threads by brazil84 or about him, so I’m just commenting on that one thread.
So you would agree with brazil84 that it’s logical to ignore scientific research that uses widely accepted terminology but doesn’t define it within the paper itself? I will gladly see how you explain the workings of this logical step.
And you would agree that he should have been entirely mystified that global warming and climate change are commonly accepted to refer to the same thing, even though he had participated heavily in 20+ threads on the subject? Again, I look forward to seeing how you defend that position if you want to take it.
Fuck that shit. I like hearing about people’s firsthand experiences from other parts of the world.
Oh, and who do I hate? People who bitch about signatures at the end of posts, as if they actually can exercise control over what another poster puts in his/her post. WTF? Is your head going to explode if you see two lines at the end of a post? Are your mental faculties so weak that you are sent spiraling into a maelstrom of discombobulation at the sight of a sign-off? GTFO, losers.
Peace,
IchiniSan
I agree that all people who sign their posts are assholes.
“The Turtle Moves!”
-silenus
THAT’S your proof? :rolleyes:
I suggest you ask Rosa Parks* if life was better back then? Or Emmett Till’s family? Ever heard of Jim Crow?
Or hey-let’s go back a little further, shall we? Why don’t you ask my great-grandmother, if life was better back then? Her two eldest sons never made it beyond the age of 6-my Great-Uncle Johnny died when he was about two of whooping cough, and Great-Uncle Karl stepped on a rusty nail and died of tetanus when he was five. Nowadays, with modern medicine, that wouldn’t be an issue. Back then?
Fifty years ago, the word “nigger” could be said in polite company. There was no such thing as “marital rape.” Inter-racial marriage and birth control were illegal. (I don’t mean abortion, I mean plain old ordinary birth control.)
I suffer from an anxiety disorder-back in the so-called “good old days”, that would have been something shameful-and most likely, there wouldn’t have been a way to treat it. I also suffer from epilepsy-I would imagine that the medication and treatment that is available nowadays is a hell of a lot better than that of fifty years ago.
And that’s just a few examples.
People have been saying, “Oh, back fifty-sixty years ago, things were so much better, now it’s going to hell in a hand basket…” for thousands of years. Fact is, things aren’t necessarily worse-or better. They’re just different. Some things are better, some things are worse.
*Yes, I’m aware Ms. Parks has passed away.
One word:Lions.
You’re done.
Guin, I don’t think **SA **is saying everything was better 50 years ago. It is his opinion that overall, that time was superior to the modern era, despite the improvements in other areas.
Valete,
Vox Imperatoris
If he’s typing 9s and 0s, those keys work just fine, it’s the shift key that’s a problem–if, that is, he bothers to use it. Anyway, last time I checked, most computer stores sold keyboards for not much more than the price of an SDMB membership.
(referring to ivan astikov)
Yep. In fact, you, ivan, came up a couple of times at the LA Dopefest and most people seemed to hate you.
By the way, Vox Imperatoris, there’s a reason signatures are only allowed once per thread. Using a signature in your posts is deliberately skirting that rule and reeks of an unrealistically high sense of self-esteem on your part. (“I know they don’t want annoying signatures popping up over and over, but mine must be OK because I came up with it!”)
(referring to brazil84)
Yep. He did that over the course of the California high-speed rail thread, too, constantly derailing the discussion with absurd probability calculations based on some thought experiment involving three little kids in a car or something. He’s very clever at gradually shifting the argument into his terms and then throwing a pissy fit when people try to talk about anything that’s actually relevant to the original discussion. He always gets his way.
And, of course, he knows that the problem is how he steers the discussion in a long-term sense, not any one thing he says in any one post. So he says things like this:
…knowing full well that it would take pages to actually document the complaint. And of course, he’s succeeded in making this thread all about his little nitpick.
I have to second this post. For the record, I find Cameroon and Spain fascinating in particular–I first heard of Cameroon when they made a strong showing in the Sydney Olympics and have perked up my ears when I heard their name since, and I’ve been thinking about moving to Spain sometime in the future.
As for Thailand, ISTM that Siam Sam is just the kind of guy who notices the details about how things are different in his life than when he stayed in Texas. He seems to thoroughly enjoy the cultural differences and he wants to share that enjoyment with us. Sure, it gets old sometimes, but hell, it’s what he brings to the table. He even put the country’s name in his username. What, exactly, would you expect?
To elaborate on Tangent’s tangent, you sigliners should picture a conversation like this:
Tim: “Hey Joe, what do you think of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State?”
Joe: “I think it’s going to bite Obama in the ass. Regards, Joe.”
Tim: “Really? How come?”
Joe: “Well, the Clinton family is a political machine with a mind all its own. They probably don’t feel like the Party or the Obama administration owe them much, so there’s a danger of them going rogue. Regards, Joe.”
Tim: “So, who do you think would be a better choice?”
Joe: “Well, I like Richardson, personally. Regards, Joe.”
Tim: “He seems a little too soft for me. Plus, I’m not impressed by his bolo tie.”
Joe: “Mmmpgh phgh mmmmmh mmmgh pghghg. Phghgh, ghhh.”
Tim: “Man, am I ever glad I stapled your tongue to the wall just now. This is way better.”
