I count ZERO question marks in that post. Not even close to being in the spirit of the agreement.
Scott: Have you given up sticking to the agreement?
I can’t believe I read the whole thing!
I remember the first week he was here, Scott Plaid was asking apparently nonsensical questions about the Welsh, and then I saw that in about 2 weeks he had accumulated as many posts as I had in over 2 years.
I think he’ll be the very first SDMB’er to be added to my ignore list. What a complete dipshit.
Wow, this is the bestest meltdown since that guy who got caught having cyber-sex on EQ.
What really scares me is that supposedly he was in college. Are our learning insitutes so desperate as to not have any baseline writing requirements? Holy fried tuna!
Yeah. :o 
I got hooked back in from a friend sending me a link to the Mutant Registration thread. Seeing most of the posters intelligently debate real-world implications of comic-book stuff was too much for my geeky heart to resist, dammit.
Thanks for the feedback to you as well, and I did actually see your post earlier in the thread. But you are correct, it would be interesting to get Scott Plaid’s take on what was objectionable in my posts as well.
Before I accepted the offer of “nothing but questions for a week”, I made up my mind not to treat it as a competition. I thought maybe Scott Plaid was going to be learning something about his posting style, maybe I could as well. So I think I will continue with the offer, regardless of what Scott has to say.
In that vein, and at the risk of a pile-on, any feedback from either John Mace, Official Arbiter of the Great SDMB Questions Only of 2005, or other Dopers (especially those who disagree with me politically) would be welcome. But thanks again to those who have already responded.
Left Hand of Dorkness? wring? Anyone else?
Regards,
Shodan
You must have missed it - four posts northwards of yours.
That’ll teach me to preview more than just my post.
Thanks for the feedback, John Mace. And welcome back, Fenris!
Regards,
Shodan
-
Gaudere’s Law applies here, I think!
-
The only word I couldn’t get wrong was ‘let’.
-
Let me be the first to use a new catch-phrase: /Scott P ON/ i’m, winning! /Scott P OFF/
Well, we’re all playing word games now, but dammit, I missed two days worth of posts, and I composed this while I was catching up, and I’m posting it anyway!
I didn’t really want to read the debate - sorry, reading other folks’ debates is seldom fun - but I do have to slip in and say something.
Scott referred to “social morays”. He linked to a page with that title, and presumed to tell Sauron what “social morays” are. The very page he linked to was a page about “eggcorns”, common misinterpretations of spoken language. That page that Scott found was nothing more than an explanation of the fact that “social morays” is a misspelling of “social mores”.
So let’s review: Scott didn’t even bother to look at what his “cite” said. From that we can conclude that one should heavily examine any “cites” he posts, because he doesn’t apparently even look to see if what he’s linking to supports his claims. And meanwhile, he had the temerity to assume that Sauron didn’t even know the phrase “social mores” (which is a common phrase, after all).
Scott actually thought he was making himself look smart with that post. Not only did he reveal that he apparently is ignorant as to how to spell a common phrase, but he didn’t (or couldn’t) read what he linked to about it, and he actually thought he knew something that Sauron didn’t. He thought that knowing the phrase “social mores” makes you smart or something.
This is just sad.
It helps us understand, though, exactly why Scott can’t tell when he’s lost an argument. For some reason, he really thinks he’s pretty damn bright, but he’s actually so lacking in an ability to read properly that he just can’t tell when other people have whupped his ass. I’m sure by now most of us have heard about this study - Incompetence is bliss - which suggests that being incompetent has the side effect of making it impossible for us to judge our own competence. Scott is so far removed from competent at arguing (or even reading and writing) that he simply can’t see just how bad a job he’s doing at it.
I don’t know how old he is. I’ve been working on the assumption that he’s about fourteen, which (coupled with a learning disability affecting his ability to read and write) would explain his behavior. If that’s the case, then maybe he’ll one day grow up enough to participate here. But if he’s older than that, then his performance in that debate is a sign of just how unable he is to comprehend what he looks like in an argument and just how far below the average for the SDMB his understanding and knowledge are.
The thread ended pretty soon after that. I bet Scott Plaid is under the mistaken impression that Sauron’s giving up on him is some sort of sign that he “won”.
What are you even talking about now?
Scott - I think you’re correct and Bricker’s wrong about judicial activism. In fact, I think the very concept is a load of hooey. Nevertheless, you have not once in those debates somehow “scored” against him - he consistently refutes every point you incoherently try to make, and makes you look foolish just by the contrast between his well-reasoned, well-written posts and the incoherent, incomprehensible garbage you post.
No, you have not once “scored” against Bricker. Democrat or Republican, gay or straight, for or against gay marriage, we all agree on this. Why are you so incapable of accepting the idea that your judgment here is wrong? Scott, if you can, will you explain in your own words what we mean when we say that you are not able to judge when you’ve “won” or “lost” a debate? Do you understand the point we’re making here?
