Scott Plaid, Stand Up or Shut Up

[Sage_Rat]

@Scott Plaid

I, among other people, made the argument that it was possible to speak of christianity as supporting certain views. You conceded that it was theoretically possible to do so, but not practical, in post #45, on the first page.

Woo-hoo! Debate over!

If you said “you can do it”, and he said “No, that’s not feasible”, then how does this translate to “Woo-hoo! I won!”? That makes zero sense.

@Scott Plaid

You proceeded to mistake social conventions for morality, made some wild claims about the word origins, and then preceded to storm away when I showed you how the dictionary proved you wrong.

You proved you wrong with the dictionary definition, and he gave up in frustration. You have no idea what he said to you.

@Scott Plaid

Actually, they are commanded to follow many more rules then just that. You brought up all this “New Covenant” nonsense. However, as I said in the thread, Jesus’ own words contradict this.

What god declared it nonsense that you are so confident that you can ignore it?

@Scott Plaid & Sauron

<insert the rest of post #547 here>

You have zero idea what he said. And he is to afraid to point this out bit by bit because you’ll argue your head off that he’s changing everything for eight pages.
And I quote:

@Sauron

I was afraid of being sucked into the bottomless morass of your idiocy, and fled to save my reason and sanity.

@This Year's Model

I’d like to add that I am completely and absolutely impressed by the saint-like patience many posters have shown here. If we ever get custom titles, I am willing to pay for Scott Plaid’s to be: The Brick Wall of the SDMB.

Oh, I could out-Brick-Wall him. If you are unwilling to accept that you are wrong, Scott, I am willing to keep saying you are indeed wrong. But that’s only if you really want your own No-Man.

@Scott Plaid

That is odd. Why then, do I have quotes earlier in this thread agreeing that I was correct to say something a certain way, or to make a certain argument?

Because you don’t. Only you believe that 90% of your quotes agree with you.

@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?

Only you think that people proved his arguments null and void. No one else agrees.

@Bricker

OK - then here’s a challenge.

Find someone who’s willing to come along into this thread and say that in his or her opinion, you’re very smart.

Good luck.

@Bricker

Joe may post a thread saying that the minimum wage should be raised. When asked why, Joe says that a decent society owes all people an above-average wage.

And Joe might point out how many people agree with him that raising the minimum wage is a good idea - therefore, he has won!

But while many people - here, especially - may agree that raising the minimum wage is a good idea, no one (except, possibly, you) would argue that all workers can get an above-average wage.

What is wrong with Joe’s argument? You quoted the text, but entirely ignored it… Why is that?

@Scott Plaid

Actually, you conceded that it was theoretically possible to judge christianity as a whole, which was my point and used an odd definition of morality. Since it was pointed out to you that you were not using it corectly, by myself and others, you lose.

He said it was not feasible to judge Christians as a whole. His use of both “morality” and “mores” was flawless. Only you believe that he conceded. Only you think that anyone else was supporting you.

@Scott Plaid

Oh, and as for taking being wrong as a challenge to manhood, so what?

There’s a point where you have stopped defending your manhood, and are only proving your ignorance. You have gone beyond that point Very Very Far.

I browse through past threads, while at the same time checking up on updates to threads I am subscribed to. How hard is that to understand.

Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder

@Scott Plaid

Oh, and as for “Piss off”, insults are not going to change my mind one bit. They simply don’t affect me.

Apparently neither does “please.” Everyone was friendly and helpful for a long time. You chose to tell them to Piss Off in return–so don’t act so surprised when they say it back.

@Scott Plaid

The pro-evolution side can then fire back that non-christians, such as the indian couple next door have morality, and raise fine children, and don’t base their views on the bible.

Anecdotal.

@Scott Plaid

Also, Dobson is out numbered by intelligent experts in childrearing, who also support evolution.

Being an expert in child-rearing doesn’t make you an expert in evolution nor divine creation.

However, that is not what you are asking.

Wait until you know what you want to write before writing. Don’t think out loud and force us to watch you switch sides several times as you think over the possibilities. It is confusing.

@Scott Plaid

Instead, you are bringing up an imaginary discussion where the points I made do not exist.

Why wouldn’t they exist? ( <- Rhetorical questions. Do not answer back.)

@Scott Plaid

Well, in such a situation, while the evolution side was right, the christian side has clearly won.

The evolution side is not right. There is more evidence to support evolution, but that doesn’t mean teaching evolution instead of creationism is the best thing.
The best thing is opinion. It can have no factual answer.
The year you were born is not an opinion. It does have a factual answer.

