# Scott Plaid, Stand Up or Shut Up **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [July 2, 2005, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-plaid-stand-up-or-shut-up/310794 "2005-07-02T03:22:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 30
**Author:** ![Metacom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ecae2f/32.png) [@Metacom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Metacom)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2005, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-plaid-stand-up-or-shut-up/310794/581 "2005-07-08T15:53:27Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > I think he’s smart. Ah, but **Bricker** said “very smart.” Do you think he’s “very smart”? :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Crotalus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crotalus/32/41_2.png) [@Crotalus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crotalus)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2005, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-plaid-stand-up-or-shut-up/310794/582 "2005-07-08T15:53:49Z")
Scott, Maus Magill was not describing a PTA meeting, he was describing a hypothetical debate. This is not suprising because debating is what we’re talking about here. He was responding, as you know, to a statement by you. Originally Posted by Scott Plaid So, in short, if there are more reasons for something then against it, then one side has won. True, there might be more reasons why something should not be, but if neither side brought that fact up, then their side loses. > [@Maus Magill](#): > > Let’s test this. Tell me which side won. > > Reasons for teaching Creationism in public schools’ biology classes. > > - It’s what is in the Bible. > - Evolution denies God. > - If we do, then children will have no basis for morality and will run hog-wild. > - Jim Dobson, a well respected doctor, supports it. > > Reasons for teaching Evolution in public schools’ biology classes. > > - It is a valid, well proven scientific theory. His point, I believe, was that four invalid arguments do not “defeat” one valid argument. Because you apparently can’t read and comprehend, or perhaps because even you could understand that he had refuted your assertion, you ignored his argument. ---
**Author:** ![Ghanima](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Ghanima](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ghanima)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2005, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-plaid-stand-up-or-shut-up/310794/583 "2005-07-08T15:56:13Z")
**Scott** , you are a complete idiot. It is painful to read your posts. Quit bringing your lost debates into the Pit. Quit insisting that the side who has the most “points” wins. That is the most idiotic thing I’ve witnessed you saying, and you have said many, many idiotic things. You are tiresome. You overuse the [del] function. Your spelling and grammar are atrocious. Stand up pussy boy and start actually responding to your pitting instead of whining about your losses in Great Debates. I’m not interested in holding your hand and trying to show you the light. I mostly just want you to shut up. Please know that you are one of the most loathsome posters on this board. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2005, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-plaid-stand-up-or-shut-up/310794/584 "2005-07-08T16:04:33Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > I think he’s smart. > > He’s impatient, obstinate, and occasionally unintelligible. And I think he’s well above average, brains-wise. > > Of course, now I’ll learn that I’m not a regular poster. _sigh_ No, I’d say you were certainly a regular poster. I’m a bit curious to know how you reconcile “unintelligible” with “very smart” in the context of a message board. But I asked for “any regular poster” and you certainly qualify. So I will abandon that line of argument. I can’t really think of another way to reach through Scott’s intransigence, either. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2005, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-plaid-stand-up-or-shut-up/310794/585 "2005-07-08T16:06:31Z")
> [@Metacom](#): > > Sheesh. I call “argumentum ad populum” on both sides! 10 post penalty! No. The issue is not “Is he very smart?” but “How does the board perceive him?” Opinions from the populace are relevant to the latter inquiry, and not fallacious _argumentum ad populum_. ---
**Author:** ![Sauron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce7236/32.png) [@Sauron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sauron)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2005, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-plaid-stand-up-or-shut-up/310794/586 "2005-07-08T16:11:06Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > So I will abandon that line of argument. I can’t really think of another way to reach through Scott’s intransigence, either. **Scott Plaid** wins another one, bringing his record to 1,041 and 0 since joining this board a few short months ago! He’s taking the SDMB by storm! Thousands cheer his name! It’s only a matter of time before Cecil Adams steps down to make way for the new Master! Don’t feel badly, **Bricker**. Join me over here in the loser’s tent. We’ve got beer and chips and strippers. ---
**Author:** ![UncleBeer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/977dab/32.png) [@UncleBeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleBeer)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2005, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-plaid-stand-up-or-shut-up/310794/587 "2005-07-08T16:11:08Z")
> [@Scott Plaid](#): > > How many examples of people proving your arguments null and void do you need to show that you aren’t standing on as firm ground as you think you are do you need to wipe the