# 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:** 31
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2005, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-plaid-stand-up-or-shut-up/310794/601 "2005-07-08T16:29:17Z")
> [@](#): > > You guys are going to make Scott’s dictionary burst into flames. I doubt it. The gist is, you agree with him, right? Daniel ---
**Author:** ![boofuu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/f4b2a3/32.png) [@boofuu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/boofuu)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2005, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-plaid-stand-up-or-shut-up/310794/602 "2005-07-08T16:30:21Z")
> [@Scott Plaid](#): > > \ > However, that is not what you 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. > \ Well, yeah, the other side “won,” using that criteria. But isn’t that the criteria you are using to determing if _you_ won? It only shows me that someone can win and be very wrong. So why trumpet the fact that you “won” so many debates? Doen’t prove that you won _and_ were right. Again, I don’t know you and I honestly have no malice towards you. Remember I was the person in the beginning that tried to stop the dog pile that was sure to ensue? Hell, I took a chance of getting flack for that. This is getting ugly; don’t let’s have people write in their votes of how smart you are. I promise this will not be a good thing. Please just leave this thread, let it die a natural end. Stop giving people fodder for more. If you are _sure_ you have won the arguement that you are a worthy opponent just go gently (and quietly) into that good night. Having the last word does not mean having the best word. ---
**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, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-plaid-stand-up-or-shut-up/310794/603 "2005-07-08T16:30:31Z")
HOLY SHIT! I just figured out who **Scott Plaid** really is! By ghod, he’s **JeffK** ’s older brother! ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2005, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-plaid-stand-up-or-shut-up/310794/604 "2005-07-08T16:32:17Z")
**Bricker** , if it is any consolation, recall that he did not beat you with facts, logic, perception, or communicative skills–just bricks. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2005, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-plaid-stand-up-or-shut-up/310794/605 "2005-07-08T16:33:13Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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. Well, intelligibility has two people involved for one thing. James Joyce in unintelligible at times. Being smart isn’t the same thing as being organized, either in writing or in life. And I apparently don’t have the same amount of trouble reading him as some do. Not that I get it all, but there are times when I think his points are quite clear when others argue that they have no idea what he could possibly mean. I used to hang out on USENET. This could explain much. ---
**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, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-plaid-stand-up-or-shut-up/310794/606 "2005-07-08T16:33:29Z")
> [@Scott Plaid](#): > > Actually, I think the one with the reading comprehension problem is yourself. I will freely admit to a comprehension problem when reading anything written by you. > [@Scott Plaid](#): > > Please read what I actually wrote again. No thanks, my head hurts enough from the first time. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2005, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-plaid-stand-up-or-shut-up/310794/607 "2005-07-08T16:35:19Z")
> [@Greathouse](#): > > You guys are going to make **Scott’s** dictionary burst into flames. I’ve never seen any indication that **Scott** even reads other posters’ remarks, much less tries to understand the words in them. ---
**Author:** ![42fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/4/b487fb/32.png) [@42fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/42fish)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2005, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-plaid-stand-up-or-shut-up/310794/608 "2005-07-08T16:38:12Z")
> [@Scott Plaid](#): > > Tell me, though, if not by defending myself, how would you expect myself to “start actually responding to my pitting” Perhaps by providing the slightest iota of evidence that you are going to improve the piss-poor posting style that inspired said pitting in the first place. ---
**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, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-plaid-stand-up-or-shut-up/310794/609 "2005-07-08T16:39:41Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > The gist is, you agree with him, right? > > Daniel Which _him_ do you mean? I’m not sure if you mean **Uncle Beer** , **Metacom** , or **Scott Plaid**. ---
**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, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-plaid-stand-up-or-shut-up/310794/610 "2005-07-08T16:42:43Z")
> [@andros](#): > > 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. Dare I step back into this long enough to ask **jsgoddess** if she also agrees with the definition proposed above? Or, more to the point, to ask SCOTT if he feels he has self-awareness as far as the ability to read, understand, and respond to others’ reactions to him and to comprehend the point of argument, identify key elements, and respond accordingly. It was foolish of me to use the word “smart” without a definition, but I was trying to keep things simple. ---
**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, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-plaid-stand-up-or-shut-up/310794/611 "2005-07-08T16:44:48Z")
> [@boofuu](#): > > Well, yeah, the other side “won,” using that criteria. But isn’t that the criteria you are using to determing if _you_ won? It only shows me that someone can win and be very wrong. So why trumpet the fact that you “won” so many debates? Doen’t prove that you won _and_ were right. Got it in one. Not bad for a Carolina fan. 😉 Meanwhile in the losers’ tent: I’ve got the grill ready, and am making the sauce for chicken. ---