Scott, do you get what we mean? Here’s an analogy. Suppose there was a young man who entered the room wearing a plaid shirt that looked simply terrible on him. Everyone tried to ignore it and be nice to him at first, but eventually the awful-looking shirt grated on a few people so much that they commented on it. Eventually, everyone in the room except the young man agreed that the plaid shirt was awful-looking. He went, and looked in the mirror, and thought to himself, “Lookin’ good, dude!” But nevertheless, the whole roomful of people thought the shirt looked terrible. People filed in and out of the room. Some folks told him to immediately leave and change his clothes. Others said, “No, we’ll live with it for now. Just don’t do it again, boy.”
The young man was completely unable to see how awful the shirt looked. His ability to judge fashion was simply nonexistent - the most god-awful clothes in the world would look fine to him.
So what’s the sensible response for that young man? To believe the unanimous opinion of those around him, or to assume that everyone else is wrong, and that he actually looks great? Then think about this: how can a shirt look good, if everyone thinks it looks bad? How can an argument be convincing if no one is convinced by it?
That’s what you’re doing, Scott. How could you have “won” an argument when no one was convinced by it? If you had written a reasonable, convincing case, then people would be convinced. A good argument, by its very definition, is convincing to those who see it - maybe not every one of them, but certainly a good number of them. If no one thinks you’ve got a good argument, Scott, then your argument cannot possibly be good, because it’s not doing its purpose - it’s not convincing people that you’re right.
Not only have you failed to sway those who disagree with you, but more than one person has remarked that you drive away those who share your opinions! Your argument is so bad that it makes people less likely to agree with you.
Do you not see why that’s a problem, Scott?
Or are you going to continue to wuss out and refuse to acknowledge what we’re all saying?
Wow, that’s absolutely fucking pathetic. You agreed not to post arguments in GD for a week, so instead you post the same things here?
:: shakes his head ::
You just don’t get any of this, do you?
You just lost the bet, buddy. Bricker pulverized you in the debate portion. Now Shodan has blown you away in the endurance portion.
OOH!! Do it, ElvisL1ves, do it!
Man, I can’t wait to see you get your doubly-perforated ass handed back to you.
Aww, damn, you wussed out. I see that you talk big, but you’re still smart enough to know when you’re outclassed.
I hope you’re paying attention, Scott. LHoD is one of the most consistently nice and forgiving posters around. He just gave up on you. That’s a pretty good sign that you’ve fucked up. It’s kinda like if your mom stated at your sentencing hearing that she thought you oughta get the max.
Yep. One last bit of evidence toward Scott’s arrogance and stupidity is that he’ll continue speaking for us queermos even after we ask him to stop and make it clear that he doesn’t speak for us. He thinks he’s capable of deciding what we believe better than we can ourselves.
Just for shits ‘n’ giggles, though, Scott, which debates did you think you won?
Vachel Lindsay, and it’s called “The Congo.” (Though I have no doubt you know that.) Bad example, though, because it’s way beyond Scott Plaid.
One last thing: Yo! Pythian Habenero!
Sorry, but it just bothered me one time too many. “Habanero” has two As in it. You might wanna get that fixed up.
Well, welcome back! Nice to have you back around. Hope you’ll rejoin the comic threads each week.
Excalibre, devastating finishing move off the top turnbuckle!
Mr. Plaid, I have to believe that in the vastness of the internet there exists a message board where you wouldn’t infuriate absolutely everybody else. Please look for it.
I sometimes wish they would rescind the “don’t be jerk” rule and replace it with “don’t be a blathering imbecile who constantly lowers the level of discourse.”
Despite my recent join date, I have been reading this board for quite a while and would rather have 17 Collounsburys than one dipshit like Scott.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
There have been 8643 views of this thread.
If it’s possible to pay enough attention to SP, perhaps we have done so. It might be time to let him think through the advice that has been given and given and given to him.
Because if we wait for him to get it, this thread may never go away.
Thanks, I will–I missed them.
:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:
Indeed it’s not something he’s likely to know, but I was on a roll. Do you comprehend how hard it is to write that badly, deliberately? The word “teh” was perhaps the only one that felt natural to type.
[hijack] It’s a pity that poem is so blatantly racist. I heard it recited in high school by a teacher with a flair for dramatic readings – wow. But reading it now, almost 40 years later, it’s dreadful. [/hijack]
Ah, but the spelling is deliberate, as she explains here.
I was thinking that this afternoon. However, according to the article at E2, the poet himself was not racist; perhaps we can chalk it up to outmoded attitudes rather than more sinister (minstrel show-type) racism. The sound is so perfect - “Mumbo Jumbo will hoodoo you/Mumbo Jumbo will hoodoo you/Mumbo Jumbo will hoodoo you.” (Incidentally, does anyone know whether the word “mumbo jumbo” was popular before this poem?)
Anyway, fifty points to EddyTeddyFreddy for referencing great poetry!
Aughh! Dammit! I should know better than to think that I’m ever going to point out another noder’s mistake and actually be right about it!
Well, except if that noder is Scott Plaid.
Fenris!!!
Ever shitty thread has a sliver linging.
[…happy dance…]
I don’t believe it was.
And I love that poem but it has to be read aloud (preferably with gestures–particularly by beating on an empty barrel with the handle of a broom as appropriate) for full impact. And while the poet’s intent certainly wasn’t racist, it is pretty squinky by today’s standards, isn’t it?
God damn! This isn’t just a thread, it’s an intervention. We need 20 more people to pile on poor old Scott.