Politeness isn’t achieved by being a total dick for a paragraph and then throwing in a mildly courteous aside before storming off.
You refer to the most right-wing Democratic government in decades, plus Blago, who himself is universally despised on both sides. askeptic refers to the Republican mainstream. Besides which, you seem to be typing out a list of Republican traditions, except that the male Republicans prefer to give the blow jobs and then cry in the closet before resolving to eradicate that which they hate most about themselves by legislating it out of existence.
Oh, and you forgot wide stances.
But I’m not having a face-to-face conversation with you. I’m sending you the equivalent of letters over the internet.
Valete,
Vox Imperatoris
Thank you Hostile Dialect, you summed it up better than I could. However Brazil will still twist words and evade and claim some sort of innocence.
And that has exactly what to do with the crass, vulgar, belligerent and utterly classless society that typifies American society now?
And that has exactly what to do with the crass, vulgar, belligerent and utterly classless society that typifies American society now? Was it impossible to correct/adjust these things without reducing everything in America to its lowest common denominator?
And just how is it that these wonderful advancements in medicine are the result of turning this society into a cesspool?
How did prohibition ever get overturned without turning society into a similar cesspool of vulgarity, ill-temperedness and lack of class? How did women ever get the vote without without turning society into a cesspool of beligerence, lousy manners and lowest common-denominator forms of entertainment?
I spoken about this crass=racial freedom bullshit around here many times before. I could have sworn you were in attendance.
Liberal permissiveness and aversion to standards and codes of conduct is what has resulted in this society having become what it is, and race had little to nothing to do with it. It started with baby-boom hippies who wanted to wear long hair and idiotic clothes and smoke ‘dope’ and do drugs and still get hired and make a living and not be expected to live up to standards of civil society. So the previous codes of conduct had to go, and liberal permissiveness and an aversion to saying enough is enough when it comes to their sacred cows has brought us wo where we are today.
If you can pull your head out long enough to look around a little and look into it, you might notice that the civil rights demonstrators who had the most effect and did the most good, did so while wearing Sunday dresses and dress shirts, slacks and ties.
It’s only because of history revisionists in the educational system the last few decades – revisionists anxious to explain or make excuses for the harmful effects their philosophies and permissiveness have had upon this country over the last 50 years – that people like you believe that nonsense.
And on preview (or upon opening a new tab, as the board is acting wonky), thanks Vox. Well said. Would that I had your economy with words. 
Bravo, finally someone says what I’ve been thinking so fucking long. It’s a message board goddamnit, just skip over it if you’re not interested. No one is holding you hostage!
In return, Starving Artist, I must say that you have elaborated out on what I have vaguely thought in my mind for a long time, but I’d probably take it back even further than that, to the Victorian Era. I mean sure, it wasn’t all sunshine and roses, and there have been countless improvements (I sure as heck wouldn’t want to actually be forced to live there with that period’s technology), but at least people who went wild and crazy, like Benjamin Franklin (and, yes, I know that he is not actually in the Victorian Era), had the sense to keep it private.
Valete,
Vox Imperatoris
The Victorian era? Oh, man…we’re really in for it now! 
This one.
http://www.greatmodernpictures.com/celae08b.jpg
I admire Einstein, but I am fucking sick of seeing pictures of him sticking his fucking tongue out. It may have been funny the first 10,000 times, but now it’s just getting old.
What?
I agree. I can’t stand that poster; every teacher in the world thinks it is the cleverest thing ever invented by man.
Valete,
Vox Imperatoris
No.
I’ve told people before in threads that sometimes you have to accept the weight of popular vote. If they tell you that you come across as an asshole, then you really need to accept that you come across as an asshole. If they tell you that it’s not standard format to sign off a post and that posts are the equivalent of an on-going conversation, you just have to accept that. So on and so forth.
And something that you sign off with is a signature. Your personal bling that you want to share but that isn’t part of the conversation is expected to be kept a minimum. Wasting that bling by telling us your name–which is at the top of every single of your posts already–is rather silly looking. It’s off topic, it’s taking up vertical space, and it tends to annoy people who don’t like you. When someone doesn’t like you and every single thing you say annoys them, when they read through and at the end is some pithy “Cheerio!” and a personal seal of approval of the contents, that rubs people wrong. It’s like a final kick in the nuts.
So no, you’re best to leave off the sign off.
Cheerio motherfucker,
Sage Rat
(Let me note that I actually don’t care one way or the other, nor do I dislike you or your posts. I’m sharing what appears to be the common wisdom as I have gleaned it, for the sake of community. The sign-off was as example.)
How is he with capitalization, then?
In the quotes in the Pit thread, all it showed was that brazil84 narrowly defined a term that was more broadly defined before in the thread. Several people pointed it out in that thread. As to whether he ignored scientific research or not, that’s not in that post.
But he didn’t use them interchangeably. I don’t know if he was mystified or not since I can’t read his mind, but since he didn’t use them interchangeably, it certainly wasn’t commonly accepted practice to do so, at least by him.
The Pit thread had other people pointing out what I just noted. If other people want to go back and clarify, that would be something else. I just noted that the Pit thread that you linked wasn’t successful in showing that brazil84 said anything contradictory. . . in regards to your one thread.