**Author:** ![boofuu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/f4b2a3/32.png) [@boofuu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/boofuu)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2005, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-plaid-stand-up-or-shut-up/310794/612 "2005-07-08T16:49:55Z")
> [@Maus Magill](#): > > Got it in one. > > Not bad for a Carolina fan. 😉 > > Meanwhile in the losers’ tent: I’ve got the grill ready, and am making the sauce for chicken. Hey! Are you a Dookie? Perish the thought. Anyway I figured since I was from New York I’d rather not have to deal with the people from Joisey there. That, and Coach K is ooogly! ---
**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, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-plaid-stand-up-or-shut-up/310794/613 "2005-07-08T16:50:47Z")
> [@](#): > > It was foolish of me to use the word “smart” without a definition, but I was trying to keep things simple. Nothin’ wrong with that, man. Gotta play to the audience. And Mr. Plaid is in the house tonight. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2005, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-plaid-stand-up-or-shut-up/310794/614 "2005-07-08T17:01:19Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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. A lawyerly definition if I ever saw one. Being smart does not guarantee the ability to communicate effectively. ---
**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, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-plaid-stand-up-or-shut-up/310794/615 "2005-07-08T17:05:35Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > A lawyerly definition if I ever saw one. Being smart does not guarantee the ability to communicate effectively. If a tree falls in the forest, … 😉 ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2005, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-plaid-stand-up-or-shut-up/310794/616 "2005-07-08T17:12:52Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Dare I step back into this long enough to ask **jsgoddess** if she also agrees with the definition proposed above? > > Or, more to the point, to ask SCOTT if he feels he has self-awareness as far as the ability to read, understand, and respond to others’ reactions to him and to comprehend the point of argument, identify key elements, and respond accordingly. It would appear that your entire definition hinges on reading and argument. I disagree that it’s a valid definition of “smart.” Of course, defining intelligence is simply not something I’m qualified to do. My _opinion_ is that Scott is smart. That opinion is based on lots of wishy-washy, ill-defined feelings. My opinion is also that he needs to slow down because, in this medium at least, sloppy work creates more trouble than it’s worth. But my opinion is worth exactly what he paid for it. Nuttin. Now, I’m going to stop talking about him because it feels creepy to talk about someone as if they weren’t right there. ---
**Author:** ![Excalibre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/898d66/32.png) [@Excalibre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Excalibre)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2005, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-plaid-stand-up-or-shut-up/310794/617 "2005-07-08T17:14:37Z")
> [@Scott Plaid](#): > > Female circumcision is a social more, among certain tribes, but noway, nohow is it moral. **Scott** , English doesn’t have a singular term for “mores”. The Latin singular is “mos”, but no one will recognize that, because it’s not used in English. When you try to use words you don’t understand, you make yourself look stupider. > [@Scott Plaid](#): > > Is the desire to defend past statements so hard to understand? If you ever managed to do it, it wouldn’t be, I suppose. But your compulsion to dig the hole deeper whenever you get in trouble is pretty hard to understand. > [@Bricker](#): > > If people here really view you as very smart, that should be no problem. > > So find me one regular poster to come in here and say that he or she views you as very smart. I think this is the wrong tack, **Bricker**. There’s _someone_ who’ll defend anything. Look at the people squabbling over whether **START** deserved to be banned (and whether his sock’s admission that he was **START** actually proves that he was **START**.) It’s bizarre when someone is unwilling to acknowledge that, even though _no one_ finds his arguments convincing, perhaps his arguments are unconvincing. And since a good argument is one _that convinces people of something_, the very fact that no one is ever convinced by **Scott** is, ipso facto, proof that his arguments are not convincing. Why does he think he can argue his way out of that? And **jsgoddess** shows I was right. There’s always _someone_ to defend anything, no matter what it is. > [@Ghanima](#): > > 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. The best part is that - knowing that _no one_ thinks he’s actually held his own in a debate, he still thinks he’s going to _debate_ until we agree that he wins debates. It’s a bizarre sort of meta-argument he’s having, and he actually thinks he’ll convince all of us that every time we were completely unconvinced by his blatherings, we actually were secretly convinced and didn’t realize it. There’s simply no conceivable situation in which he could convince us that his arguments were somehow relevant, and yet he keeps trying. > [@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. I love this shit. I am just _flabbergasted_ by the difference between his self-conception and reality. Not only does he think he’s holding his own here, but he constantly suggests that he’s smarter than the rest of us. He really things he’s equipped to teach the rest of us what’s what, whether he’s teaching us vocabulary (“social morays”) or Jewish law (“Well, my answer is yes, and as for what