@Scott Plaid

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.

They would lose in your opinion. It is 100% possible for those children to grow up and be three times as happy as someone who believes in evolution.
They will simply have less scientific evidence to show their beliefs as correct.

@Scott Plaid

@Bricker

Are you taking up this challenge, Scott?

I said that they have in the past agreed that I was correct to make certain statements. Being correct once proves nothing. However, once it happens again and again, it start to look indicative of intelligence, and/or having memorized a lot. Still, despite the fact that such examples don’t prove a thing, I am currently gathering up quotes. However, I still have not heard an answer. That was not just a rhetorical question. How many times?

Bricker’s challenge was not to find people who agreed with a statement you said. Bricker’s challenge is to ask if anyone would vote that you are intelligent.
The only responses that you can give are “yes” or “no.” Any other response is BS.

@Scott Plaid

Torah scholar all agree, the sin of Sodom was inhospability. Much as I would like to blame the torah, the fault lays in an intentional mistranslation, interpreted just the way it’s meant to be, not the real words.

You copied that from some website. The lack of spelling errors fairly well proves it.

@Bricker

I’m a bit curious to know how you reconcile “unintelligible” with “very smart”

Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder

@Scott Plaid

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.

I explained above. What you wrote was you trying to guess what the “trap” was that Maus Magill was trying to fool you with. There was no trap and you sped over the thing without taking two seconds to actually consider it as a valid question.
Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder

@Scott Plaid

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?

How many strikethrough gags have you seen in college text books? That’s exactly how many you should put in any post in GD. Others can, but they know how to do it properly. You just make yourself look silly.

@Scott Plaid

So, you think that defending my past threads is something a “pussy” would do?

We think that a reasonable person would get a hint. Only George W Bush and you would cry up and down how right you were to this extent.

In parting:
Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder Get help.

[Cemetery_Savior]

@UncleBeer

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?

@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.

I am standing in etymological poo.

[Duke_of_Rat]

I have a dog that knows a few tricks, is housebroken, and can reason things out using undeniable logic. He learns from his mistakes. I consider him to be smart. For a dog.

Scott may have some intelligence, but he is unable to effectively apply it in the context of debates on a message board. He passes obfuscation off as argument and non sequitur links off as research. He repeatedly demonstrates either total lack of comprehension of other’s posts or just ignores what they have written since it does not agree with his notions.

His utter lack of communication skills makes any attempt at reasonable debate an exercise in futility, since pinning down any coherent points is next to impossible. If Scott is smart, that fact is so well camouflaged by his incomprehensible writings that people simply cannot deduce what he is saying.

There might be a brick of gold in the center of that 25 mile diameter granite boulder, but so many picks have been worn to a nub trying to dig it out that it’s just not worth it any more. I sure as hell ain’t going digging for it.

So I think my dog, as a dog, is smarter than Scott is as a poster.

[Sage_Rat]

Or, to paraphrase:

Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder

[Maus_Magill]

@boofuu

Hey! Are you a Dookie? Perish the thought.

Sorry, your old school rival. NC State.

I still can’t wrap my head around this whole new-fangled Carolina/Duke rivalry.

[tomndebb]

@Monstre

Proverbs 12:15
Proverbs 18:2

Cruel, Monstre.
On point, but cruel.

[Excalibre]

Sage Rat - excuse me? I have ADD. Many members of the SDMB have ADD. Do not insult us by suggesting that Scott’s complete inability to write coherently and his total lack of self-insight are symptoms of ADD. Not only is that claim completely inconsonant with the effects of ADD, it’s a total insult to many Dopers. In fact, I’ve gotten praise more than once on the clarity of my arguments (even when people don’t always agree with them.) There is nothing about ADD that causes (or excuses) a total inability to write an intelligible sentence.

[CandidGamera]

@Excalibre

Sage Rat - excuse me? I have ADD. Many members of the SDMB have ADD. Do not insult us by suggesting that Scott’s complete inability to write coherently and his total lack of self-insight are symptoms of ADD. Not only is that claim completely inconsonant with the effects of ADD, it’s a total insult to many Dopers. In fact, I’ve gotten praise more than once on the clarity of my arguments (even when people don’t always agree with them.) There is nothing about ADD that causes (or excuses) a total inability to write an intelligible sentence.

I think he was referring to Scott’s seeming inability to read a post in its entirety, and his admitted tendency to have multiple threads open at once.

[Monstre]

I hereby submit the following list of debating rules, inspired by Scott Plaid’s ingenious debating skills, to become the new de-facto guidelines for determining the victor(s) in all Great Debates threads. It should probably be posted as a sticky. (You listening, tomndebb?!)