smug off? Tell me, how many examples of some one an incontrovertible fact I pointed out and an expert (Zev, Polycarp) agreeing that I was right on the issue does it take before you admit that while may not be the best communicator, I am no mental slouch. Perhaps, but consider this: Does not the independent _functional_ principle affect a significant implementation of the preliminary qualification limit? In theory, the characterization of critically co-optive criteria quite obviously presents a valuable challenge showing, _at minimum_, the necessity of each anticipated epistemological repercussion. Of course, a large proportion of intercultural communication coordination inherently recognizes the importance of other structurally communicative disciplines, all while taking into account the _far deeper_ structuralistic conceptualizations. Summarizing then, any exponential epistemological repercussion is holistically **compounded** within the context of our hedonic perspective and within any given time period. Right? Or am I just full of shit? ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2005, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-plaid-stand-up-or-shut-up/310794/588 "2005-07-08T16:12:42Z")
**Bricker** , man, I hate to do it to you, but . . . It’s my opinion, informed as it is only by pixels on a screen, that **Scott** is very smart. That said, however, I would point out that _smart_ and _stupid_ are not mutually exclusive. And I believe further that he is both. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2005, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-plaid-stand-up-or-shut-up/310794/589 "2005-07-08T16:14:10Z")
> [@Sauron](#): > > Don’t feel badly, **Bricker**. Join me over here in the loser’s tent. We’ve got beer and chips and strippers. Ummm . . . I’ve been a loser for years and years. Can I come play, too? Ohpleaseohpleaseohplease? ---
**Author:** ![Mollie\_Magill](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mollie_magill/32/20882_2.png) [@Mollie\_Magill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mollie_Magill)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2005, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-plaid-stand-up-or-shut-up/310794/590 "2005-07-08T16:18:28Z")
> [@Sauron](#): > > Don’t feel badly, **Bricker**. Join me over here in the loser’s tent. We’ve got beer and chips and strippers. I’m in! ---
**Author:** ![askeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/eb9ed0/32.png) [@askeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/askeptic)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2005, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-plaid-stand-up-or-shut-up/310794/591 "2005-07-08T16:18:55Z")
> [@UncleBeer](#): > > Or am I just full of shit? Ummm…“B”. ---
**Author:** ![Fenris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fenris/32/498_2.png) [@Fenris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fenris)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2005, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-plaid-stand-up-or-shut-up/310794/592 "2005-07-08T16:19:01Z")
Um. I’ve been catching up on threads I missed and ran across [this …interesting…comment by Scott](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6051533&postcount=39) > [@Scott Plaid](#): > > Again, welcome. I’m Scott Plaid. My specialty is doing some pretty good research , and arguing that my side is right, whenever I see an argument that is highly subjective. I make some pretty unique arguments that leave far right wingers on this collection of boards not giving any better answers then, “You are wrong.” without them feeling the need to actually say why. Um. **Scott**. Do you still stand by this statement? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2005, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-plaid-stand-up-or-shut-up/310794/593 "2005-07-08T16:19:43Z")
> [@andros](#): > > **Bricker** , man, I hate to do it to you, but . . . > > It’s my opinion, informed as it is only by pixels on a screen, that **Scott** is very smart. > > That said, however, I would point out that _smart_ and _stupid_ are not mutually exclusive. And I believe further that he is both. Perhaps you and I are using the word _smart_ in different ways. In my view, a _sine qua non_ of “smart” is _self-aware_ - ability to read, understand, and respond to others’ reactions to you; to comprehend the point of argument, identify key elements, and respond accordingly. In my view, Scott lacks these qualities. Am I missing clues to them that you see, or are we using the same word to mean different things? ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2005, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-plaid-stand-up-or-shut-up/310794/594 "2005-07-08T16:20:01Z")
> [@Sauron](#): > > **Scott Plaid** wins another one, bringing his record to 1,041 and 0 since joining this board a few short months ago! I have it scored at 1,035 and 6. Can we compare notes? But, it is important to point out, he’s Winning. ---
**Author:** ![Metacom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ecae2f/32.png) [@Metacom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Metacom)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2005, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-plaid-stand-up-or-shut-up/310794/595 "2005-07-08T16:23:04Z")
> [@UncleBeer](#): > > Right? Frankly, no. The ontological consequences of the functional principles preclude any epistemological repercussions from being actualized as co-optive criteria. At best, we can seek to use structuralistic criteria to understand a small portion of the intercultural communicative disciplines, but only if we first find a normative mean representative of the relevant population’s structuralistic conceptualizations. The more apropos metric for determining the degree of effect a given logical entity has on the qualification limits is to constrain our perspective to encompass only the sybaratic properties of the hedonistic perspective, and from there arbitrarily determine the extent of influence. ---