a jew can use to accept as claims about about jesus as true, my answer is: A TARDIS (a certan kind of sci-fi time machine)”). **Scott** , one way of proving something is by examining the alternate hypothesis and showing it to be false. So, **Scott** , _if_ indeed you’re brilliant and an amazing debater and incredibly knowledgeable about religion and politics, why is no one ever impressed by you? Why does everyone think your writing is incomprehensible, and your arguments are weak, if you’re so brilliant? What possible explanation can you come up with to explain why people here think you’re a jackass? The closest you can come are some statements by certain posters that you were correct on a factual matter. Do you think getting the facts right is some sort of great accomplishment? Here, at least, having the right facts is an accomplishment on the level of brushing your teeth in the morning. You don’t deserve congratulations for doing it. And everyone will be disgusted if you don’t. So why, **Scott** , if you’re a brilliant debater, is no one impressed? What does it mean to be great at debating things? Shouldn’t it mean that some people are convinced by your arguments? You have yet to come up with anyone even suggesting that you’ve made a reasonable argument. In your 4,000 posts, no one has congratulated you on your reasoning, or your clear thinking, or your unique perspective. Why would that be? I mean, you have the advantage here. You’re on a board where most people share your attitudes on politics and religion. And yet even your allies are constantly trying to distance themselves from you. _If you could compose a reasonable argument, why would that happen?_ > [@Scott Plaid](#): > > 1. 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? **Scott** , are you using your skull to store your lunch leftovers? I mean, this is such a small issue, but the point under discussion is how you present yourself on the boards. _Everyone_ thinks your little obsession with strikethrough is irritating, and stupid, and childish. It’s not like when you do it, people are somehow amused and impressed by it, you know? So why do you continue to do it? What’s the point? Why do you even argue it? Do you think it’s possible to argue with someone until they agree that you’re not being annoying? It’s logically impossible, but you can continue to try. But the point is that people’s reaction to your stupid little strikethrough obsession has been pretty clear: everyone thinks it’s moronic and annoying. So why do you keep doing it? I mean, some things are just not going to change through debate. If everyone told you you had body odor, and you couldn’t smell it yourself (I can only assume, based on the way some people smell, that they become so used to it they don’t detect it), would you argue with them about it? What would be the point? Argue all you want, and you’d still smell like armpit. Well, constantly overusing some cutesy board feature like smileys or strikethrough or colored text is the online equivalent of body odor. No one likes it. Some people are too polite to mention it, and others will gladly tell you. No one likes it, though. So why keep doing it? > [@andros](#): > > 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. Yeah, but **Scott** ain’t real _smart_, either. Or at least he hides it well. He’s posted more factually false statements about the shit he claims to know about than I’ve ever seen a member do. ---
**Author:** ![Excalibre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/898d66/32.png) [@Excalibre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Excalibre)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2005, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-plaid-stand-up-or-shut-up/310794/618 "2005-07-08T17:19:06Z")
> [@Scott Plaid](#): > > Tell me, though, if not by defending myself, how would you expect myself to “start actually responding to my pitting” And by the way, you have tried to ineptly defend your poorly-written, poorly-thought out arguments from the very first time you stepped onto the boards. Why in the world do you think that continuing the same behavior is “responding” to this pitting? Responding would mean _changing_ your behavior. Writing clearly. Not using strikethrough constantly. Not trying to pretend that you’re smarter than everyone else here. Not deciding that you’ve “won” an argument just because the other person realizes there’s nothing to be gained in speaking to you. Continuing to try to act like you’re “winning” your debates is exactly the wrong thing to do. ---
**Author:** ![Monstre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@Monstre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monstre)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2005, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-plaid-stand-up-or-shut-up/310794/619 "2005-07-08T17:19:54Z")
> [@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. Odd – I didn’t see that rule _anywhere_ in the Great Debate stickies. Must have overlooked it… > [@Scott Plaid](#): > > You brought up all this “New Covenant” nonsense. However, as I said in the thread, Jesus’ own words contradict this. If you’re going to start quoting Bible verses, you might as well have a look at these while you have it open – because they pretty much illustrate the reasons for this thread’s existence. This is what people here keep trying to tell you: **Proverbs 12:15** **Proverbs 18:2** ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2005, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-plaid-stand-up-or-shut-up/310794/620 "2005-07-08T17:26:17Z")
I’d like to note that I’ve seen at least two different posters insult another poster by comparing him or her to **scott\_plaid**. He has apparently entered the SDMB lexicon as a synonym for “clueless blockhead.” Congratulations, **scott** , your Jack Dean Tyler memorial hoodie is in the mail. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-plaid-stand-up-or-shut-up/310794.md?page=30) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-plaid-stand-up-or-shut-up/310794.md?page=32)