The Plaid Guide To Debating

by Monstre[sup]TM[/sup], inspired by Scott Plaid

Mission Statement: The clear purpose of a Great Debate thread is to crush your opponent like a bug, and to prove to the rest of the forum at large that you are brilliant and possess god-like qualities, while at the same time illustrating that your opponent is a stupid, evil, brainless poopy-head. Therefore, these rules shall be used to determine victory.

1. If you yell “strawman” before your opponent does, you win.

2. If you respond to any of your opponent’s statements at all, you have “proved them wrong”.

3. If your opponent leaves the thread without responding to every one of your statements, you win.

4. If your opponent asks you to please rephrase your post because it’s incomprehensible, you can just accuse him/her of a lack of reading comprehension, and you may declare victory.

5. If you can google and post 10 cites in 10 minutes, you win. (It doesn’t matter if you have read them or not).

6. If any other poster in the thread agrees with any statement you make, you win the entire debate.

7. If you are the last person to post in the thread, you win. (Corollary to rule 3).

8. If you are the first person to use a strike-through in what you feel is a clever manner, you win.

9. If you are aligned with the views of the majority of other posters in a debate thread, then you not only win, but you garner extra points for your brilliant debating skills, no matter what you have said in the thread.

10. If you can turn the debate into a nitpick over the precise definitions of terminology used in the debate and then find one cite that appears to back you up on your desired definition of a word, then you win the entire debate, regardless of what the original topic was.

---

Please vote on the adoption of these rules immediately, SDMB. You know that it will make the forum a better place. Thank you.

[Monstre]

@Miller

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.

How did you convince Jack Dean Tyler to part with his “hoodie”?

[Crotalus]

11. Spelling, grammar and punctuation don’t count.

[Ponder_Stibbons]

@Monstre

5. If you can google and post 10 cites in 10 minutes, you win. (It doesn’t matter if you have read them or not).

You are so wrong on this one. And to prove it, there’s this, this, this, this, and this.

I.e., only 5 cites are necessary.

[Crotalus]

@Ponder Stibbons

You are so wrong on this one. And to prove it, there’s this, this, this, this, and this.

I.e., only 5 cites are necessary.

When the cites are this quality, one would suffice.

[Cervaise]

12. Graham crackers and milk will be served at the conclusion of the event.

[wonky]

@Monstre

10. If you can turn the debate into a nitpick over the precise definitions of terminology used in the debate and then find one cite that appears to back you up on your desired definition of a word, then you win the entire debate, regardless of what the original topic was.

I think people believe this is an actual rule in GD, and I ain’t just talking Scott.

[Monstre]

@tomndebb

Bricker, if it is any consolation, recall that he did not beat you with facts, logic, perception, or communicative skills–just bricks.

Therefore, I suggest he change his username to bricked.

[Sage_Rat]

@Excalibre

Sage Rat - excuse me? I have ADD. Many members of the SDMB have ADD. Do not insult us by suggesting that Scott’s complete inability to write coherently and his total lack of self-insight are symptoms of ADD. Not only is that claim completely inconsonant with the effects of ADD, it’s a total insult to many Dopers. In fact, I’ve gotten praise more than once on the clarity of my arguments (even when people don’t always agree with them.) There is nothing about ADD that causes (or excuses) a total inability to write an intelligible sentence.

Dunno. That he would be smart and entirely incapable of doing anything beyond skimming and replacing text with his imagination, reading 20 articles at the same time and posting to them all, grabbing cites and quotes from another 10 webpages, and then too impatient to verify anything he wrote points thataway.
Certainly he reminds me of my dad and cousin–just much less lucid. Where as my dad can go through and learn everything in a 500 page book in a couple hours, I would imagine Scott would be more like 500 pages in 30 minutes and instead of picking up the info, he might only pick up key words and fill in the rest without realising it.

I would just suggest a very very bad case that has never been coached. Or he’s a complete moron–but that doesn’t seem as probable given that someone was willing to pay him to teach (2nd graders…)

[Monstre]

@jsgoddess

I think people believe this is an actual rule in GD, and I ain’t just talking Scott.

Yeah, I’d agree with that. As well as the more general use of Rule #1.

[Sage_Rat]

^ Ianad

[JeffB]

@andros

HOLY SHIT!

I just figured out who Scott Plaid really is!

By ghod, he’s JeffK’s older brother!

Hey! There’s no need to bring me and my family … oh, never mind.