**Author:** ![Scott\_Plaid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Scott\_Plaid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scott_Plaid)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2005, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-plaid-stand-up-or-shut-up/310794/596 "2005-07-08T16:24:41Z")
**jsgoddess** , thank you very much. It is really 🆒 of you to say this. > [@Tim Staab](#): > > His point, I believe, was that four invalid arguments do not “defeat” one valid argument. Because you apparently can’t read and comprehend, or perhaps because even you could understand that he had refuted your assertion, you ignored his argument. Actually, I think the one with the reading comprehension problem is yourself. Please read what I actually wrote again. If you still don’t understand, then only by explaining what I did wrong can I improve. > [@Scott Plaid](#): > > However, that is not what you (Maus Magill) are asking. Instead, you are bringing up an imaginary discussion where the points I made do not exist. Well, in such a situation, while the evolution side was right, the christian side has clearly won. After all, if your argument took place at a PTA meeting, and the teachers went along with the christian side, then an actual result would take place, and the students would lose. > [@Ghanima](#): > > . You overuse the [del] function. Stand up pussy boy and start actually responding to your pitting instead of whining about your losses in Great Debates. Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter. But really, I need to get going. I signed off a second ago, but then I saw this. I have a two questions to ask you, for you to consider till I return. [ol] [li]I suggested the implementation of the strikethrough feature. Should I not use it? Apparently, ever if you believe ^h^h^h would do the job better, you would rather I use it less. What device shall I use to know exactly how much is too much for you, sir? What if other people are fine with it? Who should I trust to tell me what to do then? [/li][li]So, you think that defending my past threads is something a “pussy” would do? Odd. I see many women defending themselves. Well, I admitted my posting style could be better, earlier in this thread. However, I am also trying to defend past statements I believe were correct. Tell me, though, if not by defending myself, how would you expect myself to “start actually responding to my pitting” Would you prefer that I suck the cock of everyone who agrees I need improvement? But, I already agreed I need improvement. It sounds like you simply want me to bend over. However, wouldn’t that be what a “pussy” would do?[/li][li]Hi, Opal![/li][/ol] ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2005, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-plaid-stand-up-or-shut-up/310794/597 "2005-07-08T16:24:45Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > I have it scored at 1,035 and 6. Can we compare notes? But, it is important to point out, he’s Winning. He’s certainly beaten me. I can’t take him any more. In the future, when I leave his posts unanswered, as I likely will, it will be because I really can’t take being beaten any more. ---
**Author:** ![Uvula\_Donor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/e19adc/32.png) [@Uvula\_Donor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uvula_Donor)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2005, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-plaid-stand-up-or-shut-up/310794/598 "2005-07-08T16:25:40Z")
> [@Sauron](#): > > Don’t feel badly, **Bricker**. Join me over here in the loser’s tent. We’ve got beer and chips and strippers. And I’m bringing ribs. ---
**Author:** ![Greathouse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/greathouse/32/2992_2.png) [@Greathouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Greathouse)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2005, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-plaid-stand-up-or-shut-up/310794/599 "2005-07-08T16:27:16Z")
> [@Metacom](#): > > Frankly, no. The ontological consequences of the functional principles preclude any epistemological repercussions from being actualized as co-optive criteria. At best, we can seek to use structuralistic criteria to understand a small portion of the intercultural communicative disciplines, but only if we first find a normative mean representative of the relevant population’s structuralistic conceptualizations. The more apropos metric for determining the degree of effect a given logical entity has on the qualification limits is to constrain our perspective to encompass only the sybaratic properties of the hedonistic perspective, and from there arbitrarily determine the extent of influence. You guys are going to make **Scott’s** dictionary burst into flames. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2005, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-plaid-stand-up-or-shut-up/310794/600 "2005-07-08T16:28:27Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Am I missing clues to them that you see, or are we using the same word to mean different things? We are. I’m thinking more of potential, perhaps. Or perhaps cognitive ability divorced from the empathic/objective elements you describe. Or perhaps smart as expressed in the sentiment (in North Carolinian accent, if you please) “He’s plenty _smart_, but he ain’t real _bright_.” I’m happy with your definition, though, and agree that **Scott** does not meet its conditions. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-plaid-stand-up-or-shut-up/310794.md?page=29) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-plaid-stand-up-or-shut-up/310794.md?